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

A court ruling in Austria could censor the internet worldwide

slate.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 131 posts

Re: A court ruling in Austria could censor the internet worldwide

#21

Post by gonzo41 »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #17
roadwarrior7822 wrote: post #4

The title should be rephrased to "A Court Ruling in Austria Could Censor Internet Platforms Worldwide". The Ruling applies to Facebook as a legal person and has no direct effect on other publishers. A contrary example: The Gutenberg Project was ruled illegal (due to a select number of books still in copyright) in Germany and is blocking German IPs ever since, until the issue is resolved. Here the company has chosen a…

> Facebook could decide to withdraw from the Austrian market (which it won't) There is another option: defiance. Withdraw employees, liquidate assets, and force Austria to enjoin it overseas and/or block it.

Or Facebook could just ignore Austrian legislators, kinds of like uber did with local taxi laws.

Re: A court ruling in Austria could censor the internet worldwide

#22

Post by cinquemb »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #19

Didn’t France try this with their right to be forgotten [1]? How did that go? EDIT: Paris was told to go stuff it [2]. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_be_forgotten [2] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jul/30/google-re...

Yeah, I've got emails from CNIL telling me that I needed to remove information I collected on french citizens and seeing how I wasn't operating in their jurisdiction, I just ignored them.

Re: A court ruling in Austria could censor the internet worldwide

#23

Post by beervirus »

save_ferris wrote: post #7

> The case started with an April 2016 Facebook post, in which a user shared an article featuring a photo of Eva Glawischnig-Piesczek, then-chair of Austria’s Green Party, along with commentary labeling her a “lousy traitor,” “corrupt oaf,” and member of a “fascist party,” apparently in response to her immigration policies. This is core, protected speech in the United States. But it was deemed defamation under Austria…

> It's clear that much of the Western world have had much stricter free speech laws than the US does for decades, but somehow they don't devolve into the Orwellian nightmare that we always fear when we talk about limiting free speech.

Funny to see this comment in a thread about a European regulator attempting to censor, worldwide, criticism of some politician.

Re: A court ruling in Austria could censor the internet worldwide

#24

Post by puszczyk »

YarickR2 wrote: post #9
choeger wrote: post #3

That's quite the problem we are in, as a global society. Obviously no one wants to give North Korea any say about what can and what cannot be published in the web. But between sovereign, free, democratic societies, different standards might exist. And if you want to do business with, say, the EU as, say, a US tech company you cannot expect US law and commons to apply everywhere. Then it becomes a race to the bottom i…

Your statement about North Korea strikes me as a very discriminatory, as it implies your judgement about NK is somehow objective, and it's political system is a condition justifying them being denied equal treatment in various situations.

Omg are you serious? Do you have any good things to say about NK political or judicial system? Would you defend Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia the same way?

Re: A court ruling in Austria could censor the internet worldwide

#26

Post by alpaca128 »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #10
save_ferris wrote: post #7

> The case started with an April 2016 Facebook post, in which a user shared an article featuring a photo of Eva Glawischnig-Piesczek, then-chair of Austria’s Green Party, along with commentary labeling her a “lousy traitor,” “corrupt oaf,” and member of a “fascist party,” apparently in response to her immigration policies. This is core, protected speech in the United States. But it was deemed defamation under Austria…

I just don't see the equivalence here. I agree that platforms have a responsibility not to enable harassment and death threats, but calling a politician "traitor", "corrupt", "fascist" is neither of those things. What are you supposed to do when a politician is corrupt or fascist, if you aren't allowed to talk about it?

> What are you supposed to do when a politician is corrupt or fascist, if you aren't allowed to talk about it?

In the same country (Austria) a court actually ruled that a certain right-wing politician can be said to be close to nazi ideology due to the existing evidence.

So, you are allowed to talk about it, but you might get problems if you don't have a basis for your claims.

Re: A court ruling in Austria could censor the internet worldwide

#27

Post by nelaboras »

What a nonsensical article. Such power of courts already exists, but it mostly boils down to US law as most of the platforms are in the US. Think about the debates on photos of breastfeeding, a fully natural act that happens to show a part of the body that all humans possess. But as the US has a double standard where female nipples are sinful and obscene - and male nipples totally fine - a mom in Germany or France or Austria will not be able to upload such photos (similar to e.g. some regions in Africa where going topless is not unusual for women).

Similarly if you dare use content of a US media organisation you'll get a global DMCA takedown. Even if you do e.g. a critique or it's playing as background in a video recorded in a public space, all of which are protected under most countries' legislation. Hell videos of families singing Happy Birthday are DMCAd as one of many american troll companies claims to own the copyright to the lyrics.

On the other hand, gruesome and deeply intrusive/personal videos of e.g. murder or violence are tolerated on Facebook and similar sites as those are in the US context not undedstood to be harmful.

In germany public holocaust denial can be punished with five years in prison (although it very rarely goes so far), but Facebook serves as wonderful breeding ground of conspiracy theories about Jewish world conspiracies and the holocaust being a lie. Cause "free speech" is final, even blatant falsehoods.

I don't think a regional Austrian court should be the judge for the internet, but the only reason it is trying to take this role is because these sites' host country applies absurd laws (what's more harmful for a 15 year old to see, a beheading or some lady's nipples?) and the sites refuse to apply common sense. This lady was harassed quite intensely and Facebook refused to take action - that's the case here.

So what's the solution? Some global court system? Agreed minimum standards? Companies localising content more? I have no idea, but its pretty clear that the US giants have a harmful effect not just on US but global public discourse as they refuse to address misinformation, lies, harassment, holocaust denial, etc etc

Re: A court ruling in Austria could censor the internet worldwide

#28

Post by zxcmx »

Users everywhere have had to put up with U.S law for a long time. The laws and norms of the USA are more or less "fully baked in".

Try posting a nipple or copyrighted track, for example.

If Facebook had come from a different place, all songs and body bits might be Ok but perhaps discussion of government would be banned. I can't tell if that would actually be a better facebook than the one we got.

Re: A court ruling in Austria could censor the internet worldwide

#29

Post by nradov »

nelaboras wrote: post #27

What a nonsensical article. Such power of courts already exists, but it mostly boils down to US law as most of the platforms are in the US. Think about the debates on photos of breastfeeding, a fully natural act that happens to show a part of the body that all humans possess. But as the US has a double standard where female nipples are sinful and obscene - and male nipples totally fine - a mom in Germany or France or…

Facebook does allow photos of breastfeeding.

https://m.facebook.com/help/340974655932193

Re: A court ruling in Austria could censor the internet worldwide

#30

Post by bigbubba »

alpaca128 wrote: post #26
SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just don't see the equivalence here. I agree that platforms have a responsibility not to enable harassment and death threats, but calling a politician "traitor", "corrupt", "fascist" is neither of those things. What are you supposed to do when a politician is corrupt or fascist, if you aren't allowed to talk about it?

> What are you supposed to do when a politician is corrupt or fascist, if you aren't allowed to talk about it? In the same country (Austria) a court actually ruled that a certain right-wing politician can be said to be close to nazi ideology due to the existing evidence. So, you are allowed to talk about it, but you might get problems if you don't have a basis for your claims.

So in Austria you're not allowed to insult a politician unless a court agrees with your insult? That's incredibly fascist.
Post reply on HN