Well Catholics aren't - they are used to dick since their time as altar boys.

A capitalist will sell you the rope he will be hanged with.

> encouraging a person to kill themselves who has previously expressed no desire

So lets say someone starts to look around for talks about suicide & self-harm & depression that would imply definitely desire. Someone looking at 2500 posts about suicide (not getting messaged 2500 private mails!) is pretty sure is expression of a desire.

And the bill is fucking not about person a trying to actively encourage person b. It's about

> Content that encourages someone to harm themselves will be targeted in a new offence, making it illegal.

So a page, a group, a subreddit, a forum talking about self-harm could easily be seen as 'encouraging'.

You are not seeing the forest for the trees. This is not a law about someone gaslighting someone else to suicide.

Edit: Additionally you haven't apparently read the article. Because the case is nothing about things like you claim your niece faced. Even more - there are already laws to act against persons that directly attack, stalk or insult you (or your niece). It's already illegal what those girls did. So - you want another law that you can 'ignore'? Because you could have just called and used the existing laws.

You seem to like pretty arbitrary interpretation of legal language. No surprise.

> Thankfully no young children use the internet.

Too bad there is no one, like literally no one assigned as the guardian of that person that I don't know regularly checks on the shit that child does. I mean - no one is checking the shit you post online, right?

You do not understand language, do you? Incitement to commit a crime is illegal. Incitement to go fuck yourself is not a crime since fucking yourself is not illegal. You get it now?

> it’s looking to eliminate encouragement of self-harm.

So, is advertising unhealthy food encouraging self-harm? Is selling a car that is hard to control, has much HP, encouraging self-harm?

So if we talk about dementia, dignity and a self-controlled life and death, if we talk about assisted suicide. That's self-harm, right?

See, in Germany there was a law making it illegal to advertise abortions. Which resulted in "It was illegal to say that your doctors office was conducting abortions".

Your primary source of antagonism? You really believe that a persons primary source of antagonism is some shit in the internet? It's the last drop in the bucket - the real cause is a)parents and b)direct personal contacts/authorities in your life - in that order.

Additionally - suicide had and still has a strong stigma. Because people in the past fucking knew that it was a failure of parents, teachers and community. Depending on religion it was a mortal sin. Or still is even. That totally fudges the numbers. Happy little accidents to bury the dead kids instead of you know... outside the graveyard due to sin.

You lack to see how brutal the past generations were. Read up on black (poisonous) pedagogy. And even in media - behavior that was common in schools. Sure it was less "words" and more actual sticks and stones - but hey, it is of course totally impossible to evade anonymous online terror by going anonymous yourself then evade the gang living in the same village than you.

Okay... sniff... if you say so!

> given this is in line with incitement laws.

Incitement is "In criminal law, incitement is the encouragement of another person to commit a crime."

Is suicide a crime? No. So inciting someone (adult to adult) to suicide is not a crime.

> It's illegal to tell someone to kill someone.

Wrong. It is illegal to incite someone to commit a crime.

Is it a crime to commit suicide? No. So, is inciting someone to suicide a crime? Of course not. At least as long as we talk about sane adults. As soon as you step into people that aren't legally competent, need a guardian etc. that's something else.

Is self-harm a criminal act? Can you be punished for self-harm?

If not - then how can encouraging you to do something legal be illegal?

I can encourage you to smoke and offer you something to smoke and it would be totally legal - as long as you're not a minor that is.

So, will tobacco companies be dissolved, disowned and their wealth redistributed towards the NHS? Because their ads but also their products are absolutely promoting self-harm, even addiction.

This idea of criminalizing self-harm is a)legally stupid, b)creates legal precedent for much worse laws, c)covers up the real culprits.

If you think kids start self-harm or suicide because of some online posts - no, the base for that behavior is laid at home by the parents, then by the school environment. But hey, if someone else is responsible you ain't gonna need to change anything at home!

Self-harm didn't come into existence with internet or Tiktok. It was always around, and it was even more severe in the past.

Voting for conservative and neoliberal parties is self-harm. Thus they are forbidden to put up ads.

It's not a virus! It's a virtual Von-Neumann probe!

So tell the names, go ahead. And if you come up with more than two you're already wrong. And then which of those two is even in the description of the anime - let alone mentionable.

Yeah. In German we call people like you 'Klugscheisser' - claiming to give useful information while giving only meaningless information.

So go ahead and name a few more mentionable female Shinto priestess (ideally with blue hair)? I mean - obviously it's such a common thing that you accurately named none...

With my meager knowledge of just a few hundreds of anime. She looks like a mix of Hatsune due to the blue hair. But with the red miku dress of Kagome from Inuyasha. So maybe it is just her own creation!

Don't keep us waiting? Who is it?