What if I suffered psychological harm as a result from reading this article?
Who's going to be held responsible?
HN? Twitter? The Times? The author? All of the above?
Trolls will be jailed for ‘psychological harm’
221–230 of 239 posts
Re: Trolls will be jailed for ‘psychological harm’
#222Earlier quoted context omitted.
> we have come to the point where what you actually say, you intentions, are completely irrelevant, it's all about how your message is perceived The way this is typically framed is "impact matters more than intent". Like if you weren't watching where you were walking and accidentally stepped on someone's foot. You didn't _intend_ to harm them, but the overall _impact_ was that you did harm them. As you rightly point…
>IMO the best way to deal with impact has to be at the cultural level. IMO the only reasonable way to deal with impact is to limit the law to purely physical impact. It should never be the business of any government to attempt to regulate, mandate, restrict or punish behavior based on the thought processes or feelings of anyone.
Not sure exactly how to quantify "physical impact", but in many US states, the crime of misdemeanor battery is defined as any "unwanted" contact, such that cases without any apparent physical harm become crimes based on thought processes and feelings of the aggrieved party.
Re: Trolls will be jailed for ‘psychological harm’
#223For one second there I thought it was referring to patent trolls.
Re: Trolls will be jailed for ‘psychological harm’
#224Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
They judge "intentions" after a physical crime has been committed using those intentions to come up with appropriate punishment.
They do not place judgement on intention alone. There's a clear difference.
Re: Trolls will be jailed for ‘psychological harm’
#225Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
That took rights and freedom away from certain people. We've all agreed that taking the right to hold slaves away is better for society just like taking the right to murder away is better for society. However, that doesn't mean you didn't take a freedom away from a group of people.
Re: Trolls will be jailed for ‘psychological harm’
#226Earlier quoted context omitted.
Umm, the right to be free from slavery.
That took rights and freedom away from certain people. We've all agreed that taking the right to hold slaves away is better for society just like taking the right to murder away is better for society. However, that doesn't mean you didn't take a freedom away from a group of people.
I'm saying freedom from slavery was an increase in freedom and a greater good. That's the point. A net increase in both. That's why it's a false dichotomy.
Re: Trolls will be jailed for ‘psychological harm’
#227Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
They judge "intentions" after a physical crime has been committed using those intentions to come up with appropriate punishment. They do not place judgement on intention alone. There's a clear difference.
Incorrect. Judges regularly evaluate the intentions of non-criminals where no crime has been committed in family courts and in cases of contract law (disagreement is not unlawful), and juries have the ability of jury equity (UK) or nullification (US) to declare someone's actions as non-criminal even if the actions they are accused of are accepted as fact and are (by definition of law) unlawful. There is also "contempt of court", in which a judge may declare anyone criminal for refusing to comply with the judge's orders.
This all demonstrates that judges and juries are familiar with evaluating intentions and criminality within the frameworks of law provided. A framework of law may declare certain speech as unlawful (such as obscenity or slander) may declare intentions a key factor in criminality, and the systems of law that judge the legality and criminality of that speech are already in place in the UK (and US) to support laws that criminalize speech with malicious intent.
Re: Trolls will be jailed for ‘psychological harm’
#228Earlier quoted context omitted.
That took rights and freedom away from certain people. We've all agreed that taking the right to hold slaves away is better for society just like taking the right to murder away is better for society. However, that doesn't mean you didn't take a freedom away from a group of people.
I'm saying freedom from slavery was an increase in freedom and a greater good. That's the point. A net increase in both. That's why it's a false dichotomy.
That contradicts absolutely nothing I said. I'm not sure who you're arguing against here.
There's no false dichotomy being presented at all.
Re: Trolls will be jailed for ‘psychological harm’
#229Earlier quoted context omitted.
They judge "intentions" after a physical crime has been committed using those intentions to come up with appropriate punishment. They do not place judgement on intention alone. There's a clear difference.
Incorrect. Judges regularly evaluate the intentions of non-criminals where no crime has been committed in family courts and in cases of contract law (disagreement is not unlawful), and juries have the ability of jury equity (UK) or nullification (US) to declare someone's actions as non-criminal even if the actions they are accused of are accepted as fact and are (by definition of law) unlawful. There is also "contemp…
Then explain why a new law needs to be passed.
Things like slander and libel require clear demonstration that you've been damaged monetarily etc.
I don't see how you can clearly show damages from a person deciding to commit suicide or feeling bad because of trolls. Prove it.
Regardless, at the end of the day I don't really care whether there's a legal framework in place. I don't agree that it's helpful to society at all and I'm going to err on the side that almost no speech harmful to anyone and should NEVER result in imprisonment. There's almost no road where criminalizing trolls on the internet leads to a better society or helps mentally ill people.
Re: Trolls will be jailed for ‘psychological harm’
#230And this is why I'm never going to move to Europe. My jokes would be considered "obscene" or "indecent" or something and I'd be thrown in prison. At least here in the States, for now, the government is letting the private companies perform the censorship, and not imprisoning people for tasteless humor.
In my experience, the range of socially acceptable jokes is far wider, and people make fun of what the US counts as offensive.
The difference is that even if it's considered socially unacceptable in the US it doesn't result in fines or imprisonment. Sounds like a much better deal to me.