131–140 of 183 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Its not exactly the same but its a felony to threaten the president in the US. US freedom of speech is not close to absolute with all kinds of exceptions made over the years, from yelling fire in a theater to verbal harassment.
> from yelling fire in a theater I don't understand why so many people think this isn't protected. The courts ruled it was.
This is what I despise about "news". If this was china or russia or venezuela, etc, the headline would be "China tightens grip on their people" or "International community concerned as China becomes more authoritarian" or "Pro freedom activists protest against China's draconian censorship". It would be spun as something more ominous than "reform". But reuters being reuters and also a major supporter of censorship, of…
Anyway, I believe it doesn’t take much to read through the double standards BS.
This is sad and disgusting, our speech is being limited completely unfairly and without our consent and we're being told that it's a good thing. The fact that they're trying to package it as some sort of well-deserved revenge against silicon valley big tech is just tasteless. The EU's big gripe against these companies is their tax situation, if they really wanted to change that then they'd be looking into a unified a…
Don't frame this as a free speech issue. Freedom of speech is as protected in the EU as it is in the US, possibly more. Freedom of speech in Europe is not just an EU question, but also - and mainly - up to constitutions and legislation of the member states. So of course it varies. But there is less surveillance in Europe on what citizens say online, European media is less centralized than American, there are more par…
As an American, this example tells me very differently. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-43478925
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The truth of the matter is that this woman said Mohammed was a paedophile for fucking a 9 year old (which is even correct according to the Quran). She was convicted in Austria for blasphemy. The EU said the conviction was correct. This should be terrifying to anybody who supports free speech. The ECHR is supposed to be a human rights court but they are allowing member states to convict people for blasphemy.
As much as the Austrian conviction and this whole discussion about blasphemy and "religious freedom" makes me P.O., she was convicted of paying 500 Euros.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Freedom of speech is as protected in the EU as it is in the US, possibly more It is absolutely not. That's a preposterous assumption. If it was the case then no European state could send people to prison or fine them for having an opinion, yet look at France, where insulting the president is a crime and denying "official" history has landed people in jail (I don't condone either of these, it's just about principle)…
It absolutely is, depending on your p.o.v. I know the U.S. is big on their "freedom of speech" since it's one of the few things all citizens agree on, an All American Shibboleth, so to speak, but National Security trumps everything. There are plenty of things you can say at the border that will get you on the next plane back home. There may or may not be people being held in captivity without access to a lawyer for t…
Which is not really the same thing as being fined or imprisoned.
> There may or may not be people being held in captivity without access to a lawyer for their speech. We don't know because the proceedings are secret.
And there's a fair argument that doing so is unconstitutional and will be found as such once the ongoing challenges to it have concluded.
The law doesn't protect you from criminals, even when they work for the government. At best it punishes them after the fact and allows you to recover damages. And some people never get justice, but that only means they were the victims of a crime that the perpetrator got away with, not that they weren't entitled to it under the law.
> Someone who practiced his freedom of speech is currently in hiding in liberty-loving Russia of all places.
What Snowden would be charged with is the government equivalent of violating an NDA. The main reason that law is messed up is that with a normal NDA (i.e. a contract), contracts covering criminal activity are generally unenforceable, but the security clearance system doesn't work like that -- which is problematic when it's then used to cover up criminal activity.
But the reason he can be charged is that he agreed to those terms to begin with. It's a matter of contracts being [too] enforceable, not a matter of punishment for speech. Notice that the newspapers that published the Snowden documents weren't convicted of a crime, because they never agreed not to.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In terms of the areas of what the OP mentioned, there is no difference.
My point being there is more context than just what he OP mentioned.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fair use exists. This law makes it illegal to use clips of a movie in critiquing it, or cut snippets of images to form a collage, or point to examples of art, film, and music in an educational setting. Copyright was never intended to be pervasive and absolute. Copyright is supposed to protect the commercial potential of the original work by keeping people from making copies that supplant the market for the original,…
No it does not. This is the GDPR discussion all over again. "This will kill the internet" and "All sites will be subscription only" etc. I'm not for the proposed law but it does not does not block fair use.
In a small way, it kind of did, didn't it? I see people on reddit and hackernews constantly complaining how they can't access some random local news website in the US because they've chosen to simply not deal with GDPR.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fair use exists. This law makes it illegal to use clips of a movie in critiquing it, or cut snippets of images to form a collage, or point to examples of art, film, and music in an educational setting. Copyright was never intended to be pervasive and absolute. Copyright is supposed to protect the commercial potential of the original work by keeping people from making copies that supplant the market for the original,…
> This law makes it illegal to use clips of a movie in critiquing it, or cut snippets of images to form a collage, or point to examples of art, film, and music in an educational setting. Really? It specifically says it shall in no way affect legitimate uses Which specific part are you referring to which prevents this?
It oozes contempt, is filled with strawman arguments, and makes no effort to disguise its disdain for "the big Californian companies".
Some highlights:
> Good journalism costs money and without a free press there is no democracy.
> Because if creative people don’t get paid, they can’t afford to be creative. No Mon = No Fun
> At the moment the balance of power in who gets paid for such royalties resides overwhelmingly with the big Californian companies — who are worth around $1 Trillion.
> Are we in a world where ordinary people side with the fire breathing dragon against the knight with a blue and yellow shield?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The law doesn't block fair use, but the only way for content platforms to be compliant is rampant overfiltering which will kill fair use.
>rampant overfiltering which will kill fair use True! However, according to the draft of the Article 13, this may happen in the case of providers "of an information society service whose main or one of the main purposes is to store and give the public access to a large amount of copyright protected works or other protected subject-matter uploaded by its users which it organises and promotes for profit-making purposes…