Weekly Edition
Return to the Announcements page
| |||||||||||||
EFF: Hollywood's new war on software freedom and Internet innovation
Here's a
release from the Electronic Frontier Foundation on the latest bit of
silliness from the US Legislative branch. "No longer content to
just blacklist entries in the Domain Name System, this version targets
software developers and distributors as well. It allows the Attorney
General (doing Hollywood or trademark holders' bidding) to go after more or
less anyone who provides or offers a product or service that could be used
to get around DNS blacklisting orders. This language is clearly aimed at
Mozilla, which took a principled stand in refusing to assist the Department
of Homeland Security's efforts to censor the domain name system, but we are
also concerned that it could affect the open source community, internet
innovation, and software freedom more broadly." US citizens who are
concerned about this bill might want to consider communicating those concerns to
their congresscritters.
(Log in to post comments)
EFF: Hollywood's new war on software freedom and Internet innovation Posted Nov 12, 2011 22:01 UTC (Sat) by Julie (✭ supporter ✭, #66693) [Link]
Absolutely ludicrous - how much more seriously myopic can they possibly get? This is why I make donations to the EFF, this stuff is poison to everyone on the net not just people in the US. Thanks for flagging this one up, Jon.
EFF: Hollywood's new war on software freedom and Internet innovation Posted Nov 12, 2011 22:51 UTC (Sat) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]
This is normal. It's not about protecting copyright, it's about establishing government control over the internet. Same thing with ACTA, same things DMCA, same things with network neutrality. Copyrights is the excuse, control and power is the goal.
Government folks like the tight control they have over the ability for people to communicate. They control who is allowed to broadcast on the radio and television. They have anti-free speech regulations over news papers. They have thick reams of rules and regulations on what people are and are not allowed to talk about on broadcast media. They have strict control over campaign financing that is designed specifically to make it impossible for third parties to challenge the two party hedgemony in elections.
Now they want to have the ability to shut down the internet, monitor and control communication over IP, and punish people that attempt to circumvent their controls.
When they say 'no more wild west on the internet' they really mean 'the surfs cannot be allowed to have true free speech. Free speech can only be what we say is free speech.'.
This bill is for the USA, but it's not going to be much different compared to other countries. Governments are the same across the world.
EFF: Hollywood's new war on software freedom and Internet innovation Posted Nov 12, 2011 23:42 UTC (Sat) by csamuel (✭ supporter ✭, #2624) [Link]
I think you meant "serfs", not "surfs" (ironically I misread it as "smurfs" at first).
Chris (another FSF member, because of issues like this)
EFF: Hollywood's new war on software freedom and Internet innovation Posted Nov 12, 2011 23:49 UTC (Sat) by drago01 (subscriber, #50715) [Link]
> same things with network neutrality
This one does not make much sense to me. Sure the providers use control here but still this is not really comparable to the "block stuff for the sack of copyright" crap.
EFF: Hollywood's new war on software freedom and Internet innovation Posted Nov 12, 2011 23:49 UTC (Sat) by drago01 (subscriber, #50715) [Link]
s/use/loose/
EFF: Hollywood's new war on software freedom and Internet innovation Posted Nov 13, 2011 0:10 UTC (Sun) by xanni (subscriber, #361) [Link]
s/loose/lose/
EFF: Hollywood's new war on software freedom and Internet innovation Posted Nov 13, 2011 10:54 UTC (Sun) by drago01 (subscriber, #50715) [Link]
Or I should just not post anything that late (00:50 am) ;)
EFF: Hollywood's new war on software freedom and Internet innovation Posted Nov 13, 2011 2:01 UTC (Sun) by brouhaha (subscriber, #1698) [Link]
s/sack/sake/ ?
EFF: Hollywood's new war on software freedom and Internet innovation Posted Nov 13, 2011 4:02 UTC (Sun) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]
> This one does not make much sense to me. Sure the providers use control here but still this is not really comparable to the "block stuff for the sack of copyright" crap.
If you think that all the laws will do will is just make sure that your internet access is not manipulated in some way then this would be true. Except it never, ever, going to work like that.
First off, no matter what happens it will be a law that establishes the right for the government to monitor and control what a private person does with their own network.
The second thing is that like the EPA laws, the FCC laws, the banking laws, and a whole host of other laws is that they will be written for and with the direct input of the major corporations. Invariably these sorts of things go to restrict competition and protect the profits of the corporations that they are meant to control. I know it may be difficult to understand this for a person that may not have really worked in a very heavily regulated industry before, but this is generally how it works.
I can give dozens of examples of this, but it's really quite pointless when you can find out on yourself. But I will induldge myself and give a simple example. See if you can find out who were the major backers of the food inspection laws that were a result of the popularity of Upton Sinclair's 'The Jungle'. One of the things that is not mentioned in highschool classes is that the companies he wrote about already had regular government inspections prior to the publishing of the book. The laws were not written to regulate the industry so much as to make people feel comfortable about buying from these major meat packers again. With the advent of the refrigerated train car the smaller plants on the East coast were being driven out of the market. They capitalized on the popularity of the novel to try convince people to not trust the larger plants in the Midwest. The Midwest meat packers used the new government regulation to counteract the propaganda. So after the laws were past they were able to say that the government certified the food as clean and just as good as their locally produced meat. This was extremely successful and they put their competitors on the coast out of business.
The third part is that what the politicians tell you is in the law is going to be different then what is actually in the law. There will be clauses and new laws that will make the activists somewhat happy, but since the government is establishing it's right to control and monitor private networks then it will have all sorts of extra conditions and controls that go far beyond just making sure protocols are not discriminated against.
One thing that is very likely is that they will establish laws that it's the ISP job to STOP people from hogging bandwidth and uploading illegal content. Copyright violations are illegal and the government sure as hell isn't going to pass a law to protect people using bittorrent and Tor to transport illegal and subversive information.
That is instead of just allowing the ISP to block people using P2P protocols to increase profits they will _FINE_ the ISPs if they do not monitor and control illegal content being distributed over P2P.
If you do not want the government to abuse power the only way is to prevent them from having it in the first place.
As far as the real solution to the problem of ISPs being assholes is to increase competition so that they have to cater to their biggest customers in order to get their money. Right now competition is limited by government regulations (more at the state level then federal level) and the regulations are the reason why companies like Comcast and Verizon were able to get so large. They could not of done it without their buddies.
EFF: Hollywood's new war on software freedom and Internet innovation Posted Nov 14, 2011 18:56 UTC (Mon) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] They have anti-free speech regulations over news papers.Having seen what the newspapers do without a bit of mandatory regulation, and having seen the Murdochian one-opinion-only-allowed monoliths that emerge without media ownership regulation, I think those of us in the UK might not entirely agree that regulations in this area are a bad thing. Actual news: good. Uncovering governmental/corporate/press malfeasance: good. Gossip: questionable, but people buy it and most of the gossiped-about do not appear to object, so acceptable. Hiring private eyes to spy on random members of the public for such 'public interest' reasons as 'their daughter just got murdered': bad. Self-regulated newspapers demonstrably do not grasp this. (And as has become clear in the UK, it wasn't just one paper. Nor was it restricted to the UK: see the massive, long-running circulation fraud in the European editions of the Wall Street Journal: that latter one not a fraud on the public, but a fraud on the advertisers.)
EFF: Hollywood's new war on software freedom and Internet innovation Posted Nov 14, 2011 22:20 UTC (Mon) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link]
It's a bit tricky to enforce, but I think we should have a rule that if you don't SEEK publicity, then privacy is a RIGHT.
If you're an MP. you put yourself in the spotlight. But your family shouldn't have to suffer it too.
If you're a Royal, you're probably born into it (okay Catherine married in), and you expect to carry out public duties in the spotlight. But you should NOT have to fear long lenses in your private life.
Etc etc. I know it's difficult to get right, but a basic rule that says "if news happens to you, the presumption is your privacy rights trump; but if you knowingly/deliberately make news then the presumption is you *want* the press there" shouldn't be that hard, and doesn't have THAT many corner cases.
Cheers,
EFF: Hollywood's new war on software freedom and Internet innovation Posted Nov 14, 2011 22:48 UTC (Mon) by Julie (✭ supporter ✭, #66693) [Link]
Actually, I am a UK resident and I don't agree with _any_ anti-free-speech regulations. At all.
I think you and Wol are getting a bit confused.
Spying on people is an invasion of privacy, even if you do it to collect 'information' that you think the public ought to know. Subsequently publishing that information may be sometimes be justifiable on moral grounds if it's in the public interest (and providing the publisher is prepared to take the consequences), but that's still a freedom of (access to a specific piece of) _information_ issue (which is different to a freedom of speech issue).
I think the reason why people get these two ideas confused is that they tend to think of both as 'the right to speak freely'.
EFF: Hollywood's new war on software freedom and Internet innovation Posted Nov 15, 2011 2:45 UTC (Tue) by nybble41 (subscriber, #55106) [Link]
> Actually, I am a UK resident and I don't agree with _any_ anti-free-speech regulations. At all.
That's only because you've narrowed the definition to exclude speech you don't like.
> If anyone says that the 'right' to spy on someone (or behave in another way which makes a nuisance of themselves, bullies or physically hurts other people) is a freedom of speech right, that just indicates they don't understand what freedom of speech means.
No argument there. Freedom of speech covers *speaking*; what you're describing here is *observation*. The right to speak about what you've observed, however, would be an aspect of the right to freedom of speech.
Certain kinds of "spying" may violate rights, for example if trespassing is involved. If so, that action, not the speech, is the actual offense, though speaking about it may contribute to the damages.
> Anti-free-speech laws discriminate over 'what people are and are not allowed to talk about' as drag says, i.e. they are _systematically and consistently_ intolerant towards certain words, topics or types of speech.
No, they don't need to be systematic or consistent. They just need punish people for no greater offense than speaking, regardless of the content. Speaking, by itself, causes no harms to any person or property, so such laws fall under the heading of "victimless crime".
EFF: Hollywood's new war on software freedom and Internet innovation Posted Nov 15, 2011 22:56 UTC (Tue) by Julie (✭ supporter ✭, #66693) [Link]
>That's only because you've narrowed the definition to exclude speech you don't like.
No. I haven't. What makes you assume that?
Freedom of speech is by definition a boolean, you can't redefine it as a tristate. You can't have 'freedom of speech for my group, no freedom of speech for that offensive bunch over there, and freedom of speech for that other group as long as they don't say X Y or Z'. Either everyone has freedom of speech, or no-one has it. Otherwise the concept simply doesn't make sense. All you are doing is redefining the parameters of censorship and appointing yourself as the censor.
When I say I am totally committed to freedom of speech I _mean_ it. This includes supporting the right of people to say _anything_ they feel or believe including things I hate or violently disagree with (after all if I disagree with them freedom of speech gives me the power to _say_ so, right?).
>Freedom of speech covers *speaking*; what you're describing here is *observation*. The right to speak about what you've observed, however, would be an aspect of the right to freedom of speech.
Hmmm. Not sure I agree, I think what you are talking about is the freedom to publish _information_. This is another, closely related, important democratic right which I also support, but I make a distinction between this and the right to free _speech_, which I will elaborate in my next comment.
>No, they don't need to be systematic or consistent. They just need punish people for no greater offense than speaking, regardless of the content.
I don't agree with this at all, because I think the _whole point_ - and the reason I take freedom of speech so seriously - is that it is the _content_ of speech that gives it meaning, and gives _meaning_ to the project of supporting free speech, gives benefit to those who participate in the project, and gives meaning to the act of censoring speech.
Free speech is about the free expression of people's beliefs and ideas. _That's_ why it's so important.
If someone stands in the middle of a public place gabbling gibberish, I would support their right to do that if they want to, but I wouldn't really call that me supporting their right to 'free speech', that would be silly.
Let me clarify by three examples.
1. Q: a member of the audience shouts 'fire!' in the middle of a theatrical performance. When he gets carted off kicking and screaming about the infringement of his 'freedom of speech' is he right?
A: This is an 'example' given by some people (who argue the only answer consistent to supporting real freedom of speech must be 'yes') to 'prove' no-one can fully uphold the idea of total free speech.
2. Q: RMS is at a conference giving a talk about software freedom. After the talk, he goes into another presentation where someone is promoting a proprietory software product and holds up a placard with something written on it as protest. He is removed from the presentation. Is his freedom of speech being violated?
A: Yes, providing that he was not making a nuisance of himself (i.e. he would be if his placard was obstrucing peoples's view and they couldn't change seats, or if he was ranting about software freedom and drowning out the speaker.) The speaker and the audience are otherwise free to ignore his placard, so removing him because of _what the placard says_ is a violation of his freedom of speech.
3. Q: (more placard devotees ;-). Westboro Baptist Church are standing by the side of the road holding up their vile placards, which are very offensive to the beliefs of gays, women, people with cancer and Jews. If they are arrested because of this is this a violation of their freedom of speech?
A: Yes. You cannot truly support freedom of speech unless it's for everybody.
What a bunch of crap Posted Nov 16, 2011 8:09 UTC (Wed) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] You can't have 'freedom of speech for my group, no freedom of speech for that offensive bunch over there, and freedom of speech for that other group as long as they don't say X Y or Z'. This is exactly what the famed "freedom of speech" is. You can not discuss a lot of things in the open (there are laws to ensure this: slander, state security, DMCA, etc), people who don't share your ideals are ignored or ridiculed (these are mostly unwritten laws but they are just as effective in practice). The only thing which does not exist is "freedom of speech for my group". The boundaries of "freedom of speech" can be different in different groups and different times - but they are always there. What's more funny is the fact that most "freedom of speech" activists don't even understand that: when your hit one the community taboos (which are cultivated by people who do understand that "freedom of speech" is just a useful tool) they become offended but still insist that that's their own decision. They are funny that way. Like you said, 'speaking, by itself, causes no harms to any person or property', what makes you assume I wouldn't agree with this? Because it's a lie? Speaking only "causes no harm" if people are not listening. If people start to listen to "wrong ideas" then "the powers that be" can be threatened. This is usually bad not just for them but for everyone else, too they make sure "speech they don't like" is not heard. I don't like to discuss these things because "freedom of speech" activists are like eels: they like artificial examples like what your shown in your message but when confronted with real, full-blown, censorship embedded in the fabric of western society they either explain how this discussion is "just totally wrong" or stop talking with you altogether. Waste of time in both cases.
What a bunch of crap Posted Nov 16, 2011 10:03 UTC (Wed) by ekj (guest, #1524) [Link]
Freedom of speech, like all other issues, is a more-less issue not a yes-no issue. There are obviously limits to *all* freedoms (if nothing else, physics itself sets limits)
Thus "we should have freedom of speech" or "we have freedom of speech" is wrong, or atleast inaccurate. What's typically meant is "we have a high degree of freedom of speech" or "we should have a higher degree of freedom of speech".
If the limits, both those in law, and those set by society, are too narrow, or too wide, is a neverending debate, but nevertheless an important debate, and not a waste of time at all.
Not "inaccurate". Posted Nov 16, 2011 12:44 UTC (Wed) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] Thus "we should have freedom of speech" or "we have freedom of speech" is wrong, or atleast inaccurate. Not "inaccurate". Wrong. Dead wrong (and I mean "dead" literally). If you position (correctly!) "freedom of speech issue" as "a more-less issue" then it becomes possible to compare "limitation of freedom of speech" with "availability of water or food" or "availability of job". When you position it freedom of speech is by definition a boolean, you can't redefine it as a tristate then you have nice justification for any atrocities which are done in the name of "freedom of speech". What's funny is the fact that "freedom of speech" talks are usually employed to cover bad truths. Take Lybia, for example. It's pretty clear that without NATO intervention rebels had no chance. But why the sudden interest in Lybia? Gaddafi was in the office for 30+ years. And people lost a lot of things as a result (fresh water, food, jobs, etc). But if for you freedom of speech is by definition a boolean then all that just does not matter: people got the "freedom of speech" and that justifies everything. If the limits, both those in law, and those set by society, are too narrow, or too wide, is a neverending debate, but nevertheless an important debate, and not a waste of time at all. Sure. When people got the ability to freely discuss the laws of nature they were able to create tremendous amount of good things (computer and the Internet are prime examples). But it does not mean freedom of speech is the most important thing there is (if "freedom of speech" gives tremendous goods to someone else but you personally are dying from thirst and most of your friends lost in famine then maybe the limits are not in the good place, don't you think?) - and the most important step in this discussion is the admission that "freedom of speech" is not absolute. P.S. Funny how people tend to agree with these facts when presented with laws in their own countries which severely limit "freedom of speech" but still judge other countries as if "freedom of speech" is absolute and as if it can justify anything.
Not "inaccurate". Posted Nov 16, 2011 13:14 UTC (Wed) by ekj (guest, #1524) [Link]
If you're talking about something that's analogue, but the two examples you have in mind are *very* far apart on that analogue scale, then to a first aproximation, it appears to be a binary.
When I discuss freedom of speech with friends from Iran, my freedoms are so large, compared to theirs, that it becomes a useful shortcut (despite it being inaccurate) to say that we've got it, and they don't.
Even more so if you're (at the moment) really talking about a narrow subset of speech, such as for example political statements critical of the government, made in a peaceful setting. Here it (almost) makes sense to say we've got this freedom, and many others don't. If you prod around, you'll find that the freedom I have isn't without limit, and that their restrictions aren't infinitely tight, thus it really is a more-or-less kind of situation, and not a on-off kind situation.
Black and white appear as binary distinct colours, rather than as different shades of grey, if the two papers you are comparing are very far apart on the greyscale.
Binary thinking is a danger and a common disease today though - and I *think* it's more prevalent in countries that have two-party systems rather than proportional representation, particularly in USA. You get presidents who make statements like "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists" which is a similar case -- in the real world it's entirely possible to be against (for example) the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, but nevertheless to also be against terrorism.
In short, sometimes people are just WRONG, but sometimes, they are just being inaccurate, not specifying the precise limits to the area to which they intend their statement to apply. That's not always such a big deal. Offcourse if you make statements like "Freedom of speech is by definition a boolean, you can't redefine it as a tristate." then you're not merely wrong, but indeed you're doubly wrong.
Wrong in claiming that it is by definition boolean, and secondly wrong by thinking that the proper alternative to a boolean is a tristate, it's not - it's an analogue more-or-less scale.
Not "inaccurate". Posted Nov 16, 2011 23:15 UTC (Wed) by Julie (✭ supporter ✭, #66693) [Link]
You have misunderstood my point, which is my fault because I did not elaborate what I said properly. I beg your pardon, allow me to clarify.
Most people that pay lip-service to freedom of speech will say something like, for example, 'I support freedom of speech but I'm against giving a platform to racists'.
i.e., freedom of speech for my group (the anti-racists), no freedom of speech for that offensive bunch over there (the racists) and freedom of speech for that other group as long as they don't say X Y or Z (access to speaking freely about racism being subject to what the 'other group' is actually saying about it, i.e. dependent on whether the other group say the 'right things' from the point of view of the speaker).
From a truly free speech point of view, either _all_ parties are free to discuss a topic, or none are. Otherwise, as I said at the end of the paragraph, 'all you are doing is redefining the parameters of censorship and appointing yourself as the censor'.
>Freedom of speech, like all other issues, is a more-less issue not a yes-no issue.
(I understand _your_ point; you are better at elaborating your meaning than I was with mine ;-) Oh well, I hope I'm clearer now.)
Not "inaccurate". Posted Nov 17, 2011 1:39 UTC (Thu) by nybble41 (subscriber, #55106) [Link]
> Most people that pay lip-service to freedom of speech will say something like, for example, 'I support freedom of speech but I'm against giving a platform to racists'. What they mean is that they don't mind racism being discussed as long as it is on their terms, and what I intended my quote to mean is that that approach to supporting freedom of speech is selective and therefore actually doesn't make sense from a freedom of speech point of view.
Perhaps I'm reading more into this than you intended, but freedom of speech, like all philosophically consistent rights, is a *negative* right: no one can legitimately employ physical coercion to stop you from speaking, or to punish you for it, regardless of the content. A "platform" is always someone's private property, and the owner has the right to exclude others from his or her property for any reason, including philosophical disagreements. You have the right to speak, but not to trespass on other's property in the process, any more than the right to own property implies a right to confiscate it from others. Free speech doesn't mean you can hold a rally in someone's bedroom, or place of business, without their permission.
Of course, if some third party is coercively preventing you from acquiring the use of a platform despite the owner's permission, or from creating your own, they are still violating your rights--just not the right to freedom of speech.
Not "inaccurate". Posted Nov 17, 2011 8:25 UTC (Thu) by ekj (guest, #1524) [Link]
A platform is not always someones private property. Indeed, this used to be the exception, but is becoming more and more the case, and that is a worrying trend indeed.
The marketplace, the park, public streets and public roads are not someones private property, thus what you can say and do in a public park, or on a public street, is limited only by law. Earlier decentralised systems like NNTP also, arguably, was noones private property. (even though the individual nodes tended to be, the system as a whole was not)
But the marketplace today is a mall, or Ebay. And conversations happen on Twitter or on Facebook, which *are* privately owned platforms. Today, I need to agree to Twitters and Facebooks terms-of-use to be able to, for example, keep updated on the current discussion in the political party I vote for.
This makes anti-censorship-law less effective, and reduces freedom of speech. In the old market, you where constrained only by the government and its laws. On ebay, there's their TOS in addition, which is hugely restrictive.
Get me right, Ebay has the right to set the rules for their platform. That's not the problem. But it is a problem that a larger and larger fraction of human interactions, are governed by the arbitrary rules of arbitrary companies. (in principle, this includes this very conversation - LWN owns this platform, and can set the rules, a decade ago, I'd have been having this conversation with you over NNTP.)
Not "inaccurate". Posted Nov 17, 2011 16:45 UTC (Thu) by nybble41 (subscriber, #55106) [Link]
> If enough people start voting for who they want, you will start to see the top two parties lose percentage points to lesser known parties.
Property has to be owned by someone. If there is no claim of ownership, the first person to make something of it assumes that position (homesteading). What you refer to as "public property" is really more like the private property of a government which that government has set aside for public use, though they tend to claim control over property which they never actually homesteaded or purchased, so much of it isn't really owned at all.
> Earlier decentralised systems like NNTP also, arguably, was noones private property.
The *system* isn't property at all, public or private. It's an abstraction, an idea. However, publishing something through it requires cooperation from the owners of the nodes, which are private property. They have no obligation to store or forward your postings through their servers. Again, your freedom to speak does not extend to compelling someone else to provide you with a platform.
> This makes anti-censorship-law less effective, and reduces freedom of speech.
Anti-censorship law, in the sense of the First Amendment, applies only to the federal government and its subsidiaries, the states. Within its proper domain, it is just as effective as ever. Your freedom of speech, likewise, is only infringed when the law authorizes some sort of coercive punishment for speaking. A private owner telling you that you can't use their platform for certain kinds of speech does not prevent you from speaking, just from using their platform. That makes it a property-rights issue, in their favor, not a freedom-of-speech issue.
I agree that the trend toward relying on centralized forums like Facebook and Twitter for general communication is worrying, not to mention annoying. Still, it's not like e-mail and even NNTP are going anywhere any time soon, and there are plenty of web-based forums to choose from, just as there are other online markets competing with eBay (e.g. CraigsList). If the TOS restrictions at Facebook or eBay become too obnoxious, the serious conversations and classifieds will just move somewhere else.
Not "inaccurate". Posted Nov 17, 2011 17:07 UTC (Thu) by nybble41 (subscriber, #55106) [Link]
Sorry, that first quote was supposed to be:
> A platform is not always someones private property.
I blame Windows and its lack of automatic copy-on-mouse-selection. :)
Not "inaccurate". Posted Nov 20, 2011 20:00 UTC (Sun) by Julie (✭ supporter ✭, #66693) [Link]
>Anti-censorship law, in the sense of the First Amendment, applies only to the federal government and its subsidiaries, the states. Within its proper domain, it is just as effective as ever...
>A private owner telling you that you can't use their platform for certain kinds of speech does not prevent you from speaking, just from using their platform. That makes it a property-rights issue, in their favor, not a freedom-of-speech issue.
And of course you're right - in the sense of the law, and you are lucky that in the US (unlike here in Europe) you _do_ have the First Amendment that, at least theoretically, keeps a lot of anti freedom laws at bay (e.g blasphemy laws like 'hate speech').
Unfortunately there's a lot more to free speech in the classical sense, which means that that's not enough. As I mentioned before, Mill makes a powerful case for resisting the authority of the 'tyranny of the majority' [1] - loosely interpreted, this means the court of public opinion.
To bring up an example: an idea that, worryingly, seems to be taking increasing hold of the popular imagination - the idea of cyber-bullying. And we're not even talking about minors here - this is about _adults_ using social networking.
The problem is that if enough sites take up this idea and set up private rules and terms of conditions that restrict people's free speech rights in the name of protecting people from being 'bullied' (even though these rules and conditions are private), then that idea becomes _generally_ accepted and institutionalized as being emotionally correct.
There are some civil liberties groups that all this isn't lost on, but an alarming number of people who clearly see themselves as 'liberal' are buying into it. But without a robust resistance to this and other moralizing campaigns that promote therapeutic censorship of this kind, free speech can get into serious trouble anyway via backdoor attacks.
So I'd argue that this _really is_ a serious freedom-of-speech issue, even though (as you say) it's _expressed_ as a property-rights issue.
[1] You can read my fuller quote in my post in response to khim above, or you can read that quote and a lot more as analysis and in support of the 'tyranny of the majority' idea in Mill's publication, but here's the paragraph again that particularly describes this:
'Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough: there needs to be protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling; against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them; to fetter the development, and, if possible, prevent the formation, of any individuality not in harmony with its ways, and compel all characters to fashion themselves upon the model of its own.'
As a canny description of the contemporary phenomena of politically- and emotionally-correct campaigns to re-write or restrict peoples' free speech, this could have been written yesterday. You can - and people do - lose your job or suffer other serious social sanctions just by a careless slip of vocabulary choice, without any intention of malice, and without any state intervention (at least outside the US).
Not "inaccurate". Posted Nov 20, 2011 21:47 UTC (Sun) by nybble41 (subscriber, #55106) [Link]
I don't really disagree with most of what you've said, apart from calling it "freedom of speech", so long as you're not proposing some sort of coercive response. Encouraging and hosting more open forums, supporting unrestricted speech in public debates, and applying social pressure where necessary to curb unwarranted intolerance are all perfectly acceptable.
> As Mill says later, 'men might as well be imprisoned, as excluded from the means of earning their bread'.
Here I must disagree. If you lose your job, you can still go to work for someone else; or, if you've managed to offend every potential employer, you can "earn your bread" on your own, as humans have done for millenia. This is unlike imprisonment, where you are actively and coercively prevented from working for yourself or anyone else.
A job performing a useful service for someone else in exchange for pay is a privilege which depends on them *wanting* your service. If they don't want it because of something you said, well, perhaps you should have considered their feelings and the benefit you both derive from mutually voluntary cooperation before you spoke. I support tolerance among employers, but sometimes they simply can't look the other way, for example when your speech supports something which is contrary to their interests or damaging to their reputation, or the interests and/or reputations of their customers or your fellow employees. Ultimately you are responsible for providing for your own welfare; the cooperation of others toward this goal is a luxury, a privilege to be earned, not a right.
Not "inaccurate". Posted Nov 23, 2011 8:46 UTC (Wed) by ekj (guest, #1524) [Link]
Right. And this "tyranny of the majority" is stronger in privately owned spaces than in public ones.
If the majority says Facebook should block status-updates that have swear-words in them, they can do so, and the constitution gives you zero protection against this limiting of speech.
Meanwhile, in publicly owned spaces, say a public park, the constitution does limit what restrictions on speech are acceptible.
If the majority of speech happens on platforms to which the constitution does not apply, then the constitution becomes less relevant. (it applies everywhere offcourse, but it says "congress shall make no law..." and this does nothing to limit the actions of for example Facebook)
Not "inaccurate". Posted Nov 21, 2011 9:17 UTC (Mon) by ekj (guest, #1524) [Link]
Anti-censorship law, in the sense of the First Amendment, applies only to the federal government and its subsidiaries, the states. Within its proper domain, it is just as effective as ever. Your freedom of speech, likewise, is only infringed when the law authorizes some sort of coercive punishment for speaking. A private owner telling you that you can't use their platform for certain kinds of speech does not prevent you from speaking, just from using their platform. That makes it a property-rights issue, in their favor, not a freedom-of-speech issue.
---
Yes, in the narrow definition of free speech where only government-coersion is relevant, this is true. From a Norwegian perspective, this is a blind spot of many libertarians.
A society where a tiny fraction of elites own a huge fraction of the relevant arenas, and are free to set the rules they wish with few limitations inside these arenas, is not very free for those not belonging to the elite. And inherited wealth, as the basis for governing, is not inherently any more democratic or any more free than inherited power in the form of a monarchy.
True, there's differences of degree - Facebook may toss you out of the platform, but they will not put you in the dungeon for a year for making statements they don't approve of.
But the sum total is worrying.
More and more platforms are owned. By a smaller and smaller number of corporations. Controlled by a smaller and smaller, richer and richer (compared to the average of the nation) elite.
Many platforms are natural monopolies - the primary reason to use Facebook or Ebay, or Twitter is that everyone else is using it. In market-speach, the barriers to entry are high. When the relevant question is: "which one is biggest?" not "which one is best?" it's hard to be a newcomer.
I know some people say "this isn't a freedom of speech issue" because no government-coersion is involved. But if saying the "wrong" things prevents you from access to employment, prevents you from interacting with your family and friends in their prefered medium, then that *is* a strong coersive force.
Not "inaccurate". Posted Nov 21, 2011 20:02 UTC (Mon) by nybble41 (subscriber, #55106) [Link]
> Yes, in the narrow definition of free speech where only government-coersion is relevant, this is true.
Not just "government-coercion", all coercion. Government is just the most common source, and the only one generally held to have a claim to legitimacy--though not by me--which allows it to get away with employing coercion without reprisal.
However, this assumes a sane definition of "coercion" which involves an actual violation of your natural rights, not one where "coercion" includes being prevented from making use of someone else's property against their wishes, which is nothing more or less than *their* natural right.
> I know some people say "this isn't a freedom of speech issue" because no government-coersion is involved.
I would say that if your actual natural rights are not being violated, there is no *freedom* of speech issue. What you are referring to is more like *toleration* of speech, which is an orthogonal issue. I agree that intolerance is also worrying, but it's a difference problem with different consequences and solutions. In particular, as intolerance is non-coercive, so must the solutions to intolerance be non-coercive.
Not "inaccurate". Posted Nov 23, 2011 8:36 UTC (Wed) by ekj (guest, #1524) [Link]
True. But to read, and post to NNTP, you needed the permission of atleast one node in the network. There where many. They where diverse. They where, atleast to a certain extent, in competition with oneanothers. (there where several competing comercial NNTP-hosts, competing for bussiness)
To read and post to Facebook, you need the permission of the *single* entity that is the *only* gatekeeper to the entirety of that ecosystem.
There's a difference. Like freedom of speech, it's a *more* or *less* issue, not a on/off issue.
Facebook is significantly *less* open and significantly *less* democratic than NNTP was.
Not "inaccurate". Posted Nov 20, 2011 20:04 UTC (Sun) by Julie (✭ supporter ✭, #66693) [Link]
>But it is a problem that a larger and larger fraction of human interactions, are governed by the arbitrary rules of arbitrary companies.
Quite - and it becomes even more of a problem when these rules are not-so-arbitrary (see my post below today in response to nybble41)
Not "inaccurate". Posted Nov 20, 2011 19:55 UTC (Sun) by Julie (✭ supporter ✭, #66693) [Link]
>Perhaps I'm reading more into this than you intended
With respect, I think so, because I agree with pretty much everything in your comment :-)
Not "inaccurate". Posted Nov 16, 2011 21:03 UTC (Wed) by nybble41 (subscriber, #55106) [Link]
I've read over your comments several times, and I still can't tell if they're actually on topic. You're not really talking about freedom of speech so much as its relation to other freedoms.
No, ensuring "freedom of speech" doesn't justify stepping in and forcing people to change. It's not the only freedom which matters, and where it is lacking the victims are those whose speech is curtailed. How to respond is up to them, not outsiders, even (or especially!) those with the best of intentions. It doesn't really make sense to put other things first, though, since any resources you're wasting on punishing people for unwanted speech could be better employed toward securing the necessities you mention, like water, food, shelter, and jobs.
It's a "more-less issue" in that there are indeed degrees of freedom of speech. Punishments for making provably false statements, for example, versus punishments for speaking the truth on subjects prohibited by the state. However, there is an upper boundary, which is the freedom to speak on any subject without fear of legally-sanctioned reprisal. This can be thought of as *full* freedom of speech, where any other kind is merely *partial* freedom of speech. The presence or absence of the full freedom of speech is indeed a boolean.
Basically, there's liberty, and then there's freedom of speech, a subset of liberty. Curtailing liberty to grant freedom of speech, as happened in Lybia, is generally not an improvement.
Not "inaccurate". Posted Nov 16, 2011 23:53 UTC (Wed) by Julie (✭ supporter ✭, #66693) [Link]
>When you position it freedom of speech is by definition a boolean, you can't redefine it as a tristate then you have nice justification for any atrocities which are done in the name of "freedom of speech".
What. No.
Freedom of speech is about freedom of _speech_. _SPEECH_.
I'm beginning to think you are very confused about what free speech and values of freedom actually mean. This is probably because you 'don't like to discuss these things' which _would_ give you a very restricted and incomplete picture, and would account for your extraordinarily interpreting 'freedom of speech' as 'freedom to commit atrocities'.
One of the best essays ever written on freedom and civil liberty is 'On Liberty' by John Stuart Mill, a radical thinker of the 19th century who supported, amongst other things, suffrage for women in the UK at least half a century before women actually managed to get the vote (he campaigned for it in his time, but failed).
Here's an excellent definition of what freedom of speech, thought and action means from Mill;
'This, then, is the appropriate region of human liberty.
'It comprises, first, the inward domain of consciousness; demanding liberty of conscience, in the most comprehensive sense; liberty of thought and feeling; absolute freedom of opinion and sentiment on all subjects, practical or speculative, scientific, moral, or theological.
'Secondly, the principle requires liberty of tastes and pursuits; of framing the plan of our life to suit our own character; of doing as we like, subject to such consequences as may follow; without impediment from our fellow creatures, so long as what we do does not harm them, even though they should think our conduct foolish, perverse or wrong.
'Thirdly, from this liberty of each individual, follows the liberty, within the same limits, of combination among individuals; freedom to unite, for any purpose not involving harm to others; the persons combining being supposed to be of full age, and not forced or deceived.
'No society in which these liberties are not, on the whole, respected, is free, whatever may be its form of government; and none is completely free in which they do not exist absolute and unqualified.
This defines the real prerequisites for freedom, and I identify myself as having total commitment to freedom of speech because I uphold each and every one of them.
'so long as what we do does not harm them'
>But if for you freedom of speech is by definition a boolean then all that just does not matter
No, it pretty much means the opposite. When we do not have _full_ free access to the truth (sometimes as a consequence of government censorship or selective suppression of what they think we should not be allowed to hear), naturally, we do not see the full picture. Here we need _more_ free speech, or _more_ free access to information, not less.
>But it does not mean freedom of speech is the most important thing there is
And I never said it was. Don't be silly. How is restricting my rights to free speech going to help someone dying of thirst?
>P.S. Funny how people tend to agree with these facts when presented with laws in their own countries which severely limit "freedom of speech" but still judge other countries as if "freedom of speech" is absolute and as if it can justify anything.
You're not making sense, at least not to me. Please clarify.
What a bunch of crap Posted Nov 16, 2011 23:27 UTC (Wed) by Julie (✭ supporter ✭, #66693) [Link]
>This is exactly what the famed "freedom of speech" is. You can not discuss a lot of things in the open (there are laws to ensure this: slander, state security, DMCA, etc), people who don't share your ideals are ignored or ridiculed (these are mostly unwritten laws but they are just as effective in practice). The only thing which does not exist is "freedom of speech for my group". The boundaries of "freedom of speech" can be different in different groups and different times - but they are always there.
Huh?
>You can not discuss a lot of things in the open (there are laws
Of course there are. These laws can broadly be described as 'censorship', naturally I am completely committed to anti-censorship as well, this is part of what supporting freedom of speech means.
>(these are mostly unwritten laws but they are just as effective in practice)
Superb point, and a lot of people forget this when they discuss freedom of speech.
'Like other tyrannies, the tyranny of the majority was at first, and is still vulgarly, held in dread, chiefly as operating through the acts of the public authorities.
'Society can and does execute its own mandates: and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practises a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself.
'Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough: there needs to be protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling; against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them; to fetter the development, and, if possible, prevent the formation, of any individuality not in harmony with its ways, and compel all characters to fashion themselves upon the model of its own.'
I am not sure if the examples you have given are the best though as expressed by one individual to another; ignoring someone does not restrict their right to free speech, and of course ridicule is upsetting, but people can also either ignore this themselves or bounce back with a response (as I did when you accused me of being a liar and talking a 'bunch of crap' ;-)
>The only thing which does not exist is "freedom of speech for my group".
Eh? Not sure what you mean here, maybe you got the same idea of what I meant as ekj did, please look at my explanation to him.
>The boundaries of "freedom of speech" can be different in different groups and different times - but they are always there.
Of course. What is and isn't censored at any given time changes along with societal or state values. What I support is the idea that in order to practise real freedom of speech, these barriers have to be identified and removed (i.e. I am committed to anti-censorship).
>they become offended but still insist that that's their own decision.
Freedom of speech isn't about not having an opinion. On the contrary, the main point of it is that it allows you to be free to form opinions and ideas, and that it allows them to be refined and improved as you contrast your opinions and ideas with those of others. It is an exercise in developing intellectial and moral clarity, which requires access to free debate - to discover what is right, what is wrong, what is true, and what is false.
>Like you said, 'speaking, by itself, causes no harms to any person or property'
What I took nybble41 to mean, because he also said this-
>so such laws fall under the heading of "victimless crime"
-is that speech causes no physical harm to anyone. Of _course_ it has repercussions;
>"the powers that be" can be threatened. This is usually bad not just for them but for everyone else, too they make sure "speech they don't like" is not heard
By taking measures that range from censorship to execution. This is what people who support free speech are _against_.
EFF: Hollywood's new war on software freedom and Internet innovation Posted Nov 16, 2011 8:57 UTC (Wed) by mpr22 (subscriber, #60784) [Link] Speaking, by itself, causes no harms to any person or property, so such laws fall under the heading of "victimless crime". Yes, but if you speak where you can't be heard, then the state can only (properly; obviously they could issue false charges) prosecute you for it if you later confess to illegal speech. Conversely, it's trivially false to claim that speech where you can be heard is never directly harmful to persons. (Unless you mean exclusively physical harm.)
EFF: Hollywood's new war on software freedom and Internet innovation Posted Nov 16, 2011 20:41 UTC (Wed) by nybble41 (subscriber, #55106) [Link]
> Conversely, it's trivially false to claim that speech where you can be heard is never directly harmful to persons. (Unless you mean exclusively physical harm.)
Obviously I was referring to speech where you can be heard. No one cares about the other kind.
The only form of "harm" which is meaningful in a legal context, i.e. which amounts to a legitimate justification for a coercive response, is the kind where someone's (property) rights are being violated; that is, the action prevents someone, the victim, from exercising their property rights, including their rights of self-ownership, in a manner which is consistent with the equivalent rights of others. This amounts to "physical harm", as you put it, though physicality is not really the important part. This is the pareto optimum of liberty: the maximum amount of liberty *everyone* can have. To grant any more to one person would necessarily impede the liberty of others.
Speaking, regardless of the content, does not alter anyone's person or property, or otherwise prevent anyone from doing anything. If no one pays it any attention, it might as well not exist. If someone *does* pay attention to it, that is their choice, and any subsequent actions they take based on the speech are their responsibility. Communication, by itself, creates no victims. Ergo, laws against speech or other forms of communication, regardless of the content, amount to victimless crimes.
EFF: Hollywood's new war on software freedom and Internet innovation Posted Nov 17, 2011 12:52 UTC (Thu) by nye (guest, #51576) [Link]
>Speaking, regardless of the content, does not alter anyone's person or property, or otherwise prevent anyone from doing anything
Do you really believe that? I can't imagine how anyone could reasonably hold that opinion.
EFF: Hollywood's new war on software freedom and Internet innovation Posted Nov 17, 2011 16:48 UTC (Thu) by nybble41 (subscriber, #55106) [Link]
> I can't imagine how anyone could reasonably hold that opinion.
And I don't see how anyone could reasonably disagree. Could you provide a counter-example, where someone's person or property was altered, or their freedom of action curtailed, simply through speech?
Note that actions taken *based* on the speech don't count.
EFF: Hollywood's new war on software freedom and Internet innovation Posted Nov 17, 2011 17:09 UTC (Thu) by mpr22 (subscriber, #60784) [Link] I would classify the changes in emotional state likely to be induced in random onlookers by playing recordings from the "power electronics" genre (at volumes, and for durations, consistent with hearing-safety) in a busy public space as altering their person, yes. I would also classify it as communication and tend to the position that most humans would find the task of ignoring it difficult at best. The world is not inhabited by hyperrational ubermenschen.
EFF: Hollywood's new war on software freedom and Internet innovation Posted Nov 17, 2011 18:59 UTC (Thu) by nybble41 (subscriber, #55106) [Link]
> I would classify the changes in emotional state likely to be induced in random onlookers by playing recordings from the "power electronics" genre ... as altering their person, yes.
If you're talking about sounds which naturally provoke a specific physical response in the listener, we've moved beyond communication and into the realm of assault. For the lesser case of sound which is merely annoying or grating, the problem is the classification of the area as a "public space". This is a classic tragedy-of-the-commons issue, and the solution is to privatize the space, thus putting someone in charge of ensuring, for their own benefit, that the ambiance won't drive people away.
> ... most humans would find the task of ignoring it difficult at best. The world is not inhabited by hyperrational ubermenschen.
Most of the time, ignoring speech you don't care for is easy. Go somewhere else. Or, if you have to be there, put on some headphones. If you can't do that, take advantage of your own freedom of speech to respond, or petition the owner of the space to set some rules concerning acceptable behavior on his or her property. Making the speech itself illegal is far from the only, or best, solution.
EFF: Hollywood's new war on software freedom and Internet innovation Posted Nov 17, 2011 17:49 UTC (Thu) by njs (guest, #40338) [Link]
I guess it's easy enough if you're a super-privileged guy who's never had to deal with death threats, harassment, people asking if they can pet your hair...
I'd be curious to see the response he got if he tried telling a woman that if she finds cat-calling hurtful then it's her fault for deciding to pay attention to it and she should stop doing that. Or went to an eating disorder clinic and told the patients off for looking at those magazine covers and getting body-image issues, what sort of idiots are they for *paying attention* to things *everyone was telling them*...
(TO BE CLEAR I am not advocating any particular legal restrictions on magazine covers or anything, I am just saying that the idea that speech cannot be harmful is an example of why most of us think most libertarians are immature douchebags. Normally I wouldn't say something like that about a fellow LWN commenter, but since it doesn't affect his property I guess it's okay in this case.)
EFF: Hollywood's new war on software freedom and Internet innovation Posted Nov 17, 2011 19:12 UTC (Thu) by nybble41 (subscriber, #55106) [Link]
You're taking things off on a tangent here. I never said that all speech was good, or should be considered socially acceptable. Certainly there is such a thing as hurtful or inappropriate speech. I just said that people shouldn't be subject to civil or criminal legal repercussions for such speech, such as fines or imprisonment. There are perfectly adequate social responses to unwanted speech, including shunning, exclusion from others' private property, public debate, and response in kind. Unlike censorship, none of these responses violate anyone's natural rights.
> TO BE CLEAR I am not advocating any particular legal restrictions on magazine covers or anything...
So we agree: speech is not harmful *in the sense which should be legally actionable*, which is what we are discussing here. It may be "harmful" in other senses, but you can't legitimately take legal action based on that kind of "harm".
> Normally I wouldn't say something like that about a fellow LWN commenter, but since it doesn't affect his property I guess it's okay in this case.
Well, I'm obviously not going to sue you over it. That's not quite the same as "okay", but I'll forgive you for it anyway.
EFF: Hollywood's new war on software freedom and Internet innovation Posted Nov 20, 2011 21:19 UTC (Sun) by Julie (✭ supporter ✭, #66693) [Link]
>I never said that all speech was good, or should be considered socially acceptable. Certainly there is such a thing as hurtful or inappropriate speech. I just said that people shouldn't be subject to civil or criminal legal repercussions for such speech, such as fines or imprisonment. There are perfectly adequate social responses to unwanted speech, including shunning, exclusion from others' private property, public debate, and response in kind. Unlike censorship, none of these responses violate anyone's natural rights.
And I couldn't have put it better myself :-)
>It may be "harmful" in other senses, but you can't legitimately take legal action based on that kind of "harm".
Not "harmful"; hurtful, infuriating, degrading, offensive and so on, yes - but the consequence of redefining speech as 'harmful' is that the whole case for free speech is undermined.
Why? Because the idea of free speech recognises that speech, and the ideas that it expresses, are very powerful and therefore invaluable, which is why it's worth protecting - but although speech may be hurtful or offensive, that adults are rational, mature beings with the capability of developing emotional robustness to cope with the fallout.
EFF: Hollywood's new war on software freedom and Internet innovation Posted Nov 20, 2011 21:09 UTC (Sun) by Julie (✭ supporter ✭, #66693) [Link]
>people asking if they can pet your hair...
What, they _ask_ where you come from? ;-)
Of course the fact that some men can feel free to treat women with such rudeness shows that there are some real underlying issues in society that need _investigating_, feminists and other 'women's rights' campaigners' knee-jerk reaction of demanding the immediate sanitization of speech and certain types of behaviour in the name of protecting women really isn't helping.
>death threats
Death threats aren't restricted to women. There are nutjobs out there, they make death threats for all sorts of 'reasons'.
>if she finds cat-calling hurtful
So one of the examples of rudeness that women tend to have to put up with are wolf-whistles, shouts and catcalls. But in spite of what feminists say, some women find being whistled at flattering.
When I went to LinuxCon Europe this year, I couldn't help noticing that almost every man I passed shuffled past me without making eye contact. Of course a lot of this was unremarkable - geeks are shy and don't find that social interactions come easily, I am like that myself.
This leaves men in a lose-lose situation when talking to women - if they say 'hi' or smile at me I could think they were trying to hit on me ('harassment'). If they ignore me then I could think they were treating me like I'm invisible because I'm female ('harassment'). And so on. (The second reaction being less risky, it's understandable that they would feel that not speaking to or looking at me is the wiser choice.)
This is really horrible, divisive and absolutely poisonous with regards to cultivating social interactions, which should be a natural part of being at a conference. I would much rather have to put up with sexist comments or even having my hair grabbed by some socially maladjusted idiot then have such a sterilized, paranoid and suspicious atmosphere set up in the name of 'respecting' me or protecting me from 'harassment'.
Perhaps the fair and generous thing to do would be for us all to give each other the benefit of the doubt, before jumping to conclusions about what's going on in each others' heads. It may be uncomfortable, but I think it's worthwhile.
>eating disorder clinic and told the patients off for looking at those magazine covers and getting body-image issues
I've known a few people with eating disorders. They are a lot more complicated than getting a distorted perception of what you ought to be via the media and trying to live it out.
Of course there are a lot of social pressures on people - especially women - to conform to gender roles and stereotypical ideals, the whole of the media and public life is saturated with these ideas, I don't like them either. And some women _do_ respond to them - as an extreme manifestation, by having cosmetic surgery for example - but the thing about a social idea is that you _don't have to buy into it_.
It's indeed patronizing and insulting to suggest that women should trammel their identity into something that's confined to homemaking and being objects for men's gratification (and that within certain prescriptive parameters). At the end of the day though, in spite of all the popular pressure, women that try to model their self-identity along these lines are making a choice to do it - it might be pitiable, but they're also being silly, rather childish and not a little narcissistic. There's more to life.
>(TO BE CLEAR I am not advocating any particular legal restrictions on magazine covers or anything, I am just saying that the idea that speech cannot be harmful
But I'm afraid you are - or if _you_ aren't, your argument paves the way for others to do so. If all this is _harmful_, then the natural conclusion a society must come to is that the perceived source of the harm must be censored, restricted or contained.
EFF: Hollywood's new war on software freedom and Internet innovation Posted Nov 16, 2011 10:42 UTC (Wed) by ekj (guest, #1524) [Link]
That's hard to believe - atleast unless you define "speech" very narrowly. (do you restrict "speech" to be voice-only or do written text, drawing, photographic work, music and other expressive media count as "speech" ?)
EFF: Hollywood's new war on software freedom and Internet innovation Posted Nov 13, 2011 4:07 UTC (Sun) by djzort (guest, #57189) [Link]
so how did that net neutrality go that was promised? ... hmmm. so much for "Hope" and "Change" lots of change but hopeless.
EFF: Hollywood's new war on software freedom and Internet innovation Posted Nov 13, 2011 7:37 UTC (Sun) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link]
Obama promised to veto the Senate bill repealing the FCC's net neutrality rules. So at least he did something correctly.
EFF: Hollywood's new war on software freedom and Internet innovation Posted Nov 13, 2011 8:58 UTC (Sun) by AngryChris (subscriber, #74783) [Link] I don't understand comments like this from corbet:US citizens who are concerned about this bill might want to consider communicating those concerns to their congress critters.While I appreciate the sentiment, doing so is an exercise in futility. Unless I'm simply forgetting, I'm not able to pull an example from my memory where congress has ever listened to constituents when it comes to consumer protection laws. The fact of the matter is that while we vote, we are not the constituents. Congress cares about corporations (their constituents) and protecting corporate interests (from which the money flows). There is no interest in, nor will there be, John Q. Public. I've written my representative countless times and in every instance I receive back a form letter that goes something like this: "Thank you for writing me with your concerns. While I appreciate blah blah blah, it's important that we move forward with this important legislation."There's no one listening. Why bother?
EFF: Hollywood's new war on software freedom and Internet innovation Posted Nov 13, 2011 16:57 UTC (Sun) by lutchann (subscriber, #8872) [Link]
While it's generally true that members of Congress don't care what individual constituents have to say about "obscure" issues like copyright, they do listen to consumer lobbyist groups like the EFF. The most effective thing you can do is write a letter to your Congressmen saying something like "I join the EFF in opposing this legislation" or "As an EFF member, I urge you to oppose this legislation." That will help increase the EFF's influence.
(Far better is to include such a letter with your sizable campaign donation, of course.)
EFF: Hollywood's new war on software freedom and Internet innovation Posted Nov 14, 2011 0:31 UTC (Mon) by wahern (subscriber, #37304) [Link]
Maybe include a check in your next letter. Or write a check to a lobbying organization. I'm not saying that there aren't good politicians, but money always talks.
What would be cool is for someone to setup an escrow system to hold donations until _after_ a congressman votes and earns his money. I think this would be a cool little project. There'd need to be a system in place to decide whether the politician held up his end of the bargain (not that there'd be an explicit bargain). Maybe a third party committee to decide prior to the next election cycle whether to disburse. If the politician's votes fall short of the mark, then the money (minus transaction fee) returns to the donor, or rolls over into some other fund.
A few well focused issue funds, targeted at key politicians, could make a world of difference. That's how the big guys do it; they work on the fringes for the most part and leverage their investments.
EFF: Hollywood's new war on software freedom and Internet innovation Posted Nov 14, 2011 14:28 UTC (Mon) by bitshifter (guest, #70716) [Link]
Wouldn't that turn a donation into a bribe? "You can have these monies *after* you do what we ask"
EFF: Hollywood's new war on software freedom and Internet innovation Posted Nov 14, 2011 18:32 UTC (Mon) by yokem_55 (subscriber, #10498) [Link]
The sad fact is that this is already what happens. So, we can choose to embrace ideals and piss in the wind, or try to fight fire with fire.
EFF: Hollywood's new war on software freedom and Internet innovation Posted Nov 13, 2011 9:21 UTC (Sun) by ssmith32 (subscriber, #72404) [Link]
Well, I went ahead and submitted two my two Senators (Boxer & Feinstein) via the EFF's page.
I even added my own letter above it. Hopefully it helps if it's not just one more form letter & I framed my complaints to point out this is just burdensome regulation that hurts the economy and the US's credibility, all to favour one industry over other industries and individuals. In particular it favours an industry that is not growing particularly well over one that is still managing to grow...
But given that they are probably a lot more beholden to Hollywood then lone voters... I have my doubts.. I guess I'll have to find someone else to vote for if it passes... At least I tried, and did slightly more than just ranting on lwn... :/
-stu
EFF: Hollywood's new war on software freedom and Internet innovation Posted Nov 13, 2011 12:06 UTC (Sun) by tzafrir (subscriber, #11501) [Link]
Wasn't there such a circumvention project by the NSA? It was targeted at citizens of countries such as Iran and China, but I figure nothing's stopping the citizens of the USA to use it.
We all knew that the NSA is into shoddy stuff.
EFF: Hollywood's new war on software freedom and Internet innovation Posted Nov 13, 2011 18:18 UTC (Sun) by bjartur (guest, #67801) [Link]
Well, there's the anonymizing proxy network TOR, initially developed by the Navy. Strong encryption and extensive proxying. Outright illegal if this passes. One wonders if the police/spy forces of the US Navy will just allow this bill to pass.
EFF: Hollywood's new war on software freedom and Internet innovation Posted Nov 13, 2011 21:01 UTC (Sun) by mangoo (guest, #32602) [Link]
Will I go to jail if I edit my /etc/hosts file now?
|
|||||||||||||