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

Internet Censorship Bill Could Spell Disaster for Speech and Innovation

eff.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 82 posts

Re: Internet Censorship Bill Could Spell Disaster for Speech and Innovation

#61

Post by jordigh »

I wish I hadn't gotten so conditioned to think that free speech is nazi speech. Every time I hear someone defending free speech on the internet, they always seem to be defending the most vile opinions or someone's right to be unsympathetic or uncaring. The EFF doesn't seem to be doing that here, though, yet reading the headline puts me on guard.

Why isn't anyone ever defending free speech for good, positive things? I like free speech, but the positive associations I have with it, like allowing individuals to criticise politicians or the government, never seem to be what people on the internet are trying to defend. Free speech should be used by the disenfranchised to defend against those in power, but people want to defend it being used to attack the powerless too.

Re: Internet Censorship Bill Could Spell Disaster for Speech and Innovation

#63

Post by austincheney »

Free speech doesn't exist online. I learned this when Brendan Eich was fired from Mozilla (even though his speech was private, non-vocal, and offline).

The conclusion for me is to never use social media. Online everything is business. The most political I get is heated opinions about programming and developer incompetence. For everything else you will have to meet me in person and buy me dinner.

Re: Internet Censorship Bill Could Spell Disaster for Speech and Innovation

#64

Post by narrator »

I think the intent of the lawmakers here is to make a law to put people in jail or out of business who are running human trafficking websites that advertise services from victims. How exactly do they do it without trashing the whole internet?

Re: Internet Censorship Bill Could Spell Disaster for Speech and Innovation

#65

Post by Buttons840 »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #60
amelius wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Facebook's and Google's future is at risk, why haven't they done anything to stop this bill?

Because like almost all laws of this nature, the costs of compliance will harm upstart competitors greatly while being a rounding error on the books of the major incumbent players.

Agreed. Joe will end up in jail because his blog had a comment section. What about Facebook? Are they going to put Facebook in jail?

Re: Internet Censorship Bill Could Spell Disaster for Speech and Innovation

#66

Post by cft »

rayiner wrote: post #18
ThrustVectoring wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It might be a possible minor win for privacy - if collecting certain information might mean that you know that your service somehow assists illegal activity, then one defense against it is not collecting that information.

As noted below, this bill would be an absolute (much deserved?) disaster for websites that police content. Such websites can't hope to avoid the "knowing" prong.

Knowing may come from a user complaint. After a single valid complaint, one may argue that the site is on notice.

Re: Internet Censorship Bill Could Spell Disaster for Speech and Innovation

#67

Post by Fifer82 »

rayiner wrote: post #11

The Act is as bad as the EFF says it is. 18 U.S.C. 1591 makes illegal "participation in a venture" which financially benefits from trafficking. This bill defines "participation in a venture" to include "knowing conduct by an individual or entity, by any means, that assists, supports, or facilitates the violation." That language vastly expands potential liability. If a website knows that its services are being used to…

I know nothing about US politics, but I feel like John McCain has spent his career trying to either ban things or remove free speech. He keeps popping up in some of the books I read, the most recent he was trying to ban Voilent Video Games (Doom).

Re: Internet Censorship Bill Could Spell Disaster for Speech and Innovation

#68

Post by ameister14 »

weirdstuff wrote: post #58
primitivesuave wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Legalize and regulate" doesn't work when you're dealing with criminals that are enslaving and trafficking underage women. I highly recommend that you learn more about backpage.com and understand why there is great emotional resolve to fix the problem, even if the solution presented here is misguided.

Perhaps the reason trafficking is incentivized is because this is a black market in the first place. We don't have the same levels of criminality with alcohol that we experience in the U.S. during prohibition precisely because a legitimized industry crowded out the ability to do most egregious criminal activity.

That would be a much stronger argument if trafficking wasn't such a significant issue in countries with legal prostitution.

Re: Internet Censorship Bill Could Spell Disaster for Speech and Innovation

#69

Post by ameister14 »

the_stc wrote: post #15

The real way to fight trafficking is legalization and regulation, including interviews with sex workers to detect coercion, then followups to help them. Since fixing the laws is going to take a while, we've taken it upon ourselves. We're building such a superior solution for both sex providers and clients, it'll hurt trafficking like iTunes hurt music piracy.

Don't the UK, Germany, Austria and the Netherlands have fairly significant trafficking problems?

Re: Internet Censorship Bill Could Spell Disaster for Speech and Innovation

#70

Post by ameister14 »

jordigh wrote: post #61

I wish I hadn't gotten so conditioned to think that free speech is nazi speech. Every time I hear someone defending free speech on the internet, they always seem to be defending the most vile opinions or someone's right to be unsympathetic or uncaring. The EFF doesn't seem to be doing that here, though, yet reading the headline puts me on guard. Why isn't anyone ever defending free speech for good, positive things? I…

Positive speech is rarely threatened before negative speech. The attacks on the fringes of free speech gradually enable the ability to curtail speech in any form.
Post reply on HN