So all acts of the American, Israeli and Russian governments?
I guess that's it for Polish LoL players
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.
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.
Oh so REAL things. That makes sense.
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
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 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.
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.
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.
Awesome. Now name one criminal law that can't be abused.
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.
,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.
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? Women abuse it to walk with half breasts out so why I can't walk with my balls out? If you still don't understand this retarded reasoning then someone else have to explain it to you
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.
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"
Laws are already being interpreted differently depending on who the target is. An equal and universal application of them would be lovely, but we know that's not happening.
Any time legislation turns against those it's meant to protect, it's a time to review it.
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.
What if they’re only 2 out of the 3? I would have thought illegal acts were illegal, anyway.
News and information from Europe 🇪🇺
(Current banner: La Mancha, Spain. Feel free to post submissions for banner images.)
(This list may get expanded as necessary.)
Unless they're the only sources, please also avoid The Sun, Daily Mail, any "thinktank" type organization, and non-Lemmy social media (incl. Substack). Don't link to Twitter directly, instead use xcancel.com. For Reddit, use old:reddit:com
(Lists may get expanded as necessary.)
We will use some leeway to decide whether to remove a comment.
If need be, there are also bans: 3 days for lighter offenses, 7 or 14 days for bigger offenses, and permanent bans for people who don't show any willingness to participate productively. If we think the ban reason is obvious, we may not specifically write to you.
If you want to protest a removal or ban, feel free to write privately to the admin that applied the rule (check modlog first to find who was it.)