7 ms·

Who defines what "terrorist content" is? Maybe if the incumbent party is getting "terrorised" in the polls in a run-up to an election, their challengers may sud

Who defines what "terrorist content" is? Maybe if the incumbent party is getting "terrorised" in the polls in a run-up to an election, their challengers may suddenly find themselves guilty of producing "terrorist" content? I can definitely see something like that happening.

krapp 8y ago
> Maybe if the incumbent party is getting "terrorised" in the polls in a run-up to an election, their challengers may suddenly find themselves guilty of producing "terrorist" content? ... because no one who interprets laws does so with any regard to their purpose and therefore all laws which govern speech will be enforced arbitrarily and inevitably lead down the slippery slope towards maximum tyranny and censorship? >I can definitely see something like that happening. I can definitely see that not happening, or at least not succeeding when it's attempted, because it could happen now with hate speech laws, yet politicians haven't successfully had their opponents arrested merely by declaring their opponents' speech to be hateful. Corrupt politicians and corruptible laws laws do exist, but outside of a totalitarian regime, obvious misuse and misinterpretation of the law (particularly where free speech and politics are concerned) tends to be challenged by the system, because people within that system have a vested interest in maintaining a balance between societal stability and personal liberty.
- repolfx 8y ago
  politicians haven't successfully had their opponents arrested merely by declaring their opponents' speech to be hateful It happens in Europe quite frequently. Geert Wilders is a popular Dutch politician (popular with voters) and has been arrested and taken to court several times for "hate speech" (i.e. criticising immigration and Islam), being found guilty the last time albeit the court refused to punish him. Marine Le Pen has also been arrested and taken to court for hate speech, although the court decided she was not guilty. As for your faith in the fair application of EU law. That is nice. The EU courts are staffed by judges selected for their pro-EU ideology and reliably pro-EU judgements. The ECJ routinely throws out things put in plain English into the treaties themselves or re-interprets apparently straightforward language to mean something entirely non-obvious, always to the benefit of the EU itself. What sort of people rise to the top of this political project? Here is a selection of quotes by the head of the European Commission, the man who really matters in the EU because only he and his directly selected employees can change the law. "When it becomes serious, you have to lie." "I'm ready to be insulted as being insufficiently democratic, but I want to be serious ... I am for secret, dark debates." “If it's a Yes, we will say 'on we go', and if it's a No we will say 'we continue’" (in reference to a referendum on EU policy) I will say, for all his faults, Juncker is at least willing to tell it like it is when it comes to the motivations and powers of himself and his comrades.
- Someguywhatever 8y ago
  >... because no one who interprets laws does so with any regard to their purpose and therefore all laws which govern speech will be enforced arbitrarily No one does not necessarily beget the other. But I would say that "power corrupts" is very true. If you give somebody power over who can talk, that's very tempting to misuse. So why give anyone that power? It's too powerful to be used with restraint in the long run IMO. >I can definitely see that not happening, or at least not succeeding when it's attempted, because it could happen now with hate speech laws Honestly if it did actually happen, what would you do about it? Would you complain in the newspaper? Online? What if your complaint was classified as "terrorist" content? I mean does it really actually HAVE to happen IRL for you to see that this type of power should not be held by politicians?

krapp 8y ago

> Maybe if the incumbent party is getting "terrorised" in the polls in a run-up to an election, their challengers may suddenly find themselves guilty of producing "terrorist" content? ... because no one who interprets laws does so with any regard to their purpose and therefore all laws which govern speech will be enforced arbitrarily and inevitably lead down the slippery slope towards maximum tyranny and censorship? >I can definitely see something like that happening. I can definitely see that not happening, or at least not succeeding when it's attempted, because it could happen now with hate speech laws, yet politicians haven't successfully had their opponents arrested merely by declaring their opponents' speech to be hateful. Corrupt politicians and corruptible laws laws do exist, but outside of a totalitarian regime, obvious misuse and misinterpretation of the law (particularly where free speech and politics are concerned) tends to be challenged by the system, because people within that system have a vested interest in maintaining a balance between societal stability and personal liberty.

repolfx 8y ago
politicians haven't successfully had their opponents arrested merely by declaring their opponents' speech to be hateful It happens in Europe quite frequently. Geert Wilders is a popular Dutch politician (popular with voters) and has been arrested and taken to court several times for "hate speech" (i.e. criticising immigration and Islam), being found guilty the last time albeit the court refused to punish him. Marine Le Pen has also been arrested and taken to court for hate speech, although the court decided she was not guilty. As for your faith in the fair application of EU law. That is nice. The EU courts are staffed by judges selected for their pro-EU ideology and reliably pro-EU judgements. The ECJ routinely throws out things put in plain English into the treaties themselves or re-interprets apparently straightforward language to mean something entirely non-obvious, always to the benefit of the EU itself. What sort of people rise to the top of this political project? Here is a selection of quotes by the head of the European Commission, the man who really matters in the EU because only he and his directly selected employees can change the law. "When it becomes serious, you have to lie." "I'm ready to be insulted as being insufficiently democratic, but I want to be serious ... I am for secret, dark debates." “If it's a Yes, we will say 'on we go', and if it's a No we will say 'we continue’" (in reference to a referendum on EU policy) I will say, for all his faults, Juncker is at least willing to tell it like it is when it comes to the motivations and powers of himself and his comrades.
Someguywhatever 8y ago
>... because no one who interprets laws does so with any regard to their purpose and therefore all laws which govern speech will be enforced arbitrarily No one does not necessarily beget the other. But I would say that "power corrupts" is very true. If you give somebody power over who can talk, that's very tempting to misuse. So why give anyone that power? It's too powerful to be used with restraint in the long run IMO. >I can definitely see that not happening, or at least not succeeding when it's attempted, because it could happen now with hate speech laws Honestly if it did actually happen, what would you do about it? Would you complain in the newspaper? Online? What if your complaint was classified as "terrorist" content? I mean does it really actually HAVE to happen IRL for you to see that this type of power should not be held by politicians?