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."

Comments

Censorship

[wkitchen]

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.

Ugh.... A Bad Idea, With Only Bad Alternatives.

[Bowie J. Poag]

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,

Catch 22

[freeweed]

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).

First amendment.

[red5]

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?

Re:First amendment.

[Guppy06]

"Are americans really that arrogant as to assume the US constitution applies to every country in the world?"

Hrm...

Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech

Nothing in there saying that Congress can do that if they happen to be meeting inside the EU at the time.

I know what you meant. Did you?

You were assuming that the US Constitution, like so many others, is written from the angle of "giving rights to the people" (a flawed concept if there ever was one) instead of restricting the rights of the government.

A little over 200 years ago, a group of people finally realized that "granting popular rights" is just as much an oxymoron as "military intelligence." But even now, centuries later, so few people have figured out that fundamental truth. Instead, they just sit around making laws that do things like "restricting the right to free speech" as if such a thing were possible.

Don't mince words: This European law punishes the exercise of their peoples' right. Period.

Re:Good.

[praxim]

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.

Re:Gender/sexual orientation?

[Soko]

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.

Re:Gender/sexual orientation?

[GigsVT]

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.

Re:Good.

[tsg]

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.

Re:Gender/sexual orientation?

[PjotrP]

Free speech has never been "complete" in Europe (well at least not in Holland anyway). There is Free Speech but there are other laws that conflict with this law. For example when somebody tells lies about somebody else which affect that person's life in a substantial way. Or when free speech is used to build communities that inflict damage to a person or groups of people.

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".

which political system killed more?

[zogger]

--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.

Re:which political system killed more?

[Tony Hoyle]

In the US, it's close, REAL close now to being "hate speech" to point this out

Heard of the Patriot act? Saying something like 'I think saddam hussein is cool' in public is likely to end with you being thrown in camp x-ray with no genuine right to trial (GWB has stated that nobody will ever be allowed out of there *even if they are found innocent*).

To outlaw hate is trying to outlaw ignorance

[HanzoSan]

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.

Re:Gender/sexual orientation?

[aminorex]

> 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.