Comment on France orders internet providers to block access to Polymarket prediction site
Ethalis@jlai.lu 1 day agoAnd what happens when they refuse to pay the fine, or consider that those fines are an acceptable cost for doing business in France? If the goal is protecting the french public, blocking the site as soon as it is made illegal is the only option
NaibofTabr@infosec.pub 1 day ago
Control is never relinquished voluntarily, it only expands. If the government has the power to block access to one site they will do it with more, for increasingly less justifiable reasons, until they eventually don’t bother justifying it at all.
Government censorship is not permissible in a free society, period.
timochka@lemmy.zip 23 hours ago
Why?
I man that as a genuine, serious question. Why?
I understand that Americans are raised with this as some kind of article of faith, but have you ever actually sat down and come up with a rational justification for that point of view?
There are many societies that are on all objective levels more free than tbe US, which are not absolutist on free-speech, so why do you believe that?
Ghoelian@piefed.social 13 hours ago
Because censorship eventually gets abused for oppression. It’s just too slippery a slope. For an extreme example of this, you should read 1984.
timochka@lemmy.zip 13 hours ago
I’m sorry, but that’s just trite. Why does censorship, within bounds defined by a democratic decision making process, eventually get abused for oppression when so can every other right which we accept governments can control? What is UNIQUE about censorship?
ALL society is a tradeoff of rights. When you put someone in jail, you deprive them of fundamental human rights more or less by definition. Jails absolutely DO get abused for oppression. Yet we accept that for a civilised society.
Grade-school appeals to Orwell are not a good enough explanation for why freedom of speech is a unique shibboleth in US society. Particularly if “because otherwise it will be abused for oppression” in particular does not stand when your much-vaunted freedom of speech is being abused for oppression; Citizens United is exactly the kind of decision that uses free-speech absolutism to oppress.
NaibofTabr@infosec.pub 12 hours ago
Well, let me ask you a related question: do you think it is acceptable to ban books? Why or why not?
timochka@lemmy.zip 10 hours ago
You mean like the books on this list? cfpublic.org/…/florida-list-banned-books-schools
No, not really. But thank you for providing an excellent example; it turns out your free speech absolutism is no protection from the “slippery slope” whatsoever.
It’s not censorship that’s the slippery slope to oppression. It’s electing demagogues that’s the slippery slope to oppression, and it turns out your religious worship of the ability to be offensive to minorities not only didn’t protect you, it hastened you on your journey.
I’d rather live in a country that banned Mein Kampf but doesn’t threaten to shut down media that fails to praise the Dear Leader, than one that searches people’s phones at the border for evidence of thought crimes while defending Elon Musk’s right to spread Nazi propaganda to the hilt, tbh.