Archive | Freedom of Speech

Meanwhile, over at Google…

So… Google just fired an employee for… not agreeing with the company’s diversity policy.

The irony.

It also raises – once again – the issue of possible political bias at the worlds leading search engine.

• Gizmodo: Here’s The Full 10-Page Anti-Diversity Screed Circulating Internally at Google »
• TechCrunch: There’s a manifesto criticizing Google’s diversity efforts circulating inside the company »
• TechCrunch: Google fires the engineer who wrote that viral memo criticizing its diversity efforts »
• The Telegraph: Google fires employee behind anti-diversity memo for ‘perpetuating gender stereotypes’ »
• Tim Pools first Youtube comment on Google and diversity »

Tim Pools latest Youtube-comment on the issue:

Update – Google Memo: Fired Employee Speaks Out! | James Damore and Stefan Molyneux:

Update 2 – Daily Wire: 4 Things The Google Manifesto DOESN’T Say That The Media Claim It Says »

Update 3 – A Youtube comment from Jordan Peterson:

Update 4The Google Memo: Four Scientists Respond »

1

EU to kill Creative Commons?

The EU is in the process of hammering out a new copyright directive. Here is a leaked amendment from the European Parliaments Committee on Culture and Education (CULT)…

1. Member States shall ensure that, when authors and performers transfer or assign the right of making available to the public of their works or other subject-matter for online on-demand services, they retain the right to obtain fair remuneration derived from the direct exploitation of their works present in the catalogue of those services.

2. The right of an author or performer to obtain fair remuneration for the making available of his/her work as described in paragraph 1 cannot be waived.

This is totally absurd.

We are many who publish text, pictures, video and music under various Creative Commons licenses. Meaning that we waive parts of our copyright – making our works available for everyone to share freely. (Some CC licenses do and some don’t allow free commercial use; some state that the creator should be attributed; et cetera.)

According to point two above, in some cases, licenses such as CC=BY, CC=NC, and CC=0 will not be legal.

To take one example, this blog is published under a CC=BY license. Anyone could quote or share the text, as long as it is attributed to the 5 of July Foundation (or me). And we do hope you do. Even for commercial use, non-public sites, in the media, or on-demand.

If the amendment above becomes EU law – this might no longer be possible or legal.

Furthermore, not being allowed to freely share one’s creative work on certain sites surely is an unacceptable limitation when it comes to the artist’s rights.

If there is something like intellectual property (which the EU claims) – this must be a grave violation of the artists property rights.

To hinder creators from freely distributing their works must also be a serious limitation of freedom of speech.

And it doesn’t have to be about Creative Commons. Some artists just want to share their work for marketing purposes or just to be nice to their fans. Why shouldn’t they be allowed to?

This ill-conceived idea must be stopped before it becomes EU law.

/ HAX

• EFF: Secret New European Copyright Proposal Spells Disaster for Free Culture »
• EFF: Do Last Week’s European Copyright Votes Show Publishers Have Captured European Politics?

Learn more about Creative Commons »

3

European Parliament making a pig’s breakfast of new Copyright regulation package

On 11 July, two Committees in the European Parliament voted on their Opinions on European Commission’s proposal for a Copyright Directive: the Committee on Culture and Education (CULT) and the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE).

CULT decided to abandon all reason and propose measures that contradict existing law on monitoring of online content. They also contradict clear rulings from the highest court in the EU on internet filtering. And for the sake of being consistently bad, the Committee also supported ancillary copyright, a “link tax” that would make linking and quotation almost impossible on social media.

ITRE made a brave effort to fix the unfixable “censorship machine”, the upload filter proposed by the Commission. On the one hand, this demonstrates a willingness in the Parliament to resist the fundamentalism of the Commission’s proposal. On the other, it shows how impossible this task really is. Despite deleting the reference to “content recognition technologies”, ITRE has decided to keep the possibility of measures to prevent the availability of copyrighted works or “other subject matter” which may or may not be understood as supporting preventive filtering.

And there is more bad news in the linked text, below.

EDRi » Latest copyright votes: Filtering, blocking & half-baked compromises »

0

Suffocating free speech online, country by country

The trend of courts applying country-specific social media laws worldwide could radically change what is allowed to be on the internet, setting a troubling precedent. What happens to the global internet when countries with different cultures have sharply diverging definitions of what is acceptable online speech? What happens when one country’s idea of acceptable speech clashes with another’s idea of hate speech? Experts worry the biggest risk is that the whole internet will be forced to comport with the strictest legal limitations.

Wired: The World may be Headed for a Fragmented ‘Splinternet’ »

0

Consequences of Germanys social media censorship

Even accepting that free speech ends where criminal law begins, that doesn’t justify fining the platforms. If people are posting “illegal” content, go after them for breaking the law. Don’t go after the tools they use. By putting massive liability risks on platforms, those platforms will almost certainly overcompensate and over censor to avoid any risk of liability. That means a tremendous amount of what should be protected speech gets silence, just because these companies don’t want to get fined. Even worse, the big platforms can maybe hire people to handle this. The littler platforms? They basically can’t risk operating in Germany any more. Berlin is a hotbed of startups, but this is going to seriously harm many of them.

Techdirt » Germany Officially Gives Up On Free Speech: Will Fine Internet Companies That Don’t Delete ‘Bad’ Speech »

0

UK: Go to prison – for a joke?

“Scottish comedian and YouTuber Markus Meechan, better known as Count Dankula, is facing a year in prison for recording and uploading a video where he taught his girlfriend’s pet dog how to “seig heil” on command. As Heat Street reported earlier this year the viral video did not amuse Scottish police, prompting his arrest.” (…)

“On Wednesday, Meechan posted an update about his case. “Legal aid application was rejected,” he posted on Twitter. ‘I’m fucked.'”

Heatstreet: Scottish YouTuber Who Faces Prison Over a Joke Can’t Get a Lawyer »

0

Are we doomed? Maybe not.

I just read an interesting piece at Bloomberg: The Hackers Russia-Proofing Germany’s Elections »

It’s about the German Chaos Computer Club – CCC – and its fight for a free, open democratic society with a free flow of information. At the end, member Jan Krissler is quoted saying…

»All the stuff will happen in the end.«

He then adds »Maybe I’m too skeptical about our influence.«

The looming questions. Are they winning? Are we losing? If so, what will the consequences be? Is it already too late to fight Big Brother?

For decades I have in one way or another been into politics and communication. One thing that I have learned is that you must be ridiculously persistent. You will be fed up repeating the same arguments over and over again – to people who are not interested or do not want to understand. They will ignore you, they will laugh at you and they will fight you.

Then you win. It has been done before. When the Internet stopped ACTA is one of a number of very real victories in the EU. It’s all about leaving your comfort zone – and give what it takes to win. Again. And again.

Because we must! A modern, slightly superstitious, politicized, high-tech Big Brother state will be insufferable. Orwell, meet Kafka.

This is about the power balance between citizens and the state. This is about upholding fundamental human rights. This is – ultimately – about democracy. And it is for real.

Bigbrotherism tends to be irreversible. When mass surveillance is in place, it is very hard to undo and will inevitably be followed by more. When civil rights are restricted, they might be lost forever. And we have absolutely no idea about who will be in power in the future. But it’s highly likely that – sooner or later – it will be some pretty nasty people. (As if today’s politicians aren’t scary enough.) Please, do not leave them tools of oppression and total control.

So, losing is not an option.

To win, I believe that we must stand on strong and unrestrainable principles. The UN, EU, and Council of Europe declarations on human rights. The fundamental pillars and the deeper values of liberal democracy. What the Germans (who learned the hard way, twice) call »Rechtstaat«. Division of power. Openness.

It must be commonly known that there is an ongoing battle, where peaceful activists passionately are defending democracy – and politicians and bureaucrats are trying to restrict it. This image must be reflected in the media and in the public mind.

Remember that action is the most powerful way to communicate – and necessary for anything to happen at all.

Trying to repress Democracy must come at an extremely high political price. If we don’t draw a red line, our overlords will find that there are, actually, no real limits to their power. (And having power over others does unfortunate things to people.)

Fight fair, endure, stand on a few exceptionally strong principles – and you will eventually win.

Finally, we cannot have all these different fights over and over again. This must come to some sort of horizontal, binding resurrection of privacy, civil rights and freedom of information.

(And whatever you do, do not allow politicians to »modernize« our existing human rights conventions. These should be very imposing and inconvenient obstacles – to prevent governments from doing whatever they want.)

Take this fight to national politics. Confront politicians and their functionaries. Give the media a wake-up-call. And let’s make all of this an Issue at the European elections – as much of today’s Bigbroterism originates in the EU.

May the Force be with you.

/ HAX

0

Are Millennials losing faith in democracy?

This spring surveys suggested that young people are ambivalent towards freedom of speech. Especially so when it comes to statements that might be offensive towards religions and minorities. (Link»)

Now, similar signals are reaching us when it comes to democracy as such.

World Economic Forum:

In a paper published by Roberto Stefan Foa of the University of Melbourne and Yascha Mounk of Harvard shows that the proportion of people who support “having a strong leader who does not have to bother with parliament or elections” has risen across the world over the past 25 years, in many cases considerably.

And there seems to be a clear trend among young people:

Foa and Mounk’s research shows that millennials have become less attached to the importance of voting. In 1995, only 16% of 16 to 24-year-old Americans believed that democracy was a bad way to run the country. By 2011, that share had increased to 24%.

Figures for Europe are approximately  7% in 1995 and 13% in 2011-12.

Another chart, based on the same research, shows a systematic decline in the percentage of people who think that it is essential to live in a democracy, depending on what decade they were born in.

It shows that those born in the 1930s believe in democracy much more than those born in the 1980s. Some 72% of those born in the 1930s in America think democracy is absolutely essential. So do 55% of the same cohort in the Netherlands.

But the millennial generation (those born since 1980) has grown much more indifferent. For example, only one in three Dutch millennials says the same; in the United States, that number is slightly lower, around 30%.

Young people also seem to be less interested in politics than older generations.

So, is there something »wrong« with young people? Or is it politics and democracy that is failing?

See all the charts here » World Economic Forum: Millennials are rapidly losing interest in democracy »

3

Canada introduces Orwellian speech code on gender pronouns

Canada’s Senate passed the Justin Trudeau Liberals’ transgender rights bill unamended this afternoon by a vote of 67 to 11, with three abstentions.

The bill adds “gender expression” and “gender identity” to Canada’s Human Rights Code and to the Criminal Code’s hate crime section. With the Senate clearing the bill with no amendments, it requires only royal assent in the House of Commons to become law.

Critics warn that under Bill C-16, Canadians who deny gender theory could be charged with hate crimes, fined, jailed, and compelled to undergo anti-bias training.

Canada passes radical law forcing gender theory acceptance »

This is very interesting – and worrying. Many countries have hate speech laws stating what you can not say. But this is a law dictating what people must say! Truly Orwellian.

So, in Canada, from now, you must use certain gender pronouns – and there seems to be a lot of them…

• Youtube » Canadian Bill C-16 Passes With No Amendments, Forcing Compelled Speech for Gender Pronouns:

• Youtube » Prison For Refusing Gender Pronouns? Lawyer Explains Bill C-16, Compelled Speech, to Canadian Senate:

• Youtube » Senate hearing on Bill C16:

1