Comment by yorwba
13 days ago
There's not a trend against freedom of speech so much as existing laws outlawing certain categories of speech being applied to the internet. If you lie in a commercial context, that's fraud; if you lie in court, that's perjury; if you tell your buddies to go do crimes together, that's conspiracy to commit; if you tell someone to give you money or else, that's blackmail...
If you come from the perspective that there used to be freedom of speech and now there's all those pesky laws restricting what you can say, it looks like a slippery slope. If you realize that people have been required to check ID when selling material unsuitable for minors in physical stores since before the internet existed, it seems a bit more unlikely that ID requirements will expand to cover everything else.
The trouble with these analogies is that they ignore the nature of the internet.
If there is a law in one jurisdiction that says you have to be 21 to buy some product and a different jurisdiction sets it to 18, or has no age restriction at all, and someone who is underage in the first jurisdiction goes to the second jurisdiction to buy that thing, what happens? The seller sells it to them. This has always been a completely normal thing for people to do in border towns, or when people e.g. visit Amsterdam because of less restrictive drug laws.
The internet allows anyone to visit the site of a supplier located outside of their jurisdiction. That's completely normal an expected too. It also makes things like age verification laws for digital content pretty much entirely worthless, because most of the suppliers weren't in your jurisdiction to begin with and the ones outside of it are... outside of your jurisdiction.
Governments now want to pretend that it matters where the user is rather than where the site is, but that's a joke because there is no way for the site to even know that. If you try to require it then they'll either ignore you because they're actually entirely outside of your jurisdiction and you can't impose penalties on them for not complying, or treat IP addresses in your jurisdiction differently (possibly by banning them entirely) and then people there will just use a VPN.
Neither of these cause the law to be effective and ineffective laws are inefficient and embarrassing.
> Governments now want to pretend that it matters where the user is rather than where the site is
This is not a new thing either. Whenever something somehow touches multiple jurisdictions, it's generally safe to assume that laws from all of them apply. Countries can and do make laws that apply entirely extraterritorially. When that makes it difficult to do a thing while complying with all applicable laws, you either have to not do the thing or pick which jurisdictions' laws you want to break and deal with the consequences.
I don't think most lawmakers will consider the potential embarrassment from difficult-to-enforce laws much of a deterrent against outlawing what they want to outlaw. They're more likely to put additional requirements on third parties to assist with enforcement (e.g. VPN providers are an obvious candidate.)
> Whenever something somehow touches multiple jurisdictions, it's generally safe to assume that laws from all of them apply.
How do you suppose this is supposed to work on the internet? Is every globally-accessible social media site supposed to implement Saudi Arabia's blasphemy laws and China's censorship of Tienanmen?
> Countries can and do make laws that apply entirely extraterritorially. When that makes it difficult to do a thing while complying with all applicable laws, you either have to not do the thing or pick which jurisdictions' laws you want to break and deal with the consequences.
But that's the point. There will be services that actually are outside of any given jurisdiction and have no fear of penalties from it, and then those laws are pointless because they're unenforceable.
> I don't think most lawmakers will consider the potential embarrassment from difficult-to-enforce laws much of a deterrent against outlawing what they want to outlaw.
That's only because they have no shame. It's the government which is humiliated, not the politicians. Which is why the voters should learn to punish them for their vandalism of the public trust.
> They're more likely to put additional requirements on third parties to assist with enforcement (e.g. VPN providers are an obvious candidate.)
How is that supposed to work when the whole purpose of the VPN itself is to be in a different jurisdiction?
The typical go-to in these cases is to try to use the financial system, but that doesn't work in this case because there are plenty of foreign VPN services that will offer the service "for free" by installing a residential proxy on your machine or accept payment in cryptocurrency in an amount that a normal person could easily mine themselves. And then unsophisticated users do the former and sophisticated users do the latter and the only thing you get from banning payments to foreign VPN providers is the facilitation of DDoS botnets and increased and familiarity of your population with cryptocurrency.
> If you realize that people have been required to check ID when selling material unsuitable for minors in physical stores
Not a great example.
No physical store would bother to check the ID of anyone clearly not {too young or borderline}.
Digital ID requirements are such that age verification of some form is required for every single connection .. and to assume that a connection from {X} might well require another ID check an hour later as it might well be a different person at the same computer or another device altogether.
That's an expansion from {only check young looking people} to {check and possibly retain records for _everyone_}.
> No physical store would bother to check the ID of anyone clearly not {too young or borderline}.
Except where police cadets or paid informants go into stores to buy age-restricted goods. A convenience store near me got whacked with that recently, and now has a no-exceptions ID policy.
Check out zero trust proof standards
Edit: I'm not saying EU uses it but it could...
Let's assume I'm familiar with the theory, what pragmatic open verification exists for the implementation of this EU app?
Edit: the EU asserts the app is "privacy preserving" and "Additionally, work on the integration of zero-knowledge proofs is ongoing."
~ https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/news/commission-mak...
It's not the assertions made that trouble me, it's the quality of any actual implementation and the scope for deliberate or accidental side leaking of knowledge that should be zero .. but likely (in a pragmatic view of a political world) is not.
3 replies →
There is no "freedom of speech" in the US sense in the EU/UK. That's often a cause for misunderstanding between the two sides of the Pond.
There are many things that you are not allowed to write or say by law in EU countries simply because the legislator has decided that they are wrong opinions, and it is generally accepted that the State can and should implement such controls.
Note that lying is not a crime in general. Your examples are for very specific contexts.
That's a common misconception. The European Convention on Human Rights guarantees freedom of expression https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_R... and is legally binding in all member states. Sure, there are exceptions but in the USA too freedom of speech is not absolute either.
Moreover, in practice, there is more freedom of speech in most EU countries than in the USA https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/freedom-of-expression-ind...:
USA: 0.89 France: 0.96 Germany: 0.94 Czechia: 0.96 etc.
> there is more freedom of speech in most EU countries than in the USA
A quick look at Steam says otherwise. All the games that credit cards companies pressured to get removed from Steam, were already long gone in Germany. Because that's the level of government censorship that is completely normal in Germany.
The only reason why one might get the idea that Germany ain't so bad is because Germany doesn't do (much) Internet censorship, so we have access to the much less censored outside world. If German law would apply worldwide half the Internet would be wiped out.
1 reply →
Including things like "media bias" and other dubious criteria in freedom of speech rankings is obviously skewed.
Whatever the ECHR might say what I wrote in my previous comment is factual. In Europe "freedom of speech" comes with a long list of small print.
In fact, this is so embedded that the article of the ECHR you quote provides for restrictions and even states that they are "necessary": "subject to certain restrictions that are "in accordance with law" and "necessary in a democratic society"." QED
24 replies →
It may do so in some of their written papers, but in practice I risk going to prison if I dare say some things. Soon enough it will be illegal for me, the grandkid of a devout communist party member, to say that I agree with what my grandad believed in, it is already illegal to do that in the Czech Republic.
There is no freedom of speech in the "US sense" in the US either.
Just because a bunch of noisy people shout about freedom all day long doesn't mean they are not talking absolute garbage.
If there's an argument here, it's a mess. You first talk about speech. Commerce is barely speech--it's actually using the public market--and there is a legitimate opinion that applying civil rights to companies is already a corrupt abuse of our society. Perjury is strictly limited to one context existing since the dawn of time (courts), it is also very proceduralized what they can ask you, and even then there's a carveout for not incriminating yourself. Conspiracy and blackmail are only secondarily about speech. There's a criminal intent that you either made clear yourself or they have to prove.
The internet is like media (press) or communication by letters. Both extremely established in terms of guaranteeing freedom of speech and in the latter case, also secrecy. And the ID identification (that you then make your argument about) is only loosely related to free speech strictly. It's about being constantly searched and surveilled with a presumption of crime.