Utopia Talk / Politics / Jergul: Accountability and free speech

Camaban The Overseer	Mon Mar 18 18:50:50 So, when you're going on about accountability, and those who can't be held accountable shouldn't have free speech... What do you mean, exactly? You yourself said Dissenter follows US laws on this subject, but then you started going on about people using their real names and locations. So... From a legal POV, each connection has an IP address which, if unmasked by something like a VPN will personally identify an account owner, although the actual ownership of the IP would be released based on a formal request from X law enforcement agency. Which they'll do as the law requires. Your going on about real names and locations, however, makes it seem like you're not talking about legal accountability, but what I'd guess you'd call mob accountability. Accountability to society at large for perfectly legal actions. So which is it? Are you talking about legal accountability, as would be part of a formal request by law enforcement agencies? Or are you talking about accountability to society as a whole, by being able to be identified by any random on the Internet?
jergul large member	Tue Mar 19 02:20:17 I mean that an entity not clearly identifiable as a legal person, does not have the right to free speech. The dissenter application = gab social network. We shall call it by its correct name from now on. Gab claims to follow American domestic law. I mentioned earlier that a private arena is protected by privacy law, not the right to free speech. The right to free speech is protected by law, but it does not follow that accountability is limited to court ordered unmasking. People engaging in free debate have the right to know who they are debating. In sum. Gab users have the right to privacy as afforded to them by law in the jurisdictions in question (any jurisdiction their transmissions passes through as established by US practice), but not the right to freedom of expression due to their using a private arena and due to their not being clearly identifiable as legal entities that have such rights.
jergul large member	Tue Mar 19 02:46:15 I can formulate this succinctly: The right to free speech has to be asserted to be protected.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Mar 19 04:17:36 >>I mean that an entity not clearly identifiable as a legal person, does not have the right to free speech.<< Your definition, not how it works in my country. For instance keeping sources identity secret is a pillar of modern investigative journalism pretty much anywhere civilized. Your definition is straight out a third world dictatorship. You are taking a legal praxis from court rooms and want it scaled to every conversation. All that this will do is give the social media mob phenomena more people to target but mostly increase self-censorship. This is fine as a per platform policy decision, on facebook you have to be identifiable on twitter you don't etc. not the sledgehammer of the law. >>People engaging in free debate have the right to know who they are debating.<< No they don't. People who engage in any debate are free to decide if they want to engage or not if they accept the context, rules and format provided. The rest of us don't owe anyone easy access to our adress, surname or telephone number. Some of us live in large cities Jergul and not above the arctic circle. We don't have geography as a buffer towards crazy people. In fact this is the situation for most people on this earth.
jergul large member	Tue Mar 19 04:52:17 Nimi You are conflating the right to privacy with the right to freedom of expression. In your example, the source does have the right to privacy and that right has strong protections. The source does not have a right that compels the journalist to publish whatever the source wants to express. A person debating under limitations you outlined is not practising free debate as defined under freedom of expression laws. Crazy people do indeed set an illegal limitation on the right to freedom of expression in addition to virtually any other right you might imagine. In any event, the right to free speech does not apply to private arenas, though the right to privacy certainly does (the right to privacy is that of the private owner of course - who may, or may not extend it to guests).
jergul large member	Tue Mar 19 05:18:04 You are looking at this too narrowly. You do have rights and protections if you assert them by giving up anonymity. In this forum for example: There is a huge difference between trashing Hot Rod and attacking Clark Johnson. One is a person with rights, the other is not. Posts attacking the tag are fine. Many attacking the man - are not (and were deleted here and elsewhere).
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Mar 19 05:38:55 Still the source is provided both freedom of speeach and the protection of privacy without which the speech would become a hazard to the source. Likewise when you go to vote you are provided rigorous privacy, whereby no one can connect you expressed opinion with your name. This is how we run out countries. These are examples of critical functions where privacy and freedom of speech go hand in hand. It would be quite difficult to run a democracy if you were compelled by law the declare who you vote for. >>Crazy people do indeed set an illegal limitation on the right to freedom of expression in addition to virtually any other right you might imagine.<< And the states job is to, if not protect citizens from these types of coersions, atleast not make the job easier for crazy people. I think we agree. >>the right to free speech does not apply to private arenas<< They apply as selling point and community building. Further, our reality is that the speech that takes place on the private arenas sets the agenda and effect election outcomes and other kinds of phenomena. The future for social media platforms could very well entail more regulation and compliance with laws. We don't know, but what we do know is that there is a need for saying what you think with the protection of privacy. That is something that we will need, regardless of the type and shape of future mediums, platforms or the method of delivery for news and information.
jergul large member	Tue Mar 19 05:55:16 Nimi Yes, crazy people are a threat to any right you can think of. Including the right to life. Yes, the right to privacy is extensive in democratic countries. Suffrage is a distinct and independent right. You can for example have the right to freedom of expression without the right to vote. The flip-side of self-censorship (which is actually what you are talking about), is the opportunity to project irony, memes and "humor" to cloak truly horrific statements. Most speech does take place on private arenas, but are always subject to the scope and limitations the owner of the arena sets. Those arenas are not protected by free speech legislation. Again, the right to privacy is an important protection that does allow for floating ideas that definitely would be subject to court rulings if easily attributable. But it should not be mistaken for the the right of free speech. In sum. Stop conflating the two principles.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Mar 19 06:13:53 >>The flip-side of self-censorship (which is actually what you are talking about)<< I mentioned it explicitly actually in previous post. Self censorship is difficult to meassure, but it will rott none the less. >>is the opportunity to project irony, memes and "humor" to cloak truly horrific statements.<< Statements don't rise out of thin air, they are often preceeded by horrific thoughts. It is better to have these things in the open. >>Most speech does take place on private arenas, but are always subject to the scope and limitations the owner of the arena sets. Those arenas are not protected by free speech legislation.<< That is how it is today in the middle of paradigm shift in news and information consumption. When those arenas become so few, powerful that they can be manipulated, destroy innocent peoples lives, sway election results, who knows, they sooner rather than later, provided the private entity can not "fix it", will come under blunt regulation. >>In sum. Stop conflating the two principles.<< We are examining spaces where these two principle come into friction with each other. I think you understand the concept. We have a right to privacy, we have a right to freedom of speech, but we can't always have both. For instance in a courtroom when accusing someone of a crime, they have a right to know the identity of their accuser. When voting, you can have both, when acting as a source for a journo, even if what you are doing is breaking the law or breaching a legal contract, you can have both. My position is that we should have both at all times, with exceptions. That the cost of horrific ideas put into to words isn't a cost.
jergul large member	Tue Mar 19 06:37:33 Nimi The right to vote is not covered by freedom of expression. It is a distinct right with its own scope and limitations. Here is the specific limitation in regards to Sweden: "The Fundamental Law on Freedom of Expression applies to radio, TV, films, sound and picture recordings, video and CD recordings, as well as websites and blogs with a journalistic focus. If your website has an editor, it is possible to apply for a certificate of no legal impediment to publication which provides the website with protection under the Constitution. This means that not only media companies, but also organisations and private persons can apply for protection under the Constitution. If there is no editor responsible, ordinary law applies. Websites containing discussion forums and guest books, for example, are not covered by the Fundamental Law on Freedom of Expression because their content can be changed by people other than the editorial staff. Provided that each contribution is approved by the editorial staff before it is published, it is however possible to obtain a certificate of no legal impediment to publication." I disagree with your position. I feel that freedom of expression presumes direct accountability (see the snippet on swedish law for practical application). In fact I will illustrate. A reviewed post by an anonymous poster would be protected if and only if it had been reviewed by an editor. The person held accountable for the post content would be the editor or the media outlet in question. My understanding is very close to that of most democratic jurisdictions.
Pillz Member	Tue Mar 19 08:40:12 But not to the only one that counts which is America.
jergul large member	Tue Mar 19 11:06:37 Pillz Swedish law is in keeping with the pamphlet ruling. A publication or media can publish anonymous expressions if the publication otherwise qualifies for free speech protection according to the quote I provided. The distinction rests in retaining accountability (the publisher is accountable) through regulation. It is however important to remember 2 things. Freedom of expression is much more clearly a protection against State interference in the US (private entities are able to penalize expression far more quickly and severely than in other democracies). Also, anonymity is for the most part illusionary. The State has and uses the means of both mass and individual surveillance at levels far surpassing anything seen before anywhere. Backdoors give a lot of freedom to pretend.
Camaban The Overseer	Tue Mar 19 18:06:53 Right, a lot to unpack here: >>I mean that an entity not clearly identifiable as a legal person, does not have the right to free speech. << Source? >>Gab claims to follow American domestic law. << And? >>I mentioned earlier that a private arena is protected by privacy law, not the right to free speech. << No. Almost the opposite. A private entity isn't required to provide a platform, but... 1. If we're talking about the first amendment in the US specifically, that doesn't mean a govt can censor them. 2. While the first amendment is a wonderful bit of law, it's not equal to the full definition of free speech. >>The right to free speech is protected by law, but it does not follow that accountability is limited to court ordered unmasking. << No, that doesn't follow. However, it's nice to get a clearer idea of what you consider to be accountability. It's not enough that someone's accountable to the laws of the land, apparently they need to be accountable to mob justice. >>People engaging in free debate have the right to know who they are debating. << That's something you've made up. As Nim says, people have the right, in court, to face their accuser. This isn't the Internet and free speech is more than accusing someone of something. Actually, if it's slander or libel, that *is* something for the courts, which means that requests to unmask *should* go through proper legal channels. >>In sum. Gab users have the right to privacy as afforded to them by law in the jurisdictions in question (any jurisdiction their transmissions passes through as established by US practice), but not the right to freedom of expression due to their using a private arena << Going to reiterate that this use of a private arena bit is getting it ass-backwards. It also has nothing to do with what's free speech. A private arena has the legal right to be opposed to free speech. It even has the moral right to be opposed to free speech (Although this is being tested now that we're seeing how much a few major players on the internet are taking over. Strengthened by governments finding excuses to block the minor players) Finally, can != should. Just because something's legal doesn't make it right and legal actions can still be attacks on free speech. OK when an individual does it. Highly concerning when a government finds a pretext for it. >>The right to free speech has to be asserted to be protected.<< Asserted in what way? And... Really going to need some sources on this. This is something very Jergullian. By which I obviously mean doesn't really exist anywhere outside of your mind. Not counting dictatorships looking for an excuse to clamp down, obviously. >>You are looking at this too narrowly. You do have rights and protections if you assert them by giving up anonymity. In this forum for example: There is a huge difference between trashing Hot Rod and attacking Clark Johnson. One is a person with rights, the other is not. << Why are you talking about whether the target of a trashing is personally identifiable in a discussion on who should be allowed to say what? You've got so much backwards here... >>Suffrage is a distinct and independent right. You can for example have the right to freedom of expression without the right to vote. << Why bring it up? >>The flip-side of self-censorship (which is actually what you are talking about), is the opportunity to project irony, memes and "humor" to cloak truly horrific statements. << And here we have two scenarios: 1. The statement is illegal. Let the legal system handle it. 2 The statement is legal. Leave the person the fuck alone for saying it. Or respond with words. >>Most speech does take place on private arenas, but are always subject to the scope and limitations the owner of the arena sets. Those arenas are not protected by free speech legislation. << What private providers do is irrelevant to what govts do. A private provider (again, needs to be looked at again in the context of just how big places like Twitter have become) is under no obligation to provide a platform. But not providing a platform is very different to suppression. >>Again, the right to privacy is an important protection that does allow for floating ideas that definitely would be subject to court rulings if easily attributable. << Request platform for IP address. Request ISP for details of the account holder. Talk to account holder. Easy peasy. And requires absolutely zero exposure to mob violence. >>But it should not be mistaken for the the right of free speech. In sum. Stop conflating the two principles.<< You should take your own advice.
hood Member	Tue Mar 19 19:21:04 "In any event, the right to free speech does not apply to private arenas, though the right to privacy certainly does (the right to privacy is that of the private owner of course - who may, or may not extend it to guests)." Someone doesn't understand GDPR.
Camaban The Overseer	Tue Mar 19 20:55:49 When you're talking about how only the personally identifiable (to random people. Not merely to law enforcement. Not that it makes a difference) have a right to free speech, then back up your argument by talking the difference the target of speech being personally identifiable makes, you don't understand shit about shit.
jergul large member	Wed Mar 20 03:01:53 Hood No one understands GDPR. But it is ultimately about accountability. Private arenas have to secure consent and be clear on what you have consented to. Cam Wall of text. Did not bother to read. You have too much time on your hands. So I will respond only to your most recent post. Free speech is a right provided to legal persons under certain conditions. To have the right, you must assert that it applies to you under given conditions. There are good things that follow. For example in this forum. Smack talking is fine as none of you are identifiable, legal persons. So we are free to express ourselves much, much more sharply than would be legally permissible in any jurisdiction. We are all but tags of your own imaginations (with certain exceptions - and those exceptions are always protected by moderation).
jergul large member	Wed Mar 20 03:06:47 Hood Free speech is also not the only protection of freedom. We have many rights. I would put the right to privacy higher than the right to freedom of expression for a number of reasons. The GDPR is based on a number of our rights, but is not any of them. It is the GDPR. Freedom of expression remains a right based on accountability in most jurisdictions.
jergul large member	Wed Mar 20 03:20:43 Cam I am not censoring you. If you have a particular point you wish to discuss, then repost it and we can deal with whatever sequentially and at a digestible pace. Digestible is defined as a post I can intelligibly respond to in dialogue form without the use of citations from that post.
Camaban The Overseer	Wed Mar 20 03:47:21 It's fine. It's not the first time you've had literacy problems when things haven't gone your way. Anyway, I'll see if I can simplify it a bit later. A level that you can intelligently digest is a big ask though.
Camaban The Overseer	Wed Mar 20 03:50:14 How about we do a deal? You spout less bullshit, I won't dedicate as much text to arguing your bullshit. In this way, you can be in control of the amount I post.
jergul large member	Wed Mar 20 04:05:46 Cam You being a bit more forthcoming would help. It took a while to figure out that dissenter is merely a gab extension (the dissenter application was released last month, so there is not much information about it online). Anyway, you should be able to see the problem as it impacted on the quality of your post directly. I skimmed through you wall of text. A lot of the issues you had with relevance referred to my addressing points other posters had raised (its fine that you think their points are irrelevant, but you should direct that feeling towards them, not me). You also missed the source I provided on Swedish base law. It provides a baseline understanding and is also relevant because nimi referred specifically to conditions in Sweden. It is by far better that questions are raised succinctly and in digestible sequence.
hood Member	Wed Mar 20 08:39:56 "Hood No one understands GDPR." The classic "if I can't understand it then nobody can!" defense. Very well, I accept your admission of ignorance.
jergul large member	Wed Mar 20 08:56:24 Hood So many things are classic to you. But I freely admit to not have studied the GDPR in detail, but simply understand it as complimentary protection for informed consent. It could very well be that you understand GDPR to a greater extent than I do. Good for you! Cookies await!
jergul large member	Wed Mar 20 09:00:31 http://eur.../?uri=CELEX:32016R0679&from=EN It only contains 99 articles. Purging ignorance would not be hard at all!
Camaban The Overseer	Wed Mar 20 18:38:57 >>You being a bit more forthcoming would help. It took a while to figure out that dissenter is merely a gab extension (the dissenter application was released last month, so there is not much information about it online). << I'm not seeing the relevance. You were also able to ask 'what's dissenter?' instead of making what you've just admitted are baseless assumptions. Also, it took you a while to type 'dissenter' into Google and look at their homepage? Anyway, I realise you posted a bunch of stuff about Gab being there for right wingers, etc (The wiki article is amazingly biased) But... It's legal to have those positions. As much as the crazy mobs are against it, it's legal to be right of centre. If someone is doing something illegal, it goes through the courts. If someone is doing something legal, you leave them the fuck alone. In neither scenario does the mob need to know your details. >>I skimmed through you wall of text. A lot of the issues you had with relevance referred to my addressing points other posters had raised (its fine that you think their points are irrelevant, but you should direct that feeling towards them, not me). You also missed the source I provided on Swedish base law. It provides a baseline understanding and is also relevant because nimi referred specifically to conditions in Sweden. << Because you've never been one to cherry pick what you respond to anyway? Anyway, did anyone else have problems following the 12 short responses to separate things said by Jergul? >>It is by far better that questions are raised succinctly and in digestible sequence. << Explicit responses to quoted things, with clear separations aren't digestible to you? Seems far better than your tendency to reply randomly to things with minimal reference to what you're actually replying to (And even then, no distinction between reality and what's in your head). Anyway, all this aside, my question was answered. You're not looking for the rule of law on this issue, you're looking for rule of the mob. As is demonstrated by your belief that everyone should be personally identifiable by any random (Who are you, exactly?) person in order for them to have 'free speech' You're suggesting that in order to be free to speak their mind, people need to be able to be personally identified located by whatever crazy is nearby. And as you say, there's lots of crazies out there. I'm guessing you view yourself as being part of the mob, so it's OK. It would be great if you at least had the balls to say it, though. Which is another part of why the law, and only the law should cover who's able to be identified. It forces the politicians to at least have the balls to formally write down what they're against. Oh, if you managed to get this far, I'll remind you again that you have the ability to control how much is said in response to you. Minimise the retarded shit you say, and you'll find the responses get closer to your capacity to read, if not understand..
jergul large member	Wed Mar 20 18:59:50 I am saying that only expressions that qualify for protection by freedom of protection legislation are protected by freedom of speech legislation. Its not a hard position to grasp. But I see you struggle immensely. Nothing you have posted here ever qualified. For several reasons.
jergul large member	Wed Mar 20 19:05:06 1. You are posting on a private arena where freedom of expression legislation does not apply. 2. You are posting anonymously, and cannot assert that your expressions are protected for as long as you remain anonymous. Your posts could be the result of amateur AI attempts at emulating human interaction (I mention this as it will be a thing in the very near future). Which, come to think of it, would explain a lot.
jergul large member	Wed Mar 20 19:16:56 I don't get why your panties are in a bunch. You want anonymity and forums that are owned by legal entities that let you say whatever you want. You have that and that is protected by privacy laws. Freedom of expression and freedom of information (the flip-side where government is obligated to provide information and respond to legitimate queries) relates mainly to government dealings with legal persons. I am not disputing your right to say most anything you want that owners of the venue allow in the private sphere. But it should not be confused with freedom of expression as covered by relevant laws.
Camaban The Overseer	Wed Mar 20 19:42:27 >>I am saying that only expressions that qualify for protection by freedom of protection legislation are protected by freedom of speech legislation. << If you were capable of reading, you'd have seen this: "2. While the first amendment is a wonderful bit of law, it's not equal to the full definition of free speech. " >>2. You are posting anonymously, and cannot assert that your expressions are protected for as long as you remain anonymous. << If you were capable of reading, you'd have seen this: "Source?" >>You want anonymity and forums that are owned by legal entities that let you say whatever you want. << Straw man, my objection was against governments. Which, if you were capable of reading, you'd have seen was responded to: "What private providers do is irrelevant to what govts do. A private provider (again, needs to be looked at again in the context of just how big places like Twitter have become) is under no obligation to provide a platform. But not providing a platform is very different to suppression. " >>You have that and that is protected by privacy laws. << What I want is for governments to not restrict free speech. What you're saying is that only people who are easily identifiable by the mob have a 'right' to free speech. >>Freedom of expression.....relates mainly to government dealings with legal persons. << I cut out the red herring here. Anyway: Source? >>I am not disputing your right to say most anything you want that owners of the venue allow in the private sphere. But it should not be confused with freedom of expression as covered by relevant laws.<< So again, if you were capable of reading, you'd have seen the distinction between the govt and the private platform. IF you were capable of reasoning, you'd have seen that the original objection was with the blocking of a private platform, or pressuring private platforms to censor. Not a private platform saying "you can't do that" I have no idea why you keep on rambling about what the owners of a private sphere say you can/can't do on their platform when the objection is about their entire platform being blocked off.
Camaban The Overseer	Wed Mar 20 19:45:55 Incidentally, for your first paragraph. That's some of what you're saying. But it's a long way from everything. To repeat: What you're also saying is that posters of legal opinions need to make themselves vulnerable to mob justice in order to have what you call free speech. This is an unavoidable (and acknowledged) part of your unsourced belief that people have a right to know to whom they're talking. "People engaging in free debate have the right to know who they are debating"
hood Member	Wed Mar 20 23:40:41 "If someone is doing something legal, you leave them the fuck alone." As a blanket statement, no. As a general statement, sure, but the context at hand is pretty specific and borders on the "no" territory.
jergul large member	Thu Mar 21 04:35:18 Cam No one is reading the walls of text you are posting. The best you can hope for is a skim through. I am saying that only expressions that qualify for protection by freedom of speech legislation are protected by freedom of speech legislation. Its not a hard position to grasp. But I see you struggle immensely. I will remind you again that nothing you have ever posted here is protected by free speech legislation. TC could assert ownership over anything you ever posted here, delete all of it, or just shut down the forum. I am not sure of his policies on what data posting here provides the site, but he owns that data too (to the extent that law in his state allows). You are very free. Or to put it in other words: You are no one, and nothing you post is owned by you or an expression protected by free speech legislation. Which in turn means you can say whatever the hell you like without it being legally actionable. In principle because no one said anything at all. People [legal persons] engaging in free debate [protected by freedom of expression legislation] have the right to know who [what legal persons] they are debating [in an arena protected by free speech legislation]. The brackets were understandable from context. Did you ever establish that Government blocked Gab in New Zealand? It could be that private actors may have stopped Gab from using their outlets (as is their right as private owners of the venues), but that too remains unconfirmed. Private venues are not protected by freedom of speech regulation unconditionally. The Swedish system previously posted provides a reasonably representative way of qualifying for protection (it boils down to establishing accountability through editorial review). I find this to be eminently reasonable. That is my opinion. Your opinion differs. Mkay. If you need a source on what freedom of expression legislation primarily covers (Government-citizen interactions), then you are too ignorant to debate this topic. The same goes for the other sources you requested. Freedom of information is highly relevant as freedom of expression only allows for dialogue with the State if the State is obligated to respond (otherwise, citizens would be shouting at the wind in echo chamber ignorance). Amazing that you thought that a red herring.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Mar 24 12:37:49 When someone starts explaining what the law says in a discussion where others are talking about the ethics and moral foundation of said law, it’s time to bail, they have nothing. The same goes for people who say private entities like facebook et al can do whatever they want. They have not paid enough attention to the world and the power that now lies in the hands of a few unelected people who answer to no one. Or they did, but don’t see the consequences of ideologically motivated regulation. So we wait for the shitshow to run its’ natural course and implode, so we can tell you I told you so
jergul large member	Sun Mar 24 14:28:22 Nimi Why or why did you not just bail instead of topping the thread? I will refer you to the thread title. I was, am, and always will be speaking of freedom of expression as defined and protected by law. The shitshow had run its natural course. And then you topped it. Whatever follows is on you.
jergul large member	Sun Mar 24 15:21:49 Nimi My normative view (what I think should be the case) Privacy should be strongly protected and that most expressions made under the cloak of privacy should have no actionable legal standing unless very importan human rights are under serious threat (among them the right to life). In essense: "If no one says anthing, anything at all, then nothing is said". Which in turn means most anything is not legaly actionable, because it is in principle nothing. Private entities have to abide by the laws their venues are found in, though in most cases, not abiding by domestic law would not be actionable beyond blocking the venue in that jurisdiction. This, to me is a sovereignity issue. A country must be able to pass laws in its land (in the same way it must be able to enter treaties that may limit domestic law for as long as the treaties are in effect). We can mock country for having horrible laws in each individual case.
jergul large member	Mon Mar 25 02:00:30 My view is future-proof in sense that it draws no distinction between anonymous humans and robots (which - given maturing AI - is soon to be a thing, if not already).
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: