The limits of freedom of speech

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 18893
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
Contact:

Re: The limits of freedom of speech

Post by Hermit » Thu Sep 13, 2018 1:48 pm

Svartalf wrote:
Thu Sep 13, 2018 12:11 pm
'accountability' is a destruction of free speech since it makes you liable tu being sued if your speech offends some
It really is not. Accountability just means that there are consequences to what you say. People have been sued for offending others, but I cannot recall any convictions of those people on account of making others feel offended. At any rate, Lucy Powell did not mention people feeling offended among her list of what establishing legal accountability ought to be aimed at. She did mention the following:
The Russian Internet Research Agency set up Facebook groups, amassed hundreds of thousands of members, and used them to spread hate and fake news, organise rallies, and attack Hillary Clinton. Most of its output was designed to stoke the country’s racial tensions.

It’s not only racism that is finding a home on Facebook. Marines United was a secret group of 30,000 current and former servicemen in the British armed forces and US Marines. Members posted nude photos of their fellow servicewomen, taken in secret. A whistleblower described the group as “revenge porn, creepy stalker-like photos taken of girls in public, talk about rape”.
Destruction of free speech?

To be honest, though, I think that if Powell had a second brain, it would be a lonely one, but I can't explain exactly why until I've seen the wording of her proposed bill. Sight unseen I expect it to flop comprehensively, even among the members of her own party.

User avatar
Svartalf
Offensive Grail Keeper
Posts: 32278
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:42 pm
Location: Paris France
Contact:

Re: The limits of freedom of speech

Post by Svartalf » Thu Sep 13, 2018 2:47 pm

pErvinalia wrote:
Thu Sep 13, 2018 12:13 pm
I better knock off the repeated calls to "bomb the cunts"... :whistle:
well, they do need to be bombed...
Embrace the Darkness, it needs a hug

PC stands for "Patronizing Cocksucker" Randy Ping

Jason
Destroyer of words
Posts: 17113
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 12:46 pm
About me: I Sexually Identify As A Fractal
Location: Nodes of Ranvier
Contact:

Re: The limits of freedom of speech

Post by Jason » Thu Sep 13, 2018 4:45 pm

Image
People hardly ever make use of the freedoms they have, such as freedom of thought, instead they demand freedom of speech as compensation.

Soren Kierkegaard

You won’t truly appreciate the awkwardness of this moment until you’re fondly reminiscing as a 35-year-old homosexual.

Roger Smith

User avatar
pErvinalia
Off his meds
Posts: 46775
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: The limits of freedom of speech

Post by pErvinalia » Thu Sep 13, 2018 10:42 pm

:lol:
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"You know you blokes didn't criticize Obama. You're lying. - Forty Two. Umm - http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=42144

User avatar
Sean Hayden
Microagressor
Posts: 9323
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2010 3:55 pm
Contact:

Re: The limits of freedom of speech

Post by Sean Hayden » Thu Sep 13, 2018 10:52 pm

:bender:
"The Constitution was not made to fit us like a straitjacket."

-Russian troll

User avatar
Sean Hayden
Microagressor
Posts: 9323
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2010 3:55 pm
Contact:

Re: The limits of freedom of speech

Post by Sean Hayden » Thu Sep 13, 2018 11:02 pm

"The Constitution was not made to fit us like a straitjacket."

-Russian troll

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 12992
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I identify as sexually arousing to women.
Contact:

Re: The limits of freedom of speech

Post by Forty Two » Fri Sep 14, 2018 3:23 pm

Hermit wrote:
Thu Sep 13, 2018 1:48 pm
Svartalf wrote:
Thu Sep 13, 2018 12:11 pm
'accountability' is a destruction of free speech since it makes you liable tu being sued if your speech offends some
It really is not. Accountability just means that there are consequences to what you say.
Well, if those consequences are legal consequences - like an injunction, a monetary penalty, criminal record, jail time, or what have you, then that would be the destruction of free speech. Being "accountable" in the sense of being subject to counter-speech by other people is not the destruction of free speech.

It would be a rather strong inroad into free speech if civil actions for damages as a result of what other people say were expanded beyond the realm of defamation, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress as currently set out under the law.
Hermit wrote:
Thu Sep 13, 2018 1:48 pm
People have been sued for offending others, but I cannot recall any convictions of those people on account of making others feel offended.
A lawsuit merely for "offending" others is a very dangerous thing when it comes to freedom of speech. It's very difficult to make a controversial political point without "offending" someone. Regarding criminal convictions, the UK is already going down this road: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-gl ... t-43478925 He was convicted of posting a video of a dog doing a Nazi salute (grossly offensive because it was antisemitic and aggravated by religious prejudice). To be convicted of a crime for that should be a concern to anyone who is concerned about individual liberty, freedom of thought and freedom of expression.
Hermit wrote:
Thu Sep 13, 2018 1:48 pm

At any rate, Lucy Powell did not mention people feeling offended among her list of what establishing legal accountability ought to be aimed at. She did mention the following:
The Russian Internet Research Agency set up Facebook groups, amassed hundreds of thousands of members, and used them to spread hate and fake news, organise rallies, and attack Hillary Clinton. Most of its output was designed to stoke the country’s racial tensions.
That's even worse, because you don't even have to bother anyone else. Take out the mention of Russia, which is loaded these days. Let's say "The Mexican Immigration Research Agency set up Facebook groups, amassed hundreds of thousands of members and used them to spread hate and fake news, organise rallies, and attack Donald Trump. Most of its output was designed to stoke the country's racial tensions."

My response is "so what?" They are a group of individuals. Why can't they set up facebook groups? Why can't they amass thousands of members? Why can't they organize rallies? Why can't they attack (verbally) Donald Trump? Why can't they spread what someone else thinks is hate or fake news? Is there a clearinghouse of Truth that says that what group X is saying is "fake" news? Can they not express their view of reality? Who is going to make this determination?
Hermit wrote:
Thu Sep 13, 2018 1:48 pm

It’s not only racism that is finding a home on Facebook. Marines United was a secret group of 30,000 current and former servicemen in the British armed forces and US Marines. Members posted nude photos of their fellow servicewomen, taken in secret. A whistleblower described the group as “revenge porn, creepy stalker-like photos taken of girls in public, talk about rape”.
Destruction of free speech?
All depends. In general, it's not illegal to trade naked pictures. Happens all the time. Every time anyone goes to youporn.com, it's happening. There is an issue with secretly taping people without their consent, but it's not likely that all or even most of the pictures were non-consensual. To make a rule that there cannot be a private group on the internet which shares, among themselves, nude pictures and videos, is an overreach.
Hermit wrote:
Thu Sep 13, 2018 1:48 pm

To be honest, though, I think that if Powell had a second brain, it would be a lonely one, but I can't explain exactly why until I've seen the wording of her proposed bill. Sight unseen I expect it to flop comprehensively, even among the members of her own party.
Agreed - the precise wording of the law is important, and journalists/commentators usually get something wrong on legal issues.
"Every socialistic type of government… produces bad art, produces social inertia, produces really unhappy people, and it's more repressive than any other kind of government." Frank Zappa.

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 12992
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I identify as sexually arousing to women.
Contact:

Re: The limits of freedom of speech

Post by Forty Two » Fri Sep 14, 2018 3:36 pm

cronus wrote:
Thu Sep 13, 2018 12:09 pm
Hermit wrote:
Thu Sep 13, 2018 12:05 pm
Forty Two wrote:
Thu Sep 13, 2018 11:08 am
In the UK, the limits might soon include private online discussion forums - https://reason.com/blog/2018/09/12/brit ... your-priva
From your link:
U.K. Parliament member Lucy Powell of the Labour Party wants to use her government authority to ban your private online group discussions.
No, she does not. What she does aim for is "establishing legal accountability for what’s published in large online forums".
Unlikely to lose free speech here then....
Because these closed forums can be given a “secret” setting, they can be hidden away from everyone but their members. This locks out the police, intelligence services and charities that could otherwise engage with the groups and correct disinformation. This could be particularly crucial with groups where parents are told not to vaccinate their children against diseases.
Kind of like a living room. I can set up a closed forum in my living room, and I can invite whoever I want in there, and keep out the police, intelligence services and charities. I don't have to talk to them and let them correct the disinformation we talk about in private. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/ ... ebook-bill

She says, "We should educate people to be more resilient and better able to spot fake news and recognise hate, but we must also ensure there are much stronger protections to spread decency and police our online communities. The responsibility to regulate these social media platforms falls on the government. It is past time to act."

Yes, indeed, the bullshit and baloney detection kits should be on full alert, and children should be taught courses in logic to be able to analyze and spot news which does not come with proper substantiation. However, to "ensure that there are much stronger protections to spread decency and police our online communities?" If that applies to what she thinks is "fake" news (or what Trump or anyone else thinks is "fake" news), then she can go fuck herself. To determine what news is fake, the government has only a limited number of possible actions it can take: (a) legislate Truth, or (b) delegate to a ministry or bureau the task of determining Truth.

Let's see how anyone likes that when it's the Tories in the UK infesting the Ministry of Truth and determining which news reports and online posts are "fake." In the US, how would anyone feel if it was Trump's administration that was determining which news blogs and posts are "fake?" He calls CNN fake news, and I've seen CNN publish a lot of bullshit - are they too going to be subject to this law? Or is it just going to be the individual common citizen who wants to talk in private to his own group of friends, colleagues or like-minded individuals? Is it the job of the government to "police" them to make sure they don't talk about "fake" stuff?
"Every socialistic type of government… produces bad art, produces social inertia, produces really unhappy people, and it's more repressive than any other kind of government." Frank Zappa.

User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 20613
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
About me: Ablate me:
Location: Location: Location:
Contact:

Re: The limits of freedom of speech

Post by Brian Peacock » Fri Sep 14, 2018 4:11 pm

I guess part of the issue is that the forum format, like Facebook, Twitter, Blogger, and lil' ol' Ratz etc, has the feel and function of a public space, and I generally think it's a good idea to treat it as such.
.

"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."

Frank Zappa

"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.

Jason
Destroyer of words
Posts: 17113
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 12:46 pm
About me: I Sexually Identify As A Fractal
Location: Nodes of Ranvier
Contact:

Re: The limits of freedom of speech

Post by Jason » Fri Sep 14, 2018 4:15 pm

Are you serious just now? You mean I have to abide by the laws of the United Kingdom or wherever the hell this forum is hosted?
People hardly ever make use of the freedoms they have, such as freedom of thought, instead they demand freedom of speech as compensation.

Soren Kierkegaard

You won’t truly appreciate the awkwardness of this moment until you’re fondly reminiscing as a 35-year-old homosexual.

Roger Smith

Jason
Destroyer of words
Posts: 17113
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 12:46 pm
About me: I Sexually Identify As A Fractal
Location: Nodes of Ranvier
Contact:

Re: The limits of freedom of speech

Post by Jason » Fri Sep 14, 2018 4:15 pm

Śiva wrote:
Fri Sep 14, 2018 4:15 pm
Are you serious just now? You mean I have to abide by the laws of the United Kingdom or wherever the hell this forum is hosted?
Just asking...
People hardly ever make use of the freedoms they have, such as freedom of thought, instead they demand freedom of speech as compensation.

Soren Kierkegaard

You won’t truly appreciate the awkwardness of this moment until you’re fondly reminiscing as a 35-year-old homosexual.

Roger Smith

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 12992
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I identify as sexually arousing to women.
Contact:

Re: The limits of freedom of speech

Post by Forty Two » Fri Sep 14, 2018 4:33 pm

Brian Peacock wrote:
Fri Sep 14, 2018 4:11 pm
I guess part of the issue is that the forum format, like Facebook, Twitter, Blogger, and lil' ol' Ratz etc, has the feel and function of a public space, and I generally think it's a good idea to treat it as such.
That's good for you to think that, but there is no reason why someone ought not be entitled to think otherwise, and set up a forum where people are free to create private discussion boards.

Couldn't this forum be wholly private?

There used to be or maybe still is a "Really Not Safe forWork" area here where pretty much anything went - private, invite only. What if people wanted to discuss the Moon Hoax theory, flat earth, climate change denial, Birtherism, 9/11 Truth, and the Trump-Russia-Collusion narratives? They don't get to do that, because they have to open themselves to police and intelligence agency monitoring, to make sure they discuss it the right way, and don't believe unapproved things?

Why can't it happen on facebook? It doesn't hurt other members of facebook that 10 people create a private forum to talk about how women should be in the kitchen, or that one race is superior or inferior to another, does it?

First, the effort was that PUBLIC discussion of nasty ideas needed to be squelched because it bothered or offended people because of their race, color, religion, national origin, etc. Now, they want to tell you you can't even talk about that stuff in private? That's not something to support, IMO.
"Every socialistic type of government… produces bad art, produces social inertia, produces really unhappy people, and it's more repressive than any other kind of government." Frank Zappa.

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 12992
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I identify as sexually arousing to women.
Contact:

Re: The limits of freedom of speech

Post by Forty Two » Fri Sep 14, 2018 5:08 pm

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 35576.html "A Spanish actor has been arrested and detained for questioning after ridiculing the Virgin Mary and God," "Mr Toledo said the judge in the case was “possessed by the devil”, adding: “I s**t on God and have enough s**t left over to s**t on the dogma of the saintliness and virginity of the Virgin Mary. “This country is unbearably shameful. I’m disgusted. Go f**k yourselves. Long live the Insubordinate Pussy.”"

LOL - that's pretty hateful. So, maybe it's reasonable that he be held accountable for his hate speech.
"Every socialistic type of government… produces bad art, produces social inertia, produces really unhappy people, and it's more repressive than any other kind of government." Frank Zappa.

User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 20613
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
About me: Ablate me:
Location: Location: Location:
Contact:

Re: The limits of freedom of speech

Post by Brian Peacock » Fri Sep 14, 2018 5:47 pm

Forty Two wrote:
Fri Sep 14, 2018 4:33 pm
Brian Peacock wrote:
Fri Sep 14, 2018 4:11 pm
I guess part of the issue is that the forum format, like Facebook, Twitter, Blogger, and lil' ol' Ratz etc, has the feel and function of a public space, and I generally think it's a good idea to treat it as such.
That's good for you to think that, but there is no reason why someone ought not be entitled to think otherwise, and set up a forum where people are free to create private discussion boards.

Couldn't this forum be wholly private?

There used to be or maybe still is a "Really Not Safe forWork" area here where pretty much anything went - private, invite only. What if people wanted to discuss the Moon Hoax theory, flat earth, climate change denial, Birtherism, 9/11 Truth, and the Trump-Russia-Collusion narratives? They don't get to do that, because they have to open themselves to police and intelligence agency monitoring, to make sure they discuss it the right way, and don't believe unapproved things?

Why can't it happen on facebook? It doesn't hurt other members of facebook that 10 people create a private forum to talk about how women should be in the kitchen, or that one race is superior or inferior to another, does it?

First, the effort was that PUBLIC discussion of nasty ideas needed to be squelched because it bothered or offended people because of their race, color, religion, national origin, etc. Now, they want to tell you you can't even talk about that stuff in private? That's not something to support, IMO.
I didn't quite mean that. I mean that I treat it as if it's a public space. If people want to inhabit private online spaces to discuss a common interest that's fine by me too. However, if that's going to be used as a venue for something illegal then that's a different matter. If a gang are plotting a robbery in the back room of a pub then the landlord should not be held accountable. But I guess the feeling is that with all that server space and processing power places like Facebook and Twitter should be able to do more to identify and weed out the nasties. If Facebook is the landlord of the pub they're basically earwigging everything you say (they're scooping up everything that you post, who you know, what you like and dislike, etc) and so it's harder for them to claim that they're deaf or just offering a venue. If the police thought that the NSFW forum here was a venue for kiddy porn for example, I think none of us would object to them having the power to access the data and investigate, just as they have for entering premises. What I have trouble with is the idea that private spaces need to be accessible to prove that they're not dodgy. It's the proving the negative thing I suppose - it proceeds from a unsubstantiated positive assumption.
.

"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."

Frank Zappa

"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 12992
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I identify as sexually arousing to women.
Contact:

Re: The limits of freedom of speech

Post by Forty Two » Mon Sep 17, 2018 1:27 pm

I think the robbery plot and kiddie porn examples you gave are good.

The government doesn't have the right to just listen in on the back room of a pub, and the landlord doesn't have an obligation to monitor the discussion around the poker table in the back room. HOWEVER, if the government does have probable cause to believe that something untoward is going on, then they can present their demonstrable, articulable cause to a judge and get a warrant (or bust in without a warrant, if there are exigent circumstaces like a crime pretty much in progress or the destruction of evidence risk, etc.).

Same with the RNSFW forum here. The government wouldn't or shouln't have the right to just look around there anytime, and the company hosting the website doesn't have or shouldn't have the obligation to monitor conversations to make sure nobody is talking about child porn. But, if someone were to go to the police and say that they saw some dicey stuff on RNSFW that might be illegal child porn, then the cops could get a warrant have a look-see.

Getting a warrant is easy for cops, in the US. They don't need free access, nor ought private citizens be deputized to do the police work for the coppers.

But, I think we generally agree.
"Every socialistic type of government… produces bad art, produces social inertia, produces really unhappy people, and it's more repressive than any other kind of government." Frank Zappa.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests