The legislation is intended to clamp down on what is known in Poland as patostreaming (a portmanteau of “pathological” and “streaming”), meaning livestreams in which hosts engage in shocking – and often dangerous and illegal – behaviour.
Court decide it, who else supposed to? It seems you’re one of freedom fighters like Elon Musk who then use it to interfere with elections and spread his nazi ideas and if you don’t let him he’ll say that’s against freedom of speach
seems you’re one of freedom fighters like Elon Musk who then use it to interfere with elections and spread his nazi ideas and if you don’t let him he’ll say that’s against freedom of speach
Uh, beg pardon?
You really need to inform yourself about history if you really don’t think something like this won’t be taken advantage of in order to hurt people.
That’s literally why we have laws, taking your retarded argument that’s why we have laws protecting LGBTQ, other minorities, and human rights in general. According to you we should just abolish laws just in cases someone wants to abuse it, wow what a brilliant idea, you solved humanity
According to you we should just abolish laws just in cases someone wants to abuse it, wow what a brilliant idea, you solved humanity
Yeah no that’s not my argument.
Do you know what Jim Crow is? Those were laws too, and guess what? They were evil and caused untold suffering.
So yeah, some laws we should not have. Sometimes, it’s when they’re really bad laws that are obviously meant to do bad things.
And sometimes it’s when a law is proposed with good intentions, and is then used by bad actors in ways that hurt far more than the law could ever help.
Sometimes people pretend that a law being proposed is the latter, when in reality it’s the former. It’s called “lying.”
A law like the one in OP could have been just fine with the word “degrading” left out. But no, it’s intentionally kept vague and will be “up to interpretation” by people who wish to use it for harm.
Mark my words. Save this comment and come back when Poland inevitably uses this in a harmful way against a marginalized group.
So what laws can’t be abused? You know police and prosecutors decide which crimes to investigate and who to charge? You now that police and prosecutors are controlled by the government? Absolutely everything in penal code can be interpreted differently by different governments and abused. It’s your argument that’s naive because you don’t realize how laws work.
That’s exactly what far right politicians who voted against it used as argument, people should be able to stream how they abuse and humiliate themselves / others because of “freedom of speach and freedom of expression” so once again applying your retarded logic we abolish freedom of speach laws because bad guys trying to abuse it,you could literally apply this nonsense to every single law we have, so yeah your entire argument is just backwards and retarded.
Who decides what is pathetic nonsense changes with every election and in some countries there are those who consider protests themselves as pathetic nonsense.
You can say this about any laws. Abortion got banned under the previous government in Poland and some doctors refused to terminate pregnancies when mother’s life was in danger. The government changed and prosecutors started charging those doctors with crimes. It just how it works. Are we supposed to not have any laws?
What you’re saying sounds to me like a one-sided oppression with no option for the damned, as in damned if you do and damned if you don’t. So yes, we’re very much supposed to not have any such laws.
By that measure we shouldn’t have any laws because someone may interpret it differently, that’s why internet became cesspit it is filled with bots, misinformation and AI generated garbage. All in name of “freedom of speach”
Sorry, I could have been more clear. I read the article, I was just saying that I’m not sure what will qualify here or if it’s a big enough issue to make a law over, but only because I’m not sure how you draw the line between this and something like, say, doing stunts on a skateboard. Arguably, that’s dangerous, so it might qualify. I might have a peek at the wording of the law out of curiosity if I can find it later.
It says there in article
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trash_stream
No offence, but these days even protesting is a shocking and often dangerous and illegal behaviour. Just saying…
What protest has to streaming pathetic nonsense?
The problem is who decides what is considered “degrading” by law.
I imagine many conservatives believe an LGBTQ+ person existing is degrading in some stupid way.
Court decide it, who else supposed to? It seems you’re one of freedom fighters like Elon Musk who then use it to interfere with elections and spread his nazi ideas and if you don’t let him he’ll say that’s against freedom of speach
Uh, beg pardon?
You really need to inform yourself about history if you really don’t think something like this won’t be taken advantage of in order to hurt people.
That’s literally why we have laws, taking your retarded argument that’s why we have laws protecting LGBTQ, other minorities, and human rights in general. According to you we should just abolish laws just in cases someone wants to abuse it, wow what a brilliant idea, you solved humanity
Naive as fuck.
Yeah no that’s not my argument.
Do you know what Jim Crow is? Those were laws too, and guess what? They were evil and caused untold suffering.
So yeah, some laws we should not have. Sometimes, it’s when they’re really bad laws that are obviously meant to do bad things.
And sometimes it’s when a law is proposed with good intentions, and is then used by bad actors in ways that hurt far more than the law could ever help.
Sometimes people pretend that a law being proposed is the latter, when in reality it’s the former. It’s called “lying.”
A law like the one in OP could have been just fine with the word “degrading” left out. But no, it’s intentionally kept vague and will be “up to interpretation” by people who wish to use it for harm.
Mark my words. Save this comment and come back when Poland inevitably uses this in a harmful way against a marginalized group.
So what laws can’t be abused? You know police and prosecutors decide which crimes to investigate and who to charge? You now that police and prosecutors are controlled by the government? Absolutely everything in penal code can be interpreted differently by different governments and abused. It’s your argument that’s naive because you don’t realize how laws work.
That’s exactly what far right politicians who voted against it used as argument, people should be able to stream how they abuse and humiliate themselves / others because of “freedom of speach and freedom of expression” so once again applying your retarded logic we abolish freedom of speach laws because bad guys trying to abuse it,you could literally apply this nonsense to every single law we have, so yeah your entire argument is just backwards and retarded.
Who decides what is pathetic nonsense changes with every election and in some countries there are those who consider protests themselves as pathetic nonsense.
You can say this about any laws. Abortion got banned under the previous government in Poland and some doctors refused to terminate pregnancies when mother’s life was in danger. The government changed and prosecutors started charging those doctors with crimes. It just how it works. Are we supposed to not have any laws?
What you’re saying sounds to me like a one-sided oppression with no option for the damned, as in damned if you do and damned if you don’t. So yes, we’re very much supposed to not have any such laws.
I’m still waiting here…
Oh you were? Sorry… Well, for now, natural laws of physics.
Oh, so you have no idea what we’re talking about? Ok, cool.
So which laws are not like that? Name one criminal law that can’t be abused.
By that measure we shouldn’t have any laws because someone may interpret it differently, that’s why internet became cesspit it is filled with bots, misinformation and AI generated garbage. All in name of “freedom of speach”
Oh so REAL things. That makes sense.
Sorry, I could have been more clear. I read the article, I was just saying that I’m not sure what will qualify here or if it’s a big enough issue to make a law over, but only because I’m not sure how you draw the line between this and something like, say, doing stunts on a skateboard. Arguably, that’s dangerous, so it might qualify. I might have a peek at the wording of the law out of curiosity if I can find it later.