Japan Makes 'Online Insults' Punishable By One Year (cnn.com) 302
Japan's parliament has passed legislation making "online insults" punishable by imprisonment amid rising public concern over cyberbullying sparked by the suicide of a reality television star who had faced social media abuse. From a report: Under the amendment to the country's penal code -- set to take effect later this summer -- offenders convicted of online insults can be jailed for up to one year, or fined 300,000 yen (about $2,200). It's a significant increase from the existing punishments of detention for fewer than 30 days and a fine of up to 10,000 yen ($75). The bill proved controversial in the country, with opponents arguing it could impede free speech and criticism of those in power. However, supporters said the tougher legislation was needed to crack down on cyberbullying and online harassment. It was only passed after a provision was added, ordering the law be re-examined three years after it goes into effect to gauge its impact on freedom of expression.
Under Japan's penal code, insults are defined as publicly demeaning someone's social standing without referring to specific facts about them or a specific action, according to a spokesperson from the Ministry of Justice. The crime is different to defamation, defined as publicly demeaning someone while pointing to specific facts. Both are punishable under the law.
Under Japan's penal code, insults are defined as publicly demeaning someone's social standing without referring to specific facts about them or a specific action, according to a spokesperson from the Ministry of Justice. The crime is different to defamation, defined as publicly demeaning someone while pointing to specific facts. Both are punishable under the law.
Just need to evolve your insults a bit (Score:2, Funny)
Under Japan's penal code, insults are defined as publicly demeaning someone's social standing
So you can still say "you're a pig fucker but you do have high social standing".
[Your brain fart here!] (Score:2)
As regards the story, I'm surprised it didn't get a mention in the local news. But this is not the place for the comment... This thread is troll territory.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Nope. You just impugned the social standing of the pig.
BTW: has anyone else noticed that it's been an AWFUL past few years for free speech?
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. You just impugned the social standing of the pig.
BTW: has anyone else noticed that it's been an AWFUL past few years for free speech?
Years? Try existence since time? Free speech seems to be for those who can back it up with money and power. But I guess keep living under the illusion so you feel better at night.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Crazy people screaming all manner of nonsense and lies into the internet megaphone
If you don't like what you see and hear on the Internet, there is a simple solution: Close your browser and go outside.
Re:Just need to evolve your insults a bit (Score:4)
Nope. You just impugned the social standing of the pig.
BTW: has anyone else noticed that it's been an AWFUL past few years for free speech?
Ever notice that a whole lot of countries don't have a concept of free speech?
Re:Just need to evolve your insults a bit (Score:5, Insightful)
I am glad you found your scapegoat (Russia), we are doing this to ourselves. With cherry picked evidence and the hurting feelings are just as bad as physical harm. We have run out of real things to fear, like starvation, and war so we just raise the outrage level on thing like feelings getting hurt. And when even the specter of are real threat looms like disease society totally freaks out.
Politicians and the media need to get a grip on reality.
Re: (Score:2)
I am glad you found your scapegoat (Russia), we are doing this to ourselves. With cherry picked evidence and the hurting feelings are just as bad as physical harm. We have run out of real things to fear, like starvation, and war so we just raise the outrage level on thing like feelings getting hurt. And when even the specter of are real threat looms like disease society totally freaks out.
Politicians and the media need to get a grip on reality.
I hade no idea that I was a Japanese citizen. To think that they completely ignore their first Amendment to the US constitution - goddamned unpatriotic people anyhow.
Re:Just need to evolve your insults a bit (Score:5, Insightful)
How am I suppose to know what will trigger a random stranger? How you feel is not my problem. Unless I am completely making up lies about you or writing lies about you, then you have laws already on the books for that.
Also, why do you care what other people think about you? Especially strangers. You do not give people that do not matter power of your emotional state.
If I call you a big stupid loser incel that needs to put the donut down and get on a treadmill, you should honestly ignore me or maybe just tell me to go fuck myself. Letting me, a random nobody, upset you over a stated opinion is quite silly and definitely should never have legal consequences.
Now if someone is repeating doing this over and over. That's harassment and there are also laws covering that already as well.
People really need to grow a thicker skin.
P.S. I'm not calling you anything just explaining a scenario.
Re: (Score:2)
"I can't tell you what you are because you ain't worth the jail time"
Think of the children! (Score:5, Insightful)
However, supporters said the tougher legislation was needed to crack down on cyberbullying and online harassment
This is how it pretty much starts right? Someone does something to 'protect children' and it just starts snowballing.
I give it less than a year before someone uses this for something nefarious and not within the spirit of the law.
Not like it is going to stop the bullying. Not unless they are going to go after 1000's of parents.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Not like it is going to stop the bullying. Not unless they are going to go after 1000's of parents.
It won't stop bullying ever. Somehow, in the feminization of cultures, children are not being taught how to handle bullying.
Protecting them from it, trying to make it illegal somehow, won't fix the issue.
Because once they get out into the real world, we find out there are many bullies. In the workplace, in real life, and there is nothing sadder than a faux adult who is impotent against any bullying.
Re: (Score:3)
I agree, children need to be taught the emotional intelligence necessary to cope with bullying. That, however, does not excuse the bully. Such behavior is still toxic and should still be punishable.
I feel the same way about self-defense. People should be taught it, and perpetrators of assault should still be punished.
Re:Think of the children! (Score:4, Interesting)
Now a days, my advice would likely get the kid being bullied expelled. Sad sad sad.
That's what happened to me. I was bullied relentlessly, then I finally fought back and kicked a kid's ass, and then they expelled me. The kid who attacked me didn't get in trouble.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The reason they can't buy guns in Japan is because they were on the Nazi team during WW2.
Guns are not outlawed in Japan although they might as well be given all the hoops one has to go thru to own one.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow...just...wow. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm thankful for this after seeing Japan shut down speech effectively here...and just a week or so ago, Canada effectively banning handguns.
It shows we need to always fight for our rights here, as we see how lucky we are to have them enshrined in our Constitution.
Once you lost a right, you don't get it back.
We've seen politicians advocating to squelch #1 and #2 in the US....we need to be ever vigilant watching over what OUR elected officials are trying to do that affect our rights.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
You are also wrong. We gave up the right to drink legally, and got that right back a decade later.
Amending the Constitution (Score:3, Insightful)
We can get rid of any Amendment — or original part of the Constitution. But it must be done by amending the Constitution [archives.gov] — not sidestepping it with laws, that turn a right into a privilege
Perfect illustration — both the ban on alcohol and the dropping of it were Constitutional Amendments [jackmillercenter.org].
Sadly, our overlords — perhaps not so certain about the consent of the governed [wikipedia.org] — decided to
Re: (Score:2)
Well that certainly isnt true at all, our constitution can most certainly take away rights. Just take the fact that we had slavery written into our constitution when our country was founded.
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of people misunderstand the three-fifths compromise clause. What we had was a specific provision to LIMIT the power of slave-holding states by ensuring they couldn't use their slaves to increase representation in Congress. It was essentially an oblique admission that slavery existed, but certainly did not enshrine, protect, or promote it.
In fact, the original Constitution's authors took great pains to avoid referencing slavery or the slave trade explicitly, or the terms "black" or "negros". They we
Re: (Score:3)
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
And now you have 16% of all the imprisoned people in the world. Nice.
Re: (Score:2)
1. To protect yourself from others who are pro-gun
2. Hunting.
Re: (Score:2)
The only people who make hunting related pro-gun arguments are anti-gun people.
LK
Re: (Score:2)
That's true, in fact it doesn't even mention hunters, it only mentions militias. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to support militias in place of a standing army, [washingtonpost.com] to defend the homeland against enemies both foreign and domestic. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
The 2nd amendment isn't there JUST for hunters.
Indeed, it's there to protect you from the British and we are still there just watching and waiting...
Re:Wow...just...wow. (Score:5, Informative)
You're close...they were actually promoting that the common man should be able to have the same level of arms as the current armies at the time.
I think it was Jefferson or one of the founding fathers (I need to look this up later) when asked if they meant people could have things like canons, he said, "of course".
Hell, even today, you can own canons.
But back in the day when the most advanced arm was a flintlock, that's what everyone could own.
Today's firearms have progressed, and therefore to keep everyone on level field, we all have access to similar firearms.
If police and bodyguards have access to all the modern weaponry to protect themselves and others...why shouldn't I have the same access to protect myself and my family?
Re: (Score:3)
It should be noted that during the War of 1812, there were quite a few privately owned armed ships sailing the seas (privateers, they were called if they bothered to get a Letter of "Marque and Reprisal", pirate otherwise). So, yes, owning a cannon (or more than one) was allowed by the Constitution.
Re: (Score:2)
I know I don't feel safe without my tactical nuke on the bedside table next to me at night.
Re: (Score:2)
Today's firearms have progressed, and therefore to keep everyone on level field, we all have access to similar firearms.
If police and bodyguards have access to all the modern weaponry to protect themselves and others...why shouldn't I have the same access to protect myself and my family?
Why are you constantly in fear? Continuing your logic I should have access fragmentation grenades and anti aircraft missiles.
Re: (Score:2)
He isn't living in fear, as he's not the one clamouring to ban things. And we do have access to grenades and other destructive devices, provided you can pass a background check and pay the $200 no-poors-allowed tax. You can even legally build your own.
Re: (Score:2)
A simple look around at every single other first world country will show you that you not only have no need for the weapons you advocate for but that they're actually making our country far less safe https://worldpopulationreview.... [worldpopul...review.com] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] .
Re: (Score:2)
why shouldn't I have the same access to protect myself and my family?
Because that's a total joke. If you think you're capable of "protecting" yourself from even just the police, let alone the federal government, with your little arsenal then you're completely delusional. It's also an established fact that a gun in the home makes the occupants less safe, not more safe.
Scaling up is just as absurd. Let anyone who wants a tactical nuke own one and the world will end before lunch.
Besides, if you really want to protect your family, you just need fewer doors, right?
Re:Wow...just...wow. (Score:5, Insightful)
Ok, the government has nukes and cruise missiles, shouldn't I be allowed it too? It's only fair.
Re: (Score:3)
...why shouldn't I have the same access to protect myself and my family?
Who are you protecting your family from? Is the place you live so violent that you need to shoot people?
Where I live, things are quite civilised, and I have never needed a gun to defend my family.
It sounds like the place you live in is awful.
Re:Wow...just...wow. (Score:4, Insightful)
I feel bad that you're that frightened of your neighbours.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The cops, who now have actual surplus military equipment like armored vehicles, are not up to the job of keeping him alive. Forces of evil lurk around every corner and they are specifically after him. Hence his need for arms like cannon and fragmentation grenades. Where can he get anti-persona
Re: (Score:2)
Not "Americans", just a very stupid minority that our very stupid anti-democratic system keeps in power.
Re: (Score:2)
It says what it says. Fortunately there's a process to update it if enough people want to.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
Note that, when the Constitution was written, "well regulated" was pretty much synonymous with "well trained".
Note also that the "militia" was ALL adult males (yeah, they were sexist that way - assumed that women couldn't (or perhaps shouldn't fight).
The intent, by the by, was to eliminate the need for a large standing army. Which, by the by, we managed to avoid (a large standing army) except during wartime up to WW2....
Re:Wow...just...wow. (Score:4, Informative)
Ok pal, using that logic are you also ok with freedom of the press being literal 1790's era printing presses. radio, television, e-mail, electronic encryption all open season for government control and abridgement. Do you see how dumb that particular line of reasoning is?
Re: (Score:2)
The government already controls electronic communications. Say a dirty word on the radio or tv and watch what happens.
Re: (Score:2)
Do keep in mind that the "period correct weapons" were bleeding edge for the time. And quite a bit more lethal than a 5.56mm is. Think shotgun shooting a 12ga slug (which, while relatively short-ranged, was generally a one-shot kill) is FAR more deadly than 5.56mm (which, when all is said and done, is a glorified .22).
Re:Wow...just...wow. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Already illegal...much like slander/libel are against the law.
You can say "I Hate xyz".
You can say I wish xyzzy was dead or something bad would happen to them. As horrible as this is, it isn't illegal to express your views of bad things happening to people.
But if you say "I'm going to kill"...or directly incite people to do harm to someone, then you've crossed the line and that is investigable to be
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
All rights have restrictions, such as when your rights infringe upon those of others. Even in the US, and upheld by SCOTUS, there are limits to free speech. We have libel and slander laws in the US.
Re: (Score:2)
And you listed two things that directly harm other people.
By that standard, it is also already illegal to use a gun to shoot people outside of the need for self defense.
Re: (Score:2)
I've never heard of someone having a bad day and killing someone with speech.
Never heard of Emmett Till or Conrad Roy?
Re: (Score:2)
Sure... but what about related requirements that you claim are in violation of your rights despite not preventing you from owning a firearm?
For example:
* mandatory registration of all firearms in a searchable database
That's one of the really bad "solutions".
1. If it's publicly searchable, it will help put guns in the hands of criminals, because they'll know where they all are to steal.
2. Even if it's not, it *will* be leaked eventually, then GOTO 1
3. Have another hurricane Katrina where the police decide to illegally collect firearms, now they know exactly what people have, so they can more efficiently do their dirty work (and you know you'll never see them again, or get compensated for them).
4. Russia steals Ukraine's
Re: (Score:3)
1. Why would you think it would be publicly searchable? that's just dumb.
2. No, not really. There are plenty of secure databases.
3. I don't see how this would change anything.
4. This is about the US.
Your concerns are noted but they are also idiotic.
Re: (Score:2)
All rights have restrictions, such as when your rights infringe upon those of others. Even in the US, and upheld by SCOTUS, there are limits to free speech. We have libel and slander laws in the US.
I disagree with the premise there are limits to free speech. Speech is often confused with action in a bid to justify censorship.
Telling your buddies to help you rob a bank has got as much to do with speech as slander. Freedom of speech isn't the freedom to conduct whatever activity one damn well pleases.
https://billofrightsinstitute.... [billofrigh...titute.org]
Re: (Score:2)
They are probably one of those wackos that doesn't want to get a call informing them that someone murdered their child at school. /s
Re: (Score:2)
You don't have to add the sarcasm tag. I am quite certain he doesn't want children murdered.
Re: (Score:2)
I am not limiting them, but they are naturally limited. You cannot hurt others by expressing your rights, because that infringes their rights. The only way to have absolute unlimited rights is to live by yourself isolated from the rest of the world. But no one is in that situation. So you have a right to own a gun, but you don't have the right to shoot your neighbor, or to shoot in a random direction, and you don't even have the right to self defense by shooting someone if there is an alternative (ie, h
Re: (Score:2)
It's not that rights are unlimited, you are correct on that point. We agree that there are limits to rights.
The worrisome thing is that when someone is trying to limit fundamental rights, your gut reaction was to say, "yeah, this is ok." That is a problem. I would hope your gut reaction would be, "we need to be careful about this" or something similar.
Getting rights back (Score:5, Informative)
"Once you lost a right, you don't get it back."
I don't think that's true. Prohibition comes to mind.
Re: (Score:3)
I doubt he will allow factual information get in the way of his narrative.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think that's true. Prohibition comes to mind.
I have a better one: Ever considered why these rights that are held so high were "amendments" to the constitution? You can ponder what rights you had prior to them and then question if it's really the case that a right now had cannot be gained.
Re: (Score:2)
"only came back because" doesn't in any way change the fact that it came back. It was taken away, and restored - in relatively short order, mind you.
It's the exception that invalidates your rule. And I'm pretty sure if I start digging I'll find other examples.
Re: (Score:2)
Not very many countries have the equivalent of the US's 1st Amendment. The right to free speech and religion, even in open and free democracies, is not quite to the same degree as it is in the US. There are a lot of positive qualities to the culture and laws in the US. Not only do we have free speech. We have the ability to formally file grievances with the government, corporations, or individuals and a good but not perfect system to ensure impartial judgement.
We don't have much right to protest in practice
Re:Wow...just...wow. (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, too..something in the past decade or two has fundamentally changed with citizens in the US.
Somewhere along the line in the past 2 or so generations, the value and respect for a human life was lost.
I mean, think about it.
We've had the AR-15 for a bit over 40 years I believe. And you didn't have people using them willy nilly to shoot people in random mass shootings until really recently years.
Also, prior to the Brady bill, there was NO background check for buying any weapons. And weapons were sold almost anywhere...hardware stores, I think I even saw an older gun at a show that had originally been sold at a Western Auto store.
Hell, before the Hughes amendment in the 80's, you could still readily buy any newly built full auto machine gun in the US.
Yep, of course due to the NFA, for full auto, you had to fill out the forms, fingerprints, $200 tax stamp, but any modern full auto offered for sale at the time you could freely purchase.
And you didn't really hear of any mass shootings back then did you?
And just for those that don't know...today you can STILL buy a full auto machine gun (which is NOT an AR-15)..but after the Hughs Amendment, no civillian can own any full auto weapon made after 1986...so, all that's out there legal are limited, and old and very $$$.
But anyway, prior to just say 1986...weapons, POWERFUL weapons, semi-auto weapons were much more freely available...yet, you rarely heard of whackos shooting places up.
Hell, back in highschool when I was there, kids fought, and it was with fists.
Oh sure, the occasional knife might show up, but if it did, it was BIG news...and didn't happen often.
But we had plenty of powerful weapons, yet, people didn't just fly off the handle and use them against other people.
So..what changed in our people?
Hell, in my High School parking lot, especially during deer season, you'd see rows of trucks with gun racks visible in the cab with guns, and no one got upset, scared or shot.
So, what changed with people?
Re: (Score:2)
When I was in high school, students were allowed to bring guns during hunting season, but they had to be left in the car. Nobody got shot.
So, what changed with people?
I blame the news media for glorifying those who commit violence.
I'll bet you can remember the names of all the mass school shooters.
And that's why they do it.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Somewhere along the line in the past 2 or so generations, the value and respect for a human life was lost.
I think people have collectively had their head in the sand. The University of Texas tower shooting in 1966 should have been a wake up call. We as a society could have acknowledged the thousands of other shootings since then. Police departments have had over 50 years to prepare procedures and processes to handle the situations of lone gunmen. State and Federal legislators could have worked out some reasonable laws to protect the public from the crisis we are currently neck deep in. Negligence on all sides o
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
So, what changed with people?
Guns becoming a fetish and one particular news network feeding unstable people doses of fear.
They would enact gun control tomorrow if large groups of BLM protestors started to open carry. It already happened as per my signature.
Canada has plenty of guns in circulation and no mass shooting problem, as does every other country. It seems to be unique to the USA.
Re:Wow...just...wow. (Score:5, Informative)
no one would care one wit if Black people began open carrying, as long as they follow the same laws as everyone else.
The Mulford Act was a 1967 California bill that prohibited public carrying of loaded firearms without a permit.[2] Named after Republican assemblyman Don Mulford, and signed into law by governor of California Ronald Reagan, the bill was crafted with the goal of disarming members of the Black Panther Party who were conducting armed patrols of Oakland neighborhoods, in what would later be termed copwatching.[3][4] They garnered national attention after Black Panthers members, bearing arms, marched upon the California State Capitol to protest the bill,
White people open carry and enter buildings where firearms are prohibited and nothing happens.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and... [vox.com]
Re:Wow...just...wow. (Score:4, Insightful)
So, what changed with people?
It's a painfully difficult question to answer. There are probably many answers. I could see people trying to make a mark in an increasingly indifferent world. Mix that in with mental illness and copycat crimes and this could be one cause.
Growing up, I had a healthy respect for guns, but I never feared them. I knew that if they were mishandled, they were dangerous, like a skill saw. We stopped looking at guns as tools and starting viewing them as weapons of chaos. Hell, we could take guns away and end up with a pipe-bomb epidemic. We already see vehicles being used as weapons more and more, and killing larger and larger groups of people.
What is causing the mental illness? Do we emphasize the wrong traits in our society? Is media to blame for glorifying guns in movies, or are the citizens to blame because we consume that media and ask for more?
The destruction of the family is still my #1 guess, but it's still just a guess.
Re: (Score:2)
So, what changed with people?
People got stupid. That is people who post claims on forums that mass shootings didn't exist until recently got stupid. The 1920s was an especially bad period.
But you're not interested in history which goes against your narrative.
Re: (Score:2)
1. "Stand Your Ground" laws (since 1994) made guns more..."useful"...for self-protection, just as eliminating pilot's licenses and expensive mandatory scheduled maintenance would make helicopters more useful for commuting (yay!).
2. The assault weapons ban expired (2004), and now there are more than twice as many assault weapons in circulation [businessinsider.com].
3. SCOTUS (2008) forced all states to recognize that gun ownership is an individual right rather than a collective one even though the me
Re: (Score:2)
Fox News, shock jocks and the gradual reduction of censored speech by the government to the point that lies and hate are free to be spewed by even licensed broadcasters.
So I have a rather unpleasant theory about that (Score:2)
Around the 1970s we seem to stop allowing random acts of violence against outgroups. See bloodlust is a thing. Some people really just want to kill somebody. And for a long time there were socially acceptable ways for them to do that. Increa
Re: (Score:2)
So, what changed with people?
The Internet made it much easier to bully people emotionally risk-free for a long time, until they go over the edge and lash out. Back in the day, you'd eventually get punched in the face.
The news reporting endlessly on the incidents that happen, and making the perpetrators (in)famous have taught mentally ill people that need attention that there's a nice, easy way to MAKE people pay attention to them.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would I need a handgun in Canada?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Some people suffer from constant fear and a handgun has a psychologically boosting effect. So basically, cowardice.
Re: (Score:3)
Once you lost a right, you don't get it back.
That would be a net benefit for all. The USA has shown itself to be largely too incompetent to manage some of its rights.
Hint: Japan, Australia, Germany, countries without free speech and without unimpeded access to weapons of war are doing just fine on every front. Hell in many ways they are significantly better than the USA.
Re: (Score:2)
If you've got something to say to someone... (Score:2)
... say it to their face.
I'm not entirely sure I completely agree with this stance, as it's wide open to interpretation and abuse, but there's some mileage here.
I guess it depends if the insult was so public that it caused extreme grief to the recipient.
Sure, if it's some forum with 100 people, suck it down.
But if it's like Twitter and the person handing out the insult has thousands of followers? - that's a different matter.
These events can get real ugly, real quick.
People can be targeted again and again by
NHK didn't mention it? (Score:2)
Maybe I'm not watching enough NHK, but I'm surprised the link is to CNN. No mention of this story on NHK that I'd heard yet.
NHK World actually has frequent (hourly?) fillers about stopping bullying, though mostly in the schools rather than online. I think they run for about one or two minutes just at the end of the hour. They have a few minutes of news to start every hour. https://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworl... [nhk.or.jp] has a link to the live feed.
As regards the story, it sounds stupid enough to be true. I still think th
Re: (Score:2)
s/the solution is/the kind of solution that might work would be/
s/justifies is/justifies it/
"You must be tired..." Very common Japanese expression to that effect.
Insult (Score:5, Insightful)
To some people, saying you disagree with them is an insult, because by disagreeing you are implying they are stupid. For example, denying their God is real or that their country is number one in everything. This law is very scary, the only people who will benefit from this law are authoritarians. Oops now I can be arrested by the Japanese police because I said I was afraid of them, which implies they can do things that make me scared.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
it is a right, there are only serten limitations on free speech in the US thanks to many years of jurisprudence Incitement: As determined by the imminent lawless action test introduced by the 1969 Supreme Court decision in the case Brandenburg v. Ohio Fighting words: 1942 "Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting" words â" those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.
A lot has changed since then...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
The law doesn't care about individual opinions, it only cares about what the courts decide. People can complain about their feelings or their religion all they want, it won't get anywhere. This law already exists and has been tried in courts. The only thing which changed is the punishment.
Oops now I can be arrested by the Japanese police because I said I was afraid of them
Police can arrest you for a lot of things. The question is will you get tried under the law, and the answer is no, because the legal system doesn't work the way it does in your strange fever dream.
A Japanese-American history lesson (Score:5, Funny)
The teacher is discussing U.S. presidents.
"Who gave the Gettysburg Address?" she asked the class.
Immediately a hand shot up belonging to a female Japanese foreign exchange student.
"Yes?" the teacher asked.
"Abraham Lincoln! 1863!" replied the girl proudly.
"That's correct," said the teacher, "Now can anyone tell me who wrote the Declaration of Independence?"
Again the Japanese girl's hand shot up. This time the teacher waited to see if anyone else knew the answer, but no one came forward. She called on the foreign exchange student again.
"Thomas Jefferson! 1776!" said the girl proudly once again.
The teacher addressed the rest of class and said "You should all be ashamed of yourselves. This little girl has been in the country for less than a month and she knows more about your history than you do."
The class grumbled and mumbled. Suddenly, from the back of the room someone shouted, "Screw the Japs!"
The teacher, now flustered and angry, responded, "Who said that?! I demand to know who said that!"
The Japanese girl couldn't contain her excitement. "Harry S Truman! 1945!"
I'm sorry... what the heck? (Score:2)
This could go wrong in so many ways, I can't even count them all. And they already know that, too! To even pass it, they had to add a provision to "re-examine the law" later, to decide exactly how badly they've screwed the pooch? Seriously? So what happens when the re-examine it? Who decides exactly how bad the ills of society have to get in order to pull this law from the books? And how do they decide just how much influence this law has had on all of that?
Also... having contemplated all the drama that's w
Touchy subject... (Score:2)
Freedom of speech is an admirable goal, and if we could all act as civilized people we could adopt it fairly easily. But large swathes of humanity prove themselves unable to handle it every single day.
"Under Japan's penal code, insults are defined as publicly demeaning someone's social standing without referring to specific facts about them or a specific action, according to a spokesperson from the Ministry of Justice."
How hard is that? It's just, "put up or shut up", which I like.
"There needs to be a guid
Re: (Score:2)
Freedom of speech is an admirable goal, and if we could all act as civilized people we could adopt it fairly easily. But large swathes of humanity prove themselves unable to handle it every single day.
The only thing I'm absolutely certain humanity has proven itself unable to handle is power. Aggregating power into the hands of the few (e.g. censorship) has proven to be a particularly corrupting perilous endeavor throughout human history.
"Under Japan's penal code, insults are defined as publicly demeaning someone's social standing without referring to specific facts about them or a specific action, according to a spokesperson from the Ministry of Justice."
How hard is that? It's just, "put up or shut up", which I like.
Laws are not about what one personally likes or dislike. They are about the state exercising its monopoly on use of violence.
"There needs to be a guideline that makes a distinction on what qualifies as an insult," Cho said. "For example, at the moment, even if someone calls the leader of Japan an idiot, then maybe under the revised law that could be classed as an insult."
I love that this is an example of something that might be considered an insult.
I think it's idiotic. One should not be required by law to objectively justify their thoughts and opinions which may not even have an objective
There are infinite "Your mom" jokes (Score:2)
All of them are technically insults but not really insults. No one has ever taken a "Your mom...hey-oh!" joke seriously.
Your mother was a hamster (Score:2)
Don't Go Full Retard (Score:2)
"Cyberbullying" isn't a real thing. It's not a thing that exists. You don't have any entitlement or obligation to be part of an online community, so like
Re: (Score:3)
Many people these days may interact regularly with their friends (IRL friends and online acquaintances) in various social media platforms that they all use.
So it may indeed be considered a right to not be harassed on such a platform, especially if the harassment goes over legal lines of reasonable laws.
It would be unjust to force someone to give up their convenient means of social interaction with their friends, to accommodate bullies.
Your proposed solution is thus simplistic and m
Re: (Score:2)
Enjoy that 1 year in jail
Re:Ya? Fuck them (Score:4, Interesting)
His point was, it's nothing personal. It's just business. In regards to the supposed insult, eh, so what. Look at all those "big dick" guys getting arrested [thehamdenjournal.com].