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

141–150 of 165 posts

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

#141

Post by dotancohen »

bitwize wrote: post #130
dotancohen wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For a short time I maintained a GUI for abcde called abcdefghi - A Better CD Encoder For Gnome... and I neither remember what the H I stood for nor could I find any reference for it last time I looked. I think maybe two or three other people ever used it, I had already moved to KDE by late 2001.

Some gigachad on the IBM POWER team gave us the instruction for Enforce In-order Execution for I/O—eieio.

I believe that was Old MacDonald, yes, after a career change from agriculture.

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

#142

Post by iliveinberlin »

rayiner wrote: post #94
atmavatar wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a very important distinction to be made. Nazi rhetoric earning bans on private platforms happens because a large number of people organize in protest against such rhetoric. Advertisers see this and don't want to be associated with it, so the ad-driven platforms make the obvious choice to remove the Nazis. This is an example of people exercising their free speech and their often overlooked freedom of/from asso…

[flagged]

Currently lot of mainstream political speech is literally things the nazis said

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

#144

Post by carlosjobim »

amanaplanacanal wrote: post #136
carlosjobim wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shunning is meaningless unless it is backed up by real consequences. By itself it isn't a consequence, at least not in discussions about freedom of speech, where consequences usually are things like being executed, imprisoned, tortured, put in a camp, put to slave labour, fined, publicly humiliated, exiled, banned from working in your sector, fired, banned from employment, and so on. Freedom of speech doesn't mean ev…

Public humiliation is also free speech. Calling out somebody for racism, misogyny, homophobia, etc, is free speech. Being fired is certainly a consequence, but at will employment pretty much means you can be fired for anything.

> Public humiliation is also free speech.

It is not. It is a crime or a punishment. You can't drag somebody to a struggle session because you didn't like what they said. You can't spit on them in the streets, follow them with a chanting mob, tear off their clothes, throw rotten food at them, or any such things which are humiliating somebody in public.

"Calling out somebody for racism" or for "being woke" in public debate is not public humiliation in that sense.

Go ask teenagers and adolescents in gang-infested territory what public humiliation is if you want to know. They get forced on camera to go down on their knees and kiss the boots of gang members, or do worse things on camera as punishment for something they have said that was "disrespectful". Then those videos are spread as public humiliation all across the networks of these people and youth at large.

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

#145

Post by cindyllm »

carlosjobim wrote: post #144
amanaplanacanal wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Public humiliation is also free speech. Calling out somebody for racism, misogyny, homophobia, etc, is free speech. Being fired is certainly a consequence, but at will employment pretty much means you can be fired for anything.

> Public humiliation is also free speech. It is not. It is a crime or a punishment. You can't drag somebody to a struggle session because you didn't like what they said. You can't spit on them in the streets, follow them with a chanting mob, tear off their clothes, throw rotten food at them, or any such things which are humiliating somebody in public. "Calling out somebody for racism" or for "being woke" in public de…

[dead]

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

#146

Post by coldtea »

amanaplanacanal wrote: post #103
rayiner wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I would absolutely draw a distinction between government enforced censorship and private platforms censoring content. Where it becomes a larger problem is if the private platform is an effective monopoly; using monopoly power to censor viewpoints would be a bad. Normally we would call a monopoly platform a common carrier and outlaw censorship by them.

>I would absolutely draw a distinction between government enforced censorship and private platforms censoring content.

I would absolutely not.

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

#148

Post by voakbasda »

smalltorch wrote: post #134
anematode wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for the link, a good read

Its a great little snapshot in time. Some parts that really standout to me and still relevant today. >And, of course, there is no doubt that if we lived in a police state, it would be easier to catch terrorists. If we lived in a country that allowed the police to search your home at any time for any reason; if we lived in a country that allowed the government to open your mail, eavesdrop on your phone conversations,…

There is no question in my mind that the terrorists won. The result of the Patriot Act has been exactly what was predicted: a country that no longer respects the fundamental freedoms that birthed it.

In my eyes, the US government itself transformed into the most active and prolific terrorist organization on the planet.

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

#150

Post by krapp »

cramer4next wrote: post #149
coldtea wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

[flagged]

Meh. There is no communist or socialist leadership in any state. Socialism died in the US when socialists stopped bombing universities and kidnapping heiresses and ceased being an actual threat to power. Now they just exist as an ineffectual and endless purity spiral of shitposting and theory on social media.

Even Mamdani is at best a European style Democratic Socialist, which is still capitalist and nationalist in all but name. Pretending that is equivalent to Nazism is specious at best.

Post reply on HN