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

A new bill takes aim at government pressure to silence lawful online speech

eff.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 165 posts

Re: A new bill takes aim at government pressure to silence lawful online speech

#51

Post by rpdillon »

lurk2 wrote: post #41
rpdillon wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For what it's worth, yelling fire in a crowded theater is First Amendment protected speech. https://www.techdirt.com/2023/03/14/setting-1st-amendment-my... I'm just stating facts. https://www.popehat.com/p/the-first-amendment-isnt-absolute

This video was extremely disingenuous.

The video is educational. It uses an extreme scenario to make its point, but that's because it's being illustrative.

Okay, so maybe you don't believe a lawyer. Let's try a different lawyer that's more famous.

> So, there you have it: obscenity, defamation, fraud, incitement, and speech integral to criminal conduct. Throw in true threats - which was left out of this list for some reason - and child pornography, and you’ve got the categories. Note that the Court specifically identifies them as well-known and historic, not as in flux.

https://www.popehat.com/p/the-first-amendment-isnt-absolute

Re: A new bill takes aim at government pressure to silence lawful online speech

#52

Post by plagiarist »

jmull wrote: post #24
jazz9k wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh? We have more free speech than ever online at this moment. The last regime colluded with the major social media companies to censor people they didn't like and it's also recently come to light that they attempted to get the Joe Rogan/Spotify deal nuked, all based on censoring speech they don't like. The liberal government of the UK is moving toward complete online censorship with their bill to prevent children fr…

You are kidding yourself if you think this is a liberal vs conservative issue. The current FCC chairman threatens the broadcast license and to block deals of networks who air shows the president doesn’t like. These threats appear to have lead directly to the cancellation of shows — a clear violation of the first amendment, though there have been no consequences so far. If you really care about this issue, get out of…

The level of doublethink from the right is completely insane.

Additionally, when I fact check what they're whining about, it is often like, "the White House requested Twitter ban medical misinformation about coronavirus, without threat of consequences, and they did."

Re: A new bill takes aim at government pressure to silence lawful online speech

#53

Post by belorn »

cookingrobot wrote: post #4
panny wrote: post #2

But everyone here loves jawboning and agrees the government should suppress speech. Well, at least when their team is in office. Whether it's ICE Block or IVM Block, you can probably find a reason why you too think speech freedom is just a little too free for your tastes.

What are those things? Googling didn’t help.

The later is the case that then supreme court ruled on in 2024 (https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c100l6jrjvno).

I suspect it goes to explain why this new bill is bipartisan. That case failed because the plaintiffs did not have a legal standing to sue.

"In a dissent that detailed emails, press conferences, and past decisions, Justice Alito painted the "jawboning" as "blatantly unconstitutional".

Wednesday's ruling, he wrote, "permits the successful campaign of coercion in this case to stand as an attractive model for future officials who want to control what the people say, hear, and think"."

Regardless if one agree with them, it do demonstrate that conservative side think that there is a risk that governments will attempt to persuade platforms to moderate content, and that this is a risk. This new bill seem to make it much easier to give people a legal standing to sue, thus allowing the supreme court to give a different verdict if a similar situation happen again.

Re: A new bill takes aim at government pressure to silence lawful online speech

#54

Post by bell-cot »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #13
panny wrote: post #2

But everyone here loves jawboning and agrees the government should suppress speech. Well, at least when their team is in office. Whether it's ICE Block or IVM Block, you can probably find a reason why you too think speech freedom is just a little too free for your tastes.

> But everyone here loves jawboning and agrees the government should suppress speech. That sure is quite an assumption you're making. Governments should have zero control over speech and zero ability to impose consequences on speech. Individuals and most groups should have absolute freedom of association, which is precisely what they're exercising when choosing not to associate with some speech and some speakers

> Governments should have zero control over speech and zero ability to impose consequences on speech...

Perhaps you are an "absolute" free speech absolutist, but does that include:

- Swatting?

- Doxxing?

- Yelling "Fire!" in the proverbial crowded theater?

- Liable and Slander?

- Spreading nude pictures (real or faked) or personal medical information without consent?

- Threatening (relatively) defenseless individuals with physical harm?

- Impersonation?

- Blackmail?

Re: A new bill takes aim at government pressure to silence lawful online speech

#55

Post by carlosjobim »

ToucanLoucan wrote: post #44
carlosjobim wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Firstly, freedom of speech does not guarantee you freedom from consequences of your speech. It really does, that's the entire point. If you go find somebody and physically attack them for what they've written on HN about for example medicine, that makes you the law-breaker. I understand from the way you write that you might consider it your right to do such things to other people who don't have the same opinions as…

> It really does, that's the entire point. If you go find somebody and physically attack them for what they've written on HN about for example medicine, that makes you the law-breaker. Yeah if I did this thing you completely made up, that would be illegal. Just like if the parent commenter was imprisoned for the post he made, that would also be illegal. Have you considered basing your politics on real things? > I und…

I wouldn't say that a hacker down vote is much of a social consequence, and the other poster wasn't pissing and moaning, he was joking about it. But you were already so full of hate against "the others", that you couldn't see the humour.

Re: A new bill takes aim at government pressure to silence lawful online speech

#56

Post by ngai_aku »

> At EFF, we’re continuing to fight back on behalf of those censored by government coercion. One recent example: we represent the creator of ICEBlock, an app that allows the public to report immigration enforcement activity in their communities.…

> EFF applauds Senators Cruz and Wyden for taking this critical issue seriously

Credit where it’s due, but I doubt that ICEBlock was the first thing Ted Cruz wanted to benefit from this bill

Re: A new bill takes aim at government pressure to silence lawful online speech

#57

Post by sellmesoap »

ToucanLoucan wrote: post #7
panny wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

So a real thing that people actually made to accomplish something and a fake thing you made up in your head to be angry about.

^^^ Proof that IVM block was very effective!

Re: A new bill takes aim at government pressure to silence lawful online speech

#58

Post by lifty »

root_axis wrote: post #42
carlosjobim wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ideologically opposed to me Are you sure they are? Probably most people in your country would label you as far right for championing free speech, no other issues considered. Probably you are doing the same for others.

Every faction claims they support free speech and every faction also supports suppression of certain types of speech.

But do you agree this bill is positive?

Re: A new bill takes aim at government pressure to silence lawful online speech

#59

Post by Larrikin »

rayiner wrote: post #43
plagiarist wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What? The far right is against free speech. They only ever screech about free speech when someone is experiencing social consequences. They whine about actual Nazi rhetoric earning bans on private companies' platforms, then turn around and open investigations on people criticizing their masked police force. Attending protests gets you added to the terrorist watchlist.

The proper response to that is to support free speech values in both circumstances. Otherwise, we’re just going to be fighting about the details of whether particular conduct falls within the letter of the free speech protections.

[flagged]

Re: A new bill takes aim at government pressure to silence lawful online speech

#60

Post by plagiarist »

rayiner wrote: post #43
plagiarist wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What? The far right is against free speech. They only ever screech about free speech when someone is experiencing social consequences. They whine about actual Nazi rhetoric earning bans on private companies' platforms, then turn around and open investigations on people criticizing their masked police force. Attending protests gets you added to the terrorist watchlist.

The proper response to that is to support free speech values in both circumstances. Otherwise, we’re just going to be fighting about the details of whether particular conduct falls within the letter of the free speech protections.

My objection to their comment is that the right does not protect these values.

I have zero idea what they're talking about contrasting against. They seem to be suggesting the center and left do not respect these rights and the far right does.

Post reply on HN