Free Speech .

[rmgill]

The attacks on free speech are apparently a problem across the anglo-sphere. We've seen this stuff in the UK, attempts in Canada, attempts (and success) in the US, now New Zealand.

Rather than the UK specific thread since that's grating on the Brits here's a general thread for all examples to discuss since this is clearly an issue across the anglo-sphere.

[rmgill]

Stephan Molyneux and Lauren Southern have been doing a tour or Oz and NZ. Apparently the sold out event in Aukland was canceled due to the event owner being shut down by the Aukland government.

Here's a discussion they had with news after the fact on the issue.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgOfdaXGNlY

[CT96]

Free speech is clearly on the decline in the Anglo-sphere. It's part of the cycle. We've become too complacent, too risk averse, too comfortable. It will take some protracted time of difficulty to make us change our ways.

 

 

 

It's pithy, but it's true. The cycle runs about 75 years, or somewhere about three-four generations. The first generation endures the hard times and overcomes. The second generation is raised on the stories from the first generation, and take most of the lessons to heart. The third generation doesn't even have the stories from the first generation, and repeat all the mistakes that led to the hard times the first generation endured/overcame. There are some things that can exacerbate or ameliorate the duration of the various phases, but not avoid them.

 

There is no "end of history" just an end to a cycle. The details change. The names change. Human nature continues on.

[toysoldier]

The fact that you probably snatched that meme from Mad Mughal Memes only makes it more true LOL. Its almost a millennium of evidence.

[rmgill]

Human behaviors cross cultures eh?

[Murph]

So true, we saw this with Obama, the weakest of the men.

Free speech is clearly on the decline in the Anglo-sphere. It's part of the cycle. We've become too complacent, too risk averse, too comfortable. It will take some protracted time of difficulty to make us change our ways.

 

 

 

It's pithy, but it's true. The cycle runs about 75 years, or somewhere about three-four generations. The first generation endures the hard times and overcomes. The second generation is raised on the stories from the first generation, and take most of the lessons to heart. The third generation doesn't even have the stories from the first generation, and repeat all the mistakes that led to the hard times the first generation endured/overcame. There are some things that can exacerbate or ameliorate the duration of the various phases, but not avoid them.

 

There is no "end of history" just an end to a cycle. The details change. The names change. Human nature continues on.

[Chris Werb]

I honestly find the effort to control what is acceptable by the likes of YouTube much more troubling than any such attempts by governments which, by and large tend to reflect the will of their populace. I'm not even thinking about Alex Jones, though that is a case in point (I think Jones is harmless and downright funny on occasions). This really started to bug me when YouTube went after firearms related channels for allegedly promoting violence and started de-monetizing them. Forgotten Weapons for example is totally non political and certainly does not promote gun violence in any way. There is a world of difference between stopping someone possessing a gun and stopping them even watching videos about them.

[Roman Alymov]

 

So true, we saw this with Obama, the weakest of the men.

 

 

If I remember correctly, Obama was not only elected and reelected, but was sort of popular - so millions (if not hundreds of millions) of US voters supported him and his policy. Also, as far as I know Hilary Clinton, with promise of de-facto following Obama line, won public vote (numerical majority of voters) – yes it is not making her President, but clearly indicate Obama’s political heritage was almost as popular as Trump promises. Seems like US society is split into almost equal parts with views strongly opposing?

[rmgill]

I honestly find the effort to control what is acceptable by the likes of YouTube much more troubling than any such attempts by governments which, by and large tend to reflect the will of their populace.

Arguably they're two sides of the same coins. In areas where there are more strict controls, the implementation is done by the companies that make the tech. Nokia was in deep with the Iranian government on their internet/phone controls.

 

As to wills of the populous? I wonder what folks from China would say about that if they could speak freely. So too Iran or any number of other countries with national firewalls that partition off the internet from the citizenry.

 

 

I'm not even thinking about Alex Jones, though that is a case in point (I think Jones is harmless and downright funny on occasions).

It's never the ones that everyone cares about that get silenced first though is it?

 

This really started to bug me when YouTube went after firearms related channels for allegedly promoting violence and started de-monetizing them. Forgotten Weapons for example is totally non political and certainly does not promote gun violence in any way. There is a world of difference between stopping someone possessing a gun and stopping them even watching videos about them.

Yeah. But folks who don't like guns or hate guns don't see that as a problem. No skin off their noses. Anything gun related is bad.

[rmgill]

If I remember correctly, Obama was not only elected and reelected, but was sort of popular - so millions (if not hundreds of millions) of US voters supported him and his policy. Also, as far as I know Hilary Clinton, with promise of de-facto following Obama line, won public vote (numerical majority of voters) – yes it is not making her President, but clearly indicate Obama’s political heritage was almost as popular as Trump promises. Seems like US society is split into almost equal parts with views strongly opposing?

Yep. And it's getting wider.

[rmgill]

[rmgill]

Holy fuck. I just heard about this. THIS is why Apple doing something is more or less the same coin, just a different side from governments.

They moved the KEYS to a state run data center. If you have the keys to a user's account, you have their data, encrypted or not. That means contact lists, activity, files, email, etc, etc, etc.

https://www.engadget.com/2018/07/18/apple-icloud-data-china-stored-state-run-telco/

Six months ago Apple caused controversy by moving Chinese users' iCloud keys out of the US and into China, in order to comply with Chinese law. Now, that data, which includes emails, text messages and pictures, is being looked after by government-owned mobile operator China Telecom. And users and human rights activists alike have big concerns.



The move has unsurprisingly been praised by state media, with Chinese consumers being told they can now expect faster speeds and greater connectivity. But as comments on Weibo (China's equivalent of Twitter) reveal, users have major privacy worries, claiming the government -- known for its extreme citizen surveillance methods -- will now be able to check personal data whenever it wishes.

Apple has repeatedly stated that its hands are tied on the matter -- Chinese legislation has essentially given the company a "comply or die" ultimatum. However, Apple users in China are able to opt out of local data storage by choosing an alternative country for their iCloud account, but it's not clear whether that would delete previous information, or simply migrate it to the new server. If you have concerns about the government snooping at your data, you might just want to start an account from scratch.

Edited August 9, 2018 by rmgill

[Chris Werb]

Ryan, I should have said Western democracies rather than countries. The point you make about people hating guns wanting information on and discussion of them banned is equally true of a other subjects which are commonly deemed contentious. It's a mindset with a certain kind of person. Obviously there need to be some limits. I don't think any of us want paedophiles using the internet to openly promote child abuse. I'm not too keen on how to guides on making high explosives on your kitchen table, but then you run into the problem of where nefarious behaviour ends and legitimate science or hobby activity begins.

[Harold Jones]

Ryan, I should have said Western democracies rather than countries. The point you make about people hating guns wanting information on and discussion of them banned is equally true of a other subjects which are commonly deemed contentious. It's a mindset with a certain kind of person. Obviously there need to be some limits. I don't think any of us want paedophiles using the internet to openly promote child abuse. I'm not too keen on how to guides on making high explosives on your kitchen table, but then you run into the problem of where nefarious behaviour ends and legitimate science or hobby activity begins.

 

Here in the US Pedos have the right to publish all the defense and advocacy of their perversion that they want, look up NAMBLA if you have the stomach for it. It's the sharing of pictures and movies that is not protected. Reference the bolded bit as recent rulings on 3d printed guns affirmed, publishing that kind of thing has been ruled to be constitutionally protected speech, actually producing something using those plans is still subject to the various laws regulating the actual product.

[rmgill]

Ryan, I should have said Western democracies rather than countries. The point you make about people hating guns wanting information on and discussion of them banned is equally true of a other subjects which are commonly deemed contentious. It's a mindset with a certain kind of person. Obviously there need to be some limits. I don't think any of us want paedophiles using the internet to openly promote child abuse. I'm not too keen on how to guides on making high explosives on your kitchen table, but then you run into the problem of where nefarious behaviour ends and legitimate science or hobby activity begins.

The accepted standard of what speech shall be ok to restrict on face is that speech which involves directly harming other people. Child porn goes a step further in that it is documentation of the victimization of children. The marketing and distribution of that for prurient interests contributes to the demand for more victimization.

 

The scope of speech which shall be allowed to be restricted under US law is quite constrained. We even have a doctrine of law that relates to how protected a right is. Strict Scrutiny.

 

To pass strict scrutiny, the law or policy must satisfy three tests:

 

It must be justified by a compelling governmental interest. While the Courts have never brightly defined how to determine if an interest is compelling, the concept generally refers to something necessary or crucial, as opposed to something merely preferred. Examples include national security, preserving the lives of a large number of individuals, and not violating explicit constitutional protections.

The law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest. If the government action encompasses too much (overbroad) or fails to address essential aspects of the compelling interest, then the rule is not considered narrowly tailored.

The law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest: there must not be a less restrictive way to effectively achieve the compelling government interest. The test will be met even if there is another method that is equally the least restrictive. Some legal scholars consider this "least restrictive means" requirement part of being narrowly tailored, but the Court generally evaluates it separately.

 

As to western democracies, my example above includes Apple. Which is or at least was arguably a Western corporation. Their turning over of user data to the Chinese government which has a poor record on respect of human rights is appalling. Nokia likewise was in the pocket of the Iranian government when it came to developing their phone network constraints.

 

The point of the entire thread is that you have a slow progression of what people consider to be reasonable to restrict. OR in the case, who it's reasonable to silence through various means.

 

First it's political extremists like Alex Jones. How long before the online consortiums pulls Tommy Robinson's videos? OR Paul Joseph Watsons? Or Nigel Farange?

Then it's content that's disliked, like Gun related content.

Then it's people that the left labels as extreme, that's looking like it's going to be a host of online political commentators who lean rightwards. Some are even arguably more centrist in US terms like Stephen Crowder.

How far will it go?

 

If the left can get MOST of the core of the internet to silence political foes without even getting the government to do it, is it censorship? Walks like a duck, talks like a duck...

[rmgill]

 

What's absurd about the gun videos is that clips of movies with use of guns in thematically illegal ways are illegal, but still allowed to be shown on Youtube, especially if the media companies are promoting it. But if it's Ian from Forgotten weapons talking about history, that's not allowed.

Edited August 9, 2018 by rmgill

[Chris Werb]

The Apple thing is really disturbing.

[rmgill]

The Nokia thing was more disturbing because that was down to tracking people and presumably using phones to listen to targets.

[Jeff]

If the left can get MOST of the core of the internet to silence political foes without even getting the government to do it, is it censorship? Walks like a duck, talks like a duck...

 

People are saying that private companies can censor what they want and it's not a first amendment issue which only deals with government censorship. It may not be a first amendment issue but it most certainly is a free speech issue. Since the latest action against Jones was obviously coordinated among several platforms, one could reasonably ask what if cell phone companies started denying service to people and organizations they don't like? The bank closes your accounts? Insurance companies cancel your car/home/health/mortgage/life insurance? Car companies will no longer sell vehicles to people with certain beliefs? We are not far from the point where people of certain beliefs end up in a de facto ghetto both virtual and real.

 

We've gone from "bake the damn cake!" to "expunge anyone not approved by the proper people" pretty damn fast.

 

We're on a very real and disturbing path.

[Mr King]

 

 

.

We've gone from "bake the damn cake!" to "expunge anyone not approved by the proper people" pretty damn fast.

 

We're on a very real and disturbing path.

 

 

We have been on it for some time. See Barry Soetoro and his Operation Choke Point.

[rmgill]

We've gone from "bake the damn cake!" to "expunge anyone not approved by the proper people" pretty damn fast.

Funny how that works eh?

[Mr King]

Alex Jones is not a protected class off citizenry, he is a white male untermensch

[CT96]

Let's see... in the last week...

 

 

Alex Jones, deplatformed from FAGS, but not Twitter.

 

Ron Paul had accounts terminated (I didn't catch exactly which).

 

Bill Whittle reportedly lost his Youtube Channel

 

Anarchy Ball's twitter axed.

 

Gab was given a 48-hr "remove this offensive* post or your hosting will be terminated"

 

*_{to somebody.}

 

Several GOP candidates had their accounts suspended/terminated because their campaign videos were "offensive"

 

Conservative reporters detailing Sen. Feinstein's ties to the Chinese Spy were silenced by Twitter today.

 

 

 

 

you know... you put this all together it's a list. It's a trend. It's a warning.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Its the rise of the corporations. There are many laws to ensure the state enshrines free speech, but there is little to say content providers or global multinationals have to be held to account to the same rules.

 

Ultimately we are all the enablers of this kind of thing. Dont like it, dont use Youtube (or Facebook, or Twitter or whatthehellever)

[bojan]

Thing never to forget - Google, Twitter, Facebook etc are not "social media". They are world largest marketing agencies, with access any other marketing agency can only dream about.

Advertizer is a king, and anything advertizer does not like will be removed.

Once you get that (and who their advertisers are) you will get the rest.

 

 

PS. Sooner they burn and crash the better, but I doubt it will happen anytime soon.

Edited August 10, 2018 by bojan