6 ms·
Documents obtained via hacks don't qualify under "free speech" and should be blocked, just like you'd block a list of people's social security numbers obtained
by listenallyall 2y ago
Documents obtained via hacks don't qualify under "free speech" and should be blocked, just like you'd block a list of people's social security numbers obtained via hacking, or secretly-recorded nude/pornographic material (without the subject's knowledge or consent).
- chgs 2y agoYet more definitions of free speech that some agree with and some disagree with. That’s fine, block whatever you want. Just don’t whine that others have a different view on what “free speech” means.
- listenallyall 2y agoWell, numerous jurisdictions have passed laws against "revenge porn", so they seem to agree with my suggestion. I will agree that information gathered via hacking can be seen both ways (much of Wikileaks was gathered somewhat nefariously) but the idea of blocking should not automatically be considered a suppression of free speech.
- ToValueFunfetti 2y ago"Whining about other people having different views" accounts for pretty much all political speech, and I don't understand why you're saying it shouldn't happen on this topic.
- llamaimperative 2y agoIf you believe 1st Amendment protections extend to prevent censorship from private parties, as Elon et al claim to, then banning this material is unambiguously a violation of free speech. If you don’t believe that’s what free speech is, then that’s fine too (and you’re right), but then stop using that as a cultural cudgel.
- listenallyall 2y agoThe First Amendment most certainly does not apply to private parties.
- llamaimperative 2y agoCorrect. Which is why the right wing moaning about free speech with regard to content moderation is juvenile and, as OP illustrates, completely hypocritical.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- ToValueFunfetti 2y agoI do agree that this is unambiguously a violation of free speech, though the first amendment doesn't enter into it. What I don't get is the last bit, which you've only restated- why shouldn't people be allowed to invoke free speech on the basis of their opinions on what it means?
- llamaimperative 2y agoBecause at least in America “free speech” refers to 1st Amendment protections, which this does not violate. “Free speech” does not mean “carte blanche protection from any repercussions from anything I say, everyone is still obligated to like me and be nice to me and do business with me.”
- ToValueFunfetti 2y agoSo when the first amendment says congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech, that's self-referential and does not refer to an underlying basic human right? Or are you saying that Americans just don't care about why the bill of rights exists anymore because the constitution is now their sole source of morality?
- 2y ago
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y agoRidiculous. He's a VP candidate so these things are definitely in the public's interest and reporters report on ill-gotten documents all the damn time. https://www.kenklippenstein.com/p/read-the-jd-vance-dossier https://www.kenklippenstein.com/p/read-the-jd-vance-dossier
- listenallyall 2y ago[flagged]
- slowmovintarget 2y agoHis home address and social security number are not material nor part of the "public interest" and a legitimate reporter would have excluded them.
- jeromegv 2y agoSo why did Elon complained when Twitter censored the Laptop Biden leak? This was the same policy, documents obtained via hacks.
- paulgb 2y agoThat's what I'm wondering, isn't his behavior now pretty much exactly what the whole Twitter Files thing was about? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_Files https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_Files
- listenallyall 2y agoAre you talking about Hunter Biden's laptop? It wasn't hacked, he left it at a computer shop and never picked it up.
- cogman10 2y agoYou don't get to rummage through someone's computer just because it's in your possession. That's not how the law or property works in the US. The shop owner made an illegal copy of Hunter's hard drive and then went forward and shared it with a bunch of people.
- jpadkins 2y agoHe tried to get Hunter to pay for the repairs several times, and then took possession of the laptop as payment for services after a year or more. That is legal in the US. Given how public this story was, if what he did was illegal, local DA would have prosecuted him. Hunter Biden abandoned the laptop. The Intel agencies and the corp media tried to cover it up.
- cdchn 2y agoExcept the indisputable public interest in having information about the person sitting on deck for the most powerful position in the world, as opposed to the prurient interests in seeing leaked nudes.
- SmartJerry 2y agoHow is the vice presidential candidates social security number, phone number, and home address in the public interest?
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- BobaFloutist 2y agoSo that if we see his SSN released in a future hack we can be sure to text him a warning to freeze his credit, and he can apply for two months of free credit monitoring.
- arcatech 2y agoIt’s not, but the rest of the content is.
- matwood 2y agoIs SSN, phone, and home address repeated for ~200 pages? Seems like there's more to it than just that data.
- cogman10 2y agoYou mean like the nude photos of hunter biden, stolen from his personal laptop, and shared across twitter without any changes? That sort of free speech?
- rsynnott 2y agoAs always, it is MOST improper on this website to actually read the article, but this is addressed in the article; Musk was upset when old-Twitter blocked an article containing hacked data. Appears to be a case of ‘free speech’ for me but not for thee.
- glenndebacker 2y agoThe personal information is blacked out... and Elmo still seem to block people for 12 hours when you share the link.
- drawkward 2y agoDo they qualify under "free speech absolutist"?