You're modded funny by some people actually think that way, and not just about internet addiction, but pretty much anything deemed "undesireable" by society at large. Nails that stick out get nailed down, as they say... so be a good polite model citizen and you won't get "re-educated". This is hardly unique to china. Forced treatment exists in the US too, especially with teenagers.
Voluntary private support. It's simple. If the government doesn't get enough money, the basis infrastructure (roads, power, police) and so forth degrades. I'm sure there are enough people out there who are willing to donate as long as they know exactly how and where their money is spent (records would be public, no "secret projects" or anything like that). How would you propose infrastructure and so forth work otherwise?
While I actually agree with you on your hardliner "no law" stance, it's a hard sell to most people and certainly not something that's likely to be acceptable to the public at large or politically tenable for representatives to propose. Removing the civil penalties from defamation torts, to the public, means that anybody can say anything and there are no consequences. They miss the point that the consequences are that the lies can then be exposed and the liar can be shown for who he/she is... but most people don't see the big picture like that. They want the state to decide what is right and wrong. I'm not debating how things should be, i'm debating how things are, and as they are, the US is probably one of the the most (if not the most) free country in the world where such cases are concerned.
Using defamation as an example again. Unlike most countries, in the US, in a defamation action the onus is on the plaintiff to prove a statement to be a statement of fact that is false and has caused harm, etc... In other countries, a defendant has to prove his statements true, which is often difficult when it's a situation where it's one person's word against another. The US errs on the side of free speech. In addition, thanks to New York Times v. Sullivan, there is the "actual malice" standard concerning public figures (or limited purpose public figures in a matter of public concern) which means that in addition to proving a statement false, a plaintiff must also prove that the defendant knew that the statement was false (or at least doubted it's truth) at the time he made it with admissible evidence. Since that involves proving a mental state, it's very, very difficult and almost impossible to win.
You're still missing the point. I'm not talking about frivolous lawsuits. I'm talking about ones that are in the spirit of the law, that restrict speech.
Which in the United States are very very few, and for which there is always due process before something gets removed. (although this is not true in practice with the DMCA).
That's precisely my point! You are compelled to be silent. By law. Where did that "voluntary" you were talking about disappear to?
And what part of the word "most" did you not understand?
And what about the ones that aren't meritless? Where the law does, in fact, say that it is not legal to say certain things? The content will either be taken down to avoid a lawsuit
In which case it's voluntary. It's a problem with websites and hosting providers that quite simply don't have the sack.
or it will be taken down after they lose a lawsuit
In which case there has been due process. But again, realize that it is VERY difficult to censor something in the united states. Defamation cases are not easy at all to win. In cases concerning public figures, they're usually almost impossible.
or they won't take it down after losing the lawsuit and the state will force them to. That's what it boils down to - if you don't act in accordance with the law, whether it is criminal or civil in nature, the state will act against you until your illegal speech is silenced. Censorship.
You're right. It is still censorship regardless. The point that I was making that you don't seem to get is that 99.9% of it is voluntary and never gets to the point you describe. Maybe I'm biased since the case I was in turned out so well in my favor, but I have a certain degree of faith in the court systems. Sure some laws suck, but that's what the supreme court is for and if you really feel that a particular act of civil censorship is so grievous you can appeal it up that far if you so choose to.
There are plenty of examples where speech is purposefully restricted by the government. I gave others.
It's still far more lax than almost any other country. Name me a country with better defamation law on the books.
The distinction you are drawing has no relevance. Either way, the bottom line is that you are punished by the state for saying certain things. Whether you find out by the police breaking down your door in the middle of the night, or whether you find out by a court summons, either way, the state enacts the laws, and the state makes you pay. In fact a civil case can often be worse for you, as there is no presumption of innocence, only preponderance of evidence.
In many states there is anti-slapp legislation to help deal with frivolous first amendment related lawsuits. I know. I was sued once for a website I published. The attorneys took the case on a contingent fee basis (they wound be paid on winning the case by the plaintiff who would then be required by anti-slapp legislation to pay for all fees and court costs + a lodestar multiplier for the risk). I won, all fees and court costs were recovered, and my lawyers got the multiplier they requested.
The point I'm trying to make is while people might try and censor your or your website, it's still your choice as to whether you want to fight it or back down. Most back down even when the case is frivolous. That's voluntary.
That's hilarious. "It's not censorship because we wait for the government to tell us to stop publishing it before we stop publishing it".
Yes, but we don't censor. If there is a court order, there isn't much we can do about it. We're compelled to. Most websites will bow down to the first threat and it doesn't get to that point. That's the voluntary censorship I speak of, which is ultimately the bulk of it. Section 230 of the communications decency act also keeps us nicely insulated from the words of our posters, whether libelous or otherwise.
Nonsense. 2600 didn't take down those links voluntarily. You are ignoring the fact that the state enacted the laws and ensures that if you lose, you get screwed. You seem to be carefully blinkering yourself to everything that might contradict the idea that the USA might not have freedom of speech in anywhere near the degree it is claimed to.
No system is perfect and the DMCA is abused, there is no doubt about that. I'm not sure the DMCA actually has a decent purpose. Wasn't it the EFF that reported that something like 60% of all DMCA notices were frivolous in nature. Even if there were some redeeming value to the DMCA, there is no doubt it has some unintended consequences, to say the least.
About the only think I like about the DMCA is when a website is a safe harbor, individual posters are responsible for defending their own words. The problem there is they have to identify themselves in order to do that and many do not wish to. That has to change as it chills anonymous speech.
Upstream complies because the state forces them to. If they don't comply, they are liable for what you did.>
They do almost always comply, yes, but the state does not technically compel them to. They would be liable, yes (no safe harbor), but if the case was truly merit-less and they cared about free speech, they would take that risk (for example, if the DMCA claim was for a list of alphabetized names, which is not copyrightable). After all, anti-slapp legislation does allow recovery for expenses.
The problem is that most people aren't their own hosting or upstream providers and most providers will back down under the rationale that it's better safe than sorry. That's voluntary for them. Unfortunately it also means that if I run a website and I refuse a DMCA notice, the hosting provider will probably take my whole site down when they get their notice. In any case, it's still not the state doing the censorship. It's corporations with cutthroat policies that care more about risk management and the bottom line than the first amendment. Some refuse. Example
But it's not illegal to advocate violence in the US unless it presents an imminent danger which is defined by "more quickly than an officer of the law reasonably can be summoned" (in a riot, for example). Otherwise it's protected. See BrandenBurg v. Ohio among other similar cases.
Yeah, but the problem is that nothing guarantees that nobody infringes on anybody's rights (the only real legitimate role of the state as I see it). What's to stop me from shooting who I don't like, or from people who don't like me from shooting me? Yes I can protect myself, but if it truly is survival of the fittest, somebody is going to make a power grab and that's probably not going to end well. What about basic infrastructure such as roads. If all of it's written into a constitution that cannot change and the possibility for change is eliminated, what's the problem?
And somehow you think that attacking religion in the same fell swoop is going to convince anybody that what you say isn't out of your own far-left bias. With language like "people like you" and so forth, are you really any better than the prejudice you claim to oppose? Consider this honestly: if hate speech laws were applied a little bit differently, and you were in the UK, could your message render you a target for prosecution? That's the danger right there.
consequences includes: punishment by law, vigilante punishement, hurt feelings etc... It's a pretty broad category. What you're referring to is punishment by law. That is not among the consequences to speech in the US.
I think you're mistaking disaprooval of state meddling with approval of corporate ownership of the state. Both are bad and the two problems are related. Either problem is solved by dissolving the state to a point of minimum functionality (police, fire, infrastructure, defense). Google minarchism.
I think it's a combination of your opinion and grandparent in US society. It's a series of small crises (real, imagined, or exaggerated), within each a different freedom slightly eroded. The right erodes a certain set of civil liberties and the left erodes a different set. Power shifts hands, sure, but the freedoms generally don't come back once they're gradually taken away. Look at how second amendment rights have been gradually eaten away or how the right has somehow managed to establish authority over what people put in their own bodies, something Jefferson was explicitly opposed to.
Those are pretty petty compared to something as fundamental as free speech (something necessary for anything to change in society). It seems like you're willing to give up a pretty fundamental freedom for some pretty small conveniences.
Just FYI. i've lived overseas for almost half my life (in Europe, too). I do know what both sides of the pond are like.
I'm an American and i've never quite understood the sensitivity. In a sense I can understand it, but on the other hand, the flag is just a symbol of freedom, including the freedom to burn that very flag. I can't imagine a greater insult to the flag and what it stands for than taking that freedom away.
Actually, all those things you listed are protected speech. Even the stuff against the president you describe would likely be considered rhetorical hyperbole (see Watts v. United States). And I do flex my rights on a regular basis in ways you could only dream of.
You're confusing civil with criminal law. Most of those websites have no legal obligation to remove anything. I run an unmoderated discussion forum and no matter how much people complain about who said what and "that's illegal", nothing gets removed without a court order. People deserve due process. Much of the censorship you speak of is voluntary... not the state's fault. Even DMCA notices can be ignored (but your hosting provider / upstream might comply).
SCOTUS disagrees. Rather than rehash what they said, read their rationale. See Brandenburg V. Ohio. Basically the only time speech can be deemed illegal is when it presents an *imminent* danger. Presenting an ideology that group X should be killed is not imminent, nor is encouraging violent illegal action, even the overthrow of the government. The test they came up with is summarized here. That's how seriously free speech is protected in the United States.
Or maybe suppression of the speech will drive it underground, make it taboo, and in a sense, make it more appealing to those who are lonely and looking for a sense or subversive belonging. Think Streisand Effect, teenage rebellion, and drug prohibition rolled into one.
It's not sympathy for these losers. I did not read and do not care what they said. I care that one day, on the same basis, I might be judged similarly (though I thank my stars I'm an American).
Slashdot Mirror
You're modded funny by some people actually think that way, and not just about internet addiction, but pretty much anything deemed "undesireable" by society at large. Nails that stick out get nailed down, as they say... so be a good polite model citizen and you won't get "re-educated". This is hardly unique to china. Forced treatment exists in the US too, especially with teenagers.
where is -1 "get off my lawn"
Voluntary private support. It's simple. If the government doesn't get enough money, the basis infrastructure (roads, power, police) and so forth degrades. I'm sure there are enough people out there who are willing to donate as long as they know exactly how and where their money is spent (records would be public, no "secret projects" or anything like that). How would you propose infrastructure and so forth work otherwise?
Using defamation as an example again. Unlike most countries, in the US, in a defamation action the onus is on the plaintiff to prove a statement to be a statement of fact that is false and has caused harm, etc... In other countries, a defendant has to prove his statements true, which is often difficult when it's a situation where it's one person's word against another. The US errs on the side of free speech. In addition, thanks to New York Times v. Sullivan, there is the "actual malice" standard concerning public figures (or limited purpose public figures in a matter of public concern) which means that in addition to proving a statement false, a plaintiff must also prove that the defendant knew that the statement was false (or at least doubted it's truth) at the time he made it with admissible evidence. Since that involves proving a mental state, it's very, very difficult and almost impossible to win.
You're still missing the point. I'm not talking about frivolous lawsuits. I'm talking about ones that are in the spirit of the law, that restrict speech.
Which in the United States are very very few, and for which there is always due process before something gets removed. (although this is not true in practice with the DMCA).
That's precisely my point! You are compelled to be silent. By law. Where did that "voluntary" you were talking about disappear to?
And what part of the word "most" did you not understand?
And what about the ones that aren't meritless? Where the law does, in fact, say that it is not legal to say certain things? The content will either be taken down to avoid a lawsuit
In which case it's voluntary. It's a problem with websites and hosting providers that quite simply don't have the sack.
or it will be taken down after they lose a lawsuit
In which case there has been due process. But again, realize that it is VERY difficult to censor something in the united states. Defamation cases are not easy at all to win. In cases concerning public figures, they're usually almost impossible.
or they won't take it down after losing the lawsuit and the state will force them to. That's what it boils down to - if you don't act in accordance with the law, whether it is criminal or civil in nature, the state will act against you until your illegal speech is silenced. Censorship.
You're right. It is still censorship regardless. The point that I was making that you don't seem to get is that 99.9% of it is voluntary and never gets to the point you describe. Maybe I'm biased since the case I was in turned out so well in my favor, but I have a certain degree of faith in the court systems. Sure some laws suck, but that's what the supreme court is for and if you really feel that a particular act of civil censorship is so grievous you can appeal it up that far if you so choose to.
There are plenty of examples where speech is purposefully restricted by the government. I gave others.
It's still far more lax than almost any other country. Name me a country with better defamation law on the books.
The distinction you are drawing has no relevance. Either way, the bottom line is that you are punished by the state for saying certain things. Whether you find out by the police breaking down your door in the middle of the night, or whether you find out by a court summons, either way, the state enacts the laws, and the state makes you pay. In fact a civil case can often be worse for you, as there is no presumption of innocence, only preponderance of evidence.
In many states there is anti-slapp legislation to help deal with frivolous first amendment related lawsuits. I know. I was sued once for a website I published. The attorneys took the case on a contingent fee basis (they wound be paid on winning the case by the plaintiff who would then be required by anti-slapp legislation to pay for all fees and court costs + a lodestar multiplier for the risk). I won, all fees and court costs were recovered, and my lawyers got the multiplier they requested.
The point I'm trying to make is while people might try and censor your or your website, it's still your choice as to whether you want to fight it or back down. Most back down even when the case is frivolous. That's voluntary.
That's hilarious. "It's not censorship because we wait for the government to tell us to stop publishing it before we stop publishing it".
Yes, but we don't censor. If there is a court order, there isn't much we can do about it. We're compelled to. Most websites will bow down to the first threat and it doesn't get to that point. That's the voluntary censorship I speak of, which is ultimately the bulk of it. Section 230 of the communications decency act also keeps us nicely insulated from the words of our posters, whether libelous or otherwise.
Nonsense. 2600 didn't take down those links voluntarily. You are ignoring the fact that the state enacted the laws and ensures that if you lose, you get screwed. You seem to be carefully blinkering yourself to everything that might contradict the idea that the USA might not have freedom of speech in anywhere near the degree it is claimed to.
No system is perfect and the DMCA is abused, there is no doubt about that. I'm not sure the DMCA actually has a decent purpose. Wasn't it the EFF that reported that something like 60% of all DMCA notices were frivolous in nature. Even if there were some redeeming value to the DMCA, there is no doubt it has some unintended consequences, to say the least.
About the only think I like about the DMCA is when a website is a safe harbor, individual posters are responsible for defending their own words. The problem there is they have to identify themselves in order to do that and many do not wish to. That has to change as it chills anonymous speech.
Upstream complies because the state forces them to. If they don't comply, they are liable for what you did.>
They do almost always comply, yes, but the state does not technically compel them to. They would be liable, yes (no safe harbor), but if the case was truly merit-less and they cared about free speech, they would take that risk (for example, if the DMCA claim was for a list of alphabetized names, which is not copyrightable). After all, anti-slapp legislation does allow recovery for expenses.
The problem is that most people aren't their own hosting or upstream providers and most providers will back down under the rationale that it's better safe than sorry. That's voluntary for them. Unfortunately it also means that if I run a website and I refuse a DMCA notice, the hosting provider will probably take my whole site down when they get their notice. In any case, it's still not the state doing the censorship. It's corporations with cutthroat policies that care more about risk management and the bottom line than the first amendment. Some refuse. Example
Minarchism (as in limited government libertarianism), not monorchism (eew... tmi).
But it's not illegal to advocate violence in the US unless it presents an imminent danger which is defined by "more quickly than an officer of the law reasonably can be summoned" (in a riot, for example). Otherwise it's protected. See BrandenBurg v. Ohio among other similar cases.
Yeah, but the problem is that nothing guarantees that nobody infringes on anybody's rights (the only real legitimate role of the state as I see it). What's to stop me from shooting who I don't like, or from people who don't like me from shooting me? Yes I can protect myself, but if it truly is survival of the fittest, somebody is going to make a power grab and that's probably not going to end well. What about basic infrastructure such as roads. If all of it's written into a constitution that cannot change and the possibility for change is eliminated, what's the problem?
And somehow you think that attacking religion in the same fell swoop is going to convince anybody that what you say isn't out of your own far-left bias. With language like "people like you" and so forth, are you really any better than the prejudice you claim to oppose? Consider this honestly: if hate speech laws were applied a little bit differently, and you were in the UK, could your message render you a target for prosecution? That's the danger right there.
consequences includes: punishment by law, vigilante punishement, hurt feelings etc... It's a pretty broad category. What you're referring to is punishment by law. That is not among the consequences to speech in the US.
I think you're mistaking disaprooval of state meddling with approval of corporate ownership of the state. Both are bad and the two problems are related. Either problem is solved by dissolving the state to a point of minimum functionality (police, fire, infrastructure, defense). Google minarchism.
I think it's a combination of your opinion and grandparent in US society. It's a series of small crises (real, imagined, or exaggerated), within each a different freedom slightly eroded. The right erodes a certain set of civil liberties and the left erodes a different set. Power shifts hands, sure, but the freedoms generally don't come back once they're gradually taken away. Look at how second amendment rights have been gradually eaten away or how the right has somehow managed to establish authority over what people put in their own bodies, something Jefferson was explicitly opposed to.
Under the imminent lawless action test, speech is not protected by the First Amendment if it is likely to cause violation of the law more quickly than an officer of the law reasonably can be summoned.
Read their definition of imminent on the link to the test. It really means imminent.
Those are pretty petty compared to something as fundamental as free speech (something necessary for anything to change in society). It seems like you're willing to give up a pretty fundamental freedom for some pretty small conveniences.
Just FYI. i've lived overseas for almost half my life (in Europe, too). I do know what both sides of the pond are like.
mod parent up! Insightful.
I'm an American and i've never quite understood the sensitivity. In a sense I can understand it, but on the other hand, the flag is just a symbol of freedom, including the freedom to burn that very flag. I can't imagine a greater insult to the flag and what it stands for than taking that freedom away.
Actually, all those things you listed are protected speech. Even the stuff against the president you describe would likely be considered rhetorical hyperbole (see Watts v. United States). And I do flex my rights on a regular basis in ways you could only dream of.
You're confusing civil with criminal law. Most of those websites have no legal obligation to remove anything. I run an unmoderated discussion forum and no matter how much people complain about who said what and "that's illegal", nothing gets removed without a court order. People deserve due process. Much of the censorship you speak of is voluntary... not the state's fault. Even DMCA notices can be ignored (but your hosting provider / upstream might comply).
SCOTUS disagrees. Rather than rehash what they said, read their rationale. See Brandenburg V. Ohio. Basically the only time speech can be deemed illegal is when it presents an *imminent* danger. Presenting an ideology that group X should be killed is not imminent, nor is encouraging violent illegal action, even the overthrow of the government. The test they came up with is summarized here. That's how seriously free speech is protected in the United States.
Democracy without a constitution providing limits is mob rule.
Burning the stars and stripes is protected speech (though it might get the crap beat out of you).
Or maybe suppression of the speech will drive it underground, make it taboo, and in a sense, make it more appealing to those who are lonely and looking for a sense or subversive belonging. Think Streisand Effect, teenage rebellion, and drug prohibition rolled into one.
It's not sympathy for these losers. I did not read and do not care what they said. I care that one day, on the same basis, I might be judged similarly (though I thank my stars I'm an American).
"it's spreading what you think that is restricted". Exactly. You admit that your government controls the commerce of ideas?