A Western authoritarian's wet dream.
Turkey adopts media law jailing for spreading ‘disinformation’
161–170 of 225 posts
Re: Turkey adopts media law jailing for spreading ‘disinformation’
#162Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Do you truly think Alex Jones's speech inflicted a billion dollars worth of damage? I urge you to read up on Alex's conduct before, during, and after the trial(s). He spent most of his time mocking the process, attacking the judge, and continuing to defame the parents while failing to comply with basic discovery in a timely way. He also hired incompetent legal representation[1] - probably because they shared his wo…
I think you're right, had his conduct been better then his outcome would also likely have been much better. That said, I still think the amount is ludicrous and unjustifiable. Even if he had had actively encouraged his followers to burn down the homes and beat up the vehicles of every sandy hook parent the damages wouldn't have reached anywhere near a tenth of the amount he was fine. And as it happens, he didn't do t…
Juries don't make good decisions about damages. This value will be down-adjusted significantly- I would expect it to be more like $50M eventually. Something that could be garnished in a finite time.
Re: Turkey adopts media law jailing for spreading ‘disinformation’
#163Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your point doesn't work they way you seem to think it does. Any power you enable/disable can also be enabled/disabled in the future. Let's say you want to enshrine the rights to free speech so you put it into the constitution. Any future government can just take it out, just completely ignore its existence, say it doesn't apply in this situation, or work around it but requiring some civil agreement. --- To put things…
Sort of true. Specifically the constitution, they not only put it in the constitution, they also made the constitution hard to change. The other side can't just change it with a 51% majority. (A future government can ignore it or say it doesn't apply, of course. But the Supreme Court may disagree... several years later.) More generally, here's a door. It's closed. You'd like to open it and walk through it. The other…
> Specifically the constitution, they not only put it in the constitution, they also made the constitution hard to change. The other side can't just change it with a 51% majority. (A future government can ignore it or say it doesn't apply, of course. But the Supreme Court may disagree... several years later.)
That only addresses one of the four ways I listed though.
(1) Any future government can just take it out - I believe you addressed this point
(2) just completely ignore its existence - The government can pass other laws such as the Espionage Act [1] that restricts free speech without needing to go through the effort of an amendment.
(3) say it doesn't apply in this situation - Espionage Act [1] again applies here. There's also a lot of discussion about if say the USG asks twitter to do something does it apply or because the actual restriction came from a private entity does it not?
(4) work around it - Twitter again applies here (as does just buying 3rd party data to get around the other amendments). - Some argue that Snowden has a free speech right to tell/show people what he did. This doesn't apply as Snowden has a separate civil agreement (NDA) with the government.
> So think carefully about whether you want to open that door.
Very much agreed.
Re: Turkey adopts media law jailing for spreading ‘disinformation’
#164Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you truly think Alex Jones's speech inflicted a billion dollars worth of damage? I'd love to see an itemized bill demonstrating that. If he actually did cause that much real damage, sure, it would be fair. But I can't possibly conceive how he would have caused even $100k in real damages, much less a billion. It's equally, if not more dangerous, to fine people ludicrously large, arbitrary amounts of money because t…
> Do you truly think Alex Jones's speech inflicted a billion dollars worth of damage? I urge you to read up on Alex's conduct before, during, and after the trial(s). He spent most of his time mocking the process, attacking the judge, and continuing to defame the parents while failing to comply with basic discovery in a timely way. He also hired incompetent legal representation[1] - probably because they shared his wo…
>> Do you truly think Alex Jones's speech inflicted a billion dollars worth of damage?
> I urge you to read up on Alex's conduct before, during, and after the trial(s).
Solid point. Fairness and objective inquiries into damages be damned, if you don't kiss the ring, you deserve the worst.
"Hacker" News endorsing outrageous punishments for not bending over far enough. I, too, recall the portion of the Hacker Manifesto, which read:
We are loyal subjects of the system, and we shall abide by
every rule of decorum which the King hath proclaimed. God
praise our rulers, who are wiser than all of us!
We seek neither freedom, nor fairness. If someone wearing
black robes decrees something, you must bow down and
kiss their feet. It is thus written by St. Ignucious. Amen.
Irreverence for Institute Authorities shall not be permitted.
They are our betters, and we shall exclude anyone whosoever
shall trespass against their Virtuous Rules.
Hack The Planet*!
[*: Provided the hacking is done in accordance with the dictates of our betters.]
Re: Turkey adopts media law jailing for spreading ‘disinformation’
#165Earlier quoted context omitted.
The lawsuit can claims whatever it likes. I didn't say that the lawsuit never claimed it. I said that I haven't actually seen evidence of Alex Jones actively encouraging the harrasment. If you have that, please share.
Alex Jones could have argued that he didn't do that. He could have presented evidence. Instead, he tried to game the courts, refusing discovery and refusing to follow standard court procedures. That kind of game results in the courts assuming that the other side is factually correct, without them having to prove it . It's like your football team losing because they never bothered to take the field. Why did Jones take…
> He thought that the publicity of "not cooperating with the system" (or whatever) would be more valuable than the cost of losing the case.
Sounds like he won. I can entertain a thought that given he's not going to pay it anyway, he actually wanted the fine to be as high as possible.
> Whatever the reason, he did this to himself
I don't think folks are pitying Alex Jones here. If he exploited judicial system to gain more publicity, this undermines the system. If judge/jury got emotional and gave him a "fuck you" fine, we shouldn't celebrate it, even if the guy is a total asshole.
> Don't treat the courts as a show. They're not. There are real consequences
It's not a show, and yet he got one. I'm not so sure about "real" consequences. Most folks seem to think that there isn't a difference between $500M and $1B fine.
Re: Turkey adopts media law jailing for spreading ‘disinformation’
#166Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, my take is that you should manage your risk. If you don't want the risk of the state changing its rules don't tie your employment to that state. My second point is that professionals should already accurately tell the truth to their patients.
The truth, or what the state decides is the truth ? Those are not always the same thing.
Sure.
Professionals should be sticking to positive statements [1] though. So saying something like, the covid vaccine will give you austim I think should be grounds for losing your license.
On the other hand, saying something like, there's a high change you'll have flu like symptoms if you get the vaccine would not be grounds (the symptoms are disclosed as part of the vaccine trials).
But saying something like, I would like to try X treatment that isn't typically done but I've done it a few times recently and had good results I think should also be fine.
The law makes the claim of "contemporary scientific consensus contrary to the standard of care" which I think is a very reasonable statement. In general, you want people to recommend treatments that historically have worked for a condition. And for experimental type situations all the Licensee needs to do is to make it clear that the treatment isn't backed up by existing studies.
Re: Turkey adopts media law jailing for spreading ‘disinformation’
#167The world would, without a doubt, be a better place if politicians, news organizations, influencers/celebrities, etc. did not lie to the masses. It would also likely be a much quieter place, in that some of these entities would not be able to produce so much content due to the need to corroborate before posting, printing or opening their mouths. Some would be silent, because a lot of these people are truly ignorant a…
> The latest one is against Tulsi Gabbard, who, after announcing she is leaving her political party, is now the target of all manner of attacks from multiple angles, including such things as saying she is a member of a cult. I use this example because it is very fresh, quite literally the last few days.
Gabbard was a weak link in her own party, she's been deliberately contrarian solely for the sake of being contrarian. I'm fine with journalists being contrarian, but this "dissident politician" phenomenon just gets in the way and encourages more sensationalism
Re: Turkey adopts media law jailing for spreading ‘disinformation’
#168Earlier quoted context omitted.
If a famous person spreads lies about my murdered kids for profit which results in years of harassment and death threats it's not simply "spreading disinformation".
That's quite literally all that it is. Maybe you dont like it, I dont like it either, but Alex Jones's part in this was just speaking. The individuals doing the harassment and making death threats should of course be punished. But holding someone accountable for the actions of hundreds of people they've never met is absurd. Did Alex Jones encourage the harassment? Did he tell his followers to go send death threats? I…
> That's quite literally all that it is
Using a media empire to sustain a campaign of harassment against innocent people is not the same thing as e.g. broadcasting lies about the safety of vaccines.
> speaking your incorrect opinion should not make you liable for the actions
It should when the target of your "incorrect opinion" is a private citizen being attacked because of your misinformation. Your flippant dismissal as "a few deranged individuals" does not match up with reality.
Re: Turkey adopts media law jailing for spreading ‘disinformation’
#169They don't want the US/Israel to plot a 2nd coup [1], just like with China/Russia they want to split Turkey since it's too big Erdogan knows that very well, hence he tried to play double face with NATO/Russia (BRICS) [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Turkish_coup_d%27%C3%A9ta...
Foreign boogiemen tend to be behind a lot of bad laws. The coup failed without having to jail people for arbitrary wrongthink and I doubt this will be useful for anything but crushing domestic opposition and silencing whistleblowers.
I don't care what's good what's bad, i'm just making an observation and i share my knowledge
The "one sided" mindset in the west is tasteless and boring
Re: Turkey adopts media law jailing for spreading ‘disinformation’
#170I see a lot of people critical of Turkey... and I agree. But the US is not too far away. See AB-2098 in California just signed by governor / likely presidential nominee Gavin Newson [1] which basically gives the state the ability to revoke medical licenses for spreading "false information that is contradicted by contemporary scientific contrary to the standard of care" (in other words, go against the CDC or other sta…
The question is how we can keep our own countries from going down similar routes? With tech being what it is, it will become harder and harder to resist the state over time, so we will need better and better ways of keeping our houses in order so that things will not “decay,” to use a slightly classical term With ai and surveillance / mass-manipulation tech, it will be extremely hard to come back from authoritarianis…
The authoritarianism won't come from the government, it will come from the people around you.
It's honestly terrifying how fast the media whipped up the craziness a year or two ago. It makes me wonder how much harder they shilled to shame people into the military during wartime. I remember reading Céline's Journey to the End of the Night and getting disgusted at how the state and media managed to screw that many people into literal suicide. It reminded me of how the Aztecs normalized human sacrifice to the point where people actually wanted to be sacrificed. There's something inherently violent about mass society
The next time the people around me suddenly start insisting on the same idea and foaming at the mouth, I'm dropping everything and moving somewhere where mass psychosis isn't the norm
The only thing keeping our society from totalitarianism is a benevolent media that's decided it isn't time yet. If they fire on all cylinders again and for a long enough period it's entirely possible