Slashdot Mirror
Europe Continues Work on Cybercrime Treaty
Tosta Dojen writes: "I haven't seen this posted yet, but the Council of Europe is proposing a ban on Internet 'Hate Speech'. Fortunately it looks like some intelligent comments are already being made." This is a continuation of the Cybercrime treaty, which we've mentioned before. Wired had a story about this a few days ago.
fp!
fp yeah fp
Though I'd like to take a bat to the head of every nazi.
I don't think it should be legal. Were's the fun in that.
I know I'm going to hell, I'm just trying to get good seats.
This is not right at all. I know that (especially in America) people are afraid of being called a racist more than death itself, but that's beside the point. Every racist should be able to have his opinion, and he should be able to share it with his fellow racists.
The world is headed down a scary path, and this is just one of the early steps...
Send lawyers, guns, and money!
Even assuming it passes, how is such a thing enforcable.
With the advent of p2p, and programs like Peek a Booty and freenet. How could someone even attemt to enforce it?
I think all this would do is to force the large internet isp, and content providers eg: yahoo, excite, google, to either filter their content etc. Or, or what? How the heck would this be enforcable? Do you charge the isp with a crime if someone posts a hate crime on a news server?
We have gone way overboard since post 9-11.
Perhaps we can try to give each other just a little slack, I don't care what you call me, what did my mom used to say? "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words..."
Enjoy your freedom to post while you can, pretty soon you might not have it.
Banning hate speech from the internet won't be anything new. In many European countries (at the very least Sweden and Germany) hate speech is already forbidden in ordinary media.
In Sweden people have been prosecuted for hosting nazi homepages so i guess this applies to the internet too in Swedish law.
This, btw, has broad support among the people.
The whole problem is that people are too pragmatic. They are prepared to throw the principles of democracy out the door to try to fix the neo-nazi problem.
Personally I'm all for free speech, I think its great and think that's what the Internet should be filled with. However, it is the speech of which is practised that denounces the freedom of speech granted to others that should be banned. This includes and is not limited to:
Sites which include this (and all its variations and others you can think of) would be the real life equivilant of holding a car rally against driving. You're using the very medium which you are against to deliver the message. In this case individuals utilize freedom of speech to produce hate sites, essentially these sites are attempting to rebuke the freedom of speech from others whom they deem 'unworthy'.
The world is just a big ball of irony, ain't it?
To make a pun demonstrates the highest understanding of a language
I've already seen the f-word embedded in an encoded file. So there's a small chance these encoders can produce hate speech, which must be prevented to comply with this proposed law.
I hope the Council of Europe will make it clear which byte strings are inappropriate. Ideally they should provide an algorithm returning a boolean (and a reference implementation).
Perhaps this whole argument is best summed up by one of my favorite quotes (from none other than George Orwell):
"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear."
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
Let's see, cross border politics and free speech limitation jumping borders? I think another case of Yahoo vs. France will be in order except this time on a scale so much larger than before. Unfortunately this is another case of European moralism being trancendent across borders and the Internet pushing for their stance. How many times will the list of banned items/or free speech be changed to accommodate their subjective restriction lists? Absurd isn't a word that does justice to this kind of narrow visioned policy.
I was going to post anonymously, but I said, fuck it, the most karma i can lose is 2 points. So here goes:
Prevalent on Slashdot is the notion that Europe is somehow superior to the US. I hate to make such a generalization, but it's not true, and things like this lend some creedence to this.
I am a citizen of the United States, so perhaps this post is a manifestation of a major difference between the European point-of-view/thought process and the American, but I cannot see how this is can posibly be a good thing.
it's just another attempt to gain some control/power...
who's gonna decide if it's hate speech or not... really... the EC has daft enough rules as it is (Cheddar cheese has to come from Cheddar and Devonshire teas from Devonshire...)... Soon you'll probably get arrested for having a website saying Pepsi sux.
Nevrar
There are multiple issues I take with this law:
1. Who decides what is hate speech? An argument made by a Palestinian against Jewish occupation, etc. could be easily mis-construed as being anti-semetic. Where's the council, the ruling body? What is defined as "hate speech?" Where's the rubric?
2: Who are you to decide what I can and can't view and decide upon for myself? What if I want to be offended? What if I'm a researcher for the NAACP trying to tear down the argument made by the KKK or some other racist organisation?
3. Shouldn't I be the one to ultimately decide what is hate speech? Laws like this don't just stifle free speech, they stifle my ability to be informed and my ability to make my own decision.
4. Laws like this also stifle personal responsibility. It's like the liberal argument to gun control. If somebody shoots somebody, go after the gun manufacturer. If people cannot control their violent nature and attack/kill somebody after they read something on a website, there's a far greater problem than the proliferation of "hate speech."
5. Allowing laws like this to come into play open's Pandora's box of similar regulations. What's next? Subversive/anti-government speech will be made illegal?
Voltaire said it best: "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
"[T]he single essential element on which all discoveries will be dependent is human freedom." -- Barry Goldwater
Check the TOS of almost every ISP, host, and portal. They all have a cause that you access will be terminated if enough people complain about your content.
Slashdot editors runs censorware on this message board.
European Standards of Political Correctness have become the standard for speech on-line.
In America, we have free speech--bottom line. It is part of what makes our nation great. If Europe wants, fine. Americans don't live in Europe and don't abide by their laws.
To me this seems an attempt at globalizing governments, which would eventually erode our freedoms as Americans by being controlled by one worldwide set of laws. We (as Americans) may not like it, but our voice would only be approximately 300 millions, versus the rest of the world's 5+ billion. I hope our government doesn't return us to our captors.
Wasn't it Voltaire who said, "I may not believe in what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to do so?" (Or something along those lines)
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
Let's see them enforce these European censorship laws. Europe can't even protect itself -- how are they going to enforce anything.
Europe is filled with French that talk tough talk but can't wait to surrender when it comes to a fight, british that are basically a bunch of pompous mediocre cretins, my German brothers that are caught up with self doubt and Socialism, and the others aren't even worth mentioning.
I am glad that I am down here in Argentina where I can send off a politically incorrect post at any moment... I am so scared.
Why not include, say, anti-Americanism (or perhaps "encouraging treason"), or anti-capitalism, etc.
Once you start making lists of things which are unacceptable, it's not too hard to find things sort of similar that might also be included. Quite the slippery slope.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
They're tired of getting righteously slagged every time they turn around.
If this ever becomes law, watch how the anti-European websites start popping up all over the place.
Any attempt at silencing freedom of speech is a BAD idea!
------
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
soon, you wont be able to take a dump without environmental advocates permissions. the boiling frog syndrome is alive and well as we slowly become more and more controlled...
Although almost all of Western Europe has now been a democracy for at least 60 years, with constitutional provisions for the freedom of speech in all democracies (except the UK where the European Treaty on Human Rights serves this purpose), there are strict laws against 'inciting race hatred', which limit free speech w.r.t. open racism etc.
Although the European countries and their laws and practices are quite diverse, there seem to be two main arguments which have lead to the introduction of these laws. The first is practical: Europeans have experience with regimes based on bringing this kind of speech in practice; World War II is still very much a defining moment in the collective history of Europeans. Most democracies were either founded just after the war, or have been re-established with new constitutions after 1945. In this way, anti-nazism and anti-fascism has been one of the primary foundations by which the democratic ideals were established and affirmed. The idea was: never again should a democracy change into a racist totalitarian state, and it's worthwhile to give up that bit of freedom to prevent this from happening again.
The other argument is more philosophical: there seems to be a difference in the basis for the fundamental freedoms and rights between the US and Europe. In the US, these freedoms and rights are seen as 'god-given' (or 'self-evident'), and are seen primarily as a way to protect the citizen against the state. In Europe, the basis for the democratic system with its freedoms is the notion of the right to live in 'human dignity'. This implies that the citizen should not just be protected from the state, but also from people and corporations who try to infringe on 'human dignity'. In this sense, 'inciting race hatred' is seen as more threatening to minorities' right to dignity than the person uttering those 'threats' (remember that Europe has witnessed 'incitement' changing to actual genocide).
You may or may not agree with these laws, but in Europe there seems to be a broad majority in favor of these laws, mainly because of WWII.
I hope my point is still clear in this long rant :-)
Sander
Typical conflict between Code De Napoleon (civil law) practiced in Europe and Anglo-Saxon Common Law, if you don't like curious though then ban it and make illegal, basically the thought-police on speed run by the political class and whatever whims they're guided by at any point in time.
There is no habeas corpus under civil law, something that has been part of common law since 1679. This act infringes on such basic principles there's no chance it would fly in Britain let alone the USA, unless the EU fully dismantles the basic constituents of the British constitution.
France is that ashamed of its collaborative history it bans anything Nazi related in an attempt to bury history, there is no such in Britain and it doesn't seem lead to adverse consequences, extremism is virtually non existent and has no political representation whilst France is often found to be under the influences of the Front Nationale even today in so called civil times. They're free to legistlate on such manners and drag the likes of Yahoo into court, just don't take my country down the plughole with it.
This behind the schemes drafting of law is typical of the EU, only China and North Korea have equivalent closed door policies. The things they are negotiating may be totally benign, but if I'm not allowed to see what my legislative councils are drawing up then what am I meant to think? No thanks, the current EU system of non-transparentcy and corruption is simply non-unacceptable, I prefer Westminister, even with all its faults it is nowhere as secret and infringing as some of the EU controlism.
Stupid laws making the purchase of a pound of bananas (opposed to a kilo) illegal is one thing, but completely benign compared to this totalitarian crap.
If any Americans want to know why the UK is so skeptical of the EU then type of thing sums it up perfectly. Apparently after 800+ years of governance the EU believes Westminister is suddenly incapable of managing UK affairs, I don't buy it (along with the majority of the population).
While I don't agree with a lot of the crap that is out there on the web, I have to support their right to say what is on their mind. That is what our American First Amendment is all about. If I don't like what is being said, I don't have to listen. If I don't like what is being written, I don't have to read. But as an American that believes in what his country stands for, I have to support their right to say and write it no matter how offensive I think it is.
the only good thing that i could see coming from laws like these is that maybe the trolls will be forced adopt new techniques and troll more intelligently. maybe we'll witness the Rise of a new Golden Age of Trolling!
Ban offensive speech? Ha. Define racist speech? If I say black people have a darker complexion that white people, not did I just commit a crime?
We laugh now, but don't be surprised if something like this comes to America or is already here. Ever hear of "hate crime" bills?
So, now Terrorism is Communism of the 2000s eh?
I hate the game Bingo. Its a game played by morons and simpletons. I think people who play Bingo are wasting their worthless lives. There, I said it before hate speach is banned on the web :)
This reeks of PC sophist non-sense from Paris.
Yes, it's free speech, but we hate it.
Did you think of that ? "European moralism being trancendent across borders and the Internet pushing for their stance" And maybe this free speech stuff is "another case of US moralism pushing its stance on the rest of the world" ? Nazism under any form is banned since a long time in many country of Europa, and yes this include expressing your own agreement with it. US centrism perhaps bring you to say "harck ! free speech violation ! Bad !" but we here (and I speak for a majority of people I know of) DO NOT want *total* freedom of speech. You have here in Europa freedom of speech as long as you do not call for murder, hates, racism and so on. I hope that one day the US will understand that some because of their history, culture, and/or any other factor do not want the same system as you have in US (constitutionnal, commercial or political). Long live the difference.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
it's a bunch of bureaucrats trying to enforce 'Liberal correctness' in Europe.
their only hope is throw out the Liberals and elect more leaders like Margaret Thatcher.
in Europe the word "liberal" means something more like the word "libertarian" means in the USA. the phrase you were looking for was probably "social-democratic."
and, as we all know, the last European leader with any guts was Otto von Bismarck, and not your incompetent British slut Margaret Thatcher.
To hell with Europe, the EU and their bureaucrats, I want the Reich back!!!!
I love it when you continental jerks tell us how much more sophisticated you are then we Yanks.
But when it comes down to it, you're delicate wallflowers.
You're so afraid to hear anything that might offend you that you that you pass all types of laws to make sure your ears never hear things that you don't want them to.
What a dull existence you live, afraid of the written word so much. I wonder how that feels? I'll never know because this proposal is far more offense than the worst speech of Hitler.
I'll let you go back to your cocoon now. Try not to get hurt by the fluffy cotton that surrounds you.
You can't stop things like this on the Net. The "hate speech" will move from Europe to the US, the porn will move from the US to Europe and the gambling will stay where it is in the Carribean.
Sweden has a constitution which gives every citizen the freedom of "press". The written word, in serialized copy, is protected by the constitution.
There is no such thing as free speech, in fact there are many laws which prohibit it. It is illegal to mention something about a group of people. The Swedish court system assumes guilt and it is up to the defendant to prove his/hers innocense.
E-mail is not something that is put in a Gutenberg or anything else. E-mail is in electronic format, thus not "press". The political and judicial systems in Sweden need enemas.
I hate that europeon union crap, I say we string em up.
Sorry, just felt inspired to be hatefull.
Seriously this law is yet another in a series of unthoughtout crap. We should string the guys who wrote this one up for being too dumb to live. Dont make laws your cant enforce. Further. I would like to point out that the Internet is no more A European thing then it is a US thing. It is a world thing and unless every country connected to the internet agrees the laws are BS.
To the poloticians, Think before you act. If you dont understand things ask before you just blatently legislate. Your a bunch of brainless morons, Try not to act like.
Sure dude. Why doncha read some history books tomorrow, and then go find some friendly "Indian" to talk to? Perhaps you'll find some in the "reservations". While you're looking for them, you might as well go look for some Hiroshima survivors, and talk to Vietnam veterans.
Then you can go visit Colombia to see the millions of acres land destroyed by American poison, justified by their stupid War on Drugs. When you're bored after that, you can visit the millions of Americans in jail for "offenses" in the same part. While you're there, you can see if the games of dominance and guilt really makes them better people.
Just for knowledge, not to feel responsible! Feeling responsible for something somebody else did is kinda stupid. As is putting the blame on people who had nothing to do with any of those historical facts.
Right, amigo?
--
Proud like a god, don't pretend to be blind
(Guano Apes)
Try speaking against $cientologists. Try posting a piece of code and end up in 20 years of electric chair for DMCA violation. And so on.
I'm sure Daschle and Kennedy find everything in GOP ads to be "hate speech" ... let's arrest all Republicans for expressing their political views. And let's arrest all Democrats for expressing their political views, too. No, wait - that's too extreme. Instead, let's just limit how much money anyone can spend to publish their political views; that will kill free speech without much fuss. Anyone who objects can be painted as a champion of "money" over "speech." Hey, you can still "speak" on the sidewalk! Unless you say something that offends protected groups, such as blacks, gays, women, Asians, Muslims, the handicapped, the mentally retarded, etc., etc., etc.
America has been killed by political correctness. First they destroyed the Constitution. They they went after its amendments: the Fourth, the Second, etc. Now they are going to murder the First Amendment.
Still think communism is dead? Look at your elected officials and your hypersensitive neighbors.
I fear the revolutionary explosion that is sure to come. And the alternative: the decline into a new Dark Ages.
Here in Canada, we have laws preventing discrimination against people based on things such as race and gender, and it does apply to things such as hate-inciting websites - but as recent events have shown, if anything we're MORE likely to protect freedom than in the US. You don't see CSIS (our equivalent to the CIA) or the RCMP tripping over themselves to use a Carnivore-like system, for example, and I do believe that we recently protected someone AGAINST improper use of the DMCA.
Free speech is undoubtedly important, but should we allow speech made with the intent to deny that right to others? If many racists and other hate groups had their way, all people of other ethnic groups, religions, and sexual orientations would be forbidden from any participation in society (such as speech or voting). Some of these hate groups would even go so far as to deny others the satisfaction of living.
Again, I think that free speech is critical to a happy and liberated society, but I also don't want to see a friend silenced (or worse) simply because they're Asian, or Jewish, or anything else that doesn't fit someone's too-narrow interpretation of "human."
"Hate Speech" Hate Crime"---what bull$hit!
Crime is crime and free speech is free speech...how does sticking the word "Hate" in front of it change anything...
"Hate __" as a coined legal term is the verbal diareah of extreme liberal mental midgets...
Many people hate but never take it to action...I hate Barney (purple dinosaur)..but it's not a crime. And I have a constitution behind me that says I can say it.
Again, I hate Barney.
I am an Indian and let me speak to you in my native tongue:
"Ooooh -boo boo boo Ohhh boo boo boo"
I still don't understand your diatribe has anything to do with free speech. Instead you ask why we nuked japan. My friend, we not only nuked japan, we nuked them twice. And if you think we're afraid to do it again, you're sadly mistaken.
In columbia they grow things we tell them not to. What do you expect us to do?
As for you, my little guano ape, you were the guy who sold me his sister last time I was south of the border, and you didn't feel guilty about taking my money at the time.
I think we should just kill every "man" if you can call these savage barbarians men in the middle east with some chemical weapons and then just rewrite the history books and pretend they never existed. Civilization isn't going to move on till those stupid fucks are gone. You know your race is pathetic when countries in the dark of africa are more civilized than your pathetic country. I'm looking at you saudi shitstain arabia.
Legislation can, should, and traditionally has regulated the actions of people. This is how we send murderers to prison.
Well thought out legislation should also regulate intent where it is blatantly obvious that this will lead to action. This is how people get sentenced for conspiracy to commit murder.
Regulation, however, cannot and should not regulate the mental process leading up to either intent or action; this is the thought police straight out of 1984. The notion that thinking certain things can be dangerous to either you or your society.
Regulate this and you've violated every man and woman's right to see all the facts and make the right choice.
Since when did legislation become involved in the average citizen's ability to distinguish between good and bad?
Blearf. Blearf, I say.
I still don't understand your diatribe has anything to do with free speech.
I can imagine that. That's because it didn't have anything to do with free speech.
Who Really Cares What The Morons In Europe Do?
did anyone else read it as "Council of Elrond"?
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
Huete der Internet, morgen die Welt!
Or is that `das Internet?' `die Internet?'
I wonder if the US would allow political asylum to europeans being threatened with jail time or fines for "free speech".
and the rest of us will teach others to think for themselves and therefore see what a waste of time these guys are.
perhaps then this message board will get cleaned up for it is full of hatred!
Please don't attribute your delusional views to all of us Europeans. Thank you.
does not equate to the right to force others to listen.
I hate "hate speeches". I've personally run into a few, and heard of too many. But I'd hate even more if they manage to define "hate speech" on Internet and criminalize it.
The line between "speech" and "criminal action" is blurred. The discerning point is A) whether the target (of that attacking speech or action) is subject to the attack without initiating the process, and B) how easily the target may escape the attack.
For example, I'm Asian. Messages/speeches diminishing Asians cause me demonstratable damage.
If someone publishes an article attacking Asians, I'd have to read it to be exposed to the attack. I can choose to ignore it, avoid the newspaper/website/author, debate him or even hurl back some "hate messages". But I can't call it a crime and I'd object if someone calls it a crime.
If someone spreads throughout the whole city/state with some speaker broadcasting "hate Asian" messages, I'm exposed to the attack without initiating it. In addition, I'd have to move out of the city/state to avoid it, which may involve significant losses of various kind on my part. So, yes, in this case it's a crime.
Then again, there're all kinds of scenarios in between. What if someone broadcasts via a single loudspeaker? I'd have to cross the street to avoid it. What if it's a very loud speaker? I'd have to go around the block...so on.
Then there's the argument of people having the right not to be inconvenienced in order to avoid an attack. In other words, behavior causing potential public hazard/inconvenience should be criminalized. This is a weak argument, although succeefully used in the US, and unfortunately so in some cases. In short, the right is by no means guaranteed or universal -- not too far from the assertion of "right to have a job". No my friend, you don't have the right to a job, and you don't have the right to be stupid.
There is such a thing called "hate speech" -- it can be defined and should be criminalized in certain cases. But Internet is too passive a medium for "hate speech" to be a crime.
People should understand free speech is a two-way street. They should also remember that if you think somebody's words are ignorant and unjustly hateful, then, most likely, so will any other person with an ounce of intelligence...so chill!
Ridiculous! How dare anyone try to regulate how I think or feel!
What I've noticed here in the leftist mecca of California is that the liberals and do-gooders are getting really caught up in their own special brand of hate - it's okay, even fashionable, for them to hate anyone who doesn't agree with their closed-minded views. These are people who don't want their children taught how to have gay sex in the 4th grade, or who don't want to be overrun by illegal aliens, or who want a fair shot at a job that a minority has applied for. haters, all of 'em!
Once our mouths have been shut, what's next? Will we be marched to the damn ovens if we don't follow the future leftist demands?
Hmm, I guess I really, really hate left-wing, liberal, commie, socialist pieces of garbage.
Sorry if I offended anyone.
If I hate someone or something, it is only an emotional feeling. In a free society, I should be able to think and feel how I choose without fear of be judged or criminalized by my government. Hate speech does not harm anyone's person or property. It is certainly offensive but that only might hurt your feelings. Just because some do not approve of anothers words or opinions doesn't mean there needs to be a law against crude hatred. I for one would mount a serious campaign against any one in the American government that tried to pass such ridiculous laws. It is bad enough now, that if we arrest a murderer and the DA thinks the murder was committed out of hate (which ones aren't?) we have to sentence the murderer to two death penalties plus life. Give me a break! If someone does harm to a person or property it is a crime. The emotion that drives the person to commit a crime is not a crime in of itself. I hate that goddamn Barney dinasaur so bad I would enjoy kicking the stuffing out of him. I hope no Barney fans want to have me arrested for feeling that way.
If you don't like the content of a website you can simply not go there. No case can be made for imminent harm when the act of browsing is a selective one based entirely on personal choice.
But banning hate speech is never about preventing harm; it's about enforcing your own morals on others, to the point where they no longer have the right to voice an opinion that you disapprove of. The goal is not to make a better society but to wield power to such a degree that you can effectively silence your opponents. This makes the 'ban hate speech folks' just as malicious and evil as the people engaged in the hate speech itself.
Of coure, Europe can engage in any silliness it wants. If it decides to restrict its own folks in this manner, then that's something that I, as a U.S. citizen, am really not concerned about. However, Europe will have a difficult time with U.S. web sites that lie within the purview of the First Amendment and are not bound by European laws - or morality - in any way, shape, or form. Unless Europe decides to wall itself off from the U.S. in much the same way that China has, this attempt at banning speech on the internet is nothing more than pissing into the wind.
Which is as it should be. It's incumbent on Europe to 'protect' its citizens from the dangers of free speech, not upon American web site owners to conform to foreign laws. The French aside, Europe has no business trying to regulate internet activity outside of its own borders.
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
I hate message boards and the trivial messages posted on them. Take this message for example. I'll bet there are many people who hate me for writing it because I wasted their time. I hate terrorists, too. Does this qualify as hate speech? I hate lawyers who have nothing better to do than harass innocent people who love to hate. I love to hate TV sitcoms. Enough already.
Europe sits on its hands while Bosina is burned, they wring their hands and cluck their tongues about the middle east.
What is their proposed contribution to the effort to protect liberty from the forces of extremism?
Outlawing speech! They are starting to sound like John Frigging Ashcroft!
to protest against nazi manisfestation, agree to forbid nazi party or nazi items, the number of european to have unrestricted free speech, dear anonymous coward, seems to be rather low. I never said we were against *free speech* but unrestricted free speech. The difference beeing some touchy subject like nazism, racism, and so on. Even if you disagree on the subject, you have to agree that there seems to be a majority of people here rejecting the above mentionned subject and freedom to practice them.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Don't want to take responsibility for the fact that half their population is still a bunch of thugs wanting to dress in jackboots and stomp anybody 'different', so they want to make it illegal to talk about it.
And these moronic bozos are stuffed in the US' face as an example?
Have these people learned nothing from the past? "Think as we do. Speak as we do. Or, you will be punished!"
it is directed against White people of European descent. Apparently we are the last group to be protected.
No one said anything, when Mike Tyson, at his recent pre-fight exhibition with Lennox Lewis, spewed Hate Speech. He told a white reporter in the audience to come on the stage so he could kick his ass, and then with his eloquent prison speech, told this same reporter that he would fuck him in the ass and finished with stupid white puss(?). Now imagine if this was a white heavyweight boxer that said, stupid black puss to a black reporter? The guy would never fight again.
Remember people, these racists are successful from your money. So do not spend your pay per view money on any Mike Tyson fight nor thier sponsers. Do not support the NBA nor thier sponsors. There are plenty of racists in the NBA. Someone tell these atheletes to look at the audience. It would be safe to assume, that the majority of people attending NBA games are white.
throwing gasoline on a roaring fire, why don't we use that money to educate the masses in common sense, literacy, and to just be nice.
It starts with perhaps a more draconian method of charging large fees to people wanting to procreate. Make them pay, or get educated as to the proper way to raise children.
And then fund schools to properly educate the kids.
It can't happen overnight. But it is surely a better solution than censorship.
Amen...(just kidding)
What the hell is wrong with you people? Get yourselves together please. Your embarrassing the rest of the western world.
What is with you guys always trying to restrict what people think.
Who are you to tell anyone what to think....
As long as we remain human beings and not robots, we will remain in possession of every single human emotion in the spectrum.
As much as I detest groups and individuals that hate another person simply because of their skin color, religion, sexual preference and the like, the idea of seeing Big Brother's face appearing on my computer or television screen chills me to the very bone.
For those who do not know who Big Brother is, read the book, "1984." You will never forget it.
I have extreme hatred for the EU and all that it stands for. Does that make me a criminal if I havent actualy done anything except state it here?
Its just another way to keep unhappy members of the population silent.
...That when Facism took over in America it would be in the name of anti-fascism. It would appear that Huey Long's observation would apply to Europe as well. How long, I wonder, before any criticism of any established political authority in Europe becomes reclassified as "hate speech"?
In a way, the identification that David Brin made in "Transparent Society" (and that Viginia Postrel makes in "The Future and its Enemies") of the conflict between those who regard ideas as inherently dangerous (and the status quo to be worshipped) on the one hand, against those who feel that ideas are things to be examined openly by as many people as possible and that the status quo always deserve challange upon the other, would apply in this case as well.
If you feel that "...people are inately frail, pliable, and prone to brainwashing. Unless carefully guided, humans all too easily adopt unwholesome beliefs that could undermine everything that a civilization holds dear." (pp. 122-123, "Transparent Society", David Brin, ISBN 0-7382-0144-8) then the censorship that the EEC is proposing is a good thing that is designed for the protection of the intellectually frail Europeans that will serve to protect them from the Nazism, the Printing Press, The Internet, and all the other attendent perils of a free society.
If, on the other hand, you feel that Europeans in general are a reasonably intellectually competant bunch who are capable of thinking for themselves, that the best way to deal with Nazis is to allow these losers to destroy themselves in public with their incoherant attempt at philosophies, and think that freedom is a thing to be valued as a positive good in it's own right then there is no way this proposal can be viewed in any way save with scorn.
I do however have a question for any European who supports this idea - Why do you wish to go on record as regarding the European public as intellectually frail?
... but names will never hurt me (or something similar). The gist of this old schoolyard chant is that physical actions can hurt us but speech should be accepted for what it is, and should never be censored in the name of political correctness.
This new trend will require internet providers to meet the most stringent of politically correct standards and not necessarily what your is accepted in your community or country.
As an example their are some nations that have much stricter freedom of speech laws than others. ISPs providing worldwide access will be required to meet the strictest requirements at the expense of others with more liberal definitions.
Express yourself now to your legislators and government before it is too late! Censorship which is only one person's opinion, will stifle this great thing we call the internet and society in general.
Who are these people that call themselves the Council of Europe??? I would like to write and express my opinion, while I can.
Is this really a big issue that deserves a set of Draconian laws? People can already be kicked off their ISP if there are a lot of complaints anyway. My guess is that this law will get on the books, it will be enforced a couple of times behind the scenes, and for the most part everyone will forget about it.
Then years down the line, when there is a "crisis," this obscure old internet law will be used to squash some political dissenters... at a time when political dissent becomes truly necessary.
If you don't like what someone is saying, then don't listen or argue against their ideas in a constructive manner. Some idea with Violent "Whatever"; if you don't like it, then change the channel/turn it off.
To outright outlaw ALL "HATE" speech is a threat to free speech, if he wishes to kill all those niggers . If he does not act, then it is NOT a crime. The idea of Hate Crime is just a leftist attempt to demonize people. I would rather know someone's opinion on something, then to censor it and allow them to quitely plan to act on their ideas with no heads up.
The EC bastards are a bunch of socialist idiots that wish to control mankind their way, so let them dicate the internet is a dangerous thing.
Gee, where should I start...
Mind you, seeing how much folk go no the street to protest against nazi manisfestation, agree to forbid nazi party or nazi items, the number of european to have unrestricted free speech, dear anonymous coward, seems to be rather low.
The people walking on the streets to protest against national socialism are not that many, and in a way that's fortunate since those people are themselves working to prevent others from having and expressing a different opinion. You are right in that some countries have already banned nazi organisations etc., even the expression of their ideas or trading with WW2 German militaria(!), but that doesn't mean that a majority of Europeans agree with those perverted legislations!
I never said we were against *free speech* but unrestricted free speech.
You just contradicted yourself in one sentence there, but I think I know what you mean. However it seems like you think the restrictions should be based on which opinions the speaker ventilates! I vehemently disagree with this, and I can but hope that a majority of fellow Europeans agree with me. Who should decide which opinions are illegal??
The restrictions should concern whether the speaker is exhorting other people to commit crimes. If somebody says "Atari ST users are subhuman" or "I think Atari ST users should die" or even "I think you too should think Atari ST users are the scum of the Earth", then that should be perfectly legal since he's just expressing his opinion, but if he says "you should beat up any Atari ST user you see" or "you should agree with me that Atari ST users are ugly, or I'll beat you up", then it already is and should be illegal since he's instigating a crime or he's making an unlawful threat.
Even if you disagree on the subject, you have to agree that there seems to be a majority of people here rejecting the above mentionned subject and freedom to practice them.
Rejecting the thoughts, yes, but NOT the freedom to have them or to express them.
Do you really think that nazi-skins in the suburbs of eastern Germany will just disappear or come to think "hey, this national socialism thing is silly" all of a sudden just because there are moronic laws against raising your right arm in a certain angle, joining any organisation or party with the letters NS in its name or buying antiques with swastikas engraved on them? Don't you think those stupid kids will be even more pissed off at "The System"?
There are people who want to ban ideas which propagate for the suppression of other ideas. Don't they realise that they themselves are doing just that?
I am SO SICK of the morons who "pick" the stories here...
"oh we are sooooooo busy" yeah well it took a grand total of 3 minutes to reject it... Lieing sacks of shit...
"And maybe this free speech stuff is "another case of US moralism pushing its stance on the rest of the world" ?"
Something happened to you in your life that makes you afraid of life, afraid of gusto, afraid of opinion, afraid of the next tick of the clock. That's too bad because the pain of defeat makes the thrill of victory that much sweeter when it is achieved.
You feel something must cushion you from the blow, the pain, the uncertainty.
You want me able to speak my mind as long as it does not rip you from your cocoon.
I won't try to explain why your viewpoint is fatally flawed, why it must inevitably lead to a totalitarian state, because surely someone capable of understanding how to use a monitor and keyboard is capable of understanding that people like Socrates, Jefferson, Voltaire (among others) say things that made the status quo uncomfortable.
Human society gets better because people challenge society in odd and sometimes strange ways.
Perhaps you're satisfied to live in a tiny apartment near some small city working at a daily existence that pays for a few amenities with something telling you how many children to have and what to name them.
Others are not content, they want the thrill of losing, the agony of defeat, the pain of life spraying them in the face like a mist from a n'orester. Sacrifice, pain, honor, and will are what separate men from simple consumers.
I don't hate you, I just feel completely and utterly sorry for you.
Does that mean trolls and flamers can be prosecuted? :-)
You say that now, but as soon as any little scuffle breaks out, its "whaa whaa america help us, whaaa whaa"
As a matter of fact, cut the lines that leave the U.S.. The Internet is ours first. Only America understands the importance of freedom (although being very lazy about it).
Should we congratulate Peter Csonka and his cronies on the Council of Europe for the fact that this treaty will bring European law into harmony with that of the People's Republic of China? o_O
In Europe... I suppose if someone makes a joke about an ethnic group... they would go to jail!
The Europeans have once before tried to stifle our speech that they found offensive.
Thank God the landing at Normandy was successful or they might have gotten away with it.
Pass their stupid law and I'll find something offensive to them to post just for chins and grins, and because their stupid laws do not extend beyond their own borders.
If they want to stop the material from being accessed by people in their country, they need to stop it at the border and at their own expense.
Nothing goes into or out of their country via the internet but that is does not pass through a gateway router in their country. Their customs people need to deal with it there, not try to foist their "hear no evil, see not evil, speak noevil cause we have our collective heads up our own ass" approach to censorship.
Censorship does not work, has never worked, and never will work. The Russians tried is, the Chinese, Koreans, Iranians, Iragis, Egyptians, French and others have been trying it for years to no avail.
Maybe if the European societies were a little less xenophobic and general hate mongers, there would be no need to ban the speech.
Under the thinking of the Europeans, because males get sexually excited at the sight of bikini clad young female bodies, cannot control their sexual urge and commit rapes, the women should not be allowed to wear skimpy bikinis because such are the obvious root of the evil of rape. To them we can but say: NOT! Try again buttheads!
in spite of all its shittiness, rules. Here's an example: George Bush is an idiot. There, I said it. Do I believe it? That's not the point. I can say it.
This mindless oppressive thinking is precisely why millions of people have voted with their feet and braved whatever obstacles to come to the U.S., including the original wayfarers in the 1600s when we didn't even have a country.
The perfect solution! We take by right of eminent domain the recording and movie industries lame "country code" scheme for DVD's, force micro$haft to modify its OS so that everyone has to register with BigBrother Gates, all Europeans must truthfully answer the questions "Do you live in a repressive European country", and "In which country of a-hole Europeans do you live". Then micro$aft's Internet Exploder will check all webpages for meta-tags that indicate the content is appropriate for persons under the age of 2 months or living in Europe. If attempt is made to view any inappropriate content Internet Exploder will promptly report the crime to local European authorities, issue a summons to appear for sentencing for having attempted to view illegal content in a country where thinking and self-control are outlawed.
The rest of us just forget to put those rediculous tags in the headers of any of our web pages.
Problem solved.
When thoughts are outlawed, only outlaws will have thoughts! Outlaws and US citizens!
Perhaps this bit of trivia explains the obviously fascist laws coming from Europe: The average age of Europeans is rapidly rising while the birth rate has population growth presently negative and the population size rapidly declining.
Europe is populate by a bunch of senile of fart bags from the pre-WWII and Nazi era fascists.
Have long expected some slimey thing like this would eventually raise it's totalitarian head. There is far-far too much suppressed information on the web for the forces of Evil to ignore.
Learn the Truth. The Truth will set you free. They want you to never know the Truth.
They are all hate.
These are the same whimps who could not stop a little German from mauling their part of the globe without dragging us into it to save them.
Now, they want to dictate to us?
To hell with Euro trash and their ilk.
These socialist Euros want to drag us kicking and screaming into their New World Order utopia at the expense of the First Amendment and our national sovereignty! The U.S., along with Canada and Japan, is a nonvoting member of the Council of Europe--unfortunately. I wish we weren't even poart of it. Yet another undemocratic socialist organization meeting in secret to scheme plans to impose on the plebians of the world.
Yes! Hate speech is good!
Imagine someone reading for example Pekka Siitoin's pages. Does that give a good impression on Nazism? NO! People laugh at it. They can see themselves how stupid their ideologies are.
Rumours and similar memes are much more dangerous. The badly html-formatted, speling erorr-containing sites can actually do more good than harm, because no one trusts them. Face-to-face, it is harder to disagree and laugh.
Hate speech is already banned on many of the countries of EC, so for example here in Finland nothing would change. There are always providers outside Europe, and they will host the sites no matter what EC legistlation is. Tracing them is not feasible.
I don't find it odd that the trend to globalization would produce a backlash calling for nationalistic protection, but isn't it strange that both ideas are being sold to us with equal enthusiasm (pressure?) by the same people?
give me a
"I never said we were against *free speech* but unrestricted free speech"
Everybody is for free speech. It just shouldn't go "too far".
Do you understand this is a oxymoronic viewpoint?
Why don't you tell us its for the children. At least that's the current censor's lie.
"History repeats itself, the first time as tragedy,
the second time as farce."
Or, the first time as the Soviet Union, the second time as the European Union.
As the world moves towards one global currency and instantaneous transactions, it is only natural that the world should move towards one global government. An unfortunate development for those who cherish freedom and for those who favor peace. In the end, the globalization of the worlds economy may led to a series of unresolvable conflicts, betwixt social engineers, patriots of all persuasions, and those who just want to live without having to fear the law.
When a man fears the law, either he is evil or the law is unjust.
Why is Grand Theft Auto a much more serious crime than Reckless Driving?
I'd say that the USA and Europe are far to different to be compared like that anyway. europe is a continent, run by a bunch of politicians hungry for power on a global scale. Europe is geographically small, hence the "need" for a single currency. Already dubbed "The Toilet Currency" by city traders. They know what they are doing, so i wont add any more.
An EU wide arrest warrant seems inevitable. Prezzydent Blair will let them fuck us with anything just go get his grinning arse into europe. It basically means that anyone in europe can be arrested by the "law enforcement" agencies from anywhere else in europe. No appeals, no corpus mendhi [spelling?], no luck. We might as well be one huge superstate, since this law effectiveley harmonises all law enforcement, while bringing it down to the lowest level.
Something Blair is unlikeley to say: "What?!? You want other law enforcement agencies to come over here and arrest my citizens without even asking? you want someone arrested here, you ask OUR police!" but nevermind. Hell, we dont even have free encryption anymore, in case anyone forgot. Hand over the keys or you better practice holding wet soap!
The dumber the electorate, the easier it is for corrupt politicians to come into power. Make of that what you will.
Ali [ @ london d0t c0m ]
+++ "Working in Westminster [Parliament] is like having the nutter on the bus sit beside you all day." Amanda Platel +++
"Windows and Linux can co-exist on the same machine." - Microsoft Corporation.
I'm not really a violent person. I doubt I'd ever take up arms against anyone.
My post was a joke much like yours (I hope) on the stupidy of such laws.
If this law were inplace today I would be guilty of braking it.
Do I think I did anything wrong?
Not really.
And that is my whole point.
I am not a muslim or a christian (not like it matters).
Most of the time wen someone talks rasisum to me I just: Smile, nod and ignore.
If they want to isolate them selves from the wisdom of other people thats there problem
I know I'm going to hell, I'm just trying to get good seats.
Hitler was the only one with balls.
Who else had the nerve to try and whipe out an entire race?
Imagine if he had succeeded?
No israel to piss off the sand monkeys so no terrorism.
Hitler was awesome.
Every racist should be able to have his opinion, and he should be able to share it with his fellow racists.
G-funk is right. First, if an opinion is dumb or unfounded, then its propponents should be encouraged to voice it, especially in writing on the Internet, where cold, methodical analysis and refutation is practical.
Granted, some opinions might make you cringe. You read that group/religion/race XYZ is slapped with attribute ABC and you don't like it. But if you shut the guy up, two interesting things happen:
It is very easy to depict a political opponents as a thought criminal. Especially when media concentration makes information control easier and easier. When you start censoring in the name of fighting hatred, you actually end up as a pawn of political censors who drape themselves in the robe of the guardians of morality. The Romans were already aware of this problem: "Who guards the guardians?"
Don't get me wrong, I don't like to read racist/hateful sites or post on the Net. But who knows what opinion will turn out to be hateful?
Example: you say Windows sucks. This means you believe a large population of engineers in Redmond have created a deficient contraption. Surely it cannot be voluntary. So these people are dumb. So you imply most Redmondians are dumbs. So this is racism against the state of Washington. Censor, please jail the man. Thanks.
So to avoid that, I think I'll let people say and write that race X stinks, religion Y is mad, country Z is revolting. I'm so opposed to censorship I'll even let them write that the Earth is flat, that Windows is stable and that English food is good!
OK, scratch the latter. Pretending English food is good is too hideous a crime. :-)
--
Mad science! Robots! Underwear! Cute girls! Full comic online! http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/
The more you persecute racists and try to hide their speech, the faster they grow. They're like pasty white grubs, they always multiply under rocks. Outlawing their speech only makes them feel vindicated and martyred, makes them justify their paranoia and their belief that (insert racial/ethnic group) is out to get them.
The same thing happens with any other sort of evil, intolerance, and hate in the world. The more you try to ignore it, whistling past graveyards, the more it grows in silence and creeps into the hearts of people secretly. Communication is the way to get rid of ALL these hateful ideas and unite humanity in brotherhood, and the internet stands a good chance of doing so, if not for the interfering meddling of these idiot busybodies.
So let the racists say their piece, as LOUD as they can! That way we can just laugh them to scorn. That way we can talk to them, communicate with them, show them their error. But don't hide their ignorance; it will only worsen.
Of course, [/preachingtothechoir] and all. This is slashdot, after all. Anyone know of a comment board that the treaty writers read?...
-Kasreyn
P.S. I don't have much hope for preventing this, though. Anyone idiot enough to believe in a term like "hate crime" is probably incapable of grasping my argument in the first place.
Kasreyn: Cheerfully playing the part of Devil's Advocate to hairtrigger
Free speach isn't a right, its a privelage. With is comes responsilities. Those that abuse it should be punished. Now I'm not one to define what "hate speach" is but I agree that it (in the context of encouraging violence towards another social group) is wrong and that it should be outlawed. To be honest, speaking as a UK citizen and a European, I find SlashDot to be offensive at times... (for example most of the moderated comments on this post) Does this mean I want it banned? No, but I DO want far right parties ability to spread hateful propaganda curtailed. -- Tim Brown
The only problem here is that it's the Europeans themselves who are doing the censoring, and we've already established that Europeans are incapable of fulfilling that role. What we really need is a consortium of people from sane, responsible, adult countries to appoint the censors instead.
Accordingly, I propose a committee of a mexican, two Canadians, two Tanzanians, and two Brazilians to serve as High Censors overseeing a bureaucracy over all speech, press, broacasts, and other media of expression in all of Europe, lest a new and dangerous philosophy again overtake the continent and result in the deaths of tens of millions.
Who judges what is racist and hateful? If someone runs a web site where 3000000 messages are posted can you imagine the litigation nightmare and liability issues for website owners? These kinds of rules is what makes Europe backward. Ask the Germans how much tax they pay or the French.
Proliferation of certain Ideas that disrupt a peaceful society could be considered a disease. McCarthyism, gangbangers, neo-nazis, terrorism in the name of allah, etc. How do we combat hate? Ignore it, (shhhh, maybe it will go away!) legislate it, what? What is the pill we, as a society, need to take to get rid of this hate disease? It seems to me that hate is caused by fear, and fear is caused by the unknown.
There is a really dangerous thing here. The more of this type of stuff that gets out there, the stronger the pressure to put site filters and word filters on international connections of the internet. Then, you can control contents your slav^H^H^H^Hcitizens can see. It is coming. Watch for it.
I pray NOT to any man/deity, no matter who or what he/she is/was!
/. this morning while we conversed about world affairs*.
I do not need a "god" in my life to obtain hope, strength or wisdom, as religion is for the weak of mind and soul.
Science is the "art" of truth and knowledge through research, tests and trial/error/s, supported by facts and histories of a global scale, and not found obscured in texts of scripts written by many, condensed intot a single volume and diseminated to the hoards over millenia.
Truth and science proved that under no circumstance could or has a god or gods walked this planet, taken "huiman" form nor formulated laws to be obeyed.
Why would ANY god/deity NEED the "obedience" of humanity in the first place?
If such a god/deity "were" so powerful, it would simply MAKE humanity follow its rules and laws.
Prove there was/is a god/deity worth worshipping, and I'll show you a society made up of mindless idiots wandering aimlessly about muttering bilge of a "bible" written by man, offered to humanity as "the" word of god, but fabricated from lies and fables punctuated by half-truths and tall tales.
Read about the Ark...what IS a "cubit"?
It is written that the highest peaks and mountains were covered with water that rose upwards of 25 cubits.
Next; this Ark, was built with the very same measuring "standards", and its length/breadth was 35 X 15 cubits, and the height was also 15 cubits.
Let's take a peek at the facts: The Himalaya mountain range has the tallest peak, at 25,000 + feet tall, the construction of a vessel that large would NOT be possible in the era it was purported to be built in, nor is one of such magnitude even possible today, even with the highly advanced engineering and construction methods currently used!
Such a fable is just that; a fable, NOT fact, proof or otherwise, but the "bible" IS a book of stories, nothing more. Certainly not a volume of god's laws or rules on how "mankind" is to behave, such ideology is foolis in the extreme.
Being such that the Himalayan range was "only" 25 cubits/25,000 feet, that places the ark at over 25,000 feet in length....ASTOUNDING!
If such a vessel were built, surely there MUST be large parts of this "ship" easily viewd from many vantage points, even the shuttle flying overhead missed such gargantuan pieces of this structure, so by the very fact that "man" was too primitive in mind to build anything of such magnitude; one can only come to the conclusion that the ark is a hoax, nothing more.
Dare I type this; but PROVE this poster wrong!
Show photos, recon....ANYTHING to support the claim/s that this ark ever existed, or could have existed.
*God told me to post this message on
J.F.C
Act I, Sc.II
*I saw the light and I knew what I had to do...*
206.39.38.2, DDN-BLK-36, DOD NET INFO CENTER. 800.365.3642 206.36.0.0-206.39.255.255 NET RANGE.
My point is very simple, you either have free speech or you don't. You can't start modifying it to suit your particular agenda or any groups agenda. There are certain risks associated with being a free nation. If we want to remain free, we must accept this risks rather then expecting our governments to protect us from anything. Which is more important to you, your children being free or being safe? If you choose safe, who or what group gets to define safe? I choose to be free and accept the risks that go with it. Our forefathers that set up this nation and our constition were very wise. I truly do not think we are improving on that with changes.
Once again the UN/EU strive to repress the US Bill of Rights.
Wake up people!! It's time to send a message that we will not accept an overt attempt to supecede our Constitution.
They don't enjoy our 1st amendment rights and are loath to abolish ours.
Whats's really pathetic is that most europeans have no idea what freedom of expression really is. They're so tied up in nazi-guilt political correctness they're afraid to think.
It's just more socialist Big Brotherism.
I have numerous forebears that have fought for this country in the name of freedom. I also had several forebears who never knew it (a Great-Grandmother of mine was an indentured servant in Canada, and it doesn't take a lot of brains to know what that means).
I cannot and will not allow the sacrifices they made to be trampled upon by a bunch of fools who let their guilt do their thinking for them.
For those who are exposed to hate (all of us are in some way, but I mean racial hatred); I feel for your pain and I join you in wishing that those who hate would go away. However, I will not give up my freedom in order to make you feel better.
I'll fight to uphold a African-American's right to call me a kracker. I uphold a Muslim's right to disagree with our nation's policy and Western culture.
I will not, however, stand by and let anyone, for any reason, tell me or anyone else what they can and cannot say.
We in America have already given up so many of our freedoms in the name of patriotism and justice (not always a bad thing). It is time to draw the line.
...that's all that needs to be said. We've allowed our governments to grow and grow, all the while slowly eroding our freedoms. Give them the inch and they always take a mile.
Approximately 215 years ago, the United States fought for their freedom because Europe (England) couldn't understand the inalienable right to free speech.
It would seem they still do not. But then, the US Congress doesn't quite have a grasp on it either (campaign finance reform i.e. the Incumbents Stiff Arm Act of 2002).
There will always be a bond that will never be taken away.
Guess what? Since Clinton, with a complete lack of debate, fast-tracked us into the WTO - America is no longer a sovereign nation. That's right, a shadowy group of very wealthy and powerful people are making the rules we will have to follow from now on. Don't like it? Tough shit.
;-))
Gues what else? There are laws that prevent American citizens from speaking against the government during a time of war. A nice long ill defined war we are having now too! Good American citizens who thoought they had a right to this kind of speech are being arrested and harassed this very day.
The Cybercrime Treaty will be used for good and for evil, on a global level, and not just in the area of hate speach.
I expect the eroding of our rights as American citizens, and the globalization of control, to continue. If you would like to speak out against it, or work to reverse this trend, you might want to do it while it's still more or less legal.
FTSKPA (Fuck The Stupid Karma Points Anyway