Ministry of Truth?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-11-2022, 04:42 PM)Dill Wrote: To the bolded, I'm not sure that, outside of Fox Nation, ANY of the thousands of Trump's dis-informative statements ended up having "far more truth."

One sentence in and we're already having a semantic argument.  Not a good sign.  

Quote:And accurately labeling them "crackpot" has not at all had effect you claim for it, and couldn't even if it came from some government "ministry of truth." The Steele dossier may be your strongest example, and yet it is still rather weak, as many of its points/allegations are still credible.

And many that were not.  I didn't know your standard for a story would be that it's not entirely a lie, just some of it.

Quote:I am still unaware that "the Hilary camp" spied on Trump in the WH. Fox and at least 8 other RW news sources were trumpeting that "breaking news" some weeks back--"bigger than Watergate"--then went silent.

So, you've never heard of Michael Sussman?  He was indisputably part of the "Hillary camp."

Quote:Just not good or effective to use Trump as an example of someone falsely accused of spreading disinformation,

Except he was falsely accused of spreading disinformation, by your own admission in this very post.  This isn't even disputable, as much as you wish it were otherwise.

Quote:and all as part of an argument that we don't want government addressing disinformation of the sort that set a mob on the Capitol and sent red states somersaulting to control election outcomes—as if we dare not challenge that threat to democracy for fear it would limit our freedom.

Who said we don't want the government addressing disinformation?  What has been said is that this board, and those appointed to it, reek of authoritarianism and partisanship.  You can disagree, that's fine, but it's not the same thing as anyone saying we don't think disinformation should be addressed at all.  Honestly, your whole post reads like a desperate attempt to throw up a smokescreen.

Quote:Well now I didn’t “suggest such a thing.” 

 Again, with semantics.  What word would you prefer to replace "suggest" so we can move on?

Quote:My statement says NOT that Trump, who is out of office, has more power than the federal government. Only that HE, not the government, actually has a cultish power over his followers, only them,

This is largely true, albeit hyperbolic.  But it doesn't address the insane discrepancy in power and resources between Trump and the Federal government.  Once again you're avoiding the point.

Quote:and that YOU, on no good basis, ATTRIBUTE a similar power to U.S. government that it has never had over the mass of citizenry. Who slavishly follows the U.S. government the way many Trump followers follow Trump?

Wait, wait wait.  Did you really just say that the Federal government has never had the power to control the flow of information, and has exercised it, in our nation's history?  Both world wars and the second Iraq war say hi, just for starters.

Quote:The Oathkeepers were not ready to die for government because they bought into government disinformation; they were ready to die for Trump because of Trump disinformation, augmented by Russian disinformation.

Aside from your speaking about that group as a monolith in which every member is in lock step, your point here is irrelevant.  You keep adding irrelevancies that don't aid your point, at all.  Trump could have a loyal army of ten million people ready to "fight" for him.  He would still be dwarfed by the power of the Federal government.  Can Trump charge you with a crime?  Can Trump seize your assets?  Can Trump charge you with terrorist activity?  Can Trump incarcerate you?  Can Trump take away your children from you?  Hard core Trump supporters only wish he had as much power as you're ascribing to him.

Quote:Even when Trump was president, he was unable to mobilize “the entire weight of the Federal government to decide and enforce what was officially true or not.”

And?  Or is your position because it didn't happen before it can't ever happen (even though I already cited examples of it happening in the past)?  Because that would be naïve on a level I wouldn't imagine you being capable of.

Quote:So maybe not an excellent example of my alleged but stlll elusive blind spot.

Sorry, Dill, one of the problems with a blind spot is that you're blind to it.  Don't worry though, more and more people are noticing and helping you by pointing it out.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

From her very own mouth.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/recent-book-biden-disinformation-czar-nina-jankowicz-online-treatment-women

Nina Jankowicz states the following;


"[T]he relentless stream of online misogyny to which I and millions of other women who deign to engage in public discourse have been subject sometimes rattles me," she wrote. "I may have a slightly thicker skin than some, but watching thousands of strangers criticize my appearance, experience, and expertise is not easy. Watching them objectify me is not easy. Watching them deny me and other women our basic democratic and human rights is not easy. And watching these attacks be ignored as 'the cost of doing business' in an age where an online presence is all-but-required is enraging.



The underlined and bolded should concern everyone. She believes that online "harassment" an obviously subjective term, denies women their basic democratic and human rights. Now ask yourself, what happens to people who violate the basic democratic and human rights of others? How anyone could think this woman should be within a light year of any sort of government power, much less the "disinformation board" is troubling to say the least.

[*michaelsean*]

(05-11-2022, 06:02 PM)hollodero Wrote: Katerina Sakellaropoulou, president of Greece. A name like music. Schönberg music.

Since she's a woman every comment on a possible relationship to bigfoot would be very inappropriate and sexist. Not that that's a no. Just inappropriate.
And before you ask, what you surely will, nope I did not know her before either. To be fair to myself, most European presidents don't really do much. Barring France.

Damn I misspelled samsquanche. Now I can’t tell if you knew I was talking about Bigfoot because it looked a lot like Sasquatch or if you are a Trailer Park Boys fan.

[NATI BENGALS]

(05-11-2022, 06:53 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: From her very own mouth.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/recent-book-biden-disinformation-czar-nina-jankowicz-online-treatment-women

Nina Jankowicz states the following;


"[T]he relentless stream of online misogyny to which I and millions of other women who deign to engage in public discourse have been subject sometimes rattles me," she wrote. "I may have a slightly thicker skin than some, but watching thousands of strangers criticize my appearance, experience, and expertise is not easy. Watching them objectify me is not easy. Watching them deny me and other women our basic democratic and human rights is not easy. And watching these attacks be ignored as 'the cost of doing business' in an age where an online presence is all-but-required is enraging.



The underlined and bolded should concern everyone. She believes that online "harassment" an obviously subjective term, denies women their basic democratic and human rights. Now ask yourself, what happens to people who violate the basic democratic and human rights of others? How anyone could think this woman should be within a light year of any sort of government power, much less the "disinformation board" is troubling to say the least.

I would hope they don’t dabble with opinion. Just facts. Like don’t inject bleach. Don’t OD on horse dewormer. The election wasn’t rigged. There isn’t a satan worshipping cannibal pedophile ring secretly running the country. Obama isn’t stockpiling body bags to for the invasion and murder of the south. Just the normal stuff ya know

[Dill]

(05-11-2022, 06:34 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: One sentence in and we're already having a semantic argument.  Not a good sign.  

 Again, with semantics.  What word would you prefer to replace "suggest" so we can move on?

Sorry, Dill, one of the problems with a blind spot is that you're blind to it.

My beef is not that you used the word “suggest” when you misrepresented my claim.

My beef is that you misrepresented my claim.

And then continued to do so after I had flagged the problem.

So again—I attribute to Trump charismatic power, which gives him an effective power to label—“little Marco,” “lyin’ Ted,” “crooked Hilary,” the “Chinese virus.”  This power does not somehow emanate from Trump, it is emotionally and symbolically invested in him by his followers, but only them.

Liberal democratic states do not have this power. Their power is bureaucratic, institutional, legal, even when they “label.”

I said that you attribute to government, a charismatic power to label akin to Trump’s.

I did NOT say that Trump is as powerful as the state. Here are my words again:

"YOU are attributing TO GOVERNMENT the power Trump actually has for his followers."

So if we are to “move on,” then you need to stop asking whether Trump can seize assets or arrest people, while claiming I have moved off into “irrelevancies.” Or explain how you get to "Trump has more power than the federal government?" from my statement.

Final point here. People do have blind spots. But you don’t establish that by just claiming they do, and then call it “proof” when they don’t see it. That’s just gaslighting.

PS An argument from semantics arises when at least two people use different terms to describe something which is they agree is the case. Disagreeing WHETHER something is the case does not indicate a "semantic argument." 

[Dill]

(05-11-2022, 10:17 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: I would hope they don’t dabble with opinion. Just facts. Like don’t inject bleach. Don’t OD on horse dewormer. The election wasn’t rigged. There isn’t a satan worshipping cannibal pedophile ring secretly running the country. Obama isn’t stockpiling body bags to for the invasion and murder of the south. Just the normal stuff ya know

See, there's the problem.

You are already PARTISAN, taking one side over the other. 

Nati you are really no different from those people who want to use the power of government to enforce their views,

like vaccinate all children for polio. 

[Dill]

(05-11-2022, 06:53 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: From her very own mouth.  

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/recent-book-biden-disinformation-czar-nina-jankowicz-online-treatment-women

Nina Jankowicz states the following;

"[T]he relentless stream of online misogyny to which I and millions of other women who deign to engage in public discourse have been subject sometimes rattles me," she wrote. "I may have a slightly thicker skin than some, but watching thousands of strangers criticize my appearance, experience, and expertise is not easy. Watching them objectify me is not easy. Watching them deny me and other women our basic democratic and human rights is not easy. And watching these attacks be ignored as 'the cost of doing business' in an age where an online presence is all-but-required is enraging.

The underlined and bolded should concern everyone.  She believes that online "harassment" an obviously subjective term, denies women their basic democratic and human rights.  Now ask yourself, what happens to people who violate the basic democratic and human rights of others?  How anyone could think this woman should be within a light year of any sort of government power, much less the "disinformation board" is troubling to say the least.

I should hope that people who violate others' basic democratic and human rights can be prevented from doing so, if possible, and held accountable.

Incels are going to have a field day with this woman.

[hollodero]

(05-12-2022, 10:16 AM)Dill Wrote: I should hope that people who violate others' basic democratic and human rights can be prevented from doing so, if possible, and held accountable.

Incels are going to have a field day with this woman.

Ah. Now for sure I think that online harassment is a gruesome trend that deserves to be called out and opposed with vigor.
That being said, how does it amount to her having her basic democratic and human rights violated. Online harassment, as awful as it sure is, isn't that. At least not in my view, but I'd be open to have it changed.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-12-2022, 10:02 AM)Dill Wrote: My beef is not that you used the word “suggest” when you misrepresented my claim.

My beef is that you misrepresented my claim.

And then continued to do so after I had flagged the problem.

So again—I attribute to Trump charismatic power, which gives him an effective power to label—“little Marco,” “lyin’ Ted,” “crooked Hilary,” the “Chinese virus.”  This power does not somehow emanate from Trump, it is emotionally and symbolically invested in him by his followers, but only them.

Liberal democratic states do not have this power. Their power is bureaucratic, institutional, legal, even when they “label.”

I said that you attribute to government, a charismatic power to label akin to Trump’s.

I did NOT say that Trump is as powerful as the state. Here are my words again:

"YOU are attributing TO GOVERNMENT the power Trump actually has for his followers."

So if we are to “move on,” then you need to stop asking whether Trump can seize assets or arrest people, while claiming I have moved off into “irrelevancies.” Or explain how you get to "Trump has more power than the federal government?" from my statement.

Final point here. People do have blind spots. But you don’t establish that by just claiming they do, and then call it “proof” when they don’t see it. That’s just gaslighting.

PS An argument from semantics arises when at least two people use different terms to describe something which is they agree is the case. Disagreeing WHETHER something is the case does not indicate a "semantic argument." 

I really don't know how to respond to this as your argument keeps morphing as your points get called out.  It's certainly not on par with the level of post I expect from you.  As for your blind spot, it's fine.  We all know you can't see it, we all know you don't want to see it.  We can call it  a day on that subject and move on.

[Dill]

(05-12-2022, 10:57 AM)hollodero Wrote: Ah. Now for sure I think that online harassment is a gruesome trend that deserves to be called out and opposed with vigor.
That being said, how does it amount to her having her basic democratic and human rights violated. Online harassment, as awful as it sure is, isn't that. At least not in my view, but I'd be open to have it changed.

Well it now seems a majority view that harassment in the workplace does limit "rights." 

She might want to extend that to online behavior as well, especially where work requires people to interact with the public online. If people are forced to drop their accounts or stop interacting with the public because of public defamation, trolls may see that as the price we pay for online "freedom" and defend that freedom to harass with their votes.  

The moderators on this forum handle it by forbidding personal attacks. Most of us agree personal attacks are bad practice, and if given free rein would make the kinds of discussions we have here impossible--though the rule certainly limits the personal attackers freedom to gratuitously insult. That's not a perfect solution since people frequently "feel" attacked when they are not. My personal solution is to ignore or bypass insults in a post, unless some untruth requires addressing. But that is not good enough to manage the problem at forum level. So I agree with the mods "censorship." 

Before we get our panties in a bundle* over her critique of online misogyny, we ought to learn more about what, if any, measures she'd propose to handle online harassment, or if that even falls into her purview as disinformation "czar." One might be to insure that people cannot enter online discussions without, somewhere, registering their actual name/identity. I rather like my anonymity in the forum, and possibly wouldn't participate without it, but the Mods at least know my real identity. So if I posted credible threats to people, there could be legal accountability.

*You're not doing that, of course. Your post as is cautious and balanced as ever. Just can't resist mimicking the trolling misogyny under discussion.

[*michaelsean*]

(05-11-2022, 10:17 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: I would hope they don’t dabble with opinion. Just facts. Like don’t inject bleach. Don’t OD on horse dewormer. The election wasn’t rigged. There isn’t a satan worshipping cannibal pedophile ring secretly running the country. Obama isn’t stockpiling body bags to for the invasion and murder of the south. Just the normal stuff ya know

Did Trump tell people to inject themselves with bleach? Perhaps the ministry of truth could start with this.  Biden said he told people to drink bleach. Another possible jumping off point for the ministry.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-12-2022, 10:16 AM)Dill Wrote: I should hope that people who violate others' basic democratic and human rights can be prevented from doing so, if possible, and held accountable.

Incels are going to have a field day with this woman.

It's sincerely interesting that someone as educated as you can fail to add one to one and get two.  Your first sentence does explain your position in this thread.  You apparently have no problem with the "ministry of truth" because you agree with their mission.  

(05-12-2022, 10:57 AM)hollodero Wrote: Ah. Now for sure I think that online harassment is a gruesome trend that deserves to be called out and opposed with vigor.
That being said, how does it amount to her having her basic democratic and human rights violated. Online harassment, as awful as it sure is, isn't that. At least not in my view, but I'd be open to have it changed.

And again you actually understand the point being made when others do not.  Aside from the fact that "harassment" is subjective it is most certainly not an offense on the level of denying someone their democratic or human rights.  Anyone who could label it as such has no business being in the business of deciding what the nation is told is true or false.  As for making online harassment illegal, we'll that whole first amendment thing kind of gets in the way.  Of course not for the EU, which has no such thing, but here in the US, where this odious woman will actually be working for the government, her position is as untenable as it is hyperbolic.

The question then becomes why would she label such behavior in such an extreme, and inappropriate fashion?  Because if you label something as innocuous as calling someone a "dumb *****" and assault on their democratic and human rights you lay the groundwork for making such conduct illegal.  This woman is as transparent as she is partisan.

[Dill]

(05-12-2022, 11:33 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I really don't know how to respond to this as your argument keeps morphing as your points get called out.  It's certainly not on par with the level of post I expect from you.  As for your blind spot, it's fine.  We all know you can't see it, we all know you don't want to see it.  We can call it  a day on that subject and move on.

Attributing to me claims I did not make is not really "calling me out." 

What you call "morphing" is me re-explaining and re-quoting myself to address the mis-construction.

Stop claiming I said "Trump is more powerful than government," and the "morphing" will stop. 

If you don't know how to respond to what I actually said, so be it. Let my argument stand.



And you continue the "blind spot" assertion sans any evidence, moving from "dill can't see it--that's proof," to "we all know."

That's not "fine," but I don't think you'll really "call it a day" on that subject, until you see some risk in continuing to assert it without demonstration. If you knew how to do that, you'd have already done it.

[Dill]

(05-12-2022, 11:40 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It's sincerely interesting that someone as educated as you can fail to add one to one and get two.  Your first sentence does explain your position in this thread.  You apparently have no problem with the "ministry of truth" because you agree with their mission.  

And again you actually understand the point being made when others do not.  Aside from the fact that "harassment" is subjective it is most certainly not an offense on the level of denying someone their democratic or human rights.  Anyone who could label it as such has no business being in the business of deciding what the nation is told is true or false.  As for making online harassment illegal, we'll that whole first amendment thing kind of gets in the way.  Of course not for the EU, which has no such thing, but here in the US, where this odious woman will actually be working for the government, her position is as untenable as it is hyperbolic.

The question then becomes why would she label such behavior in such an extreme, and inappropriate fashion?  Because if you label something as innocuous as calling someone a "dumb *****" and assault on their democratic and human rights you lay the groundwork for making such conduct illegal.  This woman is as transparent as she is partisan.

"Ministry of Truth"? "Deciding what the nation is told is true or false"?  

But "hyperbole" is among her faults? 

If people want a productive discussion about what constitutes "harassment" and whether it can possibly deny human rights,
they would do well to begin with the issue of harassment in the workplace.  There, at least, one could find examples and procedures
for defining that "subjective" term, as we do for many others--though admittedly at the expense of the harasser's right to free speech.

Another good question, more related to the thread topic, is whether or how a definition of online harassment might fall under the purview of a DHS department focused on the security threat of cyber disinformation. Does one person just get to "decide" stuff in that department, or are decisions a matter of research, board work, and consensus subject to review of other bodies (e.g., the DOJ, CIA, FBI)? 

That might move us away from distortions and misdirections inherent in the "Ministry of Truth" label. Assuming we really want to move away from the distortions.

[hollodero]

(05-12-2022, 11:36 AM)Dill Wrote: Well it now seems a majority view that harassment in the workplace does limit "rights." 

OK but a majority does not decide right or wrong in a legal sense. It might in a moral sense, and from that viewpoint I agree with everything you said. I do think online harassment is a severe issue not bo be treated lightly, and it's morally reprehensible. But we don't decide by showing of hands if it's a violation of basic democratic and human rights. Imho you make a moral argument, not a legal one.

To be clear, as European I'm not such a huge first amendment guy, I think regarding it strictly absolutistic is not a desirable approach. I'm fine with private restrictions like moderator bans and the like, and up to a point I'd be fine with laws that include repercussions against harassers as well. But even if that already diverges from something an American might say, I still think that calling harassment a violation of basic human and democratic rights just is not a correct statement. And I can see why some see that as a warning sign. Or as unproportionate rhetorics at the very least.

[NATI BENGALS]

(05-12-2022, 11:37 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Did Trump tell people to inject themselves with bleach? Perhaps the ministry of truth could start with this.  Biden said he told people to drink bleach. Another possible jumping off point for the ministry.

Perhaps the potus shouldn’t openly wonder about the effectiveness of injecting disinfectant while addressing the nation in pandemonium over a pandemic?

Ever heard of HCQ? Better clear that treatment misinformation up too while we are at it

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-12-2022, 12:32 PM)hollodero Wrote: OK but a majority does not decide right or wrong in a legal sense. It might in a moral sense, and from that viewpoint I agree with everything you said. I do think online harassment is a severe issue not bo be treated lightly, and it's morally reprehensible. But we don't decide by showing of hands if it's a violation of basic democratic and human rights. Imho you make a moral argument, not a legal one.

Very true.  Also the distinction between protection from work place harassment and what happens in your private life is both significant and extremely relevant.  You have protections in your workplace, that must be enforced by your employer, that you absolutely do not, and honestly should not, have in your private life.  Also, it is important to distinguish between "harassment" from within your organization and without.  

Quote:To be clear, as European I'm not such a huge first amendment guy, I think regarding it strictly absolutistic is not a desirable approach. I'm fine with private restrictions like moderator bans and the like, and up to a point I'd be fine with laws that include repercussions against harassers as well. But even if that already diverges from something an American might say, I still think that calling harassment a violation of basic human and democratic rights just is not a correct statement. And I can see why some see that as a warning sign. Or as unproportionate rhetorics at the very least.

Here is where I have a hard time agreeing with you.  I realize I've grown up, most of the time, in the US, and it's what I know.  But the idea of the speech restrictions inherent in the EU vs the US really leave me cold.  I'm an err on the side of freedom guy, but understand that with freedom comes the potential for abuse.  The EU draws that distinction much farther on the restrictive side then I could ever be comfortable with.

[hollodero]

(05-12-2022, 02:29 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Here is where I have a hard time agreeing with you.  I realize I've grown up, most of the time, in the US, and it's what I know.  But the idea of the speech restrictions inherent in the EU vs the US really leave me cold.  I'm an err on the side of freedom guy, but understand that with freedom comes the potential for abuse.  The EU draws that distinction much farther on the restrictive side then I could ever be comfortable with.

That's unsurprising. And it's not like I'm not grappling with this (learned that word from Barr) myself, albeit admittedly rather on a theoretical level. In reality, I do not feel like living in a society with any substantial free speech restrictions. Even though in a sense I do. The most prominent among some examples being that I am not allowed to deny the Holocaust or shout Nazi paroles. (The latter, btw, being a very toothless law, there's plenty of paroles or "88" signs or a truely astonishing number of restaurants that sell egg dumplings with green salad for 8,88 on Hitlers birthday.)

And sure, that is technically a restriction, and Americans probably would argue that this is pandora's box, or a slippery slope I guess is the term. In a sense, I feel that my country is proof that it is not that. But that's questionable too, since we do have, here and in the EU, some other examples of restrictions. And for all of them imho there's the factors to weigh: How big is the risk this leads us on a dangerous path towards restricting critizism of the government and the like vs. how much good would it do if we could enforce the law to restrict people from saying certain things. Online harassment actually is a good example imho. One that I feel is often too easily brushed away with "ah, a person with self-confidence should be able to brush that away" or something like that. Most people just are not self-confident and they still deserve protection from the wildest of the Internet mob at least. That cause a lot of suffering, and I'm certain come with a death count through suicide even.

And so I say, yeah I think we can take the risk of disallowing folks to say things like kill yourself you ... (you can imagine an example for sure) to a girl, or an immigrant, or to anyone really (though the perceived weaker are more often victims for sure) in the protected anonymity of the Internet. Fine by me, for nope this does not mean I'll get imprisoned tomorrow for calling our chancellor an idiot. Which, in my defense, he absolutely is.

And lastly, I always come to the conclusion that it's indeed always about compromise, even in the US. The fire in a theater example was always weird to me, but you also can not falsely accuse someone, or call for murdering someone, or reveal national security details, you have to say the truth in court, and so on. All of these things can be seen as violating the purest of interpretation of absolute free speech. The EU and the US just differ on where to draw this line, but I am not uncomfortable with being a bit less pure than the US there. Even more so since in real life, society restricts free speech way more extensively than US or EU laws do anyway.

[Dill]

(05-12-2022, 12:32 PM)hollodero Wrote: OK but a majority does not decide right or wrong in a legal sense. It might in a moral sense, and from that viewpoint I agree with everything you said. I do think online harassment is a severe issue not bo be treated lightly, and it's morally reprehensible. But we don't decide by showing of hands if it's a violation of basic democratic and human rights. Imho you make a moral argument, not a legal one.

To be clear, as European I'm not such a huge first amendment guy, I think regarding it strictly absolutistic is not a desirable approach. I'm fine with private restrictions like moderator bans and the like, and up to a point I'd be fine with laws that include repercussions against harassers as well. But even if that already diverges from something an American might say, I still think that calling harassment a violation of basic human and democratic rights just is not a correct statement. And I can see why some see that as a warning sign. Or as unproportionate rhetorics at the very least.

 The objection that harassment is “subjective,” and so can’t be defined, is canceled by the existence of a legal domain in which it IS defined.  The online environment is different from a workplace in some respects (perhaps except where it is the workplace), but with this already existing example, one can imagine some of it modeling adaptation to online environments, mutatis mutandis.

One can also imagine there were once objections to criminalizing workplace harassment similar to those currently raised by regulating the internet: “Calling you ‘hotpants’ is not a violation of your silly ‘rights’ for chrissake; it’s a COMPLEMENT! Get over it. Fella has a right to express himself without people getting all bent out of shape and calling the law. That’s what REALLY creates a toxic work environment. If sweet talkin’ the ladies is a crime, then, we’re on a slippery slope to losin’ all our freedoms.” Bosses, and judges, likely agreed with this for decades.

So legal intervention only got purchase in this domain because eventually people could show harm in a courtroom—e.g., discrimination in promotion and hiring, damaged health, monetary loss, etc. I would not exclude changes in morality, either, as that is one (changing) foundation of “justice.” And it is quite possible that some anti-harassment laws came into being BEFORE they had majority support.

Regarding the possibility/eventuality of online harassment defined and subject to prosecution, I see that going forward, if at all, not by a show of hands, but by demonstrating harm to a court or to a state legislature.  Failing that, it will just remain talk and fodder for Fox, WND, Breitbart, the Washington Times, Newsmax, and maybe even our own message board.

But it’s absolutely NOT going to be decided by what one person thinks is “harassment.” Maybe youropeeyuns do it different, but not us.

[hollodero]

(05-12-2022, 07:17 PM)Dill Wrote:  The objection that harassment is “subjective,” and so can’t be defined, is canceled by the existence of a legal domain in which it IS defined.  The online environment is different from a workplace in some respects (perhaps except where it is the workplace), but with this already existing example, one can imagine some of it modeling adaptation to online environments, mutatis mutandis.

One can also imagine there were once objections to criminalizing workplace harassment similar to those currently raised by regulating the internet: “Calling you ‘hotpants’ is not a violation of your silly ‘rights’ for chrissake; it’s a COMPLEMENT! Get over it. Fella has a right to express himself without people getting all bent out of shape and calling the law. That’s what REALLY creates a toxic work environment. If sweet talkin’ the ladies is a crime, then, we’re on a slippery slope to losin’ all our freedoms.” Bosses, and judges, likely agreed with this for decades.

So legal intervention only got purchase in this domain because eventually people could show harm in a courtroom—e.g., discrimination in promotion and hiring, damaged health, monetary loss, etc. I would not exclude changes in morality, either, as that is one (changing) foundation of “justice.” And it is quite possible that some anti-harassment laws came into being BEFORE they had majority support.

Regarding the possibility/eventuality of online harassment defined and subject to prosecution, I see that going forward, if at all, not by a show of hands, but by demonstrating harm to a court or to a state legislature.  Failing that, it will just remain talk and fodder for Fox, WND, Breitbart, the Washington Times, Newsmax, and maybe even our own message board.

But it’s absolutely NOT going to be decided by what one person thinks is “harassment.” Maybe youropeeyuns do it different, but not us.

Ok I have to admit I'm getting confused and lose my verve to argue a point I don't even feel like argueing. In my definition, harassment is not a violation of a basic human/democratic right. Maybe we just disagree what a basic human right constitutes.
But I'm afraid I'm walking right into a pro harassment or pro harassment tolerance position and kinda lose the common theme. Screw harassers, I want them prosecuted anyway.