this post was submitted on 05 Jun 2024
39 points (76.7% liked)

Technology

59608 readers
3423 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Ab_intra@lemmy.world 23 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

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

[–] Kidplayer_666@lemm.ee 12 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Th issue was them wanting a global takedown, with the argument being that it could incite further violence and inspire instability

[–] Ab_intra@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago (3 children)

I kinda see the point of removing it globally.. It's a video that shows a stabbing. Why would you want that to circulate?

[–] Kidplayer_666@lemm.ee 22 points 5 months ago (1 children)

That’s not the point. The point is, you can’t enforce your censorship abroad.

[–] FiskFisk33@startrek.website 9 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

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.

[–] anyhow2503@lemmy.world 9 points 5 months ago

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.

[–] Creat@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

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.

[–] Ajen@sh.itjust.works 6 points 5 months ago (2 children)

If freedom of speech only applies to "acceptable" speech, then it isn't really freedom of speech.

[–] FooBarrington@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago

So freedom of speech doesn't exist anywhere? Literally every place has some restrictions.

[–] Donut@leminal.space 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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".

[–] Ajen@sh.itjust.works 1 points 5 months ago

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.