Hermit wrote: ↑Thu Sep 13, 2018 1:48 pm
Svartalf wrote: ↑Thu Sep 13, 2018 12:11 pm
'accountability' is a destruction of free speech since it makes you liable tu being sued if your speech offends some
It really is not. Accountability just means that there are consequences to what you say.
Well, if those consequences are legal consequences - like an injunction, a monetary penalty, criminal record, jail time, or what have you, then that would be the destruction of free speech. Being "accountable" in the sense of being subject to counter-speech by other people is not the destruction of free speech.
It would be a rather strong inroad into free speech if civil actions for damages as a result of what other people say were expanded beyond the realm of defamation, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress as currently set out under the law.
Hermit wrote: ↑Thu Sep 13, 2018 1:48 pm
People have been sued for offending others, but I cannot recall any convictions of those people on account of making others feel offended.
A lawsuit merely for "offending" others is a very dangerous thing when it comes to freedom of speech. It's very difficult to make a controversial political point without "offending" someone. Regarding criminal convictions, the UK is already going down this road:
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-gl ... t-43478925 He was convicted of posting a video of a dog doing a Nazi salute (grossly offensive because it was antisemitic and aggravated by religious prejudice). To be convicted of a crime for that should be a concern to anyone who is concerned about individual liberty, freedom of thought and freedom of expression.
Hermit wrote: ↑Thu Sep 13, 2018 1:48 pm
At any rate, Lucy Powell did not mention people feeling offended among her list of what establishing legal accountability ought to be aimed at. She did mention the following:
The Russian Internet Research Agency set up Facebook groups, amassed hundreds of thousands of members, and used them to spread hate and fake news, organise rallies, and attack Hillary Clinton. Most of its output was designed to stoke the country’s racial tensions.
That's even worse, because you don't even have to bother anyone else. Take out the mention of Russia, which is loaded these days. Let's say "The Mexican Immigration Research Agency set up Facebook groups, amassed hundreds of thousands of members and used them to spread hate and fake news, organise rallies, and attack Donald Trump. Most of its output was designed to stoke the country's racial tensions."
My response is "so what?" They are a group of individuals. Why can't they set up facebook groups? Why can't they amass thousands of members? Why can't they organize rallies? Why can't they attack (verbally) Donald Trump? Why can't they spread what someone else thinks is hate or fake news? Is there a clearinghouse of Truth that says that what group X is saying is "fake" news? Can they not express their view of reality? Who is going to make this determination?
Hermit wrote: ↑Thu Sep 13, 2018 1:48 pm
It’s not only racism that is finding a home on Facebook. Marines United was a secret group of 30,000 current and former servicemen in the British armed forces and US Marines. Members posted nude photos of their fellow servicewomen, taken in secret. A whistleblower described the group as “revenge porn, creepy stalker-like photos taken of girls in public, talk about rape”.
Destruction of free speech?
All depends. In general, it's not illegal to trade naked pictures. Happens all the time. Every time anyone goes to youporn.com, it's happening. There is an issue with secretly taping people without their consent, but it's not likely that all or even most of the pictures were non-consensual. To make a rule that there cannot be a private group on the internet which shares, among themselves, nude pictures and videos, is an overreach.
Hermit wrote: ↑Thu Sep 13, 2018 1:48 pm
To be honest, though, I think that if Powell had a second brain, it would be a lonely one, but I can't explain exactly why until I've seen the wording of her proposed bill. Sight unseen I expect it to flop comprehensively, even among the members of her own party.
Agreed - the precise wording of the law is important, and journalists/commentators usually get something wrong on legal issues.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar