81–90 of 107 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I hereby assert that the queen is still alive . Am I now guilty of an offense?
There's a difference between freedom of speech and inciting riots with lies. Also what can get by in normal times may not do so in an emergency.
The latter was exactly the excuse that communist regimes used to silence any criticism
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The exceptions are far more narrow than in the UK. Try and bring a libel charge in each country. PS: And technically, afaik, it isn't a crime to call for the assassination of the president of the US. It's illegal to attempt it, and to take actions that support those attempting it. But if you just post on Facebook about it... you'll get a call from the Secret Service and a recommendation that you don't do that, but no…
Post a copy of Pixar's latest movie online and see if that speech is protected. Or CSAM. It would be better to acknowledge that there very much are limits on the freedom of speech, just like everywhere else, instead of pretending we're better than everyone else and that we don't have any censors.
That's not the argument I'm making.
I'm noting that the US started from a right to free speech, and then carved out exclusions to that.
Whereas the UK came at it the other way and added to a list of types of speech that are free.
For those unaware, the UK police are currently promising to go after people posting misinformation and retweeting content (including video of riots) that might incite hate. In response to this the UK police are being trolled on their live chats (largely by Americans I believe). I did originally post a link to these (you can find them on X), but given the content I don't want to risk it. I'm assuming they're now block…
Well, it's not simply "posting inaccurate information", it's "publishing written material to stir up racial hatred" (which it clearly was) and "false communications" (technically true because her information was completely wrong.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Rather than disregarding the concern, how would you propose the overreach should be handled? And is it possible to handle the overreach before it harms citizens caught in the middle, or can it only be dealt with after innocent people are on the wrong end of the overreach?
And innocent people that get harmed by non action are irrelevant? Laws can and will always be abused but if they are about online discourse the only possibility seems to be that there will be nothing but abuse. As long as you are in a country with an intact democracy and separation of power you'll be fine and if not vote against it.
When it comes to separation of powers, that's a much bigger discussion but I have concerns over how our three branches operate in the US today. Our legislative branch has outsourced much of their power to the executive branch, though the overturn of Chevron may eventually help that. I wish it were as simply as voting, but I'm generally only offered one or two options for most elected positions and when it comes down to it neither party will allow anyone on the ballot that wants to actually reform anything meaningful about how the system works.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think part of the problem at hand is when laws written poorly can be enforced in ways that don't align with the meaning behind the original laws. The solution really is simple - write clearly defined and contained laws or don't write any at all. Most people wouldn't be comfortable with that, though, and in a world where news stories and political debates are forgotten in a matter of weeks people won't find it accep…
Yeah, that's a cop out no law will ever be satisfactory initially with your requirements. Every constitution gets amendments and the same can go for a law like we are discussing now. That the only conclusion is "do nothing at all" is mind boggling.
I wouldn't expect a law to be absolutely 100% buttoned up but we're very, very far from that today.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, that's a cop out no law will ever be satisfactory initially with your requirements. Every constitution gets amendments and the same can go for a law like we are discussing now. That the only conclusion is "do nothing at all" is mind boggling.
Its not a cop out. How can you as a citizen try to stay on the right side of the law when laws are horribly verbose, difficult to understand, and full of gray area? I wouldn't expect a law to be absolutely 100% buttoned up but we're very, very far from that today.
It's just liberté and nothing else for you I guess.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And innocent people that get harmed by non action are irrelevant? Laws can and will always be abused but if they are about online discourse the only possibility seems to be that there will be nothing but abuse. As long as you are in a country with an intact democracy and separation of power you'll be fine and if not vote against it.
Who is harmed specifically by online speech? Speech can certainly lead to people deciding to take some kind of action, but that action is what harms people and those actions are very likely already illegal. When it comes to separation of powers, that's a much bigger discussion but I have concerns over how our three branches operate in the US today. Our legislative branch has outsourced much of their power to the exec…
For those unaware, the UK police are currently promising to go after people posting misinformation and retweeting content (including video of riots) that might incite hate. In response to this the UK police are being trolled on their live chats (largely by Americans I believe). I did originally post a link to these (you can find them on X), but given the content I don't want to risk it. I'm assuming they're now block…
> a 55 year old women was arrested for posting inaccurate information to social media Well, it's not simply "posting inaccurate information", it's "publishing written material to stir up racial hatred" (which it clearly was) and "false communications" (technically true because her information was completely wrong.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who is harmed specifically by online speech? Speech can certainly lead to people deciding to take some kind of action, but that action is what harms people and those actions are very likely already illegal. When it comes to separation of powers, that's a much bigger discussion but I have concerns over how our three branches operate in the US today. Our legislative branch has outsourced much of their power to the exec…
[flagged]
I only brought up the US because you specifically referenced voting and separation of powers. I can only vote in the US so my context is limited, and the separation of powers is very much an American idea that has since been adopted in various ways in other countries.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Its not a cop out. How can you as a citizen try to stay on the right side of the law when laws are horribly verbose, difficult to understand, and full of gray area? I wouldn't expect a law to be absolutely 100% buttoned up but we're very, very far from that today.
Laws are difficult to understand? Is it the first one you've read? Oh no you haven't read it... because the one we are talking about is pretty straight cut. Sorry but you are really not commenting in good faith here. It's just straw man argument after straw man argument. It's just liberté and nothing else for you I guess.
It isn't just about liberté for me. The law in discussion here may be pretty straight cut with regards to understanding what's on the page, but not with understanding what power the government is actually granted or when/how it will be enforced. The whole point in this thread was that the law is unclear as to how the government will define content posted online that may turn out to be inaccurate as illegal and worthy of leading to prosecution.
Consider it this way - if you handed said law to 10 people in the UK, would they all walk away with the same understanding of where the line is that they shouldn't cross?