121–130 of 165 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
A good reminder in the article about something a lot of folks here tend to forget: > Finally, contrary to what many in Congress have been saying, social media platforms and other internet intermediaries have their own First Amendment rights to decide how they moderate users’ speech. They are not “state actors” and do not have an obligation under the First Amendment to allow all user speech on their platforms. Private…
Which is too say I agree with you that they don't currently have a legal obligation but I think we should change that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please provide evidence that online speech in the USA is restricted in any way, unlike in Europe where you get fined and/or arrested for mean memes
This was pretty easy to find examples of. https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/when-complaining-about... https://ij.org/press-release/supreme-court-rejects-appeal-of... https://www.rcfp.org/supreme-court-throws-out-1876-criminal-... https://www.fire.org/cases/larry-bushart-v-perry-county There's a lot more.
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.
I wonder if the EFF had something specific to say when various PACs and a former president tried getting Spotify to take Joe Rogan off the air for his Covid opinions?
You have a source for that?? It is not that i think all right wing hosts are liars,they love to play the victim, but all I see as a source is "Joe Rogan says...". Quoting yourself is not a source.
I wonder if the EFF had something specific to say when various PACs and a former president tried getting Spotify to take Joe Rogan off the air for his Covid opinions?
This is a new allegation Joe Rogan made offhand in a podcast two days ago, and he said while making it that he can't tell us which PACs or which presidents were involved. What specifics could the EFF offer in the absence of any meaningful details about what happened?
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
Sigh . Yes, it depends on context. Like everything. Yet, what’s the point of pedantic digressions that distract and muddy rather than clarify and communicate?
These are legal matters, so pedantry is part of the equation. The popehat piece is specifically written to refute this entire line of argument: free speech has extremely specific carveouts, and the way you're arguing isn't in line with how that would be expanded. This is outlined very specifically in the Popehat piece.
This is in no way a pedantic digression: I'm pointing out a fundamental flaw in your proposal, and citing work by lawyers that describes that flaw in detail.
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…
Really? Assault is against the law regardless of why you do it. People are totally free to shun you if they don't like what you are saying though, and that seems totally fine to me. If you insult my family members, you won't be welcome on my house. How could it be otherwise?
Freedom of speech doesn't mean everybody or even anybody has to like what you say, but you should be protected from repercussions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My favorite of these has always been the USA PATRIOT Act, or the "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act". And that one predates LLMs, so… sheesh.
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.