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

Balance between conflicting rights...

[LostCluster]

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.

Re:Balance between conflicting rights...

[demachina]

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."

I don't suppose it occurred to you that maybe the U.S. is doing things that makes people really hate you, though its your government more than the people, but the people are culpable in supporting that government with votes, tax dollar, soldiers and going along with it. I think I should point out people don't hate you for what you do "here" assuming as in the U.S. They hate you for what you are doing "there" by constant intervention, invasion, manipulation or occupation of their homelands.

You seem to be saying people hate the U.S. only because they've been "brainwashed" in to it. You seem to be echoing the Bush administration line that the people attacking the U.S. are attacking it because of its "Freedom" which simply isn't the case.

The number one reason the Arab world hates the U.S. is because it has for more than a half century backed Israel at every turn, against the Palastinians, an arab people suffering under a brutal occupation if they are still in their homeland or who are scattered around the middle east and the world, often in squalid refugee camps, in a diaspora like that inflicted on the Jews so long ago. Here is a little history. The Palastinians certainly have some bad people and done some bad things but the Arab world is always going to hate the U.S., with reason, until the U.S. finds a balanced position and helps compel an equitable peace there, equitable being defined as one where both sides are equally unhappy, and one isn't living under the thumb of the other. A few weeks ago when Bush took it upon himself to give parts of the West Bank to Israel, acting like he even had the authority to make concessions on behalf of the Palastinians, he pushed a bunch more Arab moderates in to the hands of the extremists who hate the U.S.

Another reason many Arabs hate the U.S. is because the U.S. put troops in the middle of their holyland, Saudi Arabia, after the first Gulf War and has been propping up brutal and corrupt dictatorships in Saudi Arabia and Egypt. U.S. troops are infidels in this region, they are Christians, Jews and liberated women. The people in the region react to them about the same way Americans would react if an Arab or Hindu army were camped in the bible belt. They're pissed.

Perhaps the Taliban form of Islam is extreme but its really very close to Islam in Saudi Arabia, its just the U.S. chooses to pretend its different. Saudi Arabia beheads people in public, they cut off their hands, they repress women so why aren't you upset about that. The women with the greatest equality in the Middle East were in Saddam's Iraq, a secular and progressive state compared to most in the region. Women in Iraq have already lost many of the rights they had and they will lose them all if Iraq ends up being an Islamic state which is nearly inevitable.

The other problem you have in all this is Islamic law is somewhat brutal, its spelled out in the Koran. It is a part of their culture, maybe you don't like it but its not the place of the U.S. to tell everyone they have to live like Americans and Christians. If you want people to stop hating you, you have to start respecting cultures different from yours, and stop telling people how to live.

Another reason most of the world hates the U.S. is because you invaded Iraq under false pretenses, and rather than bringing "Freedom and Democracy" there it appears the U.S.

Re:What Did You Expect?

[sterno]

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.

Re:Why is this shocking?

[bob dobalina]

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.

Re:Freedom is worth it

[randyest]

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.

Re:Why is this shocking?

[Jim Starx]

Diverse and accepting of those who are diffrent are two serperate things. We are one, but not the other.

America is the King of Free Speech

[tjstork]

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.

Re:Why is this shocking?

[ArcticCelt]

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.

Re:Why is this shocking?

[robertjw]

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.

Re:Why is this shocking?

[Warlok]

Actually, I'd call it a shining example of Corporatism

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...

Not the Solution

[KrisHolland]

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.

hypocrites

[Tom]

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.