You can replace Brazil with any other country in the world that implements and enforces such anti-free speech laws, and my reaction would be the same.
But that isn't an anti-free speech law. It's an anti-anonymous free speech law. That is a huge difference. No one should be able to stop you from saying what you want to say. However, if you are trying to say things already established as illegal you shouldn't have the right to hide behind anonymity. If I believe in what I say, my name should be attached to it in some way. Even what I'm writing right now is tied to my email address so if I said something that the authorities should really get involved in (like how a few years ago that dude from Montreal killed someone and chopped him up to eat him), the authorities can do their job. No one has the right to be a coward bully.
But that isn't an anti-free speech law. It's an anti-anonymous free speech law. That is a huge difference. No one should be able to stop you from saying what you want to say. However, if you are trying to say things already established as illegal you shouldn't have the right to hide behind anonymity. If I believe in what I say, my name should be attached to it in some way. Even what I'm writing right now is tied to my email address so if I said something that the authorities should really get involved in (like how a few years ago that dude from Montreal killed someone and chopped him up to eat him), the authorities can do their job. No one has the right to be a coward bully.
Anti-anonymous free speech laws are a terrible thing.
Anonymity is very important in all truly free societies.
In draconian societies, having such a law, leads to people not being able to freely speak their minds, as people will be intimidated and not come forward, if they can not remain anonymous. Totalitarians will use such laws to attack and harm people if they are forced to identify themselves.
Of course, if somebody is making criminal threats online, then that can be traced back to them, regardless if they're anonymous or not, but banning all anonymity is a sign of a primitive and totalitarian society that is afraid of true free speech.
Many countries have a right to free speech but none of them (as far as I am aware, including the US) protects anonymous speech.
About that...
Originally posted by Supreme Court ruling, McIntyre vs. Ohio Election Commission, 1995.
Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society.
So there’s that.
Originally Posted by websnap
However, if you are trying to say things already established as illegal you shouldn't have the right to hide behind anonymity.
"...violate the law by allowing anonymous freedom of expression that infringes on human rights."
Easy excuse for Brazil to make sure they can track every comment made by every person. I don't believe in bullying but I feel Brazil is using bullying as an excuse to stomp on a person's right to submit comments anonymously, especially when challenging a government's illegal activities. Wait, I guess Brazil's citizens don't have that right so if they want to voice their dissension they have to take a chance and use their real name.
As far as I know, people in Brazil are allowed to go to Internet discussion forums and register with a throw away email and a fake name then voice their opinion anonymously just like people do here. In reality, the Brazil court ruling is meaningless until they start blocking the Internet.
Anti-anonymous free speech laws are a terrible thing.
Anonymity is very important in all truly free societies.
In draconian societies, having such a law, leads to people not being able to freely speak their minds, as people will be intimidated and not come forward, if they can not remain anonymous. Totalitarians will use such laws to attack and harm people if they are forced to identify themselves.
Of course, if somebody is making criminal threats online, then that can be traced back to them, regardless if they're anonymous or not, but banning all anonymity is a sign of a primitive and totalitarian society that is afraid of true free speech.
I guess we disagree there. There are so many people saying some many things online that I don't agree with while using their names and all that means is they are held accountable for it (if someone makes threats, they hare held accountable). Lets not forget for one second that if people can be found out, they will be found out. What is more important is that we fight to continue to make civil discourse legal. People don't have to share my points of view on topics, but as long as I don't get thrown in jail for speaking, I don't need to be anonymous. My voice needs to mean something, if I can't attach my name to it then it means nothing. We shouldn't be fighting to be anonymous, we should be fighting so we don't have to. That's true free speech.
Originally posted by Supreme Court ruling, McIntyre vs. Ohio Election Commission, 1995.
Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society.
To me, anonymity is card blanche to think and act one way, and yet say another. To me, what is vital to democratic discourse is to be allowed to say what you want/need/feel with no fear of persecution from the government. That seems to be the more important ideology to defend and invest in than anonymity. If we defend our right to hold and speak our beliefs, we don't need anonymity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
What about civil disobedience?
There is no free path to Civil Disobedience. Sometimes there are cases when we need to stand up – say the things that need to be said and that are hard to hear for some. Such as demanding equality. Like what's going on in Ferguson. Did MLK aim for anonymity? No he didn't, he put his name and his face out there – got arrested numerous times because what he had to say needed to be heard. If you believe in it and its part of you then put it out there. It will be hard but your words will carry more weight. You may not agree, but to me anonymity is a half measure to achieve free speech because hiding doesn't feel free to me. And if we have to hide to be free then we need to re-evaluate what freedom means and what system we are really protecting.
I have to say I didn't dig into the details here. What mean anonymous? Anonymous like here in this forum? Or on FB? Or anonymous like in everyone who sign up for this app knows about the anonymity and agrees to this; all others who don't sign up cannot even read these anonymous posts? I am just questioning the common sense of that law here
I typed in "Secret" into the search box on iTunes on my Mac. This app is the first one that appears. One does not need to append "Speak Freely" to find this app.
Note that the publisher's website refers to the app as "Secret", not "Secret - Speak Freely".
Sorry, this whole discussion is pathetic because someone mindlessly threw out a useless comment as the first reply.
What the hell mate? Why are you being so rude to me because I pointed out the app is not called "Secret"? I know this as my app is called "Secret", and Apple won't let you register an app with the same name. Why is my comment worthless given I was correcting a mistake?
If you search for "Secret" on the app store you find all apps that have the word "Secret" in them. Same as if you search for something on Google. I searched for "Face" on Google, and Facebook was the first link that came up. That doesn't mean Facebook is called "Face".
There is no need to be rude in your replies. If you don't like the comment, don't reply and read something else.
Was there ever any doubt that Apple wouldn't cave in immediately to assuage the Brazilian government? Once somebody made a stink about the Bitcoin app it was pulled instantly. Just as they have done numerous times Apple will do all it can to avoid standing up for peoples rights. They weren't doing anything regarding government spying until Edward Snowden brought the light of day on NSA activities regarding phones. THEN Apple put its finger in the wind and decided to go with the flow of citizen outrage.
The app is probably published that way probably because there's another app called "Secret" and Apple's App Store administrators dislike multiple apps having the exact same name (not that it doesn't happen).
Note that the app is published by "Secret, Inc." and they describe is as Secret, not "Secret - Speak Freely."
But good for you, you each added to your post count by one. Your AI post counts should be in the tens of millions if you nitpick on a regular basis.
Congratulations on derailing the conversation from post #2. I hope you feel proud of your accomplishment here.
I can feel how hard it is for you to admit you're wrong.
Anti-anonymous free speech laws are a terrible thing.
Anonymity is very important in all truly free societies.
In draconian societies, having such a law, leads to people not being able to freely speak their minds, as people will be intimidated and not come forward, if they can not remain anonymous. Totalitarians will use such laws to attack and harm people if they are forced to identify themselves.
Of course, if somebody is making criminal threats online, then that can be traced back to them, regardless if they're anonymous or not, but banning all anonymity is a sign of a primitive and totalitarian society that is afraid of true free speech.
I guess we disagree there. There are so many people saying some many things online that I don't agree with while using their names and all that means is they are held accountable for it (if someone makes threats, they hare held accountable). Lets not forget for one second that if people can be found out, they will be found out. What is more important is that we fight to continue to make civil discourse legal. People don't have to share my points of view on topics, but as long as I don't get thrown in jail for speaking, I don't need to be anonymous. My voice needs to mean something, if I can't attach my name to it then it means nothing. We shouldn't be fighting to be anonymous, we should be fighting so we don't have to. That's true free speech.
That's peculiarly warped thinking.
I see the internet as a pub - perhaps like a public bar in the States. You're free to go and banter with the locals, but if you don't like the conversation, then you can choose to argue, choose not to go or choose to go somewhere else.
Originally posted by Supreme Court ruling, McIntyre vs. Ohio Election Commission, 1995.
Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society.
To me, anonymity is card blanche to think and act one way, and yet say another. To me, what is vital to democratic discourse is to be allowed to say what you want/need/feel with no fear of persecution from the government. That seems to be the more important ideology to defend and invest in than anonymity. If we defend our right to hold and speak our beliefs, we don't need anonymity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
What about civil disobedience?
There is no free path to Civil Disobedience. Sometimes there are cases when we need to stand up – say the things that need to be said and that are hard to hear for some. Such as demanding equality. Like what's going on in Ferguson. Did MLK aim for anonymity? No he didn't, he put his name and his face out there – got arrested numerous times because what he had to say needed to be heard. If you believe in it and its part of you then put it out there. It will be hard but your words will carry more weight. You may not agree, but to me anonymity is a half measure to achieve free speech because hiding doesn't feel free to me. And if we have to hide to be free then we need to re-evaluate what freedom means and what system we are really protecting.
The problem is that there is no complete freedom and you don't have the choice as to what kind of world you live in. There's more than enough evil today for people to need to shelter behind anonymity. It's a big, bad world.
The problem is that there is no complete freedom and you don't have the choice as to what kind of world you live in. There's more than enough evil today for people to need to shelter behind anonymity. It's a big, bad world.
That's what the Press is for. If you have something that needs to be said and you are afraid to say it, the press can say it for you and protect their sources. If you just want to say things without any of the repercussions of spreading misinformation, threats or just simple bigotry (I speak in general and not to anyone in this thread) I don't see how you should have the right to do that. Also I'm not speaking about the whole world, I'm speaking about the free world where we can have our voices hear vote for laws and those who write them. This cannot be expected of nations who have dictatorships or places where speaking out about the government, large corporations or powerful individuals – but right now if you wanted to speak out about the President using your identity, you can do so and not be thrown in jail. You can speak up against multinational corporations and not have the cops whisk you away in the middle of the night. And if that were to happen, easier to wonder what happened to the person that spoke out and investigate rather than think the anonymous person just stopped typing.
I see the internet as a pub - perhaps like a public bar in the States. You're free to go and banter with the locals, but if you don't like the conversation, then you can choose to argue, choose not to go or choose to go somewhere else.
I guess you are referring to me and that's cool, you are welcome to your opinion.
I'm not sure about the second part (Pub reference) I take it you don't want to continue this discussion. Fair enough.
Hey Apple ][, unfortunatelly this kind of things don't go on news down here in Brazil... Our freedom (the real freedom, not that one that is claimed on the story) is being cutted off bit by bit. Our press just don't show anything that may expose our real situation. And as if it was a new edition of "1984", all is done at plain sight with the excuses of granting our freedom, granting our progress and making our lifes better (when in fact, after 12 years of left-wing party government, the country is poorer, our official currency is loosing all it's steadyness, we do have a government that just controls everything - directly or not - and nothing really works anymore - not to mention that politics are more fraudulent than ever before too). Really a shame... I can assure you that, in Brazil, this is just a minor episode of this kind (there are far worse ones...)
Comments
You can replace Brazil with any other country in the world that implements and enforces such anti-free speech laws, and my reaction would be the same.
But that isn't an anti-free speech law. It's an anti-anonymous free speech law. That is a huge difference. No one should be able to stop you from saying what you want to say. However, if you are trying to say things already established as illegal you shouldn't have the right to hide behind anonymity. If I believe in what I say, my name should be attached to it in some way. Even what I'm writing right now is tied to my email address so if I said something that the authorities should really get involved in (like how a few years ago that dude from Montreal killed someone and chopped him up to eat him), the authorities can do their job. No one has the right to be a coward bully.
But that isn't an anti-free speech law. It's an anti-anonymous free speech law. That is a huge difference. No one should be able to stop you from saying what you want to say. However, if you are trying to say things already established as illegal you shouldn't have the right to hide behind anonymity. If I believe in what I say, my name should be attached to it in some way. Even what I'm writing right now is tied to my email address so if I said something that the authorities should really get involved in (like how a few years ago that dude from Montreal killed someone and chopped him up to eat him), the authorities can do their job. No one has the right to be a coward bully.
Anti-anonymous free speech laws are a terrible thing.
Anonymity is very important in all truly free societies.
In draconian societies, having such a law, leads to people not being able to freely speak their minds, as people will be intimidated and not come forward, if they can not remain anonymous. Totalitarians will use such laws to attack and harm people if they are forced to identify themselves.
Of course, if somebody is making criminal threats online, then that can be traced back to them, regardless if they're anonymous or not, but banning all anonymity is a sign of a primitive and totalitarian society that is afraid of true free speech.
About that...
So there’s that.
What about civil disobedience?
1 more post count for me!
I will file this under who gives a sh*t.
1 more post count for me!
I have to agree. I took a look at their Twitter feed page. Mostly juvenile/adolescent stuff."...violate the law by allowing anonymous freedom of expression that infringes on human rights."
Easy excuse for Brazil to make sure they can track every comment made by every person. I don't believe in bullying but I feel Brazil is using bullying as an excuse to stomp on a person's right to submit comments anonymously, especially when challenging a government's illegal activities. Wait, I guess Brazil's citizens don't have that right so if they want to voice their dissension they have to take a chance and use their real name.
As far as I know, people in Brazil are allowed to go to Internet discussion forums and register with a throw away email and a fake name then voice their opinion anonymously just like people do here. In reality, the Brazil court ruling is meaningless until they start blocking the Internet.
Anti-anonymous free speech laws are a terrible thing.
Anonymity is very important in all truly free societies.
In draconian societies, having such a law, leads to people not being able to freely speak their minds, as people will be intimidated and not come forward, if they can not remain anonymous. Totalitarians will use such laws to attack and harm people if they are forced to identify themselves.
Of course, if somebody is making criminal threats online, then that can be traced back to them, regardless if they're anonymous or not, but banning all anonymity is a sign of a primitive and totalitarian society that is afraid of true free speech.
I guess we disagree there. There are so many people saying some many things online that I don't agree with while using their names and all that means is they are held accountable for it (if someone makes threats, they hare held accountable). Lets not forget for one second that if people can be found out, they will be found out. What is more important is that we fight to continue to make civil discourse legal. People don't have to share my points of view on topics, but as long as I don't get thrown in jail for speaking, I don't need to be anonymous. My voice needs to mean something, if I can't attach my name to it then it means nothing. We shouldn't be fighting to be anonymous, we should be fighting so we don't have to. That's true free speech.
To me, anonymity is card blanche to think and act one way, and yet say another. To me, what is vital to democratic discourse is to be allowed to say what you want/need/feel with no fear of persecution from the government. That seems to be the more important ideology to defend and invest in than anonymity. If we defend our right to hold and speak our beliefs, we don't need anonymity.
What about civil disobedience?
There is no free path to Civil Disobedience. Sometimes there are cases when we need to stand up – say the things that need to be said and that are hard to hear for some. Such as demanding equality. Like what's going on in Ferguson. Did MLK aim for anonymity? No he didn't, he put his name and his face out there – got arrested numerous times because what he had to say needed to be heard. If you believe in it and its part of you then put it out there. It will be hard but your words will carry more weight. You may not agree, but to me anonymity is a half measure to achieve free speech because hiding doesn't feel free to me. And if we have to hide to be free then we need to re-evaluate what freedom means and what system we are really protecting.
It’s illegal to be anonymous in Brazil.
Or it is illegal to be? ;-)
I have to say I didn't dig into the details here. What mean anonymous? Anonymous like here in this forum? Or on FB? Or anonymous like in everyone who sign up for this app knows about the anonymity and agrees to this; all others who don't sign up cannot even read these anonymous posts? I am just questioning the common sense of that law here
I typed in "Secret" into the search box on iTunes on my Mac. This app is the first one that appears. One does not need to append "Speak Freely" to find this app.
Note that the publisher's website refers to the app as "Secret", not "Secret - Speak Freely".
Sorry, this whole discussion is pathetic because someone mindlessly threw out a useless comment as the first reply.
What the hell mate? Why are you being so rude to me because I pointed out the app is not called "Secret"? I know this as my app is called "Secret", and Apple won't let you register an app with the same name. Why is my comment worthless given I was correcting a mistake?
If you search for "Secret" on the app store you find all apps that have the word "Secret" in them. Same as if you search for something on Google. I searched for "Face" on Google, and Facebook was the first link that came up. That doesn't mean Facebook is called "Face".
There is no need to be rude in your replies. If you don't like the comment, don't reply and read something else.
Was there ever any doubt that Apple wouldn't cave in immediately to assuage the Brazilian government? Once somebody made a stink about the Bitcoin app it was pulled instantly. Just as they have done numerous times Apple will do all it can to avoid standing up for peoples rights. They weren't doing anything regarding government spying until Edward Snowden brought the light of day on NSA activities regarding phones. THEN Apple put its finger in the wind and decided to go with the flow of citizen outrage.
Wow, you two are AR compulsive neurotic dudes.
The app is probably published that way probably because there's another app called "Secret" and Apple's App Store administrators dislike multiple apps having the exact same name (not that it doesn't happen).
Note that the app is published by "Secret, Inc." and they describe is as Secret, not "Secret - Speak Freely."
But good for you, you each added to your post count by one. Your AI post counts should be in the tens of millions if you nitpick on a regular basis.
Congratulations on derailing the conversation from post #2. I hope you feel proud of your accomplishment here.
I can feel how hard it is for you to admit you're wrong.
Anti-anonymous free speech laws are a terrible thing.
Anonymity is very important in all truly free societies.
In draconian societies, having such a law, leads to people not being able to freely speak their minds, as people will be intimidated and not come forward, if they can not remain anonymous. Totalitarians will use such laws to attack and harm people if they are forced to identify themselves.
Of course, if somebody is making criminal threats online, then that can be traced back to them, regardless if they're anonymous or not, but banning all anonymity is a sign of a primitive and totalitarian society that is afraid of true free speech.
I guess we disagree there. There are so many people saying some many things online that I don't agree with while using their names and all that means is they are held accountable for it (if someone makes threats, they hare held accountable). Lets not forget for one second that if people can be found out, they will be found out. What is more important is that we fight to continue to make civil discourse legal. People don't have to share my points of view on topics, but as long as I don't get thrown in jail for speaking, I don't need to be anonymous. My voice needs to mean something, if I can't attach my name to it then it means nothing. We shouldn't be fighting to be anonymous, we should be fighting so we don't have to. That's true free speech.
That's peculiarly warped thinking.
I see the internet as a pub - perhaps like a public bar in the States. You're free to go and banter with the locals, but if you don't like the conversation, then you can choose to argue, choose not to go or choose to go somewhere else.
To me, anonymity is card blanche to think and act one way, and yet say another. To me, what is vital to democratic discourse is to be allowed to say what you want/need/feel with no fear of persecution from the government. That seems to be the more important ideology to defend and invest in than anonymity. If we defend our right to hold and speak our beliefs, we don't need anonymity.
What about civil disobedience?
There is no free path to Civil Disobedience. Sometimes there are cases when we need to stand up – say the things that need to be said and that are hard to hear for some. Such as demanding equality. Like what's going on in Ferguson. Did MLK aim for anonymity? No he didn't, he put his name and his face out there – got arrested numerous times because what he had to say needed to be heard. If you believe in it and its part of you then put it out there. It will be hard but your words will carry more weight. You may not agree, but to me anonymity is a half measure to achieve free speech because hiding doesn't feel free to me. And if we have to hide to be free then we need to re-evaluate what freedom means and what system we are really protecting.
The problem is that there is no complete freedom and you don't have the choice as to what kind of world you live in. There's more than enough evil today for people to need to shelter behind anonymity. It's a big, bad world.
The problem is that there is no complete freedom and you don't have the choice as to what kind of world you live in. There's more than enough evil today for people to need to shelter behind anonymity. It's a big, bad world.
That's what the Press is for. If you have something that needs to be said and you are afraid to say it, the press can say it for you and protect their sources. If you just want to say things without any of the repercussions of spreading misinformation, threats or just simple bigotry (I speak in general and not to anyone in this thread) I don't see how you should have the right to do that. Also I'm not speaking about the whole world, I'm speaking about the free world where we can have our voices hear vote for laws and those who write them. This cannot be expected of nations who have dictatorships or places where speaking out about the government, large corporations or powerful individuals – but right now if you wanted to speak out about the President using your identity, you can do so and not be thrown in jail. You can speak up against multinational corporations and not have the cops whisk you away in the middle of the night. And if that were to happen, easier to wonder what happened to the person that spoke out and investigate rather than think the anonymous person just stopped typing.
That's peculiarly warped thinking.
I see the internet as a pub - perhaps like a public bar in the States. You're free to go and banter with the locals, but if you don't like the conversation, then you can choose to argue, choose not to go or choose to go somewhere else.
I guess you are referring to me and that's cool, you are welcome to your opinion.
I'm not sure about the second part (Pub reference) I take it you don't want to continue this discussion. Fair enough.
Hey Apple ][, unfortunatelly this kind of things don't go on news down here in Brazil... Our freedom (the real freedom, not that one that is claimed on the story) is being cutted off bit by bit. Our press just don't show anything that may expose our real situation. And as if it was a new edition of "1984", all is done at plain sight with the excuses of granting our freedom, granting our progress and making our lifes better (when in fact, after 12 years of left-wing party government, the country is poorer, our official currency is loosing all it's steadyness, we do have a government that just controls everything - directly or not - and nothing really works anymore - not to mention that politics are more fraudulent than ever before too). Really a shame... I can assure you that, in Brazil, this is just a minor episode of this kind (there are far worse ones...)