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

Japan passes revised penal code with harsher punishment for cyberbullying

mainichi.jp

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 235 posts

Re: Japan passes revised penal code with harsher punishment for cyberbullying

#121

Post by car_analogy »

kwatsonafter wrote: post #3

As I get older I'm more in favor of this kind of thing. Freedom of speech ought (here I go; a terrible Kantian asserting an, "ought") to apply to political speech. Using FoS as a defense against aimlessly attacking others seems to undermine what is a basic expectation of civility (ie. not being made to feel unsafe) in advanced societies. I feel like there's a class of people that would gladly slaughter cows in front…

I couldn't agree more. It's about time all the hate speech against whites is brought to a halt. Blaming them for every societal ill under the sun has already resulted in deaths [1,2,3,4,5,6]. If only the US didn't have the first amendment, some of these lives could have been saved. Does your "right" to speak really matter more than their right to life?

Or is that not what you had in mind?

[1] https://www.yahoo.com/news/dont-white-people-man-fatal-12211...

[2] https://karlstack.substack.com/p/his-name-was-seth-smith

[3] https://nypost.com/2021/11/24/waukesha-christmas-parade-vict...

[4] https://nypost.com/2021/06/15/black-suspects-shooting-spree-...

[5] https://www.the-sun.com/news/1129367/jessica-doty-whitaker-a...

[6] https://fox40.com/news/california-connection/im-glad-that-it...

Re: Japan passes revised penal code with harsher punishment for cyberbullying

#122

Post by kazinator »

fatherzine wrote: post #17
kwatsonafter wrote: post #3

As I get older I'm more in favor of this kind of thing. Freedom of speech ought (here I go; a terrible Kantian asserting an, "ought") to apply to political speech. Using FoS as a defense against aimlessly attacking others seems to undermine what is a basic expectation of civility (ie. not being made to feel unsafe) in advanced societies. I feel like there's a class of people that would gladly slaughter cows in front…

Politeness can't be enforced by law, sorry. In practice, this kind of tone policing laws produce double standards. OK to show the utmost vitriol towards "woombledores" in the most public manner, but don't even dare question the "mardesmoores", or else jail time for you.

We can't be sure without understanding the actual statute that is being passed and what are its definitions of the wrongdoing, and how it is limited in its scope and power.

Re: Japan passes revised penal code with harsher punishment for cyberbullying

#124

Post by soraminazuki »

pilgrimfff wrote: post #9
kwatsonafter wrote: post #3

As I get older I'm more in favor of this kind of thing. Freedom of speech ought (here I go; a terrible Kantian asserting an, "ought") to apply to political speech. Using FoS as a defense against aimlessly attacking others seems to undermine what is a basic expectation of civility (ie. not being made to feel unsafe) in advanced societies. I feel like there's a class of people that would gladly slaughter cows in front…

Japanese police have a reputation of "interrogating" you until you confess, regardless of innocence. That's the only way to hit their 99% conviction rate. The last thing they need is another bludgeon.

Forced confessions are unfortunately not unique to Japan [1]. Police will behave like that when you reward them based on the number of convictions and don't hold them accountable for screwing over innocent people.

Still sucks, though.

[1]: https://youtube.com/watch?v=obCNQ0xksZ4

Re: Japan passes revised penal code with harsher punishment for cyberbullying

#125

Post by wowokay »

san_dimitri wrote: post #55

I am surprised how much less discussion takes place about cyberbullying and the deaths caused by it. I agree with freedom of speech but if it violates someones right to exist then shouldn't the culprits be punished? If not punished atleast have a legal process to discuss/debate it in the court of law? Thoughts?

The difficult part is I am not convinced anything someone says can violate someone else's right to exist. In the past the solution was to focus on promoting personal mental health, someone who commits bodily harm as a result of something someone else said likely has personal issues that need to be dealt with. People need to realize that other people's opinions should not translate into self harm. The only time I can really understand the need for punishment is when looking at situations like Depp vs Amber, where companies and individuals are prejudice against you because of unsubstantiated claims.

Re: Japan passes revised penal code with harsher punishment for cyberbullying

#126

Post by ALittleLight »

pilgrimfff wrote: post #9
kwatsonafter wrote: post #3

As I get older I'm more in favor of this kind of thing. Freedom of speech ought (here I go; a terrible Kantian asserting an, "ought") to apply to political speech. Using FoS as a defense against aimlessly attacking others seems to undermine what is a basic expectation of civility (ie. not being made to feel unsafe) in advanced societies. I feel like there's a class of people that would gladly slaughter cows in front…

Japanese police have a reputation of "interrogating" you until you confess, regardless of innocence. That's the only way to hit their 99% conviction rate. The last thing they need is another bludgeon.

I think this conviction rate statistic is out of context. In the US the conviction rate is 93% and, if the US measured conviction rate the way the Japanese do, it would be 99.8%.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conviction_rate

So, maybe, yes, the Japanese police interrogate you until you confess - I don't know. But other police must do effectively similar things.

Re: Japan passes revised penal code with harsher punishment for cyberbullying

#127

Post by kelseyfrog »

djkoolaide wrote: post #99
kelseyfrog wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People dying is a small price to pay for free speech. Of course, if everyone died and the last person was able to speak freely, it would be worth it. Everything else is trading safety for liberty. Slippery slopes of free speech crackdowns inevitably lead to loss of liberty. Leave if you don't like it. Absolutism in free speech is the only justifiable position. Welcome to debate.

Genuinely can't tell whether this is irony or frightening sincerity.

edited for clarity.

Re: Japan passes revised penal code with harsher punishment for cyberbullying

#128

Post by rjbwork »

chrisfosterelli wrote: post #57
causality0 wrote: post #10

Results this are why I vigorously defend even the outer fringes of free speech. "With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."

Is there any practical evidence of this slippery slope? Here in Canada hate speech, defamation, and obscenity have been illegal for a while. The idea is that you have freedom of expression, but it only extends as far as it doesn't infringe on another person's entitlement to a life free from discrimination & harassment. I don't feel like this has been a slippery slope for us, only a different place to draw the lines b…

There have been numerous ludicrous prosecutions and lawsuits of people in your country for violating these laws. Mike Ward, for one. A few other comedians as well. Bill Whatcott. Gregory Elliott.

Some of these people were found guilty, some acquitted. All were prosecuted under these laws.

To be clear I don't agree with any of these people. I don't even find the Mike Ward joke particularly funny. It's a throwaway bit meant to be offensive from my point of view. But I don't think they should be able to be thrown in prison, fined, or sued, because someone's feelings got hurt over some words.

Re: Japan passes revised penal code with harsher punishment for cyberbullying

#129

Post by nonrandomstring »

minsc_and_boo wrote: post #73
causality0 wrote: post #10

Results this are why I vigorously defend even the outer fringes of free speech. "With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."

Free speech was never about consequent-free speech. The philosophers behind Free Speech even concluded that expression which harms individuals should be prevented, aka harm principle: > That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rig…

Tommyrot and Poppycock! That is more or less the precise opposite reading of "The Harm Principle" that Mill intended.

You're missing the nuance of what these words meant:

> the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.

Mill then set out extremely limited definition of harm that excluded more or less all the incidental, implied and perceived harms that are problematic and open to abuse. In this (Mill's) context harm means harm, like as assault, robbery, imprisonment and so on.

If ever you want to find the canonical example of a "slippery slope" it's the perpetual reinterpretation of this principle to move the goalposts and extend the definition of "harm".

In many ways I think Mill did moral philsophy a disservice by so loosely stating something that, on face value, is so open to misinterpretation.

Re: Japan passes revised penal code with harsher punishment for cyberbullying

#130

Post by whatshisface »

comrh wrote: post #118
whatshisface wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with what you're saying is that incivility does not directly cause death. I could not actually kill you by writing a lot of really clever insults, not even if they were worthy of Guybrush Threepwood. The deaths "caused" by insults are in fact mediated through rare mental illnesses, and that calls in to question the issue of responsibility. If you bumped into me on the sidewalk and, because a rare illness…

That really undersells how horrible targeted harassment of a person and everyone that person knows can be. > The degree to which the effect of the cause is typical matters a lot in designing legislation or making fair decisions that apply equally to everyone. I think this was added after I replied. I would certainly agree this legislation is overly broad and probably not helpful. At first I thought you were arguing c…

Targeted harassment is beyond the ken of this discussion, which is about laws regulating all speech uniformly, that do not distinguish between yelling at someone's house from the street every night, and saying something to nobody in particular on Twitter.
Post reply on HN