• EatingOnions@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    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

    • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 day ago

      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.

      • EatingOnions@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        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

        • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          1 day ago

          Naive as fuck.

          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.

          • ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 day ago

            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.

            • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 day ago

              What does “degrading” mean?

              I think a trans person streaming is degrading, therefore my platform will no longer allow trans streamers per this law.

              Go ahead and sue me.

          • EatingOnions@lemmy.worldOP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 day ago

            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.

            • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 day ago

              ,you could literally apply this nonsense to every single law we have, so yeah your entire argument is just backwards and retarded.

              So you could take any law, remove one word, and make it acceptable? Because that was my “retarded” argument.

              This is something that has happened countless times, there are so many examples that it would be next to impossible to list them all. It’s honestly shocking that this still needs to be explained to people.

              Read a fucking book.

              • EatingOnions@lemmy.worldOP
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 day ago

                I can use this stupid logic against any law. Let’s remove rape law because someone women will abuse it to get insurance claims or put men to prison, let me bully and assault people on the streets because i should be able to have freedom of speach and expression, let me walk naked on the streets if I want to express myself this way why I can’t? If you still don’t understand this retarded reasoning then someone else have to explain it to you