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"?
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.
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
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
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.
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).
Well, I hate the EU Anti-Hate Laws
Yes, now we know what the DNS attack was for...
the major advances in civilization are processes which all but wreck the societies in which they occur - A.N. White
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.
Actually, in countries outside the USA it is normal to create laws that apply only to their own subjects. I see how this may be a source of confusion to a US citizen, though...
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 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.
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?
--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.
Does this ban hating Europeans, or just hating in general?
I'll form my OWN solar system! With blackjack! And hookers!
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.
Even worse than, for example,
"I think there is a world market for maybe 5 computers"?
Or...
"640K ought to be enough for anyone"?
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!
"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
Is this a trap? They probably made laws that forbid the visit to such a hate filled camp.
"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.
I guess there TV show will never see the day in Europe :)
Is Paved With "Good" Intentions.
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.
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.
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.
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 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
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.
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 ----
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
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
no laws against childporn? WRONG
:P
no effective gunlaws in the US? FACT!
racist crimes in the US? FACT!
more colored ppl in US jails than in any african country? FACT!
you cant drink a beer when your 16, but you can get sentenced to death.
im also thankful there's an ocean between you and me..
its a good marker for terrorists where they can strike
and btw..your country is hated by 90% of the arab world..i guess we're not that racist afterall then ARE WE?!
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.
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.
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.
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!
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?
So what the hell is your point? Or was this meant to be sarcastic? Please tell me it is so...
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.
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
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.
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-
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...
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.
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-
> Our problems tend to be economic.
Yeah, y'all sold your SOULS to the DEVIL!
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-
Um. That does produce a thought... okay, let's say "hate sites" are rendered illegal in Europe, and technology is applied to enforce the appropriate internet censoring.
So if someone circumvents the technlology to VIEW such a site, are they a criminal? Or do you have to be the host of such a site to be the criminal? Does it matter if the viewer is researching "hate speech" or supporting it? Does it matter if they somehow managed to get to it over the net, or had someone mail them a CD full of archived "hate sites"?? In the latter case, is the person who sent them the CD also a criminal?
Quite the can of worms, I think.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
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?
'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.
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.
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.
this also applies to file sharing. why cant we share source code or files on napster that are copyrighted?
Theres no freedom of speech its just an illusion
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
> 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 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 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!
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 !
Not Really, at least not in Europe. The photo of the israeli tank kiling a palestinian child is FACT, which this law makes clear that it is illiegal to deny. In other words you would be NEAR TO breaking the law if you claimed that the tank had not in fact killed the palestinian child, although it was clear in the photo that the tank indeed had kiled the child, and you would be clearly be doing something illegal if you put up the claim that the Tank had not killed the child along with a rant about how evil muslims/palestinians are etc.
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.
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.
I judge people based on how they treat me. Based on character not outside appearance.
Racists dont just judge people they hate the people they judge so theres a diffrence.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
The only person that can ignore someone's race/colour/sex/creed is a blind man, or someone so enlightened that even if he's in the middle of an orgasm he will actually be in a serene meditative state (ignoring all sensory input like an Intel processor in a HALT state).
The best you can do is have your conscious mind actively try to override your preconceptions about their race/colour/sex/creed of the person. For example if you saw a man in a wheelchair trying to stand up, you would think about helping him, whereas somebody normally sitting in a chair and getting up you wouldn't help. YOU WOULD HELP THE DISABLED PERSON STAND UP, BUT NOT THE NORMAL PERSON - how did you notice the disabled person was disabled? You couldn't help discriminating for him, your high badwidth link from your eyes to your brain totally overrides everything. That's why Buddha closes his eyes when he meditates.
By the way I must disagree with you about Socialism/Capitalism. I worked briefly in the food industry, and I was shocked and very sad with what happened to me. This is my story,
We cooked enough food for 200 people, we brought the food and then found 400 people had arrived. So I weighed the food and gave out half what we were supposed to give. Everybody would just have to eat a little less. Problem is the first customer looks disappointed at getting less food and asks for more. The next one also, all of them ask for more food, at this rate we would run out of food fast.
To make sure everybody could get some food, I gave less, and when the customer asked for more food I told them to take a hike. The customer became unhappy and complained to the President of the society, I was fired and somebody else took my place who would give out whatever food the customers wanted.
With half the customers served, we ran out of food as I expected, because we gave too much. I tried to give less but the people just kept asking for more. When I tried to be fair they got rid of me. So half of the people went hungry, just like the real world where Ethiopeans are starving and nobody cares. Capitalism is our nature and it makes me feel very very bad. Socialism is too advanced for us, you can see that I tried Socialism and the customers overthrew me.
So you see Socialism is idealism, it won't work in reality because human beings are not perfect, we are selfish. Money allows us to turn these selfish and greedy desires into something that by accident does some good like creating jobs so that we can make more money as a Director of a big company. I'm not saying it's a good thing, I'm saying it's a terrible thing.
A caveman dreams of being us, the incalculable power and riches. We dream of being Q, then what?
I dont know your sex height or color, I dont really care about it either. If i met you in person, none of this would make a diffrence when it comes to me judging you as a person.
[QUOTE]The only person that can ignore someone's race/colour/sex/creed is a blind man, or someone so enlightened that even if he's in the middle of an orgasm he will actually be in a serene meditative state [/QUOTE]
Or someone who simply doesnt care about visual appearance. I cant see you through the internet, I've learned not to give a damn what people look like because of the internet.
[QUOTE]The best you can do is have your conscious mind actively try to override your preconceptions about their race/colour/sex/creed of the person. For example if you saw a man in a wheelchair trying to stand up, you would think about helping him, whereas somebody normally sitting in a chair and getting up you wouldn't help. YOU WOULD HELP THE DISABLED PERSON STAND UP, BUT NOT THE NORMAL PERSON - how did you notice the disabled person was disabled? You couldn't help discriminating for him, your high badwidth link from your eyes to your brain totally overrides everything. That's why Buddha closes his eyes when he meditates.[/QUOTE]
Stop being silly, how would I know the diffrence between a normal person in a chair and a disabled person? I wouldnt really help either of them unless they specifically asked for help, and no i wouldnt think of helping them unless they somehow suggest they need it.
[QUOTE]So you see Socialism is idealism, it won't work in reality because human beings are not perfect, we are selfish. Money allows us to turn these selfish and greedy desires into something that by accident does some good like creating jobs so that we can make more money as a Director of a big company. I'm not saying it's a good thing, I'm saying it's a terrible thing.[/QUOTE]
Yes the majority of humanity is selfish, the majority of humanity is also evil, hateful, and cruel, I'm not part of that majority so why should I care if humanity as a whole cannot handle idealism?
I can, if you cant, go back to the stone ages or bomb yourself back there in the petty wars that capitalism will continue to cause.
Some people however arent selfish and are ready for socialism, yes these people arent the majority, but theres good people in the world who arent selfish, socialism cannot work until people are all on this level and I never said we were ready for socialism, but pure capitalism cannot work either for the same exact reason.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
If DRM is introduced then maybe it would be good because people don't have infinite money, and so would pay for very popular and famous movies such as Steven Spielberg's ET and Star Wars which have very positive messages. Then the Government can allow good movies to have DRM protection so they'd make more money and all movies would become nice. But what Government can perform this action without manipulating the system to its own selfish wishes? Right now crappy killing murdering and action movies come on cable all the time and people watch them because they're free and people want to be entertained.
The problem is that I've also watched many violent movies and I don't hate too many people (I hope), so this tacit censorship might not have an effect. It might have an effect on an evil/selfish person I'm not sure. Should the Rights of evil/selfish people be protected? If not, then we'll have to put the majority in prison. Oh crap!
What if there's a dead guy lying in the street with a knife in his chest? Would you call the police, or ignore it? If you notice that he's dead, then how can you not notice his colour/sex/religion also? If you see Osama binLaden will you recognise him? How did you recognise him? You'll have to see his facial features, and his colour/sex/religion to fully recognise him.A caveman dreams of being us, the incalculable power and riches. We dream of being Q, then what?
Censorship doesnt change the fact that the majority are evil, they'd still be evil if censored, we'd just have no way of knowiung who these evil people are.
I'd rather them be on the net so we can monitor these people than have them be totally censored and invisible in our society.
Also I think even if we didnt make the first atomic bomb, we'd still have wars, ignorance cannot be erased with censorship only hidden and hiding the problem does not solve it.
The solution is not censorship, the solution is containment, if theres enough intelligent people in this world we can stop putting power in the hands of the ignorant few, and eventually over perhaps generations intelligent people can change the fate of humanity.
Currently however our president is not the most intelligent man, hes a rich snob who used his fathers popularity and money to get into office.
Until we have real leaders who are intelligent we cannot easily prevent war, its funny these kids who go to harvard, people with PHDs, scientists, and so on are all anti war, the most intelligent people in society are also the least aggressive, but intelligent people because of their lack of aggression usually dont end up as president or any high up positions because it takes a killer instinct and aggressive attitude to get to the top, ask bill gates, george bush, or any war general how they got to their rank, it wasnt because they were the smartest, or most intelligent, they just happened to be the most motivated.
Evil people in the world are the most motivated while intelligent people in the world are the least motivated, very rarely are intelligent people in the world motivated, perhaps open source is an example of intelligent people motivated, but bill gates is still on top because greed motivates more people than peace on earth, or helping your neighbor etc.
Capitalism only works because the world is filled with ignorant greedy peopel who are selfish and who cant see the whole picture, they arent thinking long term about what capitalism will do to society, how millions of people in the third world die over capitalism, how millions of people in their own country suffer because of capitalism, how in general the world has less knowledge and education because of capitalism, etc.
Until we find a way to motivate intelligent people, we are stuck with capitalism.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Problem is if these people become stupid or are replaced by people that are stupid, the system would collapse and must be redesigned or hardened (via shadow CEOs/Presidents).
NO! Most open source people, after they've seen the same source code a million times over get sick of the project they're on. That's why most of the stuff on Sourceforge is in pre-alpha and Trillian still doesn't support anywhere near the full features of every IM it supports.Even if we had leaders who were intelligent, why would they want to prevent war? Suppose WTC attacks never happened, those WTC stockbrokers would still be saying, "NOW is the time to invest" which would cause more bad debts and a stagnation until mass Investor disillusionment, which would cause a dramatic collapse in the economy perhaps destroying Capitalism itself (in Economics if I=Investment dropped to zero). People would believe the stockbrokers and would put all the spending on their credit cards. Then when everybody has a million dollars in debt, the economy would implode. Think about it, does any stockbroker say, "Yeah, there's gonna be a crash now, sell all your shares, and cash in your 401k within the next 6 months"?Yes, and trust me, the killer instinct is real. My Uncle works for an accounting firm and says many of the businessmen that he does the accounts for have had people killed, and that the police are running around gathering evidence on them. I wouldn't be surprised if Bill Gates bumped off one or two of his competitors (really). Honest people cannot become businessmen in a world where your customers are evil.A caveman dreams of being us, the incalculable power and riches. We dream of being Q, then what?