Hacker News Reader

Comment by AnimalMuppet | Hacker News Reader

Hmm. My initial reaction was a temptation to write insults about the people who created this rule. But it turns out to be in response to cyberbullying, which has driven some people to suicide. (Japan is a "face" culture, which may make cyberbullying worse.)

So now I'm conflicted. I'm in favor of free speech, but I'm absolutely not in favor of bullying.

But this isn't the clearly stupid idea that I thought it was.

View on HN

The major problem with such laws is how vague they are. Exactly what constitutes an insult? Such laws open the door for it to be interpreted in such ways that it becomes a convenient tool for censorship, can be used to block justifiable criticism, or prevent legitimate critiques.

Bullying is usually more than just mere insults, but persistent targeting and harassment of a person. A lot of time politicians jump on the bandwagon of what appears to be popular versus carefully thinking through the full ramifications of what they have proposed. At least enough common sense was present to allow it to be re-examined after 3 years, but sometimes once Pandora's box is opened, there is no going back.

Individuals that are psychologically well formed are totally armored against something as innocuous as verbal insults. Loosing Freedom of Speech for any reason, is, in practice, relinquishing to freedom of thought, hence a macrosocietal welcoming of totalitarianism.

Care about suicides? Make scientific studies and develop techniques to mass educate about compensating that issue in the individual level.

Individuals that are psychologically well formed don't feel the need to make verbal insults. Taking away their freedom of speech is inconsequential.

Those who care about free speech should make studies and develop techniques to mass educate those about compensating that issue at the individual level.

Do you believe in the scientific method?

Just state how your conclusion follows from your premises. I know about Schopenhauer's stratagems.

I don't remember Schopenhauer's stratagems it's just that I'm not feeling like investing in the communication that anti-realists, socio-constructivists and any of these cognitive frauds pretend to offer. So I ask beforehand to filter and save everybody's time.

Same, I don't feel like communicating with people who pretend to not understand their participation in the reification of social objects.

Happy to reify our mutual understanding with an upvote :)

I see some downsides to the normalization of insults, abuse, slander etc.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/06/13/smithsbur...

Would an acceptable compromise be to allow insults but to punish people responsible for suicides?

I understand the desire to prevent bullying, but I don't think someone should go to prison for saying "I don't like your shoes".

> Would an acceptable compromise be to allow insults but to punish people responsible for suicides?

I worry that could increase the rate of suicides. Consider the following train of thought: "If I kill myself, the government might go after those who have been bullying me". Especially if the laws have teeth, the government would be giving those with suicidal tendencies an additional reason to follow through.

You're right, that's a risk, but one could equally hypothesise that by punishing a bully the first time they cause a suicide, you prevent them from causing more (or deter them from causing one in the first place), leading to a net saving of lives.

Some might say that if someone is prepared to kill themselves to get revenge against their bullies, then such a spiteful person doesn't deserve to veto laws that could protect less spiteful people, but I think that would be a little too unsympathetic.

Free speech isn't absolute, even where many inanely view it as sacrosanct and absolute: in "The land of the free and the home of the brave." (The USA).

The classic example of forbidden speech, which I presume is still taught in law schools in the USA, is a man who falsely cries "Fire! Fire!! Fire!!!" in crowded theater thereby leading to people dying in a stampede for the exits.

Slander is another obvious example of forbidden speech.

What was the stupid idea? The stupid idea was that free speech should be absolute. It wasn't, isn't, and mustn't be absolute.

Want to criticize the government for raising taxes? Sure, go ahead. Want to falsely accuse your neighbor of being a murderer. Ummmmm. Not so much. Cyberbullying? Nope. That mustn't be allowed either.

What's that? Oh, I see. You have a concern. Let's hear it. "But, but, but... who is going to decide??? Surely, not a human being. After all, humans are fallible!!!" Attention all nerds. I repeat: attention all nerds, there's no computer algorithm nor 100% perfect solution here on Earth. In your Utopia on Mars which you will surely build in a few years, alongside your demi-god Elon Musk, that's where all of your unrealistic, untenable, and nonsensical fantasies will become manifest./s (Sarcasm).

Here on Earth we need to content ourselves with just laws and good judges.

Fire! Fire!! Fire!!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z2uzEM0ugY

Reply on news.ycombinator.com