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

UK government’s plans to regulate the internet are a threat to free speech

freespeechunion.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 204 posts

Re: UK government’s plans to regulate the internet are a threat to free speech

#61

Post by rvz »

christkv wrote: post #42
confounded wrote: post #38

I’m strongly opposed to just about everything the UK government has done or proposed involving the internet, but the ‘Free Speech Union’ is an awful source to have on HN. The FSU is entirely a product of the “culture wars” of the outrage manufacturing twitterati, and offers to protect members from “feminist professors”. The UK’s Open Rights Group is the closest thing to a UK EFF (founded by Doctorow), and is generall…

Have a look at the Scottish hate speech law then. It's as Orwellian as it comes.

Oh dear. Time to pack our bags and head to the principality of Sealand then.

Re: UK government’s plans to regulate the internet are a threat to free speech

#62

Post by sleepysysadmin »

jaywalk wrote: post #56
sleepysysadmin wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In this context, the UK never had free speech. So they aren't losing anything. However, the problem with freedom of speech is that it's not absolute. There are many exceptions that to the reasonable person will agree that need exist. The problem is that opponents of free speech are using the exception system in order to silence dissent.

There aren't many reasonable exceptions. In the US, we have "likely to cause imminent lawless action" and libel laws, which have a very high bar and are rarely used. That's it, and I would argue that's as far as reasonable goes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_Unite...

I stand by my words. 10 categories of exceptions is many. Many of which I find reasonable, if not all.

Re: UK government’s plans to regulate the internet are a threat to free speech

#63

Post by Stupulous »

_pd19 wrote: post #34
Stupulous wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I was just following orders" does not defend one's actions, so the whole continuum must respect individual agency over others' speech.

> "I was just following orders" does not defend one's actions I hope you don't take the truth of that statement to mean that the leaders who ordered the Holocaust weren't morally culpable for the deaths of 11 million if they didn't personally kill someone themselves.

The leaders who ordered the Holocaust took substantive action to ensure that their orders would be followed. They took positions of power, which meant their orders existed in a social contract that converted them to actions. They cruelly punished disobedience. And even under those circumstances, we don't absolve the people who actually did the work from blame.

If private citizen Hitler had just put an op-ed in a national newspaper calling for a Holocaust and Germany had done it on that basis, the whole of the blame would fall on Germany, who took the action, and not Hitler, who wrote an editorial.

Re: UK government’s plans to regulate the internet are a threat to free speech

#64

Post by [deleted] »

commandlinefan wrote: post #4

What I’m becoming more painfully aware of with each passing year is that “free speech” is actually (sadly) a very unpopular ideal. We haven’t really had it in a long time, and we have less of it with each passing year - cheered on by a not insignificant majority.

[deleted]

Re: UK government’s plans to regulate the internet are a threat to free speech

#65

Post by burlesona »

rayiner wrote: post #36
burlesona wrote: post #26

I agree with the concerns that society is raising with unlimited free speech at scale via the internet today. Radicalization is a real problem. But I think decentralization and legal liability are better solutions. Drop section 230 and it becomes legally fraught and prohibitively expensive for Facebook to allow disinformation and hate groups to organize on its platform. Get serious about anti-trust so that one monopo…

> But I think decentralization and legal liability are better solutions. Drop section 230 and it becomes legally fraught and prohibitively expensive for Facebook to allow disinformation and hate groups to organize on its platform. No it doesn’t. Because of free speech laws in the US, there is no legal liability for whatever it is you are calling “disinformation and hate groups.” Moderation has created remedies agains…

Australia is a good model for proportional representation. At its simplest, congressional districts would become larger multi-winner districts with ranked choice voting. The top N vote getters become representatives. The expected outcome would then be that districts would tend to have 1-2 representatives from each major party, and specifically that we’d end up with more parties as alternatives to red and blue. So perhaps in NY the Green Party starts getting seats, while in Iowa maybe it’s the Libertarians.

One goal is actually to decentralize politics. Increasingly today elections are fought on national brand, not local issues, hence the “NY wants to manage Iowa” problem.

I recently read a great book on this and would highly recommend it if you want a deep dive on this topic: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/44244963-breaking-the-tw...

Re: UK government’s plans to regulate the internet are a threat to free speech

#66

Post by throwawayffffas »

rayiner wrote: post #36
burlesona wrote: post #26

I agree with the concerns that society is raising with unlimited free speech at scale via the internet today. Radicalization is a real problem. But I think decentralization and legal liability are better solutions. Drop section 230 and it becomes legally fraught and prohibitively expensive for Facebook to allow disinformation and hate groups to organize on its platform. Get serious about anti-trust so that one monopo…

> But I think decentralization and legal liability are better solutions. Drop section 230 and it becomes legally fraught and prohibitively expensive for Facebook to allow disinformation and hate groups to organize on its platform. No it doesn’t. Because of free speech laws in the US, there is no legal liability for whatever it is you are calling “disinformation and hate groups.” Moderation has created remedies agains…

> No it doesn’t. Because of free speech laws in the US, there is no legal liability for whatever it is you are calling “disinformation and hate groups.” Moderation has created remedies against speech that have never existed before

Section 230 absolves online platforms that feature user generated content from publisher liabilities, by revoking it facebook would be liable for everything on its platform. For example if someone posts on facebook that a certain vaccine causes hair loss, with section 230 revoked the manufacturer of said vaccine could sue facebook for libel.

Edit: typos

Re: UK government’s plans to regulate the internet are a threat to free speech

#67

Post by Barrin92 »

colpabar wrote: post #48
confounded wrote: post #38

I’m strongly opposed to just about everything the UK government has done or proposed involving the internet, but the ‘Free Speech Union’ is an awful source to have on HN. The FSU is entirely a product of the “culture wars” of the outrage manufacturing twitterati, and offers to protect members from “feminist professors”. The UK’s Open Rights Group is the closest thing to a UK EFF (founded by Doctorow), and is generall…

> If you’re no-platformed by a university—a feminist professor who challenges trans orthodoxy, for instance—we’ll encourage you to fight back and members of our advisory councils may be able to tell you what remedies are available to you. it's actually the opposite - it's claiming if you are a feminist professor, they may help you.

No it's not lol. It's a blatantly bad faith attempt to play out feminists against adocates of transgender rights. How many feminist professors have you come across who are on a crusade against trans rights exactly? This is a Spectator fueled right-wing organisation and it's so obvious it hurts.

Re: UK government’s plans to regulate the internet are a threat to free speech

#68

Post by [deleted] »

commandlinefan wrote: post #4

What I’m becoming more painfully aware of with each passing year is that “free speech” is actually (sadly) a very unpopular ideal. We haven’t really had it in a long time, and we have less of it with each passing year - cheered on by a not insignificant majority.

[deleted]

Re: UK government’s plans to regulate the internet are a threat to free speech

#69

Post by SuddsMcDuff »

regularfry wrote: post #50
colpabar wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you’re no-platformed by a university—a feminist professor who challenges trans orthodoxy, for instance—we’ll encourage you to fight back and members of our advisory councils may be able to tell you what remedies are available to you. it's actually the opposite - it's claiming if you are a feminist professor, they may help you.

"challenges trans orthodoxy" is definitely picking a side.

They're picking the side of those who are no-platformed. That's the point.

Re: UK government’s plans to regulate the internet are a threat to free speech

#70

Post by commandlinefan »

jonplackett wrote: post #37
macinjosh wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me. Words are just words. One may hear or read words that provoke them to violence or other negative behavior but blaming the speech in whole or in part removes agency from those who choose to react in a negative way.

Words can't hurt directly, in that exact moment, but the consequences of them sure can. There has to be a line doesn't there? Is outright racism, or encouraging others to kill or do other bad things OK, because it's just words?

> the consequences of them

“There is freedom of speech, but I cannot guarantee freedom after speech.” -- Idi Amin (the murderous dictator)

Post reply on HN