7 ms·

> What other institutions (or democratic tools) should have acted to halt the extremist anti-democratic movement lead by Bolsonaro? I am not familiar with Bols

by geertj 2y ago

> What other institutions (or democratic tools) should have acted to halt the extremist anti-democratic movement lead by Bolsonaro? I am not familiar with Bolsonaro's movement, but censoring people under the guise of protecting democracy doesn't seem very democratic to me? At the very least, you have to admit here that there is a slippery slope where a good intentioned government or justice system could progressively get further away from these good intentions, and start using its power merely for the preservation of it? It seems to me that censoring ideas that seem dangerous is far more dangerous than trying to correct them, and that a very high level of free speech is one of the most powerful antidotes against this slippery slope.

meiraleal 2y ago
Censoring isn't the same as investigating the use of bots and fake news to spread rumors and lies for polítics gain and literal profit. The right tries to confuse people by mixing their crimes with free speech.
- meowface 2y ago
  This is why I like the United States. The first rule is freedom of speech. I hate Trump and I hate the right, I think Trump should be jailed for at least a decade for his attempts to destroy American democracy (fake elector scheme, inaction on Jan 6, pressuring of legislators during Jan 6), but I'd be out there protesting with everyone else if Trump could be jailed simply for spreading falsehoods in general. I think freedom of speech is kind of a bullshit concept at a philosophical level - I've become very blackpilled in that department - but at a legalistic level it's beyond the pale to me that someone could be imprisoned just for words barring very special circumstances. The government should not be throwing people in prison for allegedly "spreading lies for personal or political gain" unless it already clearly falls under an existing crime (like fraud - getting someone to give you money under explicit false pretenses) or tort (like defamation - knowingly telling damaging falsehoods about someone else to harm them). Incitement to likely, imminent lawless action is also already covered.
  - donw 2y ago
    > The government should not be throwing people in prison for allegedly "spreading lies for personal or political gain" Many people don't know that the Soviet constitution guaranteed freedom of speech[1] (Article 125[1]), provided it was "in conformity with the interests of the working people, and in order to strengthen the socialist system" Same goes for other socialist governments: the People's Republic of China (Article 35[2]), the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (Article 67[3]), the German Democratic Republic (aka East Germany, Article 9[4]), and so on. Of course, the reality was and is lengthy imprisonment for "free speech" against the government or ruling class. "Free speech, except for [exceptions that are nearly infinite in scope]" is a key feature of socialist governments, as is justifying the imprisonment of dissidents and undesirables as "fighting anti-democratic forces" and "preventing the spread of misinformation". Moreover, socialist governments are very clear that they are democracies; it's often in the name (Democratic People's Republic of Korea), and also frequently appears in speeches, official documents, etc. Their commitment to "democracy" isn't just words-on-paper, either! Voting is usually either mandatory or "strongly encouraged", although you can only vote for a Party-approved candidate, and the outcome of elections is basically pre-determined. [1] https://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/const/36cons04.html#chap10 https://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/const/36cons04.... [2] http://www.npc.gov.cn/zgrdw/englishnpc/Constitution/2007-11/15/content_1372964.htm http://www.npc.gov.cn/zgrdw/englishnpc/Constitution/2007-11/... [3] https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Peoples_Republic_of_Korea_1998 https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Peoples_Repub... [4] https://www.cvce.eu/content/publication/1999/1/1/33cc8de2-3cff-4102-b524-c1648172a838/publishable_en.pdf https://www.cvce.eu/content/publication/1999/1/1/33cc8de2-3c...
  - redserk 2y ago
    The US is a very odd choice to pick for free speech rights. It has had a terrible track record regarding free speech, especially throughout most of the 20th century. Try advocating for communism from the 20s-80s or for the rights of black people in the 50s/60s/into-70s. Or say the wrong criticism in the early 2000s after 9/11. At best you get surveillance, at worst you’re dealing with FISA. We have not had any changes to the constitution to further protect speech, either.
- throwthrowuknow 2y ago
  Investigating with the intent to suppress information you find objectionable is literally the definition of censorship. The reuters article makes it clear they intended to follow through legality be damned.
  - meiraleal 2y ago
    The justice just demanded information about the people behind a few accounts. That's more than fair of a justice system to ask and if a network thinks they are above a country's law they should definitely leave. The printscreens of the orders are nothing burgers.
    - Log_out_ 2y ago
      Tweets side willingness to use violence for oolitical goals is a good indicator for how much popper applies. Storm the capitol once,shame on me..
- pessimizer 2y ago
  > Censoring isn't the same as investigating the use of bots and fake news to spread rumors and lies for polítics gain and literal profit. I don't understand this post. Censoring is when a government official issues orders to publishers requiring them not so publish things. Whatever else you're talking about here you're simply using as a rationalization for censorship. You have to know that you're being dishonest when the subject is a judge ordering publishers to unpublish and silence people, and you immediately equivocate between that and "investigating," then accuse "the right" of trying to confuse "their crimes" and "free speech." You're literally doing that right now. You are somehow explaining away literal and explicit censorship orders (that no one is claiming don't exist) as "investigation" of "their crimes."
  - meiraleal 2y ago
    Someone making a profit publishing links that are fake but get lots of clicks or youtube lives isn't using their freedom of speech, they are criminals committing crimes for profit.
    - chmod775 2y ago
      You're correct that censoring this wouldn't be considered censorship colloquially, but academically and in legal circles it absolutely is censorship. In everyday language, when we say "censorship", we only mean the bad kind of censorship. On Hacker News and other places that discuss these topics more in-depth, many use the term more academically, leading to a neverending stream of confusion in the replies every time without fail. Similar story for the term "democracy", which has a large number of meanings depending on who you're talking to. In this tree there's again people arguing about which specific examples are considered democratic without having even agreed on a common definition of the term.
    - atestu 2y ago
      What is the crime being committed? Lying? Is that a crime? They’re literally using their freedom of speech. Not sure what else you would call it.
gchamonlive 2y ago
> there is a slippery slope where a good intentioned government or justice system could progressively get further away from these good intentions, and start using its power merely for the preservation of it? That wasn't what happened. It's not like we had a left leaning judge favouring a left leaning party, it's Moraes, a conservative technician fight an extreme right antidemocratic movement. The question that needs to be answer is how far democracy is willing to go outside of democratic bounds to preserve itself. Because to expect a democratic government never to act undemocratically is to expect it to be replaced by a fascists regimen given time.
- IG_Semmelweiss 2y ago
  You want a democratic government to have "undemocratic" guardrails, because otherwise you are ok with mob rule. Democracy without rules is pure and simple majority rule. You do not want this. Unless of course you are ok with slavery, going back hangings, etc. If that's the case, I rest my case. You want democracy to be prevented from acting out on its passions by a balance of powers. IN the brazil case, the state powers, and the brazilian voters are not preventing 1 judge from acting out his passion "to protect democracy". Ergo, this is the problem. The mob is granting him this power, when in fact it should be voters, via congress or even the office of the president which brings this loose cannon of a judge back within the powers given by the constitution of brazil. In this case, brazil is behaving like a raw democracy. It is true majority rule. Laws apply as the majority sees fit. Hope you don't end in the minority.
  - eecc 2y ago
    Nope, you’re spinning it. The mob rule here is Bolsonaro’s, and in no functioning democracy are multiple Powers (legislative, governmental and judicial) collected into 1 hand. If a judge goes out of control it’s another judge’s task to regain it, or an independent Judicial court.
    - datahack 2y ago
      The idea that another judge or an independent judicial body should intervene if a judge is overstepping is consistent with how a system of checks and balances should function in a Democracy and I think you are largely correct. However, whether the judiciary in Brazil is actually overstepping or properly fulfilling its role is a matter of interpretation and context. The broader and very much core question is whether the actions taken by the judiciary, such as censoring social media or jailing individuals without trial, are justified under the circumstances or if they themselves undermine democratic principles. This is the same basic issue I made my other comment about in your series of replies. This is a nuanced issue that can be debated from different perspectives and much more of a subjective question, and it’s important to separate the issues.
skywhopper 2y ago
There’s also a slippery slope where good intentions of protecting “free speech” at all costs enable an anti-democratic authoritarian takeover or worse. Not to say I know which this is, or a better way to balance things, but free speech absolutism over all other considerations is not always the right answer to protect free speech and democracy.
39896880 2y ago
It seems that way to me too, but we have examples of high-censorship, high-freedom societies like Germany, and high-censorship, low-freedom societies like Singapore, and both report high levels of happiness. The devil really is in the details.
- alon_honig 2y ago
  This is incorrect. Singapore is not a high censorship/low freedom society. You should visit countries before you trash them.
  - refurb 2y ago
    I guess “high censorship” is subjective, but you can’t protest without a police permit, media organizations are licensed by the government, certain foreign media have been effectively banned when when they made statements the government didn’t like, you can’t put on a play without script approval by the government, all movies are presented by the government, and libel laws have been used to bankrupt political opponents, forcing them out of government. Seems pretty “high” censorship to me.
  - andsoitis 2y ago
    > Singapore is not a high censorship/low freedom society Singapore constrains freedom quite substantially. Singapore’s parliamentary political system has been dominated by the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) and the family of current prime minister Lee Hsien Loong since 1959. The electoral and legal framework that the PAP has constructed allows for some political pluralism, but it constrains the growth of opposition parties and limits freedoms of expression, assembly, and association. Deeper Analysis of Political Rights and Civil Liberties: https://freedomhouse.org/country/singapore/freedom-world/2024 https://freedomhouse.org/country/singapore/freedom-world/202...
  - 39896880 2y ago
    I have, and I found it much as Gibson did [0] [0] https://www.wired.com/1993/04/gibson-2/ https://www.wired.com/1993/04/gibson-2/
  - 2y ago
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
eecc 2y ago
Well your question leads straight to the “Paradox of Intolerance”. It’s indeed tricky, but the sorting criteria is: once in power, would these people club me to death, or let go of power if they lost a free election?
- fwn 2y ago
  In the paradox of intolerance, Popper was writing about violence, not anti-establishment speech. Known for his critical rationalism and vehement opposition to authoritarianism, Popper would probably be spinning in his grave if he knew that his essay is cited as a token every time someone is persecuted for posting the wrong kind of tweet.
  - vinsend 2y ago
    it is not a paradox, but an antinomy. the limits of democracy were clearly seen with covid19 and with the funding of ONG.
  - eecc 2y ago
    Not really, I’m afraid you’re shifting the goalposts. I don’t think Popper would be so naive to just limit intolerance to physical violence (which is already ruled out by law, so why bother). The intolerance is against anything intolerant that if given enough power will stamp out (violently) Democracy itself. One just needs to look at Putin’s Russia to understand what he meant.
- IG_Semmelweiss 2y ago
  It must be tricky since I don't think you understood Popper at all. Popper was completely in favor of free speech, and a completely open society, with no censorship except in the cases of actual violence: "he is known for his vigorous defence of liberal democracy and the principles of social criticism that he believed made a flourishing open society possible" [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_popper# https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_popper#
  - eecc 2y ago

by geertj 2y ago

meiraleal 2y ago

Censoring isn't the same as investigating the use of bots and fake news to spread rumors and lies for polítics gain and literal profit. The right tries to confuse people by mixing their crimes with free speech.

meowface 2y ago
This is why I like the United States. The first rule is freedom of speech. I hate Trump and I hate the right, I think Trump should be jailed for at least a decade for his attempts to destroy American democracy (fake elector scheme, inaction on Jan 6, pressuring of legislators during Jan 6), but I'd be out there protesting with everyone else if Trump could be jailed simply for spreading falsehoods in general. I think freedom of speech is kind of a bullshit concept at a philosophical level - I've become very blackpilled in that department - but at a legalistic level it's beyond the pale to me that someone could be imprisoned just for words barring very special circumstances. The government should not be throwing people in prison for allegedly "spreading lies for personal or political gain" unless it already clearly falls under an existing crime (like fraud - getting someone to give you money under explicit false pretenses) or tort (like defamation - knowingly telling damaging falsehoods about someone else to harm them). Incitement to likely, imminent lawless action is also already covered.
- donw 2y ago
  > The government should not be throwing people in prison for allegedly "spreading lies for personal or political gain" Many people don't know that the Soviet constitution guaranteed freedom of speech[1] (Article 125[1]), provided it was "in conformity with the interests of the working people, and in order to strengthen the socialist system" Same goes for other socialist governments: the People's Republic of China (Article 35[2]), the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (Article 67[3]), the German Democratic Republic (aka East Germany, Article 9[4]), and so on. Of course, the reality was and is lengthy imprisonment for "free speech" against the government or ruling class. "Free speech, except for [exceptions that are nearly infinite in scope]" is a key feature of socialist governments, as is justifying the imprisonment of dissidents and undesirables as "fighting anti-democratic forces" and "preventing the spread of misinformation". Moreover, socialist governments are very clear that they are democracies; it's often in the name (Democratic People's Republic of Korea), and also frequently appears in speeches, official documents, etc. Their commitment to "democracy" isn't just words-on-paper, either! Voting is usually either mandatory or "strongly encouraged", although you can only vote for a Party-approved candidate, and the outcome of elections is basically pre-determined. [1] https://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/const/36cons04.html#chap10 https://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/const/36cons04.... [2] http://www.npc.gov.cn/zgrdw/englishnpc/Constitution/2007-11/15/content_1372964.htm http://www.npc.gov.cn/zgrdw/englishnpc/Constitution/2007-11/... [3] https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Peoples_Republic_of_Korea_1998 https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Peoples_Repub... [4] https://www.cvce.eu/content/publication/1999/1/1/33cc8de2-3cff-4102-b524-c1648172a838/publishable_en.pdf https://www.cvce.eu/content/publication/1999/1/1/33cc8de2-3c...
- redserk 2y ago
  The US is a very odd choice to pick for free speech rights. It has had a terrible track record regarding free speech, especially throughout most of the 20th century. Try advocating for communism from the 20s-80s or for the rights of black people in the 50s/60s/into-70s. Or say the wrong criticism in the early 2000s after 9/11. At best you get surveillance, at worst you’re dealing with FISA. We have not had any changes to the constitution to further protect speech, either.
throwthrowuknow 2y ago
Investigating with the intent to suppress information you find objectionable is literally the definition of censorship. The reuters article makes it clear they intended to follow through legality be damned.
- meiraleal 2y ago
  The justice just demanded information about the people behind a few accounts. That's more than fair of a justice system to ask and if a network thinks they are above a country's law they should definitely leave. The printscreens of the orders are nothing burgers.
  - Log_out_ 2y ago
    Tweets side willingness to use violence for oolitical goals is a good indicator for how much popper applies. Storm the capitol once,shame on me..
pessimizer 2y ago
> Censoring isn't the same as investigating the use of bots and fake news to spread rumors and lies for polítics gain and literal profit. I don't understand this post. Censoring is when a government official issues orders to publishers requiring them not so publish things. Whatever else you're talking about here you're simply using as a rationalization for censorship. You have to know that you're being dishonest when the subject is a judge ordering publishers to unpublish and silence people, and you immediately equivocate between that and "investigating," then accuse "the right" of trying to confuse "their crimes" and "free speech." You're literally doing that right now. You are somehow explaining away literal and explicit censorship orders (that no one is claiming don't exist) as "investigation" of "their crimes."
- meiraleal 2y ago
  Someone making a profit publishing links that are fake but get lots of clicks or youtube lives isn't using their freedom of speech, they are criminals committing crimes for profit.
  - chmod775 2y ago
    You're correct that censoring this wouldn't be considered censorship colloquially, but academically and in legal circles it absolutely is censorship. In everyday language, when we say "censorship", we only mean the bad kind of censorship. On Hacker News and other places that discuss these topics more in-depth, many use the term more academically, leading to a neverending stream of confusion in the replies every time without fail. Similar story for the term "democracy", which has a large number of meanings depending on who you're talking to. In this tree there's again people arguing about which specific examples are considered democratic without having even agreed on a common definition of the term.
  - atestu 2y ago
    What is the crime being committed? Lying? Is that a crime? They’re literally using their freedom of speech. Not sure what else you would call it.

gchamonlive 2y ago

> there is a slippery slope where a good intentioned government or justice system could progressively get further away from these good intentions, and start using its power merely for the preservation of it? That wasn't what happened. It's not like we had a left leaning judge favouring a left leaning party, it's Moraes, a conservative technician fight an extreme right antidemocratic movement. The question that needs to be answer is how far democracy is willing to go outside of democratic bounds to preserve itself. Because to expect a democratic government never to act undemocratically is to expect it to be replaced by a fascists regimen given time.

IG_Semmelweiss 2y ago
You want a democratic government to have "undemocratic" guardrails, because otherwise you are ok with mob rule. Democracy without rules is pure and simple majority rule. You do not want this. Unless of course you are ok with slavery, going back hangings, etc. If that's the case, I rest my case. You want democracy to be prevented from acting out on its passions by a balance of powers. IN the brazil case, the state powers, and the brazilian voters are not preventing 1 judge from acting out his passion "to protect democracy". Ergo, this is the problem. The mob is granting him this power, when in fact it should be voters, via congress or even the office of the president which brings this loose cannon of a judge back within the powers given by the constitution of brazil. In this case, brazil is behaving like a raw democracy. It is true majority rule. Laws apply as the majority sees fit. Hope you don't end in the minority.
- eecc 2y ago
  Nope, you’re spinning it. The mob rule here is Bolsonaro’s, and in no functioning democracy are multiple Powers (legislative, governmental and judicial) collected into 1 hand. If a judge goes out of control it’s another judge’s task to regain it, or an independent Judicial court.
  - datahack 2y ago
    The idea that another judge or an independent judicial body should intervene if a judge is overstepping is consistent with how a system of checks and balances should function in a Democracy and I think you are largely correct. However, whether the judiciary in Brazil is actually overstepping or properly fulfilling its role is a matter of interpretation and context. The broader and very much core question is whether the actions taken by the judiciary, such as censoring social media or jailing individuals without trial, are justified under the circumstances or if they themselves undermine democratic principles. This is the same basic issue I made my other comment about in your series of replies. This is a nuanced issue that can be debated from different perspectives and much more of a subjective question, and it’s important to separate the issues.

skywhopper 2y ago

There’s also a slippery slope where good intentions of protecting “free speech” at all costs enable an anti-democratic authoritarian takeover or worse. Not to say I know which this is, or a better way to balance things, but free speech absolutism over all other considerations is not always the right answer to protect free speech and democracy.

39896880 2y ago

It seems that way to me too, but we have examples of high-censorship, high-freedom societies like Germany, and high-censorship, low-freedom societies like Singapore, and both report high levels of happiness. The devil really is in the details.

alon_honig 2y ago
This is incorrect. Singapore is not a high censorship/low freedom society. You should visit countries before you trash them.
- refurb 2y ago
  I guess “high censorship” is subjective, but you can’t protest without a police permit, media organizations are licensed by the government, certain foreign media have been effectively banned when when they made statements the government didn’t like, you can’t put on a play without script approval by the government, all movies are presented by the government, and libel laws have been used to bankrupt political opponents, forcing them out of government. Seems pretty “high” censorship to me.
- andsoitis 2y ago
  > Singapore is not a high censorship/low freedom society Singapore constrains freedom quite substantially. Singapore’s parliamentary political system has been dominated by the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) and the family of current prime minister Lee Hsien Loong since 1959. The electoral and legal framework that the PAP has constructed allows for some political pluralism, but it constrains the growth of opposition parties and limits freedoms of expression, assembly, and association. Deeper Analysis of Political Rights and Civil Liberties: https://freedomhouse.org/country/singapore/freedom-world/2024 https://freedomhouse.org/country/singapore/freedom-world/202...
- 39896880 2y ago
  I have, and I found it much as Gibson did [0] [0] https://www.wired.com/1993/04/gibson-2/ https://www.wired.com/1993/04/gibson-2/
- 2y ago

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

eecc 2y ago

Well your question leads straight to the “Paradox of Intolerance”. It’s indeed tricky, but the sorting criteria is: once in power, would these people club me to death, or let go of power if they lost a free election?

fwn 2y ago
In the paradox of intolerance, Popper was writing about violence, not anti-establishment speech. Known for his critical rationalism and vehement opposition to authoritarianism, Popper would probably be spinning in his grave if he knew that his essay is cited as a token every time someone is persecuted for posting the wrong kind of tweet.
- vinsend 2y ago
  it is not a paradox, but an antinomy. the limits of democracy were clearly seen with covid19 and with the funding of ONG.
- eecc 2y ago
  Not really, I’m afraid you’re shifting the goalposts. I don’t think Popper would be so naive to just limit intolerance to physical violence (which is already ruled out by law, so why bother). The intolerance is against anything intolerant that if given enough power will stamp out (violently) Democracy itself. One just needs to look at Putin’s Russia to understand what he meant.
IG_Semmelweiss 2y ago
It must be tricky since I don't think you understood Popper at all. Popper was completely in favor of free speech, and a completely open society, with no censorship except in the cases of actual violence: "he is known for his vigorous defence of liberal democracy and the principles of social criticism that he believed made a flourishing open society possible" [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_popper# https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_popper#
- eecc 2y ago