Live data from Hacker News

A new bill takes aim at government pressure to silence lawful online speech

eff.org

81–90 of 165 posts

Re: A new bill takes aim at government pressure to silence lawful online speech

#81
post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The revolving door of corruption between the FDA and Pharma industry is pretty well documented. But it looks like my speech freedom is going to cost me some more karma. Darned consequences of speech freedom are at it again.

Firstly, freedom of speech does not guarantee you freedom from consequences of your speech. The government can't stop you from saying stupid shit, however it also can't stop other people from telling you you're stupid. Second, horse dewormer doesn't cure COVID. Censoring dangerous misinformation from fools like yourself who will believe it because it's given to them via the right mouthpiece is a good idea, because if…

There are multiple hypotheses for methods of action for IVM against covid that were plausible and deserved serious funding and investigation by governments. This did not happen. What did happen is the two people who brought it to the attention of congress got slandered the next day in the press and then got their careers destroyed. Anyone else who ever mentioned it also got dumped on by the press. There are over 100 studies now, many of which showed positive results. Most of the studies were small. There have been questions of the quality of many of the studies both the ones showing benefit and the ones showing no benefit. There is one well known fraudulent study and the press loves to extrapolate that to every study. The FDA has admitted to not looking at the data. The CDC and WHO did not write up any kind of analysis. They looked at a couple bigger studies that showed no result and said it’s inconclusive. No government has bothered to look into the RCTs that showed positive results. I don’t know if it works or not. It seems clear to me that profits, politics, power structures, got in the way of finding the answer. IVM is a very safe drug with the proper dosing. 300 to 500 million people in Africa take it yearly for parasites.

Re: A new bill takes aim at government pressure to silence lawful online speech

#82
post #71

I wonder if the EFF had something specific to say when various PACs and a former president tried getting Spotify to take Joe Rogan off the air for his Covid opinions?

This is a new allegation Joe Rogan made offhand in a podcast two days ago, and he said while making it that he can't tell us which PACs or which presidents were involved. What specifics could the EFF offer in the absence of any meaningful details about what happened?

Re: A new bill takes aim at government pressure to silence lawful online speech

#83
post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and the government urges social media to control the spread of misinformation, is that "government pressure" and should it be illegal? Honestly, yeah. The government can counterprogram. But it shouldn’t be allowed to pressure anyone to take that content down (or limit its visibility). Half the reason this anti-vax nonsense gained staying power is as a backlash to such government interventions. The proper solution t…

There is an important difference between government persuasion and government coercion. The government should not be allowed to threaten platforms with punishment unless they remove lawful speech. But public-health officials should be allowed to tell platforms, "This claim is false, it is contributing to real-world harm, and we urge you to reduce its reach." Just like you and I have a right to free speech, so does th…

> public-health officials should be allowed to tell platforms, "This claim is false, it is contributing to real-world harm, and we urge you to reduce its reach."

I think the line between that and Brendan Carr calling ABC and saying “Jimmy Kimmel is lying, he is contributing to real-world harm, and I urge you to reduce his reach” while e.g. a merger is under review or licenses up for renewal is impossible to delineate.

And again, in any case, it didn’t work. It probably threw fuel on the fire. Government shouldn’t be saying what political speech is and isn’t said. That’s what the First Amendment ensconces.

Re: A new bill takes aim at government pressure to silence lawful online speech

#84
post #38
post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This bill is about enhancing the protections of lawful free-speech under the US constitution. Generally speaking, we deem various kinds of speech that harms people as NOT protected under the first amendment, and that kind of speech would not be protected here. Yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater, libel and slander, speech calling for violence, and fraudulent advertising are some typical examples of speech not protec…

> Generally speaking, we deem various kinds of speech that harms people as NOT protected under the first amendment, and that kind of speech would not be protected here. That is not a general principle. Consider the following: it is now illegal to say the word “election” because it would harm the President.

Yeah, we don't ban harmful speech, and we shouldn't. Harming people can be a legitimate and valuable consequence of speech.

We ban a subset of harmful speech with a direct link to clear harms, usually criminal.

Re: A new bill takes aim at government pressure to silence lawful online speech

#85
post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This bill is about enhancing the protections of lawful free-speech under the US constitution. Generally speaking, we deem various kinds of speech that harms people as NOT protected under the first amendment, and that kind of speech would not be protected here. Yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater, libel and slander, speech calling for violence, and fraudulent advertising are some typical examples of speech not protec…

For what it's worth, yelling fire in a crowded theater is First Amendment protected speech. https://www.techdirt.com/2023/03/14/setting-1st-amendment-my... I'm just stating facts. https://www.popehat.com/p/the-first-amendment-isnt-absolute

Sigh. Yes, it depends on context. Like everything.

Yet, what’s the point of pedantic digressions that distract and muddy rather than clarify and communicate?

Re: A new bill takes aim at government pressure to silence lawful online speech

#86
post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is an important difference between government persuasion and government coercion. The government should not be allowed to threaten platforms with punishment unless they remove lawful speech. But public-health officials should be allowed to tell platforms, "This claim is false, it is contributing to real-world harm, and we urge you to reduce its reach." Just like you and I have a right to free speech, so does th…

> public-health officials should be allowed to tell platforms, "This claim is false, it is contributing to real-world harm, and we urge you to reduce its reach." I think the line between that and Brendan Carr calling ABC and saying “Jimmy Kimmel is lying, he is contributing to real-world harm, and I urge you to reduce his reach” while e.g. a merger is under review or licenses up for renewal is impossible to delineate…

Agree, it is hard to delineate, especially when the government is run by people that are thin-skinned and retaliatory. That's what makes this issue so challenging.

But is it fair to curtail speech because someone might perceive it as a threat? That question applies to the government as well as to individuals. I think it has to be resolved on a case-by-cases basis by courts.

Re: A new bill takes aim at government pressure to silence lawful online speech

#87
post #38
post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This bill is about enhancing the protections of lawful free-speech under the US constitution. Generally speaking, we deem various kinds of speech that harms people as NOT protected under the first amendment, and that kind of speech would not be protected here. Yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater, libel and slander, speech calling for violence, and fraudulent advertising are some typical examples of speech not protec…

> Generally speaking, we deem various kinds of speech that harms people as NOT protected under the first amendment, and that kind of speech would not be protected here. That is not a general principle. Consider the following: it is now illegal to say the word “election” because it would harm the President.

Is that really what you think I said? It’s probably more productive to read with the goal to understand rather than the goal to misunderstand.

Re: A new bill takes aim at government pressure to silence lawful online speech

#88
post #71

I wonder if the EFF had something specific to say when various PACs and a former president tried getting Spotify to take Joe Rogan off the air for his Covid opinions?

A PAC talking to Spotify is obviously protected speech. At least try to look like you have principles.

Re: A new bill takes aim at government pressure to silence lawful online speech

#89

Do people not read the article, or do they just read the clickbait title and comment? Apparently they missed Ron Wyden (co-sponsor) of the bill is a Democrat and the bill is a bi-partisan effort? Or the fact the EFF is actually in support of the bill: EFF applauds Senators Cruz and Wyden for taking this critical issue seriously, and we look forward to working with Congress on this bipartisan bill as it moves through…

Wydens bullied a man to death.

https://www.koin.com/news/oregon/lawsuit-claims-wydens-famil...

Re: A new bill takes aim at government pressure to silence lawful online speech

#90

JAWBONE == Justice Against Weaponized Bureaucratic Overreach to Networked Expression. Max Kudos. Ron and Ted owe a staffer (or staffers) a few drinks.

My favorite of these has always been the USA PATRIOT Act, or the "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act". And that one predates LLMs, so… sheesh.

I always think of this when someone mentions the patriot act.

The single senator who opposed it.

http://www.archipelago.org/vol6-2/feingold.htm

Post reply on HN