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

#151

Post by gotoeleven » Fri, Dec 06, 2019, 10:23 PM UTC

ikeyany wrote: post #148

gotoeleven wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Im just curious what journalists you're talking about. He tried to revoke Jim Acosta's for being very uncordial (to put it lightly), and he revoked Bloombergs after they said they would only investigate him and not Democrats. Are there others? If he revoked the credentials of everyone who criticized him then there would be hardly any left...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-white-house-has-... ?

This might be a better description of what happened, without the paywall and a bit less histrionics.

https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/white-house-press-passes...

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

#152

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Dec 06, 2019, 10:40 PM UTC

BryantD wrote: post #132

cortesoft wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's keep going, though... there IS a non-zero chance that your kid can die from a vaccine. It is very very rare, and more kids will die from not getting a vaccine than from getting one, but there will exist a parent who can say truthfully that vaccines killed their kid. Can they then argue that a pro-vaccine person killed their kid? Can they sue their doctor? If we allow this line of reasoning, where does it stop?…

This is exactly the kind of discussion I was thinking of, FWIW. I tend to agree with this line of thought — responsibility is too diffuse in this case. So... what are other options here? Cause it is definitely bad for the public if people stop vaccinating their kids. That’s not a risk, it’s a certainty. It is also fairly clear that a significant enough percentage of people will listen to anti-vaxxers no matter what,…

[deleted]

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

#153

Post by tenpies » Fri, Dec 06, 2019, 11:09 PM UTC

jerf wrote: post #11

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's the goal. Those seeking it would be advised to consider whether it's a power they really want Trump to have, or his successor, but there's a lot of people who seem to operate on the presumption that in the long term, their side is going to have complete control of the government indefinitely and the fact that some people they disagree with has some control at the moment is a momentary aberration. I would suggest…

> there's a lot of people who seem to operate on the presumption that in the long term, their side is going to have complete control of the government indefinitely

I think you are confusing outcome for mechanism. The idea is that once their side wins, they'll clamp down so hard on wrong-think that the other side effective ceases to exist. It will be like elections under a dictator: sure there's another party, but if you vote for them you get a free trip to the re-education camp and get erased from all databases.

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

#154

Post by jessaustin » Fri, Dec 06, 2019, 11:53 PM UTC

I wish more people who value freedom of expression would say and do more to support Julian Assange.

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

#155

Post by bilbo0s » Sat, Dec 07, 2019, 12:52 AM UTC

Minor49er wrote: post #150

bilbo0s wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe. But again, so what? People are free to be jerks. That's Freedom of Expression. If people physically attack you, that's one thing. That's crime. If people tell your company they aren't going to purchase your company's products because you work there, that's another thing entirely. That's just Americans exercising their freedom to associate with whomever or whatever they please. That's them exercising their free…

How much information do you have about the employees in any of the companies that you purchase from on a day to day basis? People that you politically disagree with work for all kinds of companies and you normally have no idea. You should either demand that you know about the political leanings of all employees for every company that you purchase from or you should stop advocate targeting individuals through their em…

That's your particular opinion. Which you are free to have.

Other Americans have their particular opinions. Which they are free to have.

My primary concern, or my opinion, is that all Americans are able to exercise lawful rights in support of their opinions without governmental interference. I am as supportive of the Nazi as I am of the Feminist in this regard. And the good news, is that the Constitution is equally inclusive. It ensures that everyone gets the right to express themselves, or boycott, or associate with, or ignore, whatever or whomever they please.

You may not think so right now, but this is actually a good thing. It really does protect you.

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

#156

Post by klyrs » Sat, Dec 07, 2019, 2:56 AM UTC

jack_h wrote: post #85

BryantD wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 partic…

> This is the danger in opening up such a can of worms.

I agree that such matters should be approached in the utmost of delicacy. But the science is resoundingly clear on the efficacy and safety of vaccines. Taking an evidence-based approach to when people are spreading known-and-shown false information to the known-and-shown harm of many would be prudent (like, for example, when 60 people die and 4000 are infected in a measles outbreak, ongoing this week). Just saying "oh well gosh people are going to bothsides this issue to death" is complacent support of harmful propaganda. As the adage goes, your right to swing your fist ends at my face.

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

#157

Post by klyrs » Sat, Dec 07, 2019, 3:00 AM UTC

tomp wrote: post #135

BryantD wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Also if you're spreading pro-abortion propaganda. And pro-war propaganda. And anti-war propaganda. /s Obviously ridiculous. Repeat after me: speech is not violence ! Only people actually doing violence are violent. Want to criminalize not vaccinating kids? Be my guest, but I'll now and forever support people to campaign against it, and that…

> Repeat after me: speech is not violence!

You can't compel me to say so. And it's not so. Speech is a nuanced legal issue, and there are multiple well-justified limitations on that freedom. Libel is not protected speech. Incitement to violence is not protected speech. Fraud is not protected speech. You can do tangible harm with speech, ergo some utterances can and are seen as violence.

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

#158

Post by im3w1l » Sat, Dec 07, 2019, 3:35 AM UTC

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #115

BucketSort wrote: post #9

In addition to government interference in free speech, all actions/words that offend have potentially life devastating consequences in this age of the digital permanent record. Suppose you slap someone in a moment of uncontrolled anger. If someone records that, posts it on the internet, and it goes viral, you then become the mad slapper in the eyes of the world. If someone googles your name, they will see you slappin…

Well, let's suppose it's 1900, and you live in a small town somewhere in the US. You slap someone in a moment of uncontrolled anger. How long would that follow you? The rest of your life, unless you leave town. That single slap could destroy your life. So I think that the "digital permanent record" removes the anonymity of the big city, and returns us to small town rules.

Violence was much more acceptable back then. Beating your wife, beating your kids, getting into drunk fights. That's just what everyone did. If slaps had destroyed people there would be no one left. If you slapped the wrong person however, yeah I could see that having consequences.

Actually I have friends who have slapped other friends while drunk and nothing at all came of it. They didn't get excluded. They also didn't do it again.

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

#159

Post by s1k3b8 » Sat, Dec 07, 2019, 4:38 AM 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…

> We shouldn't regulate speech, but you should own the consequences of your actions -- speech included.

This is simply terrifying. Actions should be penalized, not speech.

> If you're spreading anti-vax propaganda, you're complicit in killing kids.

People like you are what I fear the most. Using children to justify tyranny and oppression. Maybe you have good intentions but that's what the road to hell is paved with.

You do realize that your way of thinking opens up gay rights activists to prosecution for spreading HIV? What about vegan activists? Babies and even pets have been starved to death because some people followed vegan advice. Should all vegan activists be punished?

What about PR firms who create soda ads? Should we round up all of them and punish them? What about journalists? If a journalist writes a story that leads to war ( legal or illegal ) that results in the death of children, should they be prosecuted?

Should librarians be prosecuted because libraries carry offensive material that people might read to cause harm?

Also, you do realize that your system depends entirely on who is in charge rather than principles? What if anti-vaxxers are in charge. Your system allows them to mark all pro-vaxxers as criminals spreading propaganda. Do you really want to live in that kind of world?

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

#160

Post by s1k3b8 » Sat, Dec 07, 2019, 4:59 AM UTC

rahuldottech wrote: post #4

> Governments in a number of countries have been increasing online surveillance and cracking down on content and behavior that indicates dissent, the report says. This is a really sad state of affairs. Because of whatever reasons (monetary, fear of dissent and terrorism, etc.) we've seen governments implement more and more laws and policies that take away the "freedom" that we're supposed to have in a democracy. Peop…

> People seem to forget that democracies are supposed to be for the people. Not for corporations. Not for those in power. Not for the wealthy.

That's what we are told. But if you look at actual history of democracy and how it came about ( ancient greek or american democracy ), you know that simply isn't true.

The ancient greek democracy was created by the slave owning master class to protect and preserve their property and rights. In the US, our democracy was created by the wealthy white landowners to protect their property and rights.

The two quintessential democracies in the world were created by the wealthy for the wealthy, not by the people for the people. But it's great advertising.