Hacker News Reader

Comment by yoshuaw | Hacker News Reader

> Do you hold one user accountable for drawing attention to a user who is now receiving messages from third parties

Inciting violence against a person makes you responsible for the violence that follows; let's not pretend this is something different - it's not.

View on HN

Internet messages are violence now?

s/violence/harassment/

Intimidation, threat of harm, and incitement are generally illegal whether they're on the Internet, in a letter, or delivered in person.

You might want to re-read your dictionary. Violence has included non-physical force for very many years, very much longer than the Internet has been in existence.

http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/youthviolence/definiti...

> Interpersonal violence is defined as "the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against another person or against a group or community that results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/16

> The term “crime of violence” means—

> (a) an offense that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another, or

Threats of violence are by definition violence.

Threats that might seem credible are a far cry from saying bad things about someone, to them or to someone else.

You don't seem to understand that threats of violence are what we're talking about. Do you really not understand that saying you're going to rape someone is a threat of violence?

The article says:

> Other Jewish writers have faced more serious attacks: death threats, anti-Semitic cartoons, images of concentration camp ovens and executed Jews, threatening emails, even home phone calls.

> Michael received [...] Trolls threatened him: "'When the time comes, the Jews are going to be in trouble, lined up,'" Michael recalls. "That kind of tone. Random shit by people thinking it's funny Jews were being targeted."

you've certainly mentioned some strong examples. However, it's not the same as real violence.

think of these two statements, jokes whatever you want to call it.

"what do you call a hundred thousand lawyers at the bottom of the ocean? A good start" A joke we've all heard.

Now, same joke 'What do you call a hundred thousand Jews at the bottom of the ocean? A good start.

Now which one is hate speech? Both? None? Should history be the only basis for whether jokes are permitted or not? What about who delivers it and why?

I'm not asking you to really answer me here, but it's worth thinking about. And I think platforms banning language simply will get it wrong. Human mods will get it wrong, computer mods will get it wrong.

Again, I'm going to go to the platforms where speech is allowed because of the nuance of humor, of conversation. And especially where personal experience is valid even when it appears biased or hateful.

Neither of those are the dictionary though, the definition on Merriam Webster says it's

>behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.

Oxford and dictionary.com have similar definitions

Both of your definitions seem to me like cherry picked overly broad legal definitions especially since they are both from legal sites and not dictionaries and one is on a page titled "Youth Violence"

Threatening a person, and marking them as the target for a mob harms someone. Harming people is violence

Reply on news.ycombinator.com