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

Post by amanaplanacanal » Fri, Jun 19, 2026, 10:29 PM UTC

tencentshill wrote: post #99

petilon wrote: post #67

I think "government pressure" needs to be defined. If vaccination misinformation is spreading like wildfire on social media, and measles and other deadly diseases are getting out of control, and the government urges social media to control the spread of misinformation, is that "government pressure" and should it be illegal? Now you can argue that the right way to counter misinformation is by countering it with legit…

>the government urges social media to control the spread of misinformation There's always an implied or else . Stop harming the public, because the government is obligated to stop harms to the public and if they have to step in, it won't be favorable to your company.

Post by dotancohen » Fri, Jun 19, 2026, 10:31 PM UTC

shevy-java wrote: post #65

lifty wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But do you agree this bill is positive?

But this assumes that a bill is required to establish fundamental rights. Free speech unfortunately does not exist anywhere. Even the USA has restrictions, such as "speech aimed at inciting quick reaction/violence" or some other restrictions with regards to "offensive" words and minors or similar. Or, even simpler, to talk very loudly in public late at night. So free speech is not unlimited, despite its name.

Post by amanaplanacanal » Fri, Jun 19, 2026, 10:39 PM UTC

carlosjobim wrote: post #36

ToucanLoucan wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Firstly, freedom of speech does not guarantee you freedom from consequences of your speech. The government can't stop you from saying stupid shit, however it also can't stop other people from telling you you're stupid. Second, horse dewormer doesn't cure COVID. Censoring dangerous misinformation from fools like yourself who will believe it because it's given to them via the right mouthpiece is a good idea, because if…

> 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…

Post by jbritton » Fri, Jun 19, 2026, 10:42 PM UTC

ToucanLoucan wrote: post #95

jbritton wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are multiple hypotheses for methods of action for IVM against covid that were plausible and deserved serious funding and investigation by governments. This did not happen. What did happen is the two people who brought it to the attention of congress got slandered the next day in the press and then got their careers destroyed. Anyone else who ever mentioned it also got dumped on by the press. There are over 100…

I know in my heart of hearts that responding to this nonsense is a waste of time, but in the odd event someone reasonable runs across this gish-gallop, I refuse to leave it sitting unchallenged. To start, sure, ivermectin is safe at proper dosing, yes hundreds of millions of people take it for parasites every year, yes there was an early in-vitro study showing it fucked with viral replication in a petri dish. Cool. T…

Post by fc417fc802 » Fri, Jun 19, 2026, 10:43 PM UTC

dmix wrote: post #106

shevy-java wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But this assumes that a bill is required to establish fundamental rights. Free speech unfortunately does not exist anywhere. Even the USA has restrictions, such as "speech aimed at inciting quick reaction/violence" or some other restrictions with regards to "offensive" words and minors or similar. Or, even simpler, to talk very loudly in public late at night. So free speech is not unlimited, despite its name.

> speech aimed at inciting quick reaction/violence Speech alone isnt sufficient to be charged with that, which is why it passed supreme Court scrutiny. Similar to criminal conspiracy laws, where you have to pursue tangible actions IRL not just talk about it with a friend.