Hacker News Reader

Comment by sofixa | Hacker News Reader

I don't see anything ridiculously loose about that law:

> No person may publish, propagate, advocate or communicate words based on one or more of the prohibited grounds, against any person, that could reasonably be construed to demonstrate a clear intention to be hurtful,be harmful or to incite harm, promote or propagate hatred. [65]

> The "prohibited grounds" include race, gender, sex, pregnancy, marital status, ethnic or social origin, colour, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, language and birth

View on HN

That sentence you quoted is incredibly vague. What exactly does it mean to promote hate?

Or lets take that quote and pick one cross section of word salad that they can use as a potential cross-product with legalese:

"No person may [communicate] words based on [occupation] against any person that can demonstrate an intention to be [hurtful]." Yes occupation is a protected group in that law.

Its all fine and dandy while this law is used to prosecute anti-lgbt people as an example. But that law will quickly be used to shut down legitimate debate and civilian disagreement when they can reframe the group/person being hurt by words as a victim. Just look at the heated debate regarding immigration. Questioning large scale immigration would be "hate speech" under this law, whilst simultaneously not prosecuting "hate speech" against a closed-borders group of people. Its essentially legislating societal-level feelings as valid.

You know, instead of actually having a debate and putting it down on paper as law and as an absolute. E.g. If we want free borders or large scale immigration, then lets just make a law allowing it.

"I think many religious Jewish groups fuel the Zionist sentiment in the Israeli government exacerbating the conflict with Palestine. Their influence must be curtailed"

Boom!, 10 months in jail for antisemitism.

What does "belief" mean? Is calling someone an idiot for believing that earth is flat hate speech?

Honesty I think you could probably a make a case for any insult falling under that law.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com