Even if you can argue that maybe this young lady could have been a bit too sensitive, I think it is high time we put a stop to this widespread Internet habit of insulting people simply because you're not standing in front of them.

People on the Internet say things they would never dare saying face-to-face. Maybe that's something for the psychiatrists, I don't know, but it is time to clamp down on that.

Quite. I have never understood what causes apparently normal people to revel in the delights of insulting and abusing someone to the point of suicide. It's not a question of the sensitivity of the recipient, but the motivation of the abuser.

And for any reason or none: you're the wrong sex, or the wrong colour, or you use a different OS from me, or you're tall, or you're short, or you're left-handed, or you like the wrong football team, or the wrong music, or you used an apostrophe in the wrong place... I'm mystified. Give me a world with variety in it, please, and a lot less abuse.

Insulting and abusing are very different concepts, abuse should be stamped out but an insult is a dangerous thing to jail people for. I insult people as a joke as its mutually accepted between the parties, if then someone thinks it real i could end up prison. Fredom of speech will be lost with a law like that.

Exactly. How do you define an "insult" exactly? Is it anything that results in someone feeling insulted or offended?

If I claim a person's comment is ill-informed, or their knowledge lacking, is that an insult? Would inferring someone's an idiot put me in jail, or would I have to directly call them an idiot, which is all just semantics.

There's a whole world of difference between continued insults with the direct aim to cause harm to someone, and stating that someone is crap at dancing in a TikTok video.

In many cultures around the world, the insult is quite normal part of a good relationship between people. For certain in the UK it is absolutely normal for friends to throw the most offensive stuff at each other, and it is a sign of affection.

In most cases you can get away with it between strangers too, if the right tone is adopted.

But I think it is obvious when it is intended offensively. Having said that, why would I care what any stranger said about me. Especially online where you know that a certain proportion of people are nutters and the most vociferous are even more likely to be nutters.

I guess it’s a case of protecting the few that are vulnerable and their mental health is in a place where they take all this vacuous rubbish seriously.

Insulting by definition would be deliberately attempting to reduce somebodies sense of self worth.

If your "jokes" can be shown to be amusing to a court then i'm sure that they'd take them in the spirit they were intended. In any case, adding a prison sentence to the list of available punishments doesn't mean that you will end up in prison. In the UK you'd get a fine and community service on the first offense, a fine and a suspended sentence on the second offence and then in prison on the third.

Unless somebody does something like bullying somebody to the point they commit suicide, at which point they'd probably end up in jail on the first offence. But since your just "joking" then there is no chance of this, is there?

And we'd still have freedom of speech. What you wouldn't have is freedom from consequences.

Oh look, another person that doesn't understand the meaning of free speech nor the ramifications of allowing the state to suppress it through legislation.

Free speech does not mean free of consequence.

You say that like a mantra. It's not.

Obligatory XKCD - https://xkcd.com/1357/

I get what you're getting at but I think it's fair to say that a lot of people who are currently the biggest advocates of free speech, want free speech but don't want to own the consequences of their words. They also seem to want to suppress others free speech. I see this on both sides of the political divide so I'm not pointing fingers.

However this is an interesting law. Is it a step too far? Probably, but ultimately it comes down to the enforcement and how it is applied (as with all legislation). Very interested to see how this goes.

Personally I would like to see an internet where intelligent debate is not shutdown by mobs who just lob insults at people who create intelligent, factually correct and insightful posts. It amazes me how an effective technique it seems to be for shutting people down even when the insult is a cliche or just completely ludicrous.

People on the Internet say things they would never dare saying face-to-face. Maybe that's something for the psychiatrists, I don't know, but it is time to clamp down on that.

Because if they said it face to face then they'd run the list of loosing their teeth, or getting a good slapping, as well as becoming a social pariah.

If they say it online (especially anonymous) then they have total freedom of consequences.

Removing the total freedom of consequences is not a bad thing.

"Removing the total freedom of consequences is not a bad thing."

There is a time and a place. The teens trolling the adults on 4chan is all very well and good ... until the likes of the qanon gag winds up on the front page of the news, and idiots decide it is TRVTH ... and the kiddies egg the idiot adults on, causing it to snowball.

While the law is needed maybe people with issues of mental health and disorders should get identified early limited from social media and registered monitored and tracked until taken off the suicide list.

Brilliant! Instead of individuals hounding someone to suicide get the state to do it.

Do you even start to think about the outcome of you suggestion or is it literally just the first thing that springs to mind?

I feel that your reaction to the comment is justification for making it. Essentially you have two options:

1. stop everyone from saying anything that someone else may find hurtful

2. protect those who are not robust enough to shrug off the "insults"

The comment was option 2. Where your interpretation comes from I fail to understand.

The problem here is what constitutes 'insulting'. Death threats? Definitely. Usually, those are not insults though and I think that most juristictions have specific laws in this area. So that leaves us with harrassment and hate speech. Again, there are usually specific laws.

So we're left with someone making a mean comment and they want to possibly nuke people's financial future and/or imprison them (which can also have the same financial effect) because someone interpreted a comment as insulting?

This seems to a knee jerk reaction to a tragedy which has possibly not been thought through and will absolutely have a chilling effect. Look at the UK's hate speech laws: That has had the same effect on occaison and has absolutely been weaponised.

How is an insult defined?

Presumably if someone said "You're an a$$hole", that's an insult. But if they said "In my opinion you're an a$$hole", is it an insult since its an opinion?

Sounds like we need to go back to the good old days and saying it to someones face as that appears to not end up with jail time. Now i agree with kurking online abuse but insults can be productive. Are comedians going to be locked up because someone takes a joke as an insult? Think of a world where toxic people like Piers Morgan are protected by a law like this!

Also who decides what is an insult especially when a comment can be interpreted in different ways? Can passive agressive comments now be treated as insults....thin end of the wedge my friends.

Snowflakes. The world is full of fucking snowflakes.

I'm insulted, go to Jail!

"Japan has updated its penal code to make insulting people online a crime punishable by a year of incarceration."

Out of curiosity, has Japan also defined exactly what is considered insulting? Or is it up to the person who has been "insulted" to define what insult means in any particular case? Because if the latter, I can see this law being ripe for abuse.

Or worse - somebody else decides that they were offended by something that wasn't even said to them.

I had some banter with an old colleague on LinkedIn. All in good nature and we both gave as good as we received. Somebody else decided to take offence on behalf of my old colleague.

Agreed. The fuckwits who presume to be offended on the behalf of others are themselves truly offensive. It's getting to the point where nobody can say anything about anything without somebody pretending to get upset about it in somebody else's name. Frankly, I find it grossly offensive that somebody might presume to be offended in my name. Be offended for yourself, by all means, but keep my good name out of your fantasy.

I read the article a couple of times and don't see anything about whether this law applies to real life also. I mean would you get jailed for saying it online yet it's ok to shout it directly into the face of a person?

I see no need or point for this law as surely plenty of laws exist in regards to someone being "verbally abusive" already. Being online should not even be part of the equation or taken into consideration.

Japan is not a Western Country.

Example: a large company is doing 'something bad'; in the west you can call them out in public and not go to jail because what is said is true, whereas in Japan (and other similiar countries) damaging a company's (or individual's) reputation even with true statements is an offence and people have been jailed over it.

Cultural differences are a 'good thing' otherwise the World would be very boring....

I see your point which gives food for thought but what you wrote doesn't relate in any way to what I was asking - which was will this law apply equally online and in real life?

I remember everyone was quite liberal with hurling insults at each other face to face. Being sensitive was not really an option.

Rising above the insults and developing self-confidence is part of growing up.

Its a bit like the highway code being changed to give pedestrians who don't look, and are therefore "vulnerable", priority over vehicles because teaching them to look before crossing at junctions is too much effort, apparently.