5 ms·

I wonder when will Australian Gov Hackers try to hack some australians gmail account and Google threatens to leave Australia.

by barredo 17y ago

nzmsv 17y ago
Or someone pretending to be a government hacker. That would restore the lulz balance :)
pmorici 17y ago
Since the censoring in question is the result of legal action by an individual and not a government the appropriate thing to do would be to just block all Google access from the complainer.
- stakent 17y ago
  Hmm, maybe court sholud not wait for his third action and block his (and his family) access to the internet?
- apower 17y ago
  And where do you think the LEGAL basis coming from? Thin air? It's backed by and enforced by the Aus government.
  - artichokeheart 17y ago
    The legal basis, though, are racial vilification laws. Welcome to the censorship/freedom of speech grey area.
    - pwmanagerdied 17y ago
      There is no gray area. If you support laws against hate crime or hate speech, you're against freedom of speech.
      - EricBurnett 17y ago
        I'm sorry, but no issue is black and white like that. There is a gray area because two human rights are in conflict on issues such as these: freedom of speech and freedom from discrimination. In most countries, including Australia, limitations are put on freedom of speech specifically to address this issue. You can support laws such as these without being 'against freedom of speech'. After all, the very first article in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood." Both this and article 19 (freedom of opinion and expression) must be supported, and when they are in conflict, a balance must be found. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_...
        pwmanagerdied 17y ago
        We all know that the UN is retarded. By increasing the penalties for crimes motivated by discrimination against selected groups, you imply that crimes motivated by discrimination against groups that haven't been so selected are less severe. If someone went around and started killing geeks because they hated us collectively, they'd be less heavily punished than if they were targeting a protected group, such as Christians. Is that fair?
        gjm11 17y ago
        The point of hate speech / hate crime laws isn't that crimes motivated by discrimination are worse. It's that they affect the whole group. If I kill you because I want your money, then you and your friends and family suffer the consequences. If I kill you because you're gay, Christian, black, Jewish, female, or whatever, then in addition to the effects on you and your friends and family everyone else who's part of the same group feels just that bit more afraid and that bit less able to be themselves; and everyone else who hates that same group gets just that bit more inspiration to go out and do likewise. Unless you give this zero weight and think every reasonable person should do otherwise, then I do not think you have any excuse for saying that approving of hate-crime laws means being "against freedom of speech". (Unless by "you are against freedom of speech" you mean "you think that there might be other considerations that sometimes justify limiting freedom of speech". In which case every reasonable person is "against" just about everything.) There is no hate-crime legislation making it extra-bad to kill geeks because there aren't a bunch of malefactors out there killing geeks. It's arguable that hate-crime laws should be written in a more general way, instead of calling out particular discriminated-against groups, but if you'd accept that then congratulations, you're "against freedom of speech" in your own terms.
    - noarchy 17y ago
      It is only a grey area in certain countries.

I wonder when will Australian Gov Hackers try to hack some australians gmail account and Google threatens to leave Australia.

by barredo 17y ago

I wonder when will Australian Gov Hackers try to hack some australians gmail account and Google threatens to leave Australia.

nzmsv 17y ago

Or someone pretending to be a government hacker. That would restore the lulz balance :)

pmorici 17y ago

Since the censoring in question is the result of legal action by an individual and not a government the appropriate thing to do would be to just block all Google access from the complainer.

stakent 17y ago
Hmm, maybe court sholud not wait for his third action and block his (and his family) access to the internet?
apower 17y ago
And where do you think the LEGAL basis coming from? Thin air? It's backed by and enforced by the Aus government.
- artichokeheart 17y ago
  The legal basis, though, are racial vilification laws. Welcome to the censorship/freedom of speech grey area.
  - pwmanagerdied 17y ago
    There is no gray area. If you support laws against hate crime or hate speech, you're against freedom of speech.
    - EricBurnett 17y ago
      I'm sorry, but no issue is black and white like that. There is a gray area because two human rights are in conflict on issues such as these: freedom of speech and freedom from discrimination. In most countries, including Australia, limitations are put on freedom of speech specifically to address this issue. You can support laws such as these without being 'against freedom of speech'. After all, the very first article in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood." Both this and article 19 (freedom of opinion and expression) must be supported, and when they are in conflict, a balance must be found. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_...
      - pwmanagerdied 17y ago
        We all know that the UN is retarded. By increasing the penalties for crimes motivated by discrimination against selected groups, you imply that crimes motivated by discrimination against groups that haven't been so selected are less severe. If someone went around and started killing geeks because they hated us collectively, they'd be less heavily punished than if they were targeting a protected group, such as Christians. Is that fair?
        gjm11 17y ago
        The point of hate speech / hate crime laws isn't that crimes motivated by discrimination are worse. It's that they affect the whole group. If I kill you because I want your money, then you and your friends and family suffer the consequences. If I kill you because you're gay, Christian, black, Jewish, female, or whatever, then in addition to the effects on you and your friends and family everyone else who's part of the same group feels just that bit more afraid and that bit less able to be themselves; and everyone else who hates that same group gets just that bit more inspiration to go out and do likewise. Unless you give this zero weight and think every reasonable person should do otherwise, then I do not think you have any excuse for saying that approving of hate-crime laws means being "against freedom of speech". (Unless by "you are against freedom of speech" you mean "you think that there might be other considerations that sometimes justify limiting freedom of speech". In which case every reasonable person is "against" just about everything.) There is no hate-crime legislation making it extra-bad to kill geeks because there aren't a bunch of malefactors out there killing geeks. It's arguable that hate-crime laws should be written in a more general way, instead of calling out particular discriminated-against groups, but if you'd accept that then congratulations, you're "against freedom of speech" in your own terms.
  - noarchy 17y ago
    It is only a grey area in certain countries.