Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

ISPs should not police online speech no matter how awful it is

eff.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

541–550 of 1001 posts

Re: ISPs should not police online speech no matter how awful it is

#541

Post by FireBeyond »

LinuxBender wrote: post #335
X6S1x6Okd1st wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's an extremely charitable description of what KiwiFarms is. What's your list of things to block that are higher up the list?

- Corporations that obtain your data and then sell it or abuse it even if said abuse is permitted in some fine print. - Countries that commit crimes against humanity but those should be fully physically blockaded rather than just blocking their internet. - ISP's and ISP resellers that aid and abet watering holes, phishing sites, scams, etc... and probably also entire countries that refuse to lift a finger to stop sca…

> and probably also entire countries that refuse to lift a finger to stop scam call centers should be globally BGP filtered

You could make a credible argument that the US is on that list too.

Re: ISPs should not police online speech no matter how awful it is

#542

Post by Akronymus »

chonkerz wrote: post #482
habinero wrote: post #457

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

kiwifarms admin admitted to this too. he says that he seeks out mentally vulnerable people to harass because they make funny reactions when tormented. he calls them "lolcows". the first victim of the site was a severely autistic person. kiwifarms was originally called "CWCki Forums" after the first victim's initials

> kiwifarms admin admitted to this too.

I have a hard time finding that, could you link me to it/a screenshot of it?

Re: ISPs should not police online speech no matter how awful it is

#543

Post by refurb »

peterashford wrote: post #229
yanderekko wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I recall reading the other day about Germany making deadnaming a crime..

From an outsider's perspective (NZ) Germany's democracy looks a lot healthier than the US's.

I think the problem is that people think “a lack of political debate and extreme views” is a healthy sign of democracy.

It’s actually the opposite. Plenty of authoritarian regimes look awfully peaceful because the only acceptable views are the government approved ones.

Id take political strife any day over forced “political harmony”. Far better to “air the dirty laundry” than pretend it doesn’t exist.

Re: ISPs should not police online speech no matter how awful it is

#544

Post by goodluckchuck »

chonkerz wrote: post #462
mortenjorck wrote: post #8

It's heartening to see the EFF come out sticking to principles on this in a time when other organizations of their stature have not. I hate to say it, but I could easily imagine something like the ACLU opposing the EFF on this.

The EFF is arguing here that companies should not take anything down and instead rely on the government to dictate what shouldn't be allowed. This is absolutely ridiculous. Imagine being such a free speech advocate that you say something like this.

Allowing speech is not an endorsement of the restrictions others may try to impose.

Re: ISPs should not police online speech no matter how awful it is

#545

Post by raxxorraxor »

yashap wrote: post #353

I agree, and I’m extremely far from a free speech absolutist - to a level that I’m sure most at HN would disagree with. I completely believe in limits to free speech on a case by case basis, online and otherwise. For example, I think HN would be a worse place without moderation, same with Reddit, I think my home country Canada would be a worse place without hate speech laws, etc. Not against limits to free speech onl…

HN is moderated, but I cannot imagine many opinions that really would be outright banned or suppressed. It has strong requirements to the form, but not necessarily the content of the message itself. That is in essence not the topic people complain about, otherwise they probably wouldn't post.

I am a free speech absolutist though, I tend to like the term too because I believe its intended derisiveness is mostly impotent. Overall I believe trying to enforce hate speech laws is fundamentally flawed. I think people should be free to express acceptance as they should be able to express rejections.

Re: ISPs should not police online speech no matter how awful it is

#546

Post by aydyn »

cycomanic wrote: post #319
yanderekko wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, right now there's a odd vogue to think that a healthy democracy does things like ban political parties (currently an active debate regarding the AfD in Germany), or embrace indigenous apartheid movements (NZ, Australia), or to cede sovereignty to unaccountable transnational elites that promise to protect you from the ravages of political misinformation (the EU as a whole.) I don't think these notions will stand…

For those of people who are wondering about the "indigenous apartheid", the poster is talking about co-governance, i.e. giving certain "typically local", economic and political powers to indigenous organizations. This has become recently become on-vogue to call "apartheid" in right circles. I guess the people opposing co-governance are not very fond of following contracts, because at least in NZ the founding document…

Its not “co-governance”. Its privileging a demographic with greater power under the law based on skin color. Thats apartheid.

Re: ISPs should not police online speech no matter how awful it is

#547

Post by totetsu »

wmf wrote: post #15

Are there any lawsuits pending against KiwiFarms? If not, why not?

I first heard of kiwi-farms when it was blocked at the DNS level by New Zealand ISPs for hosting the censored video of the face book live stream of the 51 people being killed in the Mosque Terrorist attack. They also had a whole section called lol-cow where they crowd sourced doxing and ridiculing female youtubers if i recall correctly.

Re: ISPs should not police online speech no matter how awful it is

#548

Post by Nursie »

chroma wrote: post #495
Nursie wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> in the rest of the world, we don’t even have free speech. It exists to varying degrees in various places. It's not absolute in the US, as much as people like to pretend it is - incitement to violence, the old "yelling fire in a crowded theatre" canard, criminal conspiracy, defamation etc etc. There is a line drawn, it's a fuzzy one that people pretend does not exist, but it's there just as it is in other nations. F…

The "shouting fire in a crowded theater" metaphor was coined by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr in the Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States, in which Holmes and the majority of justices sent a man to prison for distributing flyers protesting the draft in World War I. Anyone today who references the metaphor without sarcasm reveals themselves to be ignorant of the history of the First Amendment. https://en.wi…

It's been a popular metaphor for decades. And your link says (amongst other things) -

"Ultimately, whether it is legal in the United States to falsely shout fire in a theater depends on the circumstances in which it is done and the consequences of doing it. The act of shouting fire when there are no reasonable grounds for believing one exists is not in itself a crime, and nor would it be rendered a crime merely by having been carried out inside a theatre, crowded or otherwise. However, if it causes a stampede and someone is killed as a result, then the act could amount to a crime, such as involuntary manslaughter..."

I was not trying to make the point that it is always illegal to shout "fire" in a crowded theatre, that such an act is by itself subject to prohibition, but that it is one of several circumstances in which an act of speech may not be 100% protected by the first amendment in the USA.

I even called it a "canard" because it's something of a cliche and not 100% true as commonly understood.

The point, if anything, is reinforced by this - there is a fuzzy edge to freedom of speech in the USA, even where it is portrayed as absolute.

Another example of illegal speech would be perjury.

Re: ISPs should not police online speech no matter how awful it is

#549

Post by refurb »

cycomanic wrote: post #319
yanderekko wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, right now there's a odd vogue to think that a healthy democracy does things like ban political parties (currently an active debate regarding the AfD in Germany), or embrace indigenous apartheid movements (NZ, Australia), or to cede sovereignty to unaccountable transnational elites that promise to protect you from the ravages of political misinformation (the EU as a whole.) I don't think these notions will stand…

For those of people who are wondering about the "indigenous apartheid", the poster is talking about co-governance, i.e. giving certain "typically local", economic and political powers to indigenous organizations. This has become recently become on-vogue to call "apartheid" in right circles. I guess the people opposing co-governance are not very fond of following contracts, because at least in NZ the founding document…

I think they mean apartheid in the sense of South Africa - separate and unequal.

Look at the NZ approach of taking race into consideration when prioritizing medical care.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/auckland-surgeons-must-now-con...

Re: ISPs should not police online speech no matter how awful it is

#550

Post by zirgs »

nonethewiser wrote: post #314
peterashford wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From an outsider's perspective (NZ) Germany's democracy looks a lot healthier than the US's.

Because of criminalizing "deadnaming" or in spite of it? For those that don't know, so-called "deadnaming" "is the act of referring to a transgender or non-binary person by a name they used prior to transitioning, such as their birth name." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadnaming

That should not be a criminal offence.
Post reply on HN