Poland Justice Minister announces online freedom of speech bill • Hacker News Board

Re: Poland Justice Minister announces online freedom of speech bill

#71

Post by dan-robertson » Mon, Jan 11, 2021, 9:04 PM UTC

jariel wrote: post #49

Gwypaas wrote: post #12

Regarding the majority party of the coalition which he is governing with. The party has caused what constitutional law scholar Wojciech Sadurski termed a "constitutional breakdown"[58] by packing the Constitutional Court with its supporters, undermining parliamentary procedure, and reducing the president's and prime minister's offices in favor of power being wielded extra-constitutionally by party leader Jarosław Kac…

This comment misrepresents the situation by failing to indicate that the 'Constitutional Crisis' started before the current Law and Justice government took power by the previous governments anti-constitutional actions of trying to appoint Constitutional Court judges ahead of the end of their terms. For a summary of events: [1] Imagine if Barack Obama / George Bush decided to go ahead and punt some SCOTUS members ahea…

Well Obama did ask Bader-Ginsburg to step down when democrats had control of the senate (I think she’d only had cancer once at the time), but I guess you’re referring to something stronger than just asking judges to step down.

I feel like the US Supreme Court nomination system only works through a combination of frequent changes of power and most judges believing in the system and following the unwritten part of the constitution, and that the US example isn’t really a good one to copy in other democracies.

Re: Poland Justice Minister announces online freedom of speech bill

#72

Post by anonunivgrad » Mon, Jan 11, 2021, 9:05 PM UTC

bigfudge wrote: post #65

anonunivgrad wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're only really a liberal democracy if the ruling elite can coerce private actors to take the repressive actions instead of doing it officially. You must also allow your civil service to be an unaccountable branch of government controlled by the professional managerial class and unresponsive to the commands of elected leadership (unless they're from the correct side). Furthermore, you must allow lawyers to use the…

Gay marriage has a popular majority in the UK and Ireland in both polls and referenda. Is it that different in the US? Interpreting old documents is hard, and where there is silence or substantial ambiguity it seems right to err on the side of popular opinion.

You can't really defend the US Supreme Court's actions on gay marriage from any legal viewpoint other than "because five justices said so" and "what are you gonna do about it." Popular opinion is not the talisman of judicial interpretation. If the public wants its way, they can vote for it. For what it's worth, the public did not support gay marriage until after the federal courts made it a fait accompli. E.g. In a referendum, California voted to ban gay marriage in 2008. What the federal courts in America did is overturn the standing will of the people as it existed in the laws of the majority of US states.

Re: Poland Justice Minister announces online freedom of speech bill

#73

Post by the-dude » Mon, Jan 11, 2021, 9:05 PM UTC

garaetjjte wrote: post #68

the-dude wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I take the issue to court, I can either prove I didn't do the 'crime', or argue there is insufficient evidence. But police officers testimonies carry a lot of weight, so that is not a fruitful path. It is still unclear to me what you are exactly saying.

Currently when you don't accept ticket, no penalty is yet applied, and police needs to file court case against you. Proposed changes make it that ticket can't be refused and penalty is always applied, but it can be afterwards appealed to the court. This is less favorable as it shifts court process burden from police (they need to prove you are guilty in the first place) to you (you are appealing already applied penal…

Has been like this for 'overtredingen' ( minor offences like jaywalking, speeding, running red lights ) in NL for decades.

Wet Mulder for those interested.

Re: Poland Justice Minister announces online freedom of speech bill

#74

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Jan 11, 2021, 9:05 PM UTC

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #48

mabbo wrote: post #5

> Under its provisions, social media services will not be allowed to remove content or block accounts if the content on them does not break Polish law. This is kind of insane. So if I offer a free website- a private company operating as I like- I would be forbidden from removing content from my own website that I don't like because the person who wrote it- again, not a paying customer- wants it to be there. Not only…

Put another way: In the US at least, r/jailbait didn't actually break any laws (well, maybe some individual posts did, but the whole idea of that subreddit was essentially to ogle underage women/children but in a way that was not explicitly illegal). So with something like this law all social media sites would be forced to host the equivalent of r/jailbait.

[deleted]

Re: Poland Justice Minister announces online freedom of speech bill

#75

Post by ceilingcorner » Mon, Jan 11, 2021, 9:05 PM UTC

root_axis wrote: post #69

ceilingcorner wrote: post #39

This will continue happening around the world. Who knew - sovereign states don’t want American megacorporations deciding what ideas are appropriate? Prepare for massive Balkanization of the Internet.

This is a dishonest line. The internet is federated, they don't have to use websites created by American megacorporations.

What is a lie? I think it’s highly unlikely that Facebook and Twitter will be used worldwide in say, 2040. They had first mover advantage, but as it becomes easier to create a social network and the law catches up, I’d expect to see a lot of local/regional alternatives.

If the EU said tomorrow, in 1 year we are banning Facebook and launching our own version, what can Facebook do about it?

Re: Poland Justice Minister announces online freedom of speech bill

#76

Post by isbvhodnvemrwvn » Mon, Jan 11, 2021, 9:06 PM UTC

tester756 wrote: post #60

daliusd wrote: post #3

Oh that’s stupid. Companies will end up with some creative solutions - if it can not be removed it can be made hard to access. Honestly it looks like stupid people in power are sad that their antiLGBT posts are removed.

I don't think you'd have easy time arguing in the court if you did something like that

I think geoblocking Poland would be easy enough.

Re: Poland Justice Minister announces online freedom of speech bill

#77

Post by intended » Mon, Jan 11, 2021, 9:06 PM UTC

scotty79 wrote: post #45

tokai wrote: post #11

"Under its provisions, social media services will not be allowed to remove content or block accounts if the content on them does not break Polish law." Sooo hop on a topic specific group. Get my off-topic posts removed. Being off-topic is not a crime in Poland. Get my shitposts reinstated. The bill better be more specific than the article is.

I think it would be better if internet went not in the direction of removing stuff but in the direction of providing users with tools to avoid the content they don't wish to engage with. We shouldn't rely on security through obscurity when it comes to dangerously stupid ideas.

Cant work.

If you are in the super market buying food, and people are giving out free trials of crack cocaine -> addiction city.

You can very regularly see Nazi apologia which is so dressed up and benign sounding. "Teach the facts", "did this really happen" - the debunking of which requires access to people used to debunking it.

The same rule applies to a variety of topics.

Simply put, the average person is not prepared for lawyer level rhetorical devices in the wild.

So either we remove content like that, or we live through whatever disasters a world of reality distortion creates. Most likely the survivors of that world will simply lock down the news down hard.

Re: Poland Justice Minister announces online freedom of speech bill

#78

Post by dan-robertson » Mon, Jan 11, 2021, 9:07 PM UTC

bigfudge wrote: post #65

anonunivgrad wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're only really a liberal democracy if the ruling elite can coerce private actors to take the repressive actions instead of doing it officially. You must also allow your civil service to be an unaccountable branch of government controlled by the professional managerial class and unresponsive to the commands of elected leadership (unless they're from the correct side). Furthermore, you must allow lawyers to use the…

Gay marriage has a popular majority in the UK and Ireland in both polls and referenda. Is it that different in the US? Interpreting old documents is hard, and where there is silence or substantial ambiguity it seems right to err on the side of popular opinion.

Gay marriage had a popular majority in favour before it became legal (though obviously a popular majority doesn’t necessarily mean much in the US system.) Compare this to interracial marriage which was not approved of by the majority of the population for many years after it was made fully legal across the country .

Re: Poland Justice Minister announces online freedom of speech bill

#79

Post by mnd999 » Mon, Jan 11, 2021, 9:07 PM UTC

newbie578 wrote: post #62

As previously several people commented, big tech shot itself in the foot by banning everyone they don’t agree with and suspiciously acting in the same time (Twitter and Facebook). I don’t know what they expected, other politicians saw how much power platforms hold and they are not going to sit still and wait for it to happen to them. Jack Dorsey is not an elected leader, and he has no right to act as the jury, judge…

Jack had every right, it’s his website. He pays for it, so he gets to decide what appears on it. The same would apply to anyone else running a website. This is not a new idea.

Re: Poland Justice Minister announces online freedom of speech bill

#80

Post by brightball » Mon, Jan 11, 2021, 9:07 PM UTC

devwastaken wrote: post #53

Freedom of speech is also freedom from compelled speech. This kind of law means the government can compel any private party to speak what they want and punish them for not doing so. This is also demonstrably damaging to the effected party. It costs money to host content. Forcing a business to host content costs them - is poland going to fund this? No. If the polish government has a problem with it then they should ma…

I’m curious about freedom from compelled speech in the US.