Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Trolls will be jailed for ‘psychological harm’

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 239 posts

Re: Trolls will be jailed for ‘psychological harm’

#181

Post by 908B64B197 »

concinds wrote: post #68

A society where: - you are held responsible for other people's feelings, and for their feelings as a result of your words and actions, and: - anything that causes anyone to feel bad, is looked down upon by the collective Is tyranny by the emotionally stunted. The fundamental problem with it, is it makes society more enmeshed (a pathological relationship dynamic). People start caring more about going with the grain, t…

> The fundamental problem with it, is it makes society more enmeshed (a pathological relationship dynamic). People start caring more about going with the grain, the mainstream opinion, and rejecting the troublemakers, because they don't want to be cast out too; and they self-censor more.

This is by design.

Before social media, to have your voice heard you needed to get help from either: a billionaire-owned TV Station or Newspaper or the State Sponsored Approved truth Station (in this case, the BBC but CBC and whatever official news network the party maintains in your local dictatorship will do).

Now, all you have to do is simply post it online on a property owned by some billionaire who doesn't really care (as long as it's legal he'll pocket the add revenue) in faraway California. You can guess who's mad about loosing all that control over who gets to be in the news and who doesn't...

Re: Trolls will be jailed for ‘psychological harm’

#182

Post by Levitz »

mdp2021 wrote: post #102
mandmandam wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who is getting thrown in to prison for jokes? Assange was thrown into jail for basic journalism, but that was at America's behest.

In some countries legal bases were set for imprisoning people after jokes. Cassandra Vera Paz, Spanish, aged 22 during the event, was charged in 2016 with "injury to victims of terrorism", in the context of legislation "against the praising of terrorism", after she posted jokes on twitter - the homicide through explosives of Luis Carrero Blanco, ally to General Franco, by the Basque separatist group ETA, was related…

So I'm actually Basque and I've gotta say this is a pretty specific scenario.

This is part of a very reprehensible and long history of fighting against household terrorism, said history includes things such as torture on innocents or state terrorism.

On top of that, the National Assembly has a bad reputation for pulling this kind of abusive stunts specifically when it's about "praising terrorism" and I don't think I personally know a single person who actually supports this. This is probably why the Supreme Court reversed the decision.

On the other hand I do know many people who tell jokes about Carrero Blanco, or in even worse taste, Irene Villa, a journalist who lost both her legs in another attack with explosives from ETA. Remarkably Irene Villa is on record stating that she enjoys and supports jokes such as "What does Irene Villa do when her friends go and wax her legs? She varnishes hers".

I believe this last bit to be relevant because no doubt that could be considered brutally offensive, literally making fun of a disabled person, but there is nobody offended here, it is, instead, recognized that humor is an important way of coping with a difficult reality, and the history of Basque terrorism is indeed a difficult one.

Re: Trolls will be jailed for ‘psychological harm’

#183

Post by skinkestek »

sofixa wrote: post #162
sokoloff wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We already have a crime of assault (as distinct from battery or rape). A credible threat is already a crime of assault and that’s as it should be. “ is a poopyhead”, even if it provokes an outsized negative reaction on Foobar’s part, is nowhere near the same thing.

Someone hurling racial slurs on Twitter or sending rape threats, from the comfort of their home without any credibility, isn't a "credible threat", but isn't insignificant.

It is also already now punishable by existing, sane laws in many countries.

Re: Trolls will be jailed for ‘psychological harm’

#184

Post by seoulmetro »

mathverse wrote: post #23
ljm wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The UK has arguably had an authoritarian bias for a long time, under the guise of being paternalistic. I wouldn't say it's always a bad thing, as many times this does work in the society's favour (e.g. consumer protection laws, various other regulations), and the loosening of the restriction works against it (e.g. the course of events that led to the Grenfell Tower fire). Of course, you also get stuff like this, the…

It is not only UK. It is NZ and Australia as well. It is really weird to watch these countries to mimic CCP controlled China without all the benefits that CCP managed to pull off.

You don't actually understand China or Australia if you think they are similar. They are not.

They have similar puppets they put on their hands to make the general population think a certain way, they may follow the same single act, but they're not similar.

Re: Trolls will be jailed for ‘psychological harm’

#185

Post by seoulmetro »

cal5k wrote: post #49
mathverse wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not only UK. It is NZ and Australia as well. It is really weird to watch these countries to mimic CCP controlled China without all the benefits that CCP managed to pull off.

Canada as well. All Commonwealth countries seem to be reading from an identical script at this point.

The script is definitely coming from America. And the first scene is trial of virtual control.

Re: Trolls will be jailed for ‘psychological harm’

#186

Post by kofejnik »

sofixa wrote: post #160
Levitz wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I think people who regularly get rape threats and racial abuse, many of whom are calling for such legislation ( recently there have been numerous cases with black footballers and also some with female journalists), have a slightly higher priority than people who just want to insult freely without fear of consequences. They don't have higher priority than the rest of society, which enjoy an important lack of authorit…

> A person's freedom ends where another man's freedom begins I don't know why you think your freedom to offend/insult is higher than another person's freedom to not be offended/insulted.

I was deeply hurt and insulted by your comment, please delete it immediately and stop posting on the internets!

Re: Trolls will be jailed for ‘psychological harm’

#187

Post by [deleted] »

CountDrewku wrote: post #173
kelseyfrog wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn't a trade off. That's the falseness of setting it up as two mutually exclusive and exhaustive choices. There are better ways to make a point than hyperbole.

Explain how it isn't a tradeoff. Give me one example that supports your stance please. It's a sliding a scale. You get to move the marker one way or the other. Whatever you do for the "greater good" will inherently remove rights from someone.

[deleted]

Re: Trolls will be jailed for ‘psychological harm’

#188

Post by DiggyJohnson »

md8z wrote: post #63
colpabar wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we are talking about laws, it is absolutely not irrelevant to talk about the people who will be enforcing them. This thread is about an extremely subjective law, and some people think that's a really bad idea because the people enforcing it will abuse it, because it's easy to do.

Could you think of ways we could make it less subjective? Or are you saying that you think it's impossible for us to make it an objective law?

Not OP, but I think both questions you proposed would be good places for you to start.

Re: Trolls will be jailed for ‘psychological harm’

#189

Post by DiggyJohnson »

md8z wrote: post #27
nathias wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hope this is trolling.

I'm not trolling, I've personally suffered psychological harm from online abuse. There are many places on the internet that I'd like to go but can't because people are too abusive and nobody does anything about it. What am I supposed to do if people don't even want to talk about this or acknowledge that it's a real problem that we can solve?

Why do you want to a place that makes you feel bad?

Re: Trolls will be jailed for ‘psychological harm’

#190

Post by [deleted] »

CountDrewku wrote: post #173
kelseyfrog wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn't a trade off. That's the falseness of setting it up as two mutually exclusive and exhaustive choices. There are better ways to make a point than hyperbole.

Explain how it isn't a tradeoff. Give me one example that supports your stance please. It's a sliding a scale. You get to move the marker one way or the other. Whatever you do for the "greater good" will inherently remove rights from someone.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN