Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

UK government’s plans to regulate the internet are a threat to free speech

freespeechunion.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 204 posts

Re: UK government’s plans to regulate the internet are a threat to free speech

#51

Post by sgt101 »

umvi wrote: post #5
commandlinefan wrote: post #4

What I’m becoming more painfully aware of with each passing year is that “free speech” is actually (sadly) a very unpopular ideal. We haven’t really had it in a long time, and we have less of it with each passing year - cheered on by a not insignificant majority.

"The problem with freedom is that people abuse it and cause harm to others." Edit: (to be clear, I do not personally believe this, just offering a little insight as to how the "not insignificant majority" think)

The misunderstanding is that freedoms exist without constraint due to the damage that their exercise does to others. I have freedom to act in any way I choose, but I am not allowed to smash my neighbors windows or set a fire in their garden. The harm that I would do necessarily defines the parameters of my freedom.

Likewise screaming Fire! in a crowded space is not allowed as free speech. People could die, you could die, you are not allowed to do that.

Social media and the internet have permitted people to scream Fire! loudly for many years. The harms that this has done are very evident, society is buckling under the pressure it has created.

Re: UK government’s plans to regulate the internet are a threat to free speech

#52

Post by arp242 »

mytailorisrich wrote: post #23
commandlinefan wrote: post #4

What I’m becoming more painfully aware of with each passing year is that “free speech” is actually (sadly) a very unpopular ideal. We haven’t really had it in a long time, and we have less of it with each passing year - cheered on by a not insignificant majority.

Free speech has always been filtered. What happened is that wide publishing used to be expensive and thus restricted to the ruling/educated class. Sure, I could say whatever I wanted at the pub or Speakers' Corner (to take British examples) but it would not go further than the people in the immediate vicinity. I.e., no-one cared. Beyond that, there was either newspapers (filtered and not everyone could read) or publi…

Besides, you could get prosecuted for obscenity or blasphemy in many countries (including the US), never mind J. Edgar Hoover's FBI persecuting everyone deemed "too red".

The past really wasn't all that rosy.

Re: UK government’s plans to regulate the internet are a threat to free speech

#53

Post by mythrwy »

jonplackett wrote: post #37
macinjosh wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me. Words are just words. One may hear or read words that provoke them to violence or other negative behavior but blaming the speech in whole or in part removes agency from those who choose to react in a negative way.

Words can't hurt directly, in that exact moment, but the consequences of them sure can. There has to be a line doesn't there? Is outright racism, or encouraging others to kill or do other bad things OK, because it's just words?

There's a pretty clear line at incitement to violence.

Re: UK government’s plans to regulate the internet are a threat to free speech

#54

Post by monkeynotes »

umvi wrote: post #5
commandlinefan wrote: post #4

What I’m becoming more painfully aware of with each passing year is that “free speech” is actually (sadly) a very unpopular ideal. We haven’t really had it in a long time, and we have less of it with each passing year - cheered on by a not insignificant majority.

"The problem with freedom is that people abuse it and cause harm to others." Edit: (to be clear, I do not personally believe this, just offering a little insight as to how the "not insignificant majority" think)

The way I see it is it's not free speech that is the problem, as such, it's that people who used to gossip to a small audience down the pub now have equal platforms to newspapers.

The internet has levelled the playing field and now everyone is a politician with an agenda to push. The 'truth' has been revealed to mean whatever the audience is persuaded and agrees to believe.

We are all subject to various cargo cults. What was once limited to political think tanks to guide a nation (propaganda and lies in all) is now in the hands of everyone who can build a significant social following.

Free speech needs to be defended to avoid thought police mentality, but it comes with the understanding that we all determine our own realities and without critical thinking one is subject to subversive influence.

The internet as a platform is a good candidate for the undoing of our civilization. Popular individualism that is enabled by echo chambers drives polarization and therefore a govt. that is increasingly under threat of irrelevance. As such they must identify and nullify an enemy that has no head to cut off. And so legislation is proposed to cut the means to communicate which drives the dialog underground and toward violence.

Humans are starting to lose definition, falling into chaos and struggles for control where there really can be none. Two extremes I can see this going in the direction of are urban guerrilla wars or 1984 Orwellian dystopia. Maybe both, one following the other.

Re: UK government’s plans to regulate the internet are a threat to free speech

#55

Post by justicezyx »

commandlinefan wrote: post #4

What I’m becoming more painfully aware of with each passing year is that “free speech” is actually (sadly) a very unpopular ideal. We haven’t really had it in a long time, and we have less of it with each passing year - cheered on by a not insignificant majority.

"a very unpopular ideal"

I thought it is still very popular. But it just have very unpleasant experience when it was practiced according to its literal sense.

Re: UK government’s plans to regulate the internet are a threat to free speech

#56

Post by jaywalk »

sleepysysadmin wrote: post #43
commandlinefan wrote: post #4

What I’m becoming more painfully aware of with each passing year is that “free speech” is actually (sadly) a very unpopular ideal. We haven’t really had it in a long time, and we have less of it with each passing year - cheered on by a not insignificant majority.

In this context, the UK never had free speech. So they aren't losing anything. However, the problem with freedom of speech is that it's not absolute. There are many exceptions that to the reasonable person will agree that need exist. The problem is that opponents of free speech are using the exception system in order to silence dissent.

There aren't many reasonable exceptions.

In the US, we have "likely to cause imminent lawless action" and libel laws, which have a very high bar and are rarely used. That's it, and I would argue that's as far as reasonable goes.

Re: UK government’s plans to regulate the internet are a threat to free speech

#57

Post by Hokusai »

justicezyx wrote: post #55
commandlinefan wrote: post #4

What I’m becoming more painfully aware of with each passing year is that “free speech” is actually (sadly) a very unpopular ideal. We haven’t really had it in a long time, and we have less of it with each passing year - cheered on by a not insignificant majority.

"a very unpopular ideal" I thought it is still very popular. But it just have very unpleasant experience when it was practiced according to its literal sense.

> But it just have very unpleasant experience when it was practiced according to its literal sense.

"The paradox of tolerance states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant."

Re: UK government’s plans to regulate the internet are a threat to free speech

#58

Post by jaywalk »

throwaways885 wrote: post #25
djohnston wrote: post #2

The last 5 years have really made question the benefits of free speech in our hyperconnected world. My knee jerk reaction to defend free speech has certainly been dampened by the efficacy of disinformation campaigns in the West.

The minute the government comes to censor you , I sense opinions will change. Do not give up that right.

They will never censor me! I'm on the right side of history!

Re: UK government’s plans to regulate the internet are a threat to free speech

#59

Post by yamrzou »

confounded wrote: post #38

I’m strongly opposed to just about everything the UK government has done or proposed involving the internet, but the ‘Free Speech Union’ is an awful source to have on HN. The FSU is entirely a product of the “culture wars” of the outrage manufacturing twitterati, and offers to protect members from “feminist professors”. The UK’s Open Rights Group is the closest thing to a UK EFF (founded by Doctorow), and is generall…

I didn't hear about The Free Speech Union until now. I don't understand why you would consider it an ‘awful source’ to have on HN.

Here is an article I found by one of its directors for a more balanced view: https://archive.fo/bAMqm

Re: UK government’s plans to regulate the internet are a threat to free speech

#60

Post by 12elephant »

tialaramex wrote: post #45

I'm going to guess that many readers from this US-focused site have assumed this is like the ACLU or something but for Britain. It er... is not. It's a platform for Toby Young in particular, and a cadre of fragile Right Wing "intellectuals" to insist that it's wrong for anybody to even criticise their bullshit. This gives you some sort of idea: https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/4agqbn/toby-young-free-sp... I actuall…

Is it really that they don't want people to criticize their bullshit?

Or is it that they don't want their bullshit to be censored off the face of the planet? Whether or not we agree with their views, should they not be able to express themselves, and how they truly feel?

Imagine if your criticism of their viewpoints was being censored instead, so they got to speak un-opposed and un-criticized.

I constantly hear that people should "be themselves", and "should not be made ashamed of who they are". It appears this advice falls down when the people aren't who we want them to be, or hold views we consider "wrong".

If I hate a specific ethnic group, how else do you expect me to change, if not through sharing my views and then being challenged on those views. If you censor such a person, would you not then further radicalize them?

Post reply on HN