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

'Right to be forgotten' could threaten global free speech, say NGOs

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 81 posts

Re: 'Right to be forgotten' could threaten global free speech, say NGOs

#51

Post by olleromam91 »

mikejb wrote: post #23
qubax wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Good. Because it doesn't threaten Free Speech as understood by virtually all democracies in the Western world Not good. Most of the western world doesn't have free speech. > it merely threatens the extremely expansive interpretation of Free Speech in America's First Amendment. It isn't an "expansive" interpretation. It's the definition of free speech. Your "western democracies" have the same understanding of free s…

So if I go to the Airport in Atlanta, and in the security line I express the opinion that the TSA is full of shit, and terrorists are just desperate's people's freedom fighters, I won't have to suffer repercussions? The claimed interpretation of "absolute free speech" helps drive the narrative of "we're better than everyone else", but both quoted concepts are bullshit.

Your second concept is something that every human believes in, whether you want to accept that or not. We're selfish by nature. We choose who we like and who we don't like.

Re: 'Right to be forgotten' could threaten global free speech, say NGOs

#52

Post by travisoneill1 »

mikejb wrote: post #23
qubax wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Good. Because it doesn't threaten Free Speech as understood by virtually all democracies in the Western world Not good. Most of the western world doesn't have free speech. > it merely threatens the extremely expansive interpretation of Free Speech in America's First Amendment. It isn't an "expansive" interpretation. It's the definition of free speech. Your "western democracies" have the same understanding of free s…

So if I go to the Airport in Atlanta, and in the security line I express the opinion that the TSA is full of shit, and terrorists are just desperate's people's freedom fighters, I won't have to suffer repercussions? The claimed interpretation of "absolute free speech" helps drive the narrative of "we're better than everyone else", but both quoted concepts are bullshit.

You won't be charged with a crime. In France you could be: https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/french-law-treats-d...

This is a non-trivial difference.

Re: 'Right to be forgotten' could threaten global free speech, say NGOs

#53

Post by [deleted] »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #39
true_religion wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you may be missing something. Google is arguing that the Canadian ruling cannot be applied in the US. They will censor whatever they need to on their canadian assets, but if you connect to a US google server from Canada, they shouldnt be obliged to censor.

I'm not "missing" that. A country can set any criteria it wants upon a company that wishes to operate within it's borders. Including criteria that demands how that company behaves in other countries. The U.S. does the same, and expects the same. In the scenario of this case, Canada is demanding that Google remove infringement of a Canadian citizen's copyright from Google's server. Similarly, the U.S. is well-known fo…

[deleted]

Re: 'Right to be forgotten' could threaten global free speech, say NGOs

#54

Post by ocdtrekkie »

lifeisstillgood wrote: post #43
true_religion wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you may be missing something. Google is arguing that the Canadian ruling cannot be applied in the US. They will censor whatever they need to on their canadian assets, but if you connect to a US google server from Canada, they shouldnt be obliged to censor.

I guess I had not realised that Google.com is basically exporting - i think that despite everything, forcing the internet into the box of nation states is a bad thing. The current laws do not fix the problem - but it is hard to see which ones will

Nothing is "forcing" the internet into a "box of nation states". It already is and always was. The Internet is not above or outside the law, and it's not above or outside nations.

Every piece of the Internet, every server, computer, router, and switch, is in one country or another (barring the few floating out in international waters), and every single one of them is subject to the law in the country where it is. And every individual or business entity operating them is subject to the laws in the countries they are or operate in. This has always been this way.

The Internet is not any different than any other communication medium. We don't perceive a phone call as being something above or outside the law of the nation it takes place in. We don't see mail as being above or outside the law of the nations it traverses. The Internet is just another medium of communication between people and businesses like any other.

Re: 'Right to be forgotten' could threaten global free speech, say NGOs

#55

Post by travisoneill1 »

conception wrote: post #35

I haven't been able to think of a middle ground but there seems like there should be between "I can get rid of embarrassing things as a public official or celebrity on the internet" and "I rather not have websites like mylife.com, doxing me by posting my home address, contact information and personal history without any recourse." Curious if HN has any ideas how to approach that issue?

These doxing sites don't actually allow anything new, they just aggregate and automate public records searches. It just didn't cause problems because the inconvenience was too high of a barrier for most people without a compelling interest (like a potential employer) to cross. The law is not good at handling this type of situation. It would be hard to have a law saying that this data has to be public and open, but not re-publishable and it has to be inconvenient to access. I don't really know a good solution to that.

And why should a celebrities and public officials have different standards? Either it's fair to judge someone by a certain past action or it isn't.

Re: 'Right to be forgotten' could threaten global free speech, say NGOs

#56

Post by acct1771 »

megous wrote: post #44
curt15 wrote: post #24

>That judgment allowed European citizens to ask search engines to remove links to “inadequate, irrelevant or ... excessive” content The critical terms "inadequate", "irrelevant" are dangerously subjective. What's irrelevant to one person may be of great interest to another.

It is obvious that people have conflictng desires, but so what? What's your conclusion from that? "Unrestricted" freedom of speech favours just one side.

The side speaking.

So, unless one side is deaf... or, in this case, fingers are broken...

Re: 'Right to be forgotten' could threaten global free speech, say NGOs

#57

Post by dang »

Tomte wrote: post #14
ng12 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always like to remind people that China has constitutionally protected "free speech". Saying you guarantee your citizens freedom of speech doesn't mean that freedom of speech is actually meaningful.

[flagged]

Would you please keep nationalistic flamewars away from here? You could hardly start one more obviously.

Re: 'Right to be forgotten' could threaten global free speech, say NGOs

#58

Post by LocalH »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #54
lifeisstillgood wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess I had not realised that Google.com is basically exporting - i think that despite everything, forcing the internet into the box of nation states is a bad thing. The current laws do not fix the problem - but it is hard to see which ones will

Nothing is "forcing" the internet into a "box of nation states". It already is and always was. The Internet is not above or outside the law, and it's not above or outside nations. Every piece of the Internet, every server, computer, router, and switch, is in one country or another (barring the few floating out in international waters), and every single one of them is subject to the law in the country where it is. And…

It does raise certain issues that other forms of communication do not, certainly at this scale.

Does country A have any right to dictate what company B does in country C, just because company B operates in country A? Many of us say no, because that will only cause a downward spiral to make the internet the lowest common denominator of all countries that are connected.

Re: 'Right to be forgotten' could threaten global free speech, say NGOs

#59

Post by Tomte »

dang wrote: post #57
Tomte wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Would you please keep nationalistic flamewars away from here? You could hardly start one more obviously.

I just defend myself against obvious flames that my country, as all others except the US, is comparable to China.

You have a few examples right here in this thread, and you don't care. As usual.

Re: 'Right to be forgotten' could threaten global free speech, say NGOs

#60

Post by semi-extrinsic »

ng12 wrote: post #37
semi-extrinsic wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FWIW, I prefer the European less-expansive version of free speech, over the American version where burning a cross next to an African-American family's house is protected free speech[1]. The trouble with strong 1A supporters is that they pretend like the free speech restrictions in the US are not both arbitrary and frequently racially biased due to the slow functioning of the justice system. You cannot shout fire in…

And some people prefer Saudi Arabia's version where you have free speech unless you commit heresy, or China's version where you have free speech unless you speak out against the government. Also I'd like to point out that many of the landmark cases establishing the doctrine of "imminent lawless action" were defending the rights of far-left political activists. I'm not sure I buy into your "free speech for the privile…

I think there's a pretty clear cut distinction between hate speech as defined and practicted e.g. in Germany and the regime in Saudi or China. There's no slippery slope that goes from "the government should be changed" and "religious authorities are wrong" to "jews/homos/immigrants should be killed".

Also, I'm not sure that I see how your links support your claims. The first and third were ruled against the far-left activist, and the second was overturned but on the 14th amendment (not 1st).

Post reply on HN