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

Judge Orders Los Angeles Times to Delete Part of Published Article

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 163 posts

Re: Judge Orders Los Angeles Times to Delete Part of Published Article

#81

Post by matthewmacleod »

AmericanChopper wrote: post #41
latch wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know this isn't related to hate speech, it was done to protect someone's family, but in much of the world, various forms of speech are regulated (by judges or elected officials). To me, anyways, there's overwhelming anecdotal proof that having some limits on speech correlates (and more than likely contributes) to a safer and more just society without any virulent side effect. This is not a slippery slope. I think i…

It’s the slipperiest slope of all. Thousands of people have been arrested for causing offence in the UK after they introduced their absurd laws. Police have recently been threatening to arrest people for mocking them online. In the US we’re very lucky to have the first amendment to protect our speech no matter who deems it hateful or offensive.

1. No they haven’t

2. There are limitations of free speech in every country, including the US. It’s a matter of where the line is drawn.

Re: Judge Orders Los Angeles Times to Delete Part of Published Article

#82

Post by mirimir »

wyldfire wrote: post #59
anothergoogler wrote: post #5

Here's the article before it was edited: https://web.archive.org/web/20180714180330/http://www.latime...

Oh wow! How long until the Internet Archive is added to the order?

That's why https://archive.is/g8jV7

And if that goes too, I have a local copy :)

Re: Judge Orders Los Angeles Times to Delete Part of Published Article

#83

Post by matthewmacleod »

AmericanChopper wrote: post #77
jkaplowitz wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are middle grounds that also work well, like what Canada has. It's got entrenched constitutional protections for freedom of expression which courts are willing to use to invalidate laws, but the same constitution explicitly allows certain limits on that freedom. The balance isn't perfect, especially not as applied to most Canadian defamation laws (Quebec is a bit friendlier to defendants here). But it's pretty…

Canada is a terrible example, they have compelled speech in their laws. Referring to somebody by the wrong pronoun is a criminal offence in Canada. The right to free speech is intrinsically the right to be offensive, for the very simple reason that any statement at all could be taken as offensive by somebody. As soon as you criminalise being offensive, any speech becomes fair game for government censorship. It is the…

I find that definition is typically only used by people who are more interested in “offence” than “freedom of speech”.

We should obviously all have the freedoms to be offensive, because like you say, offence is essentially arbitrary. But we draw limits on that freedom all the time - for safety, libel, or public order reasons, for example. The real argument should be about where that line is drawn, and not those silly straw men about “they are going to arrest me for calling a man a man”

Re: Judge Orders Los Angeles Times to Delete Part of Published Article

#84

Post by AmericanChopper »

matthewmacleod wrote: post #81
AmericanChopper wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s the slipperiest slope of all. Thousands of people have been arrested for causing offence in the UK after they introduced their absurd laws. Police have recently been threatening to arrest people for mocking them online. In the US we’re very lucky to have the first amendment to protect our speech no matter who deems it hateful or offensive.

1. No they haven’t 2. There are limitations of free speech in every country, including the US. It’s a matter of where the line is drawn.

1. Yes they have.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5715727/Police-threa...

https://www.google.co.nz/amp/s/www.theregister.co.uk/AMP/201...

2. The restrictions on speech in the US mostly relate to other crimes, like inciting violence. You can’t be arrested in the US for saying something that’s too offensive (like they do in the UK every day).

Re: Judge Orders Los Angeles Times to Delete Part of Published Article

#85

Post by AmericanChopper »

matthewmacleod wrote: post #83
AmericanChopper wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Canada is a terrible example, they have compelled speech in their laws. Referring to somebody by the wrong pronoun is a criminal offence in Canada. The right to free speech is intrinsically the right to be offensive, for the very simple reason that any statement at all could be taken as offensive by somebody. As soon as you criminalise being offensive, any speech becomes fair game for government censorship. It is the…

I find that definition is typically only used by people who are more interested in “offence” than “freedom of speech”. We should obviously all have the freedoms to be offensive, because like you say, offence is essentially arbitrary. But we draw limits on that freedom all the time - for safety, libel, or public order reasons, for example. The real argument should be about where that line is drawn, and not those silly…

It’s not silly at all, because that is literally a law in Canada.

There are also 0 restrictions on offensiveness in the US. Any restrictions on speech are restrictions on other crimes. You can’t incite violence for example. If your straw man of what free speech means we’re true, then a gang leader could freely sit behind a desk and direct others to commit crime on his behalf all day because all he’s doing is speaking, right?...

Re: Judge Orders Los Angeles Times to Delete Part of Published Article

#86

Post by santaragolabs »

kryogen1c wrote: post #79
confounded wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are still limits in the US. You have to promise that you’ve never been a member of a communist party on entry. It wouldn’t be wise to talk about bombs near an airport, or tweet about killing the president when he’s visiting your city. People who say controversial things, write controversial articles, or make controversial films tend to get detained and questioned at the border a lot, get harassed, and get their…

> People who say controversial things, write controversial articles, or make controversial films tend to get detained and questioned at the border a lot, get harassed, and get their devices confiscated. Since when? How would that even work? The president orders the NSA to generate a list of disagreeable film makers and journalists and passes it to the TSA and customs? Do you have any evidence for that claim at all? >…

No-one said anything about the president or the NSA being involved. There are tons of ways this can work. And it actually happens.

Just once you're flagged and are inside The Machine you get detained upon entry whilst they confiscate your devices, try to see where you've been etc. Lookup the wikipedia page of Laura Poitras who for years lived in Berlin due to USA government surveillance. And this started way before her involvement with Snowden as a filmmaker.

Re: Judge Orders Los Angeles Times to Delete Part of Published Article

#87

Post by dgellow »

confounded wrote: post #69
dgellow wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is also laws around hate speech and so forth. Not in the US (as far as I understand). See the Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_in_the_United_Stat... > In June 2017, the Supreme Court affirmed in a unanimous decision on Matal v. Tam that the disparagement clause of the Lanham Act violates the First Amendment's free speech clause. The issue was about government prohibiting the regist…

There are still limits in the US. You have to promise that you’ve never been a member of a communist party on entry. It wouldn’t be wise to talk about bombs near an airport, or tweet about killing the president when he’s visiting your city. People who say controversial things, write controversial articles, or make controversial films tend to get detained and questioned at the border a lot, get harassed, and get their…

My comment was specifically about hate speech. I never argued that absolute freedom of speech was a thing or that anyone can say anything.

Re: Judge Orders Los Angeles Times to Delete Part of Published Article

#88

Post by omeid2 »

PinkMilkshake wrote: post #63
omeid2 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they don't have freedom of speech I think the issue of freedom of speech is much more nuanced than that. For example, even in places with "absolute freedom of speech", which I suspect is what you're implying, there is defamation laws that forbids certain kind of speech. There is also laws around hate speech and so forth.

I think what your parent meant was Australia doesn't have any explicit freedom of speech protection laws, unlike the US and some other countries. Which is true. "The Australian Constitution does not explicitly protect freedom of expression. However, the High Court has held that an implied freedom of political communication exists as an indispensible part of the system of representative and responsible government crea…

I understand, my point is that freedom of speech is complicated and not so black and white.

Re: Judge Orders Los Angeles Times to Delete Part of Published Article

#89

Post by anticensor »

AmericanChopper wrote: post #77
jkaplowitz wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are middle grounds that also work well, like what Canada has. It's got entrenched constitutional protections for freedom of expression which courts are willing to use to invalidate laws, but the same constitution explicitly allows certain limits on that freedom. The balance isn't perfect, especially not as applied to most Canadian defamation laws (Quebec is a bit friendlier to defendants here). But it's pretty…

Canada is a terrible example, they have compelled speech in their laws. Referring to somebody by the wrong pronoun is a criminal offence in Canada. The right to free speech is intrinsically the right to be offensive, for the very simple reason that any statement at all could be taken as offensive by somebody. As soon as you criminalise being offensive, any speech becomes fair game for government censorship. It is the…

>Referring to somebody by the wrong pronoun

Like, calling your superior tu?

Re: Judge Orders Los Angeles Times to Delete Part of Published Article

#90

Post by michaelt »

kryogen1c wrote: post #79
confounded wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are still limits in the US. You have to promise that you’ve never been a member of a communist party on entry. It wouldn’t be wise to talk about bombs near an airport, or tweet about killing the president when he’s visiting your city. People who say controversial things, write controversial articles, or make controversial films tend to get detained and questioned at the border a lot, get harassed, and get their…

> People who say controversial things, write controversial articles, or make controversial films tend to get detained and questioned at the border a lot, get harassed, and get their devices confiscated. Since when? How would that even work? The president orders the NSA to generate a list of disagreeable film makers and journalists and passes it to the TSA and customs? Do you have any evidence for that claim at all? >…

  How would that even work?
This works through a mechanism called a "terror watch list"

For example, imagine you're a Youtuber and you make a serious, fair film about the Israel-Palestine conflict. You successfully get access to senior people on both sides.

Except Hamas is a terrorist organisation, and to get that access you've visited online forums about the organisation, contacted people in the US associated with it, and flown to a terrorism hotspot to meet with terrorist leaders. That pattern is pretty similar to someone who had been radicalised and wanted to fight abroad!

So you're put on a terror watch list, and at the border you're subject to extra searches, with the random delays that entails.

Post reply on HN