[dragonsky]

My thought is that anything that forces you to think about how your words and actions are perceived by others can only be a good thing.

People commenting have spoken about freedom, and related it to personal responsibility. I think this law is making that responsibility real. You spout hate and you can be held legally responsible, regardless of where you do it. If you have been reported, then obviously somebody who heard it didn't like it. Don't want to be reported, then think about who you are about to offend rather than just fire words out there ignorant of what pain they may cause.

Your (joke?) about witch hunts is a point in case... you are speaking to an open forum mostly in a country where witch hunts took place... There is a non zero chance that somebody in your audience is related to one of the people who got mixed up in the witch hunts... Joke for you, for them, maybe not so much.

I'm not saying don't use the term, it's in pretty common usage with little reference to its origins, but maybe we should start to think about the words we use, and how they may adversely impact people who hear them. In other words, take responsibility for what you say and be considerate of those who will hear your words.

[niceairport]

I mean your point is fair enough. But I must say that if someone is going to go to the trouble of deconstructing every sentence in search of something to be hurt by then I'm sure they can. Question is though, what's the point of it, when it is pretty clear that it was not the intended meaning? Because obviously in this example it was just used as a metaphore without any insidious meaning behind it. Not unlike the use of master in git or white/ black list, that I've seen discussed in HN a few times in the past months.

[dragonsky]

The point is that you start to think how your words could be taken, not just assume people magically know your intent. Yes people should consider your intent as part of how they parse your words, but you are the one talking, it's up to you to do your best to make sure that your communication is clear and as free from the possibility of misunderstanding as possible.

The reality is that there are people out there who say things with the intent to create hate or to hurt people, they then claim that "I was misunderstood". That is not good enough and this law makes that very clear, You are responsible for what you say, if you can't speak without being misunderstood, then maybe you should do everybody a favour and keep your mouth closed.

[niceairport]

"The point is that you start to think how your words could be taken, not just assume people magically know your intent"

But where do you draw the line? Is it not reasonable to assume that the intent will be understood when using and extremely common phrase?

[lurquer]

I find your comments hateful. They trigger me. They make me recall my grandparents who were butchered by Boshevik monsters who spouted this same tripe.

Perhaps I misunderstood your intent.

If so, you should heed your own advice: “You are responsible for what you say, if you can't speak without being misunderstood, then maybe you should do everybody a favour and keep your mouth closed.”

[fighterpilot]

Parsing your statement literally - it is ridiculous.

Anything that forces you to think more about your words is a good thing?

Terrorist attacks for wrongspeech force me to think more about my words. Is that a good thing?

Obviously, the absence of a line is untenable.

[raarts]

There's always going to be some who are hurt by your words. It's unavoidable. Even - especially - the truth hurts. That's why intent is so important.