• MissesAutumnRains@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    2 days ago

    Illegal, makes sense. Abusive, eh, maybe this is good, but there needs to be an explanation for what qualifies and who decides. Degrading? I mean, arguably cutting humor in cartoons is degrading. I’m not Polish so I’m sure the context of trashstreams makes more sense for this law, but from the outside it sounds really open to abusing.

    • EatingOnions@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      2 days ago

      It says there in article

      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.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trash_stream

      • lath@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        2 days ago

        No offence, but these days even protesting is a shocking and often dangerous and illegal behaviour. Just saying…

          • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            1 day ago

            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.

            • 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

          • lath@piefed.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 day ago

            Who decides what is pathetic nonsense changes with every election and in some countries there are those who consider protests themselves as pathetic nonsense.

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

              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?

              • lath@piefed.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 day ago

                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.

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

              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”

      • MissesAutumnRains@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        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.

  • doleo
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    What if they’re only 2 out of the 3? I would have thought illegal acts were illegal, anyway.

  • doleo
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    What if they’re only 2 out of the 3? I would have thought illegal acts were illegal, anyway.

  • doleo
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    What if they’re only 2 out of the 3? I would have thought illegal acts were illegal, anyway.