Having read the varied and valid points put forward I am wondering if we are making this more difficult than necessary.
At the moment it seems we all trust Ken's judgement on what constitutes a show that would be inappropriate and illegal to distribute, but are concerned that this amounts to a constraint on free speech which, as a general principle, we all support. News organisations like the BBC, CNN, DW, AFP etc don't host hard core porn even though doing so is not illegal in their home jurisdictions. This is not censorship per se. It is based on editorial judgement of what is and is not appropriate to the interests of their target audience. This community is not "Free Public Radio" or "Open Public Radio" - either of which might suggest a free-for-all in terms of who submits shows, their subject and who listens. The "Hacker" label does present a useful boundary for determining what is suitable content for an audience with the interests of hackers before the issue of free speech even arises. In the case of the BBC, etc we never know what items they decide not to host. We could improve considerably on that by offering editorial (or janitorial?) transparency, declaring at the monthly roundup if a show has been pulled and an explanation. If the show in question were promoting terrorism or paedophilia, say, the inappropriateness for a hacker forum would be sufficient reason before the question of legality even arises. If anybody feels that the power of withdrawal is being used too freely then there would be an opportunity to make such misgivings known. Nige LibreOffice - Free and open source office suite: LibreOffice Website<https://www.libreoffice.org> Respects your privacy, and gives you back control over your data ________________________________ From: Hpr <[email protected]> on behalf of Mike Ray <[email protected]> Sent: 09 May 2022 03:32 To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Hpr] Moving a show out ... again IMHO the three strikes rule is unworkable. As Ken suggested, maybe not in so many words, ONE strike could land one or all of the janitors in prison, or fined out of existence. And that is definitely not acceptable as a risk. Even more so for those who provide hosting free of charge. It is not censorship to remove something that would destroy their lives. It is just sensible. The janitors do not owe us any debt of care. And freedom of speech has hard limits. Anybody who thinks it does not is living on cloud cuckoo land. On 08/05/2022 22:58, sp0rus wrote: > The solution seems simple enough. We just make Ken and the other > janitors/hosts/patrons fabulously wealthy so that the law is no longer of > consequence. > > Barring the community implementing that, I'd say that censorship for the > sake of censorship is one thing, but not publishing something that would > land the responsible party in legal hot water is another. > > I feel that Ken and others have acted in good faith in the past and would > likely say they've regularly not agreed with things creators have said on > their shows. The beginnings of HPR were before my time in the community, > but I don't believe Ken or others agreed that they'd take the legal bullets > for creators as part of volunteering to help HPR run. I would be > interested in knowing more of the particulars of how the content of these > shows would be a legal issue for HPR's managers, but from what I've seen of > how things are handled I also have some level of trust that they aren't > blowing smoke when these claims are made. > > I think this three strikes rule has some merit, but is probably worth more > discussion from the community on how exactly it should be worded and > implemented. Since we ask for hosts to self-censor themselves, how would > we make sure we aren't putting shows out that would cause legal troubles > without having some sort of board to listen to them all and vet them? You'd > likely need to have legal counsel to know for sure. It seems like a > possible slippery slope from there to not publishing things because of fear > of reprisals even if it wouldn't actually be illegal. > > That said, I'm fairly certain that in some locales there wouldn't be legal > issues for the publisher of the content, but I'm also not a lawyer and know > that the people who are part of HPR encompass many legal jurisdictions that > likely work in many different ways. I know there have been many debates > regarding US law and platforms vs publishers and who is responsible. > Typically these debates I've seen have been regarding social media. > > The unfortunate reality that I have to remind myself often is that what may > be legal for some people is not going to be for others. Just because you > may be able to legally do something where you are doesn't make it fair to > require those in another jurisdiction to be left holding the bag when the > cops come calling. > > Unfortunately, this is an area (like many) where I don't feel I'm able to > offer any solutions, but would like to say that I appreciate how these > stickier issues tend to be handled by the HPR community and staff. While I > don't know that I've ever seen everyone 100% agree, there's almost always a > level of respect to the discourse that makes me quite proud to have even a > small connection to this community. > > Thank you to all who have made and continue to make HPR what it is. > > sp0rus > > On Sun, May 8, 2022, 4:14 PM Mike Ray <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> >> And having just read the other comments... >> >> Voltaire does not matter when ONE strike would get Ken landed in prison. >> >> As much as we hate it, there are rules about stuff like using >> copyrighted material, or acts of slander or defamation on public media. >> >> The only people who get away with breaking the law repeatedly are either >> Donald Trump or Conservative MPs and ministers. >> >> And they have deep pockets. >> >> >> >> >> On 08/05/2022 22:09, Mike Ray wrote: >>> >>> >>> IMHO any show that contains stuff that might get the janitors into >>> bother legally should be canned. >>> >>> And repeat offenders should be barred. >>> >>> Obviously I don't know about the content. But what I do know is anything >>> like this that I created and which came to the attention of my employers >>> would get me the sack. >>> >>> Mike >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 08/05/2022 19:28, Ken Fallon wrote: >>>> Hi All, >>>> >>>> You may remember >>>> < >> https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fhackerpublicradio.org%2Fpipermail%2Fhpr_hackerpublicradio.org%2F2022-March%2F015174.html&data=05%7C01%7C%7Cd75eda38dc694b48c61a08da31644cf7%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637876604095893034%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=dk3XwSdw1xn0VW8qxq12Mm3DLi6CzkBNQD2wvf1n3dM%3D&reserved=0> >> >>>> that back in March a host submitted a show that we had some problems >>>> with. We didn't go into details at the time as I wanted to give the >>>> host the benefit of the doubt. Suffice to say that were the show >>>> posted, I was looking at a considerable fine and up to a year in >>>> prison. In the end the host got back to us and decided to post it else >>>> where. As it turns out that platform also did not post the content in >>>> my region for the same reasons. >>>> >>>> We now have another show from the same host and it has content that >>>> would bring us other legal issues, as well as violating the terms and >>>> conditions of our hosting providers. The host is not responding to my >>>> emails, presumably they are out camping again. >>>> >>>> While our policy on censorship states "We do not vet, edit, moderate >>>> or in any way censor any of the audio you submit," it continues ",we >>>> trust you to do that >>>> <https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fhackerpublicradio.org%2Fstuff_you_need_to_know.php%23not_moderated&data=05%7C01%7C%7Cd75eda38dc694b48c61a08da31644cf7%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637876604095893034%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=kiNm%2BUEJyKEmKYk%2FpriWsFQZD31lJ94BK3REwq9mch8%3D&reserved=0>." >> >>>> While this host was given the benefit of the doubt the first time, I >>>> feel that by immediately posting another show like this they have >>>> betrayed the trust of the Janitors, Hosting Providers, Patrons, and >>>> the wider HPR community. >>>> >>>> As you can imagine even having the show in the future feed is a bit >>>> risky, but we can not allow it to hit the main feed until the entire >>>> HPR community has had time to decide how to proceed. We will bring >>>> this up on the next community news and allow discussions as to how we >>>> deal with this stuff going forward. Up until now it has not been >>>> necessary but alas apparently now it is. >>>> >>>> So I am once again asking you to allow me to move the problem show out >>>> so the host has time to get back to me. >>>> >>>> FYI: The cc list has been included on all correspondence. >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Hpr mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fhackerpublicradio.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fhpr_hackerpublicradio.org&data=05%7C01%7C%7Cd75eda38dc694b48c61a08da31644cf7%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637876604096048836%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=yCKc0oVYbigDUNgBqLB6WQoCBmQvdNdJTrKt8K6n25I%3D&reserved=0 >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Michael A. Ray >> Software engineer >> Witley, Surrey, South-east UK >> >> He/him/cis >> >> "Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when >> there is nothing left to take away." -- A. de Saint-Exupery >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Hpr mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fhackerpublicradio.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fhpr_hackerpublicradio.org&data=05%7C01%7C%7Cd75eda38dc694b48c61a08da31644cf7%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637876604096048836%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=yCKc0oVYbigDUNgBqLB6WQoCBmQvdNdJTrKt8K6n25I%3D&reserved=0 >> > -- Michael A. Ray Software engineer Witley, Surrey, South-east UK He/him/cis "Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away." -- A. de Saint-Exupery _______________________________________________ Hpr mailing list [email protected] https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fhackerpublicradio.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fhpr_hackerpublicradio.org&data=05%7C01%7C%7Cd75eda38dc694b48c61a08da31644cf7%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637876604096048836%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=yCKc0oVYbigDUNgBqLB6WQoCBmQvdNdJTrKt8K6n25I%3D&reserved=0
_______________________________________________ Hpr mailing list [email protected] http://hackerpublicradio.org/mailman/listinfo/hpr_hackerpublicradio.org
