Slashdot Mirror


Europe, Free Speech, And The Internet

drdale writes "Declan McCullagh responds at CNET.com to a proposal by the Council of Europe to require Internet sites to publish replies by individuals whom the sites criticize. This would apply to all web sites, apparently, including blogs. Per McCullagh, the Council's proposals do not have the force of law, but often serve as the basis for new laws." Imagine the chilling effect if McCullagh's own politechbot and similar sites had to follow such rules.

3 of 341 comments (clear)

  1. This Is Why I'm Proud to Be An American. by Pave+Low · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    'nuff said.

    .

    --
    SIG:Slashdot: indymedia for nerds.
  2. Freedom of Speech by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 3, Flamebait

    Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom to be heard, and the idea of forcing people to listen to others is downright repugnant, and EVIL.

    It smacks of Totalitarianism where an elite few are allowed to decide WHO gets listened to and WHO doesn't.

    The idea that a crazy bum has a right to be heard is insanity in itself. Sure, he can SAY anything he wants, but I have a RIGHT not to be forced into listening to his crazy talk. It doesn't matter if he speaks truth either.

    Nothing good can come from this.

    --
    Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    1. Re:Freedom of Speech by LighthouseJ · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      No, I'm saying it's a good idea to stretch the law to imprison someone for hate speech, in the same way, I could say it's a bad idea to stretch the law to imprison someone that preached radical ideas (like years ago, ideas that the Earth is round). I identify that hate speech only breeds violence, there's no positive result from hate speech. There are no morals or ethics taught. I'm merely saying that pulling that 1920's ruling by the US Supreme Court and stretching it to defeat this Nazi guy, that is a step in the right direction.