5 ms·

Do people not read the article, or do they just read the clickbait title and comment? Apparently they missed Ron Wyden (co-sponsor) of the bill is a Democrat a

Do people not read the article, or do they just read the clickbait title and comment? Apparently they missed Ron Wyden (co-sponsor) of the bill is a Democrat and the bill is a bi-partisan effort? Or the fact the EFF is actually in support of the bill: EFF applauds Senators Cruz and Wyden for taking this critical issue seriously, and we look forward to working with Congress on this bipartisan bill as it moves through the process. We hope it lands on the right balance to provide additional protections for everyday users around freedom of expression.

chmod775 4mo ago
> Apparently they missed Ron Wyden (co-sponsor) of the bill is a Democrat and the bill is a bi-partisan effort? And thank god for that. I hope this is indicative of a larger trend in the opposite direction. I'm not in the US, but here too free speech and other democratic values have been something the far right could contrast themselves on against the center and left. It pisses me off to no end that the issues I've been harping on about for years are now most effectively championed by a group that is otherwise ideologically opposed to me. I'm not mad at the right for this, I'm mad at the center and left who handed it to them.
- convolvatron 4mo ago
  what a strange take for a non-US person. one 'side' takes a couple whacks at free speech. the other side calls them on it, gets in power, and then starts taking a chainsaw to it, and you find reason to be angry that's its side A making a fuss now? and not that side B went rogue?
  - chmod775 4mo ago
    I've read this five times and I still can't reconcile it with what I said.
    - gleenn 4mo ago
      Shouldn't you care more about the actual issue than who is writing the laws around it? Why are you so pissed off about the "who" instead of happy you are getting what you want?
      - chmod775 4mo ago
        I'm not getting what I want on free speech, because the center left form the ruling parties. And I wouldn't want the right to be in power anyways, though soon they couldn't do much worse to this democracy. People here are getting police visits and legal mail because they called a politician a name on twitter or get investigated over a sign they held at a political protest. Thousands of cases at this point.
        convolvatron 4mo ago
        and in the US we're having serious free speech issues with the right right now. sorry to be confusing, I just wonder why you think there's necessarily a direct equivalence between the left-right politics of two different countries, and not more concerned about actual rights violations instead of who's scoring political points.
- carlosjobim 4mo ago
  > ideologically opposed to me Are you sure they are? Probably most people in your country would label you as far right for championing free speech, no other issues considered. Probably you are doing the same for others.
  - chmod775 4mo ago
    Yeah. On pretty much every other topic important to me, their official positions are either diametrically opposed or lean into another direction far enough that supporting other parties would be a better choice.
  - root_axis 4mo ago
    Every faction claims they support free speech and every faction also supports suppression of certain types of speech.
    - lifty 4mo ago
      But do you agree this bill is positive?
      - shevy-java 4mo ago
        But this assumes that a bill is required to establish fundamental rights. Free speech unfortunately does not exist anywhere. Even the USA has restrictions, such as "speech aimed at inciting quick reaction/violence" or some other restrictions with regards to "offensive" words and minors or similar. Or, even simpler, to talk very loudly in public late at night. So free speech is not unlimited, despite its name.
        JumpCrisscross 4mo ago
        > this assumes that a bill is required to establish fundamental rights No, it assumes a bill is required to establish consequences for fundamental rights being denied.
        redsocksfan45 4mo ago
- plagiarist 4mo ago
  What? The far right is against free speech. They only ever screech about free speech when someone is experiencing social consequences. They whine about actual Nazi rhetoric earning bans on private companies' platforms, then turn around and open investigations on people criticizing their masked police force. Attending protests gets you added to the terrorist watchlist.
  - rayiner 4mo ago
    The proper response to that is to support free speech values in both circumstances. Otherwise, we’re just going to be fighting about the details of whether particular conduct falls within the letter of the free speech protections.
    - Larrikin 4mo ago
      [flagged]
      - fc417fc802 4mo ago
        [flagged]
    - plagiarist 4mo ago
      My objection to their comment is that the right does not protect these values. I have zero idea what they're talking about contrasting against. They seem to be suggesting the center and left do not respect these rights and the far right does.
      - deleted 4mo ago
        [deleted]
      - fc417fc802 4mo ago
        Party A vaguely claims to support X but fails to do so in practice. Party B uses this to their advantage, making lots of noise about supporting X. Sure, maybe they won't follow through with that if elected but they're still scoring points while campaigning. If you are broadly aligned with party A and also feel quite strongly about X then this will be an objectionable situation all around.
platevoltage 4mo ago
Who are you referring to? At the time I'm replying to this, there are 4 other top-level comments on this thread, and the only one even implying that it was a partisan effort was someone mentioning the "current regime" in a joking sort of way. Everyone knows that Liberals also want to limit free speech. That's not new.
shevy-java 4mo ago
> Apparently they missed Ron Wyden (co-sponsor) of the bill is a Democrat and the bill is a bi-partisan effort? And why should that matter? Your assumption here is that these two parties are different to one another AND not corrupt. I don't see why these two assumptions should be true intrinsically. Can you explain why, if a Democrat does xyz, one should not be wary anymore? As for "bi-partisan effort": look at public hearings recently. On simple questions such as was the storm of the capitol an attempt to overthrow a democratically elected government, all the clown members of the current clown administration dodged to answer that. Any more questions necessary here? > Or the fact the EFF is actually in support of the bill And why would that matter either? The EFF is not a holy shield that has taken away people's ability to think for themselves. I don't need any moral compass given by EFF or anyone else to know where and when and how corruption works.
- JohnMakin 4mo ago
  Cynically, if I was looking at this as if both parties are protecting their interests - they might be realizing that this behavior going forward is going to be harmful to their donors, and thus themselves. State mandated TV/speech is not necessarily great for business, depending on the tastes and whims of whoever is in power at the moment.
throwaway85825 4mo ago
Wydens bullied a man to death. https://www.koin.com/news/oregon/lawsuit-claims-wydens-family-sexually-harassed-assistant-prior-to-his-suicide/ https://www.koin.com/news/oregon/lawsuit-claims-wydens-famil...

chmod775 4mo ago

> Apparently they missed Ron Wyden (co-sponsor) of the bill is a Democrat and the bill is a bi-partisan effort? And thank god for that. I hope this is indicative of a larger trend in the opposite direction. I'm not in the US, but here too free speech and other democratic values have been something the far right could contrast themselves on against the center and left. It pisses me off to no end that the issues I've been harping on about for years are now most effectively championed by a group that is otherwise ideologically opposed to me. I'm not mad at the right for this, I'm mad at the center and left who handed it to them.

convolvatron 4mo ago
what a strange take for a non-US person. one 'side' takes a couple whacks at free speech. the other side calls them on it, gets in power, and then starts taking a chainsaw to it, and you find reason to be angry that's its side A making a fuss now? and not that side B went rogue?
- chmod775 4mo ago
  I've read this five times and I still can't reconcile it with what I said.
  - gleenn 4mo ago
    Shouldn't you care more about the actual issue than who is writing the laws around it? Why are you so pissed off about the "who" instead of happy you are getting what you want?
    - chmod775 4mo ago
      I'm not getting what I want on free speech, because the center left form the ruling parties. And I wouldn't want the right to be in power anyways, though soon they couldn't do much worse to this democracy. People here are getting police visits and legal mail because they called a politician a name on twitter or get investigated over a sign they held at a political protest. Thousands of cases at this point.
      - convolvatron 4mo ago
        and in the US we're having serious free speech issues with the right right now. sorry to be confusing, I just wonder why you think there's necessarily a direct equivalence between the left-right politics of two different countries, and not more concerned about actual rights violations instead of who's scoring political points.
carlosjobim 4mo ago
> ideologically opposed to me Are you sure they are? Probably most people in your country would label you as far right for championing free speech, no other issues considered. Probably you are doing the same for others.
- chmod775 4mo ago
  Yeah. On pretty much every other topic important to me, their official positions are either diametrically opposed or lean into another direction far enough that supporting other parties would be a better choice.
- root_axis 4mo ago
  Every faction claims they support free speech and every faction also supports suppression of certain types of speech.
  - lifty 4mo ago
    But do you agree this bill is positive?
    - shevy-java 4mo ago
      But this assumes that a bill is required to establish fundamental rights. Free speech unfortunately does not exist anywhere. Even the USA has restrictions, such as "speech aimed at inciting quick reaction/violence" or some other restrictions with regards to "offensive" words and minors or similar. Or, even simpler, to talk very loudly in public late at night. So free speech is not unlimited, despite its name.
      - JumpCrisscross 4mo ago
        > this assumes that a bill is required to establish fundamental rights No, it assumes a bill is required to establish consequences for fundamental rights being denied.
      - redsocksfan45 4mo ago
plagiarist 4mo ago
What? The far right is against free speech. They only ever screech about free speech when someone is experiencing social consequences. They whine about actual Nazi rhetoric earning bans on private companies' platforms, then turn around and open investigations on people criticizing their masked police force. Attending protests gets you added to the terrorist watchlist.
- rayiner 4mo ago
  The proper response to that is to support free speech values in both circumstances. Otherwise, we’re just going to be fighting about the details of whether particular conduct falls within the letter of the free speech protections.
  - Larrikin 4mo ago
    [flagged]
    - fc417fc802 4mo ago
      [flagged]
  - plagiarist 4mo ago
    My objection to their comment is that the right does not protect these values. I have zero idea what they're talking about contrasting against. They seem to be suggesting the center and left do not respect these rights and the far right does.
    - deleted 4mo ago
      [deleted]
    - fc417fc802 4mo ago
      Party A vaguely claims to support X but fails to do so in practice. Party B uses this to their advantage, making lots of noise about supporting X. Sure, maybe they won't follow through with that if elected but they're still scoring points while campaigning. If you are broadly aligned with party A and also feel quite strongly about X then this will be an objectionable situation all around.

platevoltage 4mo ago

Who are you referring to? At the time I'm replying to this, there are 4 other top-level comments on this thread, and the only one even implying that it was a partisan effort was someone mentioning the "current regime" in a joking sort of way. Everyone knows that Liberals also want to limit free speech. That's not new.

shevy-java 4mo ago

> Apparently they missed Ron Wyden (co-sponsor) of the bill is a Democrat and the bill is a bi-partisan effort? And why should that matter? Your assumption here is that these two parties are different to one another AND not corrupt. I don't see why these two assumptions should be true intrinsically. Can you explain why, if a Democrat does xyz, one should not be wary anymore? As for "bi-partisan effort": look at public hearings recently. On simple questions such as was the storm of the capitol an attempt to overthrow a democratically elected government, all the clown members of the current clown administration dodged to answer that. Any more questions necessary here? > Or the fact the EFF is actually in support of the bill And why would that matter either? The EFF is not a holy shield that has taken away people's ability to think for themselves. I don't need any moral compass given by EFF or anyone else to know where and when and how corruption works.

JohnMakin 4mo ago
Cynically, if I was looking at this as if both parties are protecting their interests - they might be realizing that this behavior going forward is going to be harmful to their donors, and thus themselves. State mandated TV/speech is not necessarily great for business, depending on the tastes and whims of whoever is in power at the moment.

throwaway85825 4mo ago

Wydens bullied a man to death. https://www.koin.com/news/oregon/lawsuit-claims-wydens-family-sexually-harassed-assistant-prior-to-his-suicide/ https://www.koin.com/news/oregon/lawsuit-claims-wydens-famil...