111–120 of 222 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh, the horror.
Not for anyone outside of the EU, and not in short-term. However, I believe that it is an alarming tendency that can cause a lot of damage over a sufficiently long time period.
A clever circumvention of innocent until proven guilty - make disobedience carry huge legal risk. You must obey orders (takedown 'requests'), not backed by any court. If you fail, and one turns out to be legitimate, you get punished. Imagine if you had to stop doing business with anyone reported as a thief (but not convicted).
The ability to smear through accusation, without proof, without due process, and without the presumption of innocence has always been the province of tyrants in power and the tool of would-be tyrants trying to gain power. Those who accuse and un-person are the villains throughout history. In the past, people were smeared as sexually loose, as belonging to the "wrong" religion, or as having the "wrong" sexual orientat…
How do you square this with the recent surge in flat Earth and anti-vaccination beliefs? The merits of truth aren't guaranteed to win this battle.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where do you stand on falsely claiming "fire" in a crowded movie theater?
This has always struck me as a weird sort of edge case, because the hypothetical situation is pretty disconnected from all the other situations where people might seek restrictions on free speech that it doesn’t really matter which way I go. If I say that yes, I suppose we can carve out some sort of exception for people who directly cause harm to life and limb by falsely proclaiming the existence of immediate dangers…
Actually, it's not if you look at it a different way. We have Free Speech in the U.S.A., but there are many instances where it's illegal (and rightly so) to lie. You can't lie about your finances to the IRS. You can't lie in court when under oath. You can't ruin someone's reputation by lying about him (i.e., slander or libel).
And you can't lie about there being a fire in a theater.
Why does the proposed EU legislation have a 1-hour deadline? No matter what you think of the action it's trying to take, a 1-hour deadline is preposterous for anyone and seems expressly designed to force people to set up an automated process that acts on takedown notices without prior review. But who benefits from this? About the only thing I can think of is if some big company, think Facebook or Google, lobbied for…
(Which postdates the first draft of this directive. But there were similar cases before)
It's very sad to see the path the EU has chosen to follow in regards to speech and the free flow of ideas.
It's a path that pre-dates the EU. We're a crowded continent with a huge amount of diversity and a long and bitter history of war. We have learned through bitter experience that, while free speech is a precious right, it is also an extremely dangerous one in the wrong circumstances. Germans in particular are acutely aware of the disastrous consequences of allowing incitement to go unchallenged. Free speech is not unc…
I’m not sure that current hate speech laws would have been effective at countering Nazi propaganda.
The Nazis were not openly advocating their most extreme policies before the war. Even during the war, the worst atrocities were mostly kept quiet.
Can anyone with a bit more information explain why the EU might have any saying as to what a San Francisco–based nonprofit digital library can and can not host? Disclaimer: I currently am a EU citizen.
(Page 4, Point 3.1: Referrals)
Quote: A referral activity (meaning the reporting of terrorist and extremist online content to the concerned OSP) does not constitute an enforceable act. Thus, the decision and removal of the referred terrorist and extremist online content is taken by the concerned service provider under their own responsibility and accountability (in reference to their Terms and Conditions).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Russia banned drug information? What sort of information, like pharmacology?
It is implied that the parent comment was talking about illegal drugs. Interesting side fact: unlike in english, there are two completely distinct words for illegal and legal drugs in russian language. Which a lot of times makes it easier to spot russian-speaking posters, as they tend to refer to illegal drugs as just "drugs", while referring to legal ones using other more specific terms, like "pills" or something el…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The ability to smear through accusation, without proof, without due process, and without the presumption of innocence has always been the province of tyrants in power and the tool of would-be tyrants trying to gain power. Those who accuse and un-person are the villains throughout history. In the past, people were smeared as sexually loose, as belonging to the "wrong" religion, or as having the "wrong" sexual orientat…
>A free society is one, where people and ideas can show up, be given a chance, and stand or fall on their character and merits. How do you square this with the recent surge in flat Earth and anti-vaccination beliefs? The merits of truth aren't guaranteed to win this battle.
http://www.mysuncoast.com/2019/03/19/it-made-me-feel-really-...
Anti-vaxxers are what you get when you use death threats and not civil discourse.