111–120 of 803 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
And still it's the "free-speech" USA that deports students for protesting against Israel war in Gaza and not UK. There's the wording of the law, and then there's the practice of the government. Most communist regimes in Eastern Europe had pretty nice constitutions. It's just that everybody knew it doesn't matter what the constitution says - you complain = you're off to the national variety of a KGB prison. When your…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And still it's the "free-speech" USA that deports students for protesting against Israel war in Gaza and not UK. There's the wording of the law, and then there's the practice of the government. Most communist regimes in Eastern Europe had pretty nice constitutions. It's just that everybody knew it doesn't matter what the constitution says - you complain = you're off to the national variety of a KGB prison. When your…
lol free speech is for citizens
---
EDIT: Let's remind ourselves of where FEDERAL freedom of speech comes from. Firstly, of course, is the First Amendment:
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
You may notice that it doesn't say "free speech is for citizens", but rather that there is a negative-right against Congress from legislating to restrict speech. But what about the President, or the judiciary, or the States? Well, Gitlow v. New York established the following:
> Assumed, for the purposes of the case, that freedom of speech and of the press are among the personal rights and liberties protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment from impairment by the States.
- https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/268/652/
Judges need to get better at this: it NEVER is just for that case. And so the case set a precedent that the 14th Amendment's due process clause contains within itself a more powerful version of the First Amendment. Now let's remind ourselves of what the due process clause says (with the equal protect clause for good measure):
> nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Now, to quote the notorious RBG:
> Nor shall any State deprive any person, not any citizen. And the choice [in] the word 'person' was quite deliberate. And similarly, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. So, the United States constitution surely recognises the fundamental human rights of all persons.
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYR414Q8v6A&t=3925s
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYR414Q8v6A&t=3712s (timestamp for the question she's responding to)
Now, reasonable people can disagree on whether the due process clause should be so expansive, indeed I find the US's tendency to amend the Constitution via Supreme Court precedent to be deeply troubling, but even under a textualist reading of the First Amendment, the idea that Freedom of Speech in America is limited to citizens is deeply, deeply ignorant.
I purposefully avoid demonstrating any of the tools (with a suffix that rhymes with "car") that are popularly used to circumvent purchasing movie, TV, and other media content, or any tools that automatically slurp up YouTube content. Can't figure out what tool Jeff is writing about.
It's a constellation of tools that have the suffix "arr" - a winking nod to what a stereotypical pirate says, because they are commonly used for media piracy. Some examples are Radarr, Sonarr and Prowlarr, but there's lots of other ones. They all kind of fit together nicely into a stack that can be used to self host your own automatic media downloading and streaming platform.
Since Youtube started to show me funny "TURN OFF THE ADBLOCKER!!!" notices, I just started slamming links in yt-dlp and watching them offline. No drawbacks so far.
It will become harder to ignore the possible retaliation Google can make against your/your family’s Google accounts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
> has continuously curbed free speech over the past few decades mmm do you have example at hand or you are just repeating this in the hope that other with voice the same opinion? The UK has a freedom of expression law: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/schedule/1/part... 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart informati…
In Australia we recently had a proposed law to prohibit information that "potentially undermines faith in the banking sector" regardless of truthfulness.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Don’t be silly. The UK may not be perfect but no one’s going to complain if you compare the Prime Minister or the King to a cartoon bear. Or you talk openly about a government fuck up. Or about one part of the country maybe deciding to become independent. You just can’t shout fire in a crowded cinema and you can’t say “let’s all meet at the local hotel at 3.30 and burn the immigrants to death” during a riot. I’m ok w…
But if you compare Zionism to another eerily similar 20th century europe ism, a lot of people will, indeed, complain.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
> has continuously curbed free speech over the past few decades mmm do you have example at hand or you are just repeating this in the hope that other with voice the same opinion? The UK has a freedom of expression law: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/schedule/1/part... 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart informati…
https://www.jewishvoiceforlabour.org.uk/article/un-special-r...
This is the problem I had with all the content removal around Covid. It never ends with that one topic we may not be unhappy to see removed. From another comment: "Looks like some L-whateverthefuck just got the task to go through YT's backlog and cut down on the mention/promotion of alternative video platforms/self-hosted video serving software." This is exactly what YT did with Covid related content. Here in the UK,…
[flagged]
When the Sex Pistols got "God Save The Queen" to number 2 in the charts (despite being widely refused broadcast or sale), the listings just left the number 2 slot blank that week. The band was arrested after performing the song on a boat on the Thames.
Decades later, an MP suggested playing the "God Save The Queen" (also the name of the national anthem) every night on the BBC, patriotically, in the aftermath of the Brexit vote. Newsnight* agreed and trolled everyone by playing the Sex Pistols' instead of the anthem.
* "the BBC's news and current affairs programme, providing in-depth investigation and analysis of the stories behind the day's headlines" to quote Wikipedia
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The big problem is that someone will download your video and upload it to YouTube if you do not. Often while monetizing it until you stomp on them. Let's automate the stomping then. If people are bothered by this and it keeps happening, then that should create demand for someone who is able to scour YouTube and sue the appropriate parties/do the appropriate reporting. At some point, it will become enough of a probl…
> Let's automate the stomping then. If people are bothered by this and it keeps happening, then that should create demand for someone who is able to scour YouTube and sue the appropriate parties/do the appropriate reporting. But it's already automated. Where do you think those completely wrong DMCA claims that people complain once in a while about come from?
This likely has bad effects for the internet as a whole (more efficient legal action can make those who abuse the system more powerful), but if it's something that needs to happen, then it should happen.