UK government’s plans to regulate the internet are a threat to free speech • Hacker News Board

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

#121

Post by temporallobe » Thu, Sep 17, 2020, 6:08 PM UTC

dalbasal wrote: post #117

umvi wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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)

In a similar way, the problem with democracy is that people can choose bad leaders. The problem with freedom of religion is that people can join harmful religions. These aren't theoretical. Adolf Hitler was elected. There have been many harmful cults and religious groups. There are extreme examples in every society. These freedoms and rights are dangerous. They are controversial. That's why they need explicit philoso…

> I think defending free speech with "the bad speech isn't that harmful, actually" is a bad road to go down.

I am offended by this and you shouldn’t have the right to say that. /s

While bad speech is indeed harmful, not being allowed to express bad speech (whatever that actually means) is even more harmful.

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

#122

Post by hubbabubbarex » Thu, Sep 17, 2020, 6:09 PM UTC

UK has became very sad place to live.. I'm looking to move out very soon.. Sad country

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

#123

Post by chance_state » Thu, Sep 17, 2020, 6:10 PM UTC

AniseAbyss wrote: post #119

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.

I am not in favour of it anymore, I have seen what it does in the US. I don't want Qanon to speak I want him to get run over by a truck.

Yikes. Do you understand how quickly this becomes "I don't want [outgroup] to speak I want them to get run over by a truck"?

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

#124

Post by chance_state » Thu, Sep 17, 2020, 6:11 PM UTC

antihero wrote: post #114

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.

[flagged]

The comment says infinitely more about your own filter bubble and the content you consume than it does anything about free speech.

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

#125

Post by TeaDude » Thu, Sep 17, 2020, 6:14 PM UTC

bennyp101 wrote: post #11

It will no doubt fall at the last hurdle. Another attempt to 'control' the thing they don't understand, ignore any technical advisors, and play to the crowds. Unfortunately there are a vocal group who want little Johnny protected from the big bad internet, and who have no desire to educate him themselves, so want a Gov approved scheme - and these sort of plans fit nicely into that. Hopefully common sense prevails aga…

They've been trying do this for like two decades and even in the space future year of 2020 I still don't think they know enough about computers to actually put this in place.

"Yeah, just make the big magic thing read our thoughts and only do things we like and not stuff we don't like. Will it still get my emails if I turn it off? Who answers the google box and how are they so fast? Can we put more money into blockchain?"

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

#126

Post by jkingsbery » Thu, Sep 17, 2020, 6:14 PM UTC

rootsudo wrote: post #91

We're okay with social media companies regulating free speech, but draw the line at governments. Ironic, isn't it? And yes, I'm well aware that Governments should endorse and not stifle free speech, but this message is propagated on social media platforms. The very systems that enable voice and disable voices because it's a violation of "Terms of Services" or in other words, revenue. But then again, governments grant…

>governments grant rights

Perhaps a subtle point, but I think it has consequences... there is a difference between a government granting rights and securing them. The [US Declaration of Independence](https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcrip...) puts forth the opinion that governments are instituted "to secure these rights." I think the regulation of speech is an example where it makes a difference what you believe - if the government grants you rights, it can take them away. If our rights pre-exist the government, then the government can only succeed or fail at accomplishing what it was instituted to do.

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

#127

Post by dalbasal » Thu, Sep 17, 2020, 6:15 PM UTC

john_moscow wrote: post #44

umvi wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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)

I think, being offended at words is mostly a sign of one's own personal insecurity. Can you imagine a successful doctor or a business owner being seriously offended because someone on the Internet called them a bad word? I bet they would respond same way I do when my son calls me a "bad papa" for insisting he finishes lunch before getting a desert. The bigger, much bigger problem is the growing amount of people that…

There are definitely cases where speech can be harmful. It can affect people's livelihoods, personal lives... Rumours can (and have, many times) lead to actual dangerous events, from the blood libel pogroms to pizzagate. Bad information about covid can (and are) leading to deaths. etc. In wartime, there is a reason belligerents use propaganda. If effective, it can literally weaken a nation.

Freedom of speech is important, despite the dangers. In terms of political freedoms, danger & importance often go together. I don't think we should diminish the power of speech, and therefore its danger.

As to abstract justice... This has been a major societal and political concern since the literal beginning of history. That is, for as long as there has been writing (that survives), there have been such issues. Ancient law codes, religious texts and such are full of it. It's part of who we are.

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

#128

Post by dalbasal » Thu, Sep 17, 2020, 6:20 PM UTC

temporallobe wrote: post #121

dalbasal wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a similar way, the problem with democracy is that people can choose bad leaders. The problem with freedom of religion is that people can join harmful religions. These aren't theoretical. Adolf Hitler was elected. There have been many harmful cults and religious groups. There are extreme examples in every society. These freedoms and rights are dangerous. They are controversial. That's why they need explicit philoso…

> I think defending free speech with "the bad speech isn't that harmful, actually" is a bad road to go down. I am offended by this and you shouldn’t have the right to say that. /s While bad speech is indeed harmful, not being allowed to express bad speech (whatever that actually means) is even more harmful.

I don't disagree with that, and I'm in favour of free speech.

What I mean is (responding to parent) that the problem is just insecure people being needlessly offended is a bad defense of free speech. No matter what your standard of "real harm," free speech has examples where it risks causing real harm. Speech is not harmless. The contrary, it can be very potent, powerful and therefore harmful.

The point of a right is that it is defensible regardless. Free speech is important, not harmless.

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

#129

Post by mellosouls » Thu, Sep 17, 2020, 6:35 PM UTC

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…

You link to a left-wing hatchet job article on a website that tends to promote woke articles and hates anything that challenges the notion that there are other points of view.

Here's a piece from the horse's mouth as a counter, (no doubt just as biased as yours, but from the source and openly labelled here as partisan) and writing in the rather less blinkered Quillete:

https://quillette.com/2019/08/01/why-i-want-to-start-a-free-...

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

#130

Post by unishark » Thu, Sep 17, 2020, 6:36 PM UTC

MiroF wrote: post #109

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If I tell you to kill someone and tell you I will kill you if you don't follow through, then I am still only using words. No you're not, you're using violence. The violence travels back in time to compel action on the part of the recipient in order to prevent your anticipated violent action. If there was no expectation on the part of the recipient of any negative consequences from not following your order, the orde…

> The violence travels back in time to compel action on the part of the recipient in order to prevent your anticipated violent action. So in order to defend your interpretation of free speech, I am now morally culpable for actions that "travel back in time"? If it never occurs how can it travel back in time? What is it that causes the violence to travel back in time? If I had planned to kill the speaker if they didn'…

This has gone in a funny direction.

Telling someone to commit murder, with the knowledge that they will carry out this act, legally fulfills the requirements of mens rea and actus reus for the crime of murder. It isn't a speech crime per se. We don't need a new law regulating anyone's speech to punish people in these events.

Convicting someone for "inciting violence" should require the same standards as any other case supposedly tying someone to a murder. For one thing you need an actual victim and make the case they caused it beyond a reasonable doubt. It gets messy (law always does) but I think that's because many people argue in bad faith, really trying to twist definitions to punish people for opinions they disapprove of.