EU Pushes to Limit Internet Speech

minamar writes "CNN is reporting that at an international conference, the EU is urging the US and other nations to ban racist and 'hate' messages from the internet. The US seems to be resisting, but is this another step away from free speech and how could an international group possibly regulate message on the internet anyway?"

Comments

1 st Ammendment

[mysterious_mark]

Apparantly the EU doesn't understand that free speech is written into our constitution, and its not up to 'shrub, the Congress or anyone else to circumvent the constitution. Granted our constitutional rights are under constant attack by the current un-elected regime, but it is up to us as citizens to be ever vigilant. You cannot take away right from one group, without taking away everyones rights. The true test of a free society is how well it tolerates views that are abhorrent to the majority. MM

Re:1 st Ammendment

[cr0sh]

I am not familiar with the EU's "European Charter of Fundamental Rights". With that said, something that strikes me a fundamental difference between this law and the first ammendment, is that it hasn't got language to the effect of "The government shall not..." - which is basically how the first ammendment (and indeed, most all of the other amendments) start off: "Congress shall make no law..."

This a fact that most people (even most Americans, sadly) do not seem to understand, and why much of the various "human rights" laws and such by various other "governing" bodies, like the EU and UN, are fundamentally flawed:

The United State's Constitutional Bill of Rights does not grant rights to the people, instead it seekes to limit our government from violating rights we intrinsically have because we are (supposedly, though eroding every day, it seems) "free men" - the rights we were "born with". That isn't to say our Constitution is "etched in stone" - it can and does change with time.

Back when our Constitution was written, for example, most, if not all, of the limitations in the Bill of Rights did not apply to black people or women. At the time, these groups of people were not seen as "free men", but rather as chattel, or property - thus members of these groups were unfairly prosecuted and worse. Over time, though, our Constitution was changed, via the ammendment process, to include these groups as people became more "enlightened" as to who was a person (sad, but true).

I could see such a process occurring again for hate speech - that is, an ammendment banning it. It would run counter the the first ammendment - but that hasn't, unfortunately, stopped things in the past (see the 18th Ammendment, for example).

What is more likely to occur is a similar "end-run" around our Constitution, much like both the DMCA and PATRIOT were rammed through - but first, they need to come up with a "boogyman" to allow for it (what that will be, is unknown)...

Re:Why is this shocking?

[Anonymous Coward]

If free speech means nazi propaganda, I don't need it.

Take 2 clearly defined words that are used to describe a clearly defined and well understood concept and some retard still manages to totally miss the point. Free speech has nothing to do with Nazi propaganda or racial hatred, you either acknowledge people have a right to freedom of speech in whatever form or you don't.

Re:Why is this shocking?

[mangu]

"Young black man shot by police. Girl kidnapped, raped, and decapitated. 10 soldiers die in Iraq. Man beheads niece with samurai sword. Meth lab discovered in science closet at the high school."

The fact that all that is shown on TV, and people are also allowed to complain about seeing a part of anatomy that everyone, men and women, have, is a proof that there is freedom of expression in the USA. Remember this, freedom is *not* a question of the quality of the ideas expressed. Freedom is being allowed to express *any* idea, even if some people may feel shocked by it. No, I'm not a gringo. But I do envy the freedom o speech people have in the USA. In my own country (Brazil), saying anything the Roman Catholic Church or its followers don't like will put you in jail.

Re:Why is this shocking?

[dipipanone]

Perhaps that might be true if this article was even close to accurate. However, this story had nothing at all to do with the EU or the EU government.

According to the story, the people who are proposing this are delegates at a conference organized by France and an organization called the Organization for The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe.

According to their website, this organization is "the largest regional security organization in the world, with 55 participating states from Europe, Asia, Central and North America."

Seems to me therefore, that it would be just as accurate for this story to have been written 'US Federal Government pushes to limit internet speech'.

MOD PARENT UP!

[Przepla]

I never thought that I was going to write post asking for Modding Parent Up, but here I am.

In Europe there are really many international organisations. There is European Union, European Economic Area, Council of Europe and referenced in the CNN article Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE). All of them are important and in fact are making some kind of supranational governemnts. But they are different!

OSCE which is said to be an involved in the conference has NOTHING to do with the European Union beside that all EU members are OSCE members as well!

Europe is not a country, and OSCE is not EU.

[thomastheo1]

Alright, ive had just about enough of this.

First off, this conference has nothing to do with the EU. It was an initiative of the OSCE, which is not even funded by the EU, and is comprised of 55 nations all over the world, U.S. included (They contribute 9% of the budget)

Furthermore, there was absolutely NO consensus regarding cencorship, and it was suggested not by an EU politician, but by Michel Barnier, who is the french minister of foreign affairs, speaking on behalf of the autonomous french government. And i specifically say autonomous because people seem to forget that europe is not a country. There are many different countries, cultures and opinions on the european continent and within the european union, very much like Africa, or the Americas. Besides, regarding Europe as one big country is going to be rather confusing anyway, because if you listen closely to ANY european (be it EU or other) debate, like the one mentioned, you will find that individual states never fail to disagree about...well...pretty much everything. Even the Euro, or Iraq, or software patents, etc etc...
In this case, some european countries supported the french position, and others didnt. Some european countries, along with the US, favored stimulating the ISPs to include clauses in their TOS, thereby avoiding government intervention.

And, if all else fails, there is a european court of human rights, which recognises the right to freedom of speech. Not to mention the freedom of speech laws of individual countries.

Mr Michel Barnier is full of shit. I know it, you know it, and in all probability he knows it too. But don't blame all of europe, or the EU, for this french politician's ignorance.

9/11 the "largest hate crime?"

[jefu]

Was 9/11 :

Worse than the Nazi "final solution"?
Worse than the "Rape of Nanking"?
Worse than the Turkish genocide against the Armenians?
Worse than the genocide in Ruanda?
You get the idea (and I've not even gone earlier than the 20th century)

Re:No Universal Freedom Of Religion

[WIAKywbfatw]

Ok great so now you know my religion better than me, and yes its there, ask someone to show you before you force your spew your scewed misconceptions on others.

Here's an article you should read: http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/egypt/?i d=8288

I'll pull the relevant section out for you here:

The Muslim Brotherhood, some of whose activities are tolerated despite a ban in Egypt, elevated the hijab to the importance of fundamental duties such as fasting during the holy month of Ramadan.

However, some Muslim intellectuals denied it was a duty.

Gammal Banna, brother of the Brotherhood's founder, Hassan al-Banna, and author of several works on the rights of Muslim woman, is categorical. "The headscarf is not an obligation," he said.

"Neither the Koran, nor the Hadith (the sayings of the Prophet Mohammed) require women to wear a headscarf," the writer said.

"The headscarf mentioned in the Al-Ahzab surat (chapter) of the Koran meant a curtain or a door and not a scarf to cover the head," while the "Al-Nur surat asks women to cover their chests."

"Wearing the headscarf or not is part of a debate on morals and not on religious obligations," he said. "An erroneous interpretation of the Koran leads one to believe that women are obliged to cover their head."

(Bold emphasis added by me.)

So, tell me again about my "scewed" (sic) misconceptions?

wrong.

[dunkelfalke]

it is not banned. it is just that the state of bavaria owns the rights and disallows to print it.