SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the legislators-protecting-us-from-bad-things dept.
In Colorado:
Concerning the regulation of digital communications, and, in connection therewith, creating the digital communications division and the digital communications commission
Session: 2021 Regular Session
Subjects: Professions & Occupations
Telecommunications & Information Technology
Bill Summary
The bill creates the digital communications division (division) . . . On an annual basis and for a reasonable fee determined by the commission, the division shall register digital communications platforms . . . such as social media platforms or media-sharing platforms, that conduct business in Colorado . . . A digital communications platform that fails to register with the division commits a class 2 misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of up to $5,000 for each day that the violation continues.
The division shall investigate and the commission may hold hearings . . .
- Include practices that promote hate speech; undermine election integrity; disseminate intentional disinformation, conspiracy theories, or fake news; . . . .
- May include business, political, or social practices that are conducted in a manner that a person aggrieved by the practices can demonstrate are unfair or discriminatory to the aggrieved person. . . . .
- Practices that target users for purposes of collecting and disseminating users' personal data, including users' sensitive data
- Profiling users based on their personal data collected
- Selling or authorizing others to use users' personal data to provide location-based advertising or targeted advertising; or
- Using facial recognition software and other tracking technology.
The full text of the bill is here.
(Score: 0, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 04 2021, @04:20AM (45 children)
Disinformation is not protected free speech.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by khallow on Thursday March 04 2021, @04:54AM (15 children)
(Score: 1, Troll) by aristarchus on Thursday March 04 2021, @05:51AM (6 children)
No, it is not, and since khallow is a chunky fluffy monkey of the richie worshipping neo-brain dead alt-right, I can spread dis-information about him. Did you know that once khallow was caught matriculating! Seriously, tis true! And he is constant bloviator! Also true! Not only these, but he thinks that nihilism lurks at the heart of humanity, and that his mother did not love him! All true, in the Freeze Peaches sense of the term. Godspeed, khallow! May Loki light your way, and many duplos line your path!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday March 04 2021, @01:26PM
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 04 2021, @02:26PM
Demonize everyone you disagree with and lump them all together as 'alt right white supremacist fascists' or some other moniker and you can justify anything bad that people do to them. That's what all oppressive regimes have done to justify their unwarranted actions against peaceful people.
Maybe the real villain here is you.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Thursday March 04 2021, @03:21PM
Well, that sort of speech is creeping up on libel (or slander if you were actually *saying* it) which is one of the few areas carved away from free speech.
You can however legally say that burning gas definitely has no harmful effects on the environment, and piping car exhaust into your bedroom is a healthy and rejuvenating way to stay warm (unless you're selling cars or gas, in which case you're liable to run afoul of advertising fraud laws).
I'm pretty sure that libel, fraud, and inciting violence are pretty much the only major limitations on free speech in the US.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Subsentient on Thursday March 04 2021, @07:49PM (2 children)
Jesus Christ, I hold such contempt for the term "Freeze Peaches", as if to cheapen and demean the concept of free speech. Whoever invented that term, I want to lob frozen peaches at their head until their skull cracks open.
The Supreme Court has upheld literal skinhead rallies as free speech, and that's good, because, and let me be perfectly clear here, you cannot trust people to do the right thing. They will, without exception, abuse whatever power you grant them.
It doesn't matter if the speech is contemptible Nazi trash, because if you give people the power to restrict contemptible speech, they will invariably abuse that power to restrict "contemptible" speech too.
If you want a ministry of truth, look towards China to see how that works out.
I'm no Trumptard; I lean left, but I value freedom above any other principles, and so should you.
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." -Jiddu Krishnamurti
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 05 2021, @12:14AM (1 child)
If you do not like such mockery then start getting outspoken against all the other shitposters. "Freeze Peach" is a mockery of the people who think the First Amendment allows them to override the free speech and freedom of association of others.
No one has a right to a Twitter account, anyone can be banned from a store if the owner doesn't want that person's frozen peaches disrupting their business. Part of the mockery is because these rightwing lunatics are crying foul now that they are getting the ol' boot, but they were perfectly happy to Cancel Kapernick, Dixie Chicks, and so many others.
The term is stupid, and is reserved for people that bastardize the First Amendment. We've tried discussion, we've tried reason, nothing breaks through the propaganda brainwashing, so now we mock their hypocrisy and ignorance. Trying to play nice and rise above their childish tactics just results in drawn out trolling where we play whack-a-mole with their disinformation while trying to kick fieldgoals through posts mounted on a bullet train.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 05 2021, @11:28PM
i thought it was just a type of virtue signaling of the type of ignorant and proud presentation--even if they aren't, but are especially trying to fit in and look like a bully by mocking intellectual speech?
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday March 04 2021, @04:41PM (1 child)
You may be allowed to say something in the US, but it can still have consequences.
Fun activities you can try at home!
Try shouting fire in a crowded theater. There is already court precedent for this.
Try inciting a riot.
Try disrupting a courtroom proceeding. Extra credit: try threatening the judge, witnesses, attorneys and officers and their families.
Try constantly interrupting the officer who stopped you for a minor traffic infraction. Extra credit: try threatening the officer and their family.
Try talking about bombs in airports -- even jokingly.
Try threatening the US President (no matter who is in power) and see if the Secret Service wants to have a chat with you.
The Centauri traded Earth jump gate technology in exchange for our superior hair mousse formulas.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday March 04 2021, @05:23PM
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday March 04 2021, @04:48PM (2 children)
Disinformation can also get you on the wrong end of a multi billion dollar defamation lawsuit. Just ask:
* Sidney Powell
* Rudy Giuliani
* Lou Dobbs
* Fox News
* Mike Pillow (sic, very sic)
. . . and others who slip my mind just now.
Of course, truth of the statements made is an absolute defense against a defamation suit.
The Centauri traded Earth jump gate technology in exchange for our superior hair mousse formulas.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday March 04 2021, @05:25PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 04 2021, @06:52PM
Yeah I know, being a defanded in a lawsuit means someone definitely is guilty of something. It doesn't mean that our justice system is dysfunctional to the benefit of lawyers.
(Score: 3, Disagree) by DeathMonkey on Thursday March 04 2021, @07:15PM (1 child)
Paid speech by a foreign government or citizen to affect a US election would another example of illegal speech.
(Score: 3, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Thursday March 04 2021, @08:36PM
52 USC ยง30121. Contributions and donations by foreign nationals [house.gov]
(a) Prohibition
It shall be unlawful for-
(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make-
(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;
(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or
(C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or
(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.
(Score: 2) by SomeGuy on Friday March 05 2021, @12:55AM
If disinformation were illegal, they would have to get rid of all religious communications.
And most political communications too.
Not to mention advertising.
So, that's never going to happen.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Socrastotle on Thursday March 04 2021, @06:35AM (3 children)
Yes it is. So is hate speech and pretty much all forms of speech with a tiny handful of exceptions for things like libel and defamation. And you should be happy, because it makes it perfectly legal for you to definitely state false statements, as you just did.
There's actually kind of an interesting story behind the 'You can't scream fire in a crowded theater.' line people often reference in these sort of discussions. In reality that has never been legally tested. That quote came from the famous Supreme Court case Schenck vs United Stated [wikipedia.org]. The reason it's so interesting is because in that free speech case is indicative of precisely why you should never, in a million years, give even an in inch on free speech.
That case was ultimately judged against the defendant who was claiming first amendment protections for his vile and awful speech. Now what was that vile and awful speech you ask? He was distributing fliers encouraging individuals to resist compulsory induction into the armed forces. And the government deemed that to be the same thing as falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater. Yay government.
Incidentally, this entire bill is a heap of click bait nothingness. Any court not manned entirely by kangaroos would summarily toss it out as a rather absurd violation of the first amendment. Frankly, even the kangaroos would have a hard time not tossing this.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 04 2021, @07:37AM (1 child)
So in other words, it's practically been certified by the courts as A-OK.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday March 04 2021, @07:11PM
They're mistaken anyway. This would violate something way more important that silly things protected by the First. This is ALL MIGHTY $$$$$$$.
How the fuck is CO supposed to levy a tax on a company in CA?
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday March 04 2021, @07:06PM
Correct, it has no Senate co-sponsors, no House sponsors at all and no corresponding House bill yet so this is very early to be very concerned. The House had actually passed all those weed legalization bills that everyone called theater. So this isn't even a script yet.
Second off, this bill is wackadoodle. I never trusted those fuckers in the 5th! Gunnison? C'mon Man!
Early days are best for nipping buds though and I will be writing my Senators/Reps in opposition.
(Score: 1) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday March 04 2021, @03:04PM (22 children)
Oh but it absolutely is. I could start a site up tomorrow and post every day whatever entirely made-the-fuck-up things I liked while representing them as facts, so long as I didn't veer into slander or libel territory.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Thursday March 04 2021, @03:23PM (5 children)
Or consumer fraud.
Or inciting violence (though there's a bit of leeway there - inciting violence being what created the US in the first place)
But yeah, other than that lying through your teeth is completely protected - just as you'd expect since it's politicians making the laws. They're hardly going to outlaw their own profession.
(Score: 1) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday March 05 2021, @10:50AM (4 children)
Inciting violence is a pretty high bar and has nothing to do with falsehood. And I'd expect the opposite if politicians could easily change the laws. That way they could set up a "fact checking" group to decide what is true and what is criminal to say. Maybe call it the Ministry of Truth?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Friday March 05 2021, @03:17PM (3 children)
Sure, lying and inciting violence are pretty much orthogonal to each other - but surely you agree that lies *can* be used to incite violence? As such it puts another (hard to reach) limit on the kinds of lies you can legally tell, that's all I was saying.
As for the rest - politicians are the only ones who *can* easily change the laws. All they need is agreement amongst themselves as to how they should be changed. Which is why laws increasing the power of government, or the advantages of the wealthy, tend to quietly pass without problems even when "partisan gridlock" is completely blocking all progress on bills with far greater public approval.
Even constitutional protections aren't necessarily a problem - do you see anything in the first amendment carving exceptions for libel, etc?
(Score: 1) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday March 05 2021, @08:37PM (2 children)
Fair nuff. I get what you're saying now.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Saturday March 06 2021, @06:54AM (1 child)
>Name one time in human history where the group banning books and censoring speech were the good guys.
Just thought of a candidate - post WWII Germans trying to eliminate the Nazis still trying to retain relevance/regain control.
(Score: 1) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday March 06 2021, @12:58PM
If you wanna think that...
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday March 04 2021, @04:53PM (14 children)
You say this
But your sig says . . .
It sounds like you ARE TRYING TO CREATE a situation where censorship might become viewed as a good thing. Keep trying. Much as I don't want it to happen, you must might get your wish to create such a situation. We got things like the Patriot Act and others because of bad actors. Didn't you learn in grade school that a few bad people spoil things for everyone? Why do people act like this? Is it some kind of compulsion?
The Centauri traded Earth jump gate technology in exchange for our superior hair mousse formulas.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Socrastotle on Thursday March 04 2021, @06:57PM (2 children)
Do you not realize that the people doing the censoring in times past, along with large chunks of the population, also felt their censoring was good? And that they were "forced" into such actions by the completely intolerable actions of those they chose to oppress?
So many people seem to lack something: is it empathy, knowledge, understanding? The "bad guys" throughout time in history? They just about always thought they were the good guys. And they had millions of followers who also thought they were the good guys. They rationalized their awful actions by convincing themselves there was no other option, and it was ultimately the only option to deal with a otherwise devastating force of evil that would destroy society if left unconstrained.
I wish our history education in school (and that includes university) was not so completely worthless. History repeats itself is not just some kind-true saying. It is a literal and accurate observation. History is practically on a sine wave as we repeat the exact same actions throughout history, all while convincing ourselves this time it's different, and ultimately ending up with the exact same outcomes. A man who has read a few generations of history, at practically anywhere and any time is effectively done with history. The technologies, names, and specifics will change - but the broad plots, actions, and outcomes never change. Were history a student she'd have long since been expelled for plagiarism.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday March 04 2021, @09:21PM (1 child)
I do realize that.
But does everyone else realize that?
If you know that has happened in the past, then why try to push the limits of sanity on what anyone would say to see if you can bait someone, especially someone with power, to repeat the mistakes of history?
I'm not suggesting self censoring. I'm really pointing my finger at anyone trying to construct something so outside the norms that nobody would ordinarily think about. The mentality that thinks "I should be able to say anything", and so therefore I'm going to try to see if I can concoct something so outrageous that I trigger some censor somewhere, who has power, to do something about it.
The Centauri traded Earth jump gate technology in exchange for our superior hair mousse formulas.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 06 2021, @04:18AM
You *are* not only suggesting self censoring, but also overt censorship. The things the government in cahoots with corporations are trying to censor have little to do with some sort of extreme concoction. It's 'Hey I'm concerned this election was not legitimate, and there may have been bad actors. Let's gather what evidence we can, if there is any, and discuss it.' *CENSORED* This is not a people being forced into anything. It's the people in charge of our government, in cahoots with corporations, that desperately do not want anybody discussing or publicly gathering and sharing evidence on election fraud. Now why might that be?
Similarly in academics. If you don't obey the groupthink they face extreme reprisal and major difficulties in career advancement. And this is something completely independent of the quality of your work. This leads to a system where poor quality science that advances the groupthink is left mostly unchallenged, and with a complete lack of science to the contrary simply because those who might pursue such topics are inhibited from day -1. Or even now in our educational system. Children are being politically indoctrinated from an extremely young age, and we are banning books like Dr. Seuss because reasons.
None of this has to do with some genuine and imminent threat that justifies these actions. The rationalization for such is simply that, and as it always is - a rationalization.
(Score: 1) by schusselig on Thursday March 04 2021, @07:11PM (1 child)
No, we get shit like the patriot act because politicians don't like to let good emergencies go to waste and grab all the power they think they can get away with.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday March 04 2021, @09:22PM
I realize that too. But see my comment almost immediately above yours.
The Centauri traded Earth jump gate technology in exchange for our superior hair mousse formulas.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday March 05 2021, @10:52AM (8 children)
No, it's because we can see past the end of our own noses, unlike you. You defend the scoundrels as hard as you can or tomorrow you will be called a scoundrel and silenced.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday March 05 2021, @03:51PM (7 children)
For the record, I am not in favor of what is described in this article I posted to SN.
The Centauri traded Earth jump gate technology in exchange for our superior hair mousse formulas.
(Score: 1) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday March 05 2021, @08:37PM (6 children)
Glad to hear it.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday March 05 2021, @09:07PM (5 children)
With that cleared up, maybe it now makes sense to explain that this kind of bad thing happens as a knee jerk reaction to something. Sometimes, maybe not always, but sometimes that something may be a something that most people would "agree" should be censored. And that is unfortunate.
Also as I pointed out in elsewhere here, speech can have consequences.
The Centauri traded Earth jump gate technology in exchange for our superior hair mousse formulas.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday March 06 2021, @02:42AM (4 children)
Most people nowadays are taught that America is an evil empire rather than teaching them our actual history; good, bad, and ugly. So how the hell are they supposed to know why the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and subsequent amendments are together the greatest bit of foundational law ever penned? They're lucky to escape legally mandatory indoctrination even knowing their constitutional rights or why they're important at all.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Funny) by DannyB on Monday March 08 2021, @02:21PM (3 children)
Our actual history should definitely be taught. Including the ugliness. Unfortunately, that doesn't make as great a story. Ferry Tails with happy endings are what people want. Or a video game version of history.
Switching gears, we also seem to have a sizable number of people today that seem to think the law does not apply to them. They don't have to register vehicles, have driver licenses, pay taxes, etc. After all, they are a god! These people also believe fairy tales. I don't know how much overlap this group has with the first group on a Venn diagram.
This brings me to: some people, and I have to admit to this myself, have an internal knee-jerk reaction, that the solution is to stop the spreading of the disinformation. That said, I think the real problem here is that people believe the disinformation. If people didn't believe disinformation, then it wouldn't matter how many news networks spread it. (reminder: I quit watching CNN in June 2013) A significant fraction of our population seems to grow up poorly educated, no useful or marketable skills, and no particular talent for anything. (excepting maybe video games and social media)
Give me Liberty or give me something of lesser or equal value, or a coupon for it.
The Centauri traded Earth jump gate technology in exchange for our superior hair mousse formulas.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday March 11 2021, @01:34PM (2 children)
I dunno, man. I was taught the whole shebang. Give me liberty or give me death right along with 3/5 of a person. Due process and trail of tears. Jim Crow and MLK Jr... But that's not what kids are being taught today. The failings are being emphasized while the noble efforts and progress are glossed over or not brought up at all. They shouldn't come out of school with the notion that we're perfect but neither should they come out of school with the idea that everything we've ever done or will do is either wholly evil or irretrievably tainted by some imperfection.
Disinformation? Any organization telling you they're a repository or authority on truth should be called a damned liar and have their faces spit in. It's a safer bet than gravity. There aren't any that even try for truth anymore. Any media organization, any fact-checking organization, and even any simple repository of knowledge should be assumed to be completely and maliciously full of shit on everything they say until proven otherwise. We're living in an age where one end of the political spectrum is happy to lie any time they think they can get away with it and the other end has taken a page from China and decided the truth is whatever they say it is (even if they say it is the exact opposite of the actual truth) and anyone saying otherwise should be utterly destroyed. So, yeah, disinformation is the least of our problems.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday March 11 2021, @04:00PM (1 child)
Interesting. I would agree that there is no grand central repository of truth. But back when we both learned history (and math, omg!), people were able to discern obviously true and obviously false things. There was little to no question that Nixon was a crook as evidence came out and his own actions made it clear there was definitely something to hide. Why is it today that people will accept and even passionately believe outright falsehoods?
Truly I don't want censorship. I think people should be able to state opinions freely. I do here on SN, and I own my own opinions without hiding behind an AC. But is making up lies and spreading them to gullible people the same thing as stating an opinion? And that goes for CNN too. I quit watching in 2013 after (a) their hiding of SOPA / PIPA in 2012, and (b) their abysmally biased coverage of Snowden in 2013. Wouldn't it be nice if news was about the facts, all the facts. And editorial was clearly separate? And Turner wouldn't have supressed CNN coverage of SOPA / PIPA just because they supported pushing this outrages legislation under cover of dark.
Without censorship, what would YOU propose about people and organizations that make up and spread outright lies? One solution that occurs to me is something that is happening right now. Some are now being sued in multi billion dollar defamation suits over things that are not only obvious lies, but easily verified to be obvious lies, that were willfully spread with the deliberate intent to cause damages. So yes, civil suit them into a smoking crater. After all, truth is an affirmative defense. But any other ideas? I also recall that in the early 1980s, and then again rearing its ugly head in the early 1990s, there were some racially hate motivated murders. In the early 80s from the KKK. Now the perps were convicted of murder. But the families were able to civil suit for damages that basically wiped out the organization that incited this. And then again the 1990s. In the latter case, the mother of the victim ended up with all of the property and buildings of the hate group. Maybe wiping them out financially is the only solution? But then is that censorship? I don't think so, although some would see it as such. Speech has consequences.
The Centauri traded Earth jump gate technology in exchange for our superior hair mousse formulas.
(Score: 1) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday March 13 2021, @02:50PM
Partly because they've been trained to by the news media, education system, entertainment media, social media, their politicians, online encyclopedias, online dictionaries, etc... And partly because there's nowhere they can trust anymore to find out the truth.
Yup. Legally required retractions in the event of a provable error with as much air time/page space, in the same time/page slots as the original error received would be nice as well. High bar for proof and as decided by a jury, of course.
As for censorship, how do you tell the difference between an intentional lie and just being wrong? Are the folks at MSNBC running deliberate, malicious psyops or are they just genuinely idiots that will believe anything that suits their narrative, and only things that suit their narrative? Do you criminalize being wrong?
The least harmful remedy? Do absolutely nothing. The only alternative is a Ministry of Truth deciding what is legal to say and what isn't. Like right now we have Facebook and Twitter being the arbiters of what medical science is true and what isn't. With punishment for saying anything else, even if you're actually qualified to hold an expert opinion. And they're benign as hell compared to what a government version would be.
The correct answer to bad speech is always going to be more speech. Sunlight will always be the best disinfectant, so spread sunlight. If there's provable malice that falls under slander, libel, defamation, or the like, so much the better.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Funny) by aristarchus on Thursday March 04 2021, @07:45PM
Sure you could, Buzzard! Some would say, you already have!
(Score: 3, Funny) by DeathMonkey on Thursday March 04 2021, @06:53PM (1 child)
Sure it is.
It's covered under freedom of religion!
(Score: 1) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday March 05 2021, @10:54AM
Rude but funny. +1
My rights don't end where your fear begins.