5 ms·

Not only ironic, also hypocritical: they are proposing to make it illegal to censor views that don't break Polish laws, while replacing a halo with a rainbow in

by rob74 6y ago

Not only ironic, also hypocritical: they are proposing to make it illegal to censor views that don't break Polish laws, while replacing a halo with a rainbow in a photo of an icon does break Polish laws, because it "offends religious sentiment", so it could (and probably also should, if you ask them) be censored.

rhn_mk1 6y ago
Where's the hypocrisy in that? They are consistent: lawful views must not be censored, unlawful ones must. I can see how there could be bias in determining what is lawful, but that's not hypocrisy.
- praptak 6y ago
  It's hypocrisy to paint themselves as protectors of free speech.
  - AnHonestComment 6y ago
    You mean Twitter — yammering about “muh freedoms” in other countries while actively censoring the sitting president of their home country? Yeah, that’s been really hypocritical.
  - bobthechef 6y ago
    Not really. What constitutes free speech is always qualified, so that's a fantastical argument. In this case, Poland has blasphemy laws (and btw, even Strasbourg allows for these under the margin of appreciation). In principle, this move shifts decisions from private global corporate power brokers to national representative government. Facebook and Twitter are private, but they've become so powerful and influential that they function like utilities used for communication. It is better to subject these platforms to laws that can be checked by representative government than to the whims of tech oligarchs.
    - rhn_mk1 6y ago
      Posturing as protectors of free speech is quoted in the article though: > “[...]” wrote the prime minister, Mateusz Morawiecki, on Facebook earlier this week, [...]. “There can be no consent to censorship.” This is consistent only if censorship does not include removing illegal speech, which I don't think is a very widespread definition.
    - praptak 6y ago
      It's still hypocritical to peddle this bill as "protecting freedom of speech" when it is in fact about "who defines what speech deserves freedom". Unsurprisingly the "who" above is the proponents of the bill and, as the OP notes, they don't exactly have a track record of protecting free speech which makes it even more hypocritical.
pulse7 6y ago
The proposal is that only the court can censor but not other individuals or companies.

by rob74 6y ago

rhn_mk1 6y ago

Where's the hypocrisy in that? They are consistent: lawful views must not be censored, unlawful ones must. I can see how there could be bias in determining what is lawful, but that's not hypocrisy.

praptak 6y ago
It's hypocrisy to paint themselves as protectors of free speech.
- AnHonestComment 6y ago
  You mean Twitter — yammering about “muh freedoms” in other countries while actively censoring the sitting president of their home country? Yeah, that’s been really hypocritical.
- bobthechef 6y ago
  Not really. What constitutes free speech is always qualified, so that's a fantastical argument. In this case, Poland has blasphemy laws (and btw, even Strasbourg allows for these under the margin of appreciation). In principle, this move shifts decisions from private global corporate power brokers to national representative government. Facebook and Twitter are private, but they've become so powerful and influential that they function like utilities used for communication. It is better to subject these platforms to laws that can be checked by representative government than to the whims of tech oligarchs.
  - rhn_mk1 6y ago
    Posturing as protectors of free speech is quoted in the article though: > “[...]” wrote the prime minister, Mateusz Morawiecki, on Facebook earlier this week, [...]. “There can be no consent to censorship.” This is consistent only if censorship does not include removing illegal speech, which I don't think is a very widespread definition.
  - praptak 6y ago
    It's still hypocritical to peddle this bill as "protecting freedom of speech" when it is in fact about "who defines what speech deserves freedom". Unsurprisingly the "who" above is the proponents of the bill and, as the OP notes, they don't exactly have a track record of protecting free speech which makes it even more hypocritical.

pulse7 6y ago

The proposal is that only the court can censor but not other individuals or companies.