How is a stabbing video anything about freedom of speech? I often support Electronic Frontier Foundation but this makes no sense.
this post was submitted on 05 Jun 2024
39 points (76.7% liked)
Technology
55419 readers
4083 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Th issue was them wanting a global takedown, with the argument being that it could incite further violence and inspire instability
I kinda see the point of removing it globally.. It's a video that shows a stabbing. Why would you want that to circulate?
That’s not the point. The point is, you can’t enforce your censorship abroad.
I agree (or rather, disagree) with both sides here. Australia should of course not be able to order global takedowns, but xitter should want to take it down anyways for their own reasons.
Try to imagine that argument but coming from some government you really dislike. I can think of a lot of different media that might inspire violence and instability, but which would be really important for people to see or at least know about. Frankly, anyone who doesn't see that as a potential problem is being shortsighted and really needs some historical perspective, in my opinion.
Yea imagine this was a video of soldiers of some state murdering people. Same argument. You still agree? Also a video of one (or more) stabbings.
If freedom of speech only applies to "acceptable" speech, then it isn't really freedom of speech.
So freedom of speech doesn't exist anywhere? Literally every place has some restrictions.
It never was. It's freedom of speech without having to fear governmental penalties, broadly speaking. Several categories like incitement, false advertising and CSAM should not be acceptable "speech".
Several categories like incitement, false advertising and CSAM should not be acceptable "speech".
In those examples it's not the speech that's illegal, there's a real crime that the speech is part of. False advertising is a form of fraud, but if there's no fraud involved (satire, humor, education, etc) it's legal.
The ego of an Australian regulator that thought they could tell an American company what they could or could not distribute to non-Australians must be huge. (To clarify, twitter had blocked the video for Australians)
I know the US has a reputation for thinking it's laws apply everywhere but this is on a whole new level
"option likely to achieve the most positive outcome for the online safety of all Australians, especially children."
A broken clock is still right twice a day.