• 3 Posts
  • 81 Comments
Joined 4 months ago
cake
Cake day: May 20th, 2024

help-circle

  • Some context from a mod at /r/law

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/brandenburg_test

    Selected Applications of the Brandenburg Test The Supreme Court in Hess v. Indiana (1973) applied the Brandenburg test to a case in which Gregory Hess, an Indiana University protester, said, “We’ll take the fucking street later (or again)." The Supreme Court ruled that Hess’s profanity was protected under the Brandenburg test, as the speech “amounted to nothing more than advocacy of illegal action at some indefinite future time.” The Court held that “since there was no evidence, or rational inference from the import of the language, that his words were intended to produce, and likely to produce, imminent disorder, those words could not be punished by the State on the ground that they had a ‘tendency to lead to violence.’”

    In NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co.(1982), Charles Evers threatened violence against those who refused to boycott white businesses. The Supreme Court applied the Brandenburg test and found that the speech was protected: “Strong and effective extemporaneous rhetoric cannot be nicely channeled in purely dulcet phrases. An advocate must be free to stimulate his audience with spontaneous and emotional appeals for unity and action in a common cause. When such appeals do not incite lawless action, they must be regarded as protected speech.”

    Brandenburg Test:

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/brandenburg_test

    The test determined that the government may prohibit speech advocating the use of force or crime if the speech satisfies both elements of the two-part test:

    The speech is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action,” AND

    The speech is “likely to incite or produce such action.”















  • They weren’t almost shut down by PayPal. Their account was frozen for a short period of time while PayPal figured out who the hell they were and why tens of thousands of dollars were being sent their way during the crowdfunding campaign. PayPal did their due diligence and then unfroze the account. Completely normal.

    If wallet was really about keeping Proton safe from banks/PayPal messing with payments then why did they wait almost a decade? It doesn’t make sense to me.


  • I’ve only had time to listen to the first 10ish minutes. I can follow his reasoning but I just don’t buy it. If payment options outside normal channels were so important why did they wait almost a decade? The framing of the issue with PayPal feels disingenuous too because there is/was a lot of crowd funding fraud. PayPal asked legitimate questions about the nature of the campaign and then quickly unlocked the account.

    It also feels disingenuous because it’s not like Proton is going to ignore the laws. If a government legally asks for information they will turn it over. The same is true for money. So if Proton is in a position where banks are shutting down payments Proton has bigger problems. In fact, creating a wallet is going to cause more headaches for all Proton users. It already has a reputation as being used by bad actors and that belief* is being reinforced by having a built* in bitcoin wallet.


  • It feels like Proton has lost touch with reality. Their core products are stagnant and unpolished while they keep adding new services. Then they add a Bitcoin wallet and start cracking jokes about shitcoins. When there’s backlash from paying users, their volunteer mods demand civility, ie stop criticizing Proton.

    I’m probably not going to leave Proton any time soon because the move from Google products was exhausting. But I have completely lost faith in the company and am on the lookout for an alternative.