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...
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.
Psychological harm smells to me a lot like "bite mark analysis" which it took quite a long while for us to undo in the United States. It also put countless people in prison for crimes they didn't commit.
That's not how the game works, we don't collectively do anything, the powerful come up with the definition.
Just wait for a powerful person to take criticism and be able to jail the person because of "psychological harm."
Point being, this is a law that helps the powerful imprison people who criticize them disguised as a way to stop people from hurting other people's feelings. It won't be the sole purpose, I'm sure regular people can get people imprisoned who criticize them as well, but once the law is there, powerful people will use it to stifle criticism.
Is this really a good idea?
It's also has the "I know it when I see it," aura to it.
I assumed you were trying to say that since the law would be created "democratically," it was either just or can't be corrupted. In response, I explained how the democratic process works in the US, trying to say that just because we have a democratic process, that doesn't necessarily mean the people we elect to represent us do it in good faith. They represent the corporate interests who funded their war chest first and foremost and the citizenry who elected them incidentally. Democracy as currently in practice is very different from democracy in theory. I love the theory.
Let me try to make a bad analogy. Say you are in a union and it's time to vote for your union rep. There are 4 candidates and they are all mid and high level managers. Yes, they would be democratically elected, but the choice is limited to people who have a serious conflict of interest. It's unlikely you would be represented in good faith. Because of this, any law proposed we should be highly skeptical of as it likely isn't in our best interest but more in the best interest of "management," i.e. corporate interests.
>Are you making a different complaint about the democratic process? That's fine for you to do, but that seems to be unrelated to the topic.
See above.
So collectively, as a single voice, I think our politicians are using this as a way to censor the population and I collectively, as a single voice do not in any way support it. If people don't want to get their feelings hurt, they shouldn't go on Twitter or Facebook or talk to people in any way; otherwise, people probably have to get accustomed to getting their feelings hurt sometimes. It sucks, because nobody likes getting their feelings hurt, but the alternative is way worse.
Separate definitions or together. Just give it a shot.
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.
So like "Eat the rich?" or is it more like "I hope antivaxxers actually get covid"? Does "Fuck you" count?
This was far from a universal sentiment because many world governments want no part of a system where the governed can object to the governance. Worse, understanding of the idea, which requires a certain level of specific historical education, has diminished greatly in recent years. Worse still is the active attack on the idea by those that stand to gain from creating yet another power structure.
That's not to say that Twitter, for example, shouldn't moderate it. But woe to us if some committee ("tribunal?") in Congress be given that power.
jails you for trolling
This isn't a hard concept. I don't willingly walk into a mine field, but some people do. I'd totally accompany them if I also had any of the dozens of mine detecting, or detonating tools, vehicles.
You may have a moral obligation to stop people from being hurt, but you have no moral obligation to stop people who willingly choose to be hurt, or accept the risk it.
You are in control of the media you consume online. If you don't like the online community standards, leave and block that community. Or develop the equivalent of mine detection or explosive resistance coping mechanisms for verbal for visual abuse. Before you walk into the communities that permit hostility.
Were they wrong? Yes, as an adult I've found that words can actually be quite hurtful. But usually from people I already know.
Strangers? I don't think strangers can hurt with words, they are strangers after all, unless they get your real identity. I think a lot of the problem people have with "trolling" is actually caused by self-doxing. When one person is anonymous and another person is under their real name, it creates a power imbalance.
Realistically, people can post on the internet from 200-odd jurisdictions, this is not something that the law could or should be preventing.
The words in fact can hurt and always did. Men used to kill each other over who said what. Words can damage reputations and make other kids mistreat the victim too.
It is easier to say the above sentence then to deal with kids verbally abuse others. It is easier to tell the victim to shut up then to teach the victim to defend himself, to undo damage to their self confidence and so on.
Insist that there is a fault with the results of education?!
> that we can solve?
How?