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?"
Reminds me of some quote i've seen a lot here.
"I don't like what you're saying, but i'll fight for your right to say it"
Hate speech has always been a sore issue for Europe for as long as the Internet has been around. Over there, they really don't like anybody throwing hate speech around the way that Nazi Germany did.
Stateside, we just take groups like the KKK and ignore them and shove them out of our way when they try to use their right to free speech to say something we don't really care to hear... hate speech is protected by free speech, but we most definitely slam the cell doors on people who take actions that we define as hate crimes.
But what's sticky about this is that hate speech is often the forerunner to hate actions. Afterall, part of Al Queda's definition is that they hate anybody who doesn't follow their misguided splinter religion (that they claim to be Islam but isn't) and any form of government that isn't an opressive "perfect Islamic state". We should be particularly alarmed about about the spread of anti-American hate speech going on in the world... it's perfectly fine to be critcal of what we do here, but there comes a point where "dislike" crosses the line into "hatred", and it's those who have been brainwashed into thinking that free governments need to be banished from the world that we are fighting against as terrorists. Simply put, if there were less people in the world spreading hate against us, there'd be less terrorists for us to have to defend against.
It's a delicate balance that we need to maintain. Our most powerful individial freedoms are defined in the First Amendment, and we can't afford to waive them away. However, the "Freedom of Speech" has never been truely absolute. Libel and slander are considered civil torts because that use of speech steps on the rights of other people to not have their image torn down by the spread of lies. The classic "yelling 'Fire!' in a theater" example is a case where saying something untrue that puts others in danger can be a criminal act.
I don't see "hate speech", as long as we're able to agree on a tight and fair definition of what makes up that term, as being something worthy of protection... afterall, it's those who spread hate propoganda who are also most likely to be those who are about to take action, and we could count the 9/11 attacks as the largest hate crime of all time.
Go look at the websense or surfControl databases, and look at what matches "hate" websites. Ask yourself, are all these websites REALLY about hate? Or are they just unpopular political opinion? Do they advocate violence, or just getting rid of the current administration in the next election? the answers might suprise you.
No, don't fuck the EU.
The EU will, in the near future, probably be something of a United States of Europe; something that can finally kick some ass in getting America's dominance as a hyperpower felled. They're doing some amazing shit, including bitchslapping Microsoft and increasing individual nation's economic strength. They also do a lot to aid health issues and diversity.
I can understand their motives: racism is a horrible thing, be it whites discriminating against blacks or (more rarely) vice versa, but sadly I have to side with the US on this one: freedom of speech for everyone. I hope the EU does a U-turn on this idea, as I really would like to see the USA given a kick up the goatse.
By summer it was all gone...now shesmovedon. --
Socialism and stifling free speech go hand in hand.
Only if your leaders/educators are really lazy. Otherwise it's simple to engineer the problems with racism and the main cause of racism out of a socialist society to begin with; by eliminating the possibility of ENVY and GREED. It's only if you're already treating your citizens differently based on bogus criteria such as looks, family name, or luck that you need to worry about racism (or any other form of discrimination).
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Sounds like something he'd say.
Damn smart guy is Manson, when off the mic he gets far less credit than he deserves (and "you're all slaves to a god that doesn't exist" is probably one of the most truthful things I've heard
By summer it was all gone...now shesmovedon. --
You can show as many nipples as you want in the U.S., the idea is that parents should have warning so that they can DECIDE for themselves whether they want to introduce that matter to their children.
In the U.S., you can do damn near anything you want (except fuck animals), but it has to be in the right setting.
Each has it's plusses and minuses. I mean, how about the Netherlands. They are still in Europe right? Free spech, and you can toke up and pay to get laid, all legally. So how free are we really?
Also, check out the Patriot Act sometime and see how truly free we are.
But all of this is a moot point really. Europe can whine all it wants, it's not going to change anything in this country. It's constitutionally protected, which means no treaty can stop it. So they'll just have to cope with all the Nazi's offshoring their websites.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
That must mean every socialist regime that's ever existed had leaders and educators that were lazy. Show me a shining example of glorious socialism that did not have a very active propaganda and censorship bureau.
There will always be envy, there will always be greed, and it has nothing to do with "historical preconditions" or "culture war" or anything else those Marxist space cadets shoved down your naive and willing gullet. Declaring war on the bourgeoisie and enslaving them is still war on people and slavery. And you can't wave away the moral implications thereof because you find them less than human, for the crime of owning property.
B
"I'm payin' taxes, but what am I buyin'?" -- James Brown
Racism is the Great Satan of our age. There are a lot of worse things in life. But public indoctrination against racism starts very early, and is accomplished more thoroughly than most other government propaganda efforts (in the West).
The races of man exist, and there is substantial evidence they differ in things like intelligence, athleticism, temperament, and a number of other mostly genetic characteristics, as well as there being substantial - and mostly immutable by public policy - differences in cultures.
Sure, hatred and incivility are to be regretted, but all modern liberal democracies get along with substantial amounts of them. If you are American, canvas your neighborhood for opinions on Republicans (or Democrats) to see what I am talking about. Hatred is not the Great Satan you think it is.
If, like me, you are a product of Western culture, you probably have a substantial disgust-reaction to anything even slightly tainted by racism. And if try to reason to yourself about it, you will find that you have that degree of an adverse reaction to very few other things - probably only rape, child pornography, and other evil acts. That is not the most natural thing in the world. It does not have much historical pedigree. The only thing that I can compare modern anti-racism to is beliefs that originate through religious conditioning. The average person's indoctrination in anti-racism - from schools, media, and parents - is highly similar to the experience of being indoctrinated in a religion from childhood on.
People need to reevaluate their reflexive anti-racism. It deserves a far lower priority in most people's public policy views.
No, that's not the point. The point is to add another law to the "everybody is a criminal" set of laws that are already in existence. Now to arrest, they can categorize something you said as hate speech and arrest you for it.
And the muscular cyborg German dudes dance with sexy French Canadians
I hear what you're saying but, in all honesty, we can just not go to ogrish.com or otherwise seek out the info. Just hearing about it from someone who has seen the offensive material is adequate; but some knowledge of the yuckiness that is is important, even critical, for everyone to have. IMHO. Even simple knowledge that those spewing "hate-sites" exist and the basics of what they say is important. People should know about that stuff, not have it hidden from them so they can pretend no one thinks that way.
That sort of ignorant bliss is dangerous and requires yielding too much power to government.
And there's no valid public safety argument to be made either -- you can let the hate sites exist and bring down the law when/if one crosses the line in to criminal activity (inciting or doing) as Bryuant says:
U.S. Assistant Attorney General Dan Bryant acknowledged the American approach differs from that of other countries.
"We believe that government efforts to regulate bias-motivated speech on the Internet are fundamentally mistaken," Bryant said. "At the same time, however, the United States has not stood and will not stand idly by, when individuals cross the line from protected speech to criminal conduct."
Hm. Makes sense to me. Heckk, it probably even makes it easier to keep an eye on these nuts since their news sites and forums are public. I guess forcing them deeper underground (IRC and such) would hamper monitoring. But France and some of the EU thinks it's worth it:
"Will this put the (Ku Klux Klan) out of business? No. They will be able to find some way of getting their messages back online," he said. "But it will put a crimp in that subculture on the Internet."
This, however, smacks of futile, misdirected, token effort to me. Not to mention a hassle and a fat inroad for EU governments to hassle those who espouse unpopular ideas (read: anti-government.)
The thing that always scares me in these "well-intentioned" efforts to protect people from ideas is that someone gets to choose what's bad and what's good, and that someone will always be less well-equipped to do that for me than I.
BTW -- huh? How can the Berg video be taken or used that way? If anything, it incited me to a firmer resolve. Same with dozens of friends and coworkers.
everything in moderation
maybe he just doesn't like regan...
or funerals...
or dead people
gawdamn zombie hatin' cheese eating french bastards. what did the poor gipper ever do to them? Eat their brains? hardly? I say, in answer to this hatred, the US invade quebec and purge all french from this continent of ours. As a self appointed representative of Canada I say come on in
On a more serious note, France is getting to be a shady place and not somewhere to be if you are visibly religous, that's for sure (Muslim, Catholic, or Jewish primarily). With some very anti-immigrant laws, and a disturbing amount of support for the facist party, you don't have to be a reanimated former president to worry about some of the trends on france and much of europe.
The Neo-Bohemian Techno-Socialist
Diverse and accepting of those who are diffrent are two serperate things. We are one, but not the other.
The darkness... controls the music. The music... controls the soul.
The United States is a shining example of glorious capitalism that has a very active propaganda and censorship bureau.
Actually, I'd call it a shining example of Corporatism- true capitalism and true communism are very similar, under both you own only what you need to survive and no more (because so does everybody else). Corporatism, like socialism, has a tendency to impose a hierarchial structure on those pure forms, thus destroying the pure form.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
"What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist."--Salman Rushdie
Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
The US official made it clear that the First Amendment makes it impossible for America to join such a treaty. However, he said that such things are managed in America by cooperation of the private sector, through ISP Terms of Service agreements.
I wish I had a link for the conversation. I find this notion a tad chilling. On the whole, I agreed with his stance though.
He also said that the US Gov't can only limit hate speech when it clearly incites illegal acts (paraphrasing). And that non-governmental orgs keep track of hate sites, and report offenders.
Freedom of speech in the USA is alive and well. You obviously do not have American cable.
a) anti-war filmmaker Michael Moore is more popular than ever.
b) anti-war candidate Howard Dean was extremely popular
c) there is more porn in america than in any other country
d) and as far as unpopular opinions go, I've yet to see europeans tolerate anything that smacks of wanting to pave the earth, send the black people back to africa, make the black people in charge of the united states.
e) graphic images of destruction? Christ almighty we have cable channels that show images from every war going back to when film began, and then, before film, we have people dressed up and re-enacting getting their arms blown off.
f) You take your pick, but it is only outrageous opinions that are noticed in America.
This is my sig.
They didn't die for a law prohibiting racist speech, they died for the broader idea of freedom. You can argue that it's all on a continuum, but the poster's point still stands. I wouldn't die for a law prohibiting racist speech. It just wouldn't affect my behavior in the least, nor would a law prohibiting any other kind of speech.
Before throwing accusation only based on the hate of some Americans for the Germans and French, mainly fueled by the political international fiasco of the Iraq war you should look at this analysis of the free press around the world.
France and Germany are well respected free press countries. There is even this report of 2002 where Germany received a better rate for free press than USA.
USA is a great country with free press tradition but this doesn't means that other countries can't do a better job in this department.
Yahh, hiii haaaaa! -Major Kong, from Dr. Strangelove
France and Germany are well respected free press countries. There is even this report of 2002 where Germany received a better rate for free press than USA.
The US has proven itself a long-term if not always perfect friend of Free Speech. European enthusiasm for the concept is very new, its roots not deep, its future far from certain. Depending upon the care given to its tender shoots, this new growth may spring up higher than its parent (remember that) or may wilt tomorrow.
But love of liberty has been ingrained and enshrined in the American character and laws for over 200 years. No one else except perhaps Britain can match that.
Google confirms: Ruby is the world's most beloved programm
Let's see- you have two groups that look different, but both are basically human (they don't even have to look all that different, it's amazing what the Norwegians call the Swedish). One group is percieved to have more than the other group (once again, it doesn't have to be much more either, just a majority in numbers is enough). So the other side has to start making up excuses for their lack- and that excuse is "we must be oppressed" (Envy). Likewise, the group with the power is using it to keep their position (Greed), and so make up excuses for the obvious disparity (the other side must be stupid/lazy/whatever). Since the only truly obvious difference is in looks, the pundits convince the stupid that looks is a difference- and that's where the racism comes in.
Simple fact of human behavior- and simple to eliminate by decentralization of power.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Unlike the conservative outlets in the US which try to pretend they are "fair and balanced"
You know what the funniest thing about this country is? Nobody EVER thinks anybody is 'fair and balanced'. If you are conservative you think the news outlets, Hollywood, etc.. are liberal. If you are liberal you think the news outlets, Hollywood, etc... are conservative. If you are black you think every white person is racist. If you are male you think every female is feminist. If you are woman you think every man is a pig. If you are straight you think there's a big gay conspiracy. If you are gay you think everyone is a homophobe. Of course I'm stereotyping, but I'm pretty sure nobody is as corrupt or biased as we all think they are.
As far as your comments concerning the US's track record for freedom of speech - most of the restrictions on the items you cite are imposed by public opinion, not the government.
For example, cable television stations are not under FCC regulations regarding content, but most still adhere to nudity and profanity standards. Some, like IFC, most movie channels, HBO, etc.. do not, but the majority do. Why? They are concerned about their ratings and public opinion, not any kind of legal ramifications.
In another example, I am a Sirius radio subscriber. Again, they are not subject to FCC regulations as to content. A few months ago they created an additional comedy station for adult content. Appearantly they felt that their customer base wanted a comedy station without vulgarity.
Find coupons in Greeley
It's called mercatilism, a prevalent economic form in Europe in the 19th century, and the primary economic policy of the Whig's and later, the Republicans, in the U.S. It was fought against for eighty years until Abraham Lincoln instituted it, imposing protective tariffs, subsidizing railroad and canal building, centralizing the money supply in a national bank, and giving birth to the military-industrial complex. Until then, yes, the U.S. was capitalistic - now, almost every administration since Lincoln (and certainly every administration since FDR) has broadened and expanded the mercantilist system in the U.S. The primary result? Now people distrust corporate America as much as they distrust the government, simply because they work so well together...
...and you run and you run and you can't stop what's been done...
As opposed to, say, France - where you have to show a Big Mac to get a whole nation in a panic.
"He who throws mud, loses ground." - proverb
It seems that it's open season on the French in here. Try saying anything about the US in a similar vein and you'll be modded into oblivion in no time, as I'm sure the fate of this post is about to demonstrate.
Drill baby drill - on Mars
Does this mean that the text of France's law preventing Muslim head scarves in school will be taken down from the Internet?
I want to tell you guys about a Canadian man named Ernst Zundel.
Ernst Zundel funded a report by an unbiased third-party. The report was about the construction & nature of concentration camps in Germany. I will leave the results & reasons for this report out, because I don't feel it's appropriate or necessary to mention that here. The report is available on the Internet. Regardless whether you agree with him or not, he's made a sincere attempt at presenting pure unbiased facts.
The report is mostly raw data and makes absolutely no political suggestions in itself. Ernst Zundel published the report and it's been a hell of a bumpy ride ever since. At this moment he is being held in solitary confinement. He has been in jail for over 15 months without any charges being laid.
He is being prosecuted by CSIS in a secret trial with a possibly biased judge (former high-ranking CSIS official). The prosecution privately submits evidence to the judge & has private meetings with the judge. None of the evidence is available to the defence because it's supposedly an issue of "national security." It is not possible to make a reasonable defence in this situation.
We will be protesting Liberal Minister Anne McLellan's office. She is the person who signed the Security Certificate authorizing CSIS to arrest Ernst Zundel under Canada's new anti-terrorism legislation. If you are in her constituency and believe in free speech, DO NOT VOTE FOR ANNE MCLELLAN OR THE LIBERAL PARTY because she is doing everything she can to take it away.
WW1 was even worse (in the US). It was illegal to criticize the war effort and there were 100,000 people signed up to report anyone making negative comments about the war. Before any public event started, you had to listen to a spiel about how evil the Germans were (basically government mandated hate speech).
After the war, much of the propoganda was shown to be outright lies. This had two consequences, one is that the American public wanted no part in an European war (and people would have asked for FDR's impeachment if they knew how he was violating the Neutrality Act), second, when reports of the atrocities of the concentration camps first came out, they were thought to be the same kind of fabrication that went on in WW1.
Banning the speech of hate groups dignifies their position.
If you don't let them make their noises, people won't realize how ugly and offensive they really are.
Shutting them up is doing them a favor. Don't make them the victims of opression. Instead, let them make themselves out to be the opressors they truly are.
The USA trys to regulate all kinds of things internationaly by passing american laws all the time, why shouldnt the EU strive to be just as stupid? ... then after the US passes laws outside their borders, they break treaties, impose unfair trade barriers, murder thousands of innocent people under false pretenses. (what WMD's? What link between Hussein and Al-Qaeda?) ... then goes back to trying to pass laws that somehow apply outside their borders.
... the US passed a law protecting the site of the Titanic ... who cares if it is actually in Canadian water outside US jurisdiction!
Here's a good one
And in the Meantime they hold prisoners in their prison in Cuba, off of american soil so that they can pretend that US law dont apply with regards to treatment of those prisoners, even though they are still under the control of americans.
The EU just wants their share, if they dont copy the US's tactics, eventually the US will claim their laws apply over there too.
While criticism of Israel is a legitimate thing, one-sided and biased anti-Israel position is a different issue. Israel is nowadays a world collective Jew to be conveniently blamed for all world problems from global warming to poverty in Africa. It is very convenient for antisemites today to disseminate their views under disguise of "just criticism of Israel".
As to the last paragraph regarding whether the USA should sell Israel down the river to buy peace and calm from Islamic Nazism - it's for Americans to decide.
Don't forget, however, that Europe tried to appease Hitler in 1938 by giving away Czhechoslovakia to be dismembered and finally conquered by Germany. Munich Agreement became the shameful culmination of their (Europe) refusal to confront Nazi aggression - so they got WWII. The current situation is strikingly similar to that of 1938. Again, the West is willing to sacrifice one small country in an attempt to appease the monster, this time the Islamo-Nazism.
As an old saying goes, - the main lesson the History teaches us is that the History doesn't teach us any lessons.
Hate speech isn't free speech, that is something americans seems to be confusing a lot since their very creation. Hate speech is when one promotes differents rights or responsibilities for some group of people having one or many common traits related to their belief, origin, physical attribute... Since most countries have some chart of human rights it is illegal to promote actions going against the very foundation of your legal system.
That is exactly the slippery slope that this sort of activity brings.
/., but the technological methods to restricting information of any sort on the internet are impossible. You might throw up roadblock and slow the data down somewhat, but it will still get through, particularly if the two people trying to exchange information are very determined.
And the U.S. diplomats are "resisting" this move? Give me a break, if they just don't outright say, "I'm sorry, but this is unconstituional and will never be allowed in the U.S.A." I might think they speak for me and my country. To even suggest that something like this could be compromised upon is missing even the basic principles of which America is founded upon.
Of course, the U.S. constitution has the same value as a roll of toilet paper now, so I'm not surprised either. International diplomats representing America seem to think the constitution is just a set of guidelines that can be compromised whenever they need to for their own self-interest or to achieve some diplomatic score, keeping some political ally happy.
Where the line is between stuff that is blatant political speech and truly graphic and vulgar acts (like the execution of Nick Berg or child pornography) unfortunatly is not as clear as it ought to be. Different cultures obviously have different viewpoints that determine what should and should not be allowed. The internet, unfortunately, follows the lowest common denominator with the idea that if it is allowed anywhere, it is allowed everywhere. I understand how this would be offensive to some people, and a large number of websites are offensive to me.
Who or what would be able to do that sort of policing on the internet? How? What about subsystems (like Freenet) that can bypass locks and controls? (Before you start blocking ports, keep in mind that if anything is available from a server, you can send anything of any sort... it is simply up to the person running the server to determine the content that is being offered, not the government that the data is being sent through.) All of this has been discussed amply before on
The next question to be asked: Why is anybody bothering to restrict this information? It is a futile exercise and the only answer I can honestly give is if government bureaucrats are spinning their wheels trying to resolve issues like this, they are eating up their time on unproductive issues that is keeping them from messing up other things. Maybe that is a good thing.
Yep.
Why? Because I don't know how far they intend to go. There have been multiple cases of where it looked to be a simple robbery, so the victims cooperated, only to have the robber turn around and start killing them. I'm going to use whatever force is necessary to prevent them from overpowering me.
And how am I supposed to know how much force the criminal was going to use. Is it hitting him enough to stop him? What if I'm a 80 year old grandmother? Am I supposed to just accept being beaten so badly that I end up in the hospital for a week, or a month, and just hope that the police catch them?
I don't read AC A human right
because it most certainly did have people, people that might I add had been extremely neighborly in sheltering Jewish refugees from Europe.
Um, the palestine mandate had hardly anyone there until the Zionists moved in and started cultivating the land and making it usable. Mark Twain went there in the late 1800's and found nothing of note, no people or towns or anything.
As for those "extremely neighborly" arabs that took the jews in, I suggest you do some basic history research. The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was a good friend of Hitler's, helping him organize islamic waffen SS divisions and spending most of the war in Berlin. Hitler promised him he'd take care of the jews in palestine after WW2 ended.
Here's a good site:
http://www.palestinefacts.org/
I suggest you read through it. They have an obvious bias towards Israel, but they back up everything they say with many many references and documents. I have yet to read a false statement on the entire site.
The solution to racism isn't to ban racist speech but to argue and discuss why it is wrong to begin with.
As well, in general I don't like the government, or anyone, being the thought police for what I can read.
3dinfo@maficstudios.com
Ditto.
People sometimes talk about a coup happing in the US. As we are currently set up, at least half of the troops would rebel, neutralizing the military as a source for a coup. I'd be more worried about the police forces...
I don't read AC A human right
It seems more likely to me that the neo-fascist regimes in Austria, Britain (though they might getting rid of theirs), and such want to push this through. You can bet that if it banned trash-talking the Bush family, the current American administration would be right behind it too.
I had a lot of time to think about stuff like this during my military service. Lots of nights on guard staring out in the black with nothing to do.
I came to the conclusion that whatever it is, the willingness to kill or die for something is a sure sign of that you have simply become too fanatical.
Once you've accepted that something is worth killing or dying for, you will also become easier to manipulate. Don't give me that "no. not me". I know better than that. I've been manipulated too. There are always other ways to correct things, and many chances have been lost if you come to the point were you see no other alternative than violence. Just don't let them pass by.
AFAICS, Bush is wiping his ass with your Constitution every day. Are you going to do something about it? Or are you just going to write about it on /. and let the chances slip by?
Yup. Sure. Try saying something like sex abstinence programs is meaningless at best, according to all recognized international research. Then come back and report how far you got. If you report success, then we can start talking about the relative merits of free speech in different jurisdictions.
In Europe, like in the US, the ideal is to counter speech with speech. In fact, there's the European Court of Human Rights, and there has been rulings that saying things like "All imigrants should be sterilized upon arrival" is protected speech. It is quite unlikely that many of the proposed things will stand up in that court.
Let the politicians get on with the censorship stuff for a couple of years. It'll fail, and they'll realize it. Then, they'll be more receptive.
I have lobbied for government funding of a project that aims to use RDF to provide metadata to make it easier to find opposing viewpoints, and so fulfil the ideal of counter speech with speech. It has met some interest, but far from enough to get it off the ground. But that's the kind of things that geeks can do to preserve freedom of speech.
Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
I've burnt a Karma point, have been called an asshole, a dictator, to fuck myself, it was suggested that I be shot (if that would only be allowed in this country), it has been said "words are just words" (than why the big deal?), and nonsense like Germany moves itself closer to Hitler Germany, etc, etc, etc.
So to all who did *not* like to let me express my free speech... Thank you. You have proven my point.
It does not matter whether a government allows freedom of speech or not, if the society you live in does not really enable to exercise this right.
Yes, there's no law to prevent freedom of speech, there's no law that prevents SCO from stating that they own Linux. In Germany they got an immediate gag order until they can show proof. Is that a violation of free speech?
And, yes, people have been arrested (for example for claiming in front of the WTC that Bin Laden had nothing to do with the events of 9/11, but - oh - that is sooo different from denying the Holocaust, isn't it?) for trying exercise this right.
People have also been arrested because they support terrorist organization.
If you're pro-choice you may end up on some hate website suggesting you'd be shot or targeted in other ways... Freedom of speech? Yeah, right!
People are so self righteous in proclaiming how free the US is.
Do you guys know that your schoolbooks are censored by all kinds of groups (left, right, relgious, etc). Yes, the law doesn't mandate anything, but you lose funding for your books, or schools are forbidden by some random boards to use it... This is the worst conceivable limitation of free speech. How about banning teaching of darwinism in some states?
Heck even the american bible is censored from topics that aren't "christian".
Believe me, I lived in many countries all over Europe and the US for a long time and the US is the most unfree place of all western countries. On paper it's all fine, in reality it's a load of trive. You can claim and believe whatever you want, it does not change a thing.
And... Unless you have lived somewhere else and saw how other people live their lifes, you can make *no* claims whatsoever about how free or unfree they live.
In addition to not lying about the Holocaust, you left out one major thing:
Hitler's autobiography Mein Kampf is completely banned. Furthermore, aparently, the state of Bavaria owns the rights to Mein Kampf in most of the world except for the UK and the US.
It would seem to me that if you wanted to "retain the memory of what happened and to prevent that it can happen again" you would freely allow the reading of a book that lead up to those awful atrocities, and I believe that in banning the book you only made the problem worse.
But in the US, I would like to think that we would not stand for that. Seems silly to me that a whole country is scared of a fucking book.
It always starts with the easiest argument.
Hate speech is bad. Let's ban hate speech.
Everybody agrees.
Racism is bad. Let's ban racism.
Everybody agrees.
Then of course, delighted with their success, it progresses.
Pirating is bad. Let's ban pirating.
Some grumble, but considering how we did it already, everybody agrees.
Pr0n is bad. Let's (restrict, then)ban Pr0n.
A LOT of people start objecting. But we've done it already, there is precedent, and Pr0n is much worse than pirating and we banned that right.
It progresses to violent films, hacking websites, open source, anti-globalisers, drugs, Rk&Rl, etc, etc...
The slippery slope has already begun. BT blocked access to kiddie porn sites. Now we all wonder, what will they ban next. And you know, some execs in BT are thinking the same thing.
You think it won't happen? It HAS happened. Several times. EVEN in America. Remember prohibition.
Sadly the price we pay for our free society is having to put up with racists and haters on the net. Call me apathetic, but I think this is a price worth paying.
May the Maths Be with you!
I believe Voltaire once said: "I may not agree with what you say, but I will fight to my death for your right to say it." I really like that quote.
One word to all you holier-than-thou USians: DeCSS.
I live in Germany.
I was sued over DeCSS in the USofA.
I was never sued, nor even questioned over DeCSS in Germany.
For me, the question on which country has more free speech has been answered.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
The I would say that this is much more a social issue then a racial one. If the affluent neighboorhoods are able to sustain themselves without much police presence, but the lower class areas need to have near-constant patrols, it speaks more to the social instability of the lower class then it does the racial mixture in that area.
It's practically a fact that lower class neighboorhoods are more prone to crime. In the south, where many in the lower-class are white, crime is just as much an issue as it is in the poor urban areas in the north, mostly inhabited by "minorities". Haven't you ever watched the TV show Cops?
The unfortunate side effect of this is that, because of the stigma that the poor minorities cast on their races, affluent socities (in this case, whites) are more likely to associate those traits to any member of that race. It's Pavlovian Conditioning at it's worst, because it leads to discrimination, distrust, and hate. The only cure for this sort of behavior is education, both in the lower class areas (don't shoot people!) and upper class (just because a man is a member of a race that's associated with a bad part of town, doesn't mean he'll shoot you).