Slashdot Mirror
EU Anti-Hate Laws On The Web
coupco writes "The European Union's Council of Europe passes a measure that would make hate speech on the web illegal, and subject to banning and filtering. A story on Wired News explains the How and Why."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Per recently enacted anti-hate laws, this page must therefore be removed immediately!
If you celebrate Xmas, befriend me (538
Who gets to decide what is considered "Hate Speech"?
That's a shame. I hope I'm not affected.
Oh, so the European Union gets to decide what's good for the word? I hate that. Oops...I mean, I respect all humans equally. Even those who try to make decisions that affect people they don't govern over, such as Europeans affecting the way Japanese can access the internet.
Oops!
Aside from the fact that this is an affront to free speech (Which I'm sure everyone else here will cover just fine), did anyone notice that they allow you to promote hatred against people based on sexual orientation or gender?
The quote nicely omits these. Now, provisions for that may be elsewhere in the amendment, but it belongs in that sentance; seperating it is poor writing.
Is the EU is telling its citizens who they can hate?
There's something very wrong here.
Even though racial, sexual, national, religious, and other kinds of bigotry disgust me, I still think that censorship is a bigger threat than the speech it's supposed to protect us from. The same freedom of speech that lets the KKK spread it's evil ideas lets the rest of us oppose them.
I absolutely cannot stand those anti-hate laws.
So much, that I HATE them!
I got nothin'.
While I wish hate groups would dry up and piss off as much as the next guy, enacting a law like this is probably a bad move... As it leaves the definition of "hate speech" wide open, to be dictated by people in a position of power, rather than leaving it up to individual ISPs. Its a slippery slope, kids. Before you know it, anyone who has anything even remotely objectionable to say, right or wrong, will end up having a government-issue sock shoved in his mouth.
Fuck that.
Cheers,
Bowie J. Poag
Hate speech is illegal out side the internet and should be applied on the internet.
The article talks about the council of europe and not about the european union. They aren't the same.
The EU has less members than the Council of Europe and got more policitcal influence.
You just have to love laws like this. It's impossible to even question them - any website which argues against them is just further hate literature. After all, who wouldn't want this type of speech banned, unless they were going to be doing it themselves?
Sometimes, at the end of the day, I still think that at least the US has it sort of right - free speech is free speech. No ifs, ands, or buts. (I realize in practice that this isn't always the case).
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
See what happens when things move too far to the left? Now you can't call anyone in europe a nigger/honky/kike etc etc. I wonder if you are still allowed to buy Tupac's "for my niggaz" cd.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
so, according to the article, from now on sites cannot deny, play down, praise or justify the holocaust.
for all you europeans out there, cut and paste this sentence into your website so that you dont get arrested. (remember, not saying anything at all is denial):
the holocaust happened and it was a bad thing.
Gentlemen...BEHOLD!
-Dr. Weird
I hate Everyone!!!
Modern politically-correct language considers gender "the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex" to borrow from M-W.com. This is seperate it from "sex," which refers to being physically male or female.
Thus, gender, along with sexual orientation, is now a choice. I'd hate to live in a world where you can't discriminate based on peoples' choices.
So no more Microsoft bashing? But what are we supposed to do in our free time?
they'll also be able to block websites from the U.S.A., despite the First Amendment.
Of course they will be able. Why should the first amendment carry any weight outside the US. Are americans really that arrogant as to assume the US constitution applies to every country in the world?
I know I'm going to hell, I'm just trying to get good seats.
The root DNS attack was likely a test to ensure the root DNS servers could be shut down if the US doesn't comply with this new EU law. After all, if the choice is between the first amendment, and the internet itself, the US will likely choose the internet. After all, if the EU can effectively shut the internet down, and cause lots of economic damgae (lost sales, mostly), how long would the US last before finally giving in to the EU.
With the newly proposed Office of Global Internet Freedom, we may actually end up spending taxpayer dollars to subvert any kind of filtering that the EU enacts on US hate sites (which are roughly 63% of all hate sites on the Internet according to the EU).
I really hate you. Ooo and heres a hyperlink to hatespeech.
Why not fork?
...anti-hate laws.
"The lesson to be learned is not to take the comments on slashdot too literally." --Vinnie Falco, BearShare
U.S. Constitution vs the EU.
Who would win?
What if the Constitution was named Ditka?
Blessed be he who reads this post, Cursed be he who tells my boss.
Well, I hate the EU Anti-Hate Laws
As I read this, it occurs to me that Europeans might simply have a different concept of freedom than Americans do. In this case, they would rather be free from hate speech, as opposed to being free from censorship. Likewise, they would rather be free from millions of accidental shootings each year than be free to own firearms.
wouldnt that mean the EU is against hate laws?
$0.02
I put on my robe and wizard hat.
My view as a European citizen (in Ireland) is that this is one step closer to a totalitarian super state.
Our vote on the Treaty of Nice was one aspect where people were concerned that we were giving central states in the EU too much power and thus allowing them, with the council of ministers, to pass on, or create some of the laws seen here.
Is this it - or is the tip of the iceberg?
The council of ministers who pass these laws are NOT representative of Europe as a whole. If these laws are to be passed - why not ask the people first?
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines
I'm not a big fan of hate groups and messages, but I do believe in freedom of speech and I find this offensive.
If the European Union's Council of Europe hates hate sites, should they ban themselves?
Lets just ban everyone!
You used Stormfront as an example of the sort of hate sites out there. If we follow that link, and go to the site, we can see the sort of crap they're trying to peddle.
However, if this measure is passed, we in Europe will no longer be able to go to that sort of site to see what they're talking about. We won't be able to see the sort of hate they're peddling. We'll just have to accept the vague words of whoever banned the site: "Oh, it's nasty stuff, and you don't want to be looking at stuff like that - so don't worry, we're protecting you from it".
By providing a link to an example - a link which this law will outlaw - you've proved just how silly the law is.
Sorry (if you really are) Kelly, if everyone thought as you did your dad would never have been allowed on stage or your family on TV. He was considered satanic in the seventies and by definition hateful. The same freedom of expression rights that protect the white power example protected Black Sabbath. The only proper way to counter harmful ideologies is with argument and education.
I hate "head in the ground" legislation, no pun intended. The fact is, hate speech will NOT go away just because you make it illegal. It will just get pushed underground and spread like mold. (this is a good analogy - hate, like molds and fungus, grows best in the dark) And all the while the stupid will feel all happy and shiny, since they have no idea how much of a threat is out there.
Look at it this way: If someone hated YOU and wanted to kill YOU personally, would you A)want it out in the open so you know who is gunning for you, or B)want it hidden so you have no idea that someone even wants you dead? Which actually increases your safety?
Furthermore, if these groups publish on the Internet, it goes both ways. It also opens them up to being brought back into the light. Ultimately, it's easier to be apathetic than to hate. But with no one able to find them and show them this, there's far less chance of them getting over their hatreds.
So, yep, this is just a GREAT idea, EU. Let's pretend everyone is happy and friendly when they are in fact, not. Always better to ignore reality than face it, huh?
I have to defend hate speech precisely because I don't agree with it and think it is completely valueless; I wouldn't want anyone restricting my right to free speech because they think what I say is valueless. The most important factor in a society where freedom of speech is widespread is education, though education can only go so far- I know plenty of educated idiots.
I grew up in Virginia Beach and New York City. Everyone I knew- all of my friends and neighbors- was black. Then I moved to N.E. Pennsylvania and was exposed to an awful lot of racism. Did it cause me to become racist myself? No, I knew better. Exposure to hate speech does not guarantee the development of racist attitudes, and banning it on the web doesn't mean they won't hear it at home or from their friends.
Screaming "fire" in a crowded theater is quite different, because it causes nearly anyone who hears it to believe there's an immediate danger. Writing hateful web sites only causes those who are dumb enough to believe what's being said to adopt the views presented.
They allow you to promote hatred against people based on "sex" as well. You have no point.
Well?
They "provide names and addresses to assist in the commission of a crime".
Sure they are scum. I have no doubt in that. But if they can't be free to express their opinion, how do I know who to becareful of? How do I know not to like them and keep my children away from them?
They expose themselves to the world this way, and thus we can keep tabs on them. Yes they use this to spread their hate, but wouldn't you rather know who was behind hate acts, then have some secrative society which nobody can point out?
The KKK didn't advertize much and thus were one of the sucessfuly evilest organizations in the nation. I say if they can speak, then I can here them, and that's the way I want it.
Why, o why must the sky fall when I've learned to fly?
Then it isn't fair to blame me because their laws make no sense, my friend. Besides, it wasn't central to my "point," but merely complimentary.
Words may not hurt, but when people begin acting on the words of hate speech spreading like cancer on the internet, then the damage is done.
So, I shouldn't be allowed to voice hateful words towards a government, because it may cause people to act on these words and do violent acts against the government. No more badmouthing your government, because somebody can get hurt.
I probably should stop saying negative things towards Ford, because other people on the Internet may read my anti-Ford thoughts, and stop buying Ford. While not a violent act, Ford employees may get laid off, and that'll hurt them and their families. Then they may act violently towards me and my anti-Ford followers. So, I guess no more negative speech towards Ford, because somebody can get hurt.
Yes, racists and homophobes and sexists and pedophiles and etc, suck -- but free speech is an all or nothing game. Either give it to everybody, no matter how disgusting you find their speech to be, or don't give it to anybody at all.
--this will sure knock the world wide web on it's assets:
Specifically, the amendment bans "any written material, any image or any other representation of ideas or theories, which advocates, promotes or incites hatred, discrimination or violence, against any individual or group of individuals, based on race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin, as well as religion if used as pretext for any of these factors."
--I can think of several large US sites off the top of my head that advocate genocide against muslims on a daily basis, just for one of many examples. There's lots more, just those stand out from their knee-jerk vileness. I got no use for the opposite either,insane ranting mad jihaders can byte my shorts. I don't like either of them, but they can have "their say", I say. That's their privelege and right far as I am concerned, I believe in "born with" rights for every human being, no matter what country they are in, and freedom of speech is a big one of those rights.
I promise to keep railing against the UN, globalism and goons in general, with am emphasis on US goons, as I live here. I don't know if they-the EU- class that as "hate speech" or not, I don't discriminate based on religion,color or whatnot. If you are a totalitarian goose stepping goon, whether you wear robes or a western suit or some "uniform" or jeans and sneakers, well, you can officially "get stuffed". You suck, bigtime. "You" is anyone who fits that description
--wonder how they will block sites, the europeans? Will this lead to at least three big nets now, the basic world wide net, an europaen-union net and the fascist goon mainland chinese net? What are they gonna do, cut the cables under the ocean?
No idea really, pretty weird concept, but governments mostly exist to perpetuate their own bureaucracy and their cash benefactors and patrons, so I guess they will keep restricitng it as far as they can with advanced tech. Big shame so many geeks will work for them and take the blood money.
Tell you what boys and girls. Pack you bags and take a little trip over to Germany. Visit one of the former Nazi death camps. Or take a little trip down to the Bosnia area, maybe via a mass grave or two (Having done it, I can tell you its a life altering experience).
Then come back and tell us all how this is bad, this is trampling on your rights. You fat Linux Hippie bastards, cocooned behind your monitors and keyboards.
Assholes
Does this ban hating Europeans, or just hating in general?
I'll form my OWN solar system! With blackjack! And hookers!
"Hate speech acts in the same way - by trying to make certain kinds of people seem less than human and by glorifying violent acts against them - it's just a matter of time before a follower or supporter of a hate group puts words into action." You are simply... ignorant. I don't know where you are from, but we already have a term for that in the U.S., it's called TERRORISM, and it is happening NOW. From anti-abortion bombers and murderers to the headliners of today. So, if I put up a website denouncing, or even expressing hatred towards terrorism and the true "scum" and it includes their religious beliefs which is their catalyst for all their murdering, I'm the scum? Please, go learn how to bake and clean... mmmmk? By the way, you're not that sexy. Intelligence is sexy and well, you're stoopid.
"It is essential that justice be done
they have forfeited their rights to free speech.
It doesn't work that way. Protecting the freedom of speech that we like is easy. Protecting the freedom of speech we don't like is what the First Amendment is all about. Otherwise, what happens when people don't like what you have to say?
There is no positive aspect to hate speech, and many of its defenders are closet racists themselves.
Nice try, but no. Defending free speech does not make me racist any more than defending gay rights makes me gay, or defending Disabled rights makes me disabled. I defend the rights of those who say things I don't like so that I have the right to say things they don't like.
Those who would claim the supremeacy of "free speech" obviously believe that James Byrd or Matthew Shepard deserve no legal protection against racists and homophobes, and such vile hatemongers should be tolerated.
Um, no. What happened to James Byrd and Matthew Shepard is illegal without hate speech laws and you'd be hard pressed to prove it wouldn't happen if there were hate speech laws.
Hate speech acts in the same way - by trying to make certain kinds of people seem less than human and by glorifying violent acts against them
Hate speech can only cause people to hate another group of people if they are uninformed and uneducated. Rascism (and other discrimination) comes from fear of the unknown. Remove that fear and the racism dies, no matter what anybody else has to say about that group of people.
it's just a matter of time before a follower or supporter of a hate group puts words into action.
Bullshit. The guy that pulls the trigger or swings the bat is 100% responsible for his actions, regardless of who told him to do it, and those actions are illegal without hate speech laws.
Do I think people should say racist things? No. Absolutely not. Do I think they should be allowed to? Yes, absolutely.
People's desire to believe they are right is much stronger than their desire to be right.
Funny!
When hate speech is uttered openly, it can be debunked and ridiculed. Banning it only gives it unwarranted credibility.
False dichotomy. Life has no value without freedom.
Even worse than, for example,
"I think there is a world market for maybe 5 computers"?
Or...
"640K ought to be enough for anyone"?
Perhaps you may have heard of a fellow by the name of Abbie Hoffman. "Freedom of speech is the right to shout 'theatre' in a crowded fire" a quote, I believe, from "Steal this Book". In which he laments the state of free speech in 1969 (among other things), free speech is one of the tenants that this country was founded upon. It amazes me how quickly we are willing to give away our hard-fought rights to protect our delicate sensibilities. Personally, I choose to avoid "hate sites" and I'm glad I have the right to do so.
That is exactly what free speech is all about.
90% of the world IS a slave if you look at who has the majority of the wealth in this world.
The 9th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is brilliant on this topic:
Jefferson refused to put his name to the Constitution until it had his 10 Amendments. One of them, the 9th, was to prevent the Government from explicitly listing the things you're allowed to do -- then using that as a way to restrict what you *can* do.
The language in the EU's law:
The people who wrote up the current legislation in Europe (and many US politicians, for that matter) fail to understand the lesson here:
It's useless trying make laws via ad-hoc enumeration.
Part of the Second American Revolution!
I guess you missed the part where it didn't stop people from making sexist or homophobic speech.
This is my sig, there are many like it, but this one is mine...
>> Free speech shouldn't endanger people's lives.
> False dichotomy. Life has no value without freedom.
Then your life has no value, as there is no such thing as true freedom.
YHBT. YHL. HAND.
"Being miserable and treating other people like dirt is every New Yorker's God given right."
And for all of you who might be trying to decide whether or not this is satire, it's not. Sometimes we must let the worst things pass to let the best things live.
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
The right to free speech means that everyone has that right, no matter how outrageous what they say is. If you outlaw speech that most people don't agree with, there is a chance that your speech will be outlawed when most people don't agree with you.
If you give the government the ability to remove what they claim to be "hate speech" from the web, you will give the government a powerful tool that they can abuse.
For example, there are a lot of people who don't believe their countries should support Israel for a variety of reasons. Some of these groups might put up web pages that present evidence that Israel has been the perpetrator of war crimes. These web sites could be blocked. The government will say these web sites are anti-semetic, however the real reason it is blocked is because the government doesn't want the evidence to be seen.
"You spoony bard!" -Tellah
Hey Poindexter: you haven't figured out yet that SexyKellyOsbourne is a troll? Sucks to be you, I guess...
There's nothing wrong with being a homophobe!
Obviously a bunch of faggots passed this law, and they need a good ass-whippin.
Sean: ringing doorbell..
...JEW BOY!!!! BUSH IS GONNA TAKE YOUR KIND OUT AND HANG THEM FROM PIANO WIRE!!! JJJJEEEWWW BOOOYY!!
... you GODDAMN STINKING MUSLIM TERRORIST BASTARD!
Mr. Goldstein : Ah, so it's you again Sean!
Sean: Here's you're Pizza
Mr. Goldstein:...Good to see you again Sean...no tip this time. try again next week.
(Door slamming)
Sean: We will get YOU!!!!
Mr. Goldstein: Sean, if you don't leave I will sick my dog on you again and call the police.
==========
Sean: Rings doorbell
Ramesh Patel: Ah, hello again Sean. Good to see you
Sean: Here's your pizza
Ramesh: Sean, I'm a Hindu, I told you
Sean: BUSH IS GONNA NUKE YOUR TERRAIST ASS, TRAITOR!
Ramesh: Nice to see you again Sean. No tip, I'm afraid
[closes door]
Sean: I PUT BACON ON IT!
Ramesh(muffled): I'm a Hindu, Sean. Please leave now
Sean: TERRORIST!
Ramesh: I am phoning the police now Sean
Stormfront's current main issue isn't even related to their usual "white pride" stridency. It's about US foreign policy. Their big point is that the US is being drawn into a war in the Middle East because of US support of Israel. They argue that Arab anger at the US revolves around US support of Israel. Thus, they want the US to reduce support of Israel and not go to war with Iraq. That's a political position. It's not hate speech.
Maybe so, but it still needed to be said.
People's desire to believe they are right is much stronger than their desire to be right.
Successfully inciting a crime is already prohibited in most of the 'civilized' world. In the EU, speaking ill of members of a group classified as a'priori victims is prohibited. They've done the very thing you condemn and created a prejudice based upon classification.
Excellent. So we ban "hate" speech. Of course, this is a law, so the government gets to enforce it, right?
Great. So now we're debating immigration policy. Let's suppose you think that we should reduce the number of immigration visas for Japanese people (let's say, just for grins, that 75% of all visas are given to Japanese, and you think other groups should get their fair share). Oops! That could be construed as "discrimination... based on... national or ethnic origin". So some government lackey decides you're a threat, and invokes the "hate speech" law. So much for your dissent. The government gets to continue giving 75% of visas to "acceptable" Japanese, keeping undesireables like Arabs out. Better yet, it's now illegal to disagree with the government on this issue.
See how that works? Time and time again, government has twisted laws like this to serve the purpose of stifling dissent. And it usually starts with stifling some group no one likes or agrees with, since that's easier to pass. Who likes child molesters, anyway? And anyone who disagrees with government immigration policy is just like those child molesters; they just want to hurt innocents. Who will think of the children?
"Dammit toqer, look at all those nips driving up the road, they're going to take over!" my uncle vince said to me one day as we stood outside the family fruit stand.
"You know, I hear they eat cats and dogs!"
This is but a small sample of what I heard from the men in my family. Every derogetory racial slur you could imagine. Funny thing is, despite only being 4th gen american, the older men in the family were always trying to get people to drop the idea that we were "dago wop Guinni Italians" for the cowboy white bread image they were trying to portray..
It would have worked too, if my parents wouldnt have been such fuckups.
Around 12 or so, the problems with my parents escalated to the point where I had to spend as little time as possible around them. The other white kids didn't really want to hang out with the kid from a broken family (divorced)
My first mexican friend manny and his family helped me get through a lot of stuff, even though they lived in an apartment, and dad was dead, his mom was so supportive of letting him be who he wanted, something my parents never even considered.
My second education into non-white culture was with my surrogate japanese family. When my mom kicked me out at 16, my japanese friends and their family would let me take showers at their house, feed me, give me clean clothes to wear. I gained culinary insight with sushi, and learned eating raw fish with a sake bomb could be quite tasty..
Doesn't really have a lot to do with the article does it? I read the topic was on EU adopting anti hate laws for the web, well ok here's my insight into the article.
I think everyone has a right to their opinion, no matter how wrong it is. Despite all the bad opinions I learned early on, later in life I learned the truth about people for myself. I don't need parliment acting as the thought police for me.
It's human nature to question everything.. No matter how a person is brought up, eventually they'll find their own truth.
You have the right to call me a racist homophobic fascist redneck and I have the right to tell you to shut the hell up.
Not noteable, IMO a rubbish article.
I guess there TV show will never see the day in Europe :)
Is Paved With "Good" Intentions.
Newsflash: New Yorkers are the only ones who think that. Venture in to flyover territory sometime, and you'll learn that people are pretty darn good, and you'll also learn why the rest of the country dislikes parochial New York.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
When are people ever going to learn that free speech must be absolute and sacrosanct, no matter how reprehensible the beliefs being espoused?
All viewpoints have something to offer, and none is totally correct; as humans, we are incapable of perceiving absolute Truth. That truth lies somewhere between the viewpoints, and by censoring any viewpoint -any viewpoint- we permanently cripple our ability to get closer to that Truth, whatever it may be.
Thoughts do not go away sinply because we forbid people to speak of them. The only valid way to stop hate has always been, and will always be, education, not legislation.
The council of Europe (COE) is NOT a European Union institution. The EU does have a "council" (a legislative body made of government representatives from the 15 member countries), but the COE is a totally different thing : it is a 44 states organization that comprises much more many countries in western and eastern Europe, as well as observers from all over the world, and that has an assembly made of representative from the countries parliement. Its role is mainly to monitor peace and human rights all over Europe.
You should be sorry. Racists, sexists, and homophobes are not scum, they merely have different beliefs than you. Do you advocate enacting laws restricting anyone who doesn't agree with you? How shortsighted.
You state that, "There is no positive aspect to hate speech, and many of its defenders are closet racists themselves." What a bunch of crapola. First you can't see any positive to people that disagree with you, then you make a generalized, unprovable, and stupid statement to justify your quote. That is pathetic.
While I am not a racist, sexist, or homophobe (see below) and would not choose to visit sites that speak out against certain types of people, those sites should be able to exist.
BTW, a pet peeve of mine. People who disagree with homosexuality are not homophobes. Calling them homophobes is a type of hate speech in itself as it tries to villify a group of people. I think homosexuality is wrong, disgustingly so. I speak out against it. I am not afraid of homosexuals. A homophobe is afraid of homosexuals.
Quit spreading your own hate speech.
Anybody remember slavery in America? John Brown? The guy who killed a lot of bepeople becuase they liked slavery? He was a follower of the US anit-slavery movment. The movement that hated slavery and those who practiced it. I guess where should have banned the anitslavery speach too... it led to a nut comiting violence! The cause was right! What John Brown did was wrong. Speach should be free. Violence should not.
Calling for killing someone else is clearly bad. The question is: why is it only bad if the target falls into a small number of categories? "Kill all Catholics" is banned under the EU statute, but "Kill all Abortion Doctors", "Kill all Lesbians", "Kill all Afghans", or "Kill all People with Tattoos" isn't.
Hate speech, i.e., speech that calls for violence against any group of people should be banned. But it is already. Hate speech and non-discrimination legislation, on the other hand, is inequitable, because it only protects some select groups. Powerful interests have managed to carve out their own special niches.
The irony is, of course, that non-discrimination and anti-hate-speech laws are being used by many promoters of hate speech to shield themselves: organizations like Fallwell's Ministries or the Catholic Church are responsible for much of the hate speech that we are subjected to every day.
As a member of a minority that is supposedly protected by these laws, I'd much rather do without them, thank you very much: they do more harm than good.
What will be interesting to see is how they wil lenforce those laws in America, seeing as how we seem to want to enforce our laws over there, it would only be fair.
3000 dead over past 2 years, still no free Palestinians, still
Dont worry everyone, this isnt about censoring the internet - you see, they are putting it under the "hate speech" banner, so no-one will protest against it (if you protest then your classed as a racist/sexist/homophobic etc etc. so whos going to speak up?) its really just a hack to take our general freedom of speech away. Im surprised their not using the terrorism excuse - i guess thats getting old
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
One of the worst things about hate speech laws is that they have the perverse effect of making the bad guys victims, so that they can gain sympathy. The Forbidden Fruit effect gives the hate groups some additional impetus - people want to know what it is that they are not being allowed to evaluate for themselves. And since the promulgation of the hateful ideas is kept out of the bright lights of open, public discourse, there is no opportunity for the haters to prove to the public, with their own words, what idiots they are.
The attempt to suppress all but the Orthodox line is a hallmark of a repressive regime - by adopting such policies, the Europeans have by vote reversed what was won on the battlefield (in no small part with the blood of servicemen from the country that made freedom of speech and religion the first article of the Bill of Rights - Pity that they didn't see fit to adopt it themselves after seeing what happens when governments try to control how people think.)
[100% ISO 646 Compliant]
SVM, ERGO MONSTRO.
>incites hatred
Ignoring the free speech issues (speech Prohibition makes it more desirable like alcohol), the portion above is key:
The problem is that some speech may **incite hatred** in me, but not you. Is it an objective standard or is it subjectively determined by its results?
For example, CNN may carry a news story about the terrorists and mention their race or religion. It MAY INCITE hatred of them by ME. But if my friend Ali reads it, it wouldn't in him.
The question is who decides, and why should it be limited to those groups. Why doesn't it ban hatred against anyone? the rich, gender, Microsoft?
Who decides who should be protected and who decides what is a bad thing? It is a slippery slope to "1984" and "Animal Farm".
Free speech is the best way of debunking idiots who hate (and I hate people who hate, btw).
Is calling people "scum" like this guy did hate speech????
It sounds like it to me.
Interesting oxymoron and strawman argument: "I'm for tolerance and nonviolence and anyone against me will get a punch in the nose!"
So the law forbids *both* sides of political debate? Or is it a totalitarian "THOUGHTCRIME" bill? Some Evil thoughts more equal than others?
I can make the case that Islam is a biased religion full of "hate" because it says to convert, subjugate and rule over Jews and Christian, or even kill them (Surah 9:29). Am I engaging in 'hate speech' to critique it like this? Have they outlawed a whole religion?
I think fordibbing the freedom of speech is indeed the Greater Evil than any flawed human thinking. It's not Government's business to tell us what to think, its only their business to protect our right TO think, among other rights. All other human flaws can be exposed in the arena of free expression.
I am sorry that the EU doesnt have faith in freedom. Freedom is a beautiful thing!!
That's moving too much to an authoritarian government.
Authoritarian/liberal is not the same as left/right
A left/liberal governement is anarco-communist
A right/liberal government is raw capitalist
A left/authoritarian government is socialist
a right/authoritarian government is conservative
I have been reading through most of the comments posted to this article and come across some interesting things that I would like to talk about.
1. Dont you people read the link the article is pointing to before you post a reply? The story is about the Council of Europe, not the EU.
2. There has been many people holding up freedom of speach to the skies as an absolute, all or nothing thing, I would like them to put forth some kind of proof that doing this will not help, it will only make things worse. This is atleast what I understand their point to be.
3. I live in europe, in one of the countries that this effects, sweden allready has a law like this so I dont care too much for this new thing though. The impression that I get is that the people of europe wants to be protected from these sorts of things. Is it not true that vocal and secret racism and hatred to minorities happens more often and is more evident in the usa then in Europe? I dont havto put up with or respect these people. And I want it that way. If you have any evidence why this is a bad way to think about it please let me know.
However, since it's not the U.S., I see subtle defenses of what amounts to censorship and attempted mind control. Hate speech is still speech and if you think censoring or punishing hate speech isn't repressive, you are dead wrong. This is a very right-wing move for Europeans who frequently love to argue that they are so much more liberal than the U.S. and are far more evolved in terms of human rights.
Apparently not.
This really isn't a troll or flamebait, but this kind of double-standard annoys the hell out of me. When we see repressive moves by the governing bodies in Europe, it's necessary "for a better society and world" whereas when it's the U.S., it's just "more typical American ignorance." Well, allow me to be the first to call bullshit on this and point out that a really liberal society would fight this kind of Big Brother-ism tooth-and-nail. Rationalize it however you want, but it's still censorship, repression and a strikingly right-wing move for a supposedly liberal part of the planet.
--Rick "If it isn't broken, take it apart and find out why."
I used to think that way too. However, there comes a time when you have to stand up for what YOU believe in (and don't). Then, you can simply not tolerate such behaviour from certain kinds of people anymore.
The times are changing now, and both governments and grassroots people WILL put their foot down more now than before. It is a change in our consciousness, we're seeing more and more of how our world operates, and WE DON'T LIKE IT. As our society becomes more transparent, we will have the means to observe and change it at an accellerated pace. Expect more scandals now than ever before..
I have changed my mind, and will be taking a stand. I'm not *AGAINST* anyone. I don't hate hateful people (which is a very easy trap to fall into), but this is a time to stop being passive, neutral and sarcastic. Time for action! Negative behaviour has been tolerated way too much by ordinary people.
I said "ordinary people" in my last post above, but that is taking alot of power out of everyone. Of course everyone is *EXTRAORDINARY*. YES YOU ARE!!
I back my 1st amendment rights up with my 2nd amendment rights. Fuck EU!
I advise reading the book "The Holocaust Industry" (written by a Jew), which details much of the seedier side of the Holocaust, including people who claim to have been in concentration camps - but who were later proven to have spent the war in Switzerland, of misdirection of funds intended for Holocaust victims.
One good example is that this law makes it illegal to suggest that less than 6,000,000 Jews were murdered, might it have been 5,999,999? Oops, you just broke the law.
There are many who think that the number was actually lower than 6 Million based on census information and other data at the time. Now, some would have you believe that even thinking that less than 6 million Jews might have died during WWII is disrespectful to the memory of those that died, but how much more disrespectful is it to censor the truth, to misuse funds intended for the families of the real victims, or to pretend that you suffered when you didn't?
Specifically, the amendment bans "any written material, any image or any other representation of ideas or theories, which advocates, promotes or incites hatred, discrimination or violence, against any individual or group of individuals, based on race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin, as well as religion if used as pretext for any of these factors." "I hate XXX" neither advocates, promotes or incites hatred. No impeachment of free speach. You can still say that you are a hatefull little low-life. Even in Europe.
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
Isn't that illegal now? You know, hating people who hate?
Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam
Interested in AI? MACR
European hate laws... Ya.. That's funny. Talk about a racist continent. They don't hate based on the color of skin, as is the problem in North America.
..."
They hate based on geography, right down to the region of a country itself. They dislike immigrants to a much larger extent then even the Americans appear to (right now), and don't even get me started on religion.
With religion, they take it to an all new high. Shit, they just love to fight.
But its Europe, they make jokes about how conservative and up-tight we are... Ya... well at least I can make a racial slur (and get my ass kicked, but that's different), you can have all your tv porn, nude beaches, low sexual age of consent, and no laws against child porn.
At least I can still say "I hate
There are times when I'm thankful there is an ocean between us... These are one of them.
Tournament Management Online &
So are lawyers and used car salesmen. But there aren't any laws inhibiting their speech.
"If someone actively goes out of their way to tell people that 90% of the world's population should be enslaved or that the best thing they can do is kill someone because of their skin color, religion, ethnic background, immigration status, sexual orientation, disability, etc., they have forfeited their rights to free speech."
Your disagreement alone isn't justification to revoke their "inalienable rights." They're not yours to take away.
"They deserve no rights..."
You seem to be confusing the concept of "right" to "privilege." There is no deserving involvled when it comes to rights.
"There is no positive aspect to hate speech, and many of its defenders are closet racists themselves."
Let me see if I can't replace a few words in that sentence and see if you still agree with your own philosophy: "Those who would claim the supremeacy of "free speech" obviously believe that James Byrd or Matthew Shepard deserve no legal protection against racists and homophobes, and such vile hatemongers should be tolerated."
I fail to see how "saying mean and nasty things about someone" falls under the same classification as murder, assult, etc.
"Hate speech is an abuse of free speech"
The only way you can "abuse" a right is to use it to disenfranchise the rights of others. Demonstrate that "hate speech" infringes on their target's own right to say what they want and I'll reconsider your position.
"people's lives are more important than the right of someone to publicly encourage others to target certain groups for a campaign of murder, rape, assault and terror."
I tend to give "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" equal weight. If all they're doing is bitching and moaning about things they don't like, if there isn't a clear and present threat against somebody's life, I see no reason to prevent them from saying what they want. After all, words only have as much weight as the listener decides to give them.
" but when people begin acting on the words of hate speech spreading like cancer on the internet, then the damage is done."
And there is the root of your problem. You don't accept the concept of free will. You don't believe that people can make a conscious decision on their own to act or not act on something they've heard.
While you may not believe you have a will of your own and need a government to spoon-feed you only "good" information, I refuse to let you force your opinions on me through law. That's something not even the "hate speech" folks can do to me.
"Free speech shouldn't endanger people's lives. One can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, because people will probably get hurt trying to get out."
In case you missed it, you can't do that in the US, either. But people don't go scurrying around trampling themselves to death by saying (for example) "Homosexuals are evil!" With statements like that, people first decide for themselves whether or not to agree with the statement and whether or not to act upon it.
"Hate speech acts in the same way - by trying to make certain kinds of people seem less than human and by glorifying violent acts against them"
About the only difference between how you describe hate speech proponents and your own words is the way you're not (quite) supporting violence against them. Of course, depriving them of life, liberty and property isn't exactly all fun and games, either.
"it's just a matter of time before a follower or supporter of a hate group puts words into action"
A speaker is not directly responsible for the follower's lack of judgement or free will. You are not responsible for me, and I refuse to be responsible for you.
Update the link in your sig.
m l, I do believe.
Northwestern university shut down the place where the demented cartoon movie was hosted because of the absurd amount of traffic it caused.
Quite amusing, really.
It's now at:
http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/demented.ht
I just happen to be mentioning this. I'm not in any way affiliated with the demented cartoon movie, except for that fact that it was made by my brother.
Experts agree: everything is fine.
Europeans generally have a large problem with hate speech. That is, not only the governments but the small people also. (And this applies also to myself.) They think it should not be allowed to make public your hate towards a specific (ethnic) group. Because allowing that would look like this is a generally accepted fact about that group (instead of being viewed as your opinion). Additionally people tend to think that you're EVIL if you hate publicly. Of course, (almost) everyone hates privately, but that's another matter.
People tend to say that hate speech is not tolerated in Europe because of the hideous past of most the countries (especially Germany). While that may be a factor, there are also a lot of other reasons:
Europe is culturally very mixed and (unlike American immigrants) minority people tend to identify themselves very strongly with their original country for at least 3 generations until assimilation kicks in. This makes the situation a bit volatile and public, tolerated hate speech would definetely result in civil unrest.
Europe also has much more population density than the States. So if hate agitators would like to create some kind of disturbance, they affect much more people.
Publicly tolerated hate in Europe would be counterproductive and possibly dangerous in my opinion. Of course this raises the whole issue of censorship but understand that for an average European this issue doesn't feel like censorship at all. Somewhere in there is a fine line that seperates between political/philosophical opinion and hate speech. And so far authorities have not blurred that line, yet...
Perhaps if the rest of the world DID function with the same set of rules, the world would not be such a messed up place. Perhaps not too, people tend to be sheep and need to be led.. which negates what the US was founded on. ( and i personally feel was lost sometime ago )
---- Booth was a patriot ----
So does this mean that lying is illegal in Canida? Jeeze, that means we'll have to lock up all the politicians, then! It seems that you are saying that the illegal part is the lie... but who determines the truth? "Funny thing about politicians, though, you can allways tell when they're lying; their lips move." -- Max Headroom "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." --Voltaire
My site: Free Nature Pictures
The so called CoE is just a useless discussion club
with no power whatsoever. Unfortuently my country (Russia) had the misfortune of joing it. In return for being constantky shit on we had to drop death penalty (so now we cannot execute the terorists who held 1000 people hostage in Moscow). We also have to put up with conctant Checnya inspections by likes of Lord Judd.
US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
free speech is allowing terrorists to have meetings to share their hatred towards western countries(read: americans).
the way i see it, americans liked giving up their privacy(see what happened after 9/11)
but they DONT want action against terrorist propaganda?
CAN YOU BE ANY DUMBER?!?!?!
ah well..im glad im a european. willing to give up the right to insult arabs,jews,homos...and yes...even AMERICANS!
That statement is hate speech itself. You make a false and hateful statement about another group of people to justify your beleif in your own superiority.
How is prejudice against me because I support free speech any different than prejudice against someone for his or her race, gender, or sexual orientation?
omnia tua castra sunt nobis
Often the distinction between Voluntary Manslaughter and Second-Degree murder is "adequate provocation," which definately considers the motive of the killer.
Hate is a real problem even in the most civilized developed nations. But banning hate speech? Its like requiring a patient to sign an NDA to keep his diagnosos secrent. Will cancer disapper if noone who got it can talk about it?
US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
Being German, I have to be quite sensibel about subjects like this ...
I study law, and paragraph 5 of our constitution tells us we got freedom of opinion, and to express it in word, writing, and whatever form there might be. Now, what's an opinion ? This question is vital, since it decides on what's protected and what's not. Now, try to define it. Quite tough, ehh? Now, the stantard definition we have is that opinion is something evaluating. This also makes clear what opinion is not: pure facts. Pure facts are not an opinion. Therefore, the statement of pure facts is not protected. If you say 1+3 = 5 that's not an opinion, it's downright wrong.
So, what does this make this new EU thing. If you state some plain wrong "facts" about WWII, you are not protected, and I think that's quite understandable. The victims of wars simply don't deserve this.
However, opinion has to be allowed, no matter what the subject might be. Maybe these are unconstitutional ? However, constitutional law can be restricted, if it conflicts with other constitutional law. So, if we say, that the dignity of man (article 1) is violated by this, dignity of man always comes first.
We have to be carefull as hell, but I don't think anything is allowed to stand as an absolute, it has to go fine with other, not less important stuff.
George
Does hating Micro$oft count?
What about Computer Associates?
Novell?
---- "Logoff! That cookie shit makes me nervous!" - A. Soprano
Oh yes you can: it's called "conspiracy." Although I imagine that you're aware of this, I felt it necessary to point out that "saying anything" can be considered an "act" when there is collaboration.
Also, a crime is defined as an "act or omission." Not doing something can also be criminal, especially in cases of de-facto contractual relationships (caring for children, etc).
No, no, no. Look up Adequate Provocation sometime.
It is unsurprising that so many /.ers get this.
No speech should ever be censored, only modded down.
omnia tua castra sunt nobis
I tend to think of Hate laws as anti-propoganda laws. Here in Canada we have anti-hate laws, and they seem to work well.
Define "work".
"The Holocaust didn't happen and the Jews..." likley would, since you are deliberately trying to mislead someone into hating another ethnic group based on falsehoods.
But then the courts get involved in determining what *are* falsehoods. Maybe the holocaust is not in much contention, but what if they said 'Jews own most of the media companies and manipulate the media'.
Does that mean the courts get involved in whether "manipulation" really happened? Either they get a fair trial, which could be long and involved and expensive, or they are subject to abritrary whims of judges.
Thought Police if you ask me.
Further, lack of such expression only tends to fuel paranoia and conspiracy theories.
Didn't Canada ban some position pamphletes printed in Isreal? What exactly was the "hate" printed on them?
Table-ized A.I.
This reminds me of the fabled attempt to legally declare that pi is equal to 3. You simply can't legislate the truth. Who gets to determine what the truth is? Who decides whether someone's opinions are "hate speech"?
Why, the government, of course! This means the power to define a particular historical record and interpretation that is inviolable and illegal to dispute. Among other things, emasculates the entire discipline of history.
"I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." -- Voltaire
My site: Free Nature Pictures
As I was getting bored by the sheer platitude of all these replies I got, which should be modded down as -1 (Redundant) instead of modding down this or the parent... but it still was a pretty good devil's advocate troll!
Thanks again for posting something moderatly interesting as opposed to all the sibling groupthink posts out there. As General Patton once said, "If everyone's thinking alike, then someone's not thinking."
Hate speech can only cause people to hate another group of people if they are uninformed and uneducated. Rascism (and other discrimination) comes from fear of the unknown. Remove that fear and the racism dies, no matter what anybody else has to say about that group of people.
Your answer doesn't imply a better solution. Should we outlaw fear or ignorance?
Bullshit. The guy that pulls the trigger or swings the bat is 100% responsible for his actions, regardless of who told him to do it, and those actions are illegal without hate speech laws.
In most cases legally the person who instructs or commands you to do something illegal is considered at least partially culpable, depending on the circumstances.
This is exactly the kind of crap that other countries do to their citizens that makes people come to the U.S. legally or otherwise. I'm sorry, I just had to puke that out of my system. It may sound like I hate illegal immigrants from this statement. Which is simply is not true but I'd bet they'd filter me out regardless. Then I wouldn't even get the opportunity to tell them I hate them for hating me thinking that I hate someone else... This is stupid! Sheesh, when will they stop cranking out the morons? Can I hate morons? Pleeez? Or would that mean that I hate myself? Could I do that? Where would it stop? Okay, I'll stop. Here. No here... N
BTW, a pet peeve of mine. People who disagree with homosexuality are not homophobes. Calling them homophobes is a type of hate speech in itself as it tries to villify a group of people. I think homosexuality is wrong, disgustingly so. I speak out against it. I am not afraid of homosexuals. A homophobe is afraid of homosexuals.
I think this sums it up rather well:
A homophobe is anyone who has an irrational fear for homosexuality whether they are aware of this fear or not. Since prejudice of any form is irrational and a product of fear of difference anyone prejudiced against homosexuals is homophobic. Some homophobes maintain they are not homophobic because they don't mind homosexuality but they wish the would do it behind closed doors/not kiss in public/have no equality/have no freedom of speech/would just go away. Again, this is an irrational treatment of homosexuality based on prejudice: at least do the honorable thing and admit you are a homophobe.
What is hate speech? I hate pediophiles. If I put up a web site against having sex with little kids am I a bad person?
Right now, I think everyone in the world would agree with me. But you must realize, as early as the 1950's, anti-gay speech was just as socially acceptable as anti-pediophile speech is now.
You see that if you start banning one type of speech, or one side of an issue, where do you stop?
It is a slippery slope.
-A
The same freedom of speech that lets the KKK spread it's evil ideas lets the rest of us oppose them.
One of the more interesting KKK themes is that different races *cannot* get along (as history has allegedly shown). Therefore, they should seperate from each other (different territory) so that we don't have to keep fighting with each other.
That is a legitimate political opinion, even though I don't agree with it. Censoring such an idea would be a outright evil IMO.
Table-ized A.I.
Hell yeah.
Well said. I'm not American, but if this is what the 1st amendment stands for, I'd gladly become one.
Your answer doesn't imply a better solution.
The better solution is to teach tolerance before they can learn hate.
Should we outlaw fear or ignorance?
Of course not. That's little better than outlawing hate. You can fight it without it being illegal.
In most cases legally the person who instructs or commands you to do something illegal is considered at least partially culpable, depending on the circumstances.
I wasn't speaking legally, I was speaking morally. People are responsible for making their own decisions.
People's desire to believe they are right is much stronger than their desire to be right.
"Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
I'm not from New York. And I only know one person who is. Therefore New Yorkers aren't the only ones, and I sure hope most people don't think like you.
Freedom of expression means that the government won't do something to you when you say something that they feel demeaned by. It gives us the right to criticize.
As a side consequence, it gives some people the right to treat others like dirt.
I'll gladly take the latter for the sake of the former.
Mind you, nowhere in my comment did I say that people SHOULD treat others like dirt - I'm definitely opposed to that, and I think that as a whole every human being on earth has a responsibility to care for every other human being they meet, though they have the right to deny this responsibility.
Its ironic how well this comment applies to your statement which basically implied,
1) You're ignorant (via the "Newsflash" statement)
2) You're from New York, which is where all the bad people are. The rest of the country is nicer than you, and nobody else in the country likes anything about your home.
Seems like you are using your right to free speech to treat me like dirt, doesn't it?
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
Does censoring this material, however, not create a false world, where such speech is not seen and dealt with in an appropriate way?
To take the example of a virus [biological], going and living in Antarctica will rid you of exposure to such viruses [IANAScientist] but the moment you enter another country, or the real world, if you like, you've no defenses to the multitude of virii there.
There's a saying in Scotland [at least]: "A little bit of dirt, does you good." It keeps your bodily defence system fit. There are suggestions that children develop allergic reactions due to too clean a household.
Anyway, all my pop-science aside, hate speech will always exist, until we humans purify our hearts, as a species, develop enlightnment etc. So long as we havent done that, creating a rarefied environment, without hatred, where we can't learn how to accept it and deal with it well, will leave us culturally and personally weak.
To quote a Buddhist saying, "You don't cover the whole world in leather, you wear a pair of shoes."
Hate speech, malicious and deliberate encitement to violence and discrimination needs to be dealt with not by censoring it from the public's view, but in giving people the counter-case, the truth, the facts, and creating an environment where hate cannot flourish.
And that way, we don't become weakened, frail creatures; hothouse flowers unable to withstand the slightest chill. And we don't become oppressed by the ignorant pc-nazi-language-fascists, who, I would suggest, don't really know what they're doing, and are quite happy to trample on all of us, under the glazed zeal of protecting people.
Or something like that.
Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
I fundamentally agree with this perspective, expressing ones viewpoint is sacrosanct. Where I start to have a problem is when one promotes or encourages harmful action based on that viewpoint. It's ok even to try to convince another that your viewpoint is valid, but to suggest, recommend, or demand that one take harmful, illegal action based on that viewpoint is wrong.
You're free to say that you hate some person or group. You're free to try to provide evidence of the reasons behind your feeling or opinion. (Since most hate is unreasoned and emotional, it's unlikely such evidence will be convincing or hold up to scrutiny. Unfortunately, many people are either not capable of or choose not to apply reason.) This is part of seeking the truth and normal dialogue. It's also guaranteed by the first amendment to the United States Constitution.
But to suggest that the targets of your hate should be harmed as a result of their person or status is improper. For me, that's where the line should be drawn. Of course there are already laws in place that prohibit the harmful action itself. The grey area is in what constitutes promotion of that action.
The right to say "I hate blue people and here is why." is sacrosanct. (No offense intended toward the Blue Man Group, in fact I love them.) To kill blue people because you hate them is clearly illegal. To say "You should kill blue people because I hate them and you should hate them too." is that grey area. Personally, I think that, though this is a form of speech, it is wrong. My internal jury is still out on whether this should be illegal, but I am leaning toward it's prohibition.
This is exactly the situation on the anti-abortion choice sites that promote the killing of doctors who perform abortions. How's that for a delicious irony? One of the commandments that these people purport to believe and is a fundmental tenet of their religion is "Thou shalt not Kill." This seems pretty clear. Yet they think it's ok to kill a doctor who performs abortions. One of the bumper stickers that I have seen says "Why do we kill people who kill people to show that killing people is wrong?" It has broader implications, but certainly applies here. (Disclaimer: please do not infer from this that I consider a fetus a person, although there are those that do. Personally, I disagree.)
I absolutely agree that the solution is education. I believe that education is the process of improving onesself and the world and does not involve the promotion of or harming others. One of my favorite quotes is "Prejudice rarely survives experience." -- Eve Zibart, Washington Post.
War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength. - George Orwell or George Bush?
If someone actively goes out of their way to tell people that 90% of the world's population should be enslaved or that the best thing they can do is kill someone because of their skin color....
It is already not legal to threaten somebody's life. There are already laws for that. We just need enforcement, not yet more laws that are too broad.
I guess this means those of you in the EU won't be allowed to read Slashdot at -1 anymore. Time to stop giving the Europeans moderation points.
So what the hell is your point? Or was this meant to be sarcastic? Please tell me it is so...
Remember that song? Bigotry against bigots is still bigotry. Hmm... it's obvious that all us free speech advocates believe that, eh? The criminals who committed those heinous acts are just that. Criminals. And I think you'll have a very hard time finding any free speech advocates who believe otherwise. There's a word for judging an entire group of people without considering what they might individually be like: "prejudice".
Groups like the KKK have long been in decline, even though they've been free to express their ideas. It's the freedom of others that has brought about this decline, along with positive changes like women's sufferage, and the civil rights movement of the 1960's.
Hate speech is not ok. But restricting speech isn't an effective way to fight the hate itself. Much better to use your own free speech to expose the corrupt and promote good. Like the old saying, it is better to light a single candle than to curse the darkness.
...for posting that.
You're misinterpreting the entire issue. It's currently illegal in the United States for someone to outright advocate the killing of a person for some aspect of their life (religion, gender, etc.) That's not at issue here. What IS at issue is whether people can be censored for saying "I think that all should be dead." In this instance, you're not saying "go out and kill all ," and that's typically legal.
I'm of the same mindset with you in terms of racists, homophobes, et al. being scum. They do have beliefs that are seriously inconsistent with the majority and with common sense. But does that in and of itself require a limitation of their rights? The best way to fight hateful speech is not through laws, but through speech that is nonhateful and nonjudgemental. That's the way to lessen or prevent hate speech, not with simple shells of laws.
Want Slashdot headlines on your site? Try SlashHead
You better not show your--
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
You gotta want it bad, 'cause it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say, "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating, at the top of his lungs, that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. You want to claim this land as the land of the free, then the symbol of your country can't just be a flag; the symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest." Show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then you can stand up and sing about the land of the free.
- Michael Douglas (acting as President Andrew Shepard), The American President
Europe is goin to be everyday more 1984 alike.
i guess i need to stop bashing microsoft then.
"Those who would claim the supremeacy of "free speech" obviously believe that James Byrd or Matthew Shepard deserve no legal protection against racists and homophobes, and such vile hatemongers should be tolerated."
Yea, they do deserve legal protection. It's called murder being illegal. Why does motivation make a murder more or less of a crime?
Hate speech has a positive aspect which is that I can read stormfront.org and within seconds know that I do not want to donate money to them or support them in their agenda. If they are forced to ``go underground'' or modulate their message then they sound more moderate. By sounding more moderate, they will appeal to a larger audience. In fact, I think that anti-hate speech laws are tantamount to forcing radical racist fringe groups to make better more appealing propaganda than they would if they were just left alone. This is, IMO, quite bad.
There is also an underlying assumption here that speech leads to action. It is the same assumption that drives general film censorship, and something that I disagree with. I can't recall exactly how many murders I've seen on film, but I haven't exactly been driven to go out and murder people.
Yelling fire in a crowded theatre is a different example, because it is a direct incitement to direct action. There is the difference between the expression of an opinion and the solicitation to action in just about every legal jurisdiction for a reason. Free speech is not protected once one starts to solicit direct action, in the U.S., obviously as conspiracy to commit X charges would not hold up.
No offense, but I think you must be an idiot. I'm not a lawyer, but I think there are other laws in effect when you beat someone to death. The charge of murder comes to mind. Just because I say I wish someone would beat you to death, doesn't make you fall to the ground dead. If I pick up a crow bar and swing it at you, I am now in violation of assault laws. You're crying foul before anything has happened to you.
That reminds me of an interesting thing I saw on a "Donahue" show many years ago when he was on regular TV. The subject was whether one of the southern states that had a Confederate flag on it, should be forced to remove it from the flag. Most of the audience was white, and Phil was asking their opinion. He stopped at an older jewish lady and asked her thoughts. She said "I think it is a historical element, over a hundred years old, and the black people, although I know it is offensive to them, it is just a flag and not an attack." So Phil says, "What if someone wanted to put a Swastika on the New York State flag?" "Well now you're being rediculous." was her answer.
Everone's idea of hate and offensive is different. I don't know you, but I guarantee I could find many things that you don't find offensive that other groups would. You ever watch porno? There are a lot of people who consider that hate. You not a christian? There are some that would see you as evil. You not a Catholic? There are some who would see you as a cancer on society and honestly believe the country would be better without you. You are all for stopping ideas you don't like as long as you're side is in power, but if the shoe was on the other foot you would cry like a baby?
I'm equally disturbed that you got 5 points for wanting to take our rights away. Seriously, there are other countries you would be happier in.
But I'm not all hate. Check my sig.
- I like pudding.
Let me preface my post by clearing up that in fact I am a gay white middle class male living in america.
I am vehemolently against hate crime / speach laws, they do nothing but cause resentment and lead to abuses of our legal system that should not happen. One of my friends back in college got in a fight once, he happened to call the other person a "fag" (he was clearly straight, we all knew it) yet he got charged with a hate crime. It was disgusting.
I should also point out the same right that allows hate mongers to spread their atrocities is the same right that allows sensible people to rebel against those atrocities. Removing that right for political reasons (either way) makes it much easier to remove that right for the "good" side in the future.
I think the most important quote to remember during these discussions is the following:
"I don't agree with a word you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
This applies to all people and all political views, even if they are extremely wrong. (I should point out harassment and other bad things aern't covered under my personal definition of protected speech. Your right to dehumanize me ends when I'm in the room.)
I live in a giant bucket.
--the funny part of these "laws" is the selective blinders they use. The national socialist party killed x-millions of people, granted. this is data, not opinion, it happened. Hmm, the communist party of the soviet union killed at LEAST x million times 2 people, mostly their own citizens. Data, it happened. Is it "illegal and promoting hate speech" to buy/sell hammer and sickle flags in germany now? Are pro-communist websites tolerated? Is a communist party allowed to operate and run candidates?
See? Pure hypocrisy and triple speak. There's an agenda here, should be easy to see and pick up on.
Right now nations around the world are bending over backwards to enrich and justify the existence of the mainland chinese communist party, who rule in every feudal sense of the word-a technofuedalism but still feudal-over 1.5 billion people, and have murdered at least 50 million if not more than 100 million of their own citizens-and it's NOT past history-they are still there, same communist party. Unapproved religion? too bad, re education camp or a bullet to the head. Some fatcat needs a kidney, pop, some prisoner provides it. Have one too many kids? No problem, they'll strangle or drownd them on the spot after birth. real nice guys they are... but that's OK, we can get cheap gadgets from them...
Does germany or the rest of the europaen union classify communist china as just as e-vile as the national socialist party of germany was? No? Why not, don't those millions murdered count the same?
More plutocratic triple speak hypocrisy.
The US government can have an official spokesgoon stand up and claim "they had no prior knowledge of al queda threats against US buildings or using airplanes as weapons and etc". Well, that's a total lie, literally dozens of "official" cops and bureaucrats knew full well about it, fbi agents reporting it got told to shut up, etc.
Governments lie, they demonize whom they wish to demonize, create a class of "less than humans" so they can go kill them and steal from them. It can be an official government, or a 'government" of assorted people united in whatever particular whacky stupid "cause" they come up with-that part doesn't matter, it just "happens" and the default is always this "hate" is almost universally based on fabrications for the most part, and they grant themselves selective memory all the time. They only remember what is "convenient" for them..
In the US, it's close, REAL close now to being "hate speech" to point this out, give it some time, you'll see it happen, you'll be a "terrorist" if you say out loud the government lies or exaggerates, it will be construed as hate speech, ie, "illegal", and when governments do it, it's called "policy" and is legitimate. It's all over now, welcome to the NWO. It's incrementalism, not all the way here yet, but close. EU's hate speech rulings are part of the puzzle, that's all, just one more slow chipping away. Big push for biometrics now, soon they'll say you were actually "thinking bad thoughts" and that will be a crime, no audible speech or publishing necessary. Just watch it happen, then you'll see why starting down that "hate speech" road is such a bad idea.
The 9th A. doesn't really do anything. at least as it's been construed for over 200 years. It is more a rule of construction for federal-state relations, a reminder that by default the powers not vested in the federal gov't lie with the states -- which states (even if you were correct) would be able to enumerate rights as you fear. Besides, most hate crime laws are state laws, and thoroughly constitutional.
If you don't believe me, try to find a law held unconstitutional under the 9th A. by the Supreme Court. There are plenty of federal laws enumerating certain acts, enacted under federal powers such as the 14th A.
A hate crime law merely singles out crimes committed with certain prohibited intents for greater punishment. This is consistent with the
It sounds good, but when you realize you cannot outlaw ignorance without being ignorant yourself it fails.
The way to control hate is to contain it, and simply make it known that its wrong, fight information with information, fight ignorance with intelligence.
Make a law to track every hate site, make a law to monitor the hosts, make laws to allow hosts of hate sites to be monitored by anti terrorist units, but thats all you can do, monitor hate.
They deserve freedom of speech, i also believe we shouldnt stop file sharing, but monitoring is fine.
Hate is wrong, but you cant stop it by censoring it and you can get more intelligence info from monitor and containment to stop any attacks they try to make before they happen.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
To stop hate its better that we monitor them than make them go underground.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
But actually your ideas don't even have to be interesting to be protected under the 1st amendment. I agree with you that censoring these clowns would be a bad idea, for ideological as welll as practical reasons.
But the history of Europe has been different from ours, and I appreciate that they may need different rules. We've never had anything quite like the Holocaust on American soil, thank god. (Yes, I haven't forgotten the American Indian.)
Saddam Hussein and these war protesters comprise a prime example. The reports of his tyranny and mass murder fall on deaf ears. They don't see the beheadings and bodies ripped apart at the orders of Czar Hussein on TV.
Exposure of evil incites opposition to it, which is what we need. If there is no exposure, the guilty will come to be perceived as innocent, and they will be defended from prosecution rather than pushed into the authorities' hands, as is fortunately the case with the Klan.
Whenever the KKK has a rally, there are mobs of people who physically attack them. That sounds awfully hawkish to me. *cough* That seems like a war-mongering attitude. Why are there no anti-violence PEACE rallies against fighting the Ku Klux Klan? The answer is: it is politically correct for the media to expose the sins of only "right wing" groups like the Klan but not the atrocities of Saddam, Arafat, Castro, and other liberal-media-buddy despots.
Does anyone else see this as a means for the legal department of scientology to go after those that protest or critisize(sp) its practices?
Great... now they really can take down Xenu.net
We have been here already, pad're. The Euro-Nazis haven't changed one spot - between 1942 & 2002. Der Furhers 1000-year-Reich smells just like the EU ... the same sniggering hate of personal freedom, the same elitist powermongering, the same groping after the weaker before attacking the stronger ... the same lack of guts for a real fight. Screw-'em and the droolers riding in with them. I say, pad're let the Ruskis have the whole bas*ard lot next time 'round!
People who don't realize that there are real differences between peoples - say between the English and the French, or between Buddhists and Hindus - haven't seen much of the world. People who have no preferences among peoples - say for the Danish over the Austrians, or the athiests over the born-agains - no more really care about people than does someone who claims to care about music but can't give you any preference between Bach and Nsync, or Beatles and Bacharach really care about music - or someone who claims to care about food but can't give you any preference between Wonder Bread and German Rye really care about food - or someone who claims to care about painting but can't give you any preference between da Vinci and a road sign really care about art.
"Hate" laws are intended to enforce an attitude of "I just don't notice; I have no taste, I don't care, and I'm just going to accept the world the way it's packaged for me - Wonder World!" It's not that there's some "right" preference everyone should have - but if you've no preference at all you just aren't paying attention.
And not paying attention, among human beings, is often worse than hatred. Many a child or lover would rather be hated than ignored. So peoples who are ignored make of themselves objects of hate. The "no hate crimes" mentality leads directly to the Palestinian uprising and the attack on New York. We must pay enough attention to peoples to notice the differences; discussion of these differences must not be taboo. In making it so, "good" people enact evil.
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
any +insightfull to this post will be caught in metamod... I'm about to puke
...the Great Firewall of Europe?
Yeah, the INS has fairly substantial powers, and the rights of the constitution apply in a more limited way. Nothing in the Constitution says this directly, however; it's implied from the President's powers to protect the borders. The immigration folks have been granted tremendous discretion with non-Americans, and many Americans are not thrilled with that. In the wake of 9/11 that power has grown, and once the stories filter out even the "it doesn't hurt to be cautious" folks will start to question the path we've gone down.
:)
But even illegal immigrants have certain rights to due process and such. (If you're an "illegal enemy combatant" you're SOL.) The ACLU site (down at the moment?) might be worth your perusal. Sorry if you were mistreated, please visit again.
Note that law enforcement may misrepresent legal rights to even Americans. There's a always a temptation to be overzealous, and the agent may not fully understand the law (and sometimes they're jerks, but I understand that happens even in other countries!). I was searched, for drugs presumably, in a Paris metro once, and I hadn't the slightest idea what my rights were.
How will the block the sites if the person is using a US proxy server. Or are they going to outlaw the use of proxy servers?
That's not a "real" solution, that's a basis for a solution, not a solution itself. That's like saying, "we should solve the problem by getting rid of it." It's like a corporate mission statement: it specifically avoids practical meaning.
So teach everyone, all the time? I don't get it. How can you tell whether someone's been "taught" or not? Having a principle for a solution and having an actual solution are two very different things. And that's why we see laws like this.
Execution of prisoners of war is a war crime,
so you couldn't have done it anyway, at least
not without deserving the gallows.
As regards the inspections of Lord Judd, if you
find them inconvenient, just wait until God
pronounces His verdict to learn what incovenience
really means.
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-
Granted it's better to have independence than not, but without security? A corrupt government either way is nothing to take lightly. It could turn on you at any time.
Anyway, I think Americans do pretty well liberty-wise, and are maybe a bit spoiled. Our problems tend to be economic.
That being said, it is not, nor should it be, the business of the United States Government to go around protecting the rights of people in other lands- hell, we barely do it here it often seems.
Presumably you signed the human rights act (which outlaws the death penalty on the grounds that the life is a human right).
The russians have done some horrible things to Checnya too, you know... these stories are never one sided and advocating killing people without even *trying* to understand what their problem is is just going to make things worse.
btw. The russions already executed the terrorists, and most of the hostages at the same time. Way to go...
Interesting point, but one quibble.
Islam does NOT say to force conversion, or unfairly subjugate people, and does NOT say to go out and kill Christians and Jews. There are verses that say to fight in self defense. If you take them out of context, they sound hateful, just like the bible verses you can isolate.
Cute, but no good. It's been a long standing statement of gays and those that support them that normal people who think homosexuality is wrong are either gay themselves or afraid of being gay. It is a bunch of hogwash which is designed to put the person against homosexuality into a catch-22. They can't argue against it anymore because the person then points at them and says, "see! you are just getting more mad cause you are really gay yourself!", and if they don't argue anymore then the person assumes they have won the argument.
Your "definition" sums nothing up, that is a definition wrapped around trying to prove a point.
Men and men or women and women aren't meant to have sex. The first purpose of having sex is a drive to procreate, the good feelings sex produces is an incentive to have sex and procreate.
I am not afraid of homosexuality but I believe it is deviant behavior because it is unnatural. Just as I believe child molesters are sexually deviant (that is another one that a person is "born with") I believe homosexuals are. I'm not afraid of child molesters, but I believe their acts are wrong, I'm not afraid of homosexuals but I believe their acts are wrong also.
From your other comments you appear to be from EU. Funny how EU likes to stick its nose into other countires business, But when Turkey wants to jon EU they are accused of wanting to destroy Europe. You probably think that pal terrorists thaT blow up kids at night clubs are combatants too and need to be treated with accordance to Geneva convention.
US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
so you couldn't have done it anyway, at least
not without deserving the gallows."
Rudolf Hess was Captured in 1941 after flying to Scotland in an attempt to arrange for the UK's surrender in World War II, and was held as a prisoner of war. Many of the remainder of the Nazi leaders were captured by military personal and were Prisoners of war until they were charged with War Crimes.
So should the allied powers be considered criminals for trying "Prisoners of War" at Nuemberg?
Being a Prisoner of War does NOT mean that you can't be tried for War Crimes, and using civilians as hostages is a war crime.
Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est
That's not a "real" solution, that's a basis for a solution, not a solution itself.
Sorry, I didn't realize it was my job to solve all the world's problems this week.
So teach everyone, all the time?
Essentially, yes. Make it obvious, all the time, that hate is not acceptable behavior.
I don't get it. How can you tell whether someone's been "taught" or not?
We're not talking about getting a diploma. It's simply a concept. Different != bad.
Having a principle for a solution and having an actual solution are two very different things. And that's why we see laws like this.
Ah. "We must do something, and this is something, so we must do this". Sorry, it doesn't make it right.
You want specific ideas? OK. How about producing children's programming that carries the message different isn't bad but hate is? How about public service announcements carrying the same message to adults? How about speaking out against hatred instead of ignoring it?
I may not have the best solution but that doesn't mean I can't see that outlawing hate isn't a good one.
People's desire to believe they are right is much stronger than their desire to be right.
Taking anti-hatespeech laws to their logical extreme -- your post, about how you hate people who promote "hate", could itself be deemed illegal.
That's the point. Once you start singling out some particular speech as "evil", it's all too easy to add to the definition until there is no permitted speech left.
Not possible, you say? What's the difference between this, and laws forbidding citizens from criticizing their gov't? And remember, in the past century there have been plenty of places where being critical of the gov't was not permitted speech, and could even get you shot.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
They are combatants as long as their land is
occupied by an invading army.
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-
Let us see what kind of problem we are dealing with here. The home page of Google says that they have indexed "Searching 3,083,324,652 web pages". Assume 40 pages for each of the 4,000 'hate sites' for a total of 160,000 'hate pages'. That give us a whopping 0.005192038% of all web pages as being 'hate pages'.
Now, would a rational person believe that we ought to trample over the freedom of the 99.9948107962004% of the rest of us for a bunch of idiots??
Quick!!! Shred the Constitution!! Repeal the Bill of Rights! Mangle the Magna Carta!!
Disregarding the fact that, a.) Most European countries have laws against incitement of racial, ethnic or religious hatred already, and, b.) the Council of Europe has nothing to do with the EU, I think there is another problem that lies somewhat deeper here: It seems that everytime some article appears here on slashdot about some difference or disagreement between the US and Europe, all the petty hatreds based on a lack of knowledge about the other place come to the fore. Just take a look at the numbers of postings about how evil or "unconstitutional" we Europeans are. One sees this sort of thing from the other side every time some article about the death sentence or the American military's possible action against Iraq.
I worked for the US Airforce many years ago in Berlin and a lot of Americans that I've met here in Europe have some strange idea's about Europe being socialist or some other strange thing (stereotypes like the French being especially anti-american because the French politicians actually have differing opinions to those of whatever American president is currently in power or the Germans still being Nazis). Likewise many Europeans don't know all that much about the US. A lot of Europeans think in terms of stereotypes just as Americans do.
I personally support this (although it already applies here in Switzerland) because I come originally from a country, South Africa, that had hatred as a state policy, and condoning it is like turning a blind eye. A large proportion of Europeans are of middle eastern or north african descent and I don't think anyone in Euope wants a repetition of the holocaust. Too many people died here.
I likewise point out that in the US you had enforced integration in schools (bussing) in the 70's and 80's, so you can see that this isn't some uniquely European idea.
Sadly, however, I think that as the years go by Europe and the US will drift further and further apart and perhaps become enemies someday.
What does the Content of Evil have to do with any of this? Or have I been looking at freesites too much?
US law can only restrict the US congress, but it cannot restrict the legislative powers of other countries.
What the american people decides to be true is not a universal truth. Each country has the right for it's own laws.
In a democratic country, the law is made by the people. By the people of the country itself, not by other countries people.
This sig is a true statement, but I cannot prove it.
'Specifically, the amendment bans "any written material, any image or any other representation of ideas or theories, which advocates, promotes or incites hatred, discrimination or violence, against any individual or group of individuals, based on race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin, as well as religion if used as pretext for any of these factors." '
Damn, and I have a huge list of blond jokes that I want to put on the web.
You outwitted the troll, and made the most insightful post i have ever read. Well said.
I guess they didn't like your "hate" speech -- mod'ing you down is like censorship, right?
I thought you had a good point. Too bad I have no mod points to mod you up one.
This is a convention that has to be ratified by the legislature of each country, not a law. It is not a treaty and it does not bind the members of the Council in any way. Quite a few European countries will most certainly not ratify it as is for the same reasons as why it wouldn't be accepted in the US.
Please also note that this was cooked up by the Council of Europe, a body with absolutely no real power at all, not the EU Council (which does hold real power).
And remember kids: Never trust a computer you can actually lift.
the principles upon which our Government was founded -Lincoln
Wow, if you knew anything about Lincoln other than the immortalized soundbites you quote so well, you'd appreciate the amazing irony of your sig. Lincoln raped the Constitution by instigating the War of Northern Aggression against the agrarian southern states seeking to assert their independence from a bullying, industrialized northern alliance. So much for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness -- you WILL be part of this Union, dammit, whether you like it or not! Fuck Lincoln, I spit on his worthless memorial.
but make DAMN SURE it is DAMN CLEAR that the first ammendment applies to ALL FORMS of communication.
Don't get me wrong, I hate racists even more than the next guy. I just don't believe that any government has the right to control what we say.
We all judge one another by some means. I believe that it is wrong to judge someone by skin tone or ethnic heritage, but it is impossible to just remove such content from the web.
By calling racists "damn ignorant sons of bitchy whores" I would be violating the law. Lest I forget: Racists are damn ignorant sons of bitchy whores.
You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
mean we get to legally monitor youre stupid ass cite. what a dickweed. fuck you
America has no hate speech law, unlike most other western countries (including Canada). I think American free speech absolutists should ask themselves why the hell the US had state-sponsored racism until the mid 60's.
Germany had state-sponsored racism, but they completely got rid of it in 1945 (with the help of the the US). Why is it that the US thinks it can fix other countries problems (and sometimes does quite well) but seems incapable of fixing its own problems.
The US does have restrictions on free speech, such as libel laws. Think of hate speech laws as nothing more than extended libel laws designed to protect groups of people.
Here's something that I don't think anyone has touched on yet: WHY is Europe doing this? We're ready to condemn them for this violation of free speech without stopping to think of the motivations behind it. This is not to say I approve of the decision. I don't. But understanding where they're coming from on this helps me to sympathize with their position a little.
This decision by the Council of Europe was not made in a vacuum. This is following pattern of behavior that started after World War II. What you are seeing is a backlash, rippling down through a generation, against the heinous acts of Nazi Germany. When ordinary citizens were shown the abominations that were the death camps, which for the first time could be broadcast to a large audience thanks to the technological advances of the time in the news media, this had a profound effect on the next generation.
Take a look at WW II. It was a supreme embarrassment for all of Europe. Germany is embarrassed for having spawned the war in the first place, and much of the rest of Europe is embarrassed at having stupidly appeased Hitler in the first place, and then doing NOTHING while Poland was ripped to shreds, and finally letting the Soviet Union claim half of Europe as their backyard. There was a lot to answer for, and in a way, they still are answering for it.
So what you see is Europe swinging to the other extreme. The deepest fear of Europe, even in an "enlightened" time such as this, is the rise of another Hitler. So they compensate for this fear by enacting laws like this that they believe will prevent it from happening by removing the tools that a Hitleresque person might use to sway the masses.
It's not right. It's not even very feasible. But this is the mindset that I see driving this.
Karma: Frotzed (mostly due to the Frobozz Magic Karma Company)
Sorry, but I have to burst your bubble here. Last time I read a history book Israel was formally in a state of War with every nation in the Arab world with the exception of Egypt (since Camp David) and Jordan (very recent treaty?), declared by the arabs. Israel showed what I'd call great restraint (ok, after being leaned on by the US, GB etc.) in not finishing the last war and imposing a peace treaty on their own terms. After all, they HAD just spanked the ass off of all comers. Instead they allowed them to remain in a "State of War" for PR reasons, so they wouldn't all get deposed as losers.
/., but screw it, I got the Karma to burn getting modded Flamebait/Troll for speaking uncomfortable truths to you brainwashed victims of "higher education".
And of course if they were to treat the Palestanians[sp] like the Arabs treated the Jews upon the founding of Israel they would have driven them all from the land and been done with it. The fact that they take the continual terrorism from Arafat and keep trying to negotiate instead of putting his head on a pike says a lot.
btw, A Terrorist AIMS at civilian targets. A Freedom Fighter or soldier aims at military ones, and sometimes misses. So don't try to draw any moral similarities between the IDF and PLO/Hamas, etc. Again, Israel is showing almost suicidal restraint in not declaring Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc. outlaw groups and shooting known members on sight instead of picking off a leader or two now and then.
So yes, there IS a right and wrong side in the Middle East. The Arabs are WRONG. Israel is not always RIGHT, but since the US has to pick a side it should be obvious that we would pick the side that is (sorta, if you can call an oxymoron like a socialist theocracy with capitalist tendancies) a popularly elected democracy against medieval thugs that get off blowing up schoolchildren.
I know waving the PLO flag is popular here on
Democrat delenda est
I may not have the best solution but that doesn't mean I can't see that outlawing hate isn't a good one.
So you want to make it illegal then? Oh, no, it's not illegal, it's forced education. Those two concepts have totally different connotations! They are more or less the same thing, yet I feel so differently about them based on the context you put them in. Thank you.
Ah. "We must do something, and this is something, so we must do this". Sorry, it doesn't make it right.
If that's what you read, that's not what I meant. I meant that to be somewhat critical of the EU law. I've been trying to say that thinking "oh, but it's so obvious.... in abstract theory" doesn't automatically mean the problem is as easy to solve in real life. I like to think in practical terms, that's all.
> Cute, but no good. It's been a long standing
> statement of gays and those that support them
> that normal people who think homosexuality is
> wrong are either gay themselves or afraid of
> being gay.
In a quite few cases this is true, you do get people who are rabidly anti-homosexual yet wouldn't touch a member of the opposite sex with a barge pole. People who do express anger at their own sexuality, because they're made to feel unnatural by people with views like your own (I'm not making this up, these people will often speak up and admit this). Most of the time though, this argument tends to be used to get people's knickers in a twist, just to wind people up. It's only a catch-22 if you let it shut you up, the equivalent of the old "takes one to know one".
> Men and men or women and women aren't meant to
> have sex. The first purpose of having sex is a
> drive to procreate, the good feelings sex
> produces is an incentive to have sex and
> procreate.
If we were just animals yes. Humans aren't just animals. Humans also have sex for pleasure. It comes from the same thing that gives us art, literature, music, etc. all also unnatural. If you want us to live purely by by instinctual urges then ours would be a pretty primitive society.
> I am not afraid of homosexuality but I believe
> it is deviant behavior because it is unnatural.
What's this got to do with homosexuality? Homosexuals can have relationships without having sex. And the kind of "deviant behaviour" you suggest is representative of homosexuality is also performed by hetrosexuals.
> Just as I believe child molesters are sexually
> deviant (that is another one that a person is
> "born with") I believe homosexuals are.
So let me see, you consider an adult who forces themselves on a child to be on a par with an adult who has consentual sex with another adult? I find that attitude disgusting personally.
> I'm not afraid of child molesters, but I
> believe their acts are wrong, I'm not afraid of
> homosexuals but I believe their acts are wrong
> also.
That is such a bullshit argument, the two are completely unrelated and if you can't see the difference then I really pity you.
> What would happen to you in the US if you said that
.sig We still have a chance of winning the DMCA battle.
> Al Quaida is doing the right thing.
That is easy. Cynthia Mckinney was voted out of office, but no other action was taken against her.
> What happens to you, if you publish an article on how to
> build a "circumvention device".
The goons sometimes come after you. But I suspect the feds won't have the balls to try sending me to jail for my
> In fact, I would be more afraid of saying what I think
> in the US than I am in the EU...
BS. We still have the tattered vestiges of a Constituition & Bill of Rights protecting specific enumerated Rights like the Right to say and publish whatever we want. (Libel laws don't prevent speech, they just make you responsible for certain damages caused to others.) We also have the socialist twits at the ACLU that do manage to serve a useful purpose by defending a lot of 1st Amendment cases. For the most part, europeans have no Rights, just privledges revokable at the pleasure of the State.
Democrat delenda est
The drive is simply to fuck. My girlfriend's sterilization didn't weaken my desire at all, it just made our sex life more carefree. Conception and birth were mysteries our species eventually figured out and decided to control separately. Our minds are natural and so is using them (otherwise I probably would have died naked in a tree by now).
Homosexual people have slightly different drives than we do. As convenient as it would be to lust after other men (who are generally easier than women to bed), I never have and can't simply decide to. They say it's like that for them, and I don't see any reason not to believe them.
I think men are kinda gross (not women--go figure), but I get a lot more upset about lousy drivers or abusers of copyright law. There's gotta be some reason certain people go ballistic about what other people might do in bed, because it certainly has no reasonable effect on them.
> The fact is, laws that "mandate tolerance," such as
> civil rights legislation...
A very strong case could be made that much of the so called "civil rights" legislation has been a net negative in that it created the whole 'victimology mentality'. Laws regulating relations between private citizens are evil, regardless of what 'greater good' they purport to serve.
The parts of the Civil Rights Act mandating equal access and protection by the government are redundant since the Constuition already forbids that sort of thing. "Since you guys won't stop violating people's Constituitional Rights we are passing a Law to make you stop." Ya, right. Democrat Logic at it's finest.
> Our European friends may gently remind us that
> it's a luxury to debate philosophy...
If you can't win the argument that self govenment under a Constituition (oh wait, most europeans don't actually HAVE the protection of a Constituition & Bill of Rights...) is a better form of government, they DESERVE to fall into anarchy and dictatorship again. You can't destroy liberty to save it. And yes, I'm starting to worry whether our beloved Shrub isn't forgetting that essential truth as well.
> The US recently arrested a citizen who was making a
> website for Al-Qaeda.
Amd your point? Al-Qaeda is a terrorist organization. Ever heard of the legal concept of "Conspiracy"? Not a very hard stretch to assume someone knowingly working for Al-Qaeda might be a co-conspiator[sp].
Democrat delenda est
Is it OK to say you hate for people to use hate speech?
Donate background CPU time to fight cancer.
Bible.
In old testament, it teaches us that one nation is the "chosen race" of god who are superior. No, it's not just a silly myth -- millions of people really take it seriously and support the "chosen race" financially and politically and many are even ready to die for them.
In new testament, it teaches us that the abovementioned people are evil. Well, at least many popes and other Big Names such as Luther have interpreted it in that way. This has resulted in almost 2000 years of procecution, killing millions of the "chosen people".
It orders people to destroy temples and groves of other religions. Actually, the book says that the "God" of the book will kill all nonbelievers. This is a violation of freedom of religion, and certainly a sign of hate. You can find the word "hate" there countless of times. God hates this, God hates that. We can quite safely say that Bible teaches hatred.
I mean, really. Who are the people nowadays most often accused of hate crimes? Christians. Just look at this site or the infamous Nurenberg Files. Need I mention KKK? This is what is going on out there.
I don't support censorship, not even of hate pages. But if such pages or books should be banned, we definitely know the book to begin from. I believe it meets any criteria.
Of course, no western nation would take this seriously. If you're a Christian, you of course won't. No need to wonder why. Remember, even the sickest fundies preach the "message of love".
I find this part very disturbing, since the content of an externally linked website is outside of my control. Say i link to the NYTimes from my website, and the NYT would publish an article that would be considered "offensive content", I would be at fault?
So, If I put up a website showing (for example), a photo of an israeli tank running over a palestinian child .. that could be deemed as inciting hatred against the israelis, and therefore get my website blocked (on the grounds that I am somehow denying the holocaust perhaps) ??
.. do you think anyone will ban my website ?? Maybe I will get free hosting for 12 months, and a consulting job with Union Oil of California ?
On the other hand, if I produce a website showing a non-descript factory in Iraq, fake up some WMD's hiding in the background, superimpose a pic of Saddam Hussein, and add a title 'Death to the Iraqis and all who support them'
I would guess that these millions of shootings are only happening in the mind of a Anonymous Coward. I'm glad I don't have his imagination, his mind must be an incredibly violent place. Why does he fear to identify himself? Perhaps he fears black helicopters or UFO invasion. Perhaps he should get help from a mental health professional before he hurts someone or himself.
The EU basically has chosen a different tradeoff between security and liberty the US has, as it has every right to do.
Well, anyway, than the US chose before 9/11, at any rate. Perhaps we'll have a system of firearms control and censorship in the US restrictive enough to make the most insular European tourist or Chinese bureaucrat feel safe when visiting the USA, all in the name of creating the illusion of safety from terrorism.
Most EU nations have chosen to leave a monopoly of armed violence to their governments, terrorists, and criminals. While this suggests a degree of trust in government that even the history of Europe (1935-1945) suggests is rather unjustified, they have every right to make that choice.
Just as they have a right to choose censorship over freedom of speech. European history suggests that letting the government choose what citizens are allowed to say publically is a rather bad idea, but they have every right to do this.
Just as American citizens have the right to help Europeans who believe that no government has the right to control freedom of speech or expression, whether that government be based in Brussels, Beijing, or other capitols starting wit h the letter 'B'.
Will either democracy survive its current set of choices as anything but systems where the forms of democracy are observed but they have no meaning in terms of how nations are actually governed?
Interesting question, to which I certainly don't have the answer.
Tech Public Policy stuff
There was recently quite an uproar about "people" being interpreted as "US citizen" and thus foreigner not being protected by the contistution. Funny how it does contradict your post,I jsut had to point it out.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Ignorance is no crime, it just needs knowledge to annul it. New Yorkers are often remarkably parochial. They know nothing of the rest of the country, and assume it's all like New York. Where exactly was the inflammatory part of my comment?
Right to free speech. Indeed.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
So what? This EU law IS NOT about how many people were killed. It is about racism raised to the level of systematic murder and genocide.
Now any dictatorship can kill people.
The difference is that neo-nazi parties advocate the racism and books like Mein Kampf (which are 100% pure hate speech), while the neo-communists parties don't advocate killing millions of people. I'm tired about Americans who can't even understand even the basics of communism: Stalin was a fascist dictator more than a communist.
That's bullshit, read "Mein Kampf", especially Chapter 2 - "Mein Kampf" is one of the most hateful and racist book ever:
In my eyes the charge against Judaism became a grave one the moment I discovered the Jewish activities in the Press, in art, in literature and the theatre. All unctuous protests were now more or less futile. One needed only to look at the posters announcing the hideous productions of the cinema and theatre, and study the names of the authors who were highly lauded there in order to become permanently adamant on Jewish questions. Here was a pestilence, a moral pestilence, with which the public was being infected. It was worse than the Black Plague of long ago. And in what mighty doses this poison was manufactured and distributed. Naturally, the lower the moral and intellectual level of such an author of artistic products the more inexhaustible his fecundity. Sometimes it went so far that one of these fellows, acting like a sewage pump, would shoot his filth directly in the face of other members of the human race. In this connection we must remember there is no limit to the number of such people. One ought to realize that for one, Goethe, Nature may bring into existence ten thousand such despoilers who act as the worst kind of germ-carriers in poisoning human souls. It was a terrible thought, and yet it could not be avoided, that the greater number of the Jews seemed specially destined by Nature to play this shameful part.
Every iteration of communism has been associated with widespread killing, much of which has been merely ethnic cleansing re-branded as "defending the people's state". Trying to defend communism by claiming that all the major implementations of it don't meet your college radical's textbook definition of communism is both disingenuous and naive.
And? Just because many examples of Communism degenerated into dictatorships, doesn't make it inherently evil. Re-read Marx Manifesto. It is a completly stupid argument, since most democracies degenerated too in dictatorships (including France with Napoleon and his wars cost the lives of 10+ millions Europeans), Hitler of course, most of the countries in Africa, etc... Your argument is that "trying to defend democracy by claiming most implementations don't meet your college radical's textbook definition of democracy is both disingenuous and naive".
In essence, what "we" are trying to win is a battle for the hearts and minds of Islamic peoples the world over, more than anything else. Those clerics who spread hatred of non-Muslims seem to be to be a major part of the root cause of the problem, even if they don't personally get their hands dirty with actual terrorism.
If the battle of ideas can be won without resorting to active suppression of opposing viewpoints, all well and good. But what happens if that doesn't work?
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
For example, free speech doesn't allow one to walk into a crowded stadium and shout fire over the tannoy system. Likewise, free speech shouldn't give one the right to incite hatred of others. What about the right of the others not to live in fear of hate? Legislation of this type is a balancing act, and as a European, as long as it's used to go after hardcore bigots, it gets my seal of approval.
Tim Brown
Of course, ./ admins must change some rules as well: no negative moderations anymore. How exciting!
I wonder what will happen to IRC channels? Filtering THAT? Been there done that. And that [actually, reasons of that] was the reason I fled from Soviet Union.
Less is more !
Honestly I dont understand what West wants from Russia. I know BBC shoed a documentrary about several brits and new zelanders who ent to intall telco equpment in Checnya during 96-99 "indepnedance" period and were captured and had their heads cut off only because Al-queda paid more for their execution. Would US or UK allow such a bandir state to exist next to their borders?
US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
It is interesting to think about the highly emotional language Ms. Osbourn uses to express her position. If we outlaw hatred because we hate hatred, then are we not hating ourselves?
If we simply admit that hostility is a common enough part of human life, and that we often have hostile feelings within ourselves (as Ms. Osbourn obviously does) then perhaps some day we can become grown up enough and decent enough to get past some of it. Odi et amo et cetera.
As far as "racists, sexists and homophobes" are concerned, some are "scum," some are not. Most do not advocate the enslavement of 90% of the world's population. Many (most, I would think) do not advocate the enslavement or the harming of anyone. They simply have ideas, attitudes or emotional reactions that most educated people have either gotten over or at least learned not to express. But learning is a long process. Sometimes it can take generations.
There are serious problems of definition. Who gets to say what does or does not constitute "hatred?" If I say, "It wasn't 6 million, it was 5.93 million," am I minimizing the crimes of the Third Reich? Who would get to decide such a thing? I will guarantee you one thing: Whoever it is WILL use that power to further political agendas that have very little to do with protecting the disadvantaged, and that will have a great deal to do with strengthening the rule of those who are already way too powerful.
----------
Manifesto for the Peoples of the Third Millennium
Ah, so private hates are publically accepted and public speech is a lie. Thank you for proving the value of free speech. When speech is not free, it is not true and everyone can believe they are correct in the vilest nonsense.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
So you want to make it illegal then? Oh, no, it's not illegal, it's forced education. Those two concepts have totally different connotations! They are more or less the same thing, yet I feel so differently about them based on the context you put them in. Thank you.
Look, if you can't see the difference between outlawing unacceptable behavior and encouraging acceptable behavior, I can't help you.
People's desire to believe they are right is much stronger than their desire to be right.
The mere fact that there are such things as "top secret" government files and that the publicising and spreading is illegal means that the US also has its limits on FREE SPEECH.
Actually that's not true. It is perfectly legal for anyone who doesn't have a security clearance to purchase and to publish "top secret" information. People who have security clearances have signed away some of their rights. It isn't legal to purchase secret information from someone who has such information if the purchase constitutes a bribe to release it (i.e. if they charge me $30 for photocopying that's legal if they charge me $300,000 its not).
--suppressing hate propoganda? ya. Whatever they choose to classify as propoganda. They-europaen union government- have blinders on and are Hypocrites, I'll REPEAT IT. HYPOCRITES. They are almost completely silent on communist lead mass murder, it's perfectly legal to have communist symbols ,flags, websites, etc in europe, despite the fact it's a proven historical reality that the communist-named totalitarian regimes and system as applied was and still is just as murderous and propoganda filled as the national socialist totalitarian regime. That's hypocrisy, I fully understand the definition. They support the propoganda of IGNORING it and acting like somehow the next time it's tried on a mass scale it'sgoing to be any different. That's the hypocrisy, their classing the "normalcy" of current communism as somehow 'cool", when it's a total lie and just as dangerous(more really) as some kid putting up an aryan website someplace. Here's a story from a existing communist named and ruled "people's republic" currently in existence, vietnam
. st m
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2418791
"Friday, 8 November, 2002, 14:14 GMT
Vietnam jails internet dissident
A Vietnamese woman surfs the Communist Party of Vietnam web site
Vietnam has cracked down on internet use
A Vietnamese dissident has been jailed for four years for publishing criticism of the Communist government on the internet.
Le Chi Quang, a 32-year-old lawyer, was convicted of "acts of propaganda" against the state during the one-day trial in Hanoi, a court official said."
there's more at the link.
Communists are equal opportunity haters, they'll just demonize and murder anyone, doesn't matter what religion you are, if it isn't the communist religion. The europaen union, having in large part quite a bit of overt communists and covert supporters, goes WAY out of their way to not demonize THEMSELVES for this hypocrisy. They would have to in effect ban themselves following their rules, but they don't. They have an agenda, communist rule, they couch it in terms of "socialism" and "green". There's a term I didn't invent but which fits those currently "embtacing" communism, it's called "useful idiot". Those "useful idiots" are the second wave mass murdered once a communist named and lead regime takes over anyplace.
The proposed europaen laws are hypocritical. That doesn't make me a defender of nazi's, not even close.
As to being a Libertarian,I am an independent, strict constitutionalist. I have several problems with some of their hypocrisy as well, and as it relates to being a US citizen, the disaster we are seeing unfold with "open borders" and "free trade" with known enemies who have threatened you is not my idea of a swell position to take. The d's , r's and L's are all in agreement on open borders and free trade globalism, which I think is a "bad idea". If a person "did business'with the small gang down the street, people would say that's a bad idea. Make a bad gang and entire nation, with a lot of fatcats snarfing down profits, all of a sudden they aren't a 'gang" anymore. Hypocrites. size of org doesn't matter, lying murders shopuldn't be supported, D's R's and L's support them by deed and word (generally speaking, there's a handful in the leadership in all three of those parties who have a clue and know what's going on).
If nazi germany still existed I would be against trade with them, just like now I am against trade with mainland china. I see zero difference between those two regimes, this puts me at odds with the bulk of the capital L leadership who think money has no conscious, whereas I see money as being owned by men so the two are always connected. I have never anthromorphisized money into being a living "thing", it's nothing without being used by humans.
I will say though, given the top three major parties, D's, R's, or L's, that L's come closer to what my personal ideal would be, but still not there yet, but that is my opinion as it relates to ME, not you or anyone else, and as opinion is neither right nor wrong. I agree with them on just ending prohibition as being totally stupid and destructive, the cure is worse than the disease, it's lame. I don't want to go down the whole list of issues, but if I had to pick the lesser of 3 evils over top two evils-only, I guess I'd pick them, but actually a party like Americafirst party or Constitutional party are much closer to my way of thinking than the capital L's.
And as to being "popular", and who gets what ass kicked, well duh, here's a clue, windows OS is the most "popular" and has kicked the most ass, but that doesn't mean it's the "best".
The D and R parties are the most "popular", under their leadership we have debt for the next 2 generations, the patriot act, the national helath powers emergency act-which is MUCH WORSE than the patriot act- a stagnating economy, threats of global war, the nations nuts and bolts infrastructure is several trillion in repairs arrears, and we lost national security to a large degree, exporting it to china for short term profits, and we are enjoying a tax level that is better than 50% for most people now who actually work for a living, taking all taxes together, with no sign of it ever going back down to say 10%,and we are being second worlded domestically, the middle class is being systematically destroyed, industry by industry, and yes, the sheeps keep voting for their own destruction. Too bad, not my call, their decision to make as sheeps.
They suck, it's their fault. D's and R's fault. A vote for them is a vote for the same way of doing things that lead us to those problems we have now.
They suck. They are still "popular" and still "kick ass' at the polls, but they are microsoft-ish popular and microsoft-ish sucky. Not really anything to brag about or to be proud of. Inertia, generational long brainwashing and manipulation of government shouldn't be anything anyone honest should be proud of, or support, IMO again.
YMMV
"The same freedom of speech that lets the KKK spread it's evil ideas lets the rest of us oppose them."
CORRECTION:
"The same freedom of speech that lets the KKK spread it's evil idead lets the rest of us know exactly where the stupid bastards stand and let us make fun of them for being complete, utter, powerless morons instead of some hip, underground political movement that might have some real issues because the "Guvernmnt don wancha know about 'em."
Nah, there are lots of differences between making something culturally illegal and legally illegal. One is a lot harder to amend, for instance.
The Council of Europe is NOT the European Union! The EU is an organization whose members have given up some national sovereignty to form a quasi-confederation and whose goal is the unification of Europe. They are the "Europe of the 15 (for now)". The Council of Europe is a much larger body dedicated to promoting peace, human rights, and European culture. It is the "Europe of the 44" and includes Russia and all but one other "European" former Soviet states. The main difference between the two is that the 15 EU members have ceded portions of their national sovereignty to a supranational authority, while the 44 members of the CoE keep their sovereignty and merely agree to various treaties that the CoE has promulgated. The EU has the power to mandate that a member state change its national laws to conform to the EU rules; the CoE has no such power.
Why yes, IAAIL (I Am An International Lawyer)!
Madness takes its toll...
And I'll bite it...
Somehow I suspect you mean Israel here and I'm willing to risk my "karma" by repeating a good response, by "Y2KBugs Bunny", which was moderated into oblivion by your anti-Israel cohorts:
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.