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.
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).
You used Stormfront as an example of the sort of hate sites out there. If we follow that link, and go to the site, we can see the sort of crap they're trying to peddle.
However, if this measure is passed, we in Europe will no longer be able to go to that sort of site to see what they're talking about. We won't be able to see the sort of hate they're peddling. We'll just have to accept the vague words of whoever banned the site: "Oh, it's nasty stuff, and you don't want to be looking at stuff like that - so don't worry, we're protecting you from it".
By providing a link to an example - a link which this law will outlaw - you've proved just how silly the law is.
I have to defend hate speech precisely because I don't agree with it and think it is completely valueless; I wouldn't want anyone restricting my right to free speech because they think what I say is valueless. The most important factor in a society where freedom of speech is widespread is education, though education can only go so far- I know plenty of educated idiots.
I grew up in Virginia Beach and New York City. Everyone I knew- all of my friends and neighbors- was black. Then I moved to N.E. Pennsylvania and was exposed to an awful lot of racism. Did it cause me to become racist myself? No, I knew better. Exposure to hate speech does not guarantee the development of racist attitudes, and banning it on the web doesn't mean they won't hear it at home or from their friends.
Screaming "fire" in a crowded theater is quite different, because it causes nearly anyone who hears it to believe there's an immediate danger. Writing hateful web sites only causes those who are dumb enough to believe what's being said to adopt the views presented.
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.
Yeah... except that most european countries took a swing to the right over the last couple of years. So i'm afraid your theory doesn't quite add up...
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!
"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 think you've drastically overstated the rate of accidents involving firearms, but either way the idea of a society remaining free under a government that cannot be overthrown is sheer fantasy.
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.
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?
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...
I'm not from New York. And I only know one person who is. Therefore New Yorkers aren't the only ones, and I sure hope most people don't think like you.
Freedom of expression means that the government won't do something to you when you say something that they feel demeaned by. It gives us the right to criticize.
As a side consequence, it gives some people the right to treat others like dirt.
I'll gladly take the latter for the sake of the former.
Mind you, nowhere in my comment did I say that people SHOULD treat others like dirt - I'm definitely opposed to that, and I think that as a whole every human being on earth has a responsibility to care for every other human being they meet, though they have the right to deny this responsibility.
Its ironic how well this comment applies to your statement which basically implied,
1) You're ignorant (via the "Newsflash" statement)
2) You're from New York, which is where all the bad people are. The rest of the country is nicer than you, and nobody else in the country likes anything about your home.
Seems like you are using your right to free speech to treat me like dirt, doesn't it?
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
--the funny part of these "laws" is the selective blinders they use. The national socialist party killed x-millions of people, granted. this is data, not opinion, it happened. Hmm, the communist party of the soviet union killed at LEAST x million times 2 people, mostly their own citizens. Data, it happened. Is it "illegal and promoting hate speech" to buy/sell hammer and sickle flags in germany now? Are pro-communist websites tolerated? Is a communist party allowed to operate and run candidates?
See? Pure hypocrisy and triple speak. There's an agenda here, should be easy to see and pick up on.
Right now nations around the world are bending over backwards to enrich and justify the existence of the mainland chinese communist party, who rule in every feudal sense of the word-a technofuedalism but still feudal-over 1.5 billion people, and have murdered at least 50 million if not more than 100 million of their own citizens-and it's NOT past history-they are still there, same communist party. Unapproved religion? too bad, re education camp or a bullet to the head. Some fatcat needs a kidney, pop, some prisoner provides it. Have one too many kids? No problem, they'll strangle or drownd them on the spot after birth. real nice guys they are... but that's OK, we can get cheap gadgets from them...
Does germany or the rest of the europaen union classify communist china as just as e-vile as the national socialist party of germany was? No? Why not, don't those millions murdered count the same?
More plutocratic triple speak hypocrisy.
The US government can have an official spokesgoon stand up and claim "they had no prior knowledge of al queda threats against US buildings or using airplanes as weapons and etc". Well, that's a total lie, literally dozens of "official" cops and bureaucrats knew full well about it, fbi agents reporting it got told to shut up, etc.
Governments lie, they demonize whom they wish to demonize, create a class of "less than humans" so they can go kill them and steal from them. It can be an official government, or a 'government" of assorted people united in whatever particular whacky stupid "cause" they come up with-that part doesn't matter, it just "happens" and the default is always this "hate" is almost universally based on fabrications for the most part, and they grant themselves selective memory all the time. They only remember what is "convenient" for them..
In the US, it's close, REAL close now to being "hate speech" to point this out, give it some time, you'll see it happen, you'll be a "terrorist" if you say out loud the government lies or exaggerates, it will be construed as hate speech, ie, "illegal", and when governments do it, it's called "policy" and is legitimate. It's all over now, welcome to the NWO. It's incrementalism, not all the way here yet, but close. EU's hate speech rulings are part of the puzzle, that's all, just one more slow chipping away. Big push for biometrics now, soon they'll say you were actually "thinking bad thoughts" and that will be a crime, no audible speech or publishing necessary. Just watch it happen, then you'll see why starting down that "hate speech" road is such a bad idea.
It sounds good, but when you realize you cannot outlaw ignorance without being ignorant yourself it fails.
The way to control hate is to contain it, and simply make it known that its wrong, fight information with information, fight ignorance with intelligence.
Make a law to track every hate site, make a law to monitor the hosts, make laws to allow hosts of hate sites to be monitored by anti terrorist units, but thats all you can do, monitor hate.
They deserve freedom of speech, i also believe we shouldnt stop file sharing, but monitoring is fine.
Hate is wrong, but you cant stop it by censoring it and you can get more intelligence info from monitor and containment to stop any attacks they try to make before they happen.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Therefore, the statement of pure facts is not protected. If you say 1+3 = 5 that's not an opinion, it's downright wrong.
Pure fact is very often a hard thing to come by. Sure, there are some things that are generally accepted, like 1+1=2. But how about Darwinism? The evidence is overwhelming, however political forces in the US are often succesful at denying Darwinism as fact. If free speach is not absolute, wouldn't the presentation of Darwinism be in danger from these forces?
There have been a number of scientific studies that claim to have found racial differences in intelligence. Most people reject these studies as flawed or biased one way or another, however what is the pure fact here? What does the German government take as a position in this regard? If I put up a web site in Germany presenting such reselts, and then presented opinions based on these results how would the German government react? Is Germany finding itself an arbiter of what a fact is when the reality is that there is a contorvesy in the scientific community over what the facts actually are?
There are not many things in this world that are accepted as absolute truth. Certain mathematical propositions are widely accepted as 'probably true' even though they have not been proven as such. Kurt Goedel proved that not all true theorems are provable within the confines of a self-consistent mathematical system. What if we assume that something is true, and later it is proven false? How does that get sorted out in a system where stating something is false when it is generally accepted as true is a crime?
The restriction of free speach is a very tricky business, and it must be handled very carefully, In the US there are a few things that are forbidden, such as child pornography. Even such subjects that appear on the surface to be beyond any criticism occasionally give rise to contreversy.
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.
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.
Guys, when you get extreme, there really is no difference. What is the difference between Fascism and Communism, as they have been implemented implemented? I would argue squat. In both cases, you have a lot of privileges located in the hands of the few. In both cases, the government runs industry. In both cases, you have massive militaries. In both cases, you have totalitarian regimes that control every aspect of life. In both you ultimately have dictators or very minute oligarchies, and in both you have an object for the mass populace to hate (Jews for fascists, bourgeoisie and aristocrats for communists). You want the best example of how close these two ideologies are, study China. They very clearly made the transition from Communism to Fascism awhile ago (if you really want to try to distinguish between the two) when they started trading freely with the rest of the world and devloping an actual economy, but that shouldn't be possible if the two ideologies are diametrically opposed.
It's easiest if you view politics as a circle: at the top, you have Communism and Fascism and other totalitarian regimes. As you move clockwise from that point, you move gradually to Feudalism, eventually to pure Capitalism. If you move counterclockwise, you go through pure Socialism to the Welfare State. In other words, going downwards in either direction increases the number of choices allotted to the individual as opposed to the state. As you progress further down from Welfare and from Capitalism, you eventually come down to the bottom and hit anarchy. I'm not saying that you need to ride the circle around to switch sides; I'd argue that, despite all of the flaws of the USA, we generally speaking alternate between the two sides of the middle, obviously without passing through either the top or the bottom as a result of each election. But I think this shows the positions of the parties much better.
So don't tell me that extreme right always yields to a military totalitarian state and going far left yields bliss. It doesn't. The two in their extreme forms are effectively the same. Our different perceptions of the two is merely proof that a rose, sadly, would not smell as sweet by any other name.
'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.