Internet Blackout Coming To Show The EU Parliament It's Not Just 'Bots' Concerned About Article 13

from the this-is-a-big-problem dept

Last week Glyn mentioned that the German Wikipedia had announced plans to “go dark” this Thursday to protest Articles 11 and 13 of the EU Copyright Directive. And now it appears that a whole bunch of other websites will join in the protest (including us). While we won’t go completely dark, we’ll be putting up a banner in support of the many websites that do plan to go dark — and we’ve heard that an awful lot of websites will be joining in. Supporters keep trying to dismiss these complaints as just being “bots” or the big internet companies, but lots of others will be showing that this is about the broader internet this Thursday. This is just one of many protests happening this week, with in-person protests happening all through the EU this coming weekend as well. Meanwhile there are lots of efforts to get MEPs to pledge to vote against Article 13 that has been gaining momentum as well. I have no idea if these kinds of protests will be as effective as the blackday back during the SOPA fight, but I can say that Article 13 will be way worse for the internet than SOPA ever would have been.

Filed Under: , , , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Internet Blackout Coming To Show The EU Parliament It's Not Just 'Bots' Concerned About Article 13”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
162 Comments
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

Good luck with the protests, all of them

However, I am concerned that some MEP’s are not just as focused on the upcoming election as they are their ideological or monetary connections. From the ideological standpoint, killing user generated content will support their goals for a long time to come, and reelection is just not important. From the monetary standpoint, either the contributions received or the quid pro quo coming may be enough to overcome voter wrath.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: I’m not laughing with you, I’m laughing at you

Yeah it totally backfired last time they did it. That’s why SOPAs law of the land…. oh dear.

And lastly please explain to the class how a private company can hold their own website “hostage” and how that is “the internet.” Show your work.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 I’m not laughing with you, I’m laughing at you

Wikipedia’s largest funder by far is Google; if Article 13 passes Google will have to start paying for the music it streams on YouTube. Wikipedia has become ubiquitous, it’s almost like a public utility at this point. This is where the monopolization issues rear their head. Denying service to the public because you don’t want to have to pay for music streams is a risky endeavour.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5 I’m not laughing with you, I’m laughing

Let’s start with google is pulling Wikipedia’s strings. Or Wikipedia is in any way shape or form a monopoly, since you know libraries still exist. You know basic stuff that makes it obvious you don’t have a fucking clue what you are talking about.

XcOM987 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 I’m not laughing with you, I’m laughing at you

So if google pays you for some sort or service would that instantly incur your wrath, would you be accused of nefarious things?

I fail to see how Wikipedia is abusing anything, all they are doing it standing up for principles, and this is after there was exclusions put in place just for them in?

Do you have any evidence of Wikipedia’s wrong doings in this? that they are abusing some monopoly?

For them to be a monopoly you would have to have no choice in alternative, but as far as I can tell, with a simple search that took me 20 seconds I found:

Columbia Encyclopedia
Digital Universe
Encarta
Encyclopædia Britannica
Everipedia
Everything2
Interpedia

And my personal favourite, Uncyclopedia

Now I’ve not checked the validity of any of these, but it wouldn’t be hard to, there are plenty to choose from.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:7 I’m not laughing with you, I’m l

Besides the ones Masnick tells on here? Sure:

https://solaristraveller.com/article-13-youtube-scare-tactics/

https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/impala-prs-for-music-and-others-attack-youtube-for-propagation-of-misinformation-ahead-of-article-13-vote

http://www.musicweek.com/talent/read/trade-bodies-accuse-youtube-of-misinformation-over-article-13-ahead-of-key-vote/075644

Rocky says:

Re: Re: Re:8 I’m not laughing with you, I??

Uhm, those links are not citations of lies told by Google – those are links to opinion pieces that think Google is using scare-tactics and misinformation.

Perhaps you can help us and point to the specific text provided by the links where they accuse Google of lying?

Also, the first link is some guys blog that totally misunderstand and misrepresent what article 13 means in practicality – which I guess is on par for those supporting article 13.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:9 Re:

"Also, the first link is some guys blog that totally misunderstand and misrepresent what article 13 means in practicality – which I guess is on par for those supporting article 13."

Same as with SOPA and all the other things these guys support – it’s not possible for them to support it without lying, and that includes lying about what people who oppose them are saying.

AC above can’t post to anything other than openly biased opinion pieces from the very people trying to push the bad deal, because factual evidence is not on their side.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:9 Re:

Feel free to post exactly what they got wrong.

Are you suggesting Google/YT didn’t say that Article 13 would make memes illegal?

Btw, who exactly are you trying to fool here? Anyone with a cursory knowledge of this issue knows it was designed to make Google/YT pay for the copyrighted content they profit from. This nonsense about "it hurts the little guy" is hilarious.

Google just wants the gravy train to continue. That’s why you have their shills like Mike Masnick posting about it every day.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:10 Re:

"it was designed to make Google/YT pay for the copyrighted content they profit from"

It may have been designed to do that, but it’s effect in reality will be far from it.

Also, if YouTube aren’t paying for the copyrighted content they host, why did the major record labels close their old Vevo service in order to host it solely on YouTube? Why, it’s almost as if you’re lying about them…

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:11 Re:

LOL uh what does Vevo have to do with this? Nothing.

I’m not sure why you’re having trouble understanding this- it is not a secret that Article 13 is about YouTube; any member of the EU parliament would happily tell you that, and it’s also no secret that Google/YT has been bombarding Brussels with lobbyists for months. If you’re still having comprehension issues with these facts, maybe ask your helper to better explain it for you.

TFG says:

Re: Re: Re:12 Re:

I’m not sure why you’re having trouble understanding this:

It is not a secret that Article 13 is about shoveling all the money to the old boys who used to control everything, and they’re the ones who are lobbying massively and spreading the nonsense about Google and YT.

If you’re still having comprehension issues with this, maybe ask your mom to explain it to you, using small words.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:12 Re:

"LOL uh what does Vevo have to do with this? "

Vevo is a video streaming service operated by the major record labels. That is, it was until they shut down their own platform so that they could host exclusively on YouTube. Which, unless you have some evidence to the contrary, they wouldn’t have done unless YouTube hosting was much more profitable. Hence, you lied when you said they don’t pay for the content they host. Is that easy enough for you.

"it’s also no secret that Google/YT has been bombarding Brussels with lobbyists for months."

You spelt "RIAA" wrong.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:13 Re:

I’m curious- if you hate musicians so much, why do you feel the need to steal their creations? And please spare me the old canard about how evil you think record companies are- Google has stolen 1000X more from musicians in 15 years than every company combined in the history of the world.

TFG says:

Re: Re: Re:14 Re:

I’m curious: If you love musicians so much, why do you feel the need to steal their ability to self-publish? And please spare me the old canard about how evil Google is – the record companies have stolen 1000x more from musicians over the entirety of their history than Google has had the chance to in their years of operation.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:14 Re:

"I’m curious- if you hate musicians so much, why do you feel the need to steal their creations? "

The real question is why you have to base everything you say on a false personal attack, especially against people who go out of their way to pay for content on a regular basis. That’s the problem with you people – you think you’re fighting against some evil but you’re actually insulting your best customers.

"Google has stolen 1000X more from musicians in 15 years than every company combined in the history of the world."

Meh, compared to Hollywood Accounting and other illegal activities the companies you support have committed against artists for decades I doubt they’ve scratched the surface, even if you weren’t lying.

TFG says:

Re: Re: Re:10 Re:

Allow me to argue in the exact same amount of good faith as you yourself are:

Article 13 will make memes illegal. Anyone saying otherwise is lying to you.

Who are you trying to fool here? Anyone with a cursory knowledge of the issue knows that it’s designed to force every little guy to go through the legacy gatekeepers only and is intended to kill off the wealth of self-publishing options available via the internet.

Gatekeepers just want their stranglehold on culture back. That’s why you have their shills like you posting about it every day.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:10 Re:

For example (from the first link):

Youtube says: “Rightsholders should work with platforms to identify the content they own, so the platforms know what is protected under copyright and can give rightsholders control to block if they choose.”

Translation: I, as a creator, should spend my life monitoring the gazzillion trillion hours of video on Youtube in the hope that I will find someone infringing my copyright. When this happens, I should notify Google/Youtube who will endevour to take this content down.

Which is not what it actually says, and the first text is actually from Article 13, not YT, and it says (in a stupid way) that rightsholders should inform the platforms what works the rightholders own and what license should be applied by the platform so the platform can identify the copyrighted works and and any infringers at which point the rightsholder can choose an action.

Also, the guy is totally oblivious to the fact how disingenuous his reasoning is since it’s so focused on YT and Google and their revenue that he doesn’t even reflect on how other sites will be impacted. No matter how dismissive the supporters of article 11 and 13 is, there is already an impact going on totally unrelated platforms.

The company I work for has a service oriented web platform where many things our corporate customers post to it is publicly visible. Much of the material that they post is reports, PR-material, financial statements and other things, but if Article 13 is implemented we can’t no longer provide that facet of the service due to liability concerns, because just one infraction may wipe out a years worth of net income from the contracts we have for the service.

This also means some of our customers will migrate to other platforms that is hosted outside the EU, which is a double loss for the economy in EU. We have already lost some renewals of contracts due to the uncertainty what will happen, and everyone of didn’t renew is planning on using a similar service in the US.

We have looked at filter technologies to see if we can remedy the situation, but since there is no working solution that are economically, practically and technologically feasible. We could hire someone to look through everything but that also kills the service financially.

And you are as guilty as the guy in the first link, because all you can see is all the money Google and YT makes, decrying how unfair it is without even thinking about every-fucking-one else that will take a financial hit if article 13 is implemented – you know, like real jobs disappearing.

Anyone cheering this on is blind to the fact that if companies find it too onerous to operate in the EU they will move to greener pastures where it’s easier and cheaper to operate. Who the fuck in their right mind would want to run an internet business in the EU where you can be slapped with a fine that can wipe out a years profit or more?

In the end, everybody loses but especially the people living in the EU because there are fucktards who can’t reason their way out of a wet paper bag even if their life depended on it.

Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:8 I’m not laughing with you, I??

Wait, you mean that out of three publications all of which are vested interests in themselves all three have opinion pieces where a largely ignorant mouthpiece blurbs about how evil Google steals money from starving artists and makes the claim that article 13 will fix this?

Gosh. What’s next on your list of "evidence"? A revelation that a media marketing department actually markets for the media company?

Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 I’m not laughing with you, I’m laughing

"Just because there are supposed alternatives doesn’t erase the possibility of a monopoly occurring."

mo·nop·o·ly
/məˈnäpəlē/
noun: monopoly; plural noun: monopolies; noun: Monopoly

  1. the exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service. "his likely motive was to protect his regional monopoly on furs" a company or group having exclusive control over a commodity or service. "areas where cable companies operate as monopolies" a commodity or service in the exclusive control of a company or group. "electricity, gas, and water were considered to be natural monopolies" the exclusive possession, control, or exercise of something. "men don’t have a monopoly on unrequited love"
    1. trademark a board game in which players engage in simulated property and financial dealings using imitation money. It was invented in the US and the name was coined by Charles Darrow c. 1935.

Unless you’re referring to the boardgame, Baghdad Bob, it’s painfully obvious you don’t know what "monopoly" means or how it "could occur".
Because quite frankly if we have a dozen alternative sources to obtain information, all of which are similarly priced (free) and of equivalent quality then, by definition, a monopoly situation CAN NOT occur.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 I’m not laughing with you, I’m laughing at y

Honestly I think Jhon prefers Conservapedia.

But let’s consider another approach to this: according to John Sanford Smith, if AT&T or T-Mobile or Comcast is the largest ISP in an area and puts all of its competition out of business, that’s not a monopoly that warrants the FCC’s attention.

But suddenly, despite all the other free dictionaries Jhon could be using, Wikipedia now counts as a "monopoly".

Again, because we needed more proof that Jhon has as much credibility and reliability as a used condom with a hole snipped at the top.

Bonus points for irony: Jhon’s been busily quoting the Wikipedia article for the Statute of Anne to push his "copyright says fuck the consumer" perspective for a couple of weeks. Based on his interpretation of copyright, he’s stealing!

Madd the Sane (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 I’m not laughing with you, I’m laughing at you

Wikipedia’s largest funder by far is Google;[…]

[Citation Needed]

[…]if Article 13 passes Google will have to start paying for the music it streams on YouTube.

How is the former statement related to the latter?

Wikipedia has become ubiquitous, it’s almost like a public utility at this point.

Like internet access in general, right? …No?

This is where the monopolization issues rear their head.

Who has a monopoly on what? Wikipedia may have a "monopoly" on online encyclopedias, but you can always use another online encyclopedia if you so choose. This is less a case for ISPs, even if you include a cell network as an ISP (I don’t). The same goes for Google: it has the majority for search engines, but you are not forced to use Google. You can just as easily use Bing.

Denying service to the public because you don’t want to have to pay for music streams is a risky endeavour.

…And Wikipedia and streaming music is related… how? If you mean Google being the main funder of Wikimedia Foundation, then citation is still needed.

Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

" Michael Masnick,"

"Your user is harassing me. Please ensure this conduct ceases. It is being reported to the police."

While you report that, please don’t forget to include the asshole who threatened all of the "aspies" on this thread with anal rape.

Oh, wait, that was you, which any actual police investigation would show if they care enough to investigate at all. Silly me.

Also, "your user is harrassing me" might be viable if you want to lodge a complaint to a screwdriver that its handler is being mean to you but I fail to see how it can apply on any form of forum where the commenters happen to not be inanimate objects.

nasch (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Facebook just censored Trump’s director of social media.

Facebook’s automated systems mistook his actions for those of a bot, and prevented him from doing something on the platform for a short time ("mentions" or something, I don’t use FB so I don’t know exactly). At no time was he prevented from posting to FB, the action was not taken by a human, and it was not in any way content related.

No anti-conservative bias there!

Correct.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

This reply thread is ridiculous. Why is it so hard for y’all to stop feeding the trolls? They don’t care what you have to say, and none of the facts and logic you bring to the table will make them care. There’s countless other ways to contribute to comment sections besides giving a troll what they want. Just flag the trolls and move on.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

You’re aware that Wikipedia hosts user-generated content and would have to withhold all new articles and edits for review before allowing them to be published if Article 13 goes into effect, right? And you’re also aware that Wikipedia is a not-for-profit organization that can barely afford to keep its doors open? And that hiring all the necessary reviewers to satisfy Article 13 would bankrupt them and Wikipedia would cease to exist?

You seem to be a Wikipedia fan but also an Article 13 fan. So… which is it? Those two things are mutually exclusive.

Anonymous Coward says:

It won’t work this time. The EU already knows it’s coming and if anything this will help Article 13 pass.

The best way to "stop" Article 13 is to let it pass and then tally up the damage it will supposedly cause. In a world where someone in Kenya can assemble almost a thousand books, put them on a DVD, SELL those illegal copies to people in developing countries who express a dire NEED for the titles (meaning it truly is lost sales), Article 13 is necessary, plus it is definitely in the public interest to ensure that people who pay full price aren’t paying more than thieves, and that criminals are in no way enriched, first by sales of illicit works, and again by marketing to the distribution list it creates, plucking off the "whales" they can scam with live seminars (that also allows them to use piracy to destroy reasonably priced e-book competition).

Masnick publishes so many articles in his opposition to Article 13 that he almost seems rabid. He’d probably accomplish more by restricting it to a few per week, where all the stuff in his articles are condensed into a digest with links (that would still exist under Article 13).

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Man with tree in eye decries sliver in eye of other man

What’s particularly funny about the ‘rabid’ accusation is that if typing up handful of articles over something that is of great concern is an indication of being ‘rabid’, what does spamming multiple comment section with mass-lies and/or laughable bullshit make good old Jhon?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

Michael Masnick,

You are being reported to the police for allowing harassment and now an implied death threat against me on your site.

If you continue to allow others to harass me, it will be treated as retaliation against a witness.

You are also on notice to put a litigation hold on all content posted to this site over the past year.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

One of your buddies literally told Masnick to die in a fire.

You yourself have claimed that nobody reads this site.

Never mind that the above is a hypothetical scenario with no specific identification behind the pronouns used, to describe a situation where a person would reasonably expect to behave in a certain way when under threat.

I really don’t think the police is bending over backwards and scrambling the army, navy and air force because some anonymous crybaby got his walking stick shoved in his ass again.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

John, John, John.

You’ve been made fun of for a year and counting. You’ve consistently considered this amount of verbal smackdown to be more than sufficient for the police to come charging down the street, guns blazing, to kill off anyone and everyone who disagrees with you.

The fact that none of that has actually come to fruition, once again, suggests that you’re doing nothing more than desperately hoping someone believes your bluffing.

Masnick lets your friends tell him to jump in a fire, and allows you to threaten oral rape of other posters here with a chainsaw.

I really don’t think he’s going to stop people beating you with logic.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

Hence why I’m pretty sure it’s an actual fetish for them. When no-one believes anything they say, and posting yet another impotent ‘threat’ results in nothing but mockery, the fact that they keep doing it would seem to suggest that they get something out of it.

Or they’re completely delusional such that they at least believe what they type.

Either way, not a very good look, but always good for a guilt-free laugh at least.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Try this one on for size:

I hope you get hit by a train which then collides with another train, both then catch fire and a freak lightning storm zaps all your ashes into atoms.

Like that? It’s not a threat, just a fervent desire. But feel free to report it if you can find anyone who will ignore your foil hat and listen to what you have to say.

Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

Let’s not forget how Baghdad Bob/Jhon/Blue expressed how all us "aspies" on this thread who were being mean to him should be subjected to aggravated rape.

Of course, him threatening others or implying threats is a different kettle of fish which I’m sure the hypothetical long-suffering police officer to investigate these threads is sure to acknowledge, right?

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re:

" people in developing countries who express a dire NEED for the titles (meaning it truly is lost sales)"

Or, it means that the publishers are overcharging by such an amount that potential customers were unable to obtain the books any other way.

What’s your obsession with a decade-old story from Africa that was resolved without the need for the shit you support being pushed in Europe, by the way? Are you that unable to find anything relevant?

Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

"Extort silence? Why? Because you hypocritically posted threats against Asperger’s sufferers?"

Silly AC. It’s different when Baghdad Bob/Jhon/Blue does it. He’s on the side of major media companies, he has the right to threaten other people with sexual assault.

I actually wish the police WOULD investigate. Slim hope, but it would serve him right when the first one to go before a judge ends up being him himself, on a hate crime charge.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

Michael Masnick,

Your user is attemting to extort my silence regarding reporting the death threat against me here to the police. That is a federal crime punishable by up to ten years in prison. 18 USC 1513

Replace "Michael Masnick" with "Teacher" and it makes sense as to how mature this commenter acts.

Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

Ah yes, this is the vaunted "death threat":

"If someone had a gun to your head and is weighing the options to shoot or not shoot, you’d bet you’d be "rabid" to persuade the person not to shoot you."

As an countercomment to dear old Baghdad Bob/Blue’s statement:
"Masnick publishes so many articles in his opposition to Article 13 that he almost seems rabid."

Honestly, I don’t see the implied threat Baghdad Bob’s whining about.

A real threat would be like when Baghdad Bob/Blue himself actually DID insist that he WOULD one day fuck us "aspies" up the ass so hard.

Let’s not forget to levy a charge of hate crimes once the nice police officer Baghdad Bob called in starts asking questions, right?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Couldn’t care less whether or not Article 13 passes.

You seem to have a delirious glee in posting about your belief that it will pass.

The police, should they choose

A year of said police doing fuck all suggests that they chose not to.

You, on the other hand, chose to remain anonymous.

You have yourself to blame for the fuck all the police cares for you.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

“Couldn’t care less whether or not Article 13 passes.”

Ahahahaha, bro all you do is make impotent threats and talk about how article 13 will wipe out those filthy pirates. You can’t even keep your lies straight.

“The police, should they choose, now have a level of probable cause they did not before.”

Well it is true you threatened to rape a guy, so yeah. But I’m pretty sure the police are aware of what an impotent old liar you are, so they’d probably just treat it as protected opinion as you have no actual way to carry out said threat.

AFK says:

My few words: Article 11 causes giving references to be punishable by law, and that is really bad idea only because references are one the easiest ways to confirm/ learn more about article/ news credibility.

Article 13 on the other hand is attempt to create worldwide masscensorshipmachine because Your leaders with the little help from lobbyist refuse to think of the consequenses of that action.
And that causes proper Blackout.

Had to check that I dont get profits/ gifts from VPN- providers before writing that…

Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re: Astroturf

"The astroturfing is strong in this article. Better get the industrial heater out to kill it off."

Yeah, the copyright troll(s) are out in force over this one. Assuming we can count Baghdad Bob and all his assorted sock puppets as a multiple. I honestly don’t see why not given the schizophrenic way he often undercuts the same logic he painstakingly presented three posts earlier.

That One Guy (profile) says:

'If you're only there to screw me over...'

I have no idea if these kinds of protests will be as effective as the blackday back during the SOPA fight, but I can say that Article 13 will be way worse for the internet than SOPA ever would have been.

Making a large, public demonstration(or many) of how unhappy the public is with the EU trying to screw them over is a good start(and nicely exposes the politicians who tried to dismiss it as nothing but ‘bots’ as liars and/or deluded), but I think the best weapon will be a promise of returning the favor. Make clear that anyone voting for it will be voted against in any and all future elections, whether or not Articles 11/13 passes. Make clear that that vote will have the potential to decide all future votes for everyone involved, and that the wrong choice will result in consequences and I suspect that at least a few of the politicians involved will fold to public pressure, hopefully enough to scuttle the train-wreck.

TFG says:

A public service

When the protests go live, I will raise a toast to John Sanford Smith and his buddies out_of_the_blue and Hamilton, for their public service of demonstrating exactly what kind of person actually supports this article.

I imagine they’ve done quite a bit to convince people that it’s a bad, bad idea, and I salute their service to the public good.

TFG says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

My favorite part about hiding posts on Techdirt is that literally anyone can see it with a mouse-click.

There’s a fun game to be played: It’s called "guess the content!" When you see a hidden post, try to figure out what was said just from the responses to it. Then, once you have a gist of it, you click on the hidden post to open it up and take a look, and see how close to the mark you are! It makes it worth opening up the flagged post, as otherwise the flagged post just really isn’t worth bothering with 9 times out of 10.

And boy-o, if I can see what was hidden instantly, it ain’t censorship. It’s just a community saying "this was stupid. Read at your own risk."

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

The Bill Of Rights, which includes the first amendment, addresses things the government is not allowed to do. (even tho they ignore it)
It says nothing about what private business is not allowed to do.

Are there any local ordnances which address free speech? If so, do any of them address its applicability to private business?

Seems you are complaining about having to wear a shirt while at the local restaurant.

Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

"Hiding speech is censorship."

When government does it, yes, or when government assists in doing so.

Article 13 and article 11 borderline bona fide censorship.
user input on a private forum? Eh, not so much.

But hey, Baghdad Bob, why am I not surprised to see that this too is a topic of which you know zip and nada.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: 'No one's protesting! I mean it's just bots! I mean...'

Even assuming that was true(and I have no reason to believe it is, as ‘they’re being paid to show up’ strikes me as a desperate ramping up of the ‘only bots are protesting!’ lies from before), one wonders how that stacks up to the ‘donations’ that may or may not have been promised for any politician who votes for it…

Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re:

"Just heard that people are getting emails that offer 50€ to attend the protests."

Oh, wow, so you’ve "heard" that someone’s putting up a few hundred million euro as if it was monopoly money.

Yeah, you know, I’m pretty sure every newspaper in the world would be all over a story like that if it was any kind of true. Hell, if anyone was willing to put up that kind of money they might as well just outright buy the entire EU parliament for the next few terms. that sort of money’s enough to run and win half a dozen US presidential campaigns.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...