Hacker News Reader

Comment by blackeyeblitzar | Hacker News Reader

Australia is the last country I would trust with the ability to view private communications between citizens, given they are trying hard to normalize censorship of online content. They recently ordered Twitter to take down video of a stabbing, and required Twitter to do so even outside of Australia. Musk and Twitter are fighting the order, and correctly refusing to censor speech outside of Australian jurisdiction. Meanwhile the stabbing victim himself doesn’t want the video censored:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/stabbed-sydney-bishop-backs-mu...

Australia’s online safety czar’s perspectives on implementing worldwide censorship orders through a network of coordinating czars is dystopian:

https://public.substack.com/p/cia-recruit-is-pursuing-global...

Backdoors or bans on encryption will only empower this censorship industrial complex.

View on HN

> and correctly refusing to censor speech outside of Australian jurisdiction.

Speech?

Regardless of any stance here on the matter the Australian Government isn't asking to censor any speech .. they want to dampen down the glorification of violent acts by asking social media to not carry the video of the stabbing.

You can write paragraphs about the event, transcribe what was said, the speech part isn't being asked to be censored here.

On the second point, coordinated five eyes actions requiring oversight from citizens of all countries involved and being kept in check is one thing; using the statements of Senator Jacqui Lambie (a fringe member of a finge political party (Clive Palmer, the Vogon offspring of Jabba the Hutt)) as representitive of Australian policy makes as much sense as taking Senator Ted Cruz a spokesperson for the USofA.

Pragmatically spies and cops might want encryption with backdoors, practically they're unlikely to get this .. "even in Australia".

>the Australian Government isn't asking to censor any speech .. they want to dampen down the glorification of violent acts by asking social media to not carry the video of the stabbing.

Posting the video is a form of speech.

Use your words.

Explain how, if "video is a form of speech" it is the case that

Miller_v._California : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_v._California

and Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Adult_Theatre_I_v._Slato...

even exist as U.S. Supreme Court rulings?

> Use your words.

Please keep in mind the HN guidelines.

Be kind. Don't be snarky. [0]

The cases you linked are about limits on speech. They don't do anything to demonstrate video isn't a speech.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

They specifically limit video | film.

They specifically treat film | video in a manner distinct from the spoken or written word.

Miller's offense was mailing brochures. The Miller test has been applied to books. Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton distinguished businesses and homes according to the article.

But I'm guessing we're agreed that video and books have been treated seperately and that limitations on availability have been applied to film|video content by a Federal US Government despite a "free speech" ammendment?

Which really is all that is sufficient to establish the point that free speech has categories and that video has been treated in as a seperate category to the spoken word and both to the written word.

The claim that free speech is equally and equivilantly { film , speech , writing } in the USofA is false in law.

They overlap to a large degree, but not perfectly.

There is precedent for limiting video content within a free speech society.

You admit now video is speech?

> But I'm guessing we're agreed that video and books have been treated seperately

In a narrow and irrelevant manner only. Visual child pornography is extra illegal.

> There is precedent for limiting video content within a free speech society.

There is precedent for limiting all forms of speech.

There is:

* Speech,

* Writing,

* Video,

* Dance,

* Morse Code,

and many many other forms of communication.

> Visual child pornography is extra illegal.

But written isn't? Clearly there are priors for Australia limiting video content.

In politics and law speech is not spoken words only. You seemed to understand this when you brought up written words.

The statute making visual child pornography extra illegal was limited to visual media. The reasons the statute held up in court were not.

There is precedent for Australia limiting written and spoken words.

So you're acknowledging video AND posting a video (which are not the same thing) are both forms of speech, and instead you are just quibbling over the fact that they are not the same as spoken or written speech, even though that wasn't something that was ever claimed?

> So you're acknowledging video AND posting a video (which are not the same thing) are both forms of speech,

No.

Speech is talky talky audible words.

Video is moving pictures but not film.

> the fact that they are not the same as spoken or written speech,

Yes, that's the fact, both in real life and legally, as evidenced in transcripts of numerous cases before courts.

> even though that wasn't something that was ever claimed?

This person did: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40154349

They typed in written form "Posting the video is a form of speech."

apparently not grasping what you have just agreed to as fact; moving pictures are not spoken words.

> Speech is talky talky audible words.

Legally, it's much broader in scope.

At this point arguing further and not agreeing or acknowledging that basic truth is arguing semantics and nothing more, and not something I'm interested in continuing for the sake of it to to have a final say.

Cheers.

When people say “free speech”, they are talking about information in general. Video is speech under that definition. I understand that the Australian government wants to avoid glorifying violent acts, but I would argue that it is better to depict the world as it is, rather than try to hide the bad parts and pretend it’ll fix itself. If the Australian government isn’t authoritarian, at best they can politely ask media to not carry it, but they should not be able to force it. That’s only possible under authoritarian regimes where the government thinks they have a right to control information.

What about under the definition of "speech" .. freedom to discuss.

With respect to video, let us note that even in the USofA the absolutist interpretation of the First Amendment (US) as applied to video pornography has never been sustained by the (US) Supreme Court.

It's a shit show there with 80+ years of bun fights and variation by state.

I understand the position that you're taking here, but it's not that clear cut in the US so why should it be in Australia?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com