66
Polish parliament approves bill banning streaming of illegal, abusive and degrading acts
(notesfrompoland.com)
this post was submitted on 11 Jun 2026
66 points (98.5% liked)
Europe
11332 readers
774 users here now
News and information from Europe ๐ช๐บ
(Current banner: La Mancha, Spain. Feel free to post submissions for banner images.)
Rules (2024-08-30)
- This is an English-language community. Comments should be in English. Posts can link to non-English news sources when providing a full-text translation in the post description. Automated translations are fine, as long as they don't overly distort the content.
- No links to misinformation or commercial advertising. When you post outdated/historic articles, add the year of publication to the post title. Infographics must include a source and a year of creation; if possible, also provide a link to the source.
- Be kind to each other, and argue in good faith. Don't post direct insults nor disrespectful and condescending comments. Don't troll nor incite hatred. Don't look for novel argumentation strategies at Wikipedia's List of fallacies.
- No bigotry, sexism, racism, antisemitism, islamophobia, dehumanization of minorities, or glorification of National Socialism. We follow German law; don't question the statehood of Israel.
- Be the signal, not the noise: Strive to post insightful comments. Add "/s" when you're being sarcastic (and don't use it to break rule no. 3).
- If you link to paywalled information, please provide also a link to a freely available archived version. Alternatively, try to find a different source.
- Light-hearted content, memes, and posts about your European everyday belong in other communities.
- Don't evade bans. If we notice ban evasion, that will result in a permanent ban for all the accounts we can associate with you.
- No posts linking to speculative reporting about ongoing events with unclear backgrounds. Please wait at least 12 hours. (E.g., do not post breathless reporting on an ongoing terror attack.)
- Always provide context with posts: Don't post uncontextualized images or videos, and don't start discussions without giving some context first.
(This list may get expanded as necessary.)
Posts that link to the following sources will be removed
- on any topic: Al Mayadeen, brusselssignal:eu, citjourno:com, europesays:com, Breitbart, Daily Caller, Fox, GB News, geo-trends:eu, news-pravda:com, OAN, RT, sociable:co, any AI slop sites (when in doubt please look for a credible imprint/about page), change:org (for privacy reasons), archive:is,ph,today (their JS DDoS websites)
- on Middle-East topics: Al Jazeera
- on Hungary: Euronews
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.)
Ban lengths, etc.
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.)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
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.
GOOD point. We definitely shouldn't seek to minimize that abuse!
Fucking idiots I swear. I can't believe I need to e explain why purposely vague wording in laws like this are rife for abuse and should be reconsidered and worded in ways that don't allow for that abuse.
Are you seriously new to the concept of laws?
Curious that you still failed to 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.
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
Yeah you've completely missed the fucking point.
Rape laws exist to prevent (and punish) a horrible act.
If a specific rape law included a clause saying, "if she gets pregnant, it doesn't count," then that would be a problem wouldn't it?
Despite the original intention of the law, it would be used to harm people.
So we should seek to improve the wording of that law so it cannot be abused.
There are people who purposely word things in ways that allow them to take advantage. For example, again, the inclusion of "degrading" in this law.
I'm curious what good you think would come of including that word and how it compares to the likely abuse of it?
You are literally trying to stop people from criticizing the wording of laws because, what, some shitty slippery slope argument that doesn't even logically follow?
Oh no, if we care about the wording of this law, we're gonna start caring about her wording of every law! We can't have that!