←back to thread

Is 4chan the perfect Pirate Bay poster child to justify wider UK site-blocking?

(torrentfreak.com)
361 points gloxkiqcza | 4 comments | 24 Aug 25 16:30 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
torginus ◴[25 Aug 25 08:26 UTC] 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 ◴[25 Aug 25 09:02 UTC] 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 ◴[25 Aug 25 10:45 UTC] 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 #
wslh ◴[25 Aug 25 12:09 UTC] No.45012975[source]▶
Free speech in the US is not absolute. You cannot make true threats or incite violence. For example, calling for the extermination of Democrats or Republicans would cross the line.
replies(1): >>45013147 #
shitlord ◴[25 Aug 25 12:32 UTC] No.45013147[source]▶
That would not cross the line.
replies(1): >>45013325 #
wslh ◴[25 Aug 25 12:54 UTC] No.45013325[source]▶
Not exactly. The Supreme Court has ruled that general hateful statements can be protected, but if a politician says "Democrats/Republicans should be exterminated" in a way that sounds like a real threat or call to action, it can become incitement or a true threat. So the line isn't about the words alone, it's about context and intent.
replies(2): >>45013699 #>>45013970 #
jack_h ◴[25 Aug 25 14:04 UTC] No.45013970[source]▶
The standard as decided in Brandenburg v. Ohio is "imminent lawless action". You're correct that context matters; the speech must be tied to an imminent violation of law. This is a very high bar and in practice is very hard to reach.
replies(1): >>45014001 #
dmix ◴[25 Aug 25 14:06 UTC] No.45014001{3}[source]▶
Yes the US laws aren't prosecuting speech in isolation, it's always involves some sort of IRL plan to do something illegal. Just like criminal conspiracy laws, they aren't just about telling someone you plan to commit a crime but actually taking earnest steps towards a crime with another party.
replies(1): >>45014691 #
1. mothballed ◴[25 Aug 25 15:07 UTC] No.45014691{4}[source]▶
IIRC the "I eat ass" bumper sticker guy lost his attempt to sue the police because judges ruled obscenity is an exception to the 1A.[]

Other examples include "appeal to prurient interest" even when the "interesting" activity is not illegal.

[] https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flmd.36...

replies(1): >>45014793 #
2. hiatus ◴[25 Aug 25 15:16 UTC] No.45014793[source]▶
It looks like the guy lost at the summary judgement phase because of qualified immunity. The case you cite doesn't appear to make your point.
replies(1): >>45014814 #
3. mothballed ◴[25 Aug 25 15:18 UTC] No.45014814[source]▶
If police have QI to stop your speech with impunity, and actually do so, that is just regulating that speech with extra steps.

>The case you cite doesn't appear to make your point.

It does if you go on and read the judgement, which cites that that it is reasonable to initiate a stop for obscenity, which was part of the reasoning used to grant QI.

replies(1): >>45015912 #
4. lcnPylGDnU4H9OF ◴[25 Aug 25 16:53 UTC] No.45015912{3}[source]▶
> It does if you go on and read the judgement ...

I think this is beside their point. Police are practically given qualified immunity by default; the case isn't strictly "lost" at this stage, it's lost if that decision is appealed and upheld until the victim is out of appeal options.

To your point, the summary judgement is still a clear injustice and it does practically give police the ability to stop speech whenever they want. But there's an element of random punishment if the person they stop has the resources to appeal the first decision. I'd be surprised if that appeal would be lost in this case given the main problem was the content of the expression; that's a pretty cut-and-dry 1a violation.

(It's a separate issue but there's another problem with the cases in which the officer loses qualified immunity in that the city they work in (tax payers) will pay the damages to shield them from consequences. I forget the legal mechanism but it pretty much always happens.)