4 ms·

I’m strongly opposed to just about everything the UK government has done or proposed involving the internet, but the ‘Free Speech Union’ is an awful source to h

I’m strongly opposed to just about everything the UK government has done or proposed involving the internet, but the ‘Free Speech Union’ is an awful source to have on HN. The FSU is entirely a product of the “culture wars” of the outrage manufacturing twitterati, and offers to protect members from “feminist professors”. The UK’s Open Rights Group is the closest thing to a UK EFF (founded by Doctorow), and is generally a better source for policy like this. Here’s their wiki page on the Online Harms Bill[1], and opinion on its policy impact[2]. [1]: https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/Online_Harms_white_paper https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/Online_Harms_white_pap... [2]: https://www.openrightsgroup.org/publications/org-policy-responses-to-online-harms-white-paper/ https://www.openrightsgroup.org/publications/org-policy-resp...

christkv 6y ago
Have a look at the Scottish hate speech law then. It's as Orwellian as it comes.
- rvz 6y ago
  Oh dear. Time to pack our bags and head to the principality of Sealand then.
krona 6y ago
More of a reaction to rather than a product of the culture wars, I'd say. Just like the heterodox academy.
colpabar 6y ago
> If you’re no-platformed by a university—a feminist professor who challenges trans orthodoxy, for instance—we’ll encourage you to fight back and members of our advisory councils may be able to tell you what remedies are available to you. it's actually the opposite - it's claiming if you are a feminist professor, they may help you.
- regularfry 6y ago
  "challenges trans orthodoxy" is definitely picking a side.
  - SuddsMcDuff 6y ago
    They're picking the side of those who are no-platformed. That's the point.
    - regularfry 6y ago
      Yes, and they are utterly disingenuous in doing so. "Free speech" has nothing whatsoever to do with the examples they've picked for their front page. "Free speech" is protection from persecution by the state. What they're arguing for is freedom from social consequences. Not only that, but the specific example they've picked could almost be designed to highlight a specific culture-war position; given that their front-man is Toby Young, it's hardly surprising that they're difficult to interpret as anything close to politically neutral.
      - SuddsMcDuff 6y ago
        Saying that they're arguing for freedom from social consequences is a very black and white way of looking at things. They're not arguing for that at all. But they are pushing back, necessarily I would say, against those who seek to shut down and marginalize people who hold opinions they deem to be unworthy. Without any resistance whatsoever from groups like the FSU, the social consequences you mention will tend to spiral into something quite ugly.
- Barrin92 6y ago
  No it's not lol. It's a blatantly bad faith attempt to play out feminists against adocates of transgender rights. How many feminist professors have you come across who are on a crusade against trans rights exactly? This is a Spectator fueled right-wing organisation and it's so obvious it hurts.
yamrzou 6y ago
I didn't hear about The Free Speech Union until now. I don't understand why you would consider it an ‘awful source’ to have on HN. Here is an article I found by one of its directors for a more balanced view: https://archive.fo/bAMqm https://archive.fo/bAMqm
- pjc50 6y ago
  An article by one of the parties about themselves cannot possibly be "balanced".
  - bananaface 6y ago
    Posting the party's personal defense in response to a criticism of said party sounds balanced to me.
SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
The perspective of the specific people who might be censored seems pretty valuable, even if the Open Rights Group delivers a clearer argument.

christkv 6y ago

Have a look at the Scottish hate speech law then. It's as Orwellian as it comes.

rvz 6y ago
Oh dear. Time to pack our bags and head to the principality of Sealand then.

krona 6y ago

More of a reaction to rather than a product of the culture wars, I'd say. Just like the heterodox academy.

colpabar 6y ago

> If you’re no-platformed by a university—a feminist professor who challenges trans orthodoxy, for instance—we’ll encourage you to fight back and members of our advisory councils may be able to tell you what remedies are available to you. it's actually the opposite - it's claiming if you are a feminist professor, they may help you.

regularfry 6y ago
"challenges trans orthodoxy" is definitely picking a side.
- SuddsMcDuff 6y ago
  They're picking the side of those who are no-platformed. That's the point.
  - regularfry 6y ago
    Yes, and they are utterly disingenuous in doing so. "Free speech" has nothing whatsoever to do with the examples they've picked for their front page. "Free speech" is protection from persecution by the state. What they're arguing for is freedom from social consequences. Not only that, but the specific example they've picked could almost be designed to highlight a specific culture-war position; given that their front-man is Toby Young, it's hardly surprising that they're difficult to interpret as anything close to politically neutral.
    - SuddsMcDuff 6y ago
      Saying that they're arguing for freedom from social consequences is a very black and white way of looking at things. They're not arguing for that at all. But they are pushing back, necessarily I would say, against those who seek to shut down and marginalize people who hold opinions they deem to be unworthy. Without any resistance whatsoever from groups like the FSU, the social consequences you mention will tend to spiral into something quite ugly.
Barrin92 6y ago
No it's not lol. It's a blatantly bad faith attempt to play out feminists against adocates of transgender rights. How many feminist professors have you come across who are on a crusade against trans rights exactly? This is a Spectator fueled right-wing organisation and it's so obvious it hurts.

yamrzou 6y ago

I didn't hear about The Free Speech Union until now. I don't understand why you would consider it an ‘awful source’ to have on HN. Here is an article I found by one of its directors for a more balanced view: https://archive.fo/bAMqm https://archive.fo/bAMqm

pjc50 6y ago
An article by one of the parties about themselves cannot possibly be "balanced".
- bananaface 6y ago
  Posting the party's personal defense in response to a criticism of said party sounds balanced to me.

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago

The perspective of the specific people who might be censored seems pretty valuable, even if the Open Rights Group delivers a clearer argument.