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

181–190 of 204 posts

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

#181

Post by unishark »

HarryHirsch wrote: post #20
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.

There's an analogy to campaign reform. Individuals can choose to bribe politicians, and the politicians can choose to accept the cash and otherwise not modify their voting behaviour. Yet in the real world we can see what Citizend United actualy did.

Technically it remains illegal to bribe politicians. More of them get busted every year.

Citizens United was about campaigning for them independently. Something that was already legal for individuals to do.

I agree second order effects are a problem, but this is widespread in govt (e.g. they buy votes with some narrowly-defined program like govt employee pensions or local pork spending). Maybe the problem is that the power and wealth that comes with being elected is too attractive, and is what we need to somehow fix.

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

#182

Post by konaraddi »

12elephant wrote: post #135
tialaramex wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is it really that they don't want people to criticize their bullshit? Yes. Specifically the idea is to insist on the usual "balance" argument. If this BLM activist can say that police shot the unarmed black man in the back seven times for no apparent reason then a 9/11 Truther ought to be able to say that Jews blew up the Twin Towers using mind control. If you say wait a second, but one of those is a fact about the…

> If you say wait a second, but one of those is a fact about the world and the other is an insane conspiracy theory, then to them you're now a censor, an opponent of Free Speech. No, if you remove the video from YouTube on the grounds of "removing false information" you're a censor. This is what has happened to e.g. Alex Jones, Milo, and many others for example. By all means, leave a comment denouncing their idiocy.…

False information spreads fast [0] and has real world consequences [1]

[0] https://news.mit.edu/2018/study-twitter-false-news-travels-f...

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/coronavirus-us-c... edit: to be clear, I think some lives could've been saved if we took it more seriously.

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

#183

Post by unishark »

nybble41 wrote: post #176
whatshisface wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It just doesn't seem that complicated to me, if you're receiving nonverbal retribution for something you said, you weren't free to say it.

Ostracism, economic of otherwise, is just people exercising their freedom of association and choosing not to associate with you. Which they are free to do for any reason or no reason—you do not have a right to receive services from someone else against their will, and freedom of speech doesn't change that fact. This is categorically different from having harm inflicted on you (capital punishment, imprisonment, loss o…

This is why it is legal, not necessarily why we must describe is as a state of freedom for the speaker. Suppose you work for the govt and get fired for what you say. No one inflicted harm on you there. The important categorical difference is govt retribution versus individuals doing it.

A society where people act outside the government to dissuade speech they don't like (even if they operate within the law) certainly feels less free that one which is more accepting.

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

#184

Post by [deleted] »

nybble41 wrote: post #176
whatshisface wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It just doesn't seem that complicated to me, if you're receiving nonverbal retribution for something you said, you weren't free to say it.

Ostracism, economic of otherwise, is just people exercising their freedom of association and choosing not to associate with you. Which they are free to do for any reason or no reason—you do not have a right to receive services from someone else against their will, and freedom of speech doesn't change that fact. This is categorically different from having harm inflicted on you (capital punishment, imprisonment, loss o…

[deleted]

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

#185

Post by unishark »

dragonwriter wrote: post #136
nickff wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have no idea who Toby Young is, but why describe FSU as "right-wing libertarian"? Are they just normal libertarians? The vast majority of libertarians do not self-identify as being 'right-wing'.

> but why describe FSU as "right-wing libertarian"? I would guess, from everything I've seen about Young and the FSU, because it is. > Are they just normal libertarians? Well, right-libertarians are a common subset of normal libertarians (in the US, most—but not remotely all—who identify as libertarians are right-libertarians, non-right libertarians are more likely to identify differently, but I don't think that that…

My understanding of the major libertarian groups in the US is that they side with the left on social issues like culture war, abortion, and secularism. They side with the right on economic issues like free markets. They like to make a 2D political compass to explain this difference. Insisting on placing them on an extreme on a 1D axis seems like an insistence on speaking in half-truths. At least they should be placed near the center yes. People tend to do this when they focus on narrow issues and ignore the rest. E.g. to someone who only cares about opposing gun control, a centrist who supports it is on the left in their eyes.

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

#186

Post by dang »

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.

Please don't do this. You may not owe "Qanon" better but you definitely owe this community better if you're participating in it.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

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

#187

Post by raxxorrax »

konaraddi wrote: post #180
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.

There should continue to be exceptions to free speech. Who would advocate for removing _all_ of the exceptions listed here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_ex... ?

With a perspective looking on a global world, free speech should even be extended.

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

#188

Post by sgt101 »

nybble41 wrote: post #175
sgt101 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Likewise screaming Fire! in a crowded space is not allowed as free speech. Can we please stop using this worn-out excuse for censorship as if it were some deep insight? It was indefensible back when it was first invented to justify prosecuting people for protesting the draft. It's just plain sad that people still parrot it to this day. First, even the people that invented it for reasons of political expediency didn…

Please don't defend harming other people.

Of course you can scream fire if there is one, but the point is that making up a lie and intentionally introducing it into the public square harms others.

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

#189

Post by sgt101 »

monkeynotes wrote: post #104
sgt101 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I don't think it's as simple as that. Since people are not literally screaming fire in a theatre who defines what is analogous? We used to be able to practice political descent freely. In times passed it was quite ok to have and share openly an opinion that medication is a scam (this is certainly not a new idea). It is broadly understood it's not ok to incite violence, but much of what is being labelled as damaging s…

I agree - and this is the point of limited harms. If I set a fire in my neighbors house "for fun" I will go to prison for a long long time - because of the gigantic potential harm. If my bonfire burns my neighbors fence I am likely to face a shouting match and a bill. In a private forum a malicious lie is likely to create social opprobrium, on the internet it can precipitate the death of children.

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

#190

Post by dalbasal »

nybble41 wrote: post #174
dalbasal wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> No matter what your standard of "real harm," free speech has examples where it risks causing real harm. I think you must have either a very broad interpretation of what counts as "speech" or a very loose concept of causality. My standard of "real harm", which I do not consider particularly idiosyncratic, essentially comes down to bodily injury or property damage. (How other people think about you—reputation—is not…

This is a legalistic take on causality. I agree in legal terms. It's not belief in human sacrifice, or joining in a religion that does human sacrifice that should be illegal. These can't be illegal if we want to have freedom of religion.

That said, the relationship between cult beliefs and cult practices is not "loose" at all. The "Peoples Temple" religion did result in a mass suicide. 19th century rumours about Jews sacrificing children in eastern europe did lead to mass murders. Rumours did lead to lynchings in the south. Neither speech nor religion are harmless.

If your standard of harm is "harming other people or their property," I'm sure we can find examples of speech, religion, and other freedoms which have led to these harms.

That's the whole point of a right. A, the reason it is worth protecting, and requires it is because these things are powerful. B, the whole idea is that we defend against harm without losing those rights. We work around the rights.

It's just simply not true that freedom of association (or any other freedom) can't and won't lead to harm. It can and it will.

Post reply on HN