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.
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.
How is a stabbing video anything about freedom of speech? I often support Electronic Frontier Foundation but this makes no sense.
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”.
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.