Trolls will be jailed for ‘psychological harm’ • Hacker News Board

Re: Trolls will be jailed for ‘psychological harm’

#201

Post by arp242 » Tue, Nov 02, 2021, 2:12 AM UTC

umvi wrote: post #13

A society where everyone is safe A society where everyone is free Choose one (Obviously real life is not so binary, but since freedoms are abused to inflict harm on others, removing the source of harm necessitates removing the freedom that led to it)

The core problem is that some freedoms also restrict freedoms. For example, my freedom to play music as loud as I want at 4am restricts my neighbour's freedom to have a good nights rest.

Similarly, my freedom to go out on the street and chant "gas the Jews! Gas the Jews!" would restrict the freedom of Jewish people to participate in normal life without fear. And I don't think these fears are ungrounded, or unreasonable, and can be simply dismissed.

Pretty much everyone is in favour of more freedom, across the ideological spectrum. The conflict is the disagreement where the balance lies between "give people the freedom to do what they want" vs. "people using their freedoms to restrict the freedoms of others".

Re: Trolls will be jailed for ‘psychological harm’

#202

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Nov 02, 2021, 2:26 AM UTC

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’

#203

Post by arp242 » Tue, Nov 02, 2021, 2:35 AM UTC

tgsovlerkhgsel wrote: post #158

maccolgan wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The EU and its constituent countries aren't authoritarian?

Nowhere near that level, and most importantly, we tend to make fun of the US "Offense Olympics".

Plus, a lot of these ideas about some opinion "causing harm" or "silence is violence" and all of that are imported from the US. Even though it's not enacted in US law, the ideological roots are firmly there.

Politics is the US' worst export product, whether it's the unhinged right and their nonsense or the unhinged left and their nonsense. I wish fewer people would pay attention to it.

Re: Trolls will be jailed for ‘psychological harm’

#204

Post by kelseyfrog » Tue, Nov 02, 2021, 2:55 AM UTC

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.

Umm, the right to be free from slavery.

Re: Trolls will be jailed for ‘psychological harm’

#205

Post by onecommentman » Tue, Nov 02, 2021, 2:59 AM UTC

Late, but…

This isn’t that surprising a development for the UK. You can think of it as a philosophically consistent extension of the UK interpretation of libel.

“In American courts, the burden of proof rests with the person who brings a claim of libel. In British courts, the author or journalist has the burden of proof, and typically loses.”

https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/03/21/394273902/...

Re: Trolls will be jailed for ‘psychological harm’

#206

Post by floatingatoll » Tue, Nov 02, 2021, 3:12 AM UTC

CountDrewku wrote: post #171

floatingatoll wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the case of the UK's laws, they are targeting people with specific intent to cause psychological harm. That's a critical component of "trolling": if no harm was caused to the abused party, then the trolls wouldn't bother, because they're fixated on hurting others for personal pleasure. So, then, "barring intent" is an invalid condition for this discussion, right?

What constitutes intent when it comes to words? Do you have some magical device that enables you to extract intent from people's heads? I thought tru-crime was just science fiction and yet we have multiple individuals actually supporting a dystopian future where that's a real thing.

It’s not necessarily magical, but we call those devices “judges” and “juries” here in the states, referring to those whose roles in the legal system include judging someone’s intentions. They usually do so without widespread access to telepathy or divination, and so too their UK counterparts.

Re: Trolls will be jailed for ‘psychological harm’

#207

Post by arp242 » Tue, Nov 02, 2021, 3:57 AM UTC

Actual text of the law can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/draft-online-safe...

I didn't read all of it, because it's 145 pages, but the most relevant section seems to be on page 52, section 46 "Meaning of “content that is harmful to adults” etc"

Re: Trolls will be jailed for ‘psychological harm’

#208

Post by chrismcb » Tue, Nov 02, 2021, 4:53 AM UTC

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.

No one has a freedom to not be offended. It they did, then it would be impossible to have free speech. As there is no way to know if your speech won't offend everyone.

Re: Trolls will be jailed for ‘psychological harm’

#209

Post by chrismcb » Tue, Nov 02, 2021, 4:56 AM UTC

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.

Someone hurling racial slurs is not the same as someone sending rape threats

Re: Trolls will be jailed for ‘psychological harm’

#210

Post by drak0n1c » Tue, Nov 02, 2021, 7:03 AM UTC

RickJWagner wrote: post #194

I've somehow slipped into a Monte Python skit. I have to find my way back to reality.

The BBC used to nationally broadcast Monty Python doing Nazi satire replete with costumes and salutes. But a few years ago the British government opted to prosecute a man who uploaded to YouTube a satirical video training his Pug to do a Nazi salute.

British tolerance for Swiftian expression seems to be regressing lately.