5 ms·

I disagree with the EU about their copyright legislation, but applaud their attempts at increasing privacy. What I find odd about the conversation around EU in

I disagree with the EU about their copyright legislation, but applaud their attempts at increasing privacy. What I find odd about the conversation around EU internet legislation is the idea that "The Internet" is a single entity that has some kind of natural state, and further that natural state is for all information to be free and to be a place where anyone can say anything (or should be able to). I think this grows out of the American origins of the Internet, and the American concept of free speech. But other countries have different views of how free speech should be. Should you be able to deny the holocaust? Should you be able to purchase unlimited political ads? Should you be able to spread misinformation? Americans tend to say yes, because the truth will sort itself out. I'm not going to make a judgement on whether that's true, but it is true that other societies make different judgements on where to draw the line on freedom of expression, and those countries have a right to implement those decisions for their people on the Internet just as much as Americans have a right to have wild-west style freedom of expression. Oh, also, before someone straw-mans me, I'm not talking about repressive regimes. I'm talking about societies where the populace is making informed decisions about their leaders, and have collectively decided they draw the line on expression in a different place than Americans do.

nybble41 8y ago
> ... and those countries have a right to implement those decisions for their people on the Internet ... No, they do not. One's natural rights do not disappear just because one happens to be living under a regime which fails to acknowledge them. When an American talks about the freedom of speech, they're talking about a right shared by every human being on this planet, not just the ones who happen to live in the USA. It is a matter of objective fact, not opinion or local preference, that the use of force, including fines, imprisonment, etc., is not a proportional response to mere speech, regardless of the content.
- FactolSarin 8y ago
  It's a matter of objective fact? Show me the experimental data that shows the American interpretation of freedom of speech is correct. Even Americans draw the line somewhere. For instance, the old "shouting fire in a theater." bit. Or, say, planning a murder. Other people decide to draw the line different places. Sorry, but claiming the American legal interpretation is "objective fact" and, say, the German one is wrong is just crazy.
  - Nasrudith 8y ago
    Personally I think the crazy notion is that governments have rights. They are an embodiment of power. They need and have limits not rights. If the people stop the government from having an army - circumstances of the practicality of doing so aside its rights haven't been violated. It doesn't have any and the notion they do is absurd. Even the transience property of personhood for corporations (regardless of one's opinion on the matter) doesn't apply to them for several reasons. Anyone with sufficient actually trivial resources can form a corporation. Forming your own government (in a non-parliment sense) is generally known as treason. The people may have a right to self determination but that is a very big distinction.
    - FactolSarin 8y ago
      Assuming a well-functioning democracy, they have whatever rights The populace wants them to have, including deciding what types of speech are acceptable.
      - qball 8y ago
        >Assuming a well-functioning democracy, they have whatever rights The populace wants them to have, including deciding what types of speech are acceptable. So... mob rule. That seems like a very stable and restrained society. I can't think of any obvious problem with that, or any time in, say, German history (to name a particularly egregious example) where mob rule run amok destroyed most of the Continent. Or Russian history. Or Cambodian history. Or Chinese history. Or... The only currently reliable way to defuse mob rule is to decentralize. This is done by passing laws that say that society can't stop its individual members from doing certain things. And while this does lead to a very polluted commons (and sometimes isn't sufficient on its own to prevent the mob from taking over), it also leads to an exceptionally stable society simply because the "we should gang up and hurt/ban the people we hate" reflex is impotent outside of one's chosen groups and the hands-off attitude becomes ingrained in the people after a while. The right to be wrong is important, because once the mob decides that your life itself is wrong (or rather, the closer the local Overton Window is to that idea- the more entitled a society is to restrict its members, the closer it is to this by definition) you're in trouble as soon as the mob hits a rough spot. It might advance faster at times, but it's just too unstable.

nybble41 8y ago

> ... and those countries have a right to implement those decisions for their people on the Internet ... No, they do not. One's natural rights do not disappear just because one happens to be living under a regime which fails to acknowledge them. When an American talks about the freedom of speech, they're talking about a right shared by every human being on this planet, not just the ones who happen to live in the USA. It is a matter of objective fact, not opinion or local preference, that the use of force, including fines, imprisonment, etc., is not a proportional response to mere speech, regardless of the content.

FactolSarin 8y ago
It's a matter of objective fact? Show me the experimental data that shows the American interpretation of freedom of speech is correct. Even Americans draw the line somewhere. For instance, the old "shouting fire in a theater." bit. Or, say, planning a murder. Other people decide to draw the line different places. Sorry, but claiming the American legal interpretation is "objective fact" and, say, the German one is wrong is just crazy.
- Nasrudith 8y ago
  Personally I think the crazy notion is that governments have rights. They are an embodiment of power. They need and have limits not rights. If the people stop the government from having an army - circumstances of the practicality of doing so aside its rights haven't been violated. It doesn't have any and the notion they do is absurd. Even the transience property of personhood for corporations (regardless of one's opinion on the matter) doesn't apply to them for several reasons. Anyone with sufficient actually trivial resources can form a corporation. Forming your own government (in a non-parliment sense) is generally known as treason. The people may have a right to self determination but that is a very big distinction.
  - FactolSarin 8y ago
    Assuming a well-functioning democracy, they have whatever rights The populace wants them to have, including deciding what types of speech are acceptable.
    - qball 8y ago
      >Assuming a well-functioning democracy, they have whatever rights The populace wants them to have, including deciding what types of speech are acceptable. So... mob rule. That seems like a very stable and restrained society. I can't think of any obvious problem with that, or any time in, say, German history (to name a particularly egregious example) where mob rule run amok destroyed most of the Continent. Or Russian history. Or Cambodian history. Or Chinese history. Or... The only currently reliable way to defuse mob rule is to decentralize. This is done by passing laws that say that society can't stop its individual members from doing certain things. And while this does lead to a very polluted commons (and sometimes isn't sufficient on its own to prevent the mob from taking over), it also leads to an exceptionally stable society simply because the "we should gang up and hurt/ban the people we hate" reflex is impotent outside of one's chosen groups and the hands-off attitude becomes ingrained in the people after a while. The right to be wrong is important, because once the mob decides that your life itself is wrong (or rather, the closer the local Overton Window is to that idea- the more entitled a society is to restrict its members, the closer it is to this by definition) you're in trouble as soon as the mob hits a rough spot. It might advance faster at times, but it's just too unstable.