I thought it would the the UK with the way they have literally arrested people for tweets... but then I saw the insane and petty corruption taking place in Aus and a journalist getting their house firebombed.
The notable corruption we saw recently was Scott Morrison making himself a secret minister of several portfolios, and for these and other sins the electorate severely rebuked his party at recent state and federal elections.
That is what democracy, not authoritarianism, looks like.
The folks you should be suspicious of are those spoonfeeding these garbage takes to the credulous.
The Federal government passed a law requiring a backdoor for all encrypted communication in the country and the press was completely silent. We ban drawn Japanese porn for some unknown reason while allowing real porn which unambiguously provides greater risk of harm. Prior to internet distribution of video games, many were simply banned for import on the whims of a parental advisory board. Australia is a nation obsessed with prohibition and there's nothing Australians love more than collective moral outrage followed by a cathartic wholesale ban.
I'm Australian and whenever I see valid criticism of the country on the internet I soon find an upset Australian replying. They never really refute the underlying point, they'll reply with a non-sequitur or talk about how it doesn't affect their lives. The reality is most Australians don't even feel the noose around their neck because they've never stepped out of line in any way. Most protections on liberty are for extreme and unusual circumstances, you don't notice their absence until it's too late. The vast majority of Chinese people trust their government, and believe the various restrictions on speech and liberty are in the best interests of the nation. Their curbs on liberty are too invasive of course, ours are necessary.
Source?
It’s the story of someone who was sick and legally ordered to quarantine, breaking that quarantine which authorities then wanted to track down. He was spotted on CCTV in a lift.
You can argue the real story is ‘totalitarian’ too if you like, but that doesn’t make the original statement either false or at best a very misleading summary.
For context, I have never seen a murderer or armed robbery command this level of attention.
To use an example:
Person A: “I saw a person arrested for licking a lollipop!”
Person B: “That person had a communicable disease and was ordered by law to isolate. They weren’t arrested for licking the lollipop.”
Person A: “Well you don’t see murderers get the same level of attention as this lollipop guy! That’s all I’m saying!”
Regardless of how you feel about enforced quarantine, the person was not arrested for licking a lollipop.
This guy was being g tracked down because he was a quarantine dodger during a time when everyone was trying hard to contain the virus so it didn't break out and kill people.
The only banned Japanese porn is the kiddy stuff, but even then the law is around any kiddy porn stuff, filmed, animated, drawn, or otherwise.
The backdooring of security was discussed at large in the media, and to the best of anyone's knowledge hasn't even attempted to be implemented. This particular point is quite shit and we all should be up in arms about it, but Joe Average tunes out when it gets any more technical than their Ladbrokes multi on the weekend.
Are you capable of understanding nuance. Do you sincerely think my complaint is that a man was punished for breaking quarantine laws? My critique was of the sum total of the restrictions and the hysterical reaction of the public.
> The only banned Japanese porn is the kiddy stuff, but even then the law is around any kiddy porn stuff, filmed, animated, drawn, or otherwise.
Just simply false, all it requires is a google search [1]. The border force has blocked the import of any 18+ material from Japan. This ban probably affects less than a thousand Australians, but I included it to give people a taste of the Australian style of governance. Grant sweeping powers to enforcers and hope they don't abuse them.
> The backdooring of security was discussed at large in the media,
One particular bill in 2018 received attention, mostly from international media and orgs. This bill [1] passed last year and gave the AFP further ability to backdoor encryption as well as the power to modify your data and impersonate you. There were minor mentions prior to it being tabled. The day it was passed in parliament there wasn't an article about it on any major news provider. Most people are unaware this even happened.
> and to the best of anyone's knowledge hasn't even attempted to be implemented
Do you get much insight into what the AFP, ASIO and ASIS are working on usually? Yes, I'm sure that they make it public knowledge that they've implemented this. That wouldn't defeat the intended purpose at all. Can I clarify, they sought these powers just to have them they don't actually want to use them? And it's my viewpoint that's skewed?
[1] https://www.vice.com/en/article/xgz8md/japanese-hentai-is-no...
[2] https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/about-us/our-portfolios/natio...
There are no countries in the world, including "bastions of freedom" that allow infectious public health risks to willfully violate quarantine,
BTW: one side-effect of the quarantine travel restrictions was that people overseas saw Australia as being in some sort of draconian lockdown, when, in fact, life was almost totally normal for most of the pandemic because of travel restrictions and qurantine (outside of Melbourne and parts of Sydney in 2021). And many Australians (especially those without overseas ties) assumed that life was "normal" for the rest of the world, when there was, in fact suffering and death, in addition to restrictions.
My friend was unable to go and see her dying mother in France because the Federal government wouldn't allow her to leave the country. Her request to leave was initially rejected and took so long that her mother was dead by the time she was given permission. Now I heard many people have similar experiences because of the inability to find flights. I didn't realise the government forbidding you to leave was a completely normal experience worldwide.
We ALL had to make sacrifices during the pandemic.
Hindsight shows we were wrong and distracted on the wrong thing. Society doesn't care about flu this year, and it's hitting just as hard as covid was. Yet, all I see is messaging on Covid still.
This is why we can't have a reasoned discussion. Use of hyperbole to replace actual good reasons.
"statewide manhunt" is actually more like a missing persons notice.
"sneezing" is actually having COVID.
"in lifts that they were the only one in" is actually leaving mandated quarantine to go spread COVID amongst a non-vaccinated society desperately trying to stop exactly that.
This is a glorified missing person's notice for someone who was being a dick. At the time, not many people were moving about and many had not much to do so yeah, a lot of people may have seen this news item in some form. But it wasn't a statewide manhunt.
EDIT: and instead of reasoned response. A downvote.
But sure. Lets go into this.
Part 1. Authoritarianism.
I don't like it. I do see the Australian government getting worse with it. And there is very little I could do to stop it other than vote right wing nutters out of parliament.
Part 2. heavy handed approach to COVID
I agree with it - even in hindsight. Society had no vaccine. No RAT. Awkward PCR testing process with delays. No real defense. The ONLY thing that we could do was to halt the spread until we could get a vaccine. As demonstrated by "elevator sneeze man", you can't trust the populace at large not to spread it.
And there were fuckups. Apart from "elevator sneeze man", the airport quarantine bungle anyone? These fuckups should be investigated in their own right.
But it largely worked.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries
USA 100 526 312 cases, 1 105 029 deaths
Australia 10 651 218 cases, 16 119 deaths
Right now, Australia has ~10% of the number of cases as the US. Which is fair because we're roughly 10% the population size and now we're vaccinated COVID has been allowed to roam.
Australia has ~1.5% of the number of COVID deaths as the US. Which is down to being vaccinated BEFORE we let COVID roam.
I like my parents. I like the parents of many of my friends. At least some of them would have died due to COVID if it had been let to run rampant before we got a vaccine.
Conclusion
So yeah, I was happy to live through the Melbourne lockdown. As traumatic as it was, it was better than the alternative.
But ScoMo should be friggin' nailed for his "multiple ministries" bullshit.
The hypocrisy is so obvious to anyone not blinded by fear and partisan politics.
And yes, some governments definitely show two faces when it comes to China vs what they do themselves.
I'm not sure why you've decided to be so angry, instead of realising our government was doing it's level best to try and get it right. eg Give 'em a break dude.
Not all actions get a "Well shucks, better luck next time" second shot. The anger of myself and others is completely justified. Unless you would also say the same to the Chinese at the moment?
To me the instincts of our leaders in high stress unique situations are critically important. The actions taken by Dan Andrews are disqualifying from leadership in my book. I'm not saying he's a bad guy in his personal life or anything like that, but not fit for office. His actions are by far the grossest breach of human rights in Australia in the last 50 years and will not be forgotten.
By "important measures" I'm meaning things like "number of deaths", "number of COVID infected", but also things like "people who kept their jobs" (etc).
Note that I'm not arguing here, I'm genuinely asking. My impression is that we (in Melbourne) "did ok" as we had low numbers of deaths/infections, and the government support package(s) seemed to have worked for a lot of people. With some notable exceptions (eg artists), which I really don't think should have been excluded from support. :/
A brutal streak of authoritarianism runs deep on both sides of Australian politics. They only get angry about who gets to hold the whip.
What are you on about? There was literally a pandemic on (and still kind of is).
Do you really think people can just go about their ordinary lives, with no thought for other people?
Lockdowns were a shocking totalitarian action I never thought I would live to see in my own country. But of course many can only see/say that when looking at China, even though what is happening there is just a more extreme mirror of our own crimes against humanity.
The public can't be trusted to do the right thing. Many people aren't getting additional doses of the vaccine so their immunity has weakened. Why are we not in lockdown right now? It's literally costing lives as we speak.
For the record, I am not against the idea that the government would provide some financial support for people so they could have stayed at home etc. But the forced closure of the whole society including and especially the banning of seeing other people was unbelievably totalitarian and indefensible.
https://www.ncsl.org/research/health/state-quarantine-and-is...
Have a look at "freedom-loving" red states like Florida, Texas, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Mississippi, Georgia, Arkansas and Alabama. All seem to be quite "draconian" when it comes to quarantine
That eliminates the US. Maybe there's some other country that doesn't have "draconian" quarantine measures?
What I will remark is that US citizens have certain constitutional protections which we do not that in theory inhibit their government's ability to enact restrictions like these i.e. "freedom of movement".
We were not discussing the merits, or lack thereof, of lockdowns. Let's not shift the goalposts. But FYI: Here's a list of lockdowns in response to Covid worldwide, including the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_lockdowns
But having seen what Italy was going through - lockdowns with COVID still spreading and hospitals overloaded with the dying. I didn't want that for us.
The "freedom of COVID movement" people were cursed many times - they kept the lockdown running for longer because they couldn't see beyond themselves. They were the cause of the curfews because they tried to use cover of darkness.
We don't know that one way or another. We just know he has pissed off someone enough to firebomb his house. Unless he's pissing people off in private, the only people he seems to piss off are those that are involved in corruption. The vast majority of times a journalist is murdered or targeted, it is relation to their reporting. But sure, that is all speculation.
What isn't speculation is the wide array of shady actions taken before the firebombing. Also some of the stuff that happened during covid was just insane to see.
Not to take away from your point though. I too feel that our government, both state and federal, goes unchecked. Just that conspiracies about firebombing are hardly evidence. Instead consider the refusal to implement a federal ICAC or the NSW liberals overthrowing their own and cherry picking candidates.
The Australian economy exists as source of raw materials for the world, a laundromat for wealth via gambling, and a ponzi around housing to enrich the ruling class. Any political force that challenges these pillars is not allowed to be.
No one said it was governments who firebombed the person in question. As for Youtube-grade non-entities: I think the line is rapidly blurring between people on the internet and "real" journalists. I don't really follow the person in question though, so I can't speak for his credentials.
for these and other sins the electorate severely rebuked his party at recent state and federal elections State elections maybe, but this secret portfolio stuff only came out after the federal election, when he lost his importance. If he had won the election, would it have come out?
Didn't this "secret minister" situation only really come to light AFTER the elections?
For anyone confused about this, like me, wikipedia has an overview. The TLDR is that in Australia apparently you can have more than one person holding a ministry (health, etc) and the incumbent prime minister did this without telling the public.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Morrison_ministerial_p...
This is nonsense, Trump never put a ban on Muslims, from the ACLU (a stronlgy anti-Trump organization) President Donald
> Trump signed an Executive Order that banned foreign nationals from seven predominantly Muslim countries from visiting the country for 90 days, suspended entry to the country of all Syrian refugees indefinitely, and prohibited any other refugees from coming into the country for 120 days.[1]
Banning people from certain countries is a whole different ball game than banning people from a certain religion, further the country with the world's largest Muslim population, Indonesia wasn't even on the list.
Let me ask you how do you feel about the government labeling and suppressing misinformation?
> As the Muslim ban went into effect on Saturday, lawyers from the ACLU-WA and the NW Immigrant Rights Project rushed to SeaTac Airport to help immigrants on incoming flights who were being denied entry to the U.S.
Kind of hard to take this seriously, when your own source contradicts you. As an analogy, conservatives talk about gun bans in California and New York yet bolt action rifles remain legal there. Not every gun is banned, so it's wrong to call it a "gun ban"?
> Let me ask you how do you feel about the government labeling and suppressing misinformation?
They shouldn't and the fact that said governments are democracies doesn't make it any less authoritarian.
Do you have a citation for this? I’m no fan of Trump, but that’s not what I remember.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/01/28/mi...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13769#Trump_ca...
It seems like one should either take free speech absolutist approach and say speech should never be illegal, or accept that some speech is illegal which would obviously mean that it's illegal even on Twitter. But you're not the first person I've seen who seemingly find it extra ridiculous to react to something someone tweeted, as if publishing a tweet or a series of tweets is not an act of speech, and I don't understand it.
By contrast, if a protestor said that while right outside the President's office, that could be a true threat. The medium and surrounding circumstances matters, not merely what is said.
1. https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2022/august/army-vet-alle...
As it is, we can't judge for ourselves whether the arrest is warranted or not, which is kind of a big deal when the arrest is used by robswc to illustrate how the UK is approaching authoritarianism.
Fundamentally, all speech should be legal, barring very special circumstances. That's freedom of expression.
> the only good Brit soldier is a deed one, burn auld fella, buuuuurn
in relation to Tom Moore’s death. He deleted the tweet after 20 minutes. He was convicted of grossly offensive communications under the Communications Act, and was sentenced to 18 month’s probation and 150 hours of unpaid work.
If people don't want to support their country's military and servicemen, that should be their business; it's a legitimate political position to take. Not least because all British soldiers are volunteers, and most of what British soldiers have been doing for the past generation is tagging along with American imperial military adventurism.
When the reasons are "being critical of the monarchy" or "causing anxiety" I think "for a tweet" can only make things look less ridiculous, lol.
This is not unheard of in the US either. So what is the distinction being made here?
And for the record the UK and Australia are generally higher up on the various freedom lists that rank countries. I don't know that there is much of an argument that their stricter speech restrictions have them any closer to authoritarianism than the various problems in the US have us.
Do you have a source for the ones you are referencing?
I looked a few and they track things like "whether both men and women feel comfortable expressing themselves in public"
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/countries...
And very few seem to give proper weight to objective measurements like laws and actual consequences of speech.
Funny enough, downloading an actual report (https://www.cato.org/human-freedom-index/2021), the UK scores almost perfect (9.8) on "Freedom of internet Expression." The country where you can quite literally be arrested for making an offensive tweet (not a threat), scores just shy of 10/10 on internet freedom? Are the arrests the reason for losing 0.2? I would _love_ to see the methodology behind that score.
Germany, the country where you can have your house literally raided over calling a politician a "dick", scores 9.36 "Internet Expression." 9's are some of the highest scores you can get.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/09/09/pimmelgate-g...
The institutions that put these together have 0 skin in the game. I have tried to find how they create their "indicators" but haven't found anything. I honestly just cannot take these reports seriously unless someone has an answer for how countries that can arrest citizens over offensive tweets could score so high on this particular metric.
I would assume this means the experts have concluded that the right to be rude to a politician on Twitter is not a particularly important right and its removal doesn't have much impact on the overall freedom of that society. That seems more likely than a diverse group of think tanks, academic institutions, journalistic outlets, and NGOs have all either joined a conspiracy or randomly acted in concert to misrepresent the relative freedom of the US in comparison to our peers.
All of the ones I have looked through have that. Every single one.
We're looking at just one metric though. Freedom to express ideas on the internet. Countries where you can get arrested for "offensive" tweets or get your house raided for calling a politician a dick score a few 0.1s away from the maximum of 10. We don't know how, because AFAIK, they do not go into specifics about why they give the UK/Germany a 9.x/10 on "Internet Freedom."
>I would assume this means the experts have concluded that the right to be rude to a politician on Twitter is not a particularly important right
Then I, along with most people, would conclude that their metric (and possibly by extension, their entire index) is useless. Not having your house raided for calling a politician a dick is exactly what most people would consider a particularly important "right."
>I would probably write
suggests that you are not a click bait headline writer.
Attempting to control second-order factors that may influence behaviour is a very short road to tyranny. How do we decide which factors to control for? Who gets to make this decision? How do we know in retrospect that such a decision was mistaken? The only justice lies in conviction beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury of one's peers.
Also, how "slow burning" does a "genocide" have to be before it's indistinguishable from a normal process of cultural shift and assimilation? (honest question)
> Attempting to control second-order factors that may influence behaviour is a very short road to tyranny. How do we decide which factors to control for? Who gets to make this decision? How do we know in retrospect that such a decision was mistaken? The only justice lies in conviction beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury of one's peers.
It is very hard to read this as not sealioning. Is there a way you could rephrase it so that it doesn't come across that way?
It's an inevitable consequence of power (read: to do harm) being distributed rather than concentrated. With distributed power you're at the mercy of group dynamics and trends. However the risks of concentrated power have borne out to be much more severe.
> rephrase it so that it doesn't come across [as sealioning]
I'm genuinely mystified as to what distinguishes "well-intentioned" use of authority to control people from what we see as obviously tyrannical. What principle would you use to distinguish between the kind of control over speech exercised by the UK and what is commonplace in China? Or are you willing to concede that these are different degrees of the same thing? I'm simply arguing that this "thing" (the use of authority to limit speech) should be avoided at all costs in a free society.
Again, please refrain from sealioning. Simply rephrasing your arguments in ways that don't appear indistinguishable from it. If you keep doing it, I will have to assume you're doing it on purpose an in bad faith. It's not a good debate tactic in a conversation about "rational debate" and its effects on violence. Sealioning is exactly one of the tactics used in the topic we're discussing. You must appreciate the irony.
In addition to all of this, we have to agree that "reduction of harm" is a valid guiding principle to hold above all others. This is fundamentally consequentialist (and valid as such). My thesis though is that "freedom" itself has deontological value, even if it causes harm. Deontologists and consequentialists have a notoriously hard time seeing eye to eye.
I'm not at all trying to derail the conversation, but it just doesn't seem all that clear-cut to me.
I'm so sorry that you came up with the idea that I need to have a test and then continue to ask me what it would be. I hope you can simply lay this to rest. The longer you insist that you're asking questions under the pretense of rational debate, the more and more it looks like it's definitionally sealioning.
The parent reply that started this discussion says they believe it is wrong to suppress speech that is not a call to violence. You responded saying that this logic doesn't work if speech that is non-violent can still lead to violence, with the insinuation being that you are okay banning speech that falls into this category of "not violent, but leads to violence." Which is a perfectly valid point, and I believe a strong argument!
thegrimmest has then attempted to point out that it can be extremely difficult to pinpoint what speech falls into this category, and stated that these sorts of bans can be inappropriately used as tools of oppression by authoritarian governments. He asks how you feel this sort of ban could be properly implemented, given these potential problems. This is a very on-topic response; you appear to be proposing that the government expand its abilities to censor speech, and thegrimmest is asking how we could ensure the government doesn't abuse this power if it is implemented. Given the current state of the world, and the authoritarian trends rearing their head in dozens of countries, this criticism is valid, on-topic, and very far from sealioning.
Rather than try to address his concerns by proposing ways this sort of ban could be thoughtfully and morally implemented, you immediately chose to accuse him of sealioning, which is a form of trolling and a pretty serious accusation. He gamely attempted to appease you by rephrasing his wording, only for you to become snarky, smug, and accuse him of repeatedly pestering you with questions--when you had directly asked him multiple times to please rephrase his questions!
As someone who has experienced sealioning, and finds it quite infuriating, I am genuinely baffled how you can see this interaction as thegrimmest sealioning. I think you may need to take a moment to re-read the HackerNews code of conduct and remember that engaging in good faith is a must.
If you don't wish to engage with thegrimmest's criticisms, that is 100% okay. You can always say, "I support banning speech in this category, and I'm not interested in discussing the possible ways a government could abuse this power." But you cannot pretend that thegrimmest is somehow morally at fault for wishing to discuss government abuse, because presenting these sorts of on-topic and civil criticisms is exactly what these forums are for.
You're a very intelligent person, and I think you raise some great points. I almost always enjoy reading your comments and listening to your insights. But they get lost when you engage like this. I see from your previous comments that this isn't the first time this has happened; other commenters have complained of you being rigid and accusatory. It's probably worth taking a step back and examining why this is a recurring theme in your interactions on here.
The US is guilty of both those things (and more) when it comes to our treatment of trans people. However, trans people clearly aren't a singular racial, religious, ethnic, or national group. That means they can't technically be the victims of a genocide according to that UN definition, but that is an awfully uncomfortable technically we need to not be guilty of genocide.
And, once we know what was actually being claimed, then we can debate whether it meets the definition of genocide.
I really hate vague-posting like kelseyfrog's post. Don't hint. If you have a claim to make, make it. (Just to be clear, this last paragraph is not aimed at the parent.)
One of the reasons people are vague on HN about these issues is because a simple "The US is committing genocide against trans people" comment is more likely to be downvoted and flagged as being political. We often can only talk about these things here by hinting at them. Ironic considering how pro free speech this community claims to be.
Yes, trans people get beaten to death in numbers that are appallingly high. That's a tragedy and a disgrace on our society. Does it rise to the level of genocide? Blacks get shot in numbers that are appallingly high, too. Is that a genocide?
Preventing medical care? Are trans people being denied medical care for, say, cancer or heart disease? Or are they only being denied medical care for transitioning? Or are they only being denied medical care at public expense for transitioning?
If trans people are being denied medical care for regular medical issues, in large numbers, yes, I could call that genocide. If they're being denied care at public expense for transitioning, no, I probably would not call that genocide.
The problem with lowering the bar to calling things genocide in order to highlight a particular issue is that it lowers the bar for everybody else, too. And if everything's a genocide, then nothing is.
The problem with just hinting at things is it leaves the rest of us unclear on what, exactly, is being claimed. One of the things that most people on HN ought to agree on is that the details matter. If you're making vague claims, all we can do is talk in platitudes, which is unlikely to be effective.
I mean, you can trace a direct line from the current moral panic about "groomers" through QAnon to Pizzagate, and it goes through one specific political party, and you can trace another line from police brutality against black people to Jim Crow and segregation to slave-catchers. The systemic links are there.
The only things people are calling genocides are things that look disturbingly like genocides. No one is arguing everything is a genocide.
The two examples I mentioned were actions by the state. How is that not systemic?
(Yes, "all" isn't actually necessary. Some large fraction, though. You can't have a genocide by killing 1% of the people. That's an atrocity, but it's not a genocide.)
The UN definition specifically calls out that it doesn't have to be directed at the entire population. It also doesn't make any effort to define any "large fraction" that needs to be met before the definition can be applied. A culling of a percentage of specific population would likely still qualify, but the specifics of these things always varies depending on the context of the specific example being judged. However, it is clear that the UN definition primarily hinges on how people are targeted and the actions that are taken, not the scope.
I don't know if this is the right place to share a feeling, but I'm going to try to express it anyway.
I'm not sure whether you're right about this or not, but I think you might be, and it makes me sad almost more than you could believe. It genuinely depresses me.
The claim seems to be nothing short of saying that at the end of the day, all human intelligence sums to a net negative, at least in this area. That we're not collectively capable of rational discourse. That ultimately, we're so blinded by hate for the Other that debating our differences might actually lead to worse outcomes than if we just pulled guns to solve our problems. We're all ultimately just stumbling around in the dark. Maybe, one day, the light of humanity is doomed to go out.
I suspect that one reason liberals, rationalists, civil libertarians, and their allies are so insistent on free speech and an open public square is that they can't really bring themselves to take this possibility seriously. Or, to the extent they do, they think we have to ignore the possibility, because in the event this turns out to be true, who cares about humanity anyway?
Maybe the American attitude toward free speech is just a reflection of optimism about human nature?
Sounds like you're inciting a call to violent action.
I take it you favor a more passive approach.
>Your comment, in the context of this conversation, argues in favour of arresting anyone who points out that a genocide is taking place. That is extremely dangerous.
This is exactly what my comment was arguing. I wrote that comment not as a reflection of my personal views, but to highlight the consequences of prosecuting individuals for statements which aren't direct threats.
I don't believe arresting and prosecuting individuals for making such statements is justified. I agree that the context of this conversation argues in favor of arresting anyone who points out that genocide is taking place, and I agree that accepting it as a precedent is extremely dangerous. You've elucidated my reasoning on the subject perfectly.
Imagine you're a gay person, and marrying the person you love is illegal in your country. The authoritarianism of that isn't contingent on whether that law was put into place by a man in a scary suit or your fellow citizens voting.
I don't think I agree. Almost by definition authorianism doesn't acknowledge what people want. A law passed because people want it would be either democratic or populist, depending on whom you ask.
I think that the issue here is that all laws are authoritarian at some level, since the principle of a law is to impose. And indeed most citizens would probably support most laws. That doesn't really make the law "bad" or "good" per se, though.
Anything I hear about what anyone said on twitter immediately has reduced weight in my mind, just because it's twitter.
because people say stuff online they would never say in real life. i hope that cleared things up for you
> the decision of Justice Rothman of the Supreme Court of NSW in Voller v Nationwide News Pty Ltd, extended the reach of defamation law such that media outlets could be held liable as ‘publishers’ for defamatory Facebook comments made by third parties on the media outlets’ Facebook posts.
But it was a Judge, not the government. And it was the big media that as targeted, not Joe Citizen. Yet the net effect was a curtailment of Joe Citizen's ability to broadcast their thoughts on the news of the day, and how it was reported. The size of the penalty his honour handed out and the broadness of the ruling meant there was only one sane response from the media giants: heavy moderation of their comment sections, or shut them down. They mostly chose shut down. Heavy moderation is very expensive, so I don't blame them.
The end result has been a biggest reduction of internet speech, comment and civil discourse triggered by news events I've seen in 20 years. Yet it strangely goes mostly unmentioned. Instead we get these conspiracy theories. I guess a conspiracy theory is more titillating than gross incompetence by one powerful individual. If want to go for conspiracy theories try this: why the haven't the law makers drafted a new law to fix the judicial mistake?
You see defenders of censorship all over HN these days, especially by people from the UK and Australia. The people saying "it's nothing to worry about because it only happens to bad people who deserved it" sort of defenses that pop up early on.
Then when authoritarianism naturally grows larger and larger people only blame the politicians, not the people defending it every chance they get.
Love the guy, but it sounds like you're implying this is an example of an attack on independent journalism, and think the government is involved?
Perhaps worth reviewing the reliability /agenda of your news sources?
As for the firebombing, to me that feels much more like ClubsNSW/Bikey gang related hush tactics.
The whole thing is surreal
It does raise the question of _who_ would care enough to firebomb his house though...
I mean, just a few months ago a local gov official literally stabbed a reporter to death for a hell of a lot less.
https://cpj.org/2022/09/police-arrest-local-official-suspect...
So... stranger things have happened.
I'm just not quite seeing how it shows authoritarianism if you weren't suggesting government involvement?
Also your original comment sounds like you're saying Aus and UK are worse than the US on this front, but the worst case example you've just provided is from the US.
>Aus and UK are worse than the US on this front
They are. Just look at how people were treated during COVID and how you can literally get arrested for tweeting "offensive content." That wouldn't happen in the US.
And yes, the example shows that it is not above a politician to literally kill a journalist with their own hands because their corruption is being uncovered. I guess in this case, the dude unfortunately succeeded but there's still two attempted murders and arson cases in AUS over a journalist uncovering corruption. Seems much more organized and deeper than a dude singlehandedly breaking into a house to do such things.
But my comment was questioning OP's suggestion that the incident was tied to authoritarianism.
But my point all along has been that "youtube personality getting house firebombed" != "ridiculous authoritarianism in Australia".
If you are arguing against this point, I may need you to explain further.
You don't have to look far, there's plenty of them in this thread defending it.
We're pushing legislation that moves the country away from democracy, and hate crimes laws that prohibit mocking religion.
Getting pulled through the legal system because you showed a middle finger to someone or because you said that some random war crime was not really that bad is a thing that just should not happen. But it is a thing that happened before.
Protests and speech being regulated has the effect of everyone just trying to not get jailed. Even if there are no big headlines about it. And that damage is arguably worse than media coverage, which pulls attention to the issue.
You can freely criticise all the governments of those countries. You can disagree with them, you can mock them, you can challenge their claims. Nobody in the US has gone to prison for their "alternative facts". Compare this to Russia where discussing the war can land you in prison for 15 years, China with its extreme censorship, and plenty of other countries where criticising powerful people or reporting inconvenient news can get you in all sorts of trouble.
It's true you can't say everything. That's always been true, but in recent centuries and decades it has moved from banning what's inconvenient to the powerful to banning that what hurts the powerless. Libel and slander are illegal, threats are illegal. There's the classic example of yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater. Planning crimes is illegal despite the fact that that's all just speech. But it's all speech that can lead to situations in which innocent people get hurt. Or silenced, or compelled to do things they don't want to do, or otherwise limited in their freedom. And the same is true for hate speech. We've seen what it leads to. It creates a culture where the people being attacked are more likely to get hurt. Words aren't harnless; they're powerful. It's why free speech is important. But it's also why we shouldn't tolerate lies meant to hurt vulnerable people.