4 ms·

Thanks for the reference. But as far as I can tell, this didn’t pass. And I disagree with your conclusion—showing that people may seek to abuse anti hate speech

Thanks for the reference. But as far as I can tell, this didn’t pass. And I disagree with your conclusion—showing that people may seek to abuse anti hate speech legislation isn’t sufficient to prove, I don’t think, that the legislation will be abused. Edit: removed comments on US “ag gag” laws cited in the linked article, after I read a little more and learned that they may not be so similar as was implied in this piece.

frereubu 7y ago
This kind of context is incredible important. Boris Johnson spent a decade in Brussels writing up as many stupid suggestions from fringe EU politicians as he could, all of which failed if they got anywhere near a vote (which most didn't), and managed to create the impression that most EU laws were like this. It even got the point where in the recent Conservative leadership election he told a bare-faced lie about EU regulation (to do with smoked fish of all things) and got away with it. Just because someone suggests something doesn't mean 99% of their colleagues don't just roll their eyes and say "anyway, as we were saying..."
- mindslight 7y ago
  ... eventually Boris Johnson gave up and went home, never to be heard from again. Neither viewpoint absolutely is true, but "As ever, if it can be abused, it will be abused" is the better heuristic. The people pushing the abusive laws are doing so as their day jobs, while their victims necessarily have other livelihoods that constrain their efforts. They don't simply propose the topic once, see that it has no support, and go home. Whomever they're working for has longstanding goals, and each win they get is a step normalizing a bit more of their desired regime. This is why even when the Internet community strongly rebukes new Internet censorship laws (SOPA being a recent example), the same bullshit just comes back again - maybe tweaked to be a little less aggressive, maybe just using a better outrage-event as justifications. And every time it passes, it's a tooth in the ratchet - heads they win, tails we play again. Capitulating a round just accelerates the process.

frereubu 7y ago

This kind of context is incredible important. Boris Johnson spent a decade in Brussels writing up as many stupid suggestions from fringe EU politicians as he could, all of which failed if they got anywhere near a vote (which most didn't), and managed to create the impression that most EU laws were like this. It even got the point where in the recent Conservative leadership election he told a bare-faced lie about EU regulation (to do with smoked fish of all things) and got away with it. Just because someone suggests something doesn't mean 99% of their colleagues don't just roll their eyes and say "anyway, as we were saying..."

mindslight 7y ago
... eventually Boris Johnson gave up and went home, never to be heard from again. Neither viewpoint absolutely is true, but "As ever, if it can be abused, it will be abused" is the better heuristic. The people pushing the abusive laws are doing so as their day jobs, while their victims necessarily have other livelihoods that constrain their efforts. They don't simply propose the topic once, see that it has no support, and go home. Whomever they're working for has longstanding goals, and each win they get is a step normalizing a bit more of their desired regime. This is why even when the Internet community strongly rebukes new Internet censorship laws (SOPA being a recent example), the same bullshit just comes back again - maybe tweaked to be a little less aggressive, maybe just using a better outrage-event as justifications. And every time it passes, it's a tooth in the ratchet - heads they win, tails we play again. Capitulating a round just accelerates the process.