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."

Comments

How relevant?

[Eloquence]

First, although it may seem like it, the COE has nothing to do with the European Union. The "Cybercrime Convention" has received some attention, but I hope that it is not as relevant as people claim it is. Similar to other such international treaties, signatory nations can basically disregard certain provisions or all of it without any further effect. That means that the battle against some of this specific convention's provisions mostly needs to be fought on a national level, although it would of course be better if these things were not ratified in the first place.

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.

Re:Free speech? There's a difference.

[isomeme]

The irony would be amusing were this subject not so important.

To all of those people - will you please not talk about things you don't understand? It's very easy to talk about freedom of speech whilst being very far away from the real issues, posting comfortably over your DSL link. Right here, right now, teenagers are being seduced into neo-fascist ideological groups every day. In France alone, there are local governments which have started banning books and newspapers that oppose them; Germany saw hundreds of attacks on blacks and non-Germans, with many of them dying in the attacks. [my emphasis]

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.

Re:Going too far.

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

Does a community have a right to protect itself from being harmed?

Indeed. And the most grevious harm that can be done to a community through speech is the repression of any of it. Only if all people are free to speak their minds on all topics, without prior restraint or fear of governmental retribution, is a nation free. The lesson drawn from history is that any restraint of speech based on content, no matter how well-intentioned, is corrosive to the freedom of the people involved.

The belief in absolute free speech, even for nazis, is not fundamental at all, in fact only America has these laws.

Not entirely true -- Canada has similar guarantees, as does Australia, I believe -- but the poster is right on one count: Only in the United States has this ptinciple been raised to an absolute. Through either foresight or a beneficial quirk of history, in the States, this right is enshrined in the First Amendment: with connotations not just of "earliest" but also "primary".

Its interesting that in the good old US of A slander and talking about trade secrets, which are both designed to protect the rich elite, are considered a crime, whilst advocating the repression and murder of jews, blacks, and other minorities is "free speech".

The trade secret laws deal with speech not as speech but as theft of property. One can argue that ideas cannot be property -- I do -- but the restraint of discussion of trade secrets is not based on the content of the secrets but on the fact of their secrecy (and economic worth). That's why it's legal to distrubte trade "secrets" that are publicly available elsewhere.

Likewise the laws on slander deal not with the content of the slander but on the veracity. Uniquely in the United States (I believe), winning a slander or libel case requires demonstration that the statement made was untrue, not merely that it was "harmful". That bar is much higher than in any other nation in the world. Why? Because courts have ruled that slander and libel suits all too easily chill the exercise of free speech, and that the nation has an interest in protecting the dessimination of true information. Informtation that is demonstrably untrue has less social value and can be actionable... but the presumption is, more discussion is better.

Here's a lesson too often left unlearned in "free" countires (sadly, including too much of the USA): Freedom is hard. That's why it's so rare in hisotry. Freedom means putting up with people with whom you disagree, people who set your teeth on edge, people who violate your most cherished beliefs. Freedom means offering to others all the rights you expect for yourself, and more. Freedom means allowing the possibility, no matter how remote, that you are wrong on something. Further, it means accepting that even if you are right and someone else is wrong, that person has the right to live his/her life as he/she sees fit.

Popular causes need no protection. Majority opinions need no guarantee. You don't have to defend the likable speaker or the "acceptable" speech in court, because the wheels of democracy make sure that popular, majority opinions don't end up in court. Always, you must defned the least likable, least appetizing opinions, for they are the ones most liable to restriction; they are the entry points through ignorance and repression will seep into a free society.

It is nothing, nothing to support the free speech of the people with whom you agree. The rubber really meets the road when you defend the people with whom you most vehemently disagree.

I have more faith in humanity than people who want to censor "hate speech" or "racist speech". I believe that if the facts are presented clearly and forcefully to the average Joe/Jane, he/she will choose the right way. So, if there's racist speech out there, counter it through speech of your own. Don't force your opponents to shut up; speak more loudly and more clearly than they. Of course, that takes work, skill, and dedication. And that's hard, so the human tendency is to seek the easy way out, to restrict a priori speech with which you disagree.

You know what? It does take effort, skill, and determination. Find a way to cope with it, because freedom is hard .

Censorship by stupidity is worse....

[MosesJones]

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.