Earlier quoted context omitted.
Mentioning true facts (mostly falsehoods, but also some true facts) about WW2 is already illegal in Germany.
Like what? Please don’t let it be Holocaust denial...
Spoiler alert: it's Holocaust denial.
Poland Justice Minister announces online freedom of speech bill
261–270 of 386 posts
Re: Poland Justice Minister announces online freedom of speech bill
#262Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are we playing semantics here? You called it "free speech". I wish we all had the 1st Amendment in Europe, but unfortunately we don't. Every European country claims it has free speech, but at the same time puts limits on it, let that be anti-communism laws, hate speech laws, laws against offending religious people, or whatever really. That's just how things are in Europe, sorry. Whatever the Polish government might h…
Thanks, I was not on the same page as you, but I take your points. I'm very skeptical of this approach, but I don't think I have anything else to add to this thread
Look, all I'm gonna say is that the social media are not a free speech refuge. You still can't say anything that your government made illegal. Just as the article you posted says, Jaś Kapela was put on trial for something he said on the internet. So I really can't see how this could backfire at people in any way, as it can only expand the freedom. Unless you believe that you can trust private corporations with censoring what they deem as harmful of course, and in that case I would just like to remind you that Google supplies the Chinese government with surveillance technology and companies like Apple and many others benefit from the slave labor.
Re: Poland Justice Minister announces online freedom of speech bill
#263As 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…
> You agree to not arbitrarily remove me from your service
Per basic contract law, this is only going to fly if money is changing hands. You and Facebook sign a contract with these stipulations and you pay them for the privilege of using their platform, and now if they remove you you have damages that can be enforced. Absent you paying them they have no obligation to host any of your content. Are you willing to pay Facebook to use it in exchange for these rights?
Re: Poland Justice Minister announces online freedom of speech bill
#264Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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.…
It actually was my job, I saw exactly what letting things alone did. I know how many ways your ideas are incorrect, because I worked from that same starting point. If you believe that ideals are going to do the job, please feel free! There's 100s of subs that need mods. Take the time to find the most gnarly politically active sub and apply your ideas. Find the places where people actively deal with propo and indoctri…
Do you think your views will never be wrongfully censored?
Re: Poland Justice Minister announces online freedom of speech bill
#265Earlier quoted context omitted.
So in keeping with the law at the time (well the law they passed), they elected 5 justices to replace up coming vacancies. Later it was ruled that 2 of those nominations were unconstitutional (I think because they were for justices who's terms expired after the new legislature was seated), but the newly elected Law and Justice government refused to seat any of them and elected their own slate of 5 justices. When the…
This is all fine and good - but the previous governments 'changing of the law' governing Judicial appointments, and then controversially 'stacking the court' to 14 out of 15 appointments in their favour, is clearly the first salvo in a constitutional war. There is no doubt. It doesn't matter that 'we don't like the jerks in charge' or that 'they've done bad stuff' - the fact is the crisis was obviously initiated befo…
The previous government action was unconstitutional, but it was hardly a crisis. We had all the tools needed to handle such case and those tools got used as they should. Only after later actions of the current government those tools became inadequate to handle the situation, causing the crisis.
We don't call every unconstitutional bill "a crisis" and I'm pretty sure of that as there were quite a lot of them already.
Also, I'm by no means a supporter of the previous government, so you can stop building your strawmans.
BTW:
> 'stacking the court' to 14 out of 15 appointments in their favour
Most of them were appointed with votes from both previous and current ruling parties. Just sayin'.
Re: Poland Justice Minister announces online freedom of speech bill
#266Earlier quoted context omitted.
Between 8 PM Friday and 4 AM Monday morning, nothing about potential legal liability changed. The decline over the weekend TWTR banned Trump was larger than the decline following the riot itself.
1. We don’t know what advice they were getting and when, and it’s the advice not the liability that matters. 2. This is just an example of things which could be going on, not intended as a factual statement of what did and why Twitter chose to do what it chose to do — if I actually knew something not in the public domain, I’d probably be under NDA to not say.
You think a $40 billion stock moved 6% in a day based on non-public internal discussions among executives and lawyers? If so, that would constitute one of the most blatant cases of insider trading in modern history.
Re: Poland Justice Minister announces online freedom of speech bill
#267Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it is in the public interest to allow platforms to remove such content This is not always true, and that is the issue. If the government is going to, for instance, tell us we can't gather on public property, there has to be some way to guarantee that a digital commons will remain.
In what sense is a private commercial website public space?
Some judges have hinted that it effectively is:
https://harvardlawreview.org/2017/11/packingham-v-north-caro...
Ultimately, though, I think the jury is still out.
Re: Poland Justice Minister announces online freedom of speech bill
#268Earlier quoted context omitted.
It actually was my job, I saw exactly what letting things alone did. I know how many ways your ideas are incorrect, because I worked from that same starting point. If you believe that ideals are going to do the job, please feel free! There's 100s of subs that need mods. Take the time to find the most gnarly politically active sub and apply your ideas. Find the places where people actively deal with propo and indoctri…
Do you think your views will never be wrongfully censored?
As I said, feel free to do it yourself. It's enlightening - it removes idealism and makes you formulate strategies that are practical.
If you get the practice right, maybe we can get to the ideals.
I've already been wrongfully censored, life goes on.
Re: Poland Justice Minister announces online freedom of speech bill
#269Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you think your views will never be wrongfully censored?
As I said, feel free to do it yourself. It's enlightening - it removes idealism and makes you formulate strategies that are practical. If you get the practice right, maybe we can get to the ideals. I've already been wrongfully censored, life goes on.
I'll keep my idealism, thanks. I've seen what censorship does, and I find it to be a far worse monster than any of those spawned by the free exchange of ideas.
Re: Poland Justice Minister announces online freedom of speech bill
#270Freedom 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…
There's a bizarre doublethink at work here, where people claim at the same time that social media companies should not be held responsible for speech on their platforms, hence section 230, but also that that speech is "their speech", hence forcing them to host speech is compelled speech. If it's their speech, they should be held responsible for it. If it's not, it's not compelled speech to force them to host it.