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

161–170 of 386 posts

Re: Poland Justice Minister announces online freedom of speech bill

#161

Post by garaetjjte »

the-dude wrote: post #73
garaetjjte wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes, this proposal taken alone might seem benign, but people are riled up about this because context matter: many of the pandemic restrictions are unlawful, because they are either introduced in decrees issued by prime minister instead of laws passed in parliament, or infringe on freedoms guaranteed in constitution without introducing state of emergency. As such, many courts are throwing out cases brought by police about violating pandemic restrictions. Proceeding law changes about refusing tickets now, just feels like blatantly like: "Oh, they are not accepting tickets based on unlawful regulations? Let's make it harder to refuse ticket!"

Re: Poland Justice Minister announces online freedom of speech bill

#162

Post by nkohari »

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.

You say that like it's a bad thing. The web used to be much less centralized than it is today, and not to its detriment. If we're talking about breaking up the physical Internet, that's clearly bad, but having alternatives to the Facebook/Twitter/etc monolith would be a clear net-win.

Re: Poland Justice Minister announces online freedom of speech bill

#163

Post by ttt0 »

wrsh07 wrote: post #135
ttt0 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If authoritarianism means that people can freely speak their mind on the internet, then let so be it.

Only free speech that doesn't violate polish law. Is that what you want?

That doesn't make any sense. What is that even supposed to mean? Yes, Polish people have only the free speech that doesn't violate the Polish law. Some people might think that the laws could be more strict or more relaxed, but this is just how the law works.

Re: Poland Justice Minister announces online freedom of speech bill

#164

Post by nitwit005 »

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?

All warning or informational labels are forced speech.

But, it's worth remembering that people used to do things like add morphine to products without labeling it. Most countries limit free speech when it can harm others directly.

Re: Poland Justice Minister announces online freedom of speech bill

#165

Post by commandlinefan »

busythrowaway22 wrote: post #139

As someone hiding behind a throwaway account in an effort to avoid doxing and harassment, and getting my more legitimate online presence removed due to hysterics: I welcome the idea of this change. Though I think it is wrong the way it is implemented. I do not speak Polish, and maybe perhaps the Polish law is more nuanced than the article describes. There should be a law that says you cannot produce a unilateral term…

> I agree to follow the rules of your service

You have to be careful there, too, though: Amazon is claiming that Parler (to use the most currently relevant example) did violate their terms of service, because their terms of service are so vague and broad that they can be used to apply to almost anything.

Re: Poland Justice Minister announces online freedom of speech bill

#166

Post by Karunamon »

intended wrote: post #77
scotty79 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 prepa…

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

This boils down to "censorship is okay because people might believe the wrong thing", and down that path lay a well-greased and well-trodden slippery slope ending in the maws of dragons.

It's incredibly paternalistic. It is not your job, nor the government's, nor anyone else's to protect people from reading/thinking/etc. the wrong things.

Re: Poland Justice Minister announces online freedom of speech bill

#167

Post by jariel »

timeon wrote: post #106
jariel wrote: post #23

Legitimacy aside - purely from a political perspective - this is pretty smart. Poland is at odds with the EU bureaucracy over a bunch of things, and 'Freedom of Expression' is definitely a populist issue a lot of people can feasibly rally behind. Whatever the reality is, the optics are good. It puts the EU in a position of having to 'defend censorship' (or at least detractors could say as much).

> a lot of people can feasibly rally behind. I do not think that is the case. 'Free speech' is not new topic in EU, but most people who are talking about it are neo-nazis. This proposal is obviously dictature of free speech.

So I think you just proved my point:

"This proposal is obviously dictature of free speech. "

? That seems pretty 'newspeak' to me.

They are making it so that anyone can post anything unless it's literally against the laws.

And somehow this is 'authoritarian' or 'dicature'?

Because it seems just the opposite.

My point was, they're going to put the EU in an awkward position with this - just as you've put yourself in a little bit of an awkward position by trying to imply that 'freedom of expression' is 'dictature'.

Now - I don't really like these guys one bit - but - the law seems at least superficially very reasonable.

We're all super suspicious because this came from 'the bad guys' - fair enough, but it is what it is.

Re: Poland Justice Minister announces online freedom of speech bill

#168

Post by zozbot234 »

kennywinker wrote: post #108
d3ckard wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Out of curiosity, which facts do you mean? The law is stupid of course and an attempt to fight for their point of view(that is: xenophobic, racist and intolerant), but history is a subject rather widely discussed in Poland with all the sides being represented in media.

https://time.com/5128341/poland-holocaust-law/ > The bill was proposed by the country’s ruling Law and Justice party (PiS) and calls for up to three years in prison or a fine for accusing the Polish state or people of involvement or responsibility for the Nazi occupation during World War II The law has since passed, tho it was later amended to remove the prison time portion. Now I am not a lawyer, nor am I polish, so…

No one sensible is accusing "the Polish state" or "the Polish people" of being involved with the Holocaust, and the Wikipedia page itself doesn't state anything like that. The law is aimed at hateful idiocy like talking about the supposed "Polish death camps", as opposed to the tragically real Nazi death camps in Nazi-occupied Poland.

Re: Poland Justice Minister announces online freedom of speech bill

#170

Post by armchairhacker »

I'm usually don't have a strong opinion but in this case. Consider the following hypothetical:

Suppose the Big Tech companies are far-right instead of left. Instead of banning racism and insurrection, they are banning people calling for higher taxes on the wealthy and UBI. Twitter censors posts by supporters and politicians like Bernie Sanders. In response, Sanders supporters create an alternate social network like a liberal Parler, but it gets removed from the App Store and deactivated by AWS.

In this scenario people wouldn't be saying "freedom of speech is freedom from compelled speech; you can say what you want but you just need to create your own platform / internet; etc." There would be legislation drafted aimed at breaking up or regulating these near-monopolistic private companies. The argument that private companies can censor what they want works with small businesses and competitive environments, but not when private companies essentially control the #1 means of communication.

To be clear, I don't believe that violent insurrectionists should get a platform. I don't believe that racists and bigots should get a platform. I don't even support this bill because it's way too broad. But the amount of people supporting this argument - that private companies with near-monopolies on a means of communication, can control and censor said communication however they want - is crazy.

Post reply on HN