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

211–220 of 235 posts

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

#211

Post by 999900000999 »

pfisherman wrote: post #163
999900000999 wrote: post #46

This would suggest the only winning move is not to play. Aside from this, I haven't used Social Media/ Online Dating in about 5 years. For example, if someone posts something like "Where can I find an apartment in LA , my income is only 35k a year". And I respond with " Your not going to make it here, you should move somewhere cheaper." That can be interupted as an insult. On the other end of the spectrum, back when…

> And I respond with "Your not going to make it here, you should move somewhere cheaper." That can be interupted as an insult. People interpret this as an insult because statement contains an implicit negative value judgement about the person’s competence - i.e. “you are not going to make it here”. Contrast that with something like, “It will be very difficult to find an apartment in LA that will be affordable on a $3…

I wouldn't say I'm making a negative judgement about the person.

I'm just saying LA isn't a good place for anyone making 35k a year. Then I offer actionable advice.

Likewise, I've even applied for YC before. I would of loved to get some feedback like "You aren't going to make it into YC without a business plan". That's better than getting ignored

I prefer real life socializing where something I said 6 or 7 years ago isn't used against me. I would hope most people are more mature at 25 than 19.

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

#212

Post by TulliusCicero »

showdeadtest111 wrote: post #177
TulliusCicero wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I have, in fact, played League before. And many other competitive online multiplayer games.

Being an asshole online is unfortunately normalized among many players, which we can see from your comment.

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

#213

Post by valar_m »

krapp wrote: post #210
valar_m wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. It's important for people like David Duke to let us know what he truly is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Louisiana_gubernatorial_e... "Vote For The Crook: It's Important."

But that doesn't support the thesis that the KKK would be less dangerous if they were allowed to burn crosses on every lawn and, say, given a free hour on television every day. We can know what these groups are, who their members are and what they believe while also limiting their ability to spread those harmful beliefs.

This is a ridiculous misrepresentation of what I said, and I suspect you know that.

Why on earth would they be able to burn crosses on anyone's lawn? Hate speech is currently protected by the First Amendment by decades of well-settled jurisprudence. Where are they permitted to burn crosses on people's lawns? And please provide a link to where the KKK is given a free hour of television every day.

> We can know what these groups are, who their members are and what they believe while also limiting their ability to spread those harmful beliefs.

How would we know if they aren't allowed to publicly say what their beliefs are? I submit that we know that only because their hate speech is protected.

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

#214

Post by yuuu »

InefficientRed wrote: post #93
yuuu wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You think it's a great step forward, but you're scared of it and feel that society is becoming more closed off because of a lack of freedom of expression. How does this make any sense?

Certain pockets of the gaming community are crime-adjacent with respect to online harassment (not the type this law describes; actual, clearly illegal and clearly not constitutionally protected harassment). You see similar things in other crime-adjacent communities. E.g., I've known many taggers who support stiffer penalties for people who tag in national parks, deface uncontroversial monuments, etc but are afraid th…

I honestly do not understand how people can be so myopic that they cannot, at all, anticipate the second-order effects that will come from legislation they "like" because it bans things they "don't like."

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

#215

Post by pfisherman »

999900000999 wrote: post #211
pfisherman wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And I respond with "Your not going to make it here, you should move somewhere cheaper." That can be interupted as an insult. People interpret this as an insult because statement contains an implicit negative value judgement about the person’s competence - i.e. “you are not going to make it here”. Contrast that with something like, “It will be very difficult to find an apartment in LA that will be affordable on a $3…

I wouldn't say I'm making a negative judgement about the person. I'm just saying LA isn't a good place for anyone making 35k a year. Then I offer actionable advice. Likewise, I've even applied for YC before. I would of loved to get some feedback like "You aren't going to make it into YC without a business plan". That's better than getting ignored I prefer real life socializing where something I said 6 or 7 years ago…

> I wouldn't say I'm making a negative judgement about the person.

Of course not, but we tend to be judged by our words and actions, not our intentions. Understand that people may experience the world very differently from you. They will instinctively pattern match the negative value judgement I pointed out; and to them it seems “obvious” that one should reword the statement. So obvious for them, that they can’t understand how someone with a different experience of the world might not recognize it.

> I prefer real life socializing where something I said 6 or 7 years ago isn't used against me. I would hope most people are more mature at 25 than 19.

Hear hear. This is a horrible side effect of social media. People need to be allowed to make mistakes. There can be no growth without mistakes.

At this point I think people would be well advised to consider their social media profile to be like a resume or personal brand advertisement. Anything but an authentic record of their private lives or thoughts.

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

#216

Post by cyberlurker »

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.

I think it’s hard to police this stuff. I could see someone sarcastically saying “kys” for forgetting to buy an item or something. Is it often used for bullying? Yea. I’m not going to draw the line at “kys”, but i don’t think it is as obvious as you make it out to be.

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

#217

Post by frumper »

claudiawerner wrote: post #205
briandear wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> not being made to feel unsafe Not sure how I have any control on how people feel. Choosing to feel bad over speech is not really my problem. Words literally have no ability to hurt people unless screamed with such volume as to cause hearing damage. Actions can hurt people. I ought not be able to take an action that causes quantifiable harm on another person. But hurt feelings? What’s the legal standard there? How a…

>Words literally have no ability to hurt people unless screamed with such volume as to cause hearing damage. Actions can hurt people. 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…

It's much easier to prove if someone stabbed you than it is to prove they caused you mental anguish. We have very poor tools to accurately measure the direct effects of speech. The law already tries to balance that with libel laws where you have to show the harm done. Maybe you can think of accurate ways to judge these issues, but all I can think about is a glorified equivalent of our pain scales. Point to a face on the scale like we do with pain.

https://www.disabled-world.com/health/pain/scale.php

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

#218

Post by krapp »

valar_m wrote: post #213
krapp wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that doesn't support the thesis that the KKK would be less dangerous if they were allowed to burn crosses on every lawn and, say, given a free hour on television every day. We can know what these groups are, who their members are and what they believe while also limiting their ability to spread those harmful beliefs.

This is a ridiculous misrepresentation of what I said, and I suspect you know that. Why on earth would they be able to burn crosses on anyone's lawn? Hate speech is currently protected by the First Amendment by decades of well-settled jurisprudence. Where are they permitted to burn crosses on people's lawns? And please provide a link to where the KKK is given a free hour of television every day. > We can know what th…

Your claim was that "Hate speech laws are dangerous because hate groups are far more dangerous when their true motives are hidden from view"

If it's true that hate groups are more dangerous when their motives are hidden from view, it must also be true that hate groups are less dangerous when their motives are in plain view.

And since the context of this discussion is hate speech, the implication of your argument is that hate groups are less dangerous the more freely they are allowed to express their hate speech (for example, through cross-burning or a weekly television broadcast) as a result of your original claim that hate speech laws make such groups more dangerous.

>(...)And please provide a link to where the KKK is given a free hour of television every day.

You didn't read my comment well enough to understand the context, because it's obvious that i never made a literal claim that the KKK was given a free hour of television every day, rather it was an example of an instance of a hyperbolic example of giving them a platform. You can substitute television for Facebook and Youtube if you like, it doesn't matter.

>How would we know if they aren't allowed to publicly say what their beliefs are? I submit that we know that only because their hate speech is protected.

Because such people try to spread their beliefs regardless of what the laws say, but at least limits on speech can limit the scope of the damage they can do.

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

#219

Post by throwaway675309 »

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?

You are not thinking things through and you're really not defining what it means to "violate someone's right to exist".

What if there is a person who was mentally ill and if they hear the word coconut it could cause them to inflict self harm? Now what happens if I'm talking to that person and I say the magic word coconut? Am I liable in the situation, even if I wasn't aware that this would cause them harm?

Now let's take a more real world example, let's take the word rape. Some people may have had traumatic experiences in the past that can cause just the mention of this word alone to act as a trigger that could lead to negative thoughts and possibly self harm, even suicide. What about now?

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

#220

Post by valar_m »

krapp wrote: post #218
valar_m wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a ridiculous misrepresentation of what I said, and I suspect you know that. Why on earth would they be able to burn crosses on anyone's lawn? Hate speech is currently protected by the First Amendment by decades of well-settled jurisprudence. Where are they permitted to burn crosses on people's lawns? And please provide a link to where the KKK is given a free hour of television every day. > We can know what th…

Your claim was that "Hate speech laws are dangerous because hate groups are far more dangerous when their true motives are hidden from view" If it's true that hate groups are more dangerous when their motives are hidden from view, it must also be true that hate groups are less dangerous when their motives are in plain view. And since the context of this discussion is hate speech, the implication of your argument is t…

My point was that hate speech is currently protected, and yet none of the hyperbole you mentioned actually exists in reality.

Obviously you knew that those things don't happen. So were you perhaps under the mistaken impression that hate speech is not currently protected and were suggesting what you believe may happen if it were allowed?

If that is not the case, then what point were you making with the use of hyperbole that addresses my original assertion that banning hate speech allows hateful people to hide?

> it was an example of an instance of a hyperbolic example of giving them a platform.

At no point did I ever suggest anything about "giving them a platform" so I'm not sure who you're arguing with, but it isn't me.

Post reply on HN