Which is a bit complicated here, as the EU has no real constitution and this 'law' (really a regulation) is a blatant violation of the constitutions of countries that did choose to establish secrecy of correspondence.
And the willingness and ability to enforce it. The current iteration of ChatControl is pushed by Denmark, which is at present the President of the Council of the European Union. The Danish Constitution itself enshrines the right to privacy of communication [0], but this is not stopping Denmark from wanting to ratify ChatControl anyway.
Sometimes there are some mechanisms to block unconstitutional (or other regulation) laws from passing but they're limited
Not sure how that would apply at the EU level or even at the Danish level
I think it’s always the case, no? Unless the unconstitutional law is approved, there is nothing to dispute in court.
What the TLDR of the motivation behind this? Is it just politicians playing to their base (think of the children) or corporate lobbying. or religion, etc?
Seems to me that the negatives of passing something like this are super obvious and dystopian.
Generally speaking, there is a lot of dark money in Danish politics, and the EU has repeatedly flagged Denmark as a country lacking in transparency with regards to corporate lobbying: https://www.altinget.dk/artikel/eu-kritik-af-danmark-puster-...
Generally speaking, the Danish government also tends to behave in authoritarian ways. E.g., Denmark has wilfully violated EU regulations on data retention for many, many years. In 2021, a Danish court ruled that the Danish Ministry of Justice could continue its mass surveillance practices even though they were (and still are) illegal under EU law: https://www.information.dk/indland/2021/06/justitsministerie...
Currently Denmark is also trying to leverage its position as the President of the Council of the EU to legalise, on a EU-wide level, the form of data retention that Denmark has been illegally practising: https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-sa...
Sometimes it could be malice or personal gains. Sometimes, I think, it could be just a strong bias towards some idea that causes a mental blindness. Such blindness can happen to anyone, at any level of power (or lack thereof), politicians are not unique in this - the only difference is the scope of impact due to the power they have. And we aren't particularly filtering them against such behavior - on the contrary, I feel that many people want politicians to have an agenda and even cheer when they put their agenda above the actual reality, any consequences be damned.
In the charter, the protection of personal data and privacy is a recognized right. So chat control is also probably against the EU law.
I would hope the EU courts would disagree, but I'm not sure if anyone can say until it's tested directly.
> The CLS concludes that, in the light of the case law of the Court of Justice at this stage, the regime of the detection order, as currently provided for by the proposed Regulation with regard to interpersonal communications, constitutes a particularly serious limitation to the rights to privacy and personal data protection enshrined in Article 7 and 8 of the Charter.
https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-8787-2023-I...
The right to private communications was modified by the ECHR to give an exemption for prevention of crime/protection of morals/etc.[1] and the right to protection of personal data exempts any legitimate basis laid down by law[2].
I imagine they'd be able to figure out some form of Chat Control that passed legal muster. Perhaps a reduced version of Chat Control, say, demanding secret key escrow, but only demanding data access/scans of those suspected of a crime rather than everyone.
Legal rulings also seem to indicate that general scanning could be permitted if there was a serious threat to national security, so once a system to allow breaking encryption and scanning is in place, then it could be extended to what they want with the right excuse.
[1] https://fra.europa.eu/en/eu-charter/article/7-respect-privat...
[2] https://fra.europa.eu/en/eu-charter/article/8-protection-per...
Isn't that pretty much excatly how it is done in Russia, which was ruled by ECHR to be illegal[0]?
https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-230854%...
Like, constitution both defines the rights of citizens and the limits of those rights and the same goes for the states.
I feel as if the creators of constitutions think that it is a set of checks and balances...
Just as if how a citizen violates something written in the constitution, the state can punish it.
In the same manner, I believe that the constitution thought that if the state violates some constitutional right of citizen, then citizens can point that out and (punish?) the state as the legitimacy of state is through that constitution which they might be breaking...
I concur (fancy word for believe which I wanted to share lol) you are talking about america. The thing is, revolutions are often messy and so much things are happening in america that I think that people are just overwhelmed and have even forgotten all the stuff happening in the past... Like tarrifs were huge thing, then epstein news then this I think autism thing by trump.
Like, the amount of political discourse is happening less and idk, oh shit, just remembered the uh person deporting thing which was illegal which was done anyway
If these things happened in isolation, they would all have huge actions against govt. but they are happening back to back and so everyone's just kinda silent I think, frankly I believe overwhelmed.
I believe that just as in nepal, in america everyone is whining on social media but nobody's taking action. Nepal blocked social media and so people in nepal were kinda forced to take action irl and it worked kinda nice in the end tbh
So maybe its social media which is enabling this thing.... which is funny to me as I am doing the same thing right now lol
All for sweet internet points tho.
Just a heads up but concur means "agree", not "believe"
Kinda liked it, so thanks lol
An error that should be discussed for generations :sob: /jk
IN all fairness though, I don't know why I wrote concur, I just thought of it and thought it meant believe...
What would be a fancier word of believe if I may ask ya that you would suggest me to use..
Also I am sorry that I made a mistake tbh, I hope ya get it and thanks for correcting me!
The latter has been on my mind for quite some time.
The logical conclusion of "people can't govern themselves generally" kind of gestures at religion as a solution - after all, if man cannot govern themselves, why not rely on a higher power to manage them?
Of course, the problem with that point of view is that from the atheistic perspective, there is no higher power, and from the agnostic perspective, whatever higher power there is is inscrutable and beyond our ken.
This then leads me to the conclusion that religion is ultimately a creation of men, and are thus prone to the same power-corrupting vices as any other institution created by men.
Except that leaves no real solution the problem of the governance of people. And it's a quandary I see no realistic chance of escape from.
Its not that the logical conclusion is "people can't govern themselves generally"
Its that, we have created a system which incentivizes corruption or basically evil things for the most part from TOP TO BOTTOM partially influenced by biological factors beyond our control.
Sure, one answer to the "people can't govern themselves generally" is to decentralize the power.
I live in India and I loathed my political system thinking that it wasn't good and I really appreciated american political system but the more I think about it, fundamentally Indian political system is one of the best actually.
It has 3 levels of decentralization with Strong Right to information and uh multi party system with Even Universal basic income which I came to know from an american which is a real shocker I know.
Yet I still see people begging and there being some chaos, My logical answer to it is corruption from TOP TO BOTTOM which I observed atleast.
I sort of believe that the same thing happens everywhere to be honest if that can make sense...
Like, there is corruption and human evils which is what people select in real life anonymous things as compared to true morality that one can reason through. Simply for one's own profit.
It also might be one of those debates that India might have a good political system but simply the people don't have enough money or something and they want more or everyone does it which is a common answer that I actually hear.
I believe that the reason why people can't govern themselves generally is that there is a biological answer to it in the sense that for people to govern themselves, we would prefer /need an altruist society and in an altruist society, and how the genes which favour a bit of evil in altruist society might reproduce more and spread sort of thus creating an equilibra of sorts and combining with that the idea on how interlinked/interinfluential each of us is to one other through language.
It was a catharsis to me, The answer might be depressing. But its fundamentally logic. Life just sort of happened and then it got way too focused on spreading itself / the one which did survived and boom that's biology which then gets to this political thing...
Like it was sort of meant to happen y'know? atleast that's my current understanding of it. Would love to discuss tho.
It shouldn't, America is two very distinct nations. The shape and nature of those nations vary wildly in classical Baudrilliardian sidewinding progression, but it's rooted in the very early history of British North America. Two distinct primogenitor colonies and societies, Jamestown and Plymouth. Founded for different reasons, in different contexts, by different people. Understanding the disparity is key to understanding a great deal about America. This divide has always persisted. Jefferson was of Tidewater, Hamilton was of Yankeedom. Democrats vs Whigs. Dixie vs Yankeedom. This split persists in history, and is much the reason why America is ostensibly a two party system. Even if the regional divide is not as hard and fast as it once was, even if the matters in which they differ change radically over time, the divide itself will always persist. It's wrapped up in the pre-revolutionary context the country was founded on. America will always be two countries in a trenchcoat, two echoes of wildly different cultures set against each other for dominance. You should always be keen to remember that. The union isn't of 13 distinct colonies, but two distinct cultures always in tension. It's a fundamental structure within our larger cultural blueprint.
The US had a Civil War in the 19th century over the fear of the southern states that the northern states would not only refuse to continue to be complicit in the institution of slavery, but eventually end it.
The seceding states wrote slavery, as well as protections of the property rights of slave-owners, into their constitution.
After the war came the scaling back of Lincoln's planned reconstruction, sharecropping and Jim Crow. There are people alive today who remember segregation.
White supremacy is as American as apple pie.
My question is whether two different cultures can in fact coexist with each other for a single system of governance.
Like, Why do we focus so much on our differences as a species that we forget how much common we are on literally everything.
What is a solution to this problem that's kinda impacting the world right now. America moves in pendulum in a political cycle completely 180'ing but yet at the same time, I feel like no real change is being made against lobbying/corruption which sort of infiltrates the world too.
Bernie sanders and now maybe zohran are the two democrats who are genuinely tryna do something for america which I deeply respect tbh. Yet there wasn't really a way for one to vote for them directly y'know?
Are these differences of cultures really that distinct to basically split a country in half in everything except the borders?
Was there no way of integrating them without having them idk being the way that they are right now?
What cultural group today is Jamestown and which is Plymouth?
It's mostly a book about the civil war, but it introduces some post-revolution pre-war history and names. That gives you more resources to dig up. You should read as much as you can and form your own opinions on that.
It seems like both the spirit of Plymouth and Jamestown are inside the big tent of the Republican party today. But that doesn't sound like what you intended it to mean. Or maybe it is?
That's the part I'm curious about; who is Plymouth and who is Jamestown in 2025 in your eyes?
I should note these geists extend far beyond legitimate political guise.
Right wingers will look you straight in the eye and tell you that they support suppression of gun rights and speech when it hurts their enemies. Their enemies often live many states away. I have seen the entire country flip on an issue just because the context changes.
The bloodless resolution would be to just agree to not hang out anymore. But I think citizens of a once empire would feel somehow aggrieved to lose that empire. So you guys are going to have to figure this out after spilling a bunch of blood.
The people who wrote this proposal said it themselves - "Whilst different in nature and generally speaking less intrusive, the newly created power to issue removal orders in respect of known child sexual abuse material certainly also affects fundamental rights, most notably those of the users concerned relating to freedom of expression and information."
This proposal is illegal. The fact that CJEU at least haven't issued a statement that this is illegal tells you everything you need to know about the EU and its democracy.
Constitutions don't enforce themselves. The US constitution has a crystal clear right to bear arms but multiple jurisdictions ignore it and multiple supreme court rulings and make firearm ownership functionally impossible anyway. Free speech regulations have, thankfully, been more robust.
The only thing that stops bad things happening is a critical mass of people who believe in the values the constitution memorializes and who have enough veto power to stop attempts to erode these values.
The US has such a critical mass, the gun debate notwithstanding. Does the EU have enough people who still believe in freedom?
People do believe in freedom of speech in the US, thankfully, even if they've stopped defending gun rights in some places.
EU free speech protections are in the same position gun rights are in the US, and for surprisingly similar reasons.
HN is to a large extent a popularity contest, and people here are more in favor of free speech than guns. the US record on protecting free speech is very good.
You have accidentally properly identified the european problem and precisely the reason that chat control will pass: shortsightedness. If people only rise up to protect rights "they need", soon no rights will be left.
But guns are vastly insufficient in this century to overthrow the state, you basically only harm your fellow citizens with them.
Historically, courts have maintained that legislation is pursued under "good faith". This was the justification for not overturning ACA on the grounds of it being an unconstitutional tax: the lawmakers didn't mean to make it an unapportioned tax, even though it effectively is, so it's okay yall. Washington St just did this with income taxes on capital gains in direct violation of their state constitution a year or two ago.
Where I live, you cannot open carry. That is a direct violation of 2A, but the courts have said it's okay baby because it's not an undue burden to pay a fee and waste a day of your life. Pure nonsense. Just change the constitution for goodness sake.
This is because until the 14th Amendment and the incorporation doctrine, the Bill of Rights only restricted the Federal government, not the States. Prior to the that, state and local governments could (and did) restrict not just firearms, but other rights as well.
Hell, the Bill of Rights still hasn't been fully incorporated, so for instance, despite the 7th Amendment stating otherwise, you don't have the right to a jury trial in civil cases in every state nor the right to indictment by grand jury (5th Amendment).
Of course, some states copied parts of the constitution into their own and had some form of protection, but it was by no means universal. Massachusetts even had a state church until 1833.
It looks like it was drafted by an ESL speaker. It's by far the worst-drafted amendment, grammatically speaking:
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
It's not even a valid English sentence, and it certainly never bothers to define "Arms." Not to mention that, as written, it appears to make it illegal for me to tell you that you cannot come to my house with a gun, because that's me infringing your right. It doesn't constrain Congress. It constrained anyone who wants to take away your right to bear arms.
Sheer lunacy as written. Ungrammatical and implies some insane shit.
But no, you're right, it's crystal clear. Much like how the First Amendment says
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press
which in crystal clear terms makes it legal to mass-distribute child pornography. To prohibit it would restrict the freedom of the press.
Until then, the commas are officially part of the text.
That said, the effective meaning of the Constitution is "whatever a majority of the Supreme Court agrees it is."
And to a degree, given the power to impeach Supreme Court justices, "whatever a majority of the Supreme Court agrees it is, and with Congress sufficiently on board to not impeach sufficient justices to force a shift in the balance of the Court."
>>> Remove the first and last comma and the sentence works splendidly
>> Until then, the commas are officially part of the text.
> Comma rules change over time.
Maybe the equivalence of the sentence at drafting, today is without commas?
I had less the current legal interpretation and more the meaning at the time of writing down, as it would reveal itself in current text, in mind, which is relevant to this argument.
KPGv2 pointed out the phrasing of the 2nd amendment is not clear.
GLdRH said "Remove the first and last comma and the sentence works splendidly".
I said that modifying the literal text requires going through the amendment process.
You said "Comma rules change over time."
I reiterated that the literal text does not change except through the amendment process, and also noted that fundamentally the literal words don't matter much as it's up to a majority of the Supreme Court how to interpret any of it.
You then brought up modern language usages of commas.
I replied that how you or I today interpret the text is irrelevant because only the Supreme Court's opinion matters.
At no point in this conversation have I expressed a specific interpretation of the text, so your indication that I chose to tell the discussion about my interpretation seems weird and maybe you're misreading usernames somewhere along the way.
Sorry for that.
> KPGv2 pointed out the phrasing of the 2nd amendment is not clear.
I thought me and GLdRH replied to KPGv2 stating that the 2nd amendment isn't valid grammar and this results in some of the unclarity.
When you have this:
X -> [grammar rules 18th century] -> 2nd amendment -> [grammar rules 21th century] -> ...
> only the Supreme Court's opinion matters.
This is purely about syntactic issues, not about semantics. The Supreme Court applies also semantics, such as the other legal system definitions of the time. I wasn't replying to that aspect.
> [Noun], being [clause], [grammatically correct sentence]
is objectively incorrect English grammar.
Eliding the "being" appositive, you're left with
> [Noun], [sentence].
Unless you're talking to the noun (as in "Hey, you, the well regulated militia! Did you know that the right to keep and bear arms . . . "), it's not grammatically correct.
The issue is what is the European Commission willing to do in order to guarantee that fat contract check goes to Palantir or Thorn or whoever has the best quid pro quo of the day.
This is not Stasi this is Tech billionaires playing kings and buying the EC and Europol for pennies on the dollar and with it the privacy of virtually every citizen of zero interest for law enforcement or agencies.
(there is another process which calls for a convention, but such a convention would have broad powers to change many things and so far the "two sides" (US rules tilt toward two parties rather than more) have been too scared of what might happen to do that)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-eighth_Amendment_of_t...
Only 59% turn out, and the vote won 67%. So in reality less than 40% of the population were for it.
I have vague memories of people saying that the treaty was indecipherable. The EU were like, "Here, vote yes for this big bag of 'misc', or else"
This wasn't the first time they reran a referendum for an EU treaty. They did it back in 2003!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-sixth_Amendment_of_th...
If the UK wanted to avoid BREXIT all they had to do was look a few miles to the west for the knack.
For example, in the EU you technically have the right to freedom of expression, but you can also be arrested if you say something that could offend someone.
Similarly rights to privacy are often ignored whenever a justification can be made that it's appropriate to do so.
I don't know about elsewhere in the world, but here in the UK you don't even have a right to remain silent because the government added a loophole so that if you're arrested in a UK airport they can arbitrarily force you to answer their questions and provide passwords for any private devices. For this reason you often here reports of people being randomly arrested in UK airports, and the government does this deliberately so they can violate your rights.
You probably mean hate speech.
We have laws like that too in Canada. It is a good thing.
It's one thing to be disruptive and enforce immigration law "by the books" but entirely separate to then go out of your way to not enforce it legally while at the same time violating or attempting to violate the constitution on pretty fundamental levels.
So you actually don't have freedom of expression?
Your right to something ends were a right of someone else is violated. That's the case here.
Ah yes, that memorable trifecta: Life, Liberty, and the Right to Never Hear Mean Words.
> violence because then words quickly become a justification for violence
When you don't have a way to fight back and make something stop, without resorting to physical aggression, then your only way is to punch back. When the legal system allows you to fight back, then you can walk away, knowing you can call your lawyer or the police.
Have you had a broken leg? When you're young it's an alright thing to deal with, when you're older it can be life altering (it might hurt forever or alter your gait). However most spontaneous violence doesn't result in broken legs but rather hits to the head which can very quickly end up at CTEs or other brain trauma.
In an equal society, you really don't want actual violence to be on the same spectrum as speech of any kind. One problem is that ~50% of the population has a massive natural advantage in the realm of actual violence. Would a husband beating his wife because of "violent words" she inflicted on him be ok under the "speech is violence" rubric?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...
You can freely express your opinions regarding any political party or head of state and so, but not directly and specifically offend them. You can say "their performance this year wasn't good due to that or this". But cant say "They should eat shit!" or "deserve to be shot" which kinda is also OK because the former doesn't contribute to anything and the latter we all agree is highly immoral or inhumane.
PS: I'm talking from the perspective of Germany, not entirely sure about other countries.