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

Poland Justice Minister announces online freedom of speech bill

polandin.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 386 posts

Re: Poland Justice Minister announces online freedom of speech bill

#91

Post by SantalBlush »

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 Dorsey is not an elected leader, and he has no right to act as the jury, judge and executioner.

This type of rhetoric has gotten absurd. Jack Dorsey is not executing anyone.

Re: Poland Justice Minister announces online freedom of speech bill

#92

Post by protonimitate »

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…

I'm not a lawyer, and at the risk of sounding ignorant, but I don't understand how a Polish law can be enforced on a company/service/piece of hardware under US (presumably, but could be any other) jurisdiction.

At the end of the day, the data is sitting on a piece of hardware somewhere, isn't the "owning" place the one that dictates what laws can be enforced on it?

Re: Poland Justice Minister announces online freedom of speech bill

#93

Post by asdfasgasdgasdg »

xyzzyz wrote: post #32
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 presume that depends on who removes these posts. If the posts are removed by group owners or moderators who are not affiliated with the social media service itself, I think that should be totally fine according to that law. It's the social media service itself that's not allowed to do that.

How big does a group have to be before it's a social network?

Re: Poland Justice Minister announces online freedom of speech bill

#94

Post by afuchs »

root_axis wrote: post #66
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Actually, r/jailbait was removed as a reaction to the FOSTA laws which explicitly carve out an exception to section 230 for content that could be considered related to sex trafficking, so in this sense it actually did create a new legal risk compared to other non-sex related subs.

I thought that subreddit was banned because of the negative media attention that it received. Wasn't that years before SESTA and FOSTA were passed?

Re: Poland Justice Minister announces online freedom of speech bill

#95

Post by rvba »

This is all done so political trolls can spam freely before elections.

Imagine this site -> trolls come and promote a certain party (guess which) - and mods cannot delete it. It doesnt matter that this site is about hackernews, or some other website is about cat pictures -> you still cannot delete the political spam.

Re: Poland Justice Minister announces online freedom of speech bill

#97

Post by goldcd »

__s wrote: post #67
goldcd wrote: post #51

Right wing, nationalist leader decides to create law that would prevent his posts getting removed by the platform owner for violating their ToS, unless actually illegal under national law.. Can't help but wonder what recent deletions he could possibly be thinking of..

This article is from December

Then I'll raise my beer in admiration, to this slightly smarter and more forward thinking right-wing, populist, nationalist :)

Re: Poland Justice Minister announces online freedom of speech bill

#98

Post by CalRobert »

protonimitate wrote: post #92
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…

I'm not a lawyer, and at the risk of sounding ignorant, but I don't understand how a Polish law can be enforced on a company/service/piece of hardware under US (presumably, but could be any other) jurisdiction. At the end of the day, the data is sitting on a piece of hardware somewhere , isn't the "owning" place the one that dictates what laws can be enforced on it?

Who mentioned the US?

Re: Poland Justice Minister announces online freedom of speech bill

#99

Post by xyzzyz »

dan-robertson wrote: post #71
jariel wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

What happened is roughly this: in Poland's Constitutional Tribunal (which is as close of an equivalent of US Supreme Court as you can get in a country with a civil law system), the judges are not elected for life, but only for fixed term. As the term of the elected government was coming to an end, so were the terms of 5 of the justices in the Tribunal. However, two of these terms ended within the elected government's term, and three after it ended. As a result, the ruling party (PO) had a clear right to nominate 2 justices, and hardly any right to nominate the other three. It decided to nominate all 5 nevertheless.

The party that won the subsequent election, PiS, refused to recognize any of the 5 justices nominated by PO, and nominated 5 of their own. What happened afterwards you can read in the Wikipedia article.

Re: Poland Justice Minister announces online freedom of speech bill

#100

Post by mirekrusin »

isbvhodnvemrwvn wrote: post #76
tester756 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You mean geounblocking Poland.
Post reply on HN