4 ms·

protecting free speech really just means protecting free speech of people they agree with. No surprise here.

by ejb999 5y ago

js8 5y ago
The point of things like constitution and Universal Charter of Human Rights is not to actually prevent anybody to infringe human rights; people with enough power can always do that. Rather, like any other form of contract, it is supposed to act as a tripwire which gives ordinary people information that the infringing party might actually try to do something worse. It's a defense in depth. The powerful are in power not because they are better, or stronger, but because they control the information we have about them. That's why transparency is so useful in rooting out the corruption. Unfortunately, the counterplay to this "tripwire" from the powerful is to disable it by making people cynical (like the boy who cried wolf), that they get used to it and dismiss these violations as false alarms. Effectively, they are saying, "contracts do not matter", and wrongly justify it by correct observation that contracts always rely on weak link, which is the judiciary system. So we should try not to be cynical, and rather use this information in the future. Maybe at some point, some of us come to a decision whether to support CPJ or Reporters without Borders; and then this tripwire will give us guidance to make the right call.
- dane-pgp 5y ago
  > ... not to actually prevent anybody to infringe human rights; people with enough power can always do that. Rather, like any other form of contract ... That's a very insightful analysis, thank you. I think another example of this is Google having a motto of "Don't be evil". Obviously a motto isn't enough to prevent evil, and it can't even define what "evil" actually means, but, like you say, it is a tripwire, or like a warrant canary, and a reminder to the public to always be vigilant against the threat that such a powerful entity represents. (The point of this comment isn't to condemn Google, as I think it's probably the least evil of the MAMAA oligarchs, and people can decide for themselves whether Google's motto worked while it existed).

protecting free speech really just means protecting free speech of people they agree with. No surprise here.

by ejb999 5y ago

protecting free speech really just means protecting free speech of people they agree with. No surprise here.

js8 5y ago

The point of things like constitution and Universal Charter of Human Rights is not to actually prevent anybody to infringe human rights; people with enough power can always do that. Rather, like any other form of contract, it is supposed to act as a tripwire which gives ordinary people information that the infringing party might actually try to do something worse. It's a defense in depth. The powerful are in power not because they are better, or stronger, but because they control the information we have about them. That's why transparency is so useful in rooting out the corruption. Unfortunately, the counterplay to this "tripwire" from the powerful is to disable it by making people cynical (like the boy who cried wolf), that they get used to it and dismiss these violations as false alarms. Effectively, they are saying, "contracts do not matter", and wrongly justify it by correct observation that contracts always rely on weak link, which is the judiciary system. So we should try not to be cynical, and rather use this information in the future. Maybe at some point, some of us come to a decision whether to support CPJ or Reporters without Borders; and then this tripwire will give us guidance to make the right call.

dane-pgp 5y ago
> ... not to actually prevent anybody to infringe human rights; people with enough power can always do that. Rather, like any other form of contract ... That's a very insightful analysis, thank you. I think another example of this is Google having a motto of "Don't be evil". Obviously a motto isn't enough to prevent evil, and it can't even define what "evil" actually means, but, like you say, it is a tripwire, or like a warrant canary, and a reminder to the public to always be vigilant against the threat that such a powerful entity represents. (The point of this comment isn't to condemn Google, as I think it's probably the least evil of the MAMAA oligarchs, and people can decide for themselves whether Google's motto worked while it existed).