Comment by meiraleal
1 year 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.
1 year 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.
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.
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.
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..
> 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."
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.
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.
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.
1 reply →
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.
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.
None of those things landed people in jail. The US, from a law standpoint, has had the strongest free speech protections of almost any country in history.
The US has certainly had its problems, like widespread racism and the red scare, sure, but this is all relative to how other countries respond to speech with legal action.
5 replies →
> 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....
[2] http://www.npc.gov.cn/zgrdw/englishnpc/Constitution/2007-11/...
[3] https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Peoples_Repub...
[4] https://www.cvce.eu/content/publication/1999/1/1/33cc8de2-3c...