05-12-2022, 02:29 PM
(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.
