Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Mexican Newspaper Shuts Down, Saying It Is Too Dangerous to Continue

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 435 posts

Re: Mexican Newspaper Shuts Down, Saying It Is Too Dangerous to Continue

#121

Post by lazaroclapp »

jakebasile wrote: post #106
lazaroclapp wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you sure about that? I am usually a pretty strong free speech advocate, up to toeing the line of being a free speech absolutist at some points in my life (of the: "nuclear weapon blueprints posted online are just as valid speech as any other sequence of bits, information wants to be free!" variety). But I still think you can design speech codes that are not prone to slippery slope under any sane interpretation. I…

> fighting words This isn't an exception to free speech protections. 'In 1942 the Supreme Court held that the government could prohibit "fighting words" — "those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace." The Supreme Court has been retreating from that pronouncement ever since. [...] the only remaining focus is on whether the speech will provoke immediate face-to…

How is that not an exception, though? The test 'whether the speech will provoke immediate face-to-face violence' is still a restriction on free speech, albeit an extremely circumscribed one. Which is exactly what we were talking about, that such circumscribed exceptions are possible in the first place without sliding all the way to 'criticizing the government is treason, citizen'.

But, ok, if you want another U.S.-based exception: some information regarding nuclear weapons is considered to be 'born classified' in the sense that even if you develop it on your own without clearance or access to classified materials, you still are not allowed to divulge it. That is another government-enforced restriction to free speech, although admittedly a sensible one on the justification of the survival of the species.

Don't get me wrong, I think in any specific discussion about speech restrictions the bias should be huge in favor of free speech, given the obvious dangers of any too broad restriction and the incentives of people in power to put in place such restrictions. But we definitely don't currently enjoy, let's say "absolute information-theoretical freedom of speech" (e.g. including things like direct actionable threats, weapon blueprints, video-recordings of certain third-party crimes, etc). We already put up with some limits without falling into a slippery slope. 'No explicit calls for genocide' might not, on its own, be the restriction that opens the floodgates to pervasive censorship.

Re: Mexican Newspaper Shuts Down, Saying It Is Too Dangerous to Continue

#122

Post by throwaway91111 »

2_listerine_pls wrote: post #99
matt_wulfeck wrote: post #81

It's us , the USA, that is causing this paper to shutdown. The cartels are financed by the insatiable drug appetite of its close neighbor. Our inability and/or unwillingness to legalize recreational drugs is the feeding tube for these vicious groups.

It's surprisingly simple to locate the plantations using LIDAR + spectrometry. Even easier in Afghanistan, where fields are cultivated in the open. It's so well documented that the UNDOC provides an anual report with the amount in acres. I could go on, but this is enough to make one wonder why they aren't being stopped.

Well, who knows why mexico doesn't take advantage of that.

But they are the only people who can.

Re: Mexican Newspaper Shuts Down, Saying It Is Too Dangerous to Continue

#123

Post by toss1941 »

jfim wrote: post #117
2_listerine_pls wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's surprisingly simple to locate the plantations using LIDAR + spectrometry. Even easier in Afghanistan, where fields are cultivated in the open. It's so well documented that the UNDOC provides an anual report with the amount in acres. I could go on, but this is enough to make one wonder why they aren't being stopped.

> I could go on, but this is enough to make one wonder why they aren't being stopped. Except for that pesky sovereignty thing.

I was thinking of police corruption myself.

Re: Mexican Newspaper Shuts Down, Saying It Is Too Dangerous to Continue

#124

Post by callalex »

enraged_camel wrote: post #111
2_listerine_pls wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's surprisingly simple to locate the plantations using LIDAR + spectrometry. Even easier in Afghanistan, where fields are cultivated in the open. It's so well documented that the UNDOC provides an anual report with the amount in acres. I could go on, but this is enough to make one wonder why they aren't being stopped.

>>Insatiable drug appetite is a constant Says who?

The decades upon decades of failed abolishment efforts speak for themselves.

Re: Mexican Newspaper Shuts Down, Saying It Is Too Dangerous to Continue

#126

Post by hwillis »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #119
jzwinck wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could make a single-state work permit without internal borders. If workers from California want to spend their vacation money in Nevada, let them. You can still reject them if they apply for work in another state.

It's not just about work. To make that effective you would have to eliminate federal birthright citizenship, or anyone could easily make their children US citizens (and then too many would). The "state immigrants" would also have to be disqualified from all federal programs or unwilling states would still be paying for them. And if that isn't enough to make it intractable, what do you expect to happen when an immigra…

>To make that effective you would have to eliminate federal birthright citizenship, or anyone could easily make their children US citizens (and then too many would).

This is irrelevant; you can do this on a visa just as easily. Additionally, this exists for a reason even if you don't like it. If anything it reduces the incentive to do this, because you can get 99% of the benefits without doing it. Regardless all you have to do to make this birth-neutral is make it as hard to get a state green card as it is to get a visa.

>The "state immigrants" would also have to be disqualified from all federal programs or unwilling states would still be paying for them.

You are ignorant of the laws regarding legal and illegal immigration. Education, for instance, is explicitly provided to illegal immigrants. Social services almost all have a multi-year "pay-in" period. Additionally, immigrants pay more into taxes than they take out. I believe you are unintentionally arguing a strawman.

Also, those states don't get a say in what they do or do not pay for. Massachusetts pays for Alabama. In fact, Massachusetts pays for immigration control that they don't want. In reality this would be a doubly more fair distribution of federal taxes. Even hypothetically it's an insignificant change.

>And if that isn't enough to make it intractable, what do you expect to happen when an immigrant crosses into another state to commit a serious crime?

I don't understand what you're trying to say at all- this would no different from anyone else, citizen or not, committing a crime.

Re: Mexican Newspaper Shuts Down, Saying It Is Too Dangerous to Continue

#127

Post by toss1941 »

lazaroclapp wrote: post #91
function_seven wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You tell me what your model speech code would look like, and I'll show you how I could use it to shut your speech down within a decade.

Are you sure about that? I am usually a pretty strong free speech advocate, up to toeing the line of being a free speech absolutist at some points in my life (of the: "nuclear weapon blueprints posted online are just as valid speech as any other sequence of bits, information wants to be free!" variety). But I still think you can design speech codes that are not prone to slippery slope under any sane interpretation. I…

The beauty of freedom of speech is that it disarms that fine china that begins to appear on every square foot of ground in society where free speech is under assault. Without it, people quickly become accustomed to tip-toeing around issues like the proverbial fine china, but just as quickly very dangerous ideas are left unopposed due to the climate of fear that is generated.

Re: Mexican Newspaper Shuts Down, Saying It Is Too Dangerous to Continue

#129

Post by homakov »

_delirium wrote: post #110
telesilla wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My friends are thinkers and challengers of the system: it's for them I am more worried, that they can't speak freely. I could move to Condesa and live a protected life, but that's just colonialism (using my spending power to put a cocoon around me with Uber and private parties). That's not the México I'm interested in. I've also been mugged rather violently there anyway on Calle Amsterdam, (though no worse than Barce…

My very limited experience with Mexico City is that I'd treat it like many U.S. cities: it's fine, if you know which areas to avoid after dark, and which areas to avoid entirely. It is not like a safe European city center where you can go almost anywhere alone on foot at any time of day. But most U.S. cities don't fit that description either. And it's not at the other extreme that some people imagine, some kind of So…

Maybe I was lucky, but I never felt in danger in major US cities walking literally everywhere. While in D.F. I had some anxiety outside of central roads.

Re: Mexican Newspaper Shuts Down, Saying It Is Too Dangerous to Continue

#130

Post by ralfd »

_delirium wrote: post #110
telesilla wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My friends are thinkers and challengers of the system: it's for them I am more worried, that they can't speak freely. I could move to Condesa and live a protected life, but that's just colonialism (using my spending power to put a cocoon around me with Uber and private parties). That's not the México I'm interested in. I've also been mugged rather violently there anyway on Calle Amsterdam, (though no worse than Barce…

My very limited experience with Mexico City is that I'd treat it like many U.S. cities: it's fine, if you know which areas to avoid after dark, and which areas to avoid entirely. It is not like a safe European city center where you can go almost anywhere alone on foot at any time of day. But most U.S. cities don't fit that description either. And it's not at the other extreme that some people imagine, some kind of So…

As a European that sounds terrible! That it is not as bad as a lawless warzone in a failed African state isn't much consolation??
Post reply on HN