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

91–100 of 163 posts

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

#91

Post by Rumperuu »

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? >…

>It is not illegal...to threaten the president

That may not be entirely true [1], although the same video makes the point that US courts have apparently ruled you _can_ incite another to harm them.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5bEwcJ8eCI

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

#92

Post by _khau »

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? >…

> 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?

Actually yes. Just look at the McCarthy era witch hunts against 'communists' in Hollywood. The FBI and CIA were involved in drawing up the watch lists.

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

#93

Post by pjc50 »

maxpupmax wrote: post #40
pietroglyph wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Removal from office is the last thing that should happen in this situation. The judge made a questionable decision, which will be appealed, but the judge should not be fired (that is an action reserved for actual misconduct). If we do the latter to judges with whom we do not agree, we jeopardize the independence of our judiciary.

Disagree with the overall sentiment. If judges make decisions which don't represent the mandate of their constituents, they can/should be removed. See the Brock Turner judge in the SF bay area. Glad he's gone! That said, you may be right about this particular situation.

> If judges make decisions which don't represent the mandate of their constituents, they can/should be removed.

This collapses separation of powers, is against the idea that "law" and "politics" are separate things, and paves the way for removing judges who don't support the views of the Party.

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

#94

Post by AllegedAlec »

Aloha wrote: post #33
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…

In politics, there is an adage I like, never give yourself more power than you want your opponent to have. Free speech is one of those things that fits into this category, regulating speech that makes people uncomfortable does have a very provable slippery slope effect. https://theintercept.com/2017/08/29/in-europe-hate-speech-la... We've experimented with aggressively limiting free speech before, and it went very ve…

> regulating speech that makes people uncomfortable does have a very provable slippery slope effect.

Yeah, I can tell you hate speech laws don't work well, since any group with an agenda can push for those laws to be used against the common good, or even injudicious application of it, such as we see in the GB, where a woman has been sentenced to community service for quoting song lyrics, or the moronic laws of my country that make the denial of the Holocaust illegal.

However, I'd argue that from a moral standpoint, these laws are even more reprehensible. Language (and thought) are how we test ideas, and when you start to limit that because they're the wrong kind of language or ideas, you limit not only our capability to discuss ideas, but also our ability to talk about these ideas, but also our ability to test them, and therefore, if it is really such a repugnant idea, find out the arguments for why it is so.

There are other reasons why I believe that hate speech is a toxic idea. For example: hate speech is a term used by the small-minded to shut down anything they don't agree with. Serious discussion on any contentious subject is immediately rendered moot by the new Godwin that is calling something hate speech.

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

#95

Post by swebs »

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…

>There are still limits in the US

This is true, but your examples are pretty bad.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_Unite...

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

#97

Post by swebs »

sschueller wrote: post #68
djsumdog wrote: post #49

There is a lot of crossover here and the Right to be Forgotten. The EFF opposed EU right to be forgotten laws because they could often be used in censorship (like in this very matter). In the US, there are fewer people who expunge criminal records because there are companies that will produced expunged records in background checks so long as they were public at any time. Banning this gets into 1st amendment grounds.…

I think it is abhorrent that data of expunged criminal records are kept by private firms. Why can't this be made illegal if yelling "fire" in a theater is?

It's archival of public information. If this is a concern, then maybe that information shouldn't be made public in the first place.

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

#98

Post by icebraining »

sschueller wrote: post #68
djsumdog wrote: post #49

There is a lot of crossover here and the Right to be Forgotten. The EFF opposed EU right to be forgotten laws because they could often be used in censorship (like in this very matter). In the US, there are fewer people who expunge criminal records because there are companies that will produced expunged records in background checks so long as they were public at any time. Banning this gets into 1st amendment grounds.…

I think it is abhorrent that data of expunged criminal records are kept by private firms. Why can't this be made illegal if yelling "fire" in a theater is?

Falsely yelling fire in a theater. Plus that was only a rhetorical point used to justify a ban on pacifically protesting the draft, by emotionally appealing to recent (at the time) tragedies.

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

#99

Post by icebraining »

AmericanChopper wrote: post #84
matthewmacleod wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Section 127 prohibits "sending by public communication network an offensive / indecent / obscene / menacing message / matter". It's unspecified in that article how many were arrested specifically for offensive messages (as opposed, say, to menacing ones).

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

#100

Post by icebraining »

AmericanChopper wrote: post #85
matthewmacleod wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

There are also 0 restrictions on offensiveness in the US.

That's not true: see "seven dirty words".

Post reply on HN