Comment by _fat_santa | Hacker News Reader

Comment by _fat_santa | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> 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?

> 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

The way this is typically framed is "impact matters more than intent". Like if you weren't watching where you were walking and accidentally stepped on someone's foot. You didn't _intend_ to harm them, but the overall _impact_ was that you did harm them.

As you rightly point out though, the elephant in the room is that impact in this context is not falsifiable. Unlike stepping on someone's foot where you could use instruments to measure how many capillaries were broken or if the bone is cracked, with words and feelings you can't actually empirically prove harm was done which is why I think enacting laws and policies that directly correlate with impact is a recipe for disaster...

IMO the best way to deal with impact has to be at the cultural level. "Hey, I find swear words offensive, can you stop?" "Oh sure, sorry about that, I won't swear around you". Bam, problem solved.

A society that transitions to: "Hey, I find swear words offensive, I'm going to report you to the psychological harm police" is one on the fast track to dystopia.

Hey, I find your comments offensive. Can you stop?

Hello I am Internet Officer Badge #762783.

Do you feel that user "clairity" harmed you? If so I will begin the paperwork for detainment and evaluation for reeducation by the Internet Feelings Agency (IFA).

Sounds like you have qualified immunity, and I am required to report, your status of legal superiority offends my sensibilities.

as happens so often, basketball provides a microcosm. fouls are called (and varying penalties assessed) for illegal moves that lead to an unfair advantage. implicit in that is that intent matters. many times, a foul isn’t assessed for an illegal maneuver because the intent to gain advantage wasn’t there (contact was happenstance) or no advantage was gained. however, some fouls are so dangerous (e.g., undercutting a shooter), that intent does not matter, and a foul is called even when done completely unintentionally.

as always, we have to consider the nuance and avoid overly broad statements/policies.

Uhm... Intent had nothing to do with a foul. The idea is the move is illegal because it can give you an advantage. It doesn't matter if you intend to or not. A lot of the fouls in basketball are not intentional. A common foul is attempting to block a shot and hitting the shooter's arm. No harm was intended, but a foul was called. About the only time intent matters in basketball is got a three point attempt.

that's completely missing the discretion refs have in calling fouls. if they didn't employ discretion, you'd have a foul every 5 seconds, rendering the game unwatchable/unplayable (e.g., the rule changes that the nba made this season). intent and (unfair) advantage are crucial to that discretion. again, nuance.

>IMO the best way to deal with impact has to be at the cultural level.

IMO the only reasonable way to deal with impact is to limit the law to purely physical impact. It should never be the business of any government to attempt to regulate, mandate, restrict or punish behavior based on the thought processes or feelings of anyone.

Not sure exactly how to quantify "physical impact", but in many US states, the crime of misdemeanor battery is defined as any "unwanted" contact, such that cases without any apparent physical harm become crimes based on thought processes and feelings of the aggrieved party.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com