Slashdot Mirror
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?"
If you don't let people vent their anger on websites that no one will read, then they might go out and use violence to vent that anger.
A sticking point was whether the United States, which has championed nearly unfettered free speech, would line up with European countries that have banned racist or anti-Semitic speech in public.
The problem is once you ban racist speech in public, you immediately open the door for more laws that do nothing to actually curtail the problem, but rather limit the rights and freedoms of everyone. Once you do that, it just opens the door for large powerful bodies of people (governments, corporations, SIG's) to pass more laws to limit more rights and freedoms.
Freedom is expensive, but it's something worth fighting and dying for.
Ruby on Rails Screencast
I know it's unpopular, but it's true.
Free speech applies to everybody, and that includes neo-Nazis and racists. I am in no way supporting neo-Nazis and racists, but they still have the right to disseminate things and the right to free speech no matter how stupid their thinking is.
Censorship of any kind is just the start of a slippery slope.
By summer it was all gone...now shesmovedon. --
I think you suck. Everyone who looks like you sucks.
Will you now censor me?
To be sure...'hate speech' sucks. Sucks big, raw, donkey balls. But in the search for freedom of speech, you gotta take the bad with the good.
Do they really think they can fix hatred by telling people they shouldn't talk about it on the internet?
There are signs that online hate is getting worse.
Perhaps the online expression of it. The hate itself was always there and will only be minimized/eradicated with gradual cultural shifts on a global scale that will take centuries, if not millennia.
The coolest voice ever.
That simply not letting some one say something racist in a public forum will make racism magically go away.
I for one do NOT welcome our thought police overlords
It amazes me how we can revolt against something so much, we push ourselves away from it so strongly, that that we end up meeting it on the other side.
500 dollar reward for tip(s) leading to the arrest of the person(s) who stole my sig.
abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press... How much simpler could it be?
The internet by its very nature is not, and cannot be, under any government's jurisdiction to control content. Period. Let folks say what they want to say, and you always retain the freedom to read it or ignore it.
"We are the first generation to influence the climate and the last generation to escape the consequences." - John McCain
"Hate" is in the eye of the beholder, it's subjective. What one person calls "Hate", another does not call "Hate."
Start limiting speech now and light your cigar from the flame of the United States Constitution.
Just the thought of censorship makes me cringe. Now you know why I dislike the FCC.
---
IMHO, of course.
May the SOURCE be with you.
Most judges and congressmen don't get past "Congress shall make."
Who decides what "hate speech" is, these "international experts"? With free speech you have to take the good with the bad. Education is the key here!
Not that these guys have any authority anyway...
Racists suck because they spread hate. And hate ladies and gentlemen, breeds ignorance. Too bad the US government can't be trusted to censor hate groups...
Does Eurpoe really have that much guilt over its wretched past? It's OK guys, all our fore-fathers have made mistakes. Banning speech, which is only that, speech, is a ridiculas, unthought-out, pointless idea. Let the racists and biggots publicaly make a fool of themselves so we know who not to associate with. If this does go through though, does this mean that Europeons can no longer write about their hatered for Americans or Stupid White Males?
"If you are a dreamer, a wisher, a liar, A hope-er, a pray-er, a magic bean buyer
Like everytime a censorship issue is brought up, the question becomes:
1, Where does the censorship end,
2. who decides what should be censored?
3. What should be the punishment?
We should learn by example, as the article states, that we cannot even regulate shared music online without filing nonsensical lawsuits again John-Does.What are we going to do, file lawsuits against constant violators in other countries?
Like maybe those "hateful" communists. Or was it the "hateful" capitalists? Let's not forget those "hate-filled" Christians. And, gee, how often do I hear Rush Limbaugh referred to as "hate radio"?
Face it, as much as we might like to think that there is an objective assessment as to what qualifies as hate speech; the truth is that any hate speech laws will eventually be used to protect ideas and prosecute dissenters. These laws are not designed to protect people--the laws on the book already do that. These laws are designed to regulate thought, and it positively ignorant to believe that someday someone will not think that they can "help" society be eliminating that harmful capitalist/communist/whatever branch of thought.
When things get complex, multiply by the complex conjugate.
MOD UP! And to think that I wasted all my mod points yesterday on stupid stuff.
This is what is starting to be pushed for in the US by some groups. They label things "hate speech" and seek to have them outlawed. Also look at 'hate crimes'. Where you aren't punished based on the crime you did but what you were thinking while you did it.
I'm glad to be on the other side of the Atlantic, the land of the Free...
Land of the free? Where large organizations can buy laws such as the DMCA. Where people are arrested for lecturing on cryptography? Where distributing a 7-line perl code can land you in jail?
what nation does have good records on 'free' speech?
like, at least in europe you don't get the whole nation in panic if you show a NIPPLE accidentally in the middle of a very sexually oriented dance act.
can you say that scientologists are total fuckheads in the states then now? because they at least they ARE fuckheads.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
(see subject)
This kind of shit just amazes me.
The whole point of freedom of speech is so that one isn't persecuted for UNPOPULAR ideas.
This stuff just makes me sick. It's never going to be illegal to say "I like pretty flowers." The whole reason we have freedom of speech it to protect ideas that others disagree with.
The government has no business regulating people's thoughts.
This type of law is a great example of the "harm principle" not being applied. I should be able to hate you. That's my right. What I shouldn't be able to do is gas a bunch of jews. That's infringing on the rights of others.
Laws like this are the first step towards yet another totalitarian, nazi-like regieme. First you put the goverment in charge of what is and is not acceptible public discourse. Next, the government abuses that power in ways you never imagined.
Life is too short to proofread.
You can't call for killing somebody.
You can't state knowingly wrong "fact" about a presidential candidate without being sued.
You can'd say everything you want on product review pages without risking being sued by the producer (for the negative review).
In Germany you can't say "The Holocaust did not happen".
It's absolutely justified banning public statements like "All jews should be gased" or "All blacks should be hung" or "Our race should be cleansed".
It would, however, be harmful to ban statements like "Based on emperical evidence, *** tend to *** and are more likely to ***".
And you see, I had to leave blanks, because the obsession with political correctness in this country, to the point to of just denying/ignoring fact.
Very good point about that balance...
"Your right to swing your arm stops at the end of my nose" -- I don't know who said that, other than my father, but I think it applies.
SIGSEGV caught, terminating
wait... not that kind of sig.
Hahahaha hahah hahahah hahaha, that was funny. Is this the first right wing troll i have seen in Slashdot today.
Thanks mate, you just made my day. You may not be aware of this, but there are plenty of conservative news outlets and even *gasp* political parties in Europe. At least those outlets and politicians have the balls to let other people know they are conservative. Unlike the conservative outlets in the US which try to pretend they are "fair and balanced"
Oh, and in Europe people actually understand the difference between reporting and editorial. Most US news outlets have forgotten the distinction.
But yeah, the US is has a far better track record when it comes to freedom of speech, unless it involves nudity, or strong language, or unpopular opinions, or bad comments about the president during a time of "war," or graphic images of destruction, or....
A was using this as an argument against censoring the internet, but I guess it's only a matter of time before it becomes a reality on voice lines too.
I'm sorry, but this is +4 Insightful despite your not giving any links to back it up? Until you give examples (google turns up comments/reviews/upgrades, no databases per se) your comment's quite possibly yet more trolling.
Stuff.
France may suck with laws, I can still say whatever I want. Of course I can't create my own nazi web site but who would do that anyway? If free speech means nazi propaganda, I don't need it.
North Korea also has free speech, as long as you don't make a website filled with capitalist propaganda.
Excuse my french, but I think you are missing the whole fucking point of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech protects your right to say contraversial things. The right to say things that the government approves of is NOT freedom of speech.
I think you're equating the federalism of the US with the quasi-confederalism of the EU. There are far too many key distinctions between the two models to justify your statement. The design of the EU's government and parliament, the rotating presidency, and the fierce nationalism that still pervades much of continental Europe really prevents the kind of powerful central government from emerging the way it did here in the United States. Unless some demagogue comes to the EU presidency and makes some substantial changes to the design of the EU government, the most power the EU will wield will be economic power, and even there such reach will be governed by the WTO.
I doubt you'll see a U-turn on this issue, primarily because of the fundamentally different outlook on government and rights between the two continents. For Americans, rights really are important, even though everyone who says "I'm defending the Bill of Rights!" tends to defend only their favorite few (i.e., the 1st for the lefties, the 2nd and 4th for the righties). Europeans still have an essentially monarchistic view of government's relations to its citizens: citizens are subjects of the government, and all rights they enjoy, they do so at the government's pleasure. Thus stopping people from saying bad things doesn't get people as uppity there as it does here. It's the same reason gun control is not as much of a hot topic as in the US.
B
"I'm payin' taxes, but what am I buyin'?" -- James Brown
You missed the point. The entire dance act was extremely sexual. Nobody would have complained if that's all it was. But a NIPPLE pops out and OH, LORDY!
Grow the hell up. Being offended by a nipple is about equivalent to kids on the playground freaking out about "cooties." It's okay for young children to suck on the goddamned things, but not to see them?
I mean CRIPES. You turn on a news channel these days and what do you hear? "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."
It's okay to expose your children to that shit, but a brief show of flesh is a catastrophic event?
Have you ever considered that our "offense" at seeing a nipple is merely a neurosis our parents have transferred to us, down through the Puritanical generations? For Christ's sake, there are more important things in this world!
What's that good 'ol Voltaire quote, something along the lines of "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it"?
The problem, when you think about restricting free speech on any specific grounds, that in general it sets a precedent for removing other forms. Specifically, consider your statement above: "If free speech means nazi propaganda, I don't need it."
On the counter to that, just because there's nazi propaganda out there on the web, doesn't mean it has to bother you. If you're not gay, does it bother you that there is gay porn on the internet (or vice versa)? No, at least it should not. You can't make a case for censorship in any form based on one particular thing you don't like. There is no one size fits all solution, and any attempt will probably cause more annoyance and innocent censorship :)
I'm an upper middle class white male. Given that, which of these is true:
Since you've offered a simple explanation for the supposed continued existence of racism, I really want to know whether I'm the source or target. If you can't pick one of those four and defend it, then shut up and admit that society is a lot more complex than you're making it out to be.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
What constitues rasist remarks and hate messages? Does changing the name of French Fries to Freedom Fries constitue rasism or hate messages when it is posted on the internet? Does me saying French people smell here on slashdot constitue hate messages?
The EU is going to have a very tough time enfocing this since most people on the internet now use Google, and Google is a US based company. And since the first ammendment still exists in the US, and is not going to go away in the forseeable future, this kind of censoring will never happen. For your convience:
Amendment I (1791) Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Name a regime, socialist, capitalist, communist, ANY regime at ALL that did't practice propaganda or censorship.
Now, all of you, get some fucking perspective. This isn't some left vs. right or Capitalist Pig vs Pinko Commie thing. This is basic human nature.
The people in power will attempt to stifle the ideas they disagree with. Period. The USA has a good track record for allowing 'disagreeable' speech but you don't have to go far to find censorship there.
For christ's sake, people, get over it, leave your neighbours alone, and get on with living your life in your own little community and you'll be happier for it.
^ That's the fucking truth.
The darkness... controls the music. The music... controls the soul.
That proves there's no freedom of expression at all in France today. Yes, you can say anything at all, as long as you don't criticize [Hitler | Stalin | Fidel | Mao | The Pope | Elvis | Jay Leno], but who would do that anyway? Freedom of speech means being allowed to say anything, no matter how controversial or disgusting it may be.
That's why I, as a parent, don't let the kids see news channels until I see what's playing. I didn't get the choice of screening Ms. Janet's chest. That is why people were upset.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
warning is a good idea but the EU wishes not to warn but censor..to not let us say what we want to say..and that is scary. if we let the eu tell us what we can say and not say what will be next..its the classic slippery slope.
Coffee, you can sleep when you're dead!
The German regulation on "free speech" is essentially: it is forbidden to lie about the Holocaust, i.e., to deny the murder of millions of jews by the Nazis. In my view (and probably in the view of most Germans) this restriction is necessary in order to retain the memory of what happened and to prevent that it can happen again; furthermore, it is the least we can do for survivors and the families of victims. It is nothing to look down upon, in particular not for Americans.
To begin with, that wasn't just any old man's funeral. That was a funeral for the former President of a country whom you are (suppossed) to be allied with. Attending a funeral is not going to improve anyone's political position, certainly not if they aren't invited to speak.
Imagine how the French or Germans would feel if President Bush was invited to attend a funeral for one of their great leaders, when he was already on European soil, and had no great matters to attend to. Hell, we're at war and President Bush attended the funeral. It took him away from things for pretty much the entire day I'm sure. I doubt it would have seriously inconveinced any of them to stay.
I guess the point I am trying to make is that paying respect for the dead, particularly of a man who had a great and positive effect on the entire world, may be seen by some cynics as a way to improve your social or political standing, but that the feelings of such cynics should not stop you from doing what is simply the right thing.
Slackware, what else when it must be secure, stable, and easy?
Ahh yes, the old "parenting" cop out...
Advertising for a four hour erection... Absolutely!
Three hours of men beating each other to a bloody pulp over a ball... You Betcha!
Flash a little boobie... WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!11!!oneone
[yawn]
...Rob
The American Dream isn't an SUV and a house in the suburbs; it's Don't Tread On Me.
-
"We were very disturbed by Scott Simon's question to interviewee Richard Ben Cramer (June 12, 2004 "Weekend Edition"): "is there still a need for Israel to exist?" "
-
They're unhappy about Mel Gibson's "Passion of the Christ.
-
They're unhappy about The Financial Times publishing a letter by the Ambassador from one of the Arab League countries.
-
They're unhappy about the United Nations Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People. They think it's too one-sided.
None of this stuff is hate speech. These are political statements.This issue tends to be framed in terms of "Nazis", but the Nazis died out a long time ago. Today's issues revolve around Israel vs. its Arab neighbors, Israel vs. its Palestinian population, and US support of Israel. The ADL has a major cow whenever the anti-Israel side of those issues gets major press in the US. (Interestingly, the domestic Israeli press criticizes the government of Israel over these issues frequently, but the ADL doesn't get mad at the Jerusalem Post.)
There's a real political question as to whether continued support of Israel is in the interest of the United States. It's important to Israel's survival to divert serious poliical debate on that issue. That's the real meaning of this "anti-hate-speech" push. It's not about Nazis.
Attending a funeral is not going to improve anyone's political position
Yet you assume that Chirac not attending the funeral was him "Sending message that he didnt like the united states". In any case, perhaps he doesnt, and would be within his rights not to. His descion to attend a man's funeral should be based on his relationship with the man not the state.
Hell, we're at war and President Bush attended the funeral.
I do hope you are kidding! You are at war and your president takes time off to play golf and go on holiday.
Seems!? Are you kidding me? The United States government doesn't have a choice. Our Constitution doesn't allow them to limit hate speech. The slippery slope becomes a cliff far too quickly. First you let the government ban hate speech, then you redefine hate speech to "anything that disagrees with the P.C. stance."
Far fetched? Not a bit. It's been done. A kid in a school said, "I think homosexuals are going to hell," during a classroom discussion. He was expelled for hate speech. While I disagree with his beliefs, I wouldn't call it hate speech, but the school did.
The U.S. government can NOT ban hate speech. They can arrest people for "inciting to riot" or a host of other criminal offenses related to speech, but they they can't impose a blanket ban.
Europe needs to realize that, unlike them, we take our Constitution dead serious and don't allow compromise.
-- Will program for bandwidth
What are you talking about? YOU GET FREE TELEVISION. This isn't a Movie you rent that says, "Brief Nudity, Mature Language..."
Be thankful you get Television in the first place and through Marketing/Advertising dollars you get to be entertained without costing you beyond the cost of a television set. When HDTV arrives and you become forced to either choose Satellite or Cable, then bitch about not having the right to descriminate. You'll still have no foundation since changing the channel still resides in your hands.
You are a prude when you can't fathom the natural phenomenon of human nudity as a normal part of human existence.
The top parent poster is right. People who bitch about the breast being exposed have deep seeded neuroses that go to the core of America's extreme Moral Minority who feel they know what is best and how to define the terms Liberty and Justice for All, Freedom for All.
I happen to think they're wrong, but when it comes to the danger of racist demagoguery, they have a very direct and painful perspective on the matter that you don't appreciate.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
"But yeah, the US is has a far better track record when it comes to freedom of speech, unless it involves nudity, or strong language, or unpopular opinions, or bad comments about the president during a time of "war," or graphic images of destruction, or...."
"involves nudity, or strong language, or unpopular opinions, or bad comments about the president during a time of "war," or graphic images of destruction, or....""
Well, let's try this one out:
1: Nudity. Pornography is legal in the United States, so long as it is not child pornography, and so long as it is not displayed in public (e.g. broadcast TV).
2: Strong language. Again, legal unless it's in public, and even there, it's rarely an issue. There are 14 words that can't be said on broadcast TV or radio. You can say whatever you want on cable.
3: Bad comments. No problem there. Many prominent figures, including John Kerry, are saying "bad things" about the president. Remember, there is a difference between something being "legal" and it being "acceptable". Kerry can't say but so much or he would alienate the public. Note also that you may have liability with libel/slander, but this is extremely difficult to prove in the US (you must prove that the comments were untrue, intended to be damaging, and that they actually did damage).
4: Graphic images. The media has made a choice not to broadcast such images. It is not illegal to broadcast such images. Many websites in the US do just this.
Now, on the "US media sucks" point, I agree 100%. Fortunately, newspapers and public radio are far better than cable news. There are plenty of high-quality, objective news sources in the US. But most of them aren't on cable TV.
which are far right, further right and KKK
I love how anti-Americans always bring up US racism. I talked to a bunch of Indian expats in France, and they had plenty of complaints about similar or worse problems over there compared to the US. France also recently banned its Muslim citizens from wearing headscarves and making a living at the same time, not to mention Germany's insanely restrictive citizenship policy.
Google confirms: Ruby is the world's most beloved programm
Just a short 40 years ago, blacks couldn;t even use the same water fountain.
Let's not complacent, we still have a long way to go.
I guess the point I am trying to make is that paying respect for the dead, particularly of a man who had a great and positive effect on the entire world...
First of all, that's a load of crap for any number of reasons. Here's a quick bulleted list to get the fact that Reagan was a raving psychopath and a flat out asshole out of the way:
Whether or not Reagan actually played any heavy role in the downfall of communism - an already failing system in many places - is extremely debateable.
That said, maybe Chirac wouldn't have snubbed us if Bush hadn't thumbed his nose at the entire world, turned his back, and marched off beating his own drum. Funny how that works, isn't it? People don't take real kindly to being insulted like that - especially when they're on the soil of a nation that has, for the last 50 years, made cruel sport of the person's nationality for no particularly good reason. It's called international diplomacy, and our current president has failed miserably at it. Now, you people are surprised that the rest of the world bites its thumb at us? Cripes.. pull your heads out of your own asses before you suffocate... you only get respect if you earn it.
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
The Nazis gave us a warning from history about the potentially lethal power of the spoken word. one of the most technically advanced and civilised nations on Earth was whipped into a frenzy of mass hysteria by the power of words. The holocaust should never have happened, it should never be forgotten, and it must never happen again.
The right to free speech is not absolute, nor should it be. There are more pressing rights such as the right to life. Where one conflicts with the other, it is the right to life that must prevail.
Drill baby drill - on Mars
But love of liberty has been ingrained and enshrined in the American character and laws for over 200 years.
Two hundred years, huh? And when was it that you repealed the laws on slavery exactly?
No one else except perhaps Britain can match that
Nah, we learned everything we need to know about freedom from the USA. Really. We'd still be in mud huts if it wasn't for the American people bringing us freedom and civilization.
Dude, your kids saw tits for the first time when they were sucking your wifes' so called "chest".
:P
As for Janet's little stunt, yes it was sort of retarded of her/them, but seriously, what damage did it do? Was a picture of Janet's tit permanently etched to your kid's retina? Yes, your kid saw someones tit... Not to be a troll, but why the fuck is that a problem? It was pretty innocent, and you sort of go over the top when you express your moral indignation about something that trivial... On the other hand, I live on the other side of the pond, so... I might not have the right mindset... ?
Our news stations were asking how you americans managed to procreate when you were so upset at seeing a *gasp* breast... With the lights off maybe? With gloves on? hmm....
Yes, I know, it's not that simple, and not every one of you shares the same opinion on this etc, but for chrissake, those of you that are capable of rational thought, slap a little sense into your poor rationaly challenged countrymen...
I'll probable be modded down... Oh well...
eh, did you read what you were replying to?
the whole act was a display of acting 'sexy', the showing of the nipple just bummed it less sexy if anything.
if you didn't want your kids to see a nipple(or anything sexual) you shouldn't have been letting them watch the show anyways. booty ass shaking was more than expected from the show, even more expected than what any breaking news murder at 7th street newsblurb would ever be.
-
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Who determines what propaganda is? If it's the government then it's bad. What may be "propganda" to one set of people may be considered truths by another set. Look at the different views in America between the left and the right - speaking politically. Liberals put out propaganda and conservatives put out their own. Other groups have their own propaganda.
Allowing the government to determine what is or isn't harmful is a "bad thing" because once you give the government an inch (or centimeter for you Europeans) they'll run with it and take much more than a mile. Good intentions notwithstanding, people should be allowed to say what they want - although I agree with punishment for abuse like you said.
Thanks
The reason why socialism will NEVER truly work (based in its true form) is due to human nature. As a species, Humans have evolved their brains through survival of the fittest. That is, only the strong survived and carried on their genetics to future generation. And thus, to this day the Human species continues to envy, hate, and extort those in the process to better suit them selves in hope of successfully procreating with the fairest of females. Ever wonder why society revolves around sex in some way or fashion? Basically, this is evolutionary psychology. It's a both a fascinating and sobering subject about our true nature. We are after all, animals. Some are just more civilized then others depending on who you talk to.
As stated before, socialism will never work because it leaves a vacuum of power and thus is a perfect breading ground for corruption (organized crime, mafias...etc). Prime examples are found in China and former Soviet Union.
Capitalism however works by going with human nature and exploiting it for all of society in a positive manor. Obviously, it's not perfect. But given Human nature, it's the best system available. I'm sure one day millions of years from now, socialism will work far better then capitalism will (that, or accelerated human brain modification through genetic engineering). But until then, just accept your race for which you are now a part of. Live it, love it, at the very least, and understand it.
Life is not for the lazy.
Yes You DID ! What did you think you were watching? A previously recorded, edited broadcast? No! It was LIVE. That means anything can happen, including "wardrobe malfunctions", and it won't be edited. Either accept your choices, or choose differently (ie, watch a later edited version).
Nathan's blog
"Who the hell are the unthinking morons modding this crap insightful or interesting? At least somebody got the Flamebait right."
Whats a matter did someone get modded down?
"The fact is that anyone in power will stifle whatever they please. Or was Janet Jackson permitted her nipple exposure?"
No that is what the constitution is there for. Get it now?
"Jesus, you Americans and your so-called Free Speech and your worthless Constitution."
Well no bigotry there....You don't like it or us fuck off. See that is the down side of free speech. It mean anyone can express their opinion and not get arrested.
"Haven't you noticed that the Constitution is worth its weight in paper and nothing else?"
Want to bet? I am with my life. I have with my life and if I have to I will again.
"Haven't you noticed all the crap that's being done in the "land of the free" to remove those so-called freedoms?"
Not beyond the basics life liberty and the pursuing of happiness the right to peaceably assemble
"The US is no less censored nor restricted than France or Germany, it's merely done in different ways and in different spheres."
Actually it is. The neo nazis even have marches and web sites here. Because no matter how asinine the thought they are allowed to express it.
What scares me is that when people start to pass laws based on what they thing is hate. After all think about how different people think about what hate is.
For example:
Many Liberals call what conservatives say is hate speech. Would this then be banned on the internet? Or Radio? Or even from being mentioned in public?
If so, welcome to Germany 1939.
It is illegal in the US to kill a black. It is also illegal to tell someone to kill a black. It becomes a gray area to say that blacks should be killed. It's OK to say that you don't like blacks.
France for instance, partly because of its past, equates the statement "I love Hitler" with the intent to commit a crime. The US doesn't. But you have to see that it's all the same continuum of actions, with each country drawing the line at a slightly different place.
I think your point is that not all expressions of thought are legal. I agree. You can't yell "fire" in a theater or call in a phony bomb threat.
Sometimes rights conflict. The right of free speech and public safety as in the case of yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. However, most of the time when the right to free speech is challenged there is a clear conflict between exercising that right and the public good.
In the case of child porn there is a victim. The child must be protected and therefore you don't have a right to express yourself by taking pictures of under aged children engaged in sex acts.
In the case of hate messages it is less clear that there is a victim. Yes, it is possible that hateful posts could incite an unstable person into doing violence but so could a Rambo movie.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
Personally, I'm horribly offended that you think that the sight of a female nipple is potentially dangerous to your children...or to you. After all, male nipples are just fine on prime time. It's only women who are persecuted in this fashion in America; in fact, the outrage about Janet's nipple is a form of hate against women. But I digress; this discussion is not about hate crimes themselves, it's about attempting to prevent the discussion of hate on the Internet.
No, Muslim women aren't required by their religion to wear a headscarf: that's a fallacy.
Show me where it says that in the Koran and I'll stand corrected. But it's not in the Koran, so I don't think there's any danger of me having to do that.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
Ok and if I cut off the head of my neighbor because they are gay or because they piss me off, that should be tried different? Either way I went over there and cut off their head.
I realize that I'm pretty old-fashioned by Slashdot standards, but I believe that it's my duty to raise my children in a moral environment. Yes, I do believe that my morals are the correct ones; if I didn't, I'd change them. It has nothing to do with harm. Rather, I just don't want to force adult content (whether sex, nudity, violence, or the evening news) onto my preschool-age children. By the time they reach their teenage years, they'll have started to develop their own worldview and my responsibility at that time will shift to guidance and support. Right now, though, I'd rather not explain pictures of decapitations or sexual innuendos to the little girl running around in her My Little Pony pajamas.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Socialism and stifling free speech go hand in hand.
You seem to have missed out the part where you attempt to justify this sentence. Socialism and free speech are two completely different concepts that have no bearing on one another.
Free speech has been stifled by left-leaning governments, and right-leaning governments.
A more valid statement would be:
"Governments and stifling free speech go hand in hand."
(ABC could even use Maniacal Wood-Sprouting Al Michaels' wardrobe malfunction as a message from their sponsor, Levitra. "Do you believe in miracles!?! YES!!!")
--All your stolen base are belong to Rickey Henderson
IANAL, but impossible necessary things don't stop being necessary, just because they are impossible. They're just impossible, and because they are necessary to the definition of a "Free" state, just like Microsoft produces non-Free software, they define western governments in general as non-Free. That in this particular case, it's quite legitimate for a French or a German not to be reminded every day of a lost loved one, or that a lost loved one may have been a war criminal, because that would border on harassment in many jurisdictions, means we have a hard(NP-Hard) problem.
How do we prevent an ideology who has been found guilty in court of crimes against humanity, from being hate and race-based, from promoting itself as hate and race-based? How many radical groups attract converts, not for their ideology or their ideas, but "who they are against"? When "who they are against" are a group of people that cannot be "discriminated against"(circa laws against discrimination in your own jurisdiction), you have two people who are arguing the position of a comma in a law. You have one person's face, and one person's fist, and the law becomes just how hard the fist has to hit before it's a crime...
As I said this is a hard problem, how do you determine the difference between the meaning of two relatively innocuous terms: National and Socialist, who basically mean "Us" and "Together", and their use as the label of a party who was identified as the perpetrator of (the numbers aren't all agreed on in all particulars) anywhere between 6 and 26 million dead. How do you tell the difference between "they had good words"(defensible, at least in the abstract, humans have defined "Us" vs "Them" since time immemorial) and "they had the right idea in killing those people"(which cannot be entertained lightly by a consciencious, sane human being even in numbers in single digits: I am trying to clarify the process in which law enforcement can express its reasoning here, because I believe that such a law enforcement process has to be transparent and understandable to someone without a law degree, not presenting my views). How do ideologies of damage and destruction can be defended, or find new converts, when the damage and the destruction itself are "not guaranteed rights" even when their espression in their abstract are inalienable rights? In this case, I'd redirect our readers to look a little closer to home, perhaps to Criminal Biker Gangs, who commit crimes, and where law enforcement officials demand methods to deal with such organised groups, and who are often denied, because "the right of association" is paramount; indeed it is paramount, yet its application, aka the details can certainly be argued for a more contextual interpretation: while the right to join into a group may certainly be a right, when this right is used to cover evidence of one or more crimes, we have to pick our poison... In light of the Enron and Worldcom scandal, we can also wonder just how many "legal associations" have been turned into a sham for using "rights" to hide evidence of crimes, or to protect those who think such schemes up from prosecution. How many people are hurt by such crimes? How many lives broken? What about the purchasing of political power through less-than-legal methods? Is a country where millions are affected by such crimes less or more free?
How can we tell? We usually can't, usually because the small, yet emotional cases can certainly be used as cover, for the large, unemotional cases that really affect our daily lives in a significant manner. How many policemen checking for "illegal content" do European governments in general have to task to finding paraphernalia vs locating child porn traders?
Europe is not more or less free than America or Canada, no, we're all non-free, to the last of us.
The world needs far less 'logical objections' and a severe reduction in US population.
Funny thing is, what you wrote could be considered hate speech, and therefore not allowed.
Fellowship 9/11
OK, then how about premeditated versus non-premeditated murder versus murder in self defense.
There's no such think as murder in self defense - if it's legitimate self defense, then it's just killing.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
The problem is once you ban racist speech in public, you immediately open the door for more laws that do nothing to actually curtail the problem, but rather limit the rights and freedoms of everyone.
That door has already been opened in the US: you may be able to defame minority groups, but you can't defame beef, milk, or trademarks. Likewise, you face restrictions on other kinds of speech: there are limits on the copyrighted content you can include in your speech, and as the Scientologists show, those can be made to stick. There are limits on how you can use trademarks in US speech. Etc.
No, what rankles people like you about these kinds of laws is that they are foreign restrictions on US speech. But every nation has restrictions on speech, every nation tries to export their restrictions, and every nation is successful to some degree at that.
Freedom is expensive, but it's something worth fighting and dying for.
Terrorists believe they are dying for freedom, and you can see what US attitudes towards terrorists are--people who blow things up and fight the US government. Face it: fighting and dying for freedoms is neither acceptable nor effective anymore, and it is becoming less so.
Gory murder, people getting killed by guns, violent cartoons that promote bad morals and bad habits, people blowing eachother up, and the late-night propaganda...er...news. And people complained about Janet's magical breast?
How bout you do yourself, and your kids, some justice and take your TV out into the middle of a forest, shoot it a few times, then go back to the store and pick up a computer for each kid, a family computer, and a fast internet connection (DSL or cable). Put it in their rooms, let em' go crazy, and make sure you tell them "if you've got any question, ANY question, ask me" and when they come up to you with the enivitablly crazy questions, don't get pissed, talk with em'.
"But we love the TV, the TV is our friend"
All the god box ever brought anyone is a cheap way for you to zone out for a few hours and do nothing. What about your dreams? Where are those every night you come home? Do you want to wake up one day, suddenly 60, and realize "I'v done nothing with my life, accept sit on this couch, and watch this TV".
Here's a challenge; go one week without TV. Find something else to do.
Candy-Coated Knowledge
That would be a magnanimous sentiment if you were actually the victim of hate speech.
I don't give a rats ass about being the "victim of speech" from some schmuck. However if I am a victim of an actual non-speech crime then throw the fscker in prison.
But by your likely economic status alone, chances are that you aren't, even if you are Jewish or homosexual or a member of another minority that is the target of hate speech.
I dunno about the original poster, but I qualify.
When you add up jews and homosexuals and blacks and muslims and asians and latinos and native americans and whoever else, it's damn near 50% of the US population. Several US states are substantially over 50% "minority".
I'll stick with the Stormfront.org assholes who get thrown in prison if/when they pull out a gun. They are much prefferable to government assholes pulling out guns and throwing people in prison because they don't like what someone says.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
This is kinda like yelling 'weapons of mass destruction' when they dont exist.
and we could count the 9/11 attacks as the largest hate crime of all time.
On the grand scale, 9/11 was a small isolated incident. If you want to see large hate crimes, go read the history books regarding events of world war 2. Even recent history contains many examples of much greater magnitude than 9/11. Go read up on Bosnia and Somalia for just a couple recent examples. As much as americans want to believe 9/11 changed the world, and is justification for wars and invasions, it was truely a small isolated incident on the overall scale of this world.
The hypocracy of americans trying rationalize the slanted views never ceases to amaze me. If China throws a few 'inusurgents' in jail for political reasons, it's a 'violation of human rights'. If america throws a few into a jail in cuba with no trials, and no rights to defend against accusations, thats 'for the good of the people'. The amazing part is, americans cant see the hypocracy of it, and they actually believe the drivel from the politicians about 'well, this is different, human rights dont apply when its us doing the afflicting'.
Americans talking about 'rights and freedoms' these days is just a laff for the rest of the world. Go take a look at any newscast from the last couple of months. America has demonstrated clearly how they view human rights. USA doesn't have to take second place to any third world dictatorship when it comes to invading another country, setting up jails for political prisoners, or establishing systematic torture treatment for political prisoners. GW wanted to show the world that he's as good as the best of them at running the show, and he's proved it. He doesn't have to take a second seat to Saddam for anything, quite capable of matching all the deeds. Now the rest of the world just isn't paying attention to any of the 'rights and freedoms' drivel coming forth from america anymore. It's cheap talk for the press, not something to actually practise.
I'm sure I'll get modded troll into oblivion for this, but wtf, I've got karma to burn, and if it opens the eyes of a single american voter, it's worth it. To be taken seriously on the world stage, you have to practise what you preach. Until a couple years ago, usa was given credit for doing just that, but not anymore. Anybody willing to step back and look at facts, ignoring the political spin, can see it pretty plainly. If americans truely believe in 'rights and freedoms', regime change is in order. Luckily, they have the mechanism to do it legally. Time will tell, we will find out in November if they truely believe in rights and freedoms, or if they they approve of the new role of oppressive invader with total disregard for even the most basic of human rights.
As a former american citizen now living in germany I have to say I don't like the attitude the way US people think their 'free-speech' is the only 'free-speech' in the world and that germany and other countries trying to 'limit free speech' are somewhat 'unfree'.
While I agree on that it's not an easy issue, it should be taken into account that speech is just about as free in germany and other western countries as it is in the US. Somebody like Kaplan for instance - a large type islam-fundamentalistic asshole - who has cause serious trouble in germany with so-called 'hate speech' and simular things can still walk around rather unhindred in germany, where as in the o-so-free-speech US they would've locked him away already for some dubious one-size-fits-all terrorist threat possibility charges or whatnot. Try to say 'f*ck' 'sh*t' and 'motherf*cker' on TV or even on slashdot and see how far you can get. How's that for free-speech? It's all got quite some US bias, this discussion.
This whole free speech issue is just a problem because some people in the US insist on officially threatening and insulting other people and call 'constitution!' whenever someone wants to get them for it. And even judges limit free speech in the US when it comes so far as what the germans call 'Volksverhetzung'. If I were to stand up and officially ask for the public to storm the white house and take down the goverment or fly some planes into public buildings the US authorities would take me in, free speech or not. Just like they would in germany. And for good reasons to.
As you see, the differences aren't that big as one may think.
So to those bias-ridden comentators here: Just quit the rubbish your blowing out of your behind about the 'rest of the world' as opposed to the o-so-free US. It's not all that differenta situation alltogether.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
Does their definition of hate speech include the Bible, which demands that homosexuals be put to death? (Leviticus 20:13)
You may be trolling, but some things are too important to be denied unchallenged.
There is no such thing as unlimited free speech. Not in the EU, not in the US.
There are a lot of good reasons to stop "some" speech.
Consider:
- "Hi, Im William H. Vanderbilt, could I get a free ride on this here staten ilse ferry?" (I am not William H. Vanderbilt)
- "Fuck you cop"
- "Ill shoot you dead"
Three easy examples of were speech is limited.
Is it a good thing to ban "hate" speech? Hell, I dont know, define "hate"
"/Dread"
I agree with most of what you say, but the part about dubbya not having to take a back seat to Saddam on anything is a bit overblown. Last I checked there weren't any mass graves filled with turkish insurgents on GWB's resume. And as much as systematically destroying everyone's rights is an atrocity on it's own, he still hasn't managed to rape / torture / murder his way to anywhere near the numbers that Hussein has under his belt.
do not read this line twice.
Then you are not being a responsible parent.
Your job is to explain this world to them, not to shelter them from it. Nipples are unavoidable. Why not take the five minutes to explain what a nipple is, why it's been demonized, and that it will make a lot more sense when she's older. Wait a year, repeat.
It should be a wake up call that so many people are willing to have the government automate their parenting.
Parenting is a responsibility. Own up to it or your child will pass on the same dysfunctions
There should be a 'Stupid' Mod option