• Civilization 7 has been announced. For more info please check the forum here .

General Politics Three: But what is left/right?

Status
Not open for further replies.
CNN said:
Publicly, Republicans have cited a litany of reasons for not attending: from having to tend to reelection races to scheduling conflicts.

But privately, some Republicans have complained about the venue choice. Sources said Speaker Mike Johnson selected the Greenbrier Resort because it was “family friendly,” in a break from past retreats which have taken place in sunny Florida – the preferred location of former Speaker Kevin McCarthy.

And other GOP lawmakers and aides told CNN they were simply not enthusiastic about the idea of having to huddle with the rest of their party at a time when Republican infighting has prevented them from even passing procedural votes.
Click to expand...

:lmao:
 

YouTube blocks access to Fifth Estate story on killing of B.C. Sikh activist at India's demand​

Story includes video of fatal shooting of Hardeep Singh Nijjar last June​

YouTube is blocking access in India to a story by CBC's The Fifth Estate on the alleged contract killing of a Canadian Sikh separatist after the Indian government ordered the social media platform to take that action.

The Fifth Estate story released on Friday included video of the fatal shooting of Hardeep Singh Nijjar last June as he left his place of worship in Surrey, B.C.

In an email to CBC on Wednesday, YouTube said it had received an order from India's Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology to block access to the video of the story from its website.

YouTube confirmed to CBC News Wednesday afternoon that "the content has now been blocked from view" on the India YouTube country site. While the content is restricted in India, the video is still available everywhere else on YouTube.

  • Watch the full documentary, "Contract to Kill," from The Fifth Estate on YouTube or stream it on CBC Gem.
Meanwhile, X, formerly known as Twitter, also informed CBC that it had received a legal removal demand from the Indian government relating to the Fifth Estate story.

"Indian law obligates X to withhold access to this content in India; however, the content remains available elsewhere," X said in an email to The Fifth Estate.

"We disagree with this action and maintain that freedom of expression should extend to these posts. Following the Indian legal process, we are in current communication with the Indian authorities."

In emails from YouTube and X to CBC, the platforms said the Indian government was citing the country's Information Technology Act 2000 in making the orders.

According to one section of that act, the government has the power to "intercept, monitor or decrypt any information generated, transmitted, received or stored in any computer resource." Such action can be taken, according to the act, in the interest of:

  • The sovereignty or integrity of India, defence of India, the security of the state.
  • Friendly relations with foreign states.
  • Public order, or for preventing incitement to the commission of any cognizable offence relating to these.
  • Investigating any offence.

Video shows Nijjar leaving parking lot​

The Fifth Estate story that aired last week included video that showed Nijjar, the president of the Guru Nanak Sikh Gurdwara, leaving the parking lot of his place of worship in Surrey on the evening of June 18, 2023, in his grey Dodge Ram pickup truck.

As he approaches the exit, a white sedan pulls in front of him, blocking his truck. Two men then run up and shoot Nijjar before escaping in a silver Toyota Camry.

The co-ordinated attack involved six men and two vehicles. Almost nine months later, the RCMP has yet to name suspects or make arrests in relation to Nijjar's death.

The apparent targeted killing of Nijjar ultimately led to accusations from Prime Minister Justin Trudeau that the government of India ordered the killing — a claim that severely damaged diplomatic ties between Canada and India.

India has strongly denied any connection to the killing.

Chuck Thompson, a spokesman with CBC News, said it stands by its journalism on the story.

"To ensure fairness and balance, the documentary included a wide range of voices, witnesses and subject matter experts," he said.

"And, as is the case with all stories on The Fifth Estate, "Contract To Kill" was thoroughly researched, vetted by senior editorial leaders and meets our journalistic standards."

Corynne McSherry, legal director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a San Francisco-based organization focusing on civil liberties on the internet, said these actions by the India government are part of a pattern they've seen over the past few years. The government will take advantage of its own laws to pressure social media companies to take down content it doesn't like, she said.

"Unfortunately, at this point, it's got pretty broad legal powers to do that. And as far as we can tell, is not hesitating at all to use them," she said.

"The companies are in a difficult position because on the one hand, if they want to be able to provide services in a given country, they may need to comply with those country's laws whether or not they want to."
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/india-fifth-estate-video-story-1.7142721
 
Broken_Erika said:

YouTube blocks access to Fifth Estate story on killing of B.C. Sikh activist at India's demand​

Story includes video of fatal shooting of Hardeep Singh Nijjar last June​

YouTube is blocking access in India to a story by CBC's The Fifth Estate on the alleged contract killing of a Canadian Sikh separatist after the Indian government ordered the social media platform to take that action.

The Fifth Estate story released on Friday included video of the fatal shooting of Hardeep Singh Nijjar last June as he left his place of worship in Surrey, B.C.

In an email to CBC on Wednesday, YouTube said it had received an order from India's Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology to block access to the video of the story from its website.

YouTube confirmed to CBC News Wednesday afternoon that "the content has now been blocked from view" on the India YouTube country site. While the content is restricted in India, the video is still available everywhere else on YouTube.

  • Watch the full documentary, "Contract to Kill," from The Fifth Estate on YouTube or stream it on CBC Gem.
Meanwhile, X, formerly known as Twitter, also informed CBC that it had received a legal removal demand from the Indian government relating to the Fifth Estate story.

"Indian law obligates X to withhold access to this content in India; however, the content remains available elsewhere," X said in an email to The Fifth Estate.

"We disagree with this action and maintain that freedom of expression should extend to these posts. Following the Indian legal process, we are in current communication with the Indian authorities."

In emails from YouTube and X to CBC, the platforms said the Indian government was citing the country's Information Technology Act 2000 in making the orders.

According to one section of that act, the government has the power to "intercept, monitor or decrypt any information generated, transmitted, received or stored in any computer resource." Such action can be taken, according to the act, in the interest of:

  • The sovereignty or integrity of India, defence of India, the security of the state.
  • Friendly relations with foreign states.
  • Public order, or for preventing incitement to the commission of any cognizable offence relating to these.
  • Investigating any offence.

Video shows Nijjar leaving parking lot​

The Fifth Estate story that aired last week included video that showed Nijjar, the president of the Guru Nanak Sikh Gurdwara, leaving the parking lot of his place of worship in Surrey on the evening of June 18, 2023, in his grey Dodge Ram pickup truck.

As he approaches the exit, a white sedan pulls in front of him, blocking his truck. Two men then run up and shoot Nijjar before escaping in a silver Toyota Camry.

The co-ordinated attack involved six men and two vehicles. Almost nine months later, the RCMP has yet to name suspects or make arrests in relation to Nijjar's death.

The apparent targeted killing of Nijjar ultimately led to accusations from Prime Minister Justin Trudeau that the government of India ordered the killing — a claim that severely damaged diplomatic ties between Canada and India.

India has strongly denied any connection to the killing.

Chuck Thompson, a spokesman with CBC News, said it stands by its journalism on the story.

"To ensure fairness and balance, the documentary included a wide range of voices, witnesses and subject matter experts," he said.

"And, as is the case with all stories on The Fifth Estate, "Contract To Kill" was thoroughly researched, vetted by senior editorial leaders and meets our journalistic standards."

Corynne McSherry, legal director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a San Francisco-based organization focusing on civil liberties on the internet, said these actions by the India government are part of a pattern they've seen over the past few years. The government will take advantage of its own laws to pressure social media companies to take down content it doesn't like, she said.

"Unfortunately, at this point, it's got pretty broad legal powers to do that. And as far as we can tell, is not hesitating at all to use them," she said.

"The companies are in a difficult position because on the one hand, if they want to be able to provide services in a given country, they may need to comply with those country's laws whether or not they want to."
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/india-fifth-estate-video-story-1.7142721
Click to expand...

Yeah, gosh, what kind of country would ban media that...oh wait
www.cnn.com

March 13, 2024 TikTok ban bill House vote

The House passed legislation that would ban TikTok, the video-sharing app used by 170 million Americans, unless it part ways with its Chinese parent company. Follow for live updates.
www.cnn.com www.cnn.com
 
Not similar except prima facie.
 
Theoretically, Tiktik could be divested to an American company. If you want a social media site straight-up blocking uncomfortable news, you already have home-grown outlets for that.
 
Lexicus said:
State intervention in the economy to advance the welfare of the American people: bad
State intervention in the economy because China bad: good
Click to expand...
And purple ponies are neat. Gotcha.
 
Is software speech? Is ownership?

No president has ever been wrong about everything, but if that's your take on my opinion of Reagan, Lex, maybe we're stuck at the level of prima facie with nowhere else to go.
 
Farm Boy said:
Is software speech?
Click to expand...
I think so.

Spoiler Legal argument :
In the first appellate decision interpreting provisions of the DMCA, Universal City Studios v. Corley, {FN191: 273 F.3d 429, 60 USPQ2d 1953 (2nd Cir. 2001)} the Second Circuit addressed the “code as speech” question:

Communication does not lose constitutional protection as “speech” simply because it is expressed in the language of computer code. Mathematical formulae and musical scores are written in “code,” i.e.,symbolic notations not comprehensible to the uninitiated, and yet both are covered by the First Amendment. If someone chose to write a novel entirely in computer object code by using strings of 1’s and 0’s for each letter of each word, the resulting work would be no different for constitutional purposes than if it had been written in English. The “object code” version would be incomprehensible to readers outside the programming community (and tedious to read even for most within the community), but it would be no more incomprehensible than a work written in Sanskrit for those unversed in that language. The undisputed evidence reveals that even pure object code can be, and often is, read and understood by experienced programmers. And source code (in any of its various levels of complexity) can be read by many more. Ultimately, however, the ease with which a work is comprehended is irrelevant to the constitutional inquiry. If computer code is distinguishable from conventional speech for First Amendment purposes, it is not because it is written in an obscure language.

Of course, computer code is not likely to be the language in which a work of literature is written. Instead, it is primarily the language for programs executable by a computer. These programs are essentially instructions to a computer. In general, programs may give instructions either to perform a task or series of tasks when initiated by a single (or double) click of a mouse or, once a program is operational (“launched”), to manipulate data that the user enters into the computer. Whether computer code that gives a computer instructions is “speech” within the meaning of the First Amendment requires consideration of the scope of the Constitution’s protection of speech. {FN192: 273 F.3d at 445-446, 60 USPQ2d at 1963-1964 (citations omitted)}

The court, after discussing the scope of the First Amendment’s protection for speech, particularly for scientific writings, goes on:

Computer programs are not exempted from the category of First Amendment speech simply because their instructions require use of a computer. A recipe is no less “speech” because it calls for the use of an oven, and a musical score is no less “speech” because it specifies performance on an electric guitar. Arguably distinguishing computer programs from conventional language instructions is the fact that programs are executable on a computer. But the fact that a program has the capacity to direct the functioning of a computer does not mean that it lacks the additional capacity to convey information, and it is the conveying of information that renders instructions “speech” for purposes of the First Amendment. The information conveyed by most “instructions” is how to perform a task.

Instructions such as computer code, which are intended to be executable by a computer, will often convey information capable of comprehension and assessment by a human being. A programmer reading a program learns information about instructing a computer, and might use this information to improve personal programming skills and perhaps the craft of programming. Moreover, programmers communicating ideas to one another almost inevitably communicate in code, much as musicians use notes. Limiting First Amendment protection of programmers to descriptions of computer code (but not the code itself) would impede discourse among computer scholars, just as limiting protection for musicians to descriptions of musical scores (but not sequences of notes) would impede their exchange of ideas and expression. Instructions that communicate information comprehensible to a human qualify as speech whether the instructions are designed for execution by a computer or a human (or both). {FN193: 273 F.3d at 447-448, 60 USPQ2d at 1964-1965}
 
Campaign contributions are speech too, if we believe SCOTUS.
 
Is involuntary sterilization illegal (i.e. impossible to be performed with state sanction) in all states of the US?
In a "left-leaning" state like California, many were performed because the Latina women (none of whom spoke English) were deemed to be an economic burden on the government.

Do "right-leaning" states use the same justification, or others peculiar to their particular state?

It's difficult to get numbers from many states after the California case. The Southern Poverty Law Center received replies from (IIRC Alabama) like, "We can't disclose numbers because it might identify the individuals".
That could well be the case if there are only one or two, but it certainly doesn't sound like a definite, "Nope, we don't do that", to me.

Madrigal v. Quilligan was a federal case, but from what I can gather it did not make the practice "illegal" in all of the USA. (I don't know if it even could!)
The judge ruled that the women's emotional breakdowns after sterilization were caused by their inability to give birth and raise a big family, which is an important part of their Latina culture, and not by the sterilization itself. In the end, he believed that the women were at fault and it was their cultural background that heightened the supposed trauma that they experienced.
en.wikipedia.org

Madrigal v. Quilligan - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
What is more important in cases like that: whether they are "left or right"? or is it the number of Latina/Black/other non-Anglo women in those states that is a more important factor?
 
Samson said:
I think so.

Spoiler Legal argument :
In the first appellate decision interpreting provisions of the DMCA, Universal City Studios v. Corley, {FN191: 273 F.3d 429, 60 USPQ2d 1953 (2nd Cir. 2001)} the Second Circuit addressed the “code as speech” question:

Communication does not lose constitutional protection as “speech” simply because it is expressed in the language of computer code. Mathematical formulae and musical scores are written in “code,” i.e.,symbolic notations not comprehensible to the uninitiated, and yet both are covered by the First Amendment. If someone chose to write a novel entirely in computer object code by using strings of 1’s and 0’s for each letter of each word, the resulting work would be no different for constitutional purposes than if it had been written in English. The “object code” version would be incomprehensible to readers outside the programming community (and tedious to read even for most within the community), but it would be no more incomprehensible than a work written in Sanskrit for those unversed in that language. The undisputed evidence reveals that even pure object code can be, and often is, read and understood by experienced programmers. And source code (in any of its various levels of complexity) can be read by many more. Ultimately, however, the ease with which a work is comprehended is irrelevant to the constitutional inquiry. If computer code is distinguishable from conventional speech for First Amendment purposes, it is not because it is written in an obscure language.

Of course, computer code is not likely to be the language in which a work of literature is written. Instead, it is primarily the language for programs executable by a computer. These programs are essentially instructions to a computer. In general, programs may give instructions either to perform a task or series of tasks when initiated by a single (or double) click of a mouse or, once a program is operational (“launched”), to manipulate data that the user enters into the computer. Whether computer code that gives a computer instructions is “speech” within the meaning of the First Amendment requires consideration of the scope of the Constitution’s protection of speech. {FN192: 273 F.3d at 445-446, 60 USPQ2d at 1963-1964 (citations omitted)}

The court, after discussing the scope of the First Amendment’s protection for speech, particularly for scientific writings, goes on:

Computer programs are not exempted from the category of First Amendment speech simply because their instructions require use of a computer. A recipe is no less “speech” because it calls for the use of an oven, and a musical score is no less “speech” because it specifies performance on an electric guitar. Arguably distinguishing computer programs from conventional language instructions is the fact that programs are executable on a computer. But the fact that a program has the capacity to direct the functioning of a computer does not mean that it lacks the additional capacity to convey information, and it is the conveying of information that renders instructions “speech” for purposes of the First Amendment. The information conveyed by most “instructions” is how to perform a task.

Instructions such as computer code, which are intended to be executable by a computer, will often convey information capable of comprehension and assessment by a human being. A programmer reading a program learns information about instructing a computer, and might use this information to improve personal programming skills and perhaps the craft of programming. Moreover, programmers communicating ideas to one another almost inevitably communicate in code, much as musicians use notes. Limiting First Amendment protection of programmers to descriptions of computer code (but not the code itself) would impede discourse among computer scholars, just as limiting protection for musicians to descriptions of musical scores (but not sequences of notes) would impede their exchange of ideas and expression. Instructions that communicate information comprehensible to a human qualify as speech whether the instructions are designed for execution by a computer or a human (or both). {FN193: 273 F.3d at 447-448, 60 USPQ2d at 1964-1965}
Click to expand...
Is a business platform entitled to a specific form of potentially hostile data collection and ownership because of that speech?
 
Farm Boy said:
Is a business platform entitled to a specific form of potentially hostile data collection and ownership because of that speech?
Click to expand...
No, hence I support the GDPR and think it should go further. Also if you are going to shut down anyone's speech then better the CCP than protesters and others who disagree with you.

The point remains that they are not doing anything that people like fecebook and amazon aren't so it really looks like the thing that is specific is not the behaviour but who is doing it.
 
Farm Boy said:
Is software speech? Is ownership?

No president has ever been wrong about everything, but if that's your take on my opinion of Reagan, Lex, maybe we're stuck at the level of prima facie with nowhere else to go.
Click to expand...

That's my take on your opinion of Reagan's view of government and its potential to help people. Is it wrong? Have you actually been a New Deal liberal all along?

Anyway, whether it applies to you or not, I've seen a lot of people who claim to believe that the government should not intervene in the economy come out in support of this bill, which on its face appears to be a gross contravention of liberal principles regarding state non-interference with private activity. I just find it interesting that what prompts this kind of action is not poisoning the air and water, systematic union-busting, using child slaves, or anything like that. No, it's "China bad" that can get the US government to act.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Gori the Grey
  • Locked
The 2024 US Presidential Election
49 50 51
Replies
1K
Views
32K
Birdjaguar
Birdjaguar
Samson
  • Locked
General Politics the second: But what is politics?
199 200 201
Replies
4K
Views
128K
Birdjaguar
Birdjaguar
Kyriakos
What book are you reading, ιf' - Iff you read books
10 11 12
Replies
231
Views
9K
tjs282
tjs282
Birdjaguar
[RD] War in Gaza: News Thread
41 42 43
Replies
857
Views
32K
Ajidica
Ajidica
Kyriakos
What video games have you been playing? ΚΔ (24)? More like ΚΔ,Ζ,ΤΞΕ!
2 3
Replies
50
Views
1K
Kyriakos
Kyriakos
Top Bottom