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)
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Hate "crimes" are inherently though crimes. They punish you additionally for what you think, rather than only based on what you do. Soon we will be able to harness the rotational energy from Orwell's grave to solve all world energy problems.
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. The haterd isn't illegal, it's the spreading of your, umm, "theory" by lies and deciet that you are held accountable for. IOW, you can type "I don't think the Holocaust happened." and it will likley not get you in legal hot water, but "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.
Hatred spreads the same way our friends in Redmond try to discredit thier compeditors - by trying to teach everyone that others are bad through FUD. If we try to make the teaching of hatred carry some legal repercussions, the falsehoods will soon end, as well as the hatred and discrimination that come from spreading those falsehoods. This is an attepmt to "cut off the air supply" of discrimination at it's source.
Hey, say whatever the hell you want - it's a free country. I only ask 2 things - make sure I know it's only your opinion (unless you have iron clad, set in stone hard proof to back up your statements) and don't lie to me just to further your point. I hope this is the essence of the laws they try to enact, not the "thought police" like you suspect.
"Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." - Anonymous
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.
The haterd isn't illegal, it's the spreading of your, umm, "theory" by lies and deciet that you are held accountable for. IOW, you can type "I don't think the Holocaust happened."
But so what if someone thinks the halocaust didn't happen? So what even if they present it as fact? Most (if not all) of the history books used in school have many outright lies and inaccuracies that reflect the bias of the publisher.
The government of all countries have outright lied to the people many times, and been caught and even admitted the lie years later. If all deceptive propaganda were banned, only the government would be able to use said propaganda. Is that the way you want it to be?
You also seem to be confusing propaganda with deceptive propaganda. Propaganda takes many forms, not all of it involves deception. Propaganda is used every day by governments, companies, groups, and individuals.
So lets say that these hate laws are carefully crafted to end deceptive propaganda... That won't end what most consider "hate speech" by a long shot.
Suppose I put up a web site that says "Almost half the young nigger men in Washington DC are criminals." That is a fact, not a lie or even an opinion. It would still be considered by most as "hate speech", because of the connotations of the words I use.
I don't see any reasonable way to have any hate speech legislation at all, without repugnant repercussions to liberty.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
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.
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.
The same people who get to decide who is a war criminal. When someone else kills a civilian theyre a terririst, if they're sponsored by the US or European nations, theyre freedom fighters.
You know the spiel, its been around for centuries.
When a 5 star general says that he plans to bomb a country to the stone age, to cut their power and heat, to make the inoccent civialians suffer until they topple their own government, that is a war criminal. And the only thing that matters is whose side your own.
Israel is the best example of this. If the US wasnt intertwined political and socially in Israel, the rest of the world would have made it look like Afghanistan. I mean there have been resolutions galore against Israel, right?
There is no right or wrong. People have a tendency to see themselves as the moral ones when it comes to war (and the propagandad that comes along with it). Look at German history and juxtaposed it with US, Russian and others.
All claim the moral high road.
To ask your question is to answer it.
Not quite. First and second degree murder is premeditated, meaning it was planned out ahead of time. Manslaughter is not. The main difference being whether or not the perpetrator considered the consequences of his actions, not why he was committing the crime.
Hate crimes make a distinction on why the crime was committed rather than on how. The analogy to first degree murder would be having separate penalties for different motives. It's like saying somebody should be punished more severely because he killed for money instead of love. In most crimes, except in the case of mitigating circumstances, what matters is what actions were taken, not why they were taken.
People's desire to believe they are right is much stronger than their desire to be right.
This legal system realises that there is a link between what people say and what they do. Just think about advertising. advertising exists purely on this principle that what one person says can affect what another person does. With this principle in mind lets have an example which might at least bring this problem between free speech and illegality of certain actions to its breaking point.
Imagine a rich man who sympathises with the goals of al qaida and its terrorist activities. Imagine that guy being able to buy commercial time at lets say the superbowl break (isn't that a nice spot for a commercial?). In that commercial he would say that a mere 3 thousand dead New Yorkers are nothing compared to the 1.5 million iraqi's that already dead because of the import restrictions the US (and the UN) put around Iraq. He would call on american citizens who are disappointed by their government to start their own terrorist cells or find ways to disrupt the american way of life as much as possible.
Another step further would be to imagine the commercial also actually containing technical information on the making of bombs or anthrax-like letters.
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. In a country that beliefs in real FREE SPEECH there could be no such laws about information. Granted, the EU has always been taking a path that is less free speech than the US but saying that the US is not even ON the same slipperly slope is simple not true.
Imo the main reason for the lesser respect for free speech in Europe is because of world war II. There were very many europeans so badly scarred and hurt by the war that just somebody saying the holocaust didn't happen hurts these people to the core. I think many people after the war felt that the hundreds of thousands of soldiers that died on the beaches of Normandy (many of them American) and the millions of Russians and Jews that died during the second world war deserved more respect than to have people denying there ever was a war. Sure 60 years later its easier to let those nazi's tell us that the holocaust never happened but when it was just a couple of years after the war i can imagine that they made laws to ban such "free speech".
PjotrP
I certainly understand your trepidations about impementing hate laws, since I feel them as well.
Suppose I put up a web site that says "Almost half [ncianet.org] the young nigger men in Washington DC are criminals." That is a fact, not a lie or even an opinion. It would still be considered by most as "hate speech", because of the connotations of the words I use.
Well, it would depend on the context you're quoting that. If your web-site says "Niggers are criminals. Here's proof", you're deliberately distorting the data since you don't acknowledge all of the data - like the social/economic conditions of those ~%50. If your web-site says "There's a study that found that ~%50 of "young nigger men" are criminals in Washington D.C., and here's why I think that is", that can be contrued in a entirely different matter - you're likely to only offend those with very little tolerance themselves. IOW, you're discussing your opinion and interpretation of that data, and not representing it as fact. There is a difference - one's a lie, the others an argument.
I don't see any reasonable way to have any hate speech legislation at all, without repugnant repercussions to liberty.
Giving liberty to intentionaly harm your fellow man means you will eventually have no liberty yourself. Hate speech, as I have described it, is an attempt to do just that - justify harm to and the discrimination of humans based on their outward appearance. There has to be a balance, not just a free-for-all.
Soko
"Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." - Anonymous
You can try and justify it however you want, but its still a restriction of freedom on speech. This isn't a stupid law because hatred is correct or true, this is a stupid law because its adding restrictions on freedom. You can't do that. Its not freedom anymore if you can't say whatever you want.
Think about it, if they pass this law, what is stopping them from passing a law that makes it against the law to advocate violence, I mean violence is bad right. Okay so now what happens when they pass a law that says you shouldn't publish anything advocating an overthrow of the government, I mean those people are all crazy, right? Suddenly we are living in China.
freedom has its drawbacks, but we tolerate freedoms consiquences for a reason.
rofl, I think Im going to use that Orwell thing as my new sig.
GENERATION 25: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social exper
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.
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.
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
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!
--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.
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
He's not saying that. He's saying that our tendency to question things will eventually weed out these "bad truths."
Ignoring racism is not the answer. Open discussion is. Instead of putting your hand over someone's mouth, just speak louder and clearer. If people can't decide then, they're destined to be retards anyway.
~Dalcius
Rome wasn't burnt in a day.
> Giving liberty to intentionaly harm your fellow
> man means you will eventually have no liberty
> yourself. Hate speech, as I have described it, is
> an attempt to do just that - justify harm to and
> the discrimination of humans
Hate speech, as the EU describes it, includes
any views which are disapproved by the prosectutor
as topics of public discourse.
Sucn laws have already been used to persecute
historians to the point where even those who
endeavor to correct errors in the historical
record of the Nazi extermination campaigns must
use weasel words and misrepresentation to
demonstrate proper reverence for the Shoah.
Putting a few good historians in prison or
penury is a great way to stifle any truths which
are inconvenient to the holocaust industry,
and its principal beneficiaries, the 21st century
fascists in the middle east.
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-
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".
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