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

71–80 of 81 posts

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

#71

Post by mikejb »

travisoneill1 wrote: post #52
mikejb wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You wouldn't be charged, but you'd suffer consequences. You'd peobablt miss your flight because your opinion is considered dangerous and needs to be investigated, and maybe you even end up on one of many no-fly lists.

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

#72

Post by danShumway »

semi-extrinsic wrote: post #60
ng12 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I bet that even on HN there are a fair number of people who would disagree with each other whether or not the "Boycott Israel" movement is engaging in hate speech.

In America, there are active efforts by members of the government to classify Antifa as a hate group. Facebook famously got a lot of flack over their decisions about whether or not "white men" count as a protected category. And again, I wouldn't be surprised if there are people on HN who disagree over whether or not protected categories should be extended to historically privileged groups.

The thing is, ignoring intrinsic rights, both free speech and censorship are still neutral tools. Regardless of what direction you lean, there will be efforts by the powerful to use the tools you embrace to suppress others. The conflict is figuring out what the proper balance is to make it difficult to abuse those neutral tools.

But it's not simple to claim, "people should only be allowed to say good things," for the same reason why it's not simple to claim, "only the government should be able to unlock my phone." You have to figure out where to draw a line between encryption and warrants, bearing in mind that corrupt individuals will take advantage of both.

The examples that GP linked were decided against far-left activists based on the idea that free speech wasn't absolute. Many of them are regarded as negative precedents now, moments in history that we're ashamed of. I'm ashamed that America tried to use the law to prevent people from protesting the draft.

Of course free speech isn't absolute. But that doesn't mean that discussions about how far we should go are meaningless, or that anyone who suggests that a law is too restrictive is actually just a secret absolutist. Historically, free speech rights in the US have grown over time, not shrunk. That suggests that as far the US is concerned, we think that historically we didn't take those rights far enough -- and usually whenever we put limits on free speech we did so to the exclusion of good faith protesters and minorities.

This makes many 1A advocates nervous about reintroducing those limits, because a large portion of the examples we have about enforcement of those limits in the past were used to suppress and harm activists.

Of course it's reasonable to disagree on that front; you probably have experiences in your own life that have convinced you that the European model is better. Those differing experiences are a good reason for us to look for laws that respect national autonomy where possible.

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

#73

Post by SilasX »

quickben wrote: post #66
SilasX wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And dismissing concerns about "memory hole"ing, by pandering to hatred of rich companies, isn't propaganda?

The NGO in question has a budget of 7 million pounds a year employing over 100 people to do, in their words: lobbying. The actually law was put in place by representatives of the voting majority of EU.

Yes, you can inflammatorily impugn the motives of people arguing in favor of any side. That doesn't make the concerns about free speech invalid, it just means you're willing to resort to similar propagandistic tactics.

Edit: rewrite after understanding your point better.

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

#74

Post by ocdtrekkie »

LocalH wrote: post #58
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is already a concern with regards to other forms of trade, such as export restrictions where the US prohibits companies from doing business with Iran and North Korea.

Also note that country A absolutely can decide what terms upon which company B is allowed to operate in country A. This is true even of them stating what company B can and can't do in country C. If company B wants to do something in country C that company A prohibits, company B needs to decide whether it wants to operate in country A and follow country A's laws, or leave country A so it can do what it wants in country C.

The Internet is by design, and should be, decentralized. The "lowest common denominator" effect is an unfortunate side effect of centralized entities like Google trying to cater to everyone. But Google is the problem, exempting them from the law is hardly the solution. Smaller, localized providers will be able to better meet the needs of a given population's culture and laws, and address the unique problems associated with any given locality.

Yes, that does mean that the Internet won't look the same to everyone everywhere in the world, but that isn't a bad thing. Facebook in Myanmar is a great example that just because a website can be available globally doesn't mean it should. These global entities are not capable of understanding the impact they have on a macro or micro scale on that scope.

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

#75

Post by [deleted] »

SilasX wrote: post #73
quickben wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The NGO in question has a budget of 7 million pounds a year employing over 100 people to do, in their words: lobbying. The actually law was put in place by representatives of the voting majority of EU.

Yes, you can inflammatorily impugn the motives of people arguing in favor of any side. That doesn't make the concerns about free speech invalid, it just means you're willing to resort to similar propagandistic tactics. Edit: rewrite after understanding your point better.

[deleted]

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

#76

Post by true_religion »

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…

This really ought to be a concern of national export policy, as negotiated by governments. Google got the injuction for US services so they can hide behind US government policy and law as is appropriate.

If the US wants its companies to comply with the standards of Canada, thats a topic for legislation... not something that ought to given by default.

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

#77

Post by saghm »

detaro wrote: post #63
saghm wrote: post #62

Sorry if this is an ignorant question, but "NGOs" just means "non-governmental organizations"; would it be accurate refer to any arbitrary group of companies (that are unaffiliated with any government) as "NGOs"? While the article does specify that it is a "British-led alliance of NGOs", it seems to me like one could call a group consisting of Google, Facebook, and other similar companies as "NGOs"; what's to say tha…

The term isn't 100 % clearly defined, but generally only refers to non-profits and similar entities, not traditional companies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-governmental_organization

Ah, thanks! I guess I should have googled instead of just relying on my knowledge of the definitions of the individual words

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

#78

Post by acct1771 »

megous wrote: post #65
acct1771 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Your meaning is not clear to me.

Freedom of Speech favors the speaking side.

So, one must speak!

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

#79

Post by M2Ys4U »

Tomte wrote: post #40
M2Ys4U wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both the right to freedom of expression and the right to a private and family life are human rights. You can't err on the side of both of them, so what do you do? You have to balance them, which is something that the European courts have been doing for a long time now.

Exactly. America does "1A trumps everything", while Germany does "practical concordance" where it recognizes that basic rights are in a complicated relationship affecting each other, and where courts should interpret basic rights in such a way that a global maximum is reached where all those rights retain as much of their meaning and content as possible. I think the French do the same (and have even taken the term "p…

I would be _very_ surprised if there was much difference between approaches, given that they're both members of the Council of Europe (and thus the European Court of Human Rights)

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

#80

Post by derefr »

swebs wrote: post #47
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?

>doxing me by posting my home address, contact information and personal history without any recourse Why should that information be protected in the first place? It's not much different than a phone book. Your full name, address, phone number, etc are all linked to your identity. Once someone has one, it becomes nearly impossible to stop them from getting the others. The problem with doxxing is that it usually comes…

You're assuming that people know your (true) identity, rather than only knowing a false identity you've created for your public persona.
Post reply on HN