Just ‘googled’ it
Hate speech
Hate speech is speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as race, religion, ethnic origin, national origin, sex, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity.[1][2] The law of some countries describes hate speech as speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display that incites violence or prejudicial action against a protected group or individual on the basis of their membership of the group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected group, or individual on the basis of their membership of the group. The law may identify a protected group by certain characteristics.[3][4][5] In some countries, hate speech is not a legal term.[6] Additionally in some countries, including the United States, hate speech is constitutionally protected.[7][8][9]
United Kingdom[edit]
Main article: Hate speech laws in the United Kingdom
In the United Kingdom, several statutes criminalize hate speech against several categories of people. The statutes forbid communication that is hateful, threatening, or abusive, and targets a person on account of disability, ethnic or national origin, nationality (including citizenship), race, religion, sexual orientation, or skin colour. The penalties for hate speech include fines, imprisonment, or both.[3][82][83][84][85][86][87] Legislation against Sectarian hate in Scotland, which is aimed principally at football matches,[ citation needed ] does not criminalise jokes about people’s beliefs, nor outlaw “harsh” comment about their religious faith.[88]
United States[edit]
Main article: Hate speech in the United States
The United States does not have hate speech laws, since American courts have repeatedly ruled that laws criminalizing hate speech violate the guarantee to freedom of speech contained in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.[8] There are several categories of speech that not protected by the First Amendment, such as speech that calls for imminent violence upon a person or group. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that hate speech is not one of these categories.[89][ not in citation given ] Court rulings often must be reexamined to ensure the U.S. Constitution is being upheld in the ruling on whether or not the words count as a violation.[90]
Proponents of hate speech legislation in the United States have argued that freedom of speech undermines the 14th Amendment by bolstering oppressive narrative which demeans equality and the Reconstructive Amendment’s purpose of guaranteeing equal protection under the law.[91]
Iceland[edit]
In Iceland, the hate speech law is not confined to inciting hatred, as one can see from Article 233 a. in the Icelandic Penal Code, but includes simply expressing such hatred publicly:
Anyone who in a ridiculing, slanderous, insulting, threatening or any other manner publicly assaults a person or a group of people on the basis of their nationality, skin colour, race, religion or sexual orientation, shall be fined or jailed for up to 2 years.
In this context “assault” does not refer to physical violence but only to verbal assault.strong text
Abusive messaging
It hasn’t direct ‘World Wide’ definition, but for online video games your version is ok. Let me point to a more complex and practical case. Imagine a scenario where you lent someone $100 and a week later decided to send him a message about the return of the debt. He “GFY” in response and blocks your number, because he don’t want to listen to you. You deciding to send him an e-mail about to return the debt afterwards. He runs to local police office to sign a complaint about your abusive messaging and persecutions. I know, it’s not an accurate sample, but it explain the issue in a nutshell. Tanks in IRL there are many laws, organizations and procedures, which allows to solve this kind of situations other ways.
Online/Social Media stalking
It hasn’t any direct juridical definition. There is another official and juridical terminology for such kind of harassments - Cyberstalking.
Cyberstalking is the use of the Internet or other electronic means to stalk or harass an individual, group, or organization.[1] It may include false accusations, defamation, slander and libel. It may also include monitoring, identity theft, threats, vandalism, solicitation for sex, or gathering information that may be used to threaten, embarrass or harass.
Cyberstalking is often accompanied by realtime or offline stalking.[2] In many jurisdictions, such as California, both are criminal offenses.[3] Both are motivated by a desire to control, intimidate or influence a victim.[4] A stalker may be an online stranger or a person whom the target knows. He may be anonymous and solicit involvement of other people online who do not even know the target.
Cyberstalking is a criminal offense under various state anti-stalking, slander and harassment laws. A conviction can result in a restraining order, probation, or criminal penalties against the assailant, including jail.
Now, them most important and dangerous moment about Cyberstalking!!!
It is important[ according to whom? ] to draw a distinction between cyber-trolling and cyber-stalking.
Identification and detection
CyberAngels has written about how to identify cyberstalking:[8]
When identifying cyberstalking “in the field,” and particularly when considering whether to report it to any kind of legal authority, the following features or combination of features can be considered to characterize a true stalking situation: malice, premeditation, repetition, distress, obsession, vendetta, no legitimate purpose, personally directed, disregarded warnings to stop, harassment and threats.
A number of key factors have been identified in cyberstalking:
This list is incomplete; you can help by expanding it.
- False accusations: Many cyberstalkers try to damage the reputation of their victim and turn other people against them. They post false information about them on websites. They may set up their own websites, blogs or user pages for this purpose. They post allegations about the victim to newsgroups, chat rooms, or other sites that allow public contributions such as Wikipedia or Amazon.com.[9]
- Attempts to gather information about the victim: Cyberstalkers may approach their victim’s friends, family and work colleagues to obtain personal information. They may advertise for information on the Internet, or hire a private detective.[10]
- Monitoring their target’s online activities and attempting to trace their IP address in an effort to gather more information about their victims.[11]
- Encouraging others to harass the victim: Many cyberstalkers try to involve third parties in the harassment. They may claim the victim has harmed the stalker or his/her family in some way, or may post the victim’s name and telephone number in order to encourage others to join the pursuit.
- False victimization: The cyberstalker will claim that the victim is harassing him or her. Bocij writes that this phenomenon has been noted in a number of well-known cases.[12]
- Attacks on data and equipment: They may try to damage the victim’s computer by sending viruses.
- Ordering goods and services: They order items or subscribe to magazines in the victim’s name. These often involve subscriptions to pornography or ordering sex toys then having them delivered to the victim’s workplace.
- Arranging to meet: Young people face a particularly high risk of having cyberstalkers try to set up meetings between them.[12]
- The posting of defamatory or derogatory statements: Using web pages and message boards to incite some response or reaction from their victim.[13]
… go with these definitions on EVE Reddit to generate a ‘storm of ■■■■’. A lot was discussed about GigX again here. Therefore… Calling a male Mrs GigX in NO IN GAME environment (IN SOCIAL MEDIA), with respective humiliations, falls under False accusations, Sexism, False victimization. Maybe I’m wrong, but on Reddit a subscription was signed not by virtual capsuleer GigX, but by a real human personality, which is protected not by lacking EVE laws, but by real local and international laws, constitution. Therefore, a lot of unclear definitions leads to unknown consequences…
Verbal abuse
It’s beyond imagination, which requires to ban almost all known Dictionaries, Freedom of speech and leads to ‘Selective justice’. It leads to some kind of ‘Virtual dictatorship’.
Finally, your and my definitions can be very good, accurate and professional but they haven’t any power. We can successfully participate in Project Discovery: Police Harassment, but we can’t participate at ‘court decisions’. Сontroversial situations will be solved not by your, not by my definitions, but by published on official page definitions:
