[HN Gopher] Britain is sleepwalking into censorship?
___________________________________________________________________
Britain is sleepwalking into censorship?
Author : sfusato
Score : 195 points
Date : 2022-12-03 11:52 UTC (11 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.telegraph.co.uk)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.telegraph.co.uk)
| slackfan wrote:
| Sleepwalking? The UK has a fine and longstanding tradition of
| censorship. $current year is no exception.
| benevol wrote:
| Britain? _All major media outlets_ and _social network
| platforms worldwide_ now have established censorship as "the
| new normal".
|
| The only mainstream platform now setting itself up to become
| the exception to this is the one platform that since a few
| weeks gets consistently attacked by the establishment: Twitter.
| andrepd wrote:
| > The only mainstream platform now setting itself up to
| become the exception to this is the one platform that since a
| few weeks gets consistently attacked by the establishment:
| Twitter.
|
| The platform where Nazis can say what they want but people
| mocking Our Lord Musk are suspended? No thanks, I prefer free
| speech.
| matheusmoreira wrote:
| Well, the establishment can go to hell. I'm signing up for a
| Twitter account again, never thought I'd go back there.
| blacklion wrote:
| With this new UK legalization it outreach to private
| communication (messengers, no matter encrypted or not) as
| well.
| Analemma_ wrote:
| Don't make me laugh. Have you seen how many people have been
| banned from Twitter in the last week because they criticized
| its manchild-in-chief?
| kQq9oHeAz6wLLS wrote:
| No, I haven't, but I'm interested to hear about it. Got any
| reading material?
| notahacker wrote:
| A whole bunch of people including a few minor celebrities
| got banned after changing their username to "Elon Musk"
| and tweeting jokes in response to the self proclaimed
| "free speech absolutist" declaring that unlabelled
| parodies would be an automatic ban. Apparently even names
| like "Elon Musk (Parody)" lost posting privileges
|
| https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/nov/07/twitte
| r-w...
| kQq9oHeAz6wLLS wrote:
| Ah, gotcha. Though, I'm not sure impersonating someone
| else falls under free speech, right? I mean, if Weird Al
| did some parody songs and marketed them as the original
| artists, he'd get sued...unless he made it clear it was
| parody. Right?
|
| I bet you'd get banned for impersonating anyone on
| twitter, not just Musk. Or was that not happening?
| notahacker wrote:
| Parody absolutely does fall under speech, not only being
| legal and considered valuable for political discourse
| even in places with strong restrictions on other types of
| speech but also having explicit case law protecting it
| under the First Amendment. (Copyright law is a different
| matter, but nobody is _selling_ their "Elon Musk"
| accounts). Of course, private websites are perfectly
| entitled to ban it, just as they were entitled to ban
| other stuff (there are reasonable grounds for thinking
| some unlabelled parody may be problematic, but there's a
| school of thought that racial hatred might actually be
| worse!). But it's impossible for Elon to credibly
| masquerade as a "free speech absolutist" whilst simply
| changing the guidelines to focus bans on stuff that
| annoys him more than the stuff that used to be banned.
|
| I'm sure some other people were banned for unlabelled
| parodying accounts under the new rule too, but they're
| busy stopping people using labels as obvious as "Elon
| Musk (Parody)" too...
| andrepd wrote:
| Lmao, no offense but holy damn the mental gymnastics
| going on there.
|
| > Great to see free speech finally thriving on Twitter
| now that Musk has taken over!!
|
| > See but Musk is banning people for making fun of him,
| even accounts clearly labeled as "parody".
|
| > Hmm sure, but then again does parody really fall under
| free speech?
|
| Dear god
|
| --
|
| Free speech is free speech. It's not "you're free to say
| things I like", especially as defined by some slightly-
| deranged billionaire CEO. Plus, parody is the bread and
| butter of comedians making fun of politicians since at
| least ancient rome.
|
| For what's worth, Musk had already been notorious before
| for attempting to silence those critical of him. And
| let's not even get into the union-busting stuff (free
| speech to hurl abuse at trans people online, but not to
| organize collective action!).
| blipvert wrote:
| Change my display name to Elon Mask - _bam_ permanent
| suspension.
| bufferoverflow wrote:
| Because that's against of ToS. Impersonating someone.
| andrepd wrote:
| "(PARODY) Elon Musk (PARODY)" still gets you banned.
| blipvert wrote:
| Who is Elon Mask?
| AlbertCory wrote:
| Getting fired from Twitter employment is not being "banned
| from Twitter."
| TaylorAlexander wrote:
| The person is talking about twitter users being banned
| from the platform for making fun of Musk. This seems to
| be happening a lot.
| bufferoverflow wrote:
| Who was banned for "making fun of Musk"?
| TaylorAlexander wrote:
| Well it seems like this article is talking about
| suspensions, not bans, and the language some of the
| suspended users used is confusing:
|
| https://www.businessinsider.com/twitter-users-
| criticizing-mu...
|
| But there was more notably a wave of people being
| permanently banned for changing their display name to
| Elon Musk, a previously accepted behavior on Twitter:
|
| https://time.com/6229960/twitter-bans-accounts-elon-musk-
| imp...
| [deleted]
| odiroot wrote:
| Came here to say basically the same. Especially the libel laws
| are extreme.
| samwillis wrote:
| Exactly, we have had the concept of "Libel" in uk law for over
| 700 years [0].
|
| It's this Libel and Defamation law that has often contributed
| to the allegations of censorship. Fundamentally some of this is
| built into British culture, and is significantly different to
| US culture where "free speech" rules supreme. But it's the
| bleeding of US culture into that of the UK though the
| media+internet that leads to a more vocal debate around these
| issues than before.
|
| To quote form the Wikipedia article below:
|
| "English defamation law puts the burden of proof on the
| defendant, and does not require the plaintiff to prove
| falsehood. For that reason, it has been considered an
| impediment to free speech in much of the developed world."
|
| The world is so much more connected now it's inevitable that
| cultural and legal differences will reduce and some sort of
| equilibrium will be found.
|
| 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law
| flipbrad wrote:
| The Defamation Act, in England and Wales, brought in specific
| and very helpful reforms for defendants. It's privacy law
| that claimants now use, not least because you don't have to
| prove falsehood or serious harm, unlike in defamation claims.
| fmajid wrote:
| The libel laws do exactly what they were designed for:
| prevent uppity peasants from importuning the people who
| really matter, a group that now includes Russian oligarchs
| (basically kindred spirits to the inbred descendents of the
| original robber barons).
| ChuckNorris89 wrote:
| _> It's this Libel and Defamation law that has often
| contributed to the allegations of censorship._
|
| Exactly the same in Austria. Often politicians and even
| shitty businesses use the libel law to get undesirable
| negative information about them removed from public spaces
|
| An MP was called a "corrupt traitor" on Facebook and Facebook
| was forced to remove that comment under the libel law.
|
| Often businesses will force Google, Kununu and other websites
| where people can leave reviews, to remove the negative ones
| under the libel law, that even doctor's practices do it.
|
| Basically, your not allowed to air the dirty laundry of the
| rich and powerful unless you have bulletproof hard evidence,
| wich you can never really get as the GDPR and other strong
| privacy laws make legal evidence gathering nearly impossible
| by individuals.
| jan_Inkepa wrote:
| I've been legally threatened twice by a German restaurant
| on google for leaving a 3 star review on the basis that it
| damages their ability to do business. Pretty ridiculous...
| . Google required me to post proof I had been there, but
| that didn't stop the Restaurant threatening a second
| time...
| _0ffh wrote:
| Someone do that to me, I remove it and create a 2 star
| review. The only way to discourage such behaviour is
| negative consequences.
| blacklion wrote:
| My wife's brother, who lives in Munich, say, that it is
| impossible to leave bad review for doctor or hospital,
| because here is court decision, that patient is not
| qualified (doesn't have education and training) to
| distinguish good medical service from bad one!
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| >that patient is not qualified (doesn't have education
| and training) to distinguish good medical service from
| bad one!
|
| This statement seems true for the vast majority of
| patients (although not the part where government prevents
| people from sharing their thoughts).
| lostlogin wrote:
| I work in healthcare.
|
| If you want to cause a massive, expensive and all
| consuming drama, physically hurt someone and then tell
| them that they are wrong and you didn't.
|
| It's surprisingly how often this is done.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| I was referring more to a patient not being able to
| discern whether or not a certain diagnosis or treatment
| plan is the best option, just as they would not be able
| to with a car mechanic.
| lostlogin wrote:
| Oh for sure, sorry.
|
| I was more meaning that from the patient's perspective,
| it's hard to tell the difference.
|
| It helps that I live in NZ where you can't sue very
| easily for injury, and most medical errors are covered by
| a national insurance scheme which applies to everyone.
| pessimizer wrote:
| I'm convinced that libel laws in the UK boil down to putting
| the two sides on front of an extremely wealthy and connected
| judge who decides which between the complainant and the
| accused is poshest, then makes the other one apologize.
|
| You can be so posh that you accuse the current PM of raping a
| dead pig's head in the widest circulating tabloid and face
| absolutely no consequences.
| logicchains wrote:
| >You can be so posh that you accuse the current PM of
| raping a dead pig's head in the widest circulating tabloid
| and face absolutely no consequences.
|
| I was under the impression that there were no consequences
| because it had actually happened?
| cvcount wrote:
| There doesn't seem to be any good reason to believe it
| did: the authors of the book don't even back up the
| anecdote particularly strongly.
|
| https://www.theguardian.com/media/mediamonkeyblog/2015/oc
| t/0...
|
| "The thing to point out about that story is that there is
| no need for burden of proof on a colourful anecdote where
| we're quite upfront about our own reservations about
| whether to take it seriously."
| notahacker wrote:
| There were no consequences because the Prime Minister
| didn't sue, both because Prime Ministers generally have
| more important and less embarrassing things to be doing
| that testifying in court that they never stuck their
| penis inside a roast piglet for a funny photo during
| their adolescence (even if they didn't!), and because the
| authors knew how to word rumours and innuendo so that it
| probably didn't fall foul of libel law, and that a PM
| they knew personally would go all "I'm not even going to
| dignify that with a response" in response rather than
| spend the next few years pursuing a vendetta against
| them.
| lostlogin wrote:
| An alternative explanation for him not suing which I just
| made, is that the Prime Minister was part of a Black
| Mirror marketing campaign.
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_National_Anthem_(Blac
| k_M...
| throwaway049 wrote:
| Odd example. No case went to court.
| ben_w wrote:
| No _official_ consequences , but he did come down with a
| sudden serious and moderately rare illness immediately
| after making that claim, which interfered with the book
| launch that the claim was related to.
|
| I'm not saying it was a conspiracy, but I am saying that
| it's the kind of plausible deniability I'd aim for if I was
| writing a story about the British Government wanting to get
| away with an exo-legal punishment.
| gilleain wrote:
| Exo-legal? Maybe extra-legal? As in outside the law.
|
| (Exo-legal punishment sounds like something from the 40K
| universe :) )
| iso1631 wrote:
| > US culture where "free speech" rules supreme
|
| Oh sure your right to say "I'm going to blow up a school" is
| of course protected. Say "I'm going to shoot the president"
| though and off to jail.
|
| Want to run an advert that someone thinks it false? Nope.
| Print some stories the government doesn't like? nope. Draw a
| picture of Lisa Simpson being screwed by Rupert Murdoch as a
| symbol of the collapse of the quality of the simpsons? Off to
| jail for you
|
| And of course there's the whole mess of copyright, trademarks
| and patents which infringe on your right to speech
| BiteCode_dev wrote:
| +1
|
| Taboo is a UK stable food, and it goes hand in hand with
| censorship.
|
| In fact, with the current political and economical situation,
| I'm surprised it's not getting worse. The Finger would be
| tempting to create in a time of crisis.
| foldr wrote:
| staple food
| Kukumber wrote:
| Not just the UK, Canada and the US also
|
| Based on that bill it seems like the ideas are similar, i wonder
| if, at some point, they'll merge together and form some sort of
| super state that gets to decide what's right to say and what's
| not right to say
|
| A dark era for the west
| PicassoCTs wrote:
| How about talking about the source? The actual source for all
| those creeping towards totalitarianism? Its that governments are
| aware of the crisis coming and they have no solutions, no plans,
| no scenarios, no capabilities they want to develop to counter
| problems to come, except suppress the citizenry as long as they
| can and weather it out. Wish we could vote a whole generation of
| useless politicans out in lockstep.
| ThrowawayTestr wrote:
| This is the country where offensive tweets are illegal.
| pelorat wrote:
| This is a thing in most countries on the planet. Try tweeting
| "I wish all X people were dead!" outside of the USA, and in
| many places you'll get a visit from the authorities (if they
| notice that is, they don't actively monitor for it, someone
| would have to give you up to the local police).
| a_c wrote:
| When I come into the country in 2021, I wasn't able to visit
| archive.org on my Giffgaff network. Took me forever to realise it
| was blocked.
| xd wrote:
| I've never had an issue accessing archive.org and I've lived in
| Britain my entire life and accessed it from all kinds of
| locations / devices.
| ZGDUwpqEWpUZ wrote:
| Parental controls are now the default on (most?) UK mobile
| providers, so a lot of archive/user-driven sites get blocked
| if you don't login to your provider's portal to tick the "I'm
| over 18" box. IIRC this has been the case since David
| Cameron's government made threatening noises about bringing
| in legislation to force it.
| leeroyjenkins11 wrote:
| Honestly, I think that's one good thing. I believe that
| isp's should provide more content controls and allow fine
| grained controls for account owners to block content in
| categories. And they should have at least adult content
| blocked by default with an opt out.
|
| It's insane to me that parents have to be network admins to
| be able to make even do basic content filtering for their
| children in the US.
| dbspin wrote:
| There's a huge leap between 'parents have to be network
| admins' and all devices you buy are censored by default.
| cortic wrote:
| I'm admittedly pretty cynical about these things, but i
| think blocking adult content by default is mostly to help
| pedophiles and predators. The internet is a dangerous
| place for kids, why else would you want to make it _look_
| safer, while leaving the real dangers (people) in place?
|
| Kids shouldn't have unsupervised access to the internet.
| This has become a controversial statement, mostly due to
| a false sense of security brought on through censorship.
| williamvds wrote:
| When I bought a throwaway GiffGaff SIM while I was
| waiting months for BT to set up my broadband, it had
| content blocking on by default. They wanted me to send a
| picture of my driver's license to lift the restrictions.
|
| I'm not sure what I'm more disgusted by: the fact I need
| to give away my identity to have unfiltered (except the
| outright blocked stuff) access to the internet, or that I
| caved and gave it to them anyway.
|
| I guess I should be happy proof of identity wasn't
| required to buy or activate the SIM in the first place.
| a_c wrote:
| I checked the result through
| https://www.blocked.org.uk/site/http://archive.org?expand=1
|
| So yeah, UK is definitely censoring websites
| pelorat wrote:
| It's their silly "think of the children" filter, which
| requires an adult to contact the ISP to unlock access to
| sites which might contain nudity.
| MaxBarraclough wrote:
| Wikipedia and reddit contain plenty, but aren't blocked.
| klelatti wrote:
| Well I'm on 3 and have no problem accessing archive.org.
| This seems to be an adult content filter which you can turn
| off.
| friendlyHornet wrote:
| In my country (Jordan), archive.org was also blocked for some
| reason, but interestingly, only one ISP (ZainJO) was blocking
| it afaik. I have no idea why; no other sites I could think of
| were blocked.
|
| Idk if the block is still there today; I moved out of Jordan
| years ago
| guywithahat wrote:
| I've been hearing constant news about how awful their censorship
| laws are for at least 5 years now. The only reason telegraph is
| saying Britain was "sleepwalking" was because up until now
| they've been exclusively benefiting from it
| pelorat wrote:
| UK has always been a bit different. I believe they don't even
| have a constitution, correct me if I'm wrong?
| Toenex wrote:
| The United Kingdom has a constitution but not a specifically
| written one.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kin...
| sfusato wrote:
| https://archive.ph/XeDJL
| pjc50 wrote:
| Previously on the Telegraph:
|
| https://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2022/11/29/online-safety...
|
| https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/09/25/watering-onl...
|
| https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/11/28/social-media-gia...
|
| https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/11/12/tory-women-w...
|
| https://www.gov.uk/government/news/online-safety-bill-home-s...
| (yes, the Telegraph gave a page to a government minister;
| remember how much they used to pay Johnson?)
|
| Looks like they were in favour of it all the way up to this
| point, so long as they thought it would only censor things they
| didn't like.
|
| Compare on HN front page:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33836666 in re TikTok
| adamdean123 wrote:
| See the bit where it says "Author", the person who wrote the
| articles you linked to (Charles Hymas) is a different person to
| the person who wrote the article posted by OP (Fraser Nelson).
| Viewpoint diversity exists, just because two people write for
| the same newspaper they don't have to share the same views. If
| you're a Guardian reader that might be a new concept though
| ljwall wrote:
| A bit snide. The guardian also carries opinion pieces from
| multiple viewpoints.
| toyg wrote:
| Yes, but you can twist it around: if even the bloody Torygraph
| is against this crap, _how bad it must be_...
| pasc1878 wrote:
| Or more usually if the Telegraph is against it it is worth
| looking into.
| mjw1007 wrote:
| I'm no fan of the Telegraph, but all those links show is that
| it's willing to give comment space to people with different
| points of view.
|
| (Or, to put it another way, the fact that they're willing to
| print a column by Fraser Nelson isn't a reason to suppose their
| home affairs editor isn't still in favour of the bill.)
| SXX wrote:
| Every single thing started by polititians to "protect children"
| end up the same way.
| hunglee2 wrote:
| "Worse, this isn't even intentional. It's happening because
| ministers have not really thought through the implications"
|
| don't often agree with Telegraph but their analysis is accurate.
|
| Our era of soundbite politicians vulnerable to populist measures
| which superficially sound reasonable (sue big tech for hosting
| bad content) but disguise deep complexities (what is bad content,
| who decides this, it is universally applied?) which have profound
| implications for society (blaming platforms for user posted
| content means no more user posted content without prior
| moderation)
| licebmi__at__ wrote:
| > Our era of soundbite politicians vulnerable to populist
| measures which superficially sound reasonable
|
| I'm deeply skeptical that this is a real problem. I mean,
| there's defined a list of extremely popular issues which have
| no support from politicians (like a healthcare reform in US),
| and also a long list of unpopular policies enacted a lot of
| times with bipartisan support.
| benevol wrote:
| > Worse, this isn't even intentional.
|
| Of _course_ it is intentional. It 's about manipulating the
| population. It's simply about the control of the people.
| DiggyJohnson wrote:
| Why is that so obvious? Italics and the word "simply" do not
| actually make a convincing point. It seems like you're
| implying that politicians never fail to anticipate the
| (un-)intended consequences of their rhetoric and policies.
| blipvert wrote:
| But this is Fraser Nelson, editor of the Spectator, writing in
| the Telegraph - both publications have been the absolute
| cheerleaders of the Conservative administration's descent into
| an idiocracy. Reap what you sow, Fraser, you dolt.
| Mindwipe wrote:
| Indeed, the Telegraph literally campaigned for this
| legislation. They had a special logo for the articles they
| wrote to breathlessly promote it.
| alldayeveryday wrote:
| "Worse, this isn't even intentional. It's happening because
| ministers have not really thought through the implications"
|
| It might be right that the ministers/politicians have not
| really thought through the implications. But someone else
| surely has and is making censorship (of the things that
| challenge their power) a matter of policy. The actions of big
| tech are a matter of their internal policies. Which "populist"
| opinions politicians respond to (and which they ignore) is a
| matter of policy. In an age when populist opinion is
| manufactured through control of content and media, politicians
| are no longer moved by the opinions of their constituents but
| rather by those holding onto that control. Instances of
| bipartisan support in the US, for example, are merely instances
| where the topic is important to the elite and need bear no
| relationship to the opinions of the people.
| armada651 wrote:
| > It's happening because ministers have not really thought
| through the implications
|
| I think they've thought through the implications perfectly
| well. Or at the very least they've been told what the
| implications are by their legal advisors. The real problem is
| that they do not care about those implications.
| knorker wrote:
| The UK has always been authoritarian in sheep's clothing.
|
| Don't be fooled by its geographic location and shared language
| with the US. It's very extreme as far as western countries go,
| and not towards the freedom side.
| jcampbell1 wrote:
| The plan is to have a legal but harmful framework, and Elon Musk
| decides what is harmful. What could possibly go wrong?
| Threatening US multinational with billion dollar fines? Try that
| shit in a non-Biden administration. Has the UK gone mad?
| causality0 wrote:
| Sleepwalking? I believe they're wide awake and have made their
| choice: they prefer an inoffensive world over a free one. Maybe
| it helps them sleep better at night but personally I'm not
| setting foot anywhere I might have an illegal opinion.
| andrepd wrote:
| Well then you probably can't set foot anywhere much. If you
| were thinking of the USA, remember that people have been extra-
| judicially killed by the state for being "communist", only 2 or
| 3 decades ago.
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| Details? And, um, we had an official Communist Party back
| then, and maybe still do, and the people in it were _not_
| killed, so... maybe what you 're implying isn't a reasonable
| inference?
| andrepd wrote:
| We do, the CPUSA is still a thing. However, back in the
| apex of its popularity and influence (interwar period) the
| people in it _were_ killed, or intimidated, harassed, or
| imprisioned, over the course of the two major Red Scares.
|
| However I was thinking in particular of people like Fred
| Hampton, a young progressive with an electrifying oratory
| style who commanded the respect and admiration of his
| people, advocated for anti-capitalism resistance, self-
| relience, self-government. The most dangerous kind of
| subversive: idealist in words, pragmatist in actions. He
| was assassinated at the peak of his popularity by the FBI
| on explicit orders of the top of American government.
|
| Read the introduction of
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO to get an idea of
| the sort of things we are talking about: intimidation,
| violence, imprisonment, and assassination if need be,
| target on people from the Black Panther Party to
| environmentalists.
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| OK. Got anything that was _only_ two or three decades
| ago, like you said you had?
| peoplefromibiza wrote:
| You mean the thousand that died because USA supported
| literally the Nazis of the world against totally legal
| socialist nations, they did not like?
|
| Or the countless innocents that died because USA
| fabricated false evidence to invade foreign countries,
| not aligned with their interests?
|
| each decade had its own operation condor from the US
| since the end of WW2
|
| A recent example, happened less than a decade ago
|
| https://fair.org/home/as-lula-emerges-from-prison-us-
| media-i...
| pelorat wrote:
| Then you are stuck in the USA for the rest of your life. I
| think the USA is the only country on the entire planet which
| allows unfettered free speech, every other nation has some
| legal limits on speech (or expression as we call it in Europe).
|
| For instance, what Kanye said on Infowars would likely land him
| in jail if he was German, and his talk about the holocaust not
| being real would get him in trouble with the authorities in a
| lot of other nations.
| insanitybit wrote:
| The US doesn't allow unfettered free speech, that would be
| insane (although people on HN may disagree).
|
| But it is definitely "extreme" - you can lie publicly,
| knowingly, and with resulting damages, very easily; it is
| _much_ more difficult to pursue charges against someone who
| does so vs in the UK.
|
| With regards to political speech, it's even less restrictive.
| UncleSlacky wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce.
| ..
| henry_pulver wrote:
| As a Brit, I'm embarrassed. These politicians are LARPing and
| haven't learned the most important political lesson of the last
| 100 years - that restrictions on speech are dangerous.
| dmix wrote:
| I've noticed on HN whenever there's threads about censorship
| as soon as it's late at night here (EST) and morning in
| Western Europe a ton of censorship defenders come out of the
| woodworks.
|
| So it seems popular among the EU people too, even among the
| more sophisticated HN crowd.
| erdos4d wrote:
| Have lived in the EU and they definitely have a stronger
| concept of censorship there. You honestly don't have a
| right to say anything you want, especially if you are
| saying things to a large audience who might be incited.
| Most people I have met are quite happy that people such as
| nazis are censored and cannot spread hate. Given their
| history, that makes some sense, but I honestly get the
| feeling they focus too much on appearances and not on
| trying to actually undermine these groups and interfere
| with their recruiting. You will find plenty of such people
| in working class bars around the continent, but as long as
| they are not making public shows and speeches, the populace
| seems to ignore them.
| Krasnol wrote:
| Why not both? Seriously, showing off symbols of national
| socialism saved Germany many embarrassing clips on
| international media. All those groups who gathered under
| the anti-intellectual agenda of the past years here in
| Germany would have had someone with this stuff marching
| the streets against covid restrictions, etc.
|
| I wouldn't call it censorship either. No symbol or idea
| is being repressed. You can learn about the lies of
| Holocaust deniers. About the symbols, and so on. Youre
| "just" not supposed to go out there and recruit people
| with those tools.
|
| The discussion and misunderstanding OP has seen here
| comes from the fact that the "radical" free speech laws
| in the US set no borders on spreading this kind of
| propaganda. The results are very visible these days in
| the US and I'm happy they're not in Germany (at least not
| in a relevant way).
|
| This from a foreigner who has been living in Germany for
| longer.
| erdos4d wrote:
| > I wouldn't call it censorship either. No symbol or idea
| is being repressed.
|
| In Germany it is straight up illegal to display nazi
| symbols, do their salute, or even advocate their beliefs,
| isn't it? I was told as much by quite a few Germans at
| least.
|
| That said, my problem with the censorship approach is
| that these groups appeal to actual problems within
| society and individuals, and by censoring them, none of
| that goes away. If anything, I think they just get pushed
| underground and the real issues that allow them to
| successfully recruit are still there, and they just do it
| quietly, which is why the local motorcycle club is full
| of fucking nazis, like it or not. The only way to stop
| these groups is to remove the fuel, which implies making
| changes to society itself to reduce the number of people
| who are in poor circumstances and might find a voice
| telling them it is the immigrants/jews/brown people who
| are to blame for their personal sense of injustice.
| Officially censoring also gives an anti-establishment
| sheen to them that definitely appeals to some.
| Krasnol wrote:
| > In Germany it is straight up illegal to display nazi
| symbols, do their salute, or even advocate their beliefs,
| isn't it? I was told as much by quite a few Germans at
| least.
|
| You can display them for educational or artistic reasons
| for example. This is not a religious law. It's forbidden
| to walk around randomly with a swastika on your T-Shirt
| or recruit people under your new fascist party which has
| a swastika as a logo for example.
|
| > That said, my problem with the censorship approach is
| that these groups appeal to actual problems within
| society and individuals, and by censoring them, none of
| that goes away.
|
| Those groups have enough other ways to display their
| affiliation and intentions. Nobody here has a problem
| distinguishing those since the education on those topics
| is quite thorough. Which goes for your second argument on
| how to fix it. I doubt there is a country on this planet
| which schools their children more clearly on this topic
| but there will always be that bottom parts of society
| which will still go there. They follow the myths and do
| have those "forbidden materials". However they do also
| have a problem coming along. It's illegal. They can't
| spread it openly and promote it this way. It works quite
| well.
|
| > Officially censoring also gives an anti-establishment
| sheen to them that definitely appeals to some.
|
| They don't need a picture of a swastika to justify that
| story.
|
| I think the misunderstanding here comes again from this
| "free speech" doctrine which doesn't allow for self
| thinking. Everything is 1 or 0 because otherwise it would
| be too complicated. But it can work different. It works
| in Germany at least.
| peoplefromibiza wrote:
| > In Germany it is straight up illegal to display nazi
| symbols, do their salute, or even advocate their beliefs,
| isn't it?
|
| How is that different from communism being illegal in the
| US?
|
| At least Germans banned Nazism which was born in Germany
| and wrote one of the worst pages of modern history, same
| reason why in Italy the fascist party is illegal and
| cannot be recreated.
|
| Both have creates societies were violence is an order of
| magnitude less prominent than in the US and society tries
| to help those in need, more than those with deep pockets.
|
| Maybe educating people to avoid totally nihilistic and
| destructive ideas works...
|
| What's the excuse USA found to ban communism, which never
| actually rose to power there?
|
| Imagine a country where you can be a Nazi, praise Hitler,
| say that there's good in him and that you love the Jews
| but also Nazis, but can't stand for workers rights and
| support the class struggle.
|
| How dare they to even think about it?
|
| Also: remember when to export encryption freely the World
| had only one option: avoid USA? GPG was possible only
| because a German free software developer (Werner Koch)
| created and maintained it, if it was for US laws, nobody
| else could use it. If that's their idea of freedom, I'd
| rather stay on the Germans side.
| DaiPlusPlus wrote:
| > How is that different from communism being illegal in
| the US?
|
| Communism isn't illegal in the US.
| peoplefromibiza wrote:
| It actually is, simply, like in Germany with Nazi people,
| it's not strictly enforced. Nazi in Germany exist and
| have much more rights than communists in the USA, they
| can also participate to the public political life of the
| country, but can't use Nazi symbols and names. And I
| agree, it's important to remove them and force those
| people to come up with new ways to express their ideas,
| because those symbols and names represent the worst of
| humanity.
|
| It's not censorship, it's SOCIAL PROGRESS, something the
| USA seem to have abandoned long time ago.
|
| Neo nazis also won some local election in Germany, of
| course not as the official "Nationalsozialistische
| Deutsche Arbeiterpartei"
|
| Proving that there is much more freedom of expression in
| Germany than in USA, where a communist party existed, has
| been outlawed, people have been persecuted, arrested and
| killed, for being a member, long after the war ended
| ensuring that their ideas would disappear from the public
| discourse.
|
| It's easy to claim comolete freedom when you kill ideas
| you don't like in the crib. And with the ideas usually
| the US also kill the people...
|
| If you talk to an average american, they still believe
| that socialism is a crime and communism killed 100
| million people (myth debunked hundreds of times)
|
| How free!
|
| You can't understand the kind of freedom we experience in
| the old continent, the same way a lion born and raised in
| a cage cannot understand the savana.
|
| You don't understand that we all think that banning Nazi
| symbols and ideas is a good thing, we wouldn't feel more
| free if they could show them at will, we would think we
| are descending into madness and that we are all in
| danger. Because it's how those things work, the more they
| are free to spread, the more they are picked up. We've
| seen nazi flags in the US recently and it scared us all
| here. Also it disgusted us. We collectively think that
| some things are better relegated to history, like the
| death penalty, slavery, segregation, racism and of course
| fascism and nazism.
|
| Again, that's not censorship.
|
| At least in Germany you can drive around knowing that
| police officers won't shoot you for speeding [1]
|
| And of course USA don't want to ban Nazism under the
| pretense of "freedom" [2]
|
| _The Communist Control Act of 1954 (68 Stat. 775, 50
| U.S.C. SSSS 841-844) is an American law signed by
| President Dwight Eisenhower on August 24, 1954, that
| outlaws the Communist Party of the United States and
| criminalizes membership in or support for the party or
| "Communist-action" organizations and defines evidence to
| be considered by a jury in determining participation in
| the activities, planning, actions, objectives, or
| purposes of such organizations._
|
| [1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/apr/21/us-
| police-vi...
|
| [2] https://www.npr.org/2014/11/05/361427276/how-
| thousands-of-na...
| tptacek wrote:
| No, it isn't. The act was almost entirely repealed, and
| an attempt to enforce it would be struck down by every
| court that heard it. The US is a common law country;
| what's legal or not here is a question not just of
| statute but of jurisprudence.
|
| Germany can in fact ban Nazism. The US cannot.
| DaiPlusPlus wrote:
| It depends on how do you define "censorship", and your view
| of the fundamental role of the state.
|
| I used to be a free speech absolutist (especially as a
| teenager, campaigning against Internet filters in school,
| as one is want to), I've refined my position over time away
| from that unsophisticated and unhelpfully simplistic
| position, but I haven't yet found an accurate succinct way
| to describe my current feelings beyond saying I'm "aligned
| with defensive-democracy" (
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_democracy ) - but I
| try to avoid advocating DD with language like "reasonable
| restrictions" because that's currently the language used by
| people who I'm ideologically opposed to, but I don't want
| to come across as a libertarian... nor a V-for-Vendetta fan
| either.
|
| As much as I'd love to blame Ofcom's letter on the Tories,
| I believe under Labour it would be just as bad: Labour
| is/was the party of _Wacky Jacqui Smith_ after-all; whereas
| this perennial paternalism comes from the current
| constitutional design of the Home Office: until and unless
| the Home Office changes their attitude we'll keep on seeing
| this kind of policymaking - it's an analogue to the US'
| "foreign policy blob" situation, imo (
| https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/16/us/politics/blob-
| afghanis... )
| boudin wrote:
| I wonder how much of it is also due to technologies making this
| possible. The centralisation of a huge chunk of communications
| via a few massive actors makes this kind ideas enforceable. So,
| while those ideas aren't new, the thought of generalising it
| comes from having layed down the technical foundation that makes
| it possible.
| pessimizer wrote:
| I believe that the government is encouraging media monopolies
| in the US. It's obviously infinitely easier to work with a few
| dependent giant media corps than trying to play a bunch of
| competitive outlets against each other to get your message out.
| You can literally just flood the few giant media companies with
| your own staff; just route their government paycheck through
| Raytheon (as a "consultant") or promise them they'll be able to
| retire from media to a lazy job in higher education as the
| _Harriet Foundation Endowment Chair at the Council for
| Democratic Innovation at Harvard._ Internet media companies are
| filling up with ex-intelligence agency employees.
| chriswarbo wrote:
| Agreed. I deleted my Twitter account after the UK government
| floated the idea of having the power to turn off such sites:
| https://www.gov.uk/government/news/pm-statement-on-disorder-...
|
| > And when people are using social media for violence we need
| to stop them.
|
| > So we are working with the Police, the intelligence services
| and industry to look at whether it would be right to stop
| people communicating via these websites and services when we
| know they are plotting violence, disorder and criminality.
|
| The fact that's even a possibility put me off such centralised
| platforms. (Of course, HN is centralised; but it's a niche
| forum, rather than a general medium of communication)
| paganel wrote:
| > So we are working with the Police, the intelligence
| services and industry to look at whether it would be right to
| stop people communicating via these websites and services
| when we know they are plotting violence, disorder and
| criminality.
|
| Wow, had Egypt's Mubarak done the same just before the Arab
| Spring maybe his sons would still be in power right now. But,
| of course, bank then it was totally legit to use Twitter and
| FB in order to plot "violence and disorder".
| zimpenfish wrote:
| > I deleted my Twitter account after the UK government
| floated the idea [...] > when we know they are plotting
| violence, disorder and criminality
|
| Were you "plotting violence, disorder and criminality"?
| pfoof wrote:
| Define "violence, disorder and criminality"
| vorpalhex wrote:
| Most people have something they would protest.
| shmageggy wrote:
| This argument fails in the same way that "I've got nothing
| to hide" arguments against privacy fail. Even if someone is
| not currently running afoul of the current government's
| current definition of a particular illegal act, we still
| might not want to grant them absolute power to enforce.
| These definitons of illegality tend to change (read:
| expand) over time, and when governments change they tend
| not to give back powers they've been granted.
| logicchains wrote:
| >I wonder how much of it is also due to technologies making
| this possible. The centralisation of a huge chunk of
| communications via a few massive actors makes this kind ideas
| enforceable.
|
| At the time of the US revolution most communication was
| centralised in the postal service, monitored by the British.
| That's one of the reasons for the first amendment.
| jongjong wrote:
| We seem to be in a vicious cycle of politicians trying to
| suppress public discontentment by limiting free speech but this
| only creates more discontentment which requires even more
| suppression of speech.
|
| Why do people in power seem to prefer to kick the can down the
| road until it explodes instead of trying to resolve problems as
| they come? It seems to be a recurring theme of history.
| briantakita wrote:
| > Why do people in power seem to prefer to kick the can down
| the road until it explodes instead of trying to resolve
| problems as they come? It seems to be a recurring theme of
| history.
|
| People in power are often motivated by gaining more power &
| their core competency is acquiring more power, usually by
| manipulating social dynamics. They also also adept in
| manipulating organizations to have power-focused people,
| especially if they can be controlled, in positions of
| governance & management. Any other popular ideological position
| they publicly espouse is a mask to consolidate power. There are
| some books on psychopathy in governance & management...such as
| https://www.amazon.com/Political-Ponerology-Science-Psychopa...
|
| With advances & consolidation in the state/empire, technology,
| automation, & global socioeconomic systems, people in power
| have more leverage over everybody else...Consolidation will
| increase until systems become too top-heavy & a collapse
| occurs. Most people, including people in power, tend to not
| desire being ruled by others, so infighting is inevitable,
| which also leads to collapse...Usually the breakups occur
| suddenly when the status quo becomes obviously untenable & it
| is less risky to break ranks.
|
| Political rivals that can execute a coherent long term strategy
| of systemic growth & power have a long-term advantage over
| those who are unable to execute continued growth.
|
| You can test these assertions in an analysis of the history of
| the various political & business empires which grew &
| collapsed.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-12-03 23:02 UTC)