8 ms·
It's heartening to see the EFF come out sticking to principles on this in a time when other organizations of their stature have not. I hate to say it, but I co
by mortenjorck 3y ago
It's heartening to see the EFF come out sticking to principles on this in a time when other organizations of their stature have not.
I hate to say it, but I could easily imagine something like the ACLU opposing the EFF on this.
- amiga386 3y agoIndeed, the ACLU have lost their way. https://web.archive.org/web/20210608004853/https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/06/us/aclu-free-speech.html https://web.archive.org/web/20210608004853/https://www.nytim... > the organization finds itself riven with internal tensions over whether it has stepped away from a founding principle — unwavering devotion to the First Amendment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_Liberties_Union#Waning_interest_in_defending_white_supremacists.27_first_amendment_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_Liberties_Union... > Beginning in 2017, some individuals claimed the ACLU was reducing its support of unpopular free speech (specifically by declining to defend speech made by conservatives) in favor of identity politics, political correctness, and progressivism.
- _lvbh 3y agoMeanwhile in the rest of the world, we don’t even have free speech. If only America could export their constitution like they do their weapons
- justrealist 3y agoI mean that's basically this history of the US in Latin America, but everyone complains anyway.
- ForgottenPwd 3y agoWhat? I don't recall ever having heard the US spread democracy in Latin America. The US destabilized democratically elected governments and propped up violent regimes in Latin America to benefit private industry and "combat Communism". The US Army School of the Americas was a finishing school for Latin American dictators and strongmen, as well as other murderers. https://irp.fas.org/crs/soa.htm https://irp.fas.org/crs/soa.htm
- MathMonkeyMan 3y agoHere's part of an English translation of the Russian constitution: http://www.constitution.ru/en/10003000-03.htm http://www.constitution.ru/en/10003000-03.htm and the Chinese constitution: http://www.npc.gov.cn/zgrdw/englishnpc/Constitution/2007-11/15/content_1372964.htm http://www.npc.gov.cn/zgrdw/englishnpc/Constitution/2007-11/... It's not about the constitution.
- baobabKoodaa 3y agoJust because Russia has a piece of paper that says something, doesn't mean they have free speech.
- j_maffe 3y agoSame in the US, evidently
- 5e92cb50239222b 3y agoWho cares what they say, the Russian constitution can be rewritten in a couple of days when a certain person needs something from it.
- logicchains 3y agoThe Chinese constitution explicitly says all rights exists only where they don't conflict with what the party wants.
- MathMonkeyMan 3y agoI was looking for something like that, but didn't find it at a glance. Not surprising, I suppose.
- Nursie 3y ago> in the rest of the world, we don’t even have free speech. It exists to varying degrees in various places. It's not absolute in the US, as much as people like to pretend it is - incitement to violence, the old "yelling fire in a crowded theatre" canard, criminal conspiracy, defamation etc etc. There is a line drawn, it's a fuzzy one that people pretend does not exist, but it's there just as it is in other nations. For more information on how freedom of speech is codified in Europe, for instance, see - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country#Europe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country#E...
- chroma 3y agoThe "shouting fire in a crowded theater" metaphor was coined by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr in the Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States, in which Holmes and the majority of justices sent a man to prison for distributing flyers protesting the draft in World War I. Anyone today who references the metaphor without sarcasm reveals themselves to be ignorant of the history of the First Amendment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the...
- Nursie 3y agoIt's been a popular metaphor for decades. And your link says (amongst other things) - "Ultimately, whether it is legal in the United States to falsely shout fire in a theater depends on the circumstances in which it is done and the consequences of doing it. The act of shouting fire when there are no reasonable grounds for believing one exists is not in itself a crime, and nor would it be rendered a crime merely by having been carried out inside a theatre, crowded or otherwise. However, if it causes a stampede and someone is killed as a result, then the act could amount to a crime, such as involuntary manslaughter..." I was not trying to make the point that it is always illegal to shout "fire" in a crowded theatre, that such an act is by itself subject to prohibition, but that it is one of several circumstances in which an act of speech may not be 100% protected by the first amendment in the USA. I even called it a "canard" because it's something of a cliche and not 100% true as commonly understood. The point, if anything, is reinforced by this - there is a fuzzy edge to freedom of speech in the USA, even where it is portrayed as absolute. Another example of illegal speech would be perjury.
- raxxorraxor 3y agoThey seem to mostly sell that as a package.
- metalspot 3y agoMany countries have recognized free speech as a right through the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which is much broader than the 1st amendment. "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human... But just because governments have recognized the right does not mean that they are complying with this recognition. This is par for the course though. The 1st amendment was ratified in 1791 and the Alien and Sedition Acts which violated the constitution in the most blatant way were passed 8 years later. https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/alien-and-sedition-acts https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/alien-and-sedit... Governments never give freedom. People take it.
- gnopgnip 3y agoFreedom of opinion and expression won't protect hate speech that is protected in the US
- jasonlotito 3y ago> Indeed, the ACLU have lost their way. Indeed, they haven't. > The memo listed several factors to consider, including "the extent to which the speech may assist in advancing the goals of white supremacists or others whose views are contrary to our values." i.e. Consider whether we'd be arguing against our own goals. How anyone reasonable could consider this a bad thing, I don't know. https://www.aclu.org/news/civil-liberties/defending-speech-we-hate https://www.aclu.org/news/civil-liberties/defending-speech-w... They've defended people and organizations I oppose, but their reasoning has always been sound. That the ACLU debates and reflects is admirable.
- Dan_Sylveste 3y ago> How anyone reasonable could consider this a bad thing, I don't know. Because it's completely unproven. Their theory is that 'free speech advances the goals of [others whose views are contrary to our values]' but that's not proven, that's just their theory. It's held for ages that free speech works as it allows for the 'disinfectant of sunlight' i.e. that ideas stand and fall on their merits with all relevant parties allowed to discuss freely. They _posit_ that this theory no longer holds true but they never seem to actually explain how they came to that conclusion. You, similarly, just say that is 'is right' but... how did you get there? What's your proof of concept? Do you have examples? It seems very much to me like they've just turned around and said 'yeah actually free speech is bad because it helps the bad guys more than the good guys, trust us, it's no good' and left it at that. > reasoning has always been sound They've done a complete 180 on this position. By definition either their reasoning before was unsound or their reasoning today is unsound. Pick one.
- digging 3y ago> It's held for ages that free speech works as it allows for the 'disinfectant of sunlight' i.e. that ideas stand and fall on their merits with all relevant parties allowed to discuss freely. Also not proven ?
- Dan_Sylveste 3y ago
- chonkerz 3y agoThe EFF is arguing here that companies should not take anything down and instead rely on the government to dictate what shouldn't be allowed. This is absolutely ridiculous. Imagine being such a free speech advocate that you say something like this.
- catiopatio 3y agoI am such a free speech advocate. Why is a belief in the common carrier model ridiculous?
- concordDance 3y agoThat's not the ridiculous bit, the ridiculous bit is the advocating that the government crack down on people saying mean things about third parties to each other on the Internet. And make no mistake, that's 99% of what KiwiFarms does, the last time this came up on hackernews I browsed through hundreds of posts in a bunch of threads to see if there was anything other than that going on, so if its there it's in the DMs (and policing person-to-person communication is utterly insane) or very rare.
- Dylan16807 3y agoWhat they're really saying is the the bar for ISP intervention in speech should be higher than the bar for prosecution. Which is not particularly ridiculous. It's not so much about the particular site.
- EamonnMR 3y agoIf kiwifarms was just about being a jerk and not about doxing I do not think people would have as big a problem.
- concordDance 3y agoHaving accessed that disgusting site for the third time, it definitely looks like it's 80% being a jerk and 20% doxxing.
- hnbad 3y agoI think you misunderstand the EFF's position here if you think this is some kind of enlightened centrist "I may not agree with what you say but I will fight to death for your right to say it": the EFF is opposed to ISPs filtering content because that is not the job of an ISP and not a level of analysis an ISP should be allowed (much less required) to do. The EFF very much promotes progressive values, more consistently so than the ACLU which has supported "free speech" cases by undesirable folks before and which seems to have led to this supposed "betrayal" when it turned out not to go out of its way to do so in every case. The problem with "free speech" absolutist organizations is the same as with "free speech" absolutist social media platforms: if your distinguishing feature is to allow everyone to say almost anything, you'll primarily attract those people who want to say things they can't say elsewhere. And this inevitably means you get an overrepresentation of open white supremacists, CSAM enjoyers, teenage edgelords and trolls. And most people don't want to be associated with these kinds of people, so having enough of them around drives out everyone else. It's the Nazi Bar problem: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Nazi_bar https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Nazi_bar Either you put in effort to make your organization unattractive to nazis, or you become a nazi organization.
- leetcrew 3y agothe "nazi bar" concept does accurately describe the problem with sites like parlor today, but I'd argue it's only true now because heavy moderation has become the default. most of the internet was not like this 10-15 years ago. forums and even large social media platforms were moderated lightly, if at all. you would commonly see edgelords dropping slurs, but it did not dominate the discussion. I don't think the entire internet would turn into kiwifarms if everyone just decided to relax a bit.
- digging 3y ago> most of the internet was not like this 10-15 years ago. forums and even large social media platforms were moderated lightly, if at all. you would commonly see edgelords dropping slurs, but it did not dominate the discussion. Either you're thinking of a time much further back than 10-15 years (that is, 2008-2013), or you're wrong. Or - could be you were just in the Nazi bars at the time, also. My experience in a variety of online places at that time was that "edgelords" got told off or kicked out in most. A few places didn't, and they were already or became the Nazi bars. Alternately, the Nazis would be herded into a smaller subset of the platform, which became the Nazi bar.
- karaterobot 3y agoI don't even mentally file the ACLU as "the good guys" anymore. Rationally, I know they continue to do a lot of good work today, but that bit has been flipped, and it's hard to go back. When you're an organization like that, you kind of have to be absolute in your stance, and write things like "history requires us to look at the bigger picture, and sound the alarm about the risks even when the facts are horrific".
- Dan_Sylveste 3y agoWell said, the ACLU have gone severely astray.
- kiitos 3y agoI also oppose this position. It's uninformed, even naive.