Slashdot Mirror
Council of Europe Pushes Net Hate-Speech Ban
omnirealm writes: "The N.Y. Times is reporting that the 43-nation Council of Europe is trying to ban racist and hate speech from the Internet by adding a protocol, or side agreement, to its cybercrime convention, which was stamped for ratification on Thursday."
I believe that any form of censorship, and yes folks, this is censorship is wrong. Now I do not and never will condone ignorant and/or hateful speech, but even Europe should learn that in order to maintain a free society, a government should allow freedom of speech, even if that speech is not touchy-feely. Remember, even the idiots have the fundamental right to free speech!
I hate sigs.
There's a very real danger of conventions like this to grow into a "meta-government" only within reach of lobbyists, especially if additional meta-government enforcement measures are provided, e.g. through the WTO in the case of certain WIPO treaties. But in this specific case, as in the Hague Convention, it should be possible for Europeans to lobby effectively against blatant violations of free speech and new privacy-violationg laws on a national level. Just don't be fooled by politicians telling you that they have to obey "international treaties". Tell them what you think these treaties, signed without any prior democratic discourse whatsoever, are really worth.
In France for example, you can easily go to jail if you say anything about the Jews : for example, if your opinion is that most banking establishments are run by Jews and you voice it publicly, you open yourself to antisemitic lawsuits against you, and most likely lost by you as well. That opinion isn't particularly antisemitic, and is frankly quite dumb (IMHO), but it's your right to have it. Just don't say it otherwise you could be in trouble.
If the same laws were even proposed in the U.S., people would scream bloody murder, and it's good. But in Europe, things like that happen all the time and people don't even notice.
So, what is surprising here ? nothing. This is a piece of non-news (for Europeans) reported by the US-centric Slashdot team. It's exactly like the Nazi memorabilia ban France tried to impose on Yahoo.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
I have two parts in response to this question. Here we go.
In specific reply to your question, if you were directly criticizing one or a subset of Muslims [those supporting/advocating female circumcision] for the practice, this would not be racism in the true sense. If you were criticizing the faith as a whole for the practice (when clearly the vast majority of Muslims do not support it), this *would* taking racist actions.
Unfortunately, given the nature of the proposal, even using "harsh language" containing anything resembling a racist slur would be considered "hate speech", no matter the intended target. This is where the core issue really lies, in the ability of a person to criticize freely the actions of another person or group of people based on specific criteria.
Furthermore, as much as I may dislike racist thought in general, it must be maintained that people are allowed to express themselves in this manner if they desire to. I may not like what people say, but I am compelled to defend their right to say it.
Just my thoughts on the matter. Thank you for your post!
Read that bold part again. Apparently, the author of this post abhors censorship of unwelcome ideas if his opponents are doing it, but encourages those with whom he agrees to censor all they want.
And that, my friends, is what's wrong. Everybody "knows" what content is "wrong" -- but no two people agree on the cut. So, for the safety of our right to self-expression, we must make the distasteful but necessary choice to allow all speech, even that which we know to be false and vicious. To do otherwise is to become as bad as our enemies, as the quote above vividly demonstrates.
When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a skull.
Wow, are you misguided.
First, if governments decide what constitutes acceptable speech it makes situations like Nazi Germany MORE likely. An honest debate is more constructive than government thought-control.
Do you think that "another Hitler" is more likely somewhere where Mein Kampf is studied, or banned? If you believe it is the latter, you haven't studied your history.
Finally, you cite a LOT of criminal activity. The laws against those activities haven't stopped the perpetrators. Why will they suddenly obey this one? Or will only the law-abiding be hurt? (Yes, a precedent that the government is the ultimate authority on what one may say will hurt them.)
I'm sure many of you who are subjects (or wish to be) will not understand.
-Peter
Hitler's autobiography Mein Kampf (My Struggle) remains banned in Germany.
Who is this Hitler person? I tried to look up his autobiography (Mein Kampf) to find out, but my searches just keep returning something about "access forbidden". Hold on a sec, someone's banging on the door so hard it sounds like they're about to break it down! I'll be right ba...
Apparently, the author of this post abhors censorship of unwelcome ideas if his opponents are doing it...
I could try to explain the difference between:
1. Banning propaganda solely intended to cause the breakdown and destruction of a democratic system, and spreading of hate
2. Banning things you disagree with.
The things being banned are the former. Material that is intended to incite people into overthrowing a democratic system. It's not that I disagree with it (I do), it's securing everything that allows us to be the way we are.
There's no irony. It's very sad that people don't seem to understand that. Sure, Hitler burned books and imprisoned/killed people who disagreed with him. The fundamental difference is that he wanted to take away everybody's rights; the reason hate speech is being banned is because it's trying to replicate the situation in which everybody's rights would be taken away.
Alex T-B
St Andrews
Censorship is one of those weapons which it is simply too dangerous to give to any power. It is far too easy to abuse, for too little real benefit. If you ban Nazi propaganda on the net, do you really imagine that people won't find it elsewhere, or even on now-illegal web sites outside the reach of European authorities? If anything, you'll add to the feeling of persecution and solidarity against attack that helps groups cohere and grow.
The only productive way to fight information is with more information, not less. If you disagree with right-wing propaganda, then start cranking out left-wing propaganda, or attention-grabbing critiques of right-wing propaganda. Do you truly believe that the only way to protect your teenagers is to keep them ignorant? Let them see and choose. Provide guidance and put all the facts out there. Give them alternatives.
When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a skull.
While I don't doubt this is well-intentoned, it must not be allowed to happen.
If all people are to be held equal before the law, then all human thought must also be held equal before the law, because it is thought which truly makes us human. And if that is true, then all human speech must also be held equal before the law, because it is via speech that ideas are formed and propagated. Even the right to say things as reprehensible as hate speech must be held as absolute and sacrosanct.
The reason for this is simple: no one person knows the absolute truth. Not just about morality, but about basically anything (even sciense; Heisenberg showed that with his Uncertainty Principle). And yes, I include myself in this. It is only at some point in between all the differing viewpoints that the truth can ever be found. Start disallowing thoughts of any type, and you permanently cripple humanity's ability to seek truth. This is a far greater crime against humanity than any hate speech could ever be.
Trying to eliminate racism is an honorable goal. But this must be achieved through education, not legislation. Yeah, it's not as efficient. But it doesn't limit the human mind, and that is what makes it ethical.
Experience.
All freedoms flow from and depend on the freedom of conscience, the freedom to think, the freedom to hold opinions and to express them. It is that which most clearly makes us human and it is that which so overwhelmingly adds value to life. It is not too far off to say it is freedom of thought and expression that is the point of human life.
History makes clear that there will always be people holding vile, noisome opinions; people who need to blame ill-defined "others" for their hardships; people who feel compelled to spread villiany and hatred. But history also shows that the best incoluation against these virulent strains of political bile is free and open debate on them.
Censorship of any form allows -- virtually begs for -- broader and broader censorship. It constrains the universe of discourse and a priori cuts off lines of thought and exploration. It reduces the material available to thinking citizens.
Free speech is an expression of faith in the public. Ask yourself: Would you like someone else -- someone who, perhaps, disagrees with everything you believe -- given the power to decide what you can say or think? If you don't want others having that power over you, how can you ask it for yourself?
"But my opinions are right and true," you might reply. Wonderful. If that's truly so, then their rightness and trueness should be apparent to those who hear them. In which case, the right and the true will drive out the false and wicked, because the former will prove more robust and more attractive. A dedication to free speech is a statement of faith that the good and the true are intrinsically appealing to an informed public; that given equal footing, the good and the true will triumph because the public can be relied upon to choose them when presented with all the alternatives.
All moves to restrict speech based on content betray a fundamental disdain for the people so loudly championed. All such moves express a derision of one's fellow citizens. " I know best; I must must be listened to; I must be obeyed." How small a step from protecting the public to controlling it! How small a step from laws banning fascist thought to laws enacting it.
The awful irony here is, people are eager to fight a despicable enemy by becoming the despicable enemy...
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
While the US does have the 1st amendment there is much to say for the claim that there is less free speech in the US than in many other countries.
US TV is phemonmenally bland, there is also a marked lack of decent media to really question goverment and business. What has been built up is a system where it is okay for someone to stand up on national TV and say "Evolution is rubbish" but someone who stands up and says "God doesn't exist" is liable to get lynched.
The US has one of the most terrible self-censorship mechanisms in place on planet earth. Examples of this are demonstrated above. Most people in the US have no clue about the laws of other countries, and don't attempt to find out. You can't "easily" go to prison for saying anything about Jews. For godsake if you knew anything about French politics you'd know they have a real problem with racism with the Front Nationale who polled 15% of the vote a few years ago.
Now as to the idea that the US would scream bloody murder if the same laws are applied... take scientific bigotry there are States in the US (esp Kansas) where Evolution isn't accepted. No one in Europe would have a _chance_ of getting that even close to being approved, they'd be laughed at so hard and then locked in the nut house.
The self-censorship applied by the US media and US citizens is quite stunning, opinions voiced about "Global Terrorism" from the country that supported Pinochet, the IRA, Contra rebels etc etc. The country of the McCarthy Witch Hunt. The country of DMCA.
In other countries people fight for freedom, the US clings to the 1st ammendment as if it solves the need to fight.
In the UK if a policeman pulls me over I do not have to be carrying my driving license, or any other identification, I do not have to give my identity. Sure he can then take me into custody on suspicion... but it is not a crime to not say who you are. Do you have the same freedom ?
In France if a company wishes to close down they must first discuss it with their employees, do you have such power over your life ?
In the Netherlands you can smoke cannabis for your own personal enjoyment, do you have such Freedom.
The last 3 prime ministers in the UK have been a middle class lad turned new Labour (Tony Blair), the son of a bloke who worked in a circus and who was an accountant and very working class who led the conservative party (John Major) and the daughter of a grocer who got a degree in Chemistry and led the Conservative party in 3 successive election victories. Working class, middle class, upper class, man or woman and no-one cares about religon... all have led the UK. Do you have such equality.
Freedom is education.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
Try threatening the president.
Fact is hate sites should be monitored, any site which threatens anyone should be taken down.
Non violent hate sites can stay up but they should all be monitored.
kiddie porn sites too, people who subscribe to these kiddie porn sites should be arrested, and kiddie porn sites which profit should be illegal, but you cannot legally stop the free trade of information on the internet.
So that means you cannot stop mp3s, hate sites or kiddie porn, this all must be legal to have true freedom, it should be legal, but there should be concequences if you try to profit from it, or if you get caught downloading it.
Napster should be legal, but hey if you use napster ot pirate mp3s, thats your problem, and if you use morpheus to get kiddie porn, and someone monitors you and reports you, that is your problem.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac