Because the internet is purely an information medium, so "borders" on the internet can be nothing other than censorship. Censorship is a human rights violation and is disproportionately useful to oppressive regimes.
Why should it not? What's the point of having an effectively open information network if you're going to just let each nation state arbitrarily censor/manipulate it as they see fit for their own peasants?
You'd agree with say, <insert country> mass blocking sites for their people just because the sites say something about democracy?
In the EU, freedom of expression has explicit limits on hate speech and holocaust denial, mainly because dignity and equality supersedes the "freedom" of speech.
The general idea behind EU's freedom of speech is that its totally acceptable for expressing controversial ideas or questioning norms, like a religious leader could do.
Calling for harm or hate (like some religious leader do) is not acceptable.
> do they really forbid people from speaking their minds entirely?
"Yes" could be an answer here, but we could legitimately wonder if a right mind would think "we should kill all the ones I don't like"
The problem is, people should be free to question even that belief that dignity and equality supersede freedom of speech. Who defines what is dignity and equality? If people can't express unpopular views (without making specific threats) that question what dignity and equality mean, then how do you know the current definition of those concepts is valid according to the people? It boils down to the EU essentially stating "certain concepts are beyond debate, they cannot be questioned".
> "Yes" could be an answer here, but we could legitimately wonder if a right mind would think "we should kill all the ones I don't like"
You're right, but the point is not whether such persons are in their right mind, evil, horrible,etc... society can view them as such just fine. The point is, should the state be imprisoning such people simply for stating their views. For example in the US, I'm sure you've seen videos of people being explicitly racist in public, they don't get arrested but they do lose their jobs and livelihoods.
the concept of hate-speech gives the state the right to police speech that is merely unpopular, with no immediate harm to anyone. What if Europe slides to the far-right, and Nazis become a protected group and criticizing them is now considered hate-speech? That has dire implications. You can see this happening in the US right now, but at least we can still be critical of MAGA, the concept of making that hate-speech does not exist, so we still have a fighting chance, they can't pass laws that will allow them to spread false information without others criticizing it by redefining legal definitions of such terms (which they can do).
> the concept of hate-speech gives the state the right to police speech that is merely unpopular
Not true. Legislators write the laws, courts interpret them. Basic civics. Laws are not written as "we can police any speech", and courts don't interpret them as such.
I understand all that, I was making the slippery-slope argument, it isn't a fallacy in this case. What groups are considered equal and worthy of protected dignity has gone from "just straight white property owning men" to the myriad of groups we have today. This is a constantly evolving definition. Whoever is in power gets to define that. In times of peace, it is easy to assume things will remain as they are. Look at us here in America, the majority were deceived (or just didn't show up to vote) and now those in power who can change such definitions are horrible evil people. The same can happen in Europe if you don't learn from us. It wasn't that long ago fascists almost took over all of europe and caused the greatest war in the history of our species! Free speech is the only real defense against that. It's either that or violence and war.
You said what you said. And your clarification here is just fear-mongering: "complete free speech absolutism or fascism, war, and holocaust". Okay, fine, whatever. I'm in favour of the Jews being gassed then, I guess ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Fair enough. Don't know what to tell you other than those things happened and are in the process of happening here in the US. No mongering, just observations based on reality.
Yes, they should be free to question it, but I think that the US view on freedom of speech makes dumber people because they don't need to think about the consequences of their speech.
They usually say whatever they want, usually surrounded with a "it's my right" without thinking about the whole process.
Once they said whatever they said, what's next? What's the purpose of their message?
Is it to express your anger in life and that you think that the source is some random ethnicity or community or do you want to improve everyone's quality of life?
With the recent shift towards extreme individualism, the philosophy behind the essence of freedom of speech has disappeared. Some are now focusing towards improving one individual's quality of life at the expense of the others.
In Europe, they FAFO the extense of free speech and that led to WWII. They said never again because they understood the consequences of full freedom of speech.
Even in the US, nobody has a full freedom of speech. How would a parent react if their kid would say "fuck off" to an elementary school teacher?
Even in the US freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences. quite the opposite. I'm sure in Nazi times in europe, being critical of the Nazis wasn't allowed speech. Both then and now in the US, nazis prosper because we didn't use free speech to fend them off enough, we were complacent. You can see trump trying to retaliate by firing people, banning journalists, cancelling contracts, etc.. for anyone critical of his administration. speech is how fascists gain power, but opposing speech across europe (look at UK and France) is also how they just recently fended of right-wing fascists.
In a democracy, the government gets its power from the people. if it can silence the people in certain contexts, then in those contexts the people lost their power. When politicians with bad intent take power, they'll use this crack in the system to tear it apart.
> people should be free to question even that belief that dignity and equality supersede freedom of speech. Who defines what is dignity and equality?
I define what dignity is, and I think you should have none. And I actively incite others to remove your dignity.
If this was real, I am not really sure if you would think I should exercise my free speech to your standards, especially if you thought that harm to you was tangible.
It's all fun and games until we are enacting a Kristallnacht.
You're right, if tangible harm is involved, or a specific threat is made, free-speech can't be used as a defense. There is no debate there. But I'm sure you'd agree hating Nazis shouldn't be a crime right? The fact of the matter is hatred or belief in harm is not a bad thing in anyone's mind so long as it is directed at something you consider evil. you're supposed to hate evil.
The reason the US isn't like EU in this regard is that hating tyranny is the cause of its founding. Being able to hate the british's oppressive rule was crucial, being able to organize a rebellion around that hatred is how the US exists. And in current times, being able to hate MAGA and neo-fascism is important.
However, hatred and conspiracy to harm people are different things. Inciting specific harm against anyone is illegal both in the EU and the US today. "you can't yell 'fire' in a crowd" and all.
Let's get a bit more practical, why can't Muslims living in Europe consider anything critical of their prophet is hate-speech? Or laws opposing revenge killings and their treatment of women is hate-speech and religious bigotry? I can assure you to them it feels severely harmful, their passionate response is from a place of hurt and pain. I don't see why any of that is not banned under hate speech laws.
The crucial point here is that the people have a contract with their government such that the government is allowed certain powers. The question here is "can the government police speech that doesn't involve potential and specific harm?". In the US, Islamic imams can preach sermons on Sharia law in promotion of revenge killings and other imams or even other religious leaders can criticize that sermon and preach in its opposition. From what I understand, in the EU, they can't preach that and no one can really criticize them, but their followers still hold that belief with no opportunity to observe the topic debated.
For every framework that ever existed there's somewhere out there a computer running it and doing real work with it, without any updates since autumn 1988, while the google wannabe solo founders worry about the best crutch^H^H^H^H tooling, their CI/CDs and not scaling.
> I tend to forget that people don't know stuff I learned decades ago and consider them as general knowledge.
While all of us who are lucky to be around long enough meet the problem of general knowledge changing under our feet, it's hard for me to imagine how saying this to someone can be a productive contribution to the conversation. What can it accomplish other than making someone feel worse for not knowing something that you consider general knowledge?
I don't think anyone should feel bad for not knowing something.
My "general" knowledge is built on my experience.
The first comment before OP answer's was kinda condescending about the article and I felt the same way when reading it but then op's comment made me realise I was in the wrong because I forgot that my "general" knowledge is not general at all.
OP had to defend why he posted it. I wanted to tell OP that it was a good idea to post it, not for the article content, but for my teaching moment.
> WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a [SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC] and to secure to all its citizens:
That said, I don't know how constitutional amendments work in India. This text may have been amended at a later date, but the original text remains.
I don’t know if that would do it or just return your dark current image.
The best thing to do is just take a file same as your screen resolution into your favorite image editor and fill it with actual true black. Save as png and send to phone.
Was not sure if sensor in pitch dark would catch some other radiation and output some pixel "grain" seen from high ISO or not, but from what I tried, visually the photo seems pretty black, so the method seems to be surprisingly usable.
As for "same image as your screen resolution": screenshot sounds like the exact fitting thing here. As a challenge, tried making screenshot black using stock Samsung "Gallery" and it seems that repeated Edit - Brightness: -100 - Save as copy, then open the copy and goto back to Edit can do the trick as well, after four or so copies. (Copies, because there is no way to re-apply same effect on the same photo, apparently.)
Outside of discussing whether Russia is behind this or not, the broader Russian strategy seems aimed at undermining trust in European governments. [1]
The goal would be to create enough pressure from people - frustrated by problems like power cuts — so that governments must withdraw their support for Ukraine.
Any "WW III" fearmongering is similar : intimidate everyone into withdrawing support.
Many European countries have created emergency guides to help citizens preparing for crisis like this one. [2]
This, I guess, has the underlying goal of maintaining trust in European governments.
reply