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

171–180 of 235 posts

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

#171

Post by makeitdouble »

onion2k wrote: post #101
makeitdouble wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m curious about what other path do you see for the authorities to effectively deal with sever online abuse that results in irl damage. Do you see a country that successfully navigated the issue ? To note, under this law the charges still need to go to a judge to decide how heavy any of it should be.

I’m curious about what other path do you see for the authorities to effectively deal with sever online abuse that results in irl damage. That's simple. There needs to be a test for what constitutes IRL damage written in to the law. As far as I know no country has done that.

I kinda get what you mean, but that would result in a law that only punishes once the victim has irreparable damage (~ dead)

I’d see it akin to only punishing murders and let go attempts and battering because its too “fuzzy”.

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

#172

Post by dfxm12 »

zaik wrote: post #103

If I read this correctly, no new law has been passed. They made punishment harsher for insults (侮辱罪) an existing crime which is not specific to cyberbullying.

Correct. They didn't even increase a minimum punishment, they just expanded the possible punishments, so you could still get the old, light, punishment.

Also of note, these changes will be reviewed after three years to see if they are too harsh.

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

#173

Post by pessimizer »

cronix wrote: post #50
labster wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That link has already sailed. Libel and slander are already illegal speech, as is inciting violence, as is yelling “fire” in a crowded theater, as is saying curse words on broadcast TV and radio.

> as is yelling “fire” in a crowded theater You really should stop spreading that falsehood. It was overturned over 50 years ago. https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-tim...

It's still valuable for finding people who are arguing in bad faith. Here's another one: make sure that the person you're arguing with about taxes understands how marginal tax rates work.

People feel confident repeating things they've heard often, with a sarcastic smirk, because the ubiquity of the thing they're repeating gives them some security that if they're called on to defend those things, someone more knowledgeable will probably show up and help.

The most depressing and ironic thing is when a self-proclaimed socialist cites the "crowded theater" thing, which was used to jail socialists speaking out against a war.

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

#174

Post by hhmc »

dannyobrien wrote: post #155
hhmc wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's telling that people are swarming to point out the 1 'technically incorrect' entry in this list, whilst completely ignoring all the others.

Okay, I'll bite. Libel and slander aren't illegal speech; you can make a civil action for the damages connected to them, but they aren't outlawed and you won't face criminal prosecution. Unless you're in a jurisdiction with criminal defamation laws, which journalists and human rights activists have been fighting for decades. https://cpj.org/2000/09/calls-for-repeal-of-criminal-defamat... Some jurisdictions have crimi…

I take your point on the strict definition of 'illegal' speech. But if we're broadly talking about restricted speech, I think most people would happily include speech where you are likely to pay significant civil damages?

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

#175

Post by InefficientRed »

unknownus3r wrote: post #147

Bullying is a part of reality. I see people bully others in offices for every company I have ever worked with and at, whether it’s passive aggressive slights, framing, etc. You’re never going to get rid of it entirely because humans are an inherently hierarchical species and bullying is a method of establishing hierarchy and dominance. While trying to punish going over board may be a good thing, this whole “let’s all…

> I see people bully others in offices for every company I have ever worked with and at

IME bullying -- actual bullying, not power contests or nasty office politics -- isn't even remotely normal in office settings.

> The true solution to getting bullied is to...

...ignore it if isn't serious or tell an adult if it is serious.

> fight back ferociously

Anything physical is de facto serious and should be dealt with via adults and not between children; at least in my bubble, physical violence between school-aged children is rare and taken very seriously. A bully physically harming other children would receive a serious punishment, the parents would be in the loop, and the school counselor would be heavily involved with that child for the remainder of the school year.

Anything systemic and sustained, or targeting immutable attributes, is also de facto serious.

It's possible that things are different in your social environments, but "bullying" as I understood it as a kid is no longer even remotely socially acceptable.

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

#176

Post by nonrandomstring »

minsc_and_boo wrote: post #146
nonrandomstring wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 incide…

>That is more or less the precise opposite reading of "The Harm Principle" that Mill intended. JSM separated the Harm Principle from the Offense Principle, but still said that free speech should be curtailed when the expression harms individuals. Nowhere does JSM say freedom of speech is freedom from all consequences.

Is it just me or is: "freedom of speech is freedom from all consequences" a straw man that literally no philosopher or reasonable thinker ever said? Where does that even come from?

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

#177

Post by showdeadtest111 »

TulliusCicero wrote: post #84
cyberlurker wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think the reasons are good, but gamers often trash talk and bully each other in game. For example, Riot needed to ban people from typing “kys” in League of Legends because it means “kill your self” and they were worried about it. (Whether that is because they care about the players or their liability or both is not for me to decide)

That's a very strange way of phrasing this. Obviously if you're telling random other people to go kill themselves in a game, you should be banned, same as if you start hurting racial slurs or making threats or other asshole behavior.

Maybe in some other games like animal crossing or stardew valley multiplayer. If you haven't played league before you wouldn't understand.

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

#178

Post by makeitdouble »

whatshisface wrote: post #106
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 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…

How would it be different if you purposefully tried every possible insult until the “right” one hits and has the other side die ? Or flooded the person by every means you can think of until it exceeds their capacity to ignore your insults ?

There is an intentionality that you are not addressing, and is at the core of this law.

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

#179

Post by pessimizer »

dannyobrien wrote: post #155
hhmc wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's telling that people are swarming to point out the 1 'technically incorrect' entry in this list, whilst completely ignoring all the others.

Okay, I'll bite. Libel and slander aren't illegal speech; you can make a civil action for the damages connected to them, but they aren't outlawed and you won't face criminal prosecution. Unless you're in a jurisdiction with criminal defamation laws, which journalists and human rights activists have been fighting for decades. https://cpj.org/2000/09/calls-for-repeal-of-criminal-defamat... Some jurisdictions have crimi…

> rebounding on communities that were originally intended to be protected.

We're starting to see proposals and legislation to include police officers as a protected group under hate crime/speech statutes. That's a hairsbreadth from lèse-majesté.

Protection laws in the US are an absurd and abused mess. I would only be mildly surprised to see minorities prosecuted for hate crimes for attempting suicide.

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

#180

Post by Hamuko »

onion2k wrote: post #52

I think the appropriate aphorism here is "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." No doubt the Japanese government believe that this law is for extreme cases where someone sends thousands of awful messages, or where a mob drives someone to suicide, but this will end up being used to prosecute some poor 14 year old kid who calls someone else a bad name in Call of Duty. Without strict limitations in laws they'…

I've heard speculation that the age of consent laws in Japan are kept purposefully confusing so that they can be applied as prosecutors wish. Apparently it's something like this: http://helpto.pro/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/contest-japan.p...

There was also that time when Mandarake caused an uproar when they opened a porn store right across a clothing store for kids, separated only by a two-metre corridor. The police eventually shut down the store for being within 200 metres of a hospital. That also had a strong whiff of "shopping around for a fitting crime".

Post reply on HN