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?"
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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