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

Re: Poland Justice Minister announces online freedom of speech bill

#201

Post by rayiner » Mon, Jan 11, 2021, 9:52 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.

7 of 27 EU states have a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. The EU Human Rights Court has not stepped in to overturn those bans: https://eclj.org/marriage/the-echr-unanimously-confirms-the-.... In 2016, it held unanimously that the European Convention on Human Rights doesn’t protect same-sex marriage. In the EU countries where it has been legalized, that was done by statue.

In the US, those issues are handled through court cases, regardless of where public opinion stands. For example, elective abortions (without health risks or something else) in the second trimester or later is very unpopular in the US and the EU. Only about a quarter of people think it should be generally legal after the first trimester: https://news.gallup.com/poll/235469/trimesters-key-abortion-.... That matches up with the law in most of the EU, where the limit for elective abortions is 10-14 weeks. (As I recall, the UK is the exception at 24 weeks.)

The US constitution doesn’t say anything about abortion, or anything that could really be construed to be about abortion, but the Supreme Court has interpreted it to protect abortion up to viability, usually 22-24 weeks. So the Supreme Court has interpreted the constitution, which says nothing about abortion, to create an abortion right so broad France or Germany’s or Denmark’s abortion laws would be invalid in the US.

The topping on that cake is that the US is that the US is the most religious developed country in the world, more so than countries like Poland.

Which is why Supreme Court appointments get so heated here.

Re: Poland Justice Minister announces online freedom of speech bill

#202

Post by armchairhacker » Mon, Jan 11, 2021, 9:56 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #196

armchairhacker wrote: post #170

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…

> Suppose the Big Tech companies are far-right instead of left. Wait, when did corporate capitalism become a left-wing position? What you really mean is "supposed the Big Tech companies became far-right instead of centrist neoliberal capitalists". > 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 /…

> What you really mean is "supposed the Big Tech companies became far-right instead of centrist neoliberal capitalists".

This is right. I should've said something like "what if they censored progressive reform instead of violence and hatred".

> One could equally easily assume ... the left would instead organize outside corporate communication channels (as it has in the past) for boycotts, demonstrations, and mobilization

Yes, but one could also assume the extremists are going to do the same thing to stage another insurrection. And, under the argument that they still have freedom of speech, there is nothing we could do.

The point is that people are supporting the current, reasonable policy (censoring hate speech and calls for violence) with the wrong justification (private companies that control communication can do whatever they want). This particularly becomes a problem when the companies decide to use their censorship for profit at the expense of indie studios (which has happened), and said studios don't have good alternatives.

Re: Poland Justice Minister announces online freedom of speech bill

#203

Post by erik_seaberg » Mon, Jan 11, 2021, 9:58 PM UTC

disabled wrote: post #174

dharmab wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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/techn…

Have the EU been able to impose GDPR penalties on an org with no staff or assets and no representation in the EU?

Re: Poland Justice Minister announces online freedom of speech bill

#204

Post by devwastaken » Mon, Jan 11, 2021, 10:00 PM UTC

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?

As all laws there are limits to its use. Nutritional labels are comprised of factual content to the product. The government can't force political or other government opinion onto it. Or at the least politically fueled labelling should not be allowed. For example forcing a company to host images on their cigarette packs. This should be unconstitutional.

General opinion especially political is protected, or at least is meant to be. People can make political products, but they have to be factual in their contents.

This isn't very related to the issue of social media - the posts are from other people including the government. You can't compel a company to host your opinions. You could compel them to list factual information about its content/origin though.

Re: Poland Justice Minister announces online freedom of speech bill

#205

Post by DenisM » Mon, Jan 11, 2021, 10:00 PM UTC

That might be the wrong way to go about it, but I sympathize with the sentiment. If you pretend to be a public square you must act like a public square.

As it happens the US Supreme Court is also sympathetic - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama

Now many here already raised an obvious objection - someone tending to a small blog should be able to police it. That is sensible. So I suppose we need to find a good way to draw a line between a private club and a public square.

Re: Poland Justice Minister announces online freedom of speech bill

#206

Post by rayiner » Mon, Jan 11, 2021, 10:00 PM UTC

eropple wrote: post #125

anonunivgrad wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 r…

What "the federal courts in America" did is state that the rights of other human beings are not up for a vote.

“Rights” are what other human beings agree to recognize. That’s just the nature of law as a construct. What the federal courts in America have done is set themselves up as a tribunal of elites for deciding moral issues that other countries decide democratically.

This unsurprisingly causes a lot of friction. Same sex marriage actually wasn’t one of those areas—US opinion and that in other developed countries wasn’t far off, and it was legalized after it hit majority support. And Obergefell has a much stronger basis in law than other Supreme Court social decisions. There is a long line of precedent recognizing that marriage is a “fundamental right” protected by the constitution.

But abortion and religion in schools are examples of where the court is significantly out of step with both the letter of the law and public opinion. Public opinion in America supports abortion in the first trimester and or after that. That’s the same moral balance as reflected in the laws of say Denmark, France, Spain, Germany, and Italy (where abortion is generally illegal after 10-14 weeks). But under Roe abortion cannot be banned until the end of the second trimester. So our elite tribunal has imposed an abortion regime in the US that’s inconsistent with what more liberal Europeans have.

Same thing for religion in schools. 2/3 of Americans oppose the ban on school prayer. By contrast, instruction in public schools is a legal right in much of Europe, including the UK and Germany.

Being out of step with the public can be justified if that’s what the letter of the law requires. What’s most perplexing about Roe in particular is that it’s out of step with public opinion (broader than what the public wants) and also has no basis in the constitutional text. What’s the source of the court’s authority in that context?

Re: Poland Justice Minister announces online freedom of speech bill

#207

Post by daliusd » Mon, Jan 11, 2021, 10:01 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

Well, I don't but Facebook meanwhile... Honestly, let's see what will happen - it is going to be interesting at least.

Re: Poland Justice Minister announces online freedom of speech bill

#208

Post by realmod » Mon, Jan 11, 2021, 10:01 PM UTC

jariel wrote: post #167

timeon wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

"Newspeak" is calling compelled speech free speech. This law would, for example, force HN to host spam and unrelated content since it does not break polish law. And forcing an entity like HN to host and disseminate content it does not want, is simply compelled speech and doing it under the guise of "free speech" does not change the nature of the law.

Re: Poland Justice Minister announces online freedom of speech bill

#209

Post by Jon_Lowtek » Mon, Jan 11, 2021, 10:02 PM UTC

disabled wrote: post #174

dharmab wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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/techn…

It is a bit more complicated: the EU considers the protection of personal data a basic human right (charta of fundamental rights article 8). As such there are cases where the EU considers itself to be the responsible authority, even if the company is not within the EU, as long as the data subject is.

There are limits to that due to contract law, but there are also limits how many rights one can sign away, especially when dealing with predatory corporations.

To give a less digital analogue: if you are robbed, your local police is the authority you talk to. They are not going to tell you that you need to find out who robbed you and talk to the police in their home town.

Re: Poland Justice Minister announces online freedom of speech bill

#210

Post by alacombe » Mon, Jan 11, 2021, 10:02 PM UTC

isbvhodnvemrwvn wrote: post #147

alacombe wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ... creeping towards authoritarianism Because all the shit going on in the US isn't ?

I don't see how it's relevant. Would you be fine being a kulak in Soviet Russia being scheduled for execution because at least the Japanese are currently organizing mass murder in China as well?

> I don't see how it's relevant.

Instead of looking at the neighbor's mess, clean up your own mess first.

Fact is most of the former "free" (as in Liberty) world has been setting up the perfect legal building blocks for a long sitting reign of terror / dictatorship / authoritarianism, and big-tech is 100% complicit (because they will make money out of it).