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

EU: Definition of "potential terrorists" opens door to broad information-sharing

statewatch.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 279 posts

Re: EU: Definition of "potential terrorists" opens door to broad information-sharing

#181

Post by xoa »

llm_trw wrote: post #40

To quote some of the people I know who would be impacted the most by this: > Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences. If they'd not spend the last 10 years purging the old guard who they called free speech fanatics they'd have someone in their corner. Now I just have the world tiniest violin for them. Or to use much better words than mine: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUqytjlHNIM

It's unfortunate you've chosen to engage in your own anti-speech obfuscation here though.

>Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences.

The reason this line is bad is because it's wrong and misused from multiple directions due to overloading/being vague with "consequences". Freedom of speech is freedom from VIOLENT, or directly violent adjacent [0], consequences, public or private. But SOCIAL consequences aren't infringement on free speech rights, they are exercising free speech rights. The exact same freedom of speech and association that gives you the right to say something offensive also gives everyone else the right to say offensive things back and/or never have anything to do with you again. Free speech culture and principles typically encourage attempting to maintain a more open and curious mind then you are required to, and to use your rights with appropriate measure and discretion. And of course social/economic consequences go round and round, too harsh a reaction may result in others treating the one who is judged to have been too harsh with consequences in turn, and on and on. That's the vibrant market of ideas.

But it's false if someone brings this line up to support or excuse violent speech suppression, and it's also false if someone brings this up sarcastically and tries to equate bans from private soap boxes, people refusing to offer support, people offering criticism, etc with use of violence. If you get banned from some web forum, which is said web forum's freedom of speech, and then whine about your free speech rights, and someone says "that doesn't give you freedom from consequences" you should recognize they're completely correct as far as social consequences go, and would be completely wrong if they said you should get fined or imprisoned or beat up or the like.

I consider myself a "free speech absolutist", but that's within a wholistic understanding of the whole system of free speech applying to everyone with infinite regression. The phase has gotten a bad name from hypocrites who call themselves that while then complaining loudly about others exercising their free speech (which of course is itself free speech).

----

0: For example if government imposes a fine someone might say that's not violence, but the reason it's a "fine" not a "suggestion" is that it's backed by the government's general monopoly on violence. What makes a law a law is what happens if you don't go along with it. It can be nested many levels deep, and involve discretion and resource limits, but ultimately it always ends up with violence.

Re: EU: Definition of "potential terrorists" opens door to broad information-sharing

#182

Post by tomrod »

gillesjacobs wrote: post #104
bawolff wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Minority report was about arresting people based on the word of psychics. There is a big difference between that and having evidence someone intends to commit a crime in the future. Of course it is possible to abuse such things, which is why its important to have reasonable definitions for these things.

1. Three years ago, you liked some tweets of someone who you didn't know was a political seperatist. Now, his group had been classified a terror organisation. 2. You went to buy some acetone as a solvent for a project. There is now material evidence and intent for a terrorist attack using TATP bombs. You and your family are on a no-fly list and are being watched. All digital platforms have to automatically turn over…

The law is malleable. All laws will be abused, and by corollary, all laws are societal negotiations, one court room at a time.

Those in the legal field grok this. Those with less experience in the legal field typically fear the law for its seeming black-and-white attribute when it's really a lot of grey.

Re: EU: Definition of "potential terrorists" opens door to broad information-sharing

#183

Post by komali2 »

throw1834 wrote: post #101
OKRainbowKid wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"uni party" is AFD lingo. And when that "outlet" has, in parts, goals that are incompatible with our constitution, then a discussion (and it's not much more at this stage) about a Verbotsprozess seems appropriate. To give some more context, the possibility to forbid parties that work against the foundations of our democracy is explicitly defined in the constitution, it is not a purely political move to silence opposi…

"Uniparty" is a concise term that English readers are familiar with. Noam Chomsky (far left) uses the same language: https://chomsky.info/20081010/ I'm disappointed but not surprised that you are trying to discredit a comment based on a single term that saves a paragraph of explanation. The same tactics that we talk about in this submission.

Chomsky, so far as I'm aware, has never written "Uniparty." What he generally seems to be referring to when he says "One Party System" is the enthrallment of the USA government to capitalist interests.

"Uniparty," as in that exact word, is very much a Trumpean era creation, brought back into popularity by right wing q-anon aligned USA presidential candidate (I believe candidate?) Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Someone's usage of it generally indicates not that they're an anticapitalist but that they're aligned with this new form of reactionary thinking.

Re: EU: Definition of "potential terrorists" opens door to broad information-sharing

#184

Post by nickserv »

pelorat wrote: post #66
johndunne wrote: post #18

From the article "Climate activism is on the rise, together with an increased willingness to use violence, marking a shift from environmental activism to environmental extremism" As far as I can tell, climate activists have been making a nuisance of themselves much more than a 'willingness to use violence.' I find this justification concerning, to say the least.

I don't even own a car, but those activists that blockade highways might just come out better persons after spending 5 years in prison.

Yes, mingling with hardened criminals for a few years is the perfect way to work on self improvement.

Re: EU: Definition of "potential terrorists" opens door to broad information-sharing

#185

Post by generic92034 »

gillesjacobs wrote: post #148
generic92034 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That stance ("ever been democratic") is a bit too strong for my taste. There are definitely issues with the EU parliament having no rights to propose laws or the amount of indirection between voters and some powerful institutions. But calling the EU not being democratic is going too far, in my eyes. Especially considering the setup as a confederation of sovereign countries, so the comparison to individual countries'…

> But calling the EU not being democratic is going too far Unelected commissioners draft laws, while elected MEPs rubber-stamp with barely any changes. The Council's backroom deals make smoke-filled rooms look transparent. Try explaining the Ordinary Legislative Procedure to the average voter - you can't. And let's not forget the ritual of ignoring referendums that don't align with the "ever closer union" mantra. Whe…

The commissioners are not elected directly by the populace, just like ministers in any government I know of are not directly elected by the populace (and other powerful officials, too). The level of indirection is greater in a confederation of countries compared to a single country.

The MEP usually do not "rubber-stamp with barely any changes". There often is considerable change applied to the original proposals, by the MEP negotiating. What really is missing is the right to propose laws for the EP. But for that you would need to agree about a way tighter EU integration of the member countries, which currently seems highly unlikely in the given political climate.

Again, it is way easier organizing a democratic system in a single nation state than in a confederation of sovereign countries with sometimes very different national systems and views. And I am not saying that to brush over the democratic deficit of the current EU implementation, but just to acknowledge the level of difficulty.

Re: EU: Definition of "potential terrorists" opens door to broad information-sharing

#186

Post by giraffe_lady »

llm_trw wrote: post #157
komali2 wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm an antifascist and not a meth head. Nearly every protest I've been to has been peaceful. Sometimes the cops try to instigate violence by kettling or shoving people around really aggressively, but well trained protest leaders have people prepped for this and push hardline pacifism - well all know what happens when the cops "get the green light." Typically when shit kicks off, it's an agent provocateur. Not always,…

To use a real world example: of the three men that were shot by Kyle Rittenhouse all were felons with extensive records of drug use and prison terms for everything from domestic violence, statutory rape to false imprisonment. If you randomly shoot at a anti-fa rally and hit 100% meth heads and felons there's an issue with anti-fa rallies.

The issue at antifa rallies is fascists. Hope that helps.

Re: EU: Definition of "potential terrorists" opens door to broad information-sharing

#187

Post by zxcb1 »

jonathanstrange wrote: post #14

That's pretty crazy, it looks a lot like in Minority Report. Notice the reference to a "future criminal offence" and the phrase "leading to the belief" in the criteria: A “minimum materiality threshold”. This requires “objective and verifiable… information suggesting that a criminal offence, or future criminal offence, has a certain degree of seriousness.” A “basic indicative criterion”. This requires “objective, ver…

The Nord Stream incident is attributed to Ukrainian ultranationalists by the WSJ (https://www.wsj.com/world/europe/nord-stream-pipeline-explos...)

My personal pre-crime assessment is that a failed Ukraine would be devastating for the security of EU member states.

Re: EU: Definition of "potential terrorists" opens door to broad information-sharing

#188

Post by throwaway48476 »

rbanffy wrote: post #154

How is the notion of conspiracy to commit a crime framed in the US legal system (including entrapment) and what would be the provisions against overreach in those cases? I remember not so long ago a couple people were arrested for conspiring to kidnap a governor in the US. They never actually committed the crime though.

The law only matters insofar as you have enough money to drag it through court long enough to get a ruling. The government has unlimited money to spend in prosecution and will freeze yours to hobble your defense.

Re: EU: Definition of "potential terrorists" opens door to broad information-sharing

#189

Post by komali2 »

llm_trw wrote: post #157
komali2 wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm an antifascist and not a meth head. Nearly every protest I've been to has been peaceful. Sometimes the cops try to instigate violence by kettling or shoving people around really aggressively, but well trained protest leaders have people prepped for this and push hardline pacifism - well all know what happens when the cops "get the green light." Typically when shit kicks off, it's an agent provocateur. Not always,…

To use a real world example: of the three men that were shot by Kyle Rittenhouse all were felons with extensive records of drug use and prison terms for everything from domestic violence, statutory rape to false imprisonment. If you randomly shoot at a anti-fa rally and hit 100% meth heads and felons there's an issue with anti-fa rallies.

> If you randomly shoot at a anti-fa rally

So, Kyle Rittenhouse was shooting randomly into the crowd? Interesting, I wonder what his goal was in doing so.

Re: EU: Definition of "potential terrorists" opens door to broad information-sharing

#190

Post by giraffe_lady »

A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #138
wildrhythms wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the point of this comment? Some violence is justified. Violence against the Nazis was justified. The destruction of the Berlin Wall was justified. Jesus overturned the tables of the money exchangers, violently I suppose, and that was justified. The focus on the broad term 'violence' without any additional analysis is completely useless. And it's interesting to me that when 'violence' is used on this specific t…

The point of the comment is that there is no such thing as 'good violence' just as there is no such thing as 'hate speech'. There is just violence. There is just speech. You try to muddle those simple things and you end up with where are today: confused population unable to reason through their way through otherwise simple reality.

Taking black and white thinking so far you're considering dropping one of those colors even!

> the wise man bowed his head solemnly and spoke: "theres actually zero difference between good & bad things. you imbecile. you fucking moron"

Post reply on HN