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

71–80 of 82 posts

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

#71

Post by primitivesuave »

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.

This is another conflation between legal prostitution and the exploitation and trafficking of underaged girls to customers (technically paedophiles) who are actively searching for underage sex. I recommend reading about backpage and understanding the difference between criminally exploiting underage girls and the debate around legalized prostitution.

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

#72

Post by nine_k »

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…

This is completely bananas then, yes. A car or a truck is essential to enable human trafficking, as are public roads. Should car makers, oil companies (because fuel), and state governments (who finance the roads) be held liable?

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

#73

Post by amagaeru »

mikeash wrote: post #53
amagaeru wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can order bullets on the internet. Does this fall under the banner of 'use the internet to help kill people'? Your facetious post and response seem to imply that you had something more specific in mind, or perhaps something by a specific group.

My point is just that "you can't directly do it over the internet" applies equally to both examples, so you need something else if you want to distinguish them.

Sites that facilitate sex trade / crime are direct actions in the trafficking chain. It happens on the internet. No, the john doesn't come through the tubes, but his order does. Directly over the internet.

What was your example again? You keep referring to it, but I can't find it in the comments, which makes i thard to see how your point applies equally.

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

#74

Post by abecedarius »

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…

It's funny how things go -- when I was growing up, free speech was seen as more of a left-wing issue.

The classic defense of free speech is http://www.econlib.org/library/Mill/mlLbty1.html and I recommend it. Steven Pinker has a book coming out next year that sounds like it'll tackle some of the same themes.

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

#75

Post by jordigh »

ameister14 wrote: post #70
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.

I'm really skeptical of this slippery slope argument. Germany has very rigidly enforced anti-nazi-speech laws and it doesn't strike me as being a totalitarian dystopia.

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

#76

Post by ameister14 »

jordigh wrote: post #75
ameister14 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm really skeptical of this slippery slope argument. Germany has very rigidly enforced anti-nazi-speech laws and it doesn't strike me as being a totalitarian dystopia.

Germany has been a totalitarian dystopia, though - 30 years ago. I don't think you can say anything about a society that is less than a generation or two old.

It's not about a totalitarian dystopia, though. It's about limiting some people's rights in favor of other people in general. We believe that this is wrong to do, not just harmful to society.

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

#77

Post by mikeash »

amagaeru wrote: post #73
mikeash wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point is just that "you can't directly do it over the internet" applies equally to both examples, so you need something else if you want to distinguish them.

Sites that facilitate sex trade / crime are direct actions in the trafficking chain. It happens on the internet. No, the john doesn't come through the tubes, but his order does. Directly over the internet. What was your example again? You keep referring to it, but I can't find it in the comments, which makes i thard to see how your point applies equally.

The other example was Nazis getting together and beating/murdering people.

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

#78

Post by dwiel »

JetSpiegel wrote: post #54
protomyth wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"My opponent supports sneaking a bill through that would harm you, your family, and the freedoms of true patriots by wrapping it falsely as a cure for sex trafficking, like a snake oil salesman trying to sell you sewage with perfume to cure your ills. What other things will this charlatan support?"

Good luck with that...

This is exactly the kind of rhetoric trump used to win

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

#79

Post by ams6110 »

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…

If you claim to support free speech, you have to support the right of others to speak things you disagree with. We have ceeded some limits (e.g. you generally cannot directly incite people to harm others) but every additional limit you allow on speech you oppose can eventually be used against speech you support.

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

#80

Post by jordigh »

ams6110 wrote: post #79
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…

If you claim to support free speech, you have to support the right of others to speak things you disagree with. We have ceeded some limits (e.g. you generally cannot directly incite people to harm others) but every additional limit you allow on speech you oppose can eventually be used against speech you support.

This is the same slope argument I'm skeptical about.

Nazi speech isn't something I merely disagree with. It's not a simple difference of opinion. It's not a perfectly valid alternative viewpoint we should respect. It's an ideology that caused a world war that we should never repeat. It's not something that should ever be protected.

Post reply on HN