←back to thread

361 points gloxkiqcza | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0.754s | source
Show context
torginus ◴[] No.45011561[source]
I genuinely do not understand where how the idea of building a total surveillance police state, where all speech is monitored, can even as much as seriously be considered by an allegedly pro-democracy, pro-human rights government, much less make it into law.

Also:

Step 1: Build mass surveillance to prevent the 'bad guys' from coming into political power (its ok, we're the good guys).

Step 2: Your political opponents capitalize on your genuinely horrific overreach, and legitimize themselves in the eyes of the public as fighting against tyranny (unfortunately for you they do have a point). They promise to dismantle the system if coming to power.

Step 3: They get elected.

Step 4: They don't dismantle the system, now the people you planned to use the system against are using it against you.

Sounds brilliant, lets do this.

replies(17): >>45011763 #>>45011799 #>>45011932 #>>45012205 #>>45012358 #>>45012512 #>>45012976 #>>45013249 #>>45013303 #>>45013857 #>>45014035 #>>45014477 #>>45014527 #>>45014559 #>>45016358 #>>45020627 #>>45021408 #
pjc50 ◴[] No.45011799[source]
The UK has never been a free speech state. Remember the extremely weird era when Gerry Adams MP could not be heard on TV and had to have his voice dubbed?
replies(4): >>45012441 #>>45012560 #>>45012648 #>>45012742 #
bigfudge ◴[] No.45012441[source]
Few European countries have free speech in the way the US does because their legal frameworks explicitly recognise potential harms from speech and freedoms speech can inhibit and attempt to balance these competing freedoms.

I don’t think that makes us ‘not a free speech state’ — although the suppression of the IRA spokesmen was weird and criticised at the time.

Also worth remembering, it’s probably not possible to listen to Hamas or Islamic Jihad spokesmen on US media…

replies(9): >>45012734 #>>45012836 #>>45012975 #>>45013508 #>>45013963 #>>45014476 #>>45014927 #>>45015863 #>>45017510 #
1. ahmeneeroe-v2 ◴[] No.45014476[source]
I'm not looking this up at work, but didn't OBL have a mainstream media interview in the 90s?

Also, nearly every enemy of the US is on Twitter under their official names.

replies(1): >>45014605 #
2. diggan ◴[] No.45014605[source]
> Also, nearly every enemy of the US is on Twitter under their official names.

I'm not sure how fair argument that is. When you're literally the owner of the platform, of course you'd use your real name and the names of the companies you own, on the platform you just bought. Doing anything else would be weird :)

replies(3): >>45014709 #>>45014714 #>>45015000 #
3. ◴[] No.45014709[source]