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

Staying ahead of censors in 2025

forum.torproject.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–349 of 349 posts

Re: Staying ahead of censors in 2025

#341

Post by passing_by_and »

lukan wrote: post #258
passing_by_and wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why on earth would you support arresting people for any speech, hate or otherwise? It is just so obviously a terrible idea that has been regurgitated over and over for thousands of years, countless books, wars, philosophical treatise and here we are. No wonder we aren't going to make it.

Can you define a clear line between free speech and call for murder? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_no_one_rid_me_of_this_tur... I am very much pro free speech, but I do draw the line with implicit or explicit threats of violence. And this line is debatable, sure, but saying any words are just free speech? To escalate the example, Hitler giving the order to exterminate the jews was just free speech?

No, and no one can.

My real point here is that this discussion specifically has been so thoroughly debated by brilliant people that I have trouble understanding why this hasn't been simply closed as proven like we do in math. Eventually you reach a level of argument where there is simply nothing left. We have reached it. Curtailing speech and thought simply never works as intended and always brings greater harms than the alternative.

Re: Staying ahead of censors in 2025

#342

Post by cs02rm0 »

ben_w wrote: post #274
pclmulqdq wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So per your source, he did cancel local elections at a time where it is politically favorable for him to do so?

No. 1. "Postponed" is not "cancelled" 2. "Postponed" is entirely normal within British politics. For most of my life, even the timing of general elections were at the whim of the government. 3. Given how Starmer polls, the delay is almost certainly going to make things un -favourable for him. Also unfavourable for Labour, unless they kick him out first. Not that it would matter much if your conspiracy theory held wat…

It's not a conspiracy that the elections did not happen and have not happened.

Re: Staying ahead of censors in 2025

#343

Post by naasking »

Defletter wrote: post #340
naasking wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Okay, so just to be clear, you don't have even a single example of someone being prosecuted To be clear, I haven't even looked, but being a recent topic of debate, it seems important to clearly establish the letter of the law. > Why is this not just concern trolling? Because the law-as-written is what matters, like I said, not the law-as-it-has-been-exercised-so-far. Unless you think people inclined to abuse the la…

> How long have some people wanted to discuss the over representation of some ethnicities in sexual assault clusters, but couldn't because of these laws? I don't know, perhaps you should give some examples of this actually happening rather than relying solely on implication.

https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/child-rape-scandal-dominati...

Re: Staying ahead of censors in 2025

#344

Post by Defletter »

naasking wrote: post #343
Defletter wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How long have some people wanted to discuss the over representation of some ethnicities in sexual assault clusters, but couldn't because of these laws? I don't know, perhaps you should give some examples of this actually happening rather than relying solely on implication.

https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/child-rape-scandal-dominati...

Yeah, I'm failing to see how this is an example of "people [wanting] to discuss the over representation of some ethnicities in sexual assault clusters, but couldn't because of [hate speech laws]". The article makes no mention of hate speech laws or anyone being prosecuted under them for discussing the representation of various ethnicities in sexual-assault statistics.

What the article does mention is that local officials and other agencies were "wary of identifying ethnic origins for fear of upsetting community cohesion, or being seen as racist", which is mere cowardice. In fact, I am somewhat surprised you are not using this to argue that government officials are too scared of free speech to do their job: that the implied threat of some people using their free speech to call the local government racist is enough to paralyse its function.

No, to me, what this article shows is how unfettered speech actually functions: a foreign billionaire with the loudest megaphone in history is dredging up a decade-old stain in our country's criminal history to aid and abet our domestic right and far-right political parties. And I think the fact that those parties immediately jumped on this in the media shows that it's very much not something that'll get you thrown in the gulag for discussing.

Re: Staying ahead of censors in 2025

#345

Post by naasking »

Defletter wrote: post #344
naasking wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/child-rape-scandal-dominati...

Yeah, I'm failing to see how this is an example of "people [wanting] to discuss the over representation of some ethnicities in sexual assault clusters, but couldn't because of [hate speech laws]" . The article makes no mention of hate speech laws or anyone being prosecuted under them for discussing the representation of various ethnicities in sexual-assault statistics. What the article does mention is that local offi…

> The article makes no mention of hate speech laws or anyone being prosecuted under them for discussing the representation of various ethnicities in sexual-assault statistics.

Consider the counterfactual: if hate speech laws were not in place, would the probability of a whistleblower in the police, or a journalist picking up the story from one of the victims go up or down?

> What the article does mention is that local officials and other agencies were "wary of identifying ethnic origins for fear of upsetting community cohesion, or being seen as racist", which is mere cowardice.

Yes, not openly resisting improper application of hate speech laws (or any law) is always cowardice, but cowardice is common, and that's exactly what all unscrupulous officials bank on. Most people respond to even subtle incentives, like implications of racism, and hate speech classifications are even less subtle.

Hate speech laws don't have to involve a gulag to have chilling effects and cause real harm, as this case shows quite well I think. That the possibility of being called racist was even remotely effective as a threat is a downstream effect of accepting the legitimacy of hate speech laws IMO.

> And I think the fact that those parties immediately jumped on this in the media shows that it's very much not something that'll get you thrown in the gulag for discussing.

It's hard to be censorious once something has achieved enough public exposure.

In any case, this all seems to be somewhat besides the point, because how a law is applied in practice is less compelling than how broadly it can be interpreted by future officials who may be less compassionate or scrupulous. As I've been saying all along: what does the letter of the law say?

You keep saying that I shouldn't rely on implication, but the law is all about implication. What could possibly matter more than the implications of how the law is written?

Re: Staying ahead of censors in 2025

#346

Post by Defletter »

naasking wrote: post #345
Defletter wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I'm failing to see how this is an example of "people [wanting] to discuss the over representation of some ethnicities in sexual assault clusters, but couldn't because of [hate speech laws]" . The article makes no mention of hate speech laws or anyone being prosecuted under them for discussing the representation of various ethnicities in sexual-assault statistics. What the article does mention is that local offi…

> The article makes no mention of hate speech laws or anyone being prosecuted under them for discussing the representation of various ethnicities in sexual-assault statistics. Consider the counterfactual: if hate speech laws were not in place, would the probability of a whistleblower in the police, or a journalist picking up the story from one of the victims go up or down? > What the article does mention is that loca…

With all due respect, all you're doing here is presenting me with even more implication and innuendo. You are making a claim, you should be able to substantiate it, otherwise just be transparent about it being an opinion. You originally replied to me asking about whether stating something factual can run afoul of hate speech laws and now the goalposts have moved to whether in some alternative universe without hate speech laws it'd be more or less likely there would've been a whistleblower in this specific instance. How is anyone supposed to answer that? It's pure innuendo and doesn't merit a response. Unless you have anything substantive to provide, I think I'm going to leave it here.

Re: Staying ahead of censors in 2025

#347

Post by immibis »

wartywhoa23 wrote: post #336
immibis wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm glad you agree that if a child happens to be born to parents who aren't very good at parenting, they deserve to suffer. Basically if a child's parents smoke around them and give them lung cancer, all we should do is yell at them and moan on the internet, not actually do anything (via the government) to prevent it. Nothing you've said contradicts that you think the government should not forbid children from buying…

I recommend you studying some history, especially that of Germany since 1920 till 1945, to help yourself part with the illusion that the government's overreaching care has anything to do with actual care, and to finally grok the essense of the saying: The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Oh yeah. A government did bad things, therefore, everything a government does is bad. Impeccable logic.

Re: Staying ahead of censors in 2025

#348

Post by berkes »

blell wrote: post #156
berkes wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a very serious and bold accusation you make there. It's so serious, that you should really back it up with some evidence or at least some foundation. Got any?

What kind of evidence would you take? If it’s someone from the project openly saying what I imply, there obviously isn’t any. But if you are looking for evidence that the project took a politically biased turn to one side of the aisle, I’m sure you’ll find a lot on your own. And from there you can understand why there isn’t a single mention of what’s happening in the UK. In this very thread you can find lots of comme…

I'll take any of the lot that i could "find [..] on my own".

Or hearsay. Or quotes from tinfoilhats or conspiracy nuts even.

Without any of these, you are seriously discrediting people and projects. And without any of these, there's no way for me counter any. Or even authorize any (ie a random russian troll, vs a journalist with reputation to lose)

Re: Staying ahead of censors in 2025

#349

Post by berkes »

blell wrote: post #156
berkes wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a very serious and bold accusation you make there. It's so serious, that you should really back it up with some evidence or at least some foundation. Got any?

What kind of evidence would you take? If it’s someone from the project openly saying what I imply, there obviously isn’t any. But if you are looking for evidence that the project took a politically biased turn to one side of the aisle, I’m sure you’ll find a lot on your own. And from there you can understand why there isn’t a single mention of what’s happening in the UK. In this very thread you can find lots of comme…

Or maybe start with defining who the "they" (the ones who "think") are.
Post reply on HN