[pif]

> From a procedural standpoint, that is democracy.

Actually, that is democracy, full stop!

Elected representatives vote new laws, and people react according to their interest.

with a pinch of smark, I dare to add:

1. civilised people know that a compromise between personal freedom and societal good has to be defined; discussions have been going for ages concerning where the limit should be, not about whether it should exist.

2. you don't need to be that smart to realize that private remote communications did hardly exist before modern technology; as such, bashing any such law as if was infringing on human rights is ridiculous at best.

[SR2Z]

As an American, I know that right now my words ring hollow - but the European approach to free speech (especially as it's handled in the UK) is incredibly alarming and off-putting.

We should all be tolerant societies, and the problem with tolerance is that you never have to tolerate speech you like.

"Private remote communications" like sending a letter have been around forever. The right of citizens to privacy is enshrined in the constitution of virtually every democracy. Sure there are some allowances that have to be made for common law vs civil law regimes, but if the right to privacy is routinely being violated that is a problem.

[GJim]

> the European approach to free speech (especially as it's handled in the UK) is incredibly alarming and off-putting.

We do have free speech in Blighty thank you very much. Unlike the current situation in the USA, where speaking out to, or disagreeing with, the president will get you removed from positions of authority (and/or confronting armed police).

If you haven't already gathered, such bogus claims of free speech restrictions in other countries are distracting you from the reality of what is happening in your own country.

[pif]

> "Private remote communications" like sending a letter have been around forever.

Yes, but it was never more private than the law decided for. Any judge could lawfully have the police tear the envelope apart and read the contents during an investigations. In this sense, the only private communication that ever existed was from mouth to ear.

Today's technology enables actual privacy any anonimity online, and any good and bad deeds can be hidden behind the screen, and nobody should be offended, nor surprised, that civilised societies may want to have a say in the matter.

[jMyles]

> hardly exist before modern technology

Do rights only exist to protect the human condition as we suppose it was "before modern technology"?

[betaby]

> discussions have been going for ages concerning where the limit should be

I don't remember any discussions about that. It's always a statement 'to protect the children' or 'fight piracy'.

[pif]

> It's always a statement 'to protect the children' or 'fight piracy'

Both of which make a lot of sense.

And the contrarian view is always expressed as a matter of "privacy", as if remote privacy had ever existed before a couple decades ago.

Laws must be discussed based on their intentions and their expected result. Inventing dogmas doesn't help societal advancement.