Live data from Hacker News

A court ruling in Austria could censor the internet worldwide

slate.com

41–50 of 131 posts

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

#41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

This isn't specific to politicians. Calling someone a fascist in public(meaning 10+ witnesses I think) is considered defamation and, yes, if you cannot prove such claims it can have consequences. Note that this does not apply to just any kind of insult as you say. It's for cases when it's considered harmful for one's public image, as usual with defamation. I've never heard of a simple "Idiot!" leading to any conseque…

When courts gatekeep criticism of politicians, that is fascist. Austria's history of fascism makes this even worse, since they of all people should know better.

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

#42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> has there been another Western democracy more tested and compared to Orwell's 1984 in the last 5 years than the US? There have been probing tests of the nature of free speech laws in a number of countries outside the US in recent years, notably the potential transgender pronoun compulsion laws that landed Jordan Peterson in trouble in Canada, as well as a number of tried or in trial cases in places like the UK[0] a…

> notably the potential transgender pronoun compulsion laws Which, in my opinion, go clearly a step farther than just censoring offensive language. I can understand the latter to some degree, but forcing people to replace certain words in their communication only differs from Orwell's dystopia in the size of the dictionary. It's a dilemma: huge communities like Facebook cannot really be moderated effectively and are…

> but forcing people to replace certain words in their communication only differs from Orwell's dystopia in the size of the dictionary.

It's dystopian that people can't hurl the N-word at each other?

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

#43
post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> has there been another Western democracy more tested and compared to Orwell's 1984 in the last 5 years than the US? None of those people are in jail. And that regime, despite its best efforts, is being peacefully removed from power. America is the world’s oldest [EDIT: large, old] extant democracy. I wouldn’t lightly consider toying with something so basic as free speech. Several European and Asian democracies are…

> America is the world’s oldest extant democracy. That would be San Marino. The U.S. Constitution is the oldest constitution still in force. But we're still pretty young as democracies go. Hell, we haven't even been around as long as one of the first libertarian states, the Icelandic Commonwealth, was.

San Marino has only been a democracy since, what, after the Italian revolution? It is a uniquely old microstate, though.

(Another line of counter-argument is that the US wasn't a democracy until the civil rights act...)

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

#44

> 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.

I mean, I'm sure there are many things about Austrian politics which are less than ideal, but I'm not convinced a lawsuit and series of appeals taking three years to decide that a claim that a Green Party member was a fascist and a traitor was defamatory was quite the dystopia Orwell had in mind. (And Orwell lived in a country with strong libel laws, which his publisher was constantly worried about his own writings falling foul of and he was very happy to encourage his publisher to worry about more when the libellous comments were made abut him)

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

#45

This has come up again because a terrorist attacked the center of the capital Vienna. The thing that makes this so incredibly ridiculous, is that the authorities actually knew the person tried to attend a IS training camp in Syria. They stopped him. So they knew very well about his intentions. Then a nearby state Slovakia told the Austrian authorities that this person was there and bout ammunition. The Austrian autho…

> This has come up again because a terrorist attacked the center of the capital Vienna. No. Please read the article. This is about a law suit which has been going on for a few years . The case itself has absolutely nothing to do with recent events. Also, Austria does not have a case law system. Courts don't make laws (the constitutional court in Austria can strike down laws, but that's about it) and are not bound by…

Just flag it.

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

#46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't specific to politicians. Calling someone a fascist in public(meaning 10+ witnesses I think) is considered defamation and, yes, if you cannot prove such claims it can have consequences. Note that this does not apply to just any kind of insult as you say. It's for cases when it's considered harmful for one's public image, as usual with defamation. I've never heard of a simple "Idiot!" leading to any conseque…

When courts gatekeep criticism of politicians, that is fascist. Austria's history of fascism makes this even worse, since they of all people should know better.

Stop arguing with a false premise.

The issue here is whether courts in Austria have the right to constrain people's public statements to some standard of demonstrable truthfulness, or not.

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

#47

> 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…

> American individualism so often deflects the responsibility of dealing with such trauma on those who are subjected to this kind of harassment because it's not impacting the vast majority of the population ("not my problem").

It's not individualism, it's constitutional rights. The idea of american individualism is not true. We are a collectivist people - racial, native vs foreign born, protestant vs catholic, confederates vs union, etc.

> but somehow they don't devolve into the Orwellian nightmare that we always fear when we talk about limiting free speech.

Don't they arrest people for their dog's salute or symbols right? Europe is far closer to orwellian nightmare than the US I'd say.

> In fact, has there been another Western democracy more tested and compared to Orwell's 1984 in the last 5 years than the US?

"Last five years". And what happened?

> The worse that harassment gets online, I believe the more segmented and walled off and commercialized the internet will become.

No. As sneaky politically driven people use the death of children to demand censorship, that's when the internet will become more segmented, walled off and commercialized.

People like you are why there is ever more censorship, segmentation and commercialization. Clutching your pearls and screaming about the children while you only care about political censorship. Do you ever clutch your pearls and cry over the millions of children who are killed in wars? Or do you only cry for them when they serve your political agenda? It can't be an accident that in the last few years, a small but vocal contingent has used dead children at every opportunity to push for more censorship.

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

#48

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 compliance, because having already taken the corporate position that certain electoral messaging is so misleading and damaging it needs content warnings, shadowbanning or even deletion, it would be frankly weird for Facebook to sacrifice its Austrian business on the altar of insisting that actually a series of courts are wrong and memes accusing a leading Green Party figure of being a fascist are not libel but an important truth the world must know.

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

#49
post #25

Just for comparison: If you insult a green party member in Germany, the police will literally raid your home. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24981251

Pretty sure there was more to the situation than that one-line summary.

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

#50
post #47

> 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…

> American individualism so often deflects the responsibility of dealing with such trauma on those who are subjected to this kind of harassment because it's not impacting the vast majority of the population ("not my problem"). It's not individualism, it's constitutional rights. The idea of american individualism is not true. We are a collectivist people - racial, native vs foreign born, protestant vs catholic, confed…

• Constitutional rights are so commonly understood to be individualist that you see the same reasoning applied to justifying not wearing of masks. In reality the bill of rights is interpreted in a legal context that allows for collectivization of rights, but culturally there's a strong tie to individual liberty that I am shocked someone could deny with a straight face.

• You seem to be conflating collectivism with tribalism. Antagonistic and in/out group relations are not necessary for or equivalent to collectivization. Making the two agree is the whole point of "internationalism".

• Collectivization necessarily implies that the distribution of equity aligns with the needs of the collective. This is trivially false for all of the ways you've chosen to divvy up society into tribal groups except, I guess, catholicism vs protestantism (which I barely see as a dynamic here anyway).

More generally I think you are right, there are great instances of collectivization in the US: I'm not seeing them in your examples, though! The Postal Service, the Public School & Public Library culture are fantastic examples. Even the famously anti-socialist right can be quite collectivized if you look at how, economically, individuals distribute resources to their friends, family, community, "tribe", etc. Arguably many churches in American Christianity foster very collectivized approaches to resource distribution—I know I grew up working my church's food pantry....

However, if we as americans look in a mirror, we are trained to only see ourselves as individuals or part of small isolated groups or "tribes", not as a cell of some larger, functioning, rational, identifiable whole america.

Post reply on HN