Australia has rammed through another law requiring “abhorrent” video, audio or still images to be removed within an hour. This will apply to content providers both in and out of Australia as long as the content is available to Australians. Individuals and companies face jail time and/or huge fines if the content is not removed "within a reasonable time". If the content is found to be hosted in Australia then the Australian government must be alerted. This is yet another knee jerk reaction to the NZ shootings which were streamed live online.
Who is paying for someone to be awake at 3am to curate and remove this stuff?
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday April 18 2019, @07:51AM (1 child)
Ability is not absolute, checks and balances exists.
Furthermore, "ability" != "actual exercise of ability", so your homework is offering no base for "the democracy sky is falling if you are able to block my speech".
The law doesn't impose any tool, how those who fall under the incidence of this law are going to implement it is at their own choice. I.e. geo-blocking Australia is such a mean and 100% sure the Australian government isn't going to force them to provide services in Australia.
I tabled Germany - still a democracy by the definition of the term, even if not a "full democracy" based on your Nirvana-perfection taste.
I'd suggest you to satisfy your sense of entitlement to absolute freedom of speech by going to shout fire in a crowded theater just to demonstrate that your freedom must trump everything, see how it goes in the "fully democratic" USA (point: limits to free speech are already ubiquitous. The difference is how these limits are defined from one country/culture to another, and I posit there's no "one side fits all" in this regard).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday April 18 2019, @01:31PM
In other words, we're going to ignore the abuses of these policies because the courts might block it.
Second part of the first sentence contradicts the first part. "How to implement" doesn't negate "must implement".
Sorry, I don't buy it. It would be trivial for Germany to just not implement that censorship in the first place. So we have a failure in a democracy because someone expends effort to keep it there.
This is a great example of the Nirvana fallacy. Arguing that one shouldn't oppose frivolous and harmful constraints on free speech because free speech cannot be a perfect right.