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

151–160 of 386 posts

Re: Poland Justice Minister announces online freedom of speech bill

#151

Post by dcolkitt »

mnd999 wrote: post #79
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.

But he doesn't own Twitter. He's a representative of the shareholders. And TWTR is down 6.5% today on the news. So clearly this decision wasn't in the interest of Twitter's actual owners.

Re: Poland Justice Minister announces online freedom of speech bill

#152

Post by iso1631 »

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.

So dang wouldn't be allowed to boot any technically legal posts on hacker news, or ban people?

Re: Poland Justice Minister announces online freedom of speech bill

#153

Post by rektide »

I made a giant 50 foot tall pile of doo-doo sculpture, and I insist the town square host it in perpetuity, because to not do so would infringe upon my "free speech".

Side-note, this compares dark-humorously against a year ago, when the in-power right-wing conservative nut-jobs of the Law & Justice party rewrote the law to be able to fire any judges that criticized the government, after chasing similar pushes in years previous. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/21/world/europe/poland-judge...

Re: Poland Justice Minister announces online freedom of speech bill

#154

Post by hinkley »

inglor_cz wrote: post #103
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…

"Freedom of speech is also freedom from compelled speech." Uh, aren't for example nutritional labels a form of compelled speech?

Consumer protection laws are written in blood. You can't leave arsenic out of your ingredients list any more than I can call myself a doctor and tell you to start eating roofing tar.

Re: Poland Justice Minister announces online freedom of speech bill

#155

Post by guscost »

ben_w wrote: post #150
guscost wrote: post #30

If you are wondering where all of this is headed, read “Snow Crash” by Neal Stephenson.

It’s a good book, but really, I don’t see even the slightest connection between this and any of the plot points.

Nooo, not the plot! The setting. Really fun story though, yes.

Re: Poland Justice Minister announces online freedom of speech bill

#156

Post by JaggedJax »

Fauntleroy wrote: post #37

Sounds like a good way to get your service absolutely soaked by spam and off topic posts. Without proper moderation public social channels will just degrade into noise.

This was my first thought too. Does it make it illegal to remove spam content?

Re: Poland Justice Minister announces online freedom of speech bill

#157

Post by ben_w »

dcolkitt wrote: post #151
mnd999 wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But he doesn't own Twitter. He's a representative of the shareholders. And TWTR is down 6.5% today on the news. So clearly this decision wasn't in the interest of Twitter's actual owners.

We don’t get to see the world where he didn’t do that. For example, let’s pretend his lawyers warned him that TWTR as a company and himself as an individual could be held liable for any future riot organised on Twitter. That would be worse than 6.5%, surely?

Re: Poland Justice Minister announces online freedom of speech bill

#158

Post by courtf »

dan-robertson wrote: post #142
courtf wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This lays out the timeline of the shift in popular opinion for gay marriage: https://news.gallup.com/poll/117328/marriage.aspx Here's polling on interracial marriage: https://news.gallup.com/poll/163697/approve-marriage-blacks-... Interracial marriage became legal nationwide in 1967 with Loving v Virginia, but wasn't approved of by the majority of Americans until 1997. Edit: I only add this to support the the comment…

Thanks for the stats. I guess I was a bit wrong in what I wrote above.

I think you got it right, just wanted to provide some supporting data, even if polling is a little fuzzy.

Re: Poland Justice Minister announces online freedom of speech bill

#159

Post by jdsully »

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…

The new process seems equivalent to Canada and the United States. I agree its less favourable though.
Post reply on HN