|
craked5
|
 |
February 25, 2016, 01:36:50 PM |
|
Not so vast. We had some problem with a humorist who was clearly on the grey area here...
If I say "gays should be killed" it's easy to classify.
But if I'm a humorist, and I take a character who says "but gays should be killed, after all it's like a disease, and the horrible thing is that the more they are, the more they spread the disease" then what do you do?
It can be considered as humour yeah... But if the said humorist has some relationships with far right religious movements... And you know he's against gays... What do you do?
I'm not sure how that's humorous. It still sounds like it's someone trying to get someone else to kill members of another group. Change "gays" to "americans". You still ok with that? Should ISIS be allowed to peddle their propaganda in your streets? Edit: TBH I don't care about the legality of the thing, more the morality. Well maybe I'm not so funny :p Ok if you talk about morality it's easy, because you can consider each case as specific. But it's really hard to make a law about that! Because it's impossible to define a clear border between what's ok and what is not  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
According to NIST and ECRYPT II, the cryptographic algorithms used in
Bitcoin are expected to be strong until at least 2030. (After that, it
will not be too difficult to transition to different algorithms.)
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Snail2
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 1512
Merit: 1000
|
|
February 25, 2016, 01:37:37 PM |
|
It's pretty difficult to define what "hate speech" really is, it also depends on the circumstances. So in these days it's just a rubber category, used to keep certain taboos untouched, and suppress any uncomfortable truths.
|
|
|
|
|
organofcorti
Donator
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2058
Merit: 1007
Poor impulse control.
|
|
February 25, 2016, 01:39:30 PM |
|
It's pretty difficult to define what "hate speech" really is, it also depends on the circumstances. So in these days it's just a rubber category, used to keep certain taboos untouched, and suppress any uncomfortable truths.
If hate speech was legally defined as "incitement to murder" would you have a problem with that? It's clearly defined, no chance of rubberyness, slippery slope or being changed to suit governmental whim. |
|
|
|
|
craked5
|
|
February 25, 2016, 01:42:58 PM |
|
It's pretty difficult to define what "hate speech" really is, it also depends on the circumstances. So in these days it's just a rubber category, used to keep certain taboos untouched, and suppress any uncomfortable truths.
If hate speech was legally defined as "incitement to murder" would you have a problem with that? It's clearly defined, no chance of rubberyness, slippery slope or being changed to suit governmental whim. Of course there is always a problem! Again, what can be said under humourous speeches? I mena even myself sometimes I say things like "yeah we should kill all the blacks it would make more work". It's a joke nothing else. I don't mean it, it's just that in the conversation it was rather funny to say it. Should I go to jail? |
|
|
|
|
organofcorti
Donator
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2058
Merit: 1007
Poor impulse control.
|
|
February 25, 2016, 01:51:07 PM |
|
It's pretty difficult to define what "hate speech" really is, it also depends on the circumstances. So in these days it's just a rubber category, used to keep certain taboos untouched, and suppress any uncomfortable truths.
If hate speech was legally defined as "incitement to murder" would you have a problem with that? It's clearly defined, no chance of rubberyness, slippery slope or being changed to suit governmental whim. Of course there is always a problem! Again, what can be said under humourous speeches? I mena even myself sometimes I say things like "yeah we should kill all the blacks it would make more work". It's a joke nothing else. I don't mean it, it's just that in the conversation it was rather funny to say it. Should I go to jail? Sorry, maybe I'm missing the context but I'm just not seeing the humour there. Edit: plus as I mentioned earlier I'm not really concerned about the "legal" part, more about the "hate speech is free speech". |
|
|
|
Snail2
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1512
Merit: 1000
|
|
February 25, 2016, 02:30:32 PM |
|
It's pretty difficult to define what "hate speech" really is, it also depends on the circumstances. So in these days it's just a rubber category, used to keep certain taboos untouched, and suppress any uncomfortable truths.
If hate speech was legally defined as "incitement to murder" would you have a problem with that? It's clearly defined, no chance of rubberyness, slippery slope or being changed to suit governmental whim. Let's see what Wikipedia said about hate speech: "In law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group. The law may identify a protected group by certain characteristics." Is this something clearly defined? Well, I think according to the above definition with a little creativeness I can try to sue almost anybody for almost anything. If it would be defined as "incitement to murder" that's a clear thing, that's fine. I have no issue with the first part of this "definition". Problems starting here: "or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group". |
|
|
|
|
|
xslugx
|
|
February 25, 2016, 02:35:09 PM |
|
It's pretty difficult to define what "hate speech" really is, it also depends on the circumstances. So in these days it's just a rubber category, used to keep certain taboos untouched, and suppress any uncomfortable truths.
If hate speech was legally defined as "incitement to murder" would you have a problem with that? It's clearly defined, no chance of rubberyness, slippery slope or being changed to suit governmental whim. Let's see what Wikipedia said about hate speech: "In law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group. The law may identify a protected group by certain characteristics." Is this something clearly defined? Well, I think according to the above definition with a little creativeness I can try to sue almost anybody for almost anything. If it would be defined as "incitement to murder" that's a clear thing, that's fine. I have no issue with the first part of this "definition". Problems starting here: "or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group". It's impossible to define precisely such a complex notion :/ That's why the "law" aspect is extremely complicated!!! |
|
|
|
Snail2
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1512
Merit: 1000
|
|
February 25, 2016, 02:39:39 PM |
|
It's impossible to define precisely such a complex notion :/
That's why the "law" aspect is extremely complicated!!!
Indeed, and that's why anybody can use it for silencing opposition, or suppressing discussions about taboo topics. |
|
|
|
|
|
