Japan passes revised penal code with harsher punishment for cyberbullying

I admit though I can't think of a good way to legislate the nuances of someone expressing an opinion that one ought not to be able to compete in sports of a gender they believe they belong to, without making them feel they are being dehumanized.

----------

On the subject of what led to this law, my girlfriend and I were avid watchers of the show Terrace House as the events that led to this person's death unfolded.

The girl had been quite rude to a foreigner on the show.

This was considered a huge disgrace to the nation of Japan, to have one of their own act so meanly to another, especially on as international of a platform as Netflix, especially to someone from what is considered a partner country, like the U. S..

This led to social ostracization where many Japanese were (civilly) telling her that she was no longer respected in general society, and questioning the extent of her ability to behave with civility.

I believe this (civilly said) cultural censure for her imopliteness likely contributed more to her feelings of worthlessness than any truly hateful and ignorant things said to her. Or maybe because she grew up in Japan she was just not emotionally prepared for hearing some of the hateful things people can say on the Internet (this is the public narrative).

Either way, it's a tricky situation, and many in Japan felt she was actually the one who began the degregation of civility with her behavior on the show, but none the less the resulting way people spoke to her was also not considered acceptable.

How can one balance expressing the idea that she brought shame to the nation while also not making her feel dehumainzed? I don't know. But I'm quite sure in the minds of the Japanese who wrote this law, the main thing they want to avoid is people telling others to kill themselves directly or cursing at them, rather than avoiding expressing judgemental ideas on one's behavior, which is common enough in Japanese society, to be subtly hinting at one disapproving of the behavior of others, while remaining civil.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Louisiana_gubernatorial_e...

"Vote For The Crook: It's Important."

This doesn't seem true; it is very possible to cause damage with speech alone, anything from hurting someone in a fragile mental state to the point where they might commit suicide, to spreading rumors about someone with full knowledge of what might happen. I'm reminded about the quote from a professor who said he'd rather break his left leg than have a false rumor begin to circulate about how he slept with a student. Your thesis rests on the principle of mind-body dualism (which is increasingly rejected among philosophers and neuroscientists alike), and that speech isn't itself an action (metaphysically, of course it's an action).

>But hurt feelings aren’t something that should ever be addressed by the legal system.

To say that any effect words can have on another person only amount to 'hurt feelings' is inaccurate. Every human alive knows the anguish and pain, sometimes even causing physiological pain, that words can cause. Mental states also have physiological effects of many kinds, such as mental stress leading to inflammation. The principle isn't alien.

>People really need to get thicker skin

Why doesn't the same apply to literal thicker skin or body plating to prevent being stabbed? Is that really what a civil society looks like?

My point is why a judge should give different verdicts depending on the medium? Some accusation you made on Facebook with some photos hoped image could make more damage then same accusation made drunk at a bar, the judge should consider the damages not if you used FB, a phone or your mouth.

I do dislike people who say "citation?" (and I don't wish to seem presumptuous) but can you give me any further links or prominent examples of that?

Is it a social media thing? I don't use popular SM or trawl the sewers of chans any longer, so is it there? Is that representative of a wider society?

Do people who hold the extreme view that "speech has no consequences" distinguish that idea from "speech can have have bad consequences, but that's better than the alternative of curbing free speech"? Or have we reached a kind of intellectual low point in places where these beliefs are purported to hold?