Freedom of expression is at a ten-year low globally, study says • Hacker News Board

Re: Freedom of expression is at a ten-year low globally, study says

#81

Post by daenz » Fri, Dec 06, 2019, 6:20 PM UTC

manifestsilence wrote: post #58

corporate_shi11 wrote: post #43

Hate speech must be protected speech. Keep in mind that all groups suffer from hate speech attacks. Majority groups in Western countries ("white people") are some of the most publicly demonized people of the last few years, so saying that toleration of hate speech - which affects us all - is an opinion that can only be held from the secure position of being in the majority is nonsense.

No. There is a crucial distinction here. Hate speech that is only mean is one thing and should be protected. Hate speech that incites violence against a particular individual or group is not protected speech. This includes a few things said by the current POTUS, such as (approximate quote from memory), "maybe the guy should be roughed up", said of a guy who was currently being roughly physically removed from his rall…

Hate speech "enhances" the punishment for a crime, but alone, it is not a crime. Another crime must already have occurred for "hate speech" to have any legal impact. The crime you are trying to describe is incitement to "imminent lawless action"[0], and it's already not protected speech, so tacking on "hate speech," as in, "hate speech that incites violence" is unnecessary.

0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action

Re: Freedom of expression is at a ten-year low globally, study says

#82

Post by School-Cotton » Fri, Dec 06, 2019, 6:21 PM UTC

BucketSort wrote: post #54

linuxftw wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We need to declare all speech religious speech. Politics is religion. One religion currently has the upper hand, and it's dividing people.

Why don't you make a free speech religion? Has anyone ever tried this?

Tried it with what goal? Is there any country where religious speech gets special extra protection?

Re: Freedom of expression is at a ten-year low globally, study says

#83

Post by bilbo0s » Fri, Dec 06, 2019, 6:22 PM UTC

oefrha wrote: post #71

bilbo0s wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, but at the same time you need to understand that you're devaluing the rights on the other side of that. The guy whose company you work for, or the company whose platform you're using, or whatever the case may be, shouldn't be obliged to have their revenue take a hit solely in support of your right. I mean, if it's not going to cost your boss' company any money? Yeah OK, I can see where they should probably keep…

You know perfectly well I’m not talking about “my right to call some black guy the N word”. I’m talking about careers destroyed by certain vocal minorities that many if not most people are secretly tired of, yet won’t speak out against because of the fear of being lynched next. Anyway, how’s your comment even relevant to what I replied to? GP: (implying) Twitter mobs can silence or even destroy people just like gover…

I'm refuting the obligation of other people to listen or associate with you. That's all implicit in the first. Freedom of Speech. Freedom to Ignore. Freedom of Association. All of it.

NO. Your company is under no obligation to maintain your employment. Why? Because the owner of your company has rights too. You're not the only person who has rights. That's the whole point here. The First is for everyone. And they can do what they like with their rights. And you can do what you like with your rights.

We don't take away rights from Paul, because Peter finds Paul's rights inconvenient. That's not how the Constitution works.

Re: Freedom of expression is at a ten-year low globally, study says

#84

Post by umvi » Fri, Dec 06, 2019, 6:23 PM UTC

bilbo0s wrote: post #57

oefrha wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you have your career destroyed by voicing a non-pc opinion, it’s a lot more complicated than finding another Twitter to post 140 character posts.

Yeah, but at the same time you need to understand that you're devaluing the rights on the other side of that. The guy whose company you work for, or the company whose platform you're using, or whatever the case may be, shouldn't be obliged to have their revenue take a hit solely in support of your right. I mean, if it's not going to cost your boss' company any money? Yeah OK, I can see where they should probably keep…

More like:

- You have a successful GitHub project.

- One of your key contributors voted for Trump

- PC police come and demand you kick said contributor off of your project for violating CoC because they went digging through his Twitter history and found a tweet with him wearing a MAGA hat

- You disagree and say it's his right to vote for whoever he wants

- PC police do everything they can do destroy you and your project because you have run afoul of their wishes

Re: Freedom of expression is at a ten-year low globally, study says

#85

Post by jack_h » Fri, Dec 06, 2019, 6:24 PM UTC

BryantD wrote: post #73

Reedx wrote: post #7

>"...the desire to have someone force these companies to remove hate speech or misinformation can backfire. To see how, we need look no further than Singapore’s new “fake news” law, which has already been used to force an opposition politician to modify a Facebook post to include the government’s position on the topic he mentioned in his post, along with a large banner across the original saying “False.” This is so o…

When we're considering regulation, it's important to consider the activity we're regulating in context. Here's one extreme: it's legal to light a match. It's not legal to light a match and toss it into a gas pump. We shouldn't regulate speech, but you should own the consequences of your actions -- speech included. If you're spreading anti-vax propaganda, you're complicit in killing kids. It's certainly not as bad as…

> If you're spreading anti-vax propaganda, you're complicit in killing kids ... and any restrictions or punishment should reflect that.

> If you're spreading pro-vax propaganda, you're complicit in giving kids autism ... and any restrictions or punishment should reflect that.

Now I don't agree with the latter in the slightest. However, depending on who is in power and what political and social will exists at a particular time you can have two very different outcomes. This is the danger in opening up such a can of worms.

Re: Freedom of expression is at a ten-year low globally, study says

#86

Post by School-Cotton » Fri, Dec 06, 2019, 6:25 PM UTC

djsumdog wrote: post #49

I wonder if we'll see China open up in our lifetimes. Would it even be possible with protests, or would that government need to fail in order to see that magnitude of change? And to be fair, China isn't North Korea by any means. so in some ways, it seems like the most likely to start demeaning more freedom.

Countries have gone from authoritarian dictatorships to liberal democracies with no major revolution, so I don't see why it should be impossible. For example: South Korea in the 80s.

Re: Freedom of expression is at a ten-year low globally, study says

#87

Post by Miner49er » Fri, Dec 06, 2019, 6:25 PM UTC

umvi wrote: post #84

bilbo0s wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, but at the same time you need to understand that you're devaluing the rights on the other side of that. The guy whose company you work for, or the company whose platform you're using, or whatever the case may be, shouldn't be obliged to have their revenue take a hit solely in support of your right. I mean, if it's not going to cost your boss' company any money? Yeah OK, I can see where they should probably keep…

More like: - You have a successful GitHub project. - One of your key contributors voted for Trump - PC police come and demand you kick said contributor off of your project for violating CoC because they went digging through his Twitter history and found a tweet with him wearing a MAGA hat - You disagree and say it's his right to vote for whoever he wants - PC police do everything they can do destroy you and your proj…

you can make up any scenario you want. does this actually happen?

Re: Freedom of expression is at a ten-year low globally, study says

#88

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Dec 06, 2019, 6:25 PM UTC

headcanon wrote: post #52

downerending wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can like Trump or not, but he's probably one of the people in power who'd least care for this sort of censorship. He clearly revels in public debate, perhaps even to an unhealthy degree. It may not be Lincoln-Douglas stuff, but that's how democracy is supposed to work.

He revels in attention towards himself when he says outlandish or controversial stuff, and calls dissenting viewpoints "Fake News". Not the same thing.

[deleted]

Re: Freedom of expression is at a ten-year low globally, study says

#89

Post by nabnob » Fri, Dec 06, 2019, 6:27 PM UTC

GhettoMaestro wrote: post #70

Reedx wrote: post #7

>"...the desire to have someone force these companies to remove hate speech or misinformation can backfire. To see how, we need look no further than Singapore’s new “fake news” law, which has already been used to force an opposition politician to modify a Facebook post to include the government’s position on the topic he mentioned in his post, along with a large banner across the original saying “False.” This is so o…

It won’t happen. It is incompatible with the first amendment. Thank god we baked that shit in instead of just passing a law to that effect.

It's already happened. Facebook, Twitter, Youtube already remove and delete comments that are outside the overton window. Sure, they're not part of the government, but when it comes to freedom of expression does it really matter?

Re: Freedom of expression is at a ten-year low globally, study says

#90

Post by aianus » Fri, Dec 06, 2019, 6:28 PM UTC

bilbo0s wrote: post #57

oefrha wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you have your career destroyed by voicing a non-pc opinion, it’s a lot more complicated than finding another Twitter to post 140 character posts.

Yeah, but at the same time you need to understand that you're devaluing the rights on the other side of that. The guy whose company you work for, or the company whose platform you're using, or whatever the case may be, shouldn't be obliged to have their revenue take a hit solely in support of your right. I mean, if it's not going to cost your boss' company any money? Yeah OK, I can see where they should probably keep…

This would be fine if we had basic income but since your survival is tied to employment, employers should not be allowed to discriminate based on political opinion any more than they can discriminate against pregnant women or seniors.