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

271–280 of 386 posts

Re: Poland Justice Minister announces online freedom of speech bill

#271

Post by jpambrun »

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…

This status quo is US companies gets to decide wait is fair speech. Obviously this is untenable for all other nations as it should be in the US as well.

Re: Poland Justice Minister announces online freedom of speech bill

#272

Post by amadeuspagel »

Almost every comment here is an attempt to distract from the real issue. One can only imagine the comments had HN existed when Marsh v. Alabama was decided. What if some racist wants to hold a meeting in my living room? So a company makes available a free space and then has to allow people to use that in a way they don't like? Kind of insane. Plus long lists of accusations against various US politicians, ways in which the US doesn't live up to the first amendment, etc.. And of course the utterly bizarre argument (but at least one that actually relates to the real issue) that forcing a company to allow speech on their property constitutes forced speech.

Re: Poland Justice Minister announces online freedom of speech bill

#273

Post by dragonwriter »

amadeuspagel wrote: post #270
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…

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.

The entire rationale for section 230 was to allow online services to exercise editorial control over user-generated content — to not be a neutral host of all legal content — while also not holding them civilly liable as a publisher with certain narrow exceptions (but also leaving them criminally liable for anything that would carry criminal liability.)

So what you are suggesting is so e kind of doublethink blending support for 230 with something conflicting with 230 is, instead, exactly just support of 230.

But the choice to sell books (e.g., distributors) has, like the situation of online UGC service providers, always carried lesser liability than publication, but the choice to carry or not carry particular books is still a First Amendment activity. The idea that it's not your own free expression if it doesn't have exactly the set of legal liabilities traditionally associated with the publisher role is bizarre and indefensible.

Re: Poland Justice Minister announces online freedom of speech bill

#274

Post by intended »

Karunamon wrote: post #269
intended wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sure, however idealism doesn't mean your opinion is better than actual facts.

Its always interesting that I get into these discussion with some people who hold a position so strongly, yet unwilling to do any work to be reliable.

Do try though, if you crack it there's genuinely a market for the solution.

Re: Poland Justice Minister announces online freedom of speech bill

#275

Post by jpambrun »

root_axis wrote: post #69
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.

This is a dishonest line. The internet is federated, they don't have to use websites created by American megacorporations.

They have a worldwide monopoly. If countries can't enforce their law on these platforms they will likely ban them on their territory. No Nation want to forgo their sovereignty to US corporations and delegate to them what is fair speech. Expect their algorithms to be under scrutiny as well.

Re: Poland Justice Minister announces online freedom of speech bill

#276

Post by tptacek »

rayiner wrote: post #206
eropple wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 fa…

A difference between us and Europe is that our country was founded on maintaining a separation between the state (which runs the schools we're talking about) and religion, and Germany wasn't. The entire premise of the Constitution --- really of any constitution --- is to insulate those kinds of governing principles from public opinion.

Re: Poland Justice Minister announces online freedom of speech bill

#277

Post by function_seven »

_oqcu wrote: post #246
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Put another way: In the US at least, r/jailbait didn't actually break any laws (well, maybe some individual posts did, but the whole idea of that subreddit was essentially to ogle underage women/children but in a way that was not explicitly illegal). So with something like this law all social media sites would be forced to host the equivalent of r/jailbait.

I don't see that as a good counter example. That sort of content should be illegal anyway.

That's exactly what makes it a great example. If we accept the premise that /r/jailbait was not illegal (but "merely" reprehensible), then under this new law, Reddit would have been breaking the law when they decided to ban the subreddit.

Re: Poland Justice Minister announces online freedom of speech bill

#278

Post by ausbah »

jpambrun wrote: post #275
root_axis wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a dishonest line. The internet is federated, they don't have to use websites created by American megacorporations.

They have a worldwide monopoly. If countries can't enforce their law on these platforms they will likely ban them on their territory. No Nation want to forgo their sovereignty to US corporations and delegate to them what is fair speech. Expect their algorithms to be under scrutiny as well.

I think US megacorps have more malleable ethics than you are giving them credit for. these corps already have the ability to federated their services, and don't seem to have an issue with meeting the demands of less-than-savory governments like China's

Re: Poland Justice Minister announces online freedom of speech bill

#279

Post by casefields »

inglor_cz wrote: post #114
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.

That is sort of inevitable. Remember the cartoons mocking Muhammad? It is not as if there is a worldwide consensus on whether mocking him is even legal. Some people consider it a crime worthy of death and others their natural right. You can't get much bigger polarization than that. Compared to the Cartoon Question, differences between R and D are not that big.

Cartoon: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4d/Charliehebdo....

Re: Poland Justice Minister announces online freedom of speech bill

#280

Post by notadev »

nitwit005 wrote: post #121
afuchs wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought that subreddit was banned because of the negative media attention that it received. Wasn't that years before SESTA and FOSTA were passed?

Yes, the timing matched with the negative media attention, similar to the removals of a few Trump subreddits recently.

This has already been weaponized by subs like /r/AgainstHateSubs and other vigilante-like subs. Their tactics usually involve posting in those subreddits from sockpuppet accounts, using hateful or threatening messages. The few times the targeted subs mods aren't on the ball, they mass report the post for hate speech to try and get the sub banned, or the mods banned then later request the subreddit for themselves, something of a trophy I guess. On rare instances, they reach out to their freelance journalist friends to write a hite piece.
Post reply on HN