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

Leaked white paper proposes U.S. Congressional regulation of social media

cjr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 164 posts

Re: Leaked white paper proposes U.S. Congressional regulation of social media

#151

Post by mikeash »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #119
mikeash wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Slavery was fine under the law. Once the Constitution was amended to prohibit it, the Court had no problem upholding that.

The Constitution was amended to explicitly prohibit Congress from making laws abridging the freedom of speech as well. What's relevant is the Supreme Court reconsidering a previous decision without any change to the Constitution, but that too has happened before, e.g. Brown v. Board of Education.

We have a comment complaining about the Court reading beyond what’s written, and another complaining about them failing to do so. I’m just pointing out the inconsistency. If you want total free speech based on a plain reading of the first amendment without considering context, then there’s no reasonable way for the Court to find slavery to be unconstitutional prior to the 13th amendment.

I’m not taking a position here, just pointing out the implications of the slavery thing.

Re: Leaked white paper proposes U.S. Congressional regulation of social media

#152

Post by seventhtiger »

kup0 wrote: post #141
seventhtiger wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think policing your own thoughts and communication in a social setting is an essential element to human discourse, and the lack of self policing is exactly why online discourse is substantially lower quality and is based on bad faith.

There's a difference between self-control and a chilling effect on speech, though. I see no problem with someone being mindful about what they are saying and how they are saying it. I do see a problem with someone self-censoring a discussion or expression of an idea because of fear, especially fear of the government, or fear of other damage to their lives. If people are afraid to express ideas simply because those id…

Although that is conceptually sound, how far can we go when we suggest the Internet invented dissent? The biggest social changes in modern times happened before the Internet.

Re: Leaked white paper proposes U.S. Congressional regulation of social media

#153

Post by raxxorrax »

foolrush wrote: post #150
raxxorrax wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

False. http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/his/CoreArt/prop/resn/ns_re... And yes, he was banned from speaking due to hate speech laws. I really know that. I live in Germany and have been briefed extensively. Our last emperor was the first to introduce legislation against hate-speech. But that was in the 19th century. Of course you do not find references to laws from the Weimar Republic and before in modern legislation.

Cite the laws, cite the history of the dates implemented. Civil remedies did not exist. I have provided you with actual legally traceable citations to law and their implementations. You cited a propaganda poster. You are conflating a regime of arbitrary censorship with specific and nuanced legislation that was implemented as a direct result of Nazism. To argue that the basis of Germany's contemporary hate speech laws…

https://de.wikisource.org/wiki/Strafgesetzbuch_f%C3%BCr_das_....

§ 130 StGB lautete in der Urfassung des Strafgesetzbuchs von 1871:

„Wer in einer den öffentlichen Frieden gefährdenden Weise verschiedene Klassen der Bevölkerung zu Gewalttätigkeiten gegen einander öffentlich anreizt, wird mit Geldstrafe bis zu zweihundert Thalern oder mit Gefängniß bis zu zwei Jahren bestraft.“

The article you linked even explained that Nazis were prosecuted. That some of them had parliamentary immunity is another topic. Distinction of criminal and civil law is also secondary.

1960 a second paragraph was added the said that human dignity is indisputable. It was a reaction to anti-semitic attacks.

But it is pretty factual that Germany had hate-speech laws before the Nazis came to power.

> including the most recent legislation regarding social media

most legal experts think this law is not constitutional and it was responsible for banning satire on the first day of its inception. Future rulings will decide its fate. Not giving you a quote on that, let's just wait.

Re: Leaked white paper proposes U.S. Congressional regulation of social media

#154

Post by paulddraper »

slg wrote: post #97
atomi wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As long as it isn't libel/slander or 'fighting words', we do allow it in the physical world. Shouting words at someone is not illegal.

We have to separate the words from the action of saying those words. The words on Twitter do sometimes include slander and threats which would make them illegal. However, often the words themselves are perfectly legal. That doesn't mean the action of speaking those words are legal. Using your example, imagine someone standing just outside your property and yelling at you 24/7. The words themselves might not be a prob…

> someone standing just outside your property and yelling at you 24/7

Around the clock shouting in residential neighborhoods is likely to get you fined for disturbing the peace.

But, you can send hate mail, or shout in some public spaces and be just fine.

Sending angry emails or tweets sounds most like the former.

Re: Leaked white paper proposes U.S. Congressional regulation of social media

#155

Post by nybble41 »

aerotwelve wrote: post #107
nybble41 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Obscenity isn’t protected by the first amendment. Right, I must've missed the "except for obscenity" clause. Oh wait, there isn't one... that's just something the courts made up out of thin air. The freedom of speech includes all speech, even obscene speech. It is never appropriate to respond to speech with force.

If you don't have a concept like obscenity -- even one that is as ill-defined as obscenity is after Miller -- you can't ban child pornography. Or the Human Sacrifice Channel.

So? You can't produce either, at least not with real victims, without doing far worse than mere "obscenity". There is absolutely no need to infringe on the freedom of speech by banning the possession or distribution of evidence that real crimes have been committed, which is what these obscenity laws amount to.

Re: Leaked white paper proposes U.S. Congressional regulation of social media

#156

Post by nybble41 »

User23 wrote: post #68
nybble41 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Obscenity isn’t protected by the first amendment. Right, I must've missed the "except for obscenity" clause. Oh wait, there isn't one... that's just something the courts made up out of thin air. The freedom of speech includes all speech, even obscene speech. It is never appropriate to respond to speech with force.

I happen to agree with you, but it’s not our opinion that determines the law, it’s the Supreme Court’s. And they have clearly and consistently held that obscenity is not protected by the first amendment, for the lifetime of the Republic.

> but it’s not our opinion that determines the law, it’s the Supreme Court’s

The Supreme Court's authority comes from the Constitution. As such, while the Court can rule that a law is unconstitutional, they have no power to permit something which the Constitution specifically prohibits the government from doing (such as infringing on the freedom of speech). All their consistency on this issue implies is they have been failing to do their job and uphold the freedom of speech as plainly written in the First Amendment for a very long time.

Re: Leaked white paper proposes U.S. Congressional regulation of social media

#157

Post by foolrush »

raxxorrax wrote: post #153
foolrush wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cite the laws, cite the history of the dates implemented. Civil remedies did not exist. I have provided you with actual legally traceable citations to law and their implementations. You cited a propaganda poster. You are conflating a regime of arbitrary censorship with specific and nuanced legislation that was implemented as a direct result of Nazism. To argue that the basis of Germany's contemporary hate speech laws…

https://de.wikisource.org/wiki/Strafgesetzbuch_f%C3%BCr_das_... . § 130 StGB lautete in der Urfassung des Strafgesetzbuchs von 1871: „Wer in einer den öffentlichen Frieden gefährdenden Weise verschiedene Klassen der Bevölkerung zu Gewalttätigkeiten gegen einander öffentlich anreizt, wird mit Geldstrafe bis zu zweihundert Thalern oder mit Gefängniß bis zu zwei Jahren bestraft.“ The article you linked even explained th…

Section 130 was introduced in 1946 with the new legislation. Beyond that, you missed the part where they discuss the lack of civil recourse / remedies for hate speech prior to the war.

> most legal experts think this law is not constitutional and it was responsible for banning satire on the first day of its inception. Future rulings will decide its fate. Not giving you a quote on that, let's just wait.

Let's skip your "most" and at least agree that the issue is finding the fuzzy line between proper discourse and hate?

Whether you agree or not, the existing edicts in Weimar Germany were ineffective and neutered, in addition to being undermined / ignored by the ruling party, which essentially calls into question of the status of the rules being "laws" at all. The laws changed quite drastically after the war, so much so that the new legal construct was entirely different, including civil remedies.

Re: Leaked white paper proposes U.S. Congressional regulation of social media

#158

Post by cjhanks »

mikec3010 wrote: post #61
cjhanks wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Disincentivize for-profit news.

Make negative campaign ads illegal. Elections are votes FOR a candidate, not votes against someone.

For some reason, I cannot 'up' vote you. But I like your positive attitude.

Re: Leaked white paper proposes U.S. Congressional regulation of social media

#159

Post by dantheman »

foolrush wrote: post #144
dantheman wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most would argue that other countries are incredibly behind on what freedoms that the US protects.

So you are suggesting that a country that birthed one of the worst fascist regimes, and that implemented strong hate speech laws after such, is behind the USA?

Yes, I'm stating that Germany is behind the USA when it comes to protecting individual freedoms. Censorship and hate speech are an affront to individual liberty and freedom. In fact if you want, I'll say they're not only behind but driving in the wrong direction.

Re: Leaked white paper proposes U.S. Congressional regulation of social media

#160

Post by niij »

rossdavidh wrote: post #79
niij wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would it help having the government run a social media network? Or am I misunderstanding your comment?

When content got posted by people on their own servers, and you just linked to other people's web pages instead of commenting on them, it was more of a public square. When it's a social media site, it's easier for everyone non-technical to use, but it's now run by a private company.

>When content got posted by people on their own servers

Well, that is private property as well. But I see your point, centralization is the enemy here.

Post reply on HN