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.
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
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
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.
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
Any attempt at silencing freedom of speech is a BAD idea!
------
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
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
We laugh now, but don't be surprised if something like this comes to America or is already here.
It is. It's called Political Correctness.
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
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)
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."
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.
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?'
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?
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
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.
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.
That's right. We can no longer bash you over the head with a lame ethnic slur. We have to come in close with a stiletto and insert it between your ribs. More power to the Trolls - nerf the AC's!
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.
That's correct. So don't listen to stuff you don't like. You don't get it; no one can force you to listen to anything, no matter how hard they try. If worst comes to worst, you can still just plain not pay attention. And yes, you can do this.
I deplore hate speech as much as the next person. In fact, I may have the occasion to deplore it even more. But if speech is to be free, then all speech must be free; even garbage like this. You cannot take the good without taking the bad.
Laws like this are supposed to "protect human dignity." Shame they're self-defeating. The second you limit the human mind -as you do by limiting speech, the way by which ideas are propagated- you have diminished the very thing which makes us human, and thus the laws meant to protect human dignity, actually destroy human dignity.
Does that mean trolls and flamers can be prosecuted? :-)
And likely from that fabled UK, the place where you're supposed to be able to speak freely.
Is that why historically there is this one place,in Hide Park, where this is not punishable? IDIOT!
Yet I fully agree about the French Petain government being a giant blot on the French history that nearly every Frenchman tries to deny.
There is no more "behind the schemes"(?) drafting of laws in Europe as there is in the UK, as a matter of fact there is a representative number of British European Parliamentarians to oversee this....
Talking about the British Parliament, how in the world is it, for example, possible that your government can publish it's annual budget and subsequently raise the fuel tax hours later,
without any prior discussion in that fabled Parliament!
The difference between the British and the other Europeans is that the others are not exposed to your (or is it an Australians??) stinking press.
Yes Britain has an enviable Parliamentary History, but as so many things with the adjective "British" it's before all "History".
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
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.
And the fact there are/were no Neo-Nazis in Westmister in recent years has all to do with the lack of a democratic (=representative) election system in the UK...
Jees!
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
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
"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 read some sci-fi novel once. It took the idea of the roman empire falling after raids by barbarians to be a sort of hard and fast rule. the more powerful and all consuming an empire gets the more corrupted and rotten it gets on the inside and it gets easier for some external force (it has to be external, I forget why). Any way the protagnist has a starship and becaus eof relativly or something, time goes really slow in the ship. anyway the point is he sorta circled around until the intergalatic empire got so big and bloated that one 'barbarian' (him), could topple it. if no one can beat us but ourselves, maybe we need to start looking over our shoulders for 21st century vikings doing hit and runs...maybe they've already started. WTC anyone?
Why not fork?
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.
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
careful. not all speech
;-)
You don't have the right to yell fire in a crowded theater. Then again....we're all fucked if a fire breaks out during a showing of LoTR:The Two Towers
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
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.