20 ms·

It is so ridiculous that the exact same discussion has to be repeated again and again. The arguments haven't changed. "Bad thing is happening and we need this t

• soraminazuki 3y ago
  There needs to be an international human rights treaty that enshrines the right to end-to-end encryption. Law enforcement all over the world already has more than enough power to do their jobs. If they cared about protecting people, they should be embracing the wide availability of strong encryption with open arms. It's time politicians spent time increasing accountability and preventing abuse before they even think about granting more power to law enforcement.
• fsflover 3y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalypse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalyp...
• ok_dad 3y ago
  [flagged]
  • dylan604 3y ago
    the separation of church and state is very inconvenient for them, and they have done every thing they can to blur those lines to be forgotten about by the masses.
  • soupbowl 3y ago
    Banning from where? If you are talking about what is happening around the country at school board meanings then you are framing things pretty poorly.
    • ok_dad 3y ago
      What do you mean? It’s been in the news constantly about Floridas don’t say gay laws and stuff. You folks will reach as far as possible to make book bans seem reasonable.
      • the_doctah 3y ago
        In elementary school, book bans are reasonable. You forgot to mention the part about the young children.
        • plokiju 3y ago
          And high school: https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/florida-just-expanded-the-dont-say-gay-law-heres-what-you-need-to-know/2023/04 https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/florida-just-expanded...
    • JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > Banning from where? I used to buy the incrementalist argument that these books are inappropriate for grade schoolers. But then the law, predictably, was extended to high school and shows no sign of stopping. Banning books has never been looked back on as a sign of a strong society. School is meant to be about resolving conflicting ideas. Pretending kids aren't getting 10x worse on the internet, or from their friends with an internet-connected device, just separates society into an imbecilic underclass and ones who can afford a more interrogative education.
      • ok_dad 3y ago
        Even at that level, why ban a book? Set them in a special section that requires parents to accompany the kids to check out the books. I remember my mom coming with me to the library as a kid to help me find books.
        • deleted 3y ago
          [deleted]
  • lokhura 3y ago
    States are not banning books and talking about gay and transgender people. Not sure where you got that info from. As I understand, what they are doing is removing non age appropiate books from elementary and middle school libraries, some of which include LGBTQ content. I would not call this "banning a book", in the same way that not being able to watch violent movies in elementary school is not "banning a movie". I would suggest you look into the content of the books being challenged and come to your own conclusion as to whether they are age appropiate or not. After all, the term "age appropiate" is subjective.
    • kasey_junk 3y ago
      The Hill We Climb was recently banned due to parental complaint in Florida. That’s banning a book purely for its message. Any student could access the message of it by watching tape of a presidential inauguration.
    • ok_dad 3y ago
      Well maybe parents should do that rather than the state? What’s bad about LGBTQ content and what does that even mean? I swear, you folks will reach as far as possible to make book bans seem reasonable.
      • deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      • lokhura 3y ago
        Who is "you folks"? I can think for myself, thanks. I'm providing some context for your naive or perhaps intentional misunderstanding of what is actually happening. And who do you think votes for these decisions? The parents. So presumably many parents think that some books in school liraries are not age appropiate. I haven't even expressed my opinion on this topic yet you are assuming my stance because you lack nuance. That's why I suggest you read the actual books that are being challenged and come back with a more informed perspective.
        • ok_dad 3y ago
  • dudul 3y ago
    [flagged]
    • ok_dad 3y ago
      [flagged]
      • deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      • yarg 3y ago
        [flagged]
        • autoexec 3y ago
          > an obese man won the Miss America pageant Just for clarity on this point: If you meant Brían Nguyen, it was 'a' Miss America pageant and not 'the' Miss America pageant. The title wasn't "Miss America", it was "Miss Greater Derry"
          • yarg 3y ago
            Thanks for the correction (that was who I meant).
      • newZWhoDis 3y ago
        [flagged]
        • yarg 3y ago
          I got perma-banned from reddit for hate-speech. I simply argued that trans-activists argue in bad faith and regularly blur the lines on the definition of transphobic.
          • cimov 3y ago
            [flagged]
  • dabluecaboose 3y ago
    >love this was "flagged" even though I didn't break any rules. I was just stating facts, Maybe it was flagged because you started a slapfight about LGBTQ issues on a thread about encryption; then started implying anyone disagreeing with you was a fascist bending over backwards to ban books, instead of a human with potentially justified objections to said material? > Be kind. Don't be snarky. > Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community. > Assume good faith. > Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. That tramples curiosity. Just to potshot at a few
    • ok_dad 3y ago
      [flagged]
      • dabluecaboose 3y ago
        I listed the guidelines you potentially broke when you claimed to have broken no rules. If you take that as me being a "fascist", then I suppose that's a problem with your own perception of the world. I encourage you to consider treating people more like humans with unique opinions to consider.
        • ilyt 3y ago
          [flagged]
          • boeingUH60 3y ago
            Neither do people who bring unrelated topics into discussions because they love soapboxing.
    • thomastjeffery 3y ago
      Slapfight with whom?
      • dabluecaboose 3y ago
  • StanislavPetrov 3y ago
    >religious extremists who want to ban speech and literature It's always religious extremists who want to ban speech and literature. This includes the secular religion of the DC Blob, the Spanish government and many other governments currently seeking to ban "hate speech", "disinformation" and (even more absurdly) "malinformation".
  • alphanullmeric 3y ago
    [flagged]
    • ok_dad 3y ago
      I served in the US military for 10 years and took an oath to the Constitution, so you tell me what you think I stand for.
      • alphanullmeric 3y ago
        Just making sure we’re clear that speech is anything short of a threat of force.
  • oceanplexian 3y ago
    > As a matter of fact, it seems over my 40 years here that most of the time it's religious extremists who want to ban speech and literature It's weird how short term people's memory is. It was only a few decades ago that certain mainstream political group wanted to make "violent video games" illegal. Their figurehead was a frontrunner for US president in 2016. You don't have to throw a stone very far to see that people on both sides want to ban free speech. Just look at how freaked out states like NY and California got over 3D printed gun files. Give them a few years and I guarantee they'll come after crypto next, if crypto stands in their way. The only thing I've learned is that everyone wants to claim they support free speech but they just mean "their" speech, not the other guy.
    • ok_dad 3y ago
      Funny, there are a ton of violent video games still and tons of guns after all that uproar! Bit of a difference from actual, real life laws which were recently passed to effectively try and make being gay or transgender illegal; laws which have already started harming those communities in those places.
      • COGlory 3y ago
        Genuine question: Which laws are you talking about that "try and make being gay or transgender illegal"?
        • vel0city 3y ago
          Well, there's a lot of grumbling about the Supreme Court potentially moving to overturn Griswold v. Connecticut. A number of Justices currently on the court don't seem super fond of that decision and it relates to the same concepts as Roe v. Wade. Getting rid of Griswold weakens Lawrence v. Texas, which eliminating that would immediately make homosexual sex illegal in several states.
          • 9dev 3y ago
            That isn’t a law but a court decision, isn’t it?
  • the_doctah 3y ago
    [flagged]
• gigel82 3y ago
  They never needed to go to a "next angle"; the "protect children" has almost always worked (with the occasional "prevent terrorism" thrown in for diversity) :)
• xboxnolifes 3y ago
  You don't need to change the angle, you just need to keep trying until the people's views align enough to get it through. "Never let a crisis go to waste", and such.
• clnq 3y ago
  Counter-terrorism, criminal investigations, national security, cybersecurity, anti-corruption, regulatory compliance, breaking up organized crime, stopping drug distribution and trafficking, stopping black market trades (weapons, human trafficking, and the aforementioned drugs), stopping production of illegal materials, preventing insider trading, detecting fraud, stopping money laundering, preventing corporate espionage, nationalistic thought-police stuff that some countries legitimately want, stopping identity theft, political back channel interference prevention, social stability (someone might incite unrest), economic stability (someone might share ideas bad for the economy), public health safety (someone might share anti-vax ideas), gang activity prevention, stopping cults and sectarian violence, scam/fraud call and message prevention, disrupting ransom schemes, preventing propaganda, stopping environmental crime, disrupting illegal immigration, military and government organization advantage against allies on whom they can spy if they pressure them into abandoning E2E... oops I mean... peacekeeping, preventing the undermining of democracy (or the fatherland/motherland for those of the authoritarian inclination). There are definitely a few bingo cards worth of possible excuses.