5 ms·
Start with protecting children. Then something about misinformation. Then about defending democracy. Then about stopping terrorism. And soon you can escalate yo
by SilverElfin 1y ago
Start with protecting children. Then something about misinformation. Then about defending democracy. Then about stopping terrorism. And soon you can escalate your authoritarian policy to just about anything.
This is why having the structure of fundamental civil rights, like in the US constitution, is important. I’m surprised the EU doesn’t seem to have such protections for free speech and privacy and against warrantless surveillance.
- FpUser 1y ago>"Start with protecting children..." This is exactly what I think about it: https://youtu.be/J07wReeRF7Y?si=_VfrNiGRnG-_7dHX https://youtu.be/J07wReeRF7Y?si=_VfrNiGRnG-_7dHX
- tokai 1y agoBetween FISC, the Patriot Act/USA Freedom Act, and such it doesn't seem like the US constitution is doing a good job at protecting anyone. There is a long wikipedia article named Mass surveillance in the United States, but not yet one for the EU.
- dmix 1y agoFISA and patriot act are very controversial, the EU doing the same thing but far worse isn’t a good argument to stand on merely because the US gets talked about more on Wikipedia and therefore the press (which is one of the primary acceptable sources for a wiki article). Not to mention places like Germany and France did much of what NSA was doing back in the 2000s, often with even more leeway. If anything censorship and extensive government oversight of peoples lives in EU and UK is far less controversial so there isn’t much of a push back. As you can see every time this comes up on HN where people in the EU defend it.
- janalsncm 1y ago> FISA and patriot act are very controversial They are controversial with the public. They are not controversial within the government.
- hdgvhicv 1y agoI suspect they aren’t controversial with the public either. With certain subsets of the public sure. Similar response to the “give your passport to shady company” act in the U.K - the majority of the public support it.
- SilverElfin 1y agoI don’t disagree. But there is still far more protection for free speech in the US than in the EU, where wrongthink is not acceptable to the powers that be. It is a huge regression and for some reason, culturally Europe seems to be modeling itself more after China than the US, with whom it shares more history and values.
- em-bee 1y agoi have lived in all three places (15 years in china) and i have to respond with an empathic no. what we are seeing is that thanks to social media, more discourse is public. which leads to more prosecutions. that is not a regression. that stuff has always been prosecuted. and they go against hate speech, not wrong think.
- moi2388 1y agoHate speech is wrong think. Threats are something different
- em-bee 1y agohate speech is no clearly defined, so maybe we need to talk about that. wikipedia translates the german term "Volksverhetzung" to "incitement to hatred", but that's not actually a good translation, because it rather means "incitement to hatred against a whole people". besides that here is strong language directed against individuals that is designed to hurt them. in germany that is defined as insult to your honor or dignity and incitement to violence. the devil is in the details of course, and there are many expressions that are borderline and depend on context. but i think we can agree that such speech is generally not wanted. whether it should be punished is another question, but in my opinion "wrong think" goes way beyond what i described here. one topic that does go beyond hate speech that may be problematic is expressions that threatens the democracy. i couldn't find any good examples for that yet other than democracy being threatened by radicalization, polarization and political violence. so presumably anything that leads to that, most of which is already covered by hate speech.
- aspenmayer 1y ago> There is a long wikipedia article named Mass surveillance in the United States, but not yet one for the EU. I agree with your other points. There is this though: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_surveillance#European_Union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_surveillance#European_Uni...
- owenversteeg 1y agoI have long campaigned against Fourth Amendment violations in the US, but to compare the US and the EU is laughable. The difference is night and day in every aspect, from constitutional rights to privacy (virtually worthless in most EU constitutions vs quite broad in the US) to practical surveillance (far deeper and broader in the EU) to court requirements for access for typical requests (commonplace in the US, rare in the EU.) As an example of one of those points, the US right to privacy was long considered so broad that it served as the _foundation of the right to abortion_ in the US for decades! By contrast, to pick an EU example, the Dutch right to privacy is so weak that it is quite literally written into the Dutch constitution as “except as limited by law”; in other words, nearly worthless. To compare them by presence of a Wikipedia page is beyond ridiculous.
- guitarbill 1y agoIn the US, mugshots of people are published before they have been found guilty. Comparing privacy laws by example is beyond ridiculous. And there are big cultural differences what "privacy" entails.
- forgotoldacc 1y agoBut what exactly does privacy entail in the US? Your address and phone number are publicly available with a Google search. I've been stalked and had someone show up at my house after moving (and I have zero social media presence) because, for some reason, my personal info was all online and easily found by googling my name. People can take a video of you, shame you for some random thing, and have your face and name known to millions by the end of the day. The NSA can access all your online data and share it with whoever they want. Companies do it on their behalf as well. Cops can dig through your car just by saying it smells funny. A right to privacy somehow was construed as the right to an abortion. But the right to privacy never meant you have the right to keep anything private. In some other countries, you can easily have your data taken down from public view online and sue (and win against) people who violate that right. That's an uphill battle in the US.
- hdgvhicv 1y ago
- em-bee 1y ago* I’m surprised the EU doesn’t seem to have such protections for free speech and privacy and against warrantless surveillance* individual countries, such as germany do have these protections.
- account42 1y agoIs this supposed to be a joke? Germany has about the worst speech restrictions of any western democracy.
- em-bee 1y agospeech restrictions and privacy protection are two entirely different things. speech restrictions go against public speech, but that doesn't mean anyone should have the right to invade your privacy.
- closewith 1y agoUnless you oppose genocide, in which case your freedom of speech evaporates.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- frm88 1y agoAgreed. We have that in common with the US.
- ls612 1y agoCovid was only 5 years ago can you imagine what people would have used this sort of power for during the lockdowns? How are people's memories so short especially with regards to such a traumatic experience that we all had?
- account42 1y agoPeople generally cheered along the authoritarian measures that were employed during covid.
- ls612 1y ago“So this is how liberty dies… with thunderous applause”
- kanbara 1y agoif the framing is “pandemic controls bad because my rights are more important than public health in a global pandemic” it’s not a very convincing argument. we should stick to actual fact and issue here which is that these tools are bad for human rights NOW. not some mythic pandemic is bad bogeyman
- ls612 1y agoHow is the framing of “chat control bad because my rights are more important than saving the kids from sex abuse” any different? I bet you good money you understand the fallacy in my example. I only wish people could see it for things that “their side” championed as well.
- closewith 1y agoMost people in Europe were happy with the pandemic response, so that's a non-issue.
- komali2 1y ago> This is why having the structure of fundamental civil rights, like in the US constitution, is important. How's that structure working out in upholding fundamental civil rights in the USA?
- ElFitz 1y agoAccording to Wikipedia, the Russian constitution mentions the following: 1. Everyone shall have the right to the inviolability of private life, personal and family secrets, the protection of honour and good name. 2. Everyone shall have the right to privacy of correspondence, of telephone conversations, postal, telegraph and other messages. Limitations of this right shall be allowed only by court decision. And yet, they have the SORM and SORM-2 laws.
- hdgvhicv 1y agoThe biggest set of propaganda is that America has “free speech”
- cookiengineer 1y agoI want to be not snarky but I can't: Which constitution are you talking about? The one that includes the House of Congress' right to militia to defend the constitution...or the one without that article? Lately, the constitution of the US is as much worth as toilet paper, because the Trump administration does everything to exploit it using the "invasion excuse". In Europe, there is the EU charta of fundamental human rights. If they are violated, laws can be fought above country level. [1] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=celex:12012P/TXT https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=celex:12...
- account42 1y agoThe US has a long tradition of creatively interpreting their constitution, really no reason to bring trump into this discussion.