Imagine if you had to stop doing business with anyone reported as a thief (but not convicted).
Those who accuse and un-person are the villains throughout history. In the past, people were smeared as sexually loose, as belonging to the "wrong" religion, or as having the "wrong" sexual orientation. In the past, people were smeared as being of the "wrong" racial background. Always be wary of those who smear to enforce their power.
A free society is one, where people and ideas can show up, be given a chance, and stand or fall on their character and merits. Evil is recognizable in its epistemological hazards:
- Don't ask questions.
- Don't read or hear the heretical opinion.
- Don't associate with the "wrong" people.
It's the side of evil which uses vilification, seeks to silence, and uses fear against questions.
Heck, some things have become so heated that there can only be one right answer, ex: global warming. If you dare voice anything other than slavish obedience to this notion. If you DARE question anything about it - from the models/assumptions used to the moralizing - then you are branded an outcast and castigated.
"If publishers and editors exert themselves to keep certain topics out of print, it is not because they are frightened of prosecution but because they are frightened of public opinion. In this country intellectual cowardice is the worst enemy a writer or journalist has to face, and that fact does not seem to me to have had the discussion it deserves."
"At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed that all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to say this, that or the other, but it is ‘not done’ to say it, just as in mid-Victorian times it was ‘not done’ to mention trousers in the presence of a lady. Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness. A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing, either in the popular press or in the highbrow periodicals. ... Both publicly and privately you were warned that it was ‘not done’. What you said might possibly be true, but it was ‘inopportune’ and played into the hands of this or that reactionary interest."
"... there is now a widespread tendency to argue that one can only defend democracy by totalitarian methods. If one loves democracy, the argument runs, one must crush its enemies by no matter what means. And who are its enemies? It always appears that they are not only those who attack it openly and consciously, but those who ‘objectively’ endanger it by spreading mistaken doctrines. In other words, defending democracy involves destroying all independence of thought."
"These people don’t see that if you encourage totalitarian methods, the time may come when they will be used against you instead of for you. Make a habit of imprisoning Fascists without trial, and perhaps the process won’t stop at Fascists."
(Ironically, the preface itself was soft-censored in the original publication of "Animal Farm", and it took 25 more years for it to see print.)
How do you square this with the recent surge in flat Earth and anti-vaccination beliefs? The merits of truth aren't guaranteed to win this battle.
Winning a battle is an unfortunate metaphor for public debate or democracy in general. After all, what we want is to discuss options without violence.
Someone has to win elections, right. But that doesn't make the losing option wrong, just not as popular. There are many options that I consider wrong, or very wrong, that are "winning" right now. I accept that situation, at least while there's no need for me to adopt them. What I find scary is what stcredzero points: that many ideas "win" by despicable means.
One side of this debate is inherently violent. People are dying from easily preventable diseases.
>What I find scary is what stcredzero points: that many ideas "win" by despicable means.
Anti-vaccination beliefs are already winning by despicable means because those with virtuous means choose to do nothing.
The overall point is that we need to defend our ideas through speech and not through IG/FB censoring anti-vaxx speech.
It's dangerous to call someone having a natural biological reaction to a pathogen, "violent." That label should be reserved for people taking intentional physical action to do other people harm. Anti-vaxxers simply don't fit that category. One can argue that they are being irresponsible. Vaccines, viruses, and diseases are all tangible and physical. It's entirely reasonable to make laws and regulations around those things.
If we start saying that people having ideas is "violent," then we are creating "thoughtcrime" and opening the door to incredible levels of tyranny.
As far as I can tell, anti-vax beliefs are thoroughly discredited.
Anti-vaxxers are what you get when you use death threats and not civil discourse.
The anti-vaxxers send death threats to people who correct their erroneous claims. That's how you shut down reasoned discourse -- by having fervent zealots attack anyone who contradicts them.
Obviously attacking people who disagree with you is the opposite of them having free speech. It suppresses the speech of anyone not willing to be subject to the threats and allows the erroneous information to proliferate unchallenged.
So the problem isn't that the anti-vaxxers got to speak their piece, it's that they're caught up in a subculture that suppresses dissent. Then their subculture declares that two times two equals six and anybody who tries to show otherwise is attacked, which deprives them of reasoned debate as a method for correcting misconceptions, and so the misconceptions persist.
Also anti-vax isn't something new. It dates back to at least the mid 90s and the original Wakefield paper. There were no cult like organisations pushing it at that time. What did exist was a mainstream media willing to push the story for many years, even long after they knew the original paper was faulty. The problem wasn't born out of fervent zealots, it was created by con artists and co-conspirators in the media who exploited liberal ideas of "free speech" and "media balance" to knowingly spread a conspiracy for their own financial gain. There was no "subculture" at the time. I'm not sure you can even really say there is one now, given that anti-vax is one of the conspiracy theories that has wide appeal across different groups (i.e. it exists across the left/liberal/conservative/right political spectrum).
You are trying to push your own ideological position (more "free speech" is good and will solve the problem) onto an issue, and it doesn't fit what actually happened at all, or what we know about how conspiracy theories spread (it's not a lack of counter-information, because conspiracy theories by definition include the fact that they are being suppressed by central authority).
People who don't understand science don't trust random scientists, and there is a reason for that -- anyone can put on a lab coat and say whatever they want. You have to consider the source and actually read the research and determine if it's credible. Most people don't have the training for that, and many of the others don't have the time, but that's not a problem as long as you trust someone who does. Your brother in law is a chemist and you trust his opinion; he trusts the CDC's. When your trusted chemist and your trusted nurse disagree, they get together and hash it out and if they're both being reasonable then one ultimately convinces the other.
The problem comes when you introduce a culture of attacking rather than debating people. Because you're not going to silence the CDC, but you may very well silence the brother in law, and then you create a group of people who don't trust anyone providing the true facts because everyone within their in-group is being silenced.
Which is why, despite a century of various fringe anti-vax misinformation, it's only now, in the climate of filter bubbles and deplatforming, that enough people believe it to compromise herd immunity and allow diseases like measles to stage a comeback.
I don't read what he said that way at all. When one uses force instead of trying to convince, one has admitted to losing the argument.
You are trying to push your own ideological position (more "free speech" is good and will solve the problem) onto an issue, and it doesn't fit what actually happened at all
You're strawmanning here. Free speech is good and did win the argument. Your conceit is that "solving the problem" being the same as "winning the argument" is a false equivalence. Solving the problem is something else entirely.
No one in 2019 publicly defends drunk driving. It still happens. There are southern California communities of explicit white supremacists, but mainstream society shuns them. Those are examples of groups who have thoroughly lost the argument. However, "solving the problem" doesn't mean that the state and industrial complex gets to enforce their will over the populace to the point of creating "thoughtcrime."
I don't want to live in that kind of society. (Tired of having to argue? Looking for a solution which is final?)
I do think that exposing others to pathogens and damaging herd immunity is quantifiable, and we can pass laws around that. It's much preferable to legislate the tangible and physically measurable, instead of creating "thoughtcrime."
Back to the dawn of vaccines themselves, indeed.
People should be free to believe what they want to believe. That's a pretty fundamental level of freedom.
The merits of truth aren't guaranteed to win this battle.
There's no guarantee of that. Once the argument is won, legislation can follow.
Free Speech does just fine against other speech. It's administrative dirty tricks on campus, and the use of corporate force through de-platforming which creates a de facto regime of top-down censorship -- which we have to worry about in 2019. Noam Chomsky called such behavior out in the 80's in the media of the day. Such behavior fits the "propaganda model" described in Manufacturing Consent.
In 2019, it's not the government we have to worry about in terms of free speech. It's powerful corporations and the established media misinforming people and stacking the deck.
Europe isn’t one big whole, parts of it are already obviously worse than others.
When Pedro Sánchez (current Spanish Prime Minister) PhD thesis was discovered to be an alleged forgery or when allegedly used an official plane for personal matters there was plenty of content criticizing h directly.
Could you please provide some reference? I seriously doubt that what you said is correct.
There's nobody in jail for writing anything.
The report is based on facts, but it goes overboard with the conclusions.
Edit: the BS comment is by oarsinsync, so it should be GGP, sorry if that led to confusionl.
That said, satire against the police force lands you in court:
And tweeting can get you a suspended sentence (which got overturned on appeal, but didn't prevent the original conviction):
I did overstate things, but "total BS" doesn't seem fair either.
Please understand that joining a few imprecisions, innocuous in isolation, the result is totally incorrect.
'Incorrect' would have been better than 'BS' indeed, sorry. The reason for verbal escalation is we have to see this kind of "imprecision" very often and it's not funny anymore.
Also in the other article correctly mention that the "rapper" was accused of death threats and asking terrorists to attack people. The guy is at large, thanks to certain terrorists haven country that happens to host EU institutions.
Doesn't sound so bad, does it? Well, turns out that police can be a social group. So can government employees. And members of parliament. Of course, back when they passed that law, some civil libertarians did point out the vagueness. But it went exactly as it usually does in any Western country - the politicians were pinky swearing that this is all about Nazis and radical Islamists and other nasty people like that who deserve it, and obviously it wouldn't be used for anything inappropriate; but, you see, if it's too narrow, then the bad guys can find ways around it, so it has to allow for some flexibility.
For most Westerners, the immediate reaction to this is, "it can never happen here" - not the laws, since many countries have similar, but the part where they get misused. We'd never tolerate it, the argument goes. But we are tolerating it. France also has exemplary hate speech laws - and under them, wearing a t-shirt that advocates a boycott of Israel is a hate crime, a felony even, and people are actually getting arrested, charged and convicted under it. The law in question is 15 years old now, and it's far from the only one like that in Europe - just the most abused one so far.
Some more general information in English here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Internet_Restriction_B... but this is not the only law, there are many additional bans (Russian parliament is sometimes called "crazy printer" in Russia because it has issued so many insane laws).
You can read about banning Wikipedia here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blocking_Wikipedia_in_Russia
Interesting side fact: unlike in english, there are two completely distinct words for illegal and legal drugs in russian language. Which a lot of times makes it easier to spot russian-speaking posters, as they tend to refer to illegal drugs as just "drugs", while referring to legal ones using other more specific terms, like "pills" or something else.
> unlike in english, there are two completely distinct words for illegal and legal drugs in russian language
Which two words do you mean? I can't think of any two fitting this description.
On a side-note, until I saw your reply, I didn’t realize how bad it was. It is absolutely crazy to me that something like “acetone” would fall under this law. Thanks for posting a concise summary.
German is the same: "Drogen" = illegal drugs like cannabis, "Medizin" = medicine. For Germans learning English, "drug store" may sound confusing until one learns about the various distinct meanings of the word "drug" in English.
This is a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario.
But that's an argument against monopolies, not against social media per se.
I can't get this to work but I gather the figures are not impressive.
Could a committed group of individuals report the most pernicious EU politicians' homepages and facebook pages as similarly banned content? Looks like the firehose has overwhelmed whatever inadequate safeguards they originally had in place.
Congress could have addressed the core issue but instead protected their big funders.
Free speech is not unconditional in the US; there are many things that an American could say that would see them brought before the courts. European nations have simply drawn the line in a different place, for entirely understandable historical reasons.
I'm sure sympathizing or trying to understand a terrorist's motives (perhaps their home country is being occupied by the US?) can fit under the terrorist content umbrella.
Edit: Let's not leave unaddressed the farcical idea that Europe prior to World War I was some bastion of free speech, and that this somehow led to the wars:
Judge Holmes came to regret his support of speech suppression, but a lot of people still seem to miss the point.
Censorship is a technique used by any person in power so far in history (at least as far as I know), no matter the government type.
It has little to do with the "fear of committing the same mistakes as they did years ago".
Consider how logically meaningless the term "conspiracy theory" is. A great deal of US law is specifically written to address conspiracies.
They are forms of psychological warfare.
And yet, if you seriously brought that argument forth, I suspect people would be more disgusted than if you applied it to freedom of speech. What makes religion so much more important than speech? The main difference I can think of is that freedom of speech is primarily a more individualistic kind of right, while religion is inherently more collectivist.
Evidently not, as that would probably mean we would not be on the road to make at least some mistakes again.
We also had hate speech laws in the 19th century...
But the real curious argument is that the state was lacking oversight and control over public content. It almost makes you angry thinking about it.
Germany had a laisser-faire approach to recent content control. That worked brilliantly. That changed and suddenly we have some really angry people wanting to change some things.
Additionally, the far right people want content control as much as everyone. I don't want to see a smug smile while they implement hate-speech laws like in Austria.
Using the german experience to justify content control is infantile.
European countries ban those forms of speech, and also ban other forms of speech based on subjective non-criminal harm that is perceived to be a potential result of such speech. For example, denying the Holocaust could lead other people to think it didn't happen, which may cause them to view Jewish people more negatively.
The US simply doesn't engage in that kind of subjective interpretation of speech. Speech has to be a component of a criminal act, or a clear precursor to an imminently criminal act. You can't play association games like "he said this, which could lead other people to think X, which could lead people to say Y, which could lead to some form of violence", which most (all?) European legal systems seem to do.
I do understand the need for certain limited restrictions on speech in times of war and martial law, and perhaps for brief periods after wars end, but the EU hasn't had a major war in a long time. I get banning swastikas and banning Holocaust denial in the 50s. But I'm an American Jew, and I've been to Germany a bunch in the past decade. I don't care (in a legal sense) if someone denies the Holocaust, and in fact think that banning Holocaust denial greatly empowers them and their cause, not just in Germany but globally. I've seen this firsthand, many times.
A black man mouthing off to a police officer for example would be very likely putting himself in a dangerous situation and anything the officer does would end up 'justified' in the court of law. Or you'll be arrested if you laugh at someone powerful, like what happened with the Jeff Sessions incident 
The great irony of our rabid belief in freedom of speech is that it simply doesn't exist in America. It's a nice platitude, but 'freedom of speech' has always been used as a tool and weapon for those in power to suppress minorities or to bolster their own voices. All you have to do is tie it to some other bogus law or rationale, and you get freedom of speech for me but not for thee.
And the issues you mention happen in European countries, too, just with much lower risk of being shot, and usually with different minority groups (though I'm sure black people face problems with police in European countries as well). And the Congress laughing incident is certainly ridiculous - but you'll also find many similarly ridiculous stories in Britain, for example. Don't get me wrong; I have many problems with the US, and think most European countries do a lot of things better than we do. I just think the freedom of speech laws are one thing we usually do better than they do.
In the US, you aren't going to be arrested for a tweet (unless that tweet threatens violence), regardless of your ethnicity or sexuality. This is something that does actually sometimes happen in other countries. No, that's not necessarily a huge win when you consider real, everyday situations like black men having to be far more cautious with police than other people, often risking their lives, but I think you kind of just have to tackle freedom and liberty issues as they arise. We should appreciate where our system works well and vehemently dissent where it fails.
The issues you mention are major and do definitely need to be dealt with to achieve a state of real freedom for everyone in the US. But I also think those problems aren't insurmountable, and that practical freedom of speech is an eventually attainable goal. I also think we're slowly getting better over time, even though the problems remain immense. A lot of people in the US are dedicating their lives to ensuring laws and standards are applied fairly.
And even that's not particularly true either, considering how the US has placed an uneven focus on Black Identity Extremists over the group actually causing real and daily harm to individuals. Which goes back to my point of freedom of speech not really existing in the US: It's more acceptable to be a white supremacist (and in turn, your rights to 'freedom of speech' strongly defended) and express extremely violent views under the protection of the police and government.
Which is why you see an increasingly strong reaction to any form of white supremacy.
That would be illegal.
> Or you'll be arrested if you laugh at someone powerful, like what happened with the Jeff Sessions incident
That didn't happen.
> The great irony of our rabid belief in freedom of speech is that it simply doesn't exist in America.
As you can see from the very public arrest of Louise Mensch. Which totally happened in a different universe.
You're going to have to expand on what you mean if you're going to say something didn't happen in the face of evidence that it did.
But I would dearly like to hear how freedom of speech is used to suppress minorities. Note that in my own country (or the region that became my country), censorship was used to suppress the growing independence movement. A movement of a minority of the population. Perhaps if we had had free speech, they would have instead used that to suppress us... somehow?
For example, when a city attempted to block the march of the Unite the Right rally, they were met with a strong resistance under their right to freedom of speech. Yet Black Lives Matter was treated with far more disdain and had a considerably stronger and disproportionate response to their activism. Freedom of Speech can be a bludgeon to allow movements filled with hatred to further their own causes, while it's conveniently ignored for minorities or said to be 'at the wrong place'.
This is why the ACLU has started to shift their position on an absolutist view of freedom of speech. Because in defending Unite the Right they directly caused harm to minority populations.
I'm not sure what outcome you would have wanted from the situation - the government should have further tried to supress people against BLM? Who's the minority power in your scenario again?
And in this case the city didn't 'break the law', they were attempting to move the rally to another location (rightfully) believing that it would pose a severe security risk. Which led to the challenge by the ACLU on the grounds of the first amendment and an emergency injunction being put in place to allow the rally to occur at the original location.
Unless you honestly believe that black identity extremists are somehow more dangerous than white supremacists at this time, it's obvious that one group benefits a lot more from 'freedom of speech' than another.
What makes you believe censorship laws won't also serve those in power?
When was this?
I reckon on the whole people have fought more to protect free speech than to limit it, although both have indeed occurred, fascism being the main example of the latter.
Unless it's libel (i.e. intentional or neglectful causing of actual harm to a person) or speech connected to specific lawless action (like saying "let's whack this guy" to a contract killer) - no, there's not. Which things do you mean?
> Germans in particular are acutely aware of the disastrous consequences of allowing incitement to go unchallenged
Germans problem was not just "incitement". It was putting Hitler in charge of the government. That wasn't done by "incitement", that was done by actual German top politicians, who thought that putting a strong leader in charge and suppressing opposition (Ermächtigungsgesetz and so on) will solve their stability problems. They did it for security, to keep the tranquility and peace in the nation, so they had the troublemakers arrested and the people who can right the course of the nation assigned the power instead. Too bad those people turned out to be the Nazis.
I think the lesson from here is that no opposition voice needs to be suppressed, no group should be excluded, and nobody should be given absolute power over others. Somehow some people in EU think that the lesson if that right people just need to suppress the right things instead. After all, we have so good record in choosing who are the right people and what things they should be suppressing, don't we? We won't make any mistakes again there?
It's quite a long list.
Only limitations on obscenity somehow approach free speech restrictions, but even then they are "place and manner" restrictions, not outright bans - as you might be perfectly aware, there's a lot of porn of most obscene varieties around, and it's completely legal - as long as it is not presented in specific venues in specific manner.
All these things are radically different from what EU is trying to do. They try to ban certain things completely, based on their content - not ban publication of X because it's copyrighted, or because they want to only be transmitted by cable TV and not public broadcast, or not shown in public places where kids may see it, or not being told to government officials if this can interfere with their functions. No. They want it to be banned because of its content, totally and absolutely. There's no connection to any other crime required, there's no other harm or action required - the speech content itself is a crime. That's the fundamental difference.
The big one he missed was obscenity, but that's somewhat understandable given the frequency with which "obscenity laws" get struck down rather than upheld.
And the others aren't categories of speech. You can't use someone else's copyrighted work, but you can convey the exact same information in your own words. Government employees et al can't say certain things, but anyone else can say the same things.
The dangers that come from suppression of speech trump the dangers of free speech by far. And your 'historical analysis' is laughably shallow. Frankly, your comment reads like regurgitated propaganda.
Have they learnt the right lesson though? What's the alternate history theory here? You toss Hitler in jail after he makes an inflammatory speech to a large crowd, but before he's elected and that prevents WW2?
None of this solves the underlying issue of there being deep political problems in any country that ends up with this kind of leader getting into power. The hope of free speech supposedly being that someone will eventually put their finger on the real cause of the problems and get people on board with it, rather than an unfortunate group being scapegoated.
And speaking of our own political landscape, last thing I want is a right wing populist government that has been handed laws to crack down on "hate speech" by my fellow progressive do-gooders. If such laws were to pass and found constitutional, I'd expect BLM and BDS to be the first targets in all red states (and Europe has ample precedent for persecuting BDS as "hate speech", so it's not like you'd have any moral high ground on calling them out on it).
That probably works better if you don't let him out 9 months into a 5 year sentence.
Such as when government is given too much power over it.
The reality is, contemporary German government was not shy at all at suppressing freedoms. They had special exception in their Constitution to do just that when the government needs. But they were more afraid of Communists than they were of Nazis, so they gave the suppression machine to Nazis to fix the things. The conclusion from this fail should be "don't build suppression machine out of government", not "give it to Communists instead next time, maybe it'll work better".
I’m not sure that current hate speech laws would have been effective at countering Nazi propaganda.
The Nazis were not openly advocating their most extreme policies before the war. Even during the war, the worst atrocities were mostly kept quiet.
About the only thing I can think of is if some big company, think Facebook or Google, lobbied for this because they're large enough that they can actually implement it with review, whereas anyone smaller can't.
Its a fruitless effort and very dangerous when misused but thats what I assume they are trying to do anyway.
The "it's not foolproof, so it's fruitless"-argument strikes me as missing the point. We can't prevent many things from happening (rape, thieving, excessive drug use, etc.) but that doesn't mean that efforts to contain this are useless.
Just like terrorist content (how to make bombs/attack infidels and such) still exists, and those looking for it would probably find it, but the governments are trying to make it so that innocent people that have no inclination to perform horrible acts don't run into it by "chance". And just like they did to Muslim extremists and violent ideas in that front, they are now trying to do in other areas.
I'd say about none.
(Which postdates the first draft of this directive. But there were similar cases before)
Disclaimer: I currently am a EU citizen.
(Page 4, Point 3.1: Referrals)
Quote: A referral activity (meaning the reporting of terrorist and extremist online content to the concerned OSP) does not constitute an enforceable act. Thus, the decision and removal of the referred terrorist and extremist online content is taken by the concerned service provider under their own responsibility and accountability (in reference to their Terms and Conditions).
Why else would you pursue a role in a system of abuse than to abuse and profit?
Edit: Or better yet, report major MPAA members for copyright infringement, using spoofed accounts for other major MPAA members :)
Maybe this is the best outcome as it might provide a valid defense for those who choose to ignore the notices.
Like engineers who have never underestimated their time commitments to a project, government agencies have never been overfunded.
The point of the principle of free speech is not that all speech is beneficial but that we can’t possibly trust any agency with the power to decide what is and isn’t.
The “process” probably has no more flaws than any other process designed and implemented by mortals, it just goes to demonstrate why the whole censor-the-internet idea is wrong.
those agencies already exist! So, in order to execute GP's preferences, what agencies shall be eliminated? I find that tends to focus the debate and reveal the parts that are based in reality and those that aren't.
Perhaps I should stay away from recognizable cases or be sure they aren't lightning rods, knowing that people are going to get hung up on the specific example. It's hard to do that, though.
It never ceases to amaze me how common this trope remains in defense of censorship, given that it was designed as a slippery slope.
I'm against installing verbal filters on everyone just in case someone might shout 'fire' in a crowded place with intent to cause harm.
You don't have to wonder, there are long defined and continuously refined standards in operation. But it's irrelevant to the thread, so we don't need to detail them here.
- disturbing the peace ( if nobody got hurt )
- causing bodily harm by criminal negligence
- inciting to riot
If I say that yes, I suppose we can carve out some sort of exception for people who directly cause harm to life and limb by falsely proclaiming the existence of immediate dangers in crowded areas, then this doesn’t seem like a slippery slope — I am not forced to then admit we should also start censoring anything else outside that very narrow category.
If, on the other hand, I say that free speech should apply even to those shouting fire in a crowded theatre, am I worried that this is going to suddenly become a major danger? Are psychopathic pranksters going to start causing fatal stampedes at every opening night? No, because it’s not something that actually happens; anyone shouting fire in a crowded theatre would probably just get shushed and escorted out by ushers; at worst they’d provoke an orderly evacuation through the plentiful emergency exits that theatres tend to have nowadays.
So I guess I’ll go for the second option — refuse to carve out the exception and accept the risk of the occasional unnecessary evacuation.
There are other small and well established edge-case restrictions on free speech I am willing to accept, mind you, eg market manipulation or giving false statements to police. But I don’t see the classic fire-in-theatre one as being relevant to anything.
Actually, it's not if you look at it a different way. We have Free Speech in the U.S.A., but there are many instances where it's illegal (and rightly so) to lie. You can't lie about your finances to the IRS. You can't lie in court when under oath. You can't ruin someone's reputation by lying about him (i.e., slander or libel).
And you can't lie about there being a fire in a theater.
This contradicts the point you were making before, which I was responding to, where no agency is qualified to establish limits, so I guess this part of the thread is over.
refuse to carve out the exception and accept the risk of the occasional unnecessary evacuation
You're still hung up on theaters, not to mention a whole whack of cherry-picked hyper-specific scenarios. Look into the Hillsborough Disaster some time. Or here's an on-point example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Hall_disaster ...would that be no fault of anybody in the free-speech society you are advocating? Maybe pulling a fire alarm would have to be established as a form of speech first, but I bet that could be done.
No it doesn't, you don't need an agency butting in case-by-case to have specific exclusions.
> Hillsborough Disaster
Too many people, bad management of the crowd, how is this relevant to speech at all?
> Italian Hall disaster
I think it's fair to blame the design of the building and overcrowding here. Blaming the person that yelled fire is good for vengeance but not very good for safety and accident-prevention.
Governments tend not to take sides against other governments unless they want to go to war with them in some way. So you can imagine that in many cases most other governments would back the terrorist label.
This points out one of the big issues with the use of the word "terrorist" in today's world. It is a label that dominant organizations use against any group that presents a serious threat, regardless of the activities of that group.
> The charges allege that Golaszewski was found with copies of 21 Silent Techniques of Killing by Master Hei Long, The Anarchist Cookbook and The Big Book of Mischief on 23 February in Leeds. It is also alleged that he had in his possession the Improvised Munitions Handbook, Murder Inc, The Book by Jack the Rippa, and Minimanual Of The Urban Guerilla, by Carlos Marighella.
The guy is charged with possession of six books, some of these books are likely to be present at archive.org
> Pawel Golaszewski faces six counts under the Terrorism Act and has been charged with possession of a document or record "containing information of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism".
Six books, six counts.
Unsure where is this heading. Does anyone think the law can stop technology?
Here's a link to the current EU draft: https://www.laquadrature.net/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2019...
(It's a document highlighting the latest changes from committee, making it somewhat hard to read but not less interesting)
I'm not sure if it's fair to compare notices from the current program, which sends out notices without any legal force, to what this envisages. The directive sets out a process and requirements for notices, including detailed reasoning for each. It also specifically mentions avenues to protest (and sue) in cases of disagreements.
I'm no particular fan of this for both practical and philosophical reasons. If youtube had invested in some sort of oversight that prevented this kiwi neckbeard from live-streaming his massacre of innocents, the vote this week would probably have ended differently.
Depending on how is decided is the answer to your question.
Edit: no they do not need to remove content because a foreign entity asked them to https://www.engadget.com/2017/11/06/judge-rules-canada-de-in...
Who can explain these SV 'relationships' with state actors? Anyone who cares about censorship should be extremely concerned about state actors flagging content. Snowden is still in Russia, Assange is virtual imprisoned and Manning is back in prison. Isn't it curious that these basic actions of whistle blowing and dissent are not able to operate freely in the west?
Is it simply as transparent as when other countries take down dissent or imprison activists its censorship and totalitarianism and when we do its 'fake news', 'Russian propaganda' or 'some reason'. It's incredible people can ignore everything and talk of free speech, censorship, and democracy as if none of the above is happening.
Why is this surprising or unusual? It doesn't matter to them. Citizens aren't their customers and can't refuse to fund them. What other outcome can one rationally expect?
All signs point to the UK taking an increasingly authoritarian attitude to the net post-Brexit.
In 18th and even 19th century, Britain's unwritten constitution and notions of "English liberty" did indeed stand out -- and inspired the American to crystalise the ideas into written constitutions.
But 20th century ideologies, and the modern administrative state have "obsoleted" all that. Needless to say Britain coped with the change better than lots of pre-war countries (Germany!).
But post-war, Europeans have put in place formal human rights protections that a working imperfectly, but better than the British non-constitution. British citizens have their basic rights protected in large part because the UK now shares these formal rules with Europe.
I am unaware of major cases of regulatory capture in the EU governance and most regulation proceeding this has been well intentioned - if the cookie banner is annoying then tell your the site to stop tracking you.
So you had Farrah’s and others playing the usual “Hey struggling masses, all of your problems are those immigrant’s fault” game. Over time the political success of UKIP and internal strife within the Tories led David “The Chinless Pudding” Cameron to promise that he would hold a referendum on the issue of re-elected. At the time he assumed that he would win by the same narrow margin he had previously and once again would enter into a “power-sharing” deal with the Liberal Democrats. He could then blame the LibDems for blocking the referendum, defuse the Tory civil war, and shut Farage up for another election cycle.
Then he won, decisively, and the LibDems tanked. So Cameron had no excuse to not have the referendum. He assumed that people who had been openly pro-remain such as Boris Johnson would put aside their personal ambitions and support Remain, but of course that didn’t happen. So what you had was a group of highly motivated people such as Boris who used this as a means to get power, people like Farrage being populist demagogues, and the ERG playing ideologue while just looking to get even richer. Cameron quit and literally walked away humming a little tune, and the Tories went to war with themselves. In the end everyone “died” and out of the ashes rose the silent one, Theresa May, who had switched from staunch pro-Remain to equally staunch Brexiteer mode overnight.
The rest is history. In a sense at the highest levels where Brexit isn’t about gaining short-term power and settling grudges, it’s about the long-term goal of being able to capture UK regulatory bodies. “People” like Jacob Rees-Mogg see how the business class can rob the state in the US, and they want a slice of that. The EU would prevent much of it, so they want out of the EU. The details of why individual people (who bothered to vote at all) voted to Leave is a lot less interesting and has less to do with Brexit than the political reality.
The latest extension offered to Brexit is until Oct 31. And another extension is likely to be offered then.
The MPs in office overwhelmingly oppose Brexit. They don't support anything else, but they oppose Brexit as well. But the country is fairly evenly divided. However the Conservative party hung itself out to dry on a promise to deliver Brexit, and the Conservative base very strongly wishes that Brexit had happened already. If it doesn't, it is not impossible that the Conservative party will fall apart.
The Conservative leadership's opinion is that their base consist of "swivel-eyed loons", but without that base, the Conservatives don't win elections. Also the Conservatives are in a coalition right now with the DUP, and the DUP is strongly for Brexit. (As I commented to a friend today, if the Conservative base consists of swivel-eyed loons, the DUP base consists of steel-eyed goons.)
The country as a whole is fairly evenly divided. Polls suggest that a re-do would come up Remain. But polls suggested the same thing before the referendum as well. Demographics suggest that the country as a whole will support Remain in the future. However large parts of the country are strongly Leave and that won't be changing any time soon. And no, they aren't simply stupid racists. They have some valid concerns, such as the long-term effect of EU regulations (such as GDPR and the new Copyright bill) on economic growth.
I don't know how the west will recover from this but if there is one thing I've come to view as a vital component of that recovery it's arts spending. We seriously need to up critical thinking skills in the general populace instead of continuing to pump out trade-schooled apprentices (that includes a bunch of us developers, many of whom are more heavily rote taught than anything else).
Our purpose in the universe is... well probably nothing, but it'd be nice if we equipped everyone to deal with life and their journey through it with as many tools as possible. It is possible to find some educational spending wasteful and desire to make it more efficient, but the people who say "we're wasting money educating all these people" those are the most dangerous of all.
But it was the best 'educated' voters who took the dire economic warnings of the cost of voting leave most seriously, which have since been proven false (e.g. no 800,000 lost jobs due to uncertainty post-vote).
So there's an easy argument to make that huge numbers of remain voters were just, as you put it, "unquestioning individuals that are happy to go along with whatever they are told" i.e. they were to vote remain or else economic disaster, didn't question it despite the obvious holes in this story, and did as they were told. Leave voters thought for themselves, concluded the risks were exaggerated and didn't do as they were told.
But it's coming here too and not slowly. For instance five years ago 48 US Senators voted gut much of the core of the first amendment. (https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-joint-re...) After every terrorist attack we hear how the constitution is not a suicide note (and therefore the bill of rights is highly contingent). Pressure to act against (flexibly defined) hate speech is growing particularly in the young cohort of voters.
In the not distant future I expect hundreds or thousands of US officials to have the same kind of power that their EU counterparts are seeking here: to automatically switch off almost any domestic web resource if it hurts the feelings of an important constituent.
Many of us will fight it, and as in the EU, we'll lose.