Olives @olives@qoto.org

It's good when the Ninth Circuit stands up for the First Amendment.

Sticking on words like "feminism" doesn't make what they have to say any more valid.
QT: https://qoto.org/@olives/112971743060440353

If someone does nothing but show up to far right conferences, promote far right figures, take far right claims at face value and adopt far right positions, engage in harassment, and make a big point about not criticizing the far right, I am going to assume that org is far right.

To be clear, the point that I made about cannabis was making a general point about governments (and how someone shouldn't necessarily expect them to be rational), it wasn't really intended as a great example of an argument for it.

Other than that, they appear to be complaining about strip clubs (performers who are adults). And hey, if that is the profession someone wants to go into, I don't see the issue.

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/business/2024/08/14/companies/us-antitrust-breaking-up-google/ Google might be broken up.

It's important to remember that freedom of expression is multifaceted. Sure, the language of hate speech legislation might be relevant, but it is not the only form of expression which is of interest when looking into how well freedom of expression is protected.

Actually, if it was represented as a report into hate speech legislation, that might be one thing, but it was branded as some sort of report into the "state of free expression" and which countries care about it more or less.

Imagine someone writes a 500 page report about censorship around the world and it is all about legislation to do with incitement of violence and hate speech but nothing else (such as sex).

This group's methods are concerning. Cherry-picking individuals, tricking a vendor to say something, and cherry-picking "sad dolls".
QT: https://qoto.org/@olives/112955678485616065

https://qoto.org/@olives/112853953984247398
Since a far right group (it's Australian) appears to be discussing "sex dolls", I briefly cover some science for these here (though, that's not the main point of the post). As pointed out, there is no evidence that it leads to crime.

It remains annoying when a free speech outfit fails to call out the censorship of sex and instead spends their time, in great detail, talking about a hate speech law being over-broad (which, sure, might be problematic but come on).

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.gamelead.punch.boxing.club.fighter
https://www.refused-classification.com/censorship-timelines/game-iarc/
Australia banned a boxing game "Boxing Club 3D". The advisory says it contains "sexual violence", although that appears inaccurate
(even if there was, it shouldn't be grounds for censorship with fictional characters).

According to a review, it's of poor quality, although that isn't relevant to this decision. #auspol #FreeSpeech

In the end, you still need medical science to show that a particular drug (cannabis is a popular cause these days) might not be so harmful, and activists to push against prohibitions for however many years.

This is almost certain to be an issue there as Asian countries usually take a strong stance against drugs.
QT: https://qoto.org/@olives/112952581928959103

Here's another way in which that "just send your critiques to the government" Taiwan idea fails:

Oh, hey, illegal drug user, thank you for writing in to criticize our policies. By the way, you are under arrest.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/08/federal-appeals-court-finds-geofence-warrants-are-categorically-unconstitutional
"In a major decision on Friday, the federal Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that geofence warrants are “categorically prohibited by the #FourthAmendment.”"

"EFF applauds this decision because it is essential that every person feels like they can simply take their cell phone out into the world without the fear that they might end up a criminal suspect because their location data was swept up in open-ended digital dragnet."
#privacy

Taiwan is another country, which unlike the U.K., actually has a written constitution.

"Article 11
The people shall have freedom of speech, teaching, writing, and publication.

Article 12
The people shall have freedom of privacy of correspondence."

I've questioned their commitment to freedom of expression before though.

In light of all that, the end of the ad cartel is good to see.

Also noting that even an "unintentional" act which leads to these outcomes can be troublesome.