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…
A new bill takes aim at government pressure to silence lawful online speech
81–90 of 165 posts
Re: A new bill takes aim at government pressure to silence lawful online speech
#82I 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?
Re: A new bill takes aim at government pressure to silence lawful online speech
#83Earlier 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…
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
#84Earlier 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.
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
#85Earlier 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
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
#86Earlier 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…
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
#87Earlier 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.
Re: A new bill takes aim at government pressure to silence lawful online speech
#88I 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?
Re: A new bill takes aim at government pressure to silence lawful online speech
#89Do 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…
https://www.koin.com/news/oregon/lawsuit-claims-wydens-famil...
Re: A new bill takes aim at government pressure to silence lawful online speech
#90JAWBONE == 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.
The single senator who opposed it.