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

#161

Post by krzepah » Sat, Dec 07, 2019, 5:28 AM UTC

s1k3b8 wrote: post #159

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…

> 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.…

I think you are jumping on his words and not taking his statement to their true meaning. Are you telling on the opposite side that someone publicly announcing false information that could harm someone should not be responsible for it?

You are the one who's making me afraid.

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

#162

Post by username90 » Sat, Dec 07, 2019, 9:55 AM UTC

krzepah wrote: post #161

s1k3b8 wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.…

I think you are jumping on his words and not taking his statement to their true meaning. Are you telling on the opposite side that someone publicly announcing false information that could harm someone should not be responsible for it? You are the one who's making me afraid.

Intent matters here, and anti-vaxxers spread this information because they believe they will help the kids. Scientists are often wrong. Probably less often than other people, and probably not in the case of vaccines, but it is dumb to make it illegal in general to say things scientists disagree with.

And yes, scientists say that kids die without vaccines, some people disagree, so you would actually punish them for disagreeing with scientists since otherwise you wouldn't be sure these people killed kids.

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

#163

Post by ghostwriter » Sat, Dec 07, 2019, 9:56 AM UTC

ikeyany wrote: post #147

will4274 wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He certainly does not revoke press credentials of journalists just for criticizing him. He did revoke the credentials of a single journalist who was apparently incapable of waiting his turn and repeatedly interrupted the press conference. I'd advise you to heed your own advice about spreading false information.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-white-house-has-... ? Do not make this a partisan issue.

How is it different to Obama's presidency?

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/obama-whose-admin...

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

#164

Post by username90 » Sat, Dec 07, 2019, 10:02 AM UTC

klyrs wrote: post #156

jack_h wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 i…

> But the science is resoundingly clear on the efficacy and safety of vaccines.

Are you sure this applies to every vaccine used today? And for all vaccines that will be used in the future? I wouldn't be surprised if there has been vaccines which did more harm than good, and making it illegal to question them seems like a recipe for disaster.

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

#165

Post by mirimir » Sat, Dec 07, 2019, 10:18 AM UTC

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #109

jerf wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ... and who are willing to alter the rules to make sure that, once they get power, it will be easier for them to continue to have complete control indefinitely. And why? Because they are certain of the rightness of their ideas, and therefore if the people…

William S. Burroughs argued that people who know that they're right, and impose their beliefs on others, should be killed on sight. Because they're infected with the "right virus". Just like we kill rabid animals.

But then, he was probably joking. And fscking with his readers' perspectives.

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

#166

Post by claudiawerner » Sat, Dec 07, 2019, 12:10 PM UTC

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.

> Majority groups in Western countries ("white people") are some of the most publicly demonized people of the last few years

I find this extremely hard to believe.

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

#167

Post by klyrs » Sat, Dec 07, 2019, 1:27 PM UTC

username90 wrote: post #164

klyrs wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 i…

> But the science is resoundingly clear on the efficacy and safety of vaccines. Are you sure this applies to every vaccine used today? And for all vaccines that will be used in the future? I wouldn't be surprised if there has been vaccines which did more harm than good, and making it illegal to question them seems like a recipe for disaster.

> And for all vaccines that will be used in the future?

What an absurd presumption. Erect a slippery slope and challenge me to defend it all the way to the bottom? No thank.

These things need intensive scientific studies to be proven safe. I assume that most will fail before they reach human trial. And policies surrounding vaccines should be done on a case by case basis.

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

#168

Post by krzepah » Sat, Dec 07, 2019, 2:11 PM UTC

username90 wrote: post #162

krzepah wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you are jumping on his words and not taking his statement to their true meaning. Are you telling on the opposite side that someone publicly announcing false information that could harm someone should not be responsible for it? You are the one who's making me afraid.

Intent matters here, and anti-vaxxers spread this information because they believe they will help the kids. Scientists are often wrong. Probably less often than other people, and probably not in the case of vaccines, but it is dumb to make it illegal in general to say things scientists disagree with. And yes, scientists say that kids die without vaccines, some people disagree, so you would actually punish them for di…

I understand that the debate is complicated and I'm actually not into the vaxx debate itself so I don't have to take a judgment. However, I'm happy to see you are underlying the intent point which I completely agree to and I've been poorly trying to defend.

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

#169

Post by anoncake » Sat, Dec 07, 2019, 3:13 PM UTC

s1k3b8 wrote: post #159

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…

> 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.…

> Actions should be penalized, not speech.

Speaking is an action.

> You do realize that your way of thinking opens up gay rights activists to prosecution for spreading HIV?

Are gay rights activists stating incorrect facts that risk the public health, including of heterosexual people?

> 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?

No, of course not. Unless they claim that a given diet is harmless or beneficial to babies/pets even though it's known to be harmful.

> What about PR firms who create soda ads? Should we round up all of them and punish them?

Not necessarily, unless their ads contain lies or are intentionally misleading.

> If a journalist writes a story that leads to war ( legal or illegal ) that results in the death of children, should they be prosecuted?

Did they lie?

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

That obviously depends on the material in question.

> Also, you do realize that your system depends entirely on who is in charge rather than principles?

No, it depends on things like a working democracy, rule of law, and freedom of science.

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

#170

Post by Minor49er » Sat, Dec 07, 2019, 3:14 PM UTC

bilbo0s wrote: post #155

Minor49er wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 i…

If you happen to come across someone touting a point of view that you disagree with, then you decide to try to attack that person's livelihood for it, you better try to find out the beliefs of everyone that you give money to.

Say that you come across some guy on Twitter who said that Quake was a bad game. You click around and find out that he works as Big Company Inc and is probably the only one there with this personal opinion. You decide that Big Company Inc should suffer for hiring this guy, so you decide to boycott them. Now, you take your business to Huge Group Co. However, Huge Group Co has a whole floor of people who believe that Quake was never a good game, and they believe it strongly. But they never announce it. You should not be comfortable handing money to them unless your actual goal is to punish people for expressing themselves in places where you might happen to see it.