← Back to context

Comment by zb3

5 months ago

This is already a political position - you might consider something is harmful to a particular group, but I might view this as the opposite. I think it's very easy to see a practical example of this..

8 comments

zb3

Reply
thrance  5 months ago

That's why we have a text of law and jurists that came up with more rigorous definitions. I basically gave you the shortest tldr of a tldr of the subject. I can only recommend you read up on it more, because this really isn't the censorship tool you make it up to be.

  • zb3  5 months ago

    I see how this is used in practice. I don't know about France, but in Poland both sides use that label when convenient, and of course they refer to completely different things, yet always done by their political opponents.

dathinab  5 months ago

you argument is basically "everything is a political position"

which defeats your original argument because if everything is a political position practically it's no different to nothing being a political position and as such

and sure application of law in practice is never perfect

but that doesn't mean we should allow people to systematically harass others on the internet, or systematically spread misinformation which is intended to cause deformation of whole groups of people, or calls for violence against people or propaganda with the intend to create more violent racism, etc.

  • zb3  5 months ago

    If you have the half of the country strongly disagreeing with you, then.. it is. There's no other criteria...

    Of course I can only guess we also disagree on what "misinformation", "propaganda" and even "racism" are. So in practice, I can't agree with any of your conclusion.

    • dathinab  5 months ago

      idk. but in the country I live the majority more or less agrees with my stance, and things are quite similar in a lot of EU countries and this was about EU regulations...