Not clicking on a Shitter link mate
this post was submitted on 15 Jan 2024
206 points (89.9% liked)
Privacy
31934 readers
606 users here now
A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.
Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.
In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.
Some Rules
- Posting a link to a website containing tracking isn't great, if contents of the website are behind a paywall maybe copy them into the post
- Don't promote proprietary software
- Try to keep things on topic
- If you have a question, please try searching for previous discussions, maybe it has already been answered
- Reposts are fine, but should have at least a couple of weeks in between so that the post can reach a new audience
- Be nice :)
Related communities
Chat rooms
-
[Matrix/Element]Dead
much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Cleaned and redirected link
https://nitter.net/FreeSpeechIre/status/1746854766032846910
Still, the news link below is probably a better source. I don't know what 'FreeSpeechIre' is
It's too bad you couldn't find a link to somewhere other than x.com. Just going by the headline though, this could lead to great new career opportunities for Irish black market contraband meme dealers.
Freedom of expression is a protected right under both the Irish constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights.
So not at all what the post title claims?
Freedom of expression?
[https://extra.ie/2021/02/21/news/irish-news/gardai-tell-woman-to-take-down-social-media-post-after-she-identifies-herself-as-child-abuse-victim(url) https://extra.ie/2021/02/21/news/irish-news/gardai-tell-woman-to-take-down-social-media-post-after-she-identifies-herself-as-child-abuse-victim
Thats a completely different scenario and frankly, you're being dishonest putting that forward as an example of freedom of expression being blocked.
There is not freedom of expression if the police can demand that you take down or alter a social media post.
It's a well intentioned law to protect child sex abuse victims and the law needs updating to cover this scenario. I think it's more an example of the ineptitude of the Irish government than anything.
Freedom of expression generally doesn't mean you can say anything without limitation
So an adult victim of a crime can't admit that they were the victim of a crime?
I'm not familiar with the laws of Ireland, but considering that article you linked, I guess I'm that specific instance, the answer is "No".
They still have freedom of expression.
It's fucking hilarious how x.com still redirects to twitter.com
honestly the lamest and funniest bit.
Perfectly ties the whole thing up in a bow: can't even technically manage a domain name change.
Willing to bet some motherfucker has hardcoded twitter domain on the backend in one (or many) link generation process(es) on the basis "it's not like they're going to change the name" and now it borks occasionally if they use x.com
For some reason I'm now thinking about a video game called x.com where you have to fight aliens who have infiltrated and taken over a major social media site and are trying to TAKE OVER THE WORLD Wide Web.
(Actually, that kinda sounds like a sequal to x-bill.)
grep
of course, switching it back might not be so easy... 😂
Oh god. You've probably hit the nail on the head both directions all the same, how many methods/classes/variables are going to have twitter in the name somewhere. Or random bash scripts that pass an arg to something else from a job scheduler. This shit gives me the heebeejeebees just thinking about it.
Oh, shit. x.com = twitter, it's not Xcom (the game series) xD | That took me waaay to long to realise lol
How does one possess a meme?
Possession is nine-tenths of the meme.
That doesn't clear up anything!
Post it on social media.
Friend sends it to you on WhatsApp for example
It's an Unpopular opinion but free speech as it gets translated in modern society can suck a dick.
Shit only applies to the left anyway, the right can call for violence against their enemies and be fine but if you say you'll defend yourself it's a ban on Le socials
again, literally 1984.
Free Speech Ireland on twitter
You need to take a crash course in media literacy. This is little more than a propaganda account and you're posting it uncritically wholesale.
I'm.irish and this is the first I'm hearing about this.
I'm doubtful such a thing would be a priority for this government since they are very unpopular given the housing crisis and cost of living increase. They will do everything to scrape votes ahead of the next election.
I'd never heard of it either but apparently it's already passed through the dáil. Seems like it's coming. I believe it's well intentioned and I generally agree with it but my concern is around a future potentially authoritarian government that might abuse it to silence dissent.
I'm just about to add a top level comment with my digging. Will link it here in a minute.
I'm from Ireland and had never heard of this so did some digging and used bard to summarise (it did a very solid job)
Can you tell me about the proposed hate speech legislation that's proposed for Ireland
The proposed hate speech legislation in Ireland, known as the Criminal Justice (Incitement to Violence or Hatred and Hate Offences) Bill 2022, aims to strengthen existing laws against hate speech and introduce new measures to tackle hate crimes. The bill has been through several stages of the legislative process and is currently awaiting final approval in the Irish Parliament.
Key Provisions of the Bill
The bill proposes several significant changes to the current legal framework on hate speech and hate crimes:
Expansion of Protected Characteristics: The bill expands the list of protected characteristics from five to seven, including gender and disability.
New Offense of Incitement to Violence or Hatred: The bill introduces a new criminal offense of incitement to violence or hatred. This offense would apply to any communication or behavior that is likely to incite violence or hatred against a person or group of persons on the basis of their protected characteristics.
Hate Crime Provisions: The bill introduces new aggravated forms of existing criminal offenses, such as assault, where those offenses are motivated by hatred against a person with a protected characteristic. This would mean that such offenses would be punished more severely.
Protection Against Hate-Motivated Harassment: The bill also includes measures to protect against hate-motivated harassment, such as stalking, intimidation, and discrimination in employment or housing.
Proposed Timeline for Implementation
The bill has already passed through the Dáil (Irish House of Representatives) and is currently at the stage of committee discussion in the Seanad (Irish Senate). If approved by the Seanad and signed into law by the President, the bill would likely come into effect in late 2024 or early 2025.
Debate and Controversy Surrounding the Bill
The proposed hate speech legislation has been met with both support and opposition. Supporters argue that the bill is necessary to protect vulnerable groups from hate speech and to deter hate crimes. They believe that the current legal framework is inadequate and that the new offenses will provide greater protection for victims of hate-motivated violence.
Opponents of the bill argue that it is an infringement on freedom of speech and that it could be used to stifle legitimate criticism of religious or political groups. They also express concern that the definition of hate speech is too vague and that the bill could be used to prosecute individuals for expressing unpopular or offensive opinions.
The debate surrounding the proposed hate speech legislation highlights the complex and sensitive nature of this issue. While there is a clear need to protect people from hate speech and hate crimes, it is also important to safeguard freedom of expression and ensure that the law is not used to stifle legitimate debate.
What ways could this legislation be abused by an authoritarian government?
Authoritarian governments could abuse the proposed hate speech legislation in a number of ways, including:
Silencing political dissent: The vague definition of hate speech could be used to prosecute individuals for expressing unpopular or critical views of the government or its policies. This could create a chilling effect on free speech and prevent people from speaking out against the government.
Suppressing minority groups: The bill could be used to target and silence minority groups, such as religious or ethnic minorities. This could create a climate of fear and intimidation and prevent these groups from exercising their rights.
Spreading propaganda: The government could use the bill to silence journalists and activists who are reporting on human rights abuses or corruption. This could allow the government to control the flow of information and maintain its grip on power.
Stifling public debate: The bill could be used to prevent people from discussing sensitive issues, such as the government's role in human rights abuses or the role of religion in society. This could prevent the public from engaging in open and honest debate about important issues.
It is important to note that these are just a few of the ways that an authoritarian government could abuse the proposed hate speech legislation. The potential for abuse is significant, and it is important to carefully consider the implications of this legislation before it is enacted.
In conclusion, the proposed hate speech legislation in Ireland is a well-intentioned bill that aims to protect vulnerable groups from hate speech and hate crimes. However, there is a risk that this legislation could be abused by an authoritarian government to silence political dissent, suppress minority groups, spread propaganda, and stifle public debate. It is important to carefully consider the potential for abuse before this legislation is enacted.
Also I've always felt that distribution is the problem, if you can call it that.
Does the bill need some amendments to clear up some ambiguity? Maybe, idk, I'm not Irish nor am I a legal expert; I know virtually nothing about the Irish legal system.
But based on the BBC article, it sounds like the intention of the bill is to get some hate crime laws on the books for Ireland, which they apparently have none so far.
I am very much in favor of punishing hate crimes/hate speech. Free Speech absolutism is braindead, and those who preach it are often hypocrites. Take Musk for example, self proclaimed free speech absolutist. Sure he allows people to hurl a variety of slurs on his platform but then goes and bans a bunch of left-wing accounts. Advocating for white supremacy is covered by free speech but advocating for socialism is not? That really ought to make you question if free speech is really Musk's goal.
I declare the use of the word "punish" to be hate speech.
Sorry, the moment you say you agree with this idea, you're starting down a road that goes nowhere good.
Call me names. Call my family names. Use any language you want. I don't care.
The line is when you're calling for a crime to be committed.
"Hate speech" is a convenient tool to target whoever is in power wants to at the moment.
Watch yourself, don't want to fall down that slippery slope.
This is more of an argument against EM than free speech absolutism, since your point is that he doesn't actually believe in it. But anyway it seems like there should be some possible middle ground between a truly absolutist position on free speech, and the overt disdain for free speech implied by a vague prohibition like the OP law. Isn't it valuable for people to generally be able to speak their minds? That can be the case even if the loudest people hiding behind the idea are disingenuous, or if the furthest interpretations of it go too far.
Law system here is basically common law. Legislation directs it but ultimately the judiciary are the final arbiters. Laws may be referred before signing for constitutionality but that's quite rare.
I'm skipping a lot but that's my "not a lawyer" ten second summary.
Sounds not unlike America. We've had hate crime laws since 1968, I don't know why everyone's acting like it's the end of the world.
Yeah I've no issue with hate laws as a general exception to freedom of speech but there are some weird laws here. This does sound open to abuse from what I'm reading in OP but honestly this is the first I've heard of it and there's not much to go on so I'll have to reserve judgement until I've had a chance to read more.
In general I would prefer more free speech here, not less. Like I don't want someone getting arrested for calling me a filthy paddy for example or having a meme of similar. It would make them a dickhead but I don't think it's worth jail time over. Again though I'll have to read more.
We had a weird provision where blasphemy was illegal until recently but that was honestly largely because it required a public constitutional vote to remove (as all changes to our constitution do).
While writing this I've taken time to do some reading on current obscenity law status. The laws do sound quite archaic but have been reasonably implemented by the judiciary. Some examples below: (DPP is the department of public prosecution)
DPP v. DPP (2010): The Supreme Court of Ireland ruled that a website that depicted child pornography was an obscene publication.
DPP v. Walsh (2014): The Court of Appeal of Ireland ruled that a magazine that featured explicit photographs of adult women was not an obscene publication.
DPP v. McGivern (2018): The High Court of Ireland ruled that a book that contained graphic descriptions of sexual violence was not an obscene publication
Edit: If you make it this far you mention hate crime but not hate speech in the US. Freedom of speech there is reasonably close to absolute, right? Barring things like defamation etc.
I've seen that awful church protesting with what is absolutely hate speech "God hates fags" etc.
True, but another commonly cited exception is that it's illegal to yell fire in a crowded theater where there is no fire. My assumption is the rationale being, if your speech is likely to present a danger to people it shouldn't be legal.
But you're correct, America is pretty tolerant of hate speech, and it does lead to some pretty negative consequences imo.
Probably a better comparison would be countries like Canada or Germany.
EDIT:
I do applaud you for taking the time to research it rather than getting caught up in the sensationalism of a Twitter post like so many others replying to me.