Another step towards erasing free speech to protect feelings. People need to read 1984 and Gulag Archipelago.
And Fahrenheit 451
Trolls will be jailed for ‘psychological harm’
81–90 of 239 posts
Re: Trolls will be jailed for ‘psychological harm’
#82Earlier quoted context omitted.
The UK has arguably had an authoritarian bias for a long time, under the guise of being paternalistic. I wouldn't say it's always a bad thing, as many times this does work in the society's favour (e.g. consumer protection laws, various other regulations), and the loosening of the restriction works against it (e.g. the course of events that led to the Grenfell Tower fire). Of course, you also get stuff like this, the…
It is not only UK. It is NZ and Australia as well. It is really weird to watch these countries to mimic CCP controlled China without all the benefits that CCP managed to pull off.
>It is really weird to watch these countries to mimic CCP controlled China without all the benefits that CCP managed to pull off.
I can criticise my government which citizens in China are prevented from doing. This puts us a long way apart.
Re: Trolls will be jailed for ‘psychological harm’
#83Earlier quoted context omitted.
You already have subjective offences in the UK: The CPS uses definitions agreed with the National Police Chiefs' Council to identify racist or religious incidents/crimes and to monitor the decisions and outcomes: "Any incident/crime which is perceived by the victim or any other person to be motivated by hostility or prejudice based on a person's race or perceived race" or "Any incident/crime which is perceived by the…
Wow, talk about presumption of innocence... there are blasphemy laws in some countries that make "public actions committed with the express purpose of insulting religious beliefs" a crime which is actually a very sensible definition per se: first of all, it excludes personal correspondence and private blogs (unless the blog is particularly popular), and second, go and try to prove that intent. That requires linguisti…
> talk about presumption of innocence
No such thing in UK.
Re: Trolls will be jailed for ‘psychological harm’
#84A society where: - you are held responsible for other people's feelings, and for their feelings as a result of your words and actions, and: - anything that causes anyone to feel bad, is looked down upon by the collective Is tyranny by the emotionally stunted. The fundamental problem with it, is it makes society more enmeshed (a pathological relationship dynamic). People start caring more about going with the grain, t…
> The proposed law change will shift the focus on to the “harmful effect” of a message rather than if it contains “indecent” or “grossly offensive” content, which is the present basis for assessing its criminality.
I'm feeling very harmed after reading your comment. I realize the content's of your message are objectively harmless, but I "feel" harmed. So...off to jail you go.
---
But on a more serious note. Like you said I it's insane that 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. What are the guardrails here?
Harmful effect can be anything. I could plagiarize the top ShowHN post from yesterday, post it here and get called out. Then try to get all the commenters prosecuted because my feelings were hurt? Is this seriously how this law works?
Hell an even more extreme example could be "hey it's really nice and sunny outside today", and someone will comment "I identify as darkness, this is hurtful to my people". Am I headed to the slammer for saying that the weather was nice?
Re: Trolls will be jailed for ‘psychological harm’
#85Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is not only UK. It is NZ and Australia as well. It is really weird to watch these countries to mimic CCP controlled China without all the benefits that CCP managed to pull off.
Canada as well. All Commonwealth countries seem to be reading from an identical script at this point.
I'd go even further and say most western countries, because I think the US and EU are headed in a similar direction.
My guess is that they see trouble ahead and want to get a firmer grip on power, so they're trying to get the kid gloves off as stealthily as possible. If they could, they'd go full CCP before you can say "communo-fascism", but they can't, because then they'd have to deal with too much push back at once.
Re: Trolls will be jailed for ‘psychological harm’
#86Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Back in my day it was just a given people said mean things on the internet. Isn't this indicative of a serious problem though? If there were places IRL where the average person is subjected to a constant barrage of callousness it wouldn't continue to exist, would it? Can we have free speech without accountability? In the past accountability seemed like a major factor.
> If there were places IRL where the average person is subjected to a constant barrage of callousness it wouldn't continue to exist, would it? Are you suggesting that there are populated places that you can visit in real life where loudly shouting an arbitrary statement could not attract abuse? If I went to a model train convention, carrying a giant sign explaining how childish and stupid I think model train enthusia…
>Are you suggesting that there are populated places that you can visit in real life where loudly shouting an arbitrary statement could not attract abuse?
I'm suggesting that if I were in a public place and had a person shouting obscenities at me everywhere I went... it's illegal harassment, and the person can be identified and prosecuted.
I've experienced both IRL and online harassment, and managed to stop IRL harassment through the legal system. I was only able to stop online harassment by hiding.
Re: Trolls will be jailed for ‘psychological harm’
#87The UK is quickly becoming an authoritarian country. RIP freedom and democracy.
The UK is a monarchy. Everyone has always simply been subjects of the King/Queen. Their 'freedom and democracy' has always been a façade, used by the monarchs to convince them they have some rights.
Re: Trolls will be jailed for ‘psychological harm’
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
Throw one out. What’s an objective definition of trolling and abusive language that you could write into law? Separate definitions or together. Just give it a shot.
Language that is meant to intimidate? It seems pretty clear to me that the purpose of that is to stifle discussion.
What can someone actually say to you online to effectively intimidate you? I have had many people try in the last 20 years, but the basic problem is that they’re just an anonymous web surfer and so am I.
Also: what about boycotts? Is this speech not designed to intimidate an organization into doing the thing or not doing the thing the organizers of the boycott want them to do (or not to do). A lot of speech which is designed to intimidate is perfectly legal because intimidating others is a valid tactic within reason. That’s also subjective, but when you’re in a position of power over someone, you can intimidate the crap out of someone without coming close to say, death threats, rape threats or the threat of doing anything actually illegal.
Re: Trolls will be jailed for ‘psychological harm’
#89A society where: - you are held responsible for other people's feelings, and for their feelings as a result of your words and actions, and: - anything that causes anyone to feel bad, is looked down upon by the collective Is tyranny by the emotionally stunted. The fundamental problem with it, is it makes society more enmeshed (a pathological relationship dynamic). People start caring more about going with the grain, t…
With you until the point where it is suggested that Web 3.0 can solve anything!
Re: Trolls will be jailed for ‘psychological harm’
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's subjective about it though? Do you think it is not possible by now for us to collectively come up with an objective definition of what trolling and abusive language is? To me it's pretty clear after spending just a few minutes on Twitter...
The definition of "psychological harm" will vary by person, which is inconsistent with the enforcement of law. How one person reacts to a traumatic experience will vary vastly between other people. There can be no standard legal definition, so what you'll get is psychologists and therapists testifying their opinion with the outcome that someone goes to jail.
But don't we already call doctors as expert witnesses? And don't we already define various kinds of harm as varying by the person? None of that seems to to be controversial.