6 ms·

This is great -- American journalists who have been beating the drum for "protection against hate speech online" have a real life test case of what happens when

This is great -- American journalists who have been beating the drum for "protection against hate speech online" have a real life test case of what happens when this is implemented, and someone they don't always agree with holds the keys.

lsiebert 7y ago
I mean, I get the concern, there's definitely ways this could go wrong, just like there are ways that many things can go wrong under the law in this country. But as long as there is rule of law (and that's questionable in some places but singapore is relatively good) then any such uses are subject to real judicial review. That said, remember when two company stole people's identities and sent fake comments to the FCC, and now we don't have net neutrality? https://boingboing.net/2019/02/22/notice-and-comment-and-lie.html https://boingboing.net/2019/02/22/notice-and-comment-and-lie... I wouldn't mind AT ALL if those companies got hit with a ~730k dollar file per each one of those fake posts (It's a million singapore dollars).
- raxxorrax 7y ago
  > this could go wrong Then scrap the idea, because that "could" changes to "will" on a large enough time frame. This just clearly gives traditionally influential people a disproportional amount of power over information. All the more ironic considering the usual groups advocating against "fake news". The companies that you gleefully and probably rightfully try to penalize have large legal departments that can get really bored and will hit you twice as hard. At this point it is just like asking for it.
- qeternity 7y ago
  Singapore is an amazing country. But its rule of law is very authoritarian. It’s more monarchy than democracy.
frockington1 7y ago
I've never understood hate speech laws. Why would American journalists who largely hate the president want to give the government more power to restrict them?
- Consultant32452 7y ago
  The major news outlets openly have former CIA agents on their staff, people who still maintain secret clearance. Sometimes these outlets are called mainstream media, or corporate media. But in this context perhaps a better name is "state approved media". The state approved media isn't concerned that this is going to come after them. However, it will help clamp down in media that isn't state approved.
- otterley 7y ago
  Hate speech laws would not proscribe criticizing the President as an individual. They generally proscribe attacking people or groups of people based on protected characteristics such as age, gender, race, sexual orientation/presentation, etc.
  - frockington1 7y ago
    But what if you call the President 'he' and today he wants to go by xi. With a hate speech law you are now a bigot and your work criticizing xi will need to be removed
  - ptaipale 7y ago
    > Hate speech laws would not proscribe criticizing the President as an individual. People often advocate hate speech laws while being under the illusion that they are the ones who get to define what is hate speech and what is not.
    - otterley 7y ago
      There are lots of thorny First Amendment issues in the U.S. around hate speech anyway. It's unlikely that hate speech itself can be proscribed except where there's a call for imminent lawless action (e.g. rioting, see Brandenburg v. Ohio). Usually where we see it come up is as evidence of a particular malicious intent or hate-based motivation for a violent crime like assault, mayhem, or murder, that increases the sentence applied as a result of a conviction.
- rtkwe 7y ago

lsiebert 7y ago

I mean, I get the concern, there's definitely ways this could go wrong, just like there are ways that many things can go wrong under the law in this country. But as long as there is rule of law (and that's questionable in some places but singapore is relatively good) then any such uses are subject to real judicial review. That said, remember when two company stole people's identities and sent fake comments to the FCC, and now we don't have net neutrality? https://boingboing.net/2019/02/22/notice-and-comment-and-lie.html https://boingboing.net/2019/02/22/notice-and-comment-and-lie... I wouldn't mind AT ALL if those companies got hit with a ~730k dollar file per each one of those fake posts (It's a million singapore dollars).

raxxorrax 7y ago
> this could go wrong Then scrap the idea, because that "could" changes to "will" on a large enough time frame. This just clearly gives traditionally influential people a disproportional amount of power over information. All the more ironic considering the usual groups advocating against "fake news". The companies that you gleefully and probably rightfully try to penalize have large legal departments that can get really bored and will hit you twice as hard. At this point it is just like asking for it.
qeternity 7y ago
Singapore is an amazing country. But its rule of law is very authoritarian. It’s more monarchy than democracy.

frockington1 7y ago

I've never understood hate speech laws. Why would American journalists who largely hate the president want to give the government more power to restrict them?

Consultant32452 7y ago
The major news outlets openly have former CIA agents on their staff, people who still maintain secret clearance. Sometimes these outlets are called mainstream media, or corporate media. But in this context perhaps a better name is "state approved media". The state approved media isn't concerned that this is going to come after them. However, it will help clamp down in media that isn't state approved.
otterley 7y ago
Hate speech laws would not proscribe criticizing the President as an individual. They generally proscribe attacking people or groups of people based on protected characteristics such as age, gender, race, sexual orientation/presentation, etc.
- frockington1 7y ago
  But what if you call the President 'he' and today he wants to go by xi. With a hate speech law you are now a bigot and your work criticizing xi will need to be removed
- ptaipale 7y ago
  > Hate speech laws would not proscribe criticizing the President as an individual. People often advocate hate speech laws while being under the illusion that they are the ones who get to define what is hate speech and what is not.
  - otterley 7y ago
    There are lots of thorny First Amendment issues in the U.S. around hate speech anyway. It's unlikely that hate speech itself can be proscribed except where there's a call for imminent lawless action (e.g. rioting, see Brandenburg v. Ohio). Usually where we see it come up is as evidence of a particular malicious intent or hate-based motivation for a violent crime like assault, mayhem, or murder, that increases the sentence applied as a result of a conviction.
rtkwe 7y ago