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

171–180 of 386 posts

Re: Poland Justice Minister announces online freedom of speech bill

#171

Post by didibus »

xyzzyz wrote: post #99
dan-robertson wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Did both of those things happen through some loophole? Or is the elected party just able to kind of do whatever they want unstopped?

Re: Poland Justice Minister announces online freedom of speech bill

#172

Post by jwieczorek »

formerly_proven wrote: post #31
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…

Like they sing in Poland, Jebać PiS. Note that PiS is actually pronounced piss, which must be some kind of divine providence.

This isn't Reddit.

Re: Poland Justice Minister announces online freedom of speech bill

#173

Post by dmurray »

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.

> Is it that different in the US?

It's certainly different from state to state.

Most cases that reach the US Supreme Court aren't about whether X is good or bad (let's say X is abortion or gay marriage) but whether X is so good that the Federal government should compel states to allow it, or so bad that it should compel states to forbid it.

Re: Poland Justice Minister announces online freedom of speech bill

#174

Post by disabled »

dharmab wrote: post #123
protonimitate wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

IANAL but as I understand it, most governments will consider something to be in their jurisdiction if the user is within their jurisdiction, even if the server is not. See GDPR, which applies to all EU citizens globally- even one residing in the United States using US web services.

GDPR outside the European Union only applies to European Union based companies (headquartered in the EU).

Otherwise, it is limited to internet traffic from people within the European Union.

This rule was unclear in the beginning of the law implement, but there have been high court rulings clearing up the confusion.

See this, for example “Google wins landmark right to be forgotten case”: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-49808208

Re: Poland Justice Minister announces online freedom of speech bill

#175

Post by inglor_cz »

hinkley wrote: post #154
inglor_cz wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

Yes, I agree, I was only reacting to the OPs claim that the government cannot compel somebody to speak in a certain way.

Re: Poland Justice Minister announces online freedom of speech bill

#176

Post by commandlinefan »

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…

> "Teach the facts", "did this really happen"

So... you're literally calling for censorship of political discourse.

Re: Poland Justice Minister announces online freedom of speech bill

#177

Post by bzb6 »

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…

It would be compelled speech if I pretended my racist tweets are the official stance of Twitter. I don’t see how keeping them up is forcing Twitter to say something when they are just moving bytes around.

Re: Poland Justice Minister announces online freedom of speech bill

#178

Post by dragonwriter »

dmurray wrote: post #173
bigfudge wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Is it that different in the US? It's certainly different from state to state. Most cases that reach the US Supreme Court aren't about whether X is good or bad (let's say X is abortion or gay marriage) but whether X is so good that the Federal government should compel states to allow it, or so bad that it should compel states to forbid it.

> Most cases that reach the US Supreme Court aren’t about whether X is good or bad (let’s say X is abortion or gay marriage) but whether X is so good that the Federal government should compel states to allow it, or so bad that it should compel states to forbid it.

No, most of them aren’t about good or bad, which is a policy judgement generally reserved for the political branches, at all.

Its about whether X or Y is consistent with the law (including, as the paramount law, the Constitution of the United States.)

Re: Poland Justice Minister announces online freedom of speech bill

#179

Post by inglor_cz »

nitwit005 wrote: post #164
inglor_cz wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

Yes, definitely. If the impression from my comment is that I disagree with this kind of obligation, I expressed myself in an unclear way.

Re: Poland Justice Minister announces online freedom of speech bill

#180

Post by the-dude »

garaetjjte wrote: post #161
the-dude wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

I understand the change is unwelcome.

For us an appeal is just a letter to the public attorney(?), which will either result in them dropping it, or a case, all of which you can do yourself.

Post reply on HN