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?"
It's widely accepted that Germany and France can't handle free speech (see: Nazi regalia and the internet), why does this surprise anyone?
Socialism and stifling free speech go hand in hand.
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.
George W. Bush sends Chirac an email stating- "I hate the French!"
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
Fuck the EU.
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. --
What part of "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." don't they understand?
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.
Those Gay Nazi half-breed Nigger Europeans will only take my hate speech when they pry my tongue from my cold dead body.
Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.
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.
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.
Those guys are intolerant to intolerancy, so those thoughts should be banned by themselves.
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.
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...
Banning disagreeable messages and ideas is about par for the course in Europe, is it not?
If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
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?
Relax everyone this is just another attempt to draw a line through the little line
Bill of Rights
Amendment I
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.
It will never happen in my life time.
Or it might be time to change governments
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.
In order to do this, you'd have to repeal the First Amendment. And in order to do that, you'd have to repeal the Second Amendment.
It's just not going to happen, people.
Then, when Free Speech is considered a terrorist act, only terrorists will have Free Speech.
Oh, sh--.
... where we can rebut/ridicule it. It doesn't weaken us to have hate speech on the net, it gives us the possibility of showing how ridiculous their positions are.
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.
dammmit i give up, the EU is right. my fellow americans, come with me, back to the old world, back to europe, were we shall all be slaves to the feable excusses of democracy they have waiting for us, come with me to the great land of endless joy via harsh censureship, and harsher punishments for non compliance. come with me, all of you, you must relinquish your "freedom" for the queens bum! and with it utopia shall be had, with our enlightened salvatation we shall live forever in the land of castles and princesses and legal marijuana if you happen to settle in holland...
--- Why rant when you can rave?
Apparantly the EU doesn't understand that free speech is written into our constitution, and its not up to 'shrub, the Congress or anyone else to circumvent the constitution. Granted our constitutional rights are under constant attack by the current un-elected regime, but it is up to us as citizens to be ever vigilant. You cannot take away right from one group, without taking away everyones rights. The true test of a free society is how well it tolerates views that are abhorrent to the majority. MM
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?
/. is a fairly good example that free speech is a Good Thing, even in such hughe discussions with thousands of participants. yes, there is for example our beloved gnaa and others, but because they can write what they want, i can also write what i want and i can read things people wrote with a free mind.
the other thing is: the web (the thing you surf on) is all in all a request-response thing. notice? the request is first. by banning 'hate' messages from the web you would achieve nothing. i'm pretty sure they have banning sites in mind (because other things like banning single forum messages is almost impossible). but you have at least to click on 'racistweb.com' to get their rant.
beer as in "free beer"
I forecast an increase of off-shore servers where 'hate sites' can be hosted outisde the juristiction of any other nations (I believe that it's called Happyland or somesuch other silly names - it's an old WW2-era anti-air platform at sea to try and catch bombers coming to bomb the mainland UK, someone too it over and procaimed it a free country & now hosts web servers). Presumably we'll see more of these mini-countries appearing.
The problem here is that laws will just be made to make it possible to prosecute the internet-backbone providers for transmitting the information, and it'll still get blocked (or they just won't run a connection to the mini-countries). No-one can directly control the details of what goes on, but they can bring in draconian measures to stop everything, along with some innocent stuff.
FGD 135
Then, they ban skeptics/atheist/agnostic speech, because "everyone" knows that god is real. Speech that says that there are no gods is bad, so it must be banned.
Then, they finally achieve banning everything related to evolution, because it goes against all religious scriptures, specially the bible. If something goes against your religion, it is bad, and speech related to bad things must be banned.
Then...
Just wanted to say that befor it is illegal.
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
(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.
Very intelligent remark -- even the spelling is correct! O thanks ever so much for your contribution to this discourse.
This reminds me of one of those completely ridiculous chain letters I received a while back. It essentially said "I was in a chat room, and someone kept using profanity and racial slurs." (There wasn't even a point, you were just supposed to forward it to lots of people.)
Needless to say, I did a quick "Reply All," asking if people really wanted to implement censorship on the Internet.
If you want to promote the Ku Klux Klan on the Internet, those loonies who founded our country made it very clear that it was your right to do such. (Not the Internet in general: *all* speech, be it something from a newfangled printing press or just standing on the street corner; there's no reason it doesn't apply to the Internet.) I'll think you're a complete bigot, the scum of the earth, and I'd never host your trash on my server. But I'll defend your right to say what you want to say.
I can't remember who said it, but the famous quote "I couldn't disagree with you more, but I'll fight to the death to defend your right to say it" (possible paraphrasing occuring) comes to mind right now. There's so much horrible trash polluting the Internet, and I wouldn't miss it if it was gone. But it still has a right to be said, even "saying it" is actually "serving up goatse" or something.
________________________________________________
suwain_2
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
Sites like slahsdot.org promote the use of mild language and hate feelings to our fundamental institutions: Global Corporations. Also, they use that language and feelings to things like DRM, Trusted Computing, and IP protection scheemes; the bastions of our secure society.
It is easy to find supporters of this cancer called "GPL", which is a communist method for distributing questionable software, written by terrorist hackers.
Just as technology is ahead of human morality,
it appears technology is ahead of human politics.
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.
Right, cause we'll just ignore that Canada has none of the EU restrictive policies and none of the DMCA crap (not to mention the FBI's recent request for backdoors in all internet communication software).
Or were you just forgetting that Canada's not actually another slave state again? My bad for calling you on it.
[This is of course just the most blatant example, there are tons of other countries in the world]
Stuff.
My grandfather was in the American Army durring WWII-- fought in the Battle of the Bulge and the Colmar Pocket in 75th infanty, k company, 3rd army... he was a mortar squad leader.
I seem to remember a war being fought to keep the Nazis from A) controling all of Europe B) silencing anything they disagreed with
So, now we have a government controling all of Europe, sliencing what they don't agree with (hating hate is still being hateful. They must therefor ban anti-nazi websites).
And World War One... britian entered in for, what was it? oh yes... to defend the right to self-determination of small nations (except, apparantly for Ireland or anything else they weilded their iron fist over).
How soon you all forget the men who died and what they died for. Personally, I think it's shameful that Europeans are willingly giving up soverignty, autonomy, and local flavour (don't even get me started on how much i hate the Euro).
hmmmm....maybe we can get Michael Moore banned.
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.
US Says: We want to keep free speech. But we don't want you to download music.
Don't think like a tech-head. True it might technically be difficult to limit what someone posts on a chat room or web site.
But here's how it could more easily be regulated: Use the courts as a weapon! No incorporated company could stand up to government-sponsored (any government) lawsuits or threatened lawsuits. The company would pull info down as soon as it was identified, and be forced to implement filters for boards or sites they host.
Large companies who might be able to bankroll a legal defense still couldn't stand up to the bad PR that could be generated from publicizing "unacceptable" speech whose expression they somehow enable.
The US-version of almost unlimited free speech must be defended. I'd rather know if some level of hatred was about to boil over and nip it in the bud than be caught off guard when it did erupt into violence!
Give serendipity a chance.
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.
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
...send over heavily armed U.S. Army reservists to 'befriend' the members of a foreign country with an alien culture and language. What could go wrong?
What are you? Some sort of redneck hillbilly that still thinks that the evil North has it in for the poor independent states?
What you're saying is just foolish. The sovereignty DOES lie with the people of the United States, however the only way to channel that power into a contructive form is to have an elected few speak for the majority. If everybody who wanted to just went to DC and shouted their wants and opinions, I'm sure a whole lot would get done (*sarcasm!!*).
It would seem you aren't familiar with history, so I'd suggest reading up on the early US, most specifically the Articles of Confederation and the time that they were in effect (or tried to be). They were an attempt to allow the states to be very individual and have complete control of what took place within their borders. The end result was a worthless piece of paper and a bunch of states that acted like little kids on a playground. Bullies, babies, and retards were just wandering around doing whatever the hell they wanted. If this was still in effect today, not only would we be a joke in the long history of government, most likely the British, French, or Spaniards would have moved in and simply taken over.
Personally I DO agree with you about the UN, but because it is ineffectual and has no real power. If the US were to simply pull out of it today it would fall apart for lack of an enforcement and financial arm. The UN telling somebody what to do is still simply a weak suggestion, not even close to an actual command.
However, it seems rather small-minded to think that we'll never see a world government at some point that is strong and capapble of providing for the needs of everyone on the planet. Even if this does come to pass, there will still need to be local governments similar to the current state/federal relationship currently in effect in the United States.
"What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
/)
Your post has made exactly the point of why we need to allow free speech. Hate speech does proceed hate actions. This means that if that speech is out there, that we can see who's saying it, and presumably know who to keep an eye on when it comes to hate actions.
I'd rather see what people think, out in the open, and evaluate them on that. If they are all hiding their beliefs, then we don't know who the true dangerous idiots are.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
I don't think I've ever played counter-strike for more than 10 minutes at a time without reading a racist or 'hate' message.
All right, I listen to Howard and I like him. One thing he accomplishes, if you can get past the actuality of having KKK's Daniel Carver on the air, is to put hateful people like that in the proper context. Hateful people are noisy to an untrained ear, but they are absolute morons when you can hear them interacting with genuine people.
And so we come to the issue of free speech. Protect it. Wherever you are and whatever they are saying. And, if you have kids, treat hateful people the same way you treat the birds and the bees talk. Yes, it does exist, and here is what civilized intelligent people have to say about it.
I'm 31, and I can say only from personal experience that my generation is a lot more open-minded and tolerant than the previous one. Progress. Legislation has no effect on peoples' hatefulness. Eliminating hatefulness is a slow process. Take a look at yourself and your kids; lead by example. Teach peace.
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.
In this case, though, it's words vs action. When you actually start planning something in such a way "hey, let's go shoot out the windows of the synogogue" then you've gone from discussion to premeditation. On top of that, hate speech is not protected to begin with. It can, and in many cases, will be censored.
You can have a webpage stating how much you have George Bush and it will be perfectly legal. If you then start planning on said webpage an attempt to assassinate him... then it's a crime.
Sometimes the line is thinner... but in many cases the lined between damnation is pretty thick.
Jefferson had it right. In the marketplace of ideas, there's nothing like light to scatter the cockroaches. I think hate speech should be publicly funded, and given a pampered and privleged spot. Fewer teenagers and fringies would find it less attractive than breeding in the dark.
Mod me sideways, oh baby, baby.
Faith: n. -- That human impulse that drives them to steal appliances when the power goes out
But quite a lot of people said that in the EU elections in the UK...
..but Mr Blair seems to want to do otherwise. It almost seems like he is playing a game of brinkmanship with the country, and if so I don't think he should be doing it with the British electorate.
Mind I voted for the Greens instead when El Reg suggested that the Conservatives might acually support the EU Patent reforms. I can see closer integration with us and the EU in the future, but I think it is being rushed (esp. considering the red tape, beaurocracy, corruption, et al)... plus I don't fancy the knee jerk reaction of completely withdrawing from Europe that UKIP desire (but at least they're in a position to give more counterweight to what Labour/Lib Dems would like).
Just my 0.02 British pence (and not Euro cents)!
Are you local? There's nothing for you here!
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.
First it is hate speech, then it will be a crime to criticize the laws against hate speech, and then it will be a crime to criticize at all.
I am not a hillbilly or a redneck. I am just fed up with federal MURDER of innocent citizens.
It has nothing to do with the wicked north, just the wicked democrats who support abortition, gay marraige, and a whole slew of immoral acts, most of which would make the ancient greeks cringe in disgust.
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.
Freedom of Speech? Freedom of the Press? This was laid out centuries ago for a reason. Certainly there are times when you will not agree with someone else's view, but it is their Constitutional right to express them. If you are offended by such views, or do not agree with them, you do not have to visit that website. It's as simple as that. The Klan isn't using adware/malware to hijack your PC and take it to their sites. People go there because they want to. Neo-Nazis are not spamming addresses with their propaganda. Legislation is not always the answer. Curtailing freedom of speech is certainly not.
worst sig ever. . .
...that Europeans are somehow more free or loving of their freedom than Americans.
"I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death our right to say it." - Voltaire.
And yes, contrary to the comment posted above, many good men have fought and died, and many more are willing to fight and die, for those noble sentiments.
But then, that Voltaire feller... he was one of those damned French, wasn't he?
Free speech is a noble idea and one that needs to be protected at all costs. As Europe tries to push itself away from the idea of monarchy and its kings of old, it needs to understand this. Both the church and kings could and would come down with an iron fist upon those that spoke out against their rule. As Europe pushes to escape the former rule of king and 'goD' they must remember that by regulation of free speech and all the actions and ability that go with it, they eventually become no better than the kings of yor.
The U.S. has to support it on principle. Limiting hate speech (by the EU's definition) will start us down a slippery slope where a little freedom will be chipped away here, a little liberty forfeited there, until there's no way to post anything on the internet without the approval of the global thought police.
I mean its all fascinating and shit that the ninny nannies of Brussels want to curb hatespeech - but let's face facts - they don't consider antisemitism to even be hate speech.
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.
you get trolled on a message board by responding to an emotionally charged diatribe
the only effective way you defeat trolls on message boards is to ignore them
if you give trolls the slightest notice, if you respond in the tiniest way to their bait, then right there, athat very moment, you automatically lose, no matter what you say
the game of trolling is to fish for responses, so the only way to win at the game of trolling is to never respond
as soon as you respond, they win
same with racist speech: you ignore it
racism is just trolling in real life
when you respond to it, you've just given them more power and more public relations material to work with
like right now: look, slashdot is talking about racist hate speech being regulated, because the eu gave attention to something which deserves no attention
congratulations eu, you've been trolled
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I am not a hillbilly or a redneck. I am just fed up with federal MURDER of innocent citizens.
It has nothing to do with the wicked north, just the wicked democrats who support abortition, gay marraige, and a whole slew of immoral acts, most of which would make the ancient greeks cringe in disgust.
Yes, I believe in elected officials, Republic (democracy is anarchy and pisses me off), et cetera.
I don't want to see a world government of any form ever. Government is not ment to take care of the needs of the people, anyway. That is communism and can kiss my paddy-ass. James Connolly may have been a great many, but it's not the 19th century anymore. "The Jungle" isn't relevent, and communism is dead. I give to charity. That is my duty as a human of good moral character. However, to allow the government to steal from me and give my money to other people is flat out criminal.
To allow the government to tell me what I can say or think is evil. There should be consiquences for what is DONE not what is THOUGHT or SAID. say I openly advocate the murder of the British Royal Family. Doesn't mean I am going to do it. If I do, then throw my ass in Long Kesh, see if I care.
I think you overgeneralize when you say all racists spread hate. Some racists are perfectly happy to mind their own racist business, thank you very much...
Lately democracy seems to be based on the skybox, the Happy Meal box, the X-box, and the idiot box.
"France Sucks" "Just wanted to say that befor it is illegal."
these people do agree
and the last one is a frenchman in france. wonder if he gets banned too then, under the proposed laws.
America for americans
Canada for everyone
I agree that the attempt to whitewash the world and make everyone the same is a horrible thing but the only thing worse is the 'hey you have your own country, go back there,' that this reasoning opens up. I mean have you ever been to Africa? All romantisised notions aside, most of it is in a state of border line anarchy.
I think it's far better to promote diversity then a melting pot society. And political correctness not only destroys individuality, it also, more often tehn not, proves to be more offensive (refering to someone as 'physically disabled' or a 'person of color' really just shows that these distinctions are what you are focusing on)
At the end of the day, Freedom of speech and freedom of Beer are goals everyone should strive for!!!
An, as an aside, when last i was in South Africa and saw a McDonalds, I almost cried. We don't need a united states of the world
The Neo-Bohemian Techno-Socialist
Small-minded? Personally, I would call it sane. I would not be surprised if a strong world government ever arose, but if it did I would sure as hell want to move to another planet. The greater concentration of power you have, the more corruption there is.
You say that it would be havoc for everyone to go to D.C. and shout their opinions, but it would be less bad if they could go to their state capital or their town hall (which is fortunately often the case). I believe in having a strong federal government, but in the U.S. we are getting much closer to a national government.
English is easier said than done.
The EU doesn't fall under the constituion, and many of the diplomats over there don't have any particular respect for it. Now why would they ask the US to join in? Well because it won't really work for them if the US doesn't (the majority of the Internet sites are still in the US though that is slowly shifting). Also it wouldn't be the first time in history congress has passed a law that does something the constituion says they can't do.
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.
I say, I can agree with that.
My comment about a hillbilly was in reply to your comments against the Federal government and the implied thought that the US would be better off if we removed the word "United" from the country's name (though "The States" doesn't have that ring to it...). There's no way a single massive government can support or stay in control of a relatively large geographical area inhabited with a populous group of people. This has been demonstrated over and over, ie: the USSR, and the failing of pretty much all the total monarchy's in the world.
"What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
/)
The poster didn't even read the article. The words EU och european union isn't even mentioned.
OSCE is not the EU.
That is slashdot for you, makes you wonder why I'm still reading this site after so many years.
I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
From the article:
Rabbi Abraham Cooper, associate dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, a Jewish human rights group based in Los Angeles, said one strategy is for Internet service providers in the United States to honor anti-racism language in their own contracts.
Someone else seeing something that is unconstitutional(squelching free speech) and figuring a way to gain the same effect by some back door(contract with ISP forbids hate speech). Most people in the US would welcome less hate speech in all areas, but the wise ones would rather see the hate speech allowed than have government censorship. Censorship by ISP is totally unacceptable. It is more necessary than ever to clarify the whole ISP as common carrier, not responsible for web content. The web contains content from the profane to the sublime, and that is as it should be. It then becomes a measure of our own souls when we look back at what we have chosen to read and take to heart.
You can already see the beginnings of it today. The UN tries as hard as it can to be important and have an influence on the world. The USA tells other countries what they can do with the amazing power of nuclear physics and wonderous capabilities of genetic engineering. Is this bad? Of course not, but it seems that in some respects the only thing we're missing to have such a global government is the title itself.
Should a global government tell me what to eat for lunch (mmmm... toasty!)? No, but it would be nice if someone kept North Korea from blowing the world to Hell.
"What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
/)
No, you're not a hillbilly redneck. You're a hate filled bigot.
Wicked Dem's, yeesh. Wicked Rep's too.
Our government has not been able to effectively censor very much in the past. I doubt their ability to do so in the future. The "Pentagon Papers" is a good example of this. And that was before the internet. The government is not a bloc of same minded employees but a collection of factions very much at odds with each other. This alone will insure the emergence of much information.
Censorship by business is no more worrisome. The recent ineffective efforts by Diebold to cover up their incompetence is noteworty. For those who can remember Ralph Nadar before his self appointed sainthood, General Motors tried to use private investigators among other tatics to silence him.
Those who seek to silence "racist" or "hate" speech will, at the most, cause the meaning of slurs to be transfered to other words and/or phrases. A look at literature from times past will show the evolution of ethnic/religious slurs.
kike->Chosen One->International Zionist, etc.
Personal Opinion A major reason for European dislike of "hate speech" is their own guilty past. Pre-war France was more antisemetic than Nazi Germany. Its history of antisemitism goes back centuries. William L. Shirer's "Collapse of the Third Republic" devotes much space to this. Antisemitism was/is widespread in the rest of Europe. Sadly, they are trying to suppress symbols rather than the actual hatred.
-
"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.
For example, the Civil War was fought not over the right of the Southern States to secede from the Union but whether the slaves had a right to secede from the South. Since the real motive for the Southern States to secede was to maintain their prohabition on the right of slaves to secede, their claim was nullified as soon as the slavery was abolished.
There is simply no comeback to the proposition that people should be allowed to secede with others of like mind and, via the equivalent of right of eminent domain, form sovereign experiments upholding their values -- at least there is no comeback that isn't a declaration of war.
Seastead this.
I don't hear screams and shouts all the time here about people being unfairly silenced; the most recent incident I remember is Ernst Zundel being jailed for anti-semitist speech (he is a holocaust denier).
Of course, that doesn't stop right-wing religious nuts from screaming bloody murder.. the people in the link are upset that they can no longer say that homosexuality is evil. Is there a problem here?
"It has nothing to do with the wicked north, just the wicked democrats who support abortition, gay marraige, and a whole slew of immoral acts, most of which would make the ancient greeks cringe in disgust."
Yeah, because killing all the Trojans is very noble and gay marriage is bad. Obviously somebody is a homophobe. And aren't there still some Asian communist countries? As long as one country has a communist government, then it's not really dead is it? And to my knowledge, making threats on the President's life can get you thrown into federal prison.
You see this is what we have to put up with, I like Europe and i think its a great idea for the UK to be part of a big body and they've had some great ideas including free speech rights! But what pisses me off is these idiotic politicians who either are fucking some corporation (quite literally one of them is married to the head of vivendi!) or totally obsessed with Nazis. Now I hate Hitler as much as the next guy (is that hate speech??), but i can see that the risk of him being re-incarnated and leading his storm troopers across Europe in a tour of mass genocide (sponsored by IBM and Monsanto) is very very unlikely and i would much rather my politicians concentrated their valuable time on thinks that FUCKING MATTERED! such as making sure we have free speech rights and patent laws that make sense when you're not stoned. Can we please ban these people from the European parliament instead of banning free speech?
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
Though I agree with you on a personal level, you must admit that morality has no real definition. Morality can and will be different amongst different people. It is subjective to the culture one lives in.
What is your penile percentile?
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
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?)
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
...let them try!
/. old maids going to get it? This TCP-IP shit is inherently open. You can't close it, its impossible.
Let them spend billions of Euros trying. All they will get out of it is tired and poorer.
When are you
If nothing else, people will set up black market radio packet switching, laser links, all manner of ways to cheat. Even the Chicoms can't secure their internet, and they kill people for kicks.
Get over it. The day there's no kiddie porn and snuff movies anywhere on the Web is the day I'll start worrying about the pE eUw and their idiot censors.
Seriously, if you think abortition, gay marraige, and a whole slew of "othewise non-existant" immoral acts are a problem, you obviously have too much time on your hands, or simply no fucking clue.
I'd also ask why murduring innocent citizensis a bigger problem than mudering innocent non-citizens, but I'm sure your rhetoric about it would bore me to tears.
May I suggest you take a long hard look at world hunger, pollution, or, if you simply MUST keep it closer to home, Cancer; the next time you wish to discover a problem.
The key difference between a Programmer and a Senior Programmer is that one of them is Mexican.
Ever heard of 'Free speech zones?' If anyone can't handle free speech, it's your president.
Drill baby drill - on Mars
William L. Shirer wrote Rise and fall of the Third Reich . It's a big, dense work, but well worth reading. I had a hard time getting past the first few hundred pages, but from then on it hooked me.
Just about any decent used book store will have a copy in paperback. Lots of people try to finish it, but fail.
Why do I have this? I don't smoke.
They're going to the wrong place. The Federal Government can't do anything to limit our free speech (other than "unprotected speech" such as libel, slander, and fraud), but the companies running servers and major routers on the Internet can. It's mostly a privately-run system and your rights and privileges are limited by what those private entities allow; the Feds have no real power over this, thanks to our Constitution. :)
The EU won't last anyway. Why do we care what they think?
I never thought that I was going to write post asking for Modding Parent Up, but here I am.
In Europe there are really many international organisations. There is European Union, European Economic Area, Council of Europe and referenced in the CNN article Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE). All of them are important and in fact are making some kind of supranational governemnts. But they are different!
OSCE which is said to be an involved in the conference has NOTHING to do with the European Union beside that all EU members are OSCE members as well!
When in doubt, go to the library. - Ron Weasley in Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets
Does this mean that the text of France's law preventing Muslim head scarves in school will be taken down from the Internet?
1. Everyone gets the same thing. The entire human race is then achored by its dumbest and laziest members. "To each according to his needs" has failed miserably everywhere it's been tried, though.
2. Change human nature. Good luck there.
Unfortunately, people will always envy those that have more money, fuck prettier women, live in bigger houses, and so on. And people will always want more money, bigger houses, or prettier girlfriends/better-looking boyfriends. If that weren't the case, we'd still be living in caves drawing pictures of antelopes and three-fingered hands on the walls.
I'm not sure how'd they regulate that sort of thing, and I'd be dead set against it in the first place. However, if they regulated, say, proper grammar and spelling, I may consider it.
The US seems to be resisting, but is this another step away from free speech and how could an international group possibly regulate messages on the Internet anyway?"
Where are the grammar police when you need them?
The next remark is false. The previous remark is true.
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
gay marraige, and a whole slew of immoral acts, most of which would make the ancient greeks cringe in disgust.
You do realize it was an honor for a young boy to be screwed in the bumhole by an old greek philosopher, don't you?
I'm not sure where you are going with that statement...
I have been getting called a hate-monger and an anti-semite over at the John Kerry Forums quite a bit lately for saying that the Israeli Defence Forces should not be allowed to gun down civilians and bulldoze their homes, and that furthermore I'm sick of paying for it. I really have a hard time seeing how disagreeing with the military actions of the current political regime in Tel Aviv has anything to do with my personal feeling towards Jews (quite warm actually) but I can easily see how I will lose my ability to say such things shortly after laws like this one are passed.
Political dissent can virtually always be classified as hate speech (raise your hand if you don't hate either Dubya or Kerry) and it's next to impossible to set up hard and fast guidelines that can be interpreted objectively. Leaving interpretation in the realm of subjectivity makes it a political question, and I for one am extremely leary of allowing governments to limit political speech. Even if it means we have to let the Neonazis have the say too.
Delivering militantly anti-commercial music to all two people who care!
great post.
This soft-core porn you speak of, where can it be found? Because it certainly isn't on any of the 70 channels I get...well, except maybe the Spanish channels, but I can't understand what the hell they're saying most of the time.
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
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.
governments can control spam then I'll consider their request to kill the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution but not before.
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.
Freedom of expression is noble, pure, and good. Most people are not. Ergo, they neither want nor can abide by it.
Case in point: This semester, in my English class, my teacher presented, as a case in point, the story of a professor at a university in the southern US. My teacher presented this man's story as the basis of an expsoitroy essay I was to write, either supporting or denying the right to free speech. This professor wrote an article advocating child pornagraphy. As you can imagine, there was a public outcry, with the end result being that the state's legislature withheld the value of the professor's salary from the university's bugetary allocation for that year. The state legislature was sending the university a message. In my essay, I advocated the right of the professor to speek freely, without fear of pursecution, on whatever ideas he wished.
I received 99% for that essay. My English teacher also teaches my Ancient Civilization class. Somehow, in that class, we came to the topic of free speech (I think it was in relation to the limits the Romans put on their citizenry in terms of criticizing the state). I, again, advocated the right of free speech for all the obvious reasons. My teacher proceded, in front of the entire class, to proclaim that I "was that guy that advocated pedophilia". So, by advocating people's right to free speech, I became a pedophile advocate.
For the record and in no uncertain terms, I only ever advocated the right to free speech. My teacher, this lousy, disingenuous, malicious son of a bitch, a man who belives himself to be a "liberal", labelled me a pedophile advocate in front of the whole class. You know what? It stuck. People now think I believe in pedophilia. The question I have for those of you advocating limits to free speech is, are you like my teacher? My experience is, you probably are. I have found that, generally, those that would like to limit speech are usually the first ones to use it to control, abuse or malign others. Just so you know, you are a known quantity. People like you are known in this world. Your terrible, destructive mechanations are well undertood. IMHO, you are a scourge of the planet; indeed, it's people like *you* whose actions should be limited, not the other way around. That you are allowed to operate as you do, indeed, that you feel entitled to your behavior, is disturbing and troubling.
"...Obviously somebody is a homophobe."
That's always the final answer, isn't it, to call someone who has a moral opinion, a 'homophobe'?
Ohh, this person doesn't share the same opinion about homosexuality that I do, therefore he must be a 'homophobe'! How DARE he!
Alright, ive had just about enough of this.
First off, this conference has nothing to do with the EU. It was an initiative of the OSCE, which is not even funded by the EU, and is comprised of 55 nations all over the world, U.S. included (They contribute 9% of the budget)
Furthermore, there was absolutely NO consensus regarding cencorship, and it was suggested not by an EU politician, but by Michel Barnier, who is the french minister of foreign affairs, speaking on behalf of the autonomous french government. And i specifically say autonomous because people seem to forget that europe is not a country. There are many different countries, cultures and opinions on the european continent and within the european union, very much like Africa, or the Americas. Besides, regarding Europe as one big country is going to be rather confusing anyway, because if you listen closely to ANY european (be it EU or other) debate, like the one mentioned, you will find that individual states never fail to disagree about...well...pretty much everything. Even the Euro, or Iraq, or software patents, etc etc...
In this case, some european countries supported the french position, and others didnt. Some european countries, along with the US, favored stimulating the ISPs to include clauses in their TOS, thereby avoiding government intervention.
And, if all else fails, there is a european court of human rights, which recognises the right to freedom of speech. Not to mention the freedom of speech laws of individual countries.
Mr Michel Barnier is full of shit. I know it, you know it, and in all probability he knows it too. But don't blame all of europe, or the EU, for this french politician's ignorance.
Worse than the Nazi "final solution"?
Worse than the "Rape of Nanking"?
Worse than the Turkish genocide against the Armenians?
Worse than the genocide in Ruanda?
You get the idea (and I've not even gone earlier than the 20th century)
Forget the whole notion of errosion of fredoms for a moment.
Hate speach is itself a very nasty standard to work with.
The words are intended to mean: speach used to instigate hate and prevoke harrasment.
But the way it's so haphazardly applied it really means: Anything disliked by a group who has fallen out of political favor.
By this standard while Microsoft is targeted the the DOJ anything remotely antiMicrosoft is instatly hate speach. On the same notion when Microsoft is not targeted but enbraced by the fedral government and it's open source that is under attack then saying anything POSTIVE about Microsofts products is hate speach. The Internet being what it is you can't safely mention Microsoft (good or bad) as they fall in and out of political favor so often a whole debate on Microsoft (half pro half con) would be hate speach in the same week.
That is an easy example of course.
There is always a psudo-science or hate filled cult that falls out of political favor and with a UN guideline on hate speach you couldn't safely speak your mind.
The United Nations has in recent times taken actions that lead me to believe they are ferther slipping into the role of global dictatorship instead of the proper role of opposing wouldbe global dictators.
I don't actually exist.
All they have to do is force Google to remove any web sites they decide are politically incorrect to SEVERELY cut back access to those web sites.
This can be done with lots and lots of harassing lawsuits, and it very probably will.
Google is a big point of failure for the Internet.
It's Christmas everyday with BitTorrent.
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.
I must admit no such thing. In a high school math class, students will provide many different answers to any one problem on an exam, but that hardly means that there are no right answers.
This is another example of classic American reasoning. Guns are good because they represent freedom. The US is the harbinger of wonderful grass roots movements such as the Ku Klux Klan, White Aryan Resistance, negro hangings, and now they want to protect those rights.
The streets of the United States are littered with bums. There are as many people killed with handguns as are killed on the highways. Disease can be rampant, and a full 30% of US residents lack medical insurance, and almost none of them have adequate social insurance - the guarantee that the money keeps coming in to pay the bills no matter if everyone in the entire house is sick.
These are self-evident truths to everyone in the western world except in the US, where people run around totally snowed in and without a single clue even today - so much so that the United Nations has declared the US to rank very poorly on the scale of human rights and one of the three most impoverished countries in the western world.
And Jim-Bob will defend his right to have six shotguns in his closet, because that is the AMERICAN WAY and Jim-Bob will continue to go on and protect all the poor unfortunate unenlightened people in the rest of the western world who by definition all wish they were living in the Land of the Free.
And Americans really need to figure out why they're so despised in the world at large? Why? How could they possibly be?
This is one of those issues - just like Columbine - that Americans will discuss into the ground until it's totally forgotten and they can all move on. 'We have guns at home but we keep the bullets in the medicine cabinet.' Or 'In Switzerland everyone has to have a gun so having guns is not related to people shooting one another.' Or whatever.
It's pathetic.
Certain European countries have evidently decided to make a stab at a policy statement. It's fairly obvious they don't intend to do much with this statement, but racial attacks are illegal in many countries in Europe and media companies found to be engaging in such activities can be punished. This is good. This is very good. The world needs more people who analyse less and more often just do the right thing.
The world needs much more decency, a lot less phoniness, a lot fewer weasels, and a lot less backwoods philosophers and racist idiots.
The world needs far less 'logical objections' and a severe reduction in US population.
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.
Before you get to upity about the EU you might
want to consider our own dubious set of laws here
in America known as "hate-crimes". This set of
laws were the first in the United States (that I
am aware of) which criminalized thought. Worse,
they are almost soley used against a particular
race of people for political pusposes even though
most of the racially motivated crime is in fact
commited again them.
Settled down, can we just agree that both the U.S. AND Europe suck at free speech?
Photos.
The Internet treats censorship as an error and automatically routes around it.
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.
XML causes global warming.
"...many recognize instead that the greatest lifetime benefit to individuals is a healthy and stable collective." What you are saying the collective even if it's is wrong can fuck people over, repress, silence them and , jail them even though the colective may be wrong. That according to your thinking is good. That is the thinking of the NAZI party in 1938. That is the thinking of the Stalinist's and uber right wingers. That is the same thinking that says the press must have a license to publish. Fuck the collective.
If you don't like what I write don't be a CS and mod it down. Refute it.
Yea I can't spell. So what is your point?
France banned all overt religious clothing and items from state schools, and this ban applies to all religions, so a Christian cross is treated no different from a Muslim headscarf or a Jewish skullcap. This is a far cry from you claim that all Muslim citizens are banned from wearing headscarves.
What you suggest is the case would apply to all members of a single religion at all times, when in fact the law applies to everyone, regardless of their particular faith, only while they are on school property in school time. What you said was the case would be racist. What actually is the case is egalitarian. There's a big difference.
Now if you want to talk about racism, let's talk about my favourite sport, American Football, where you have the Washington Redskins a team with an overtly racist name and racist mascot. Would a team called the LA Niggers or the Miami Dagos be acceptable? No? Then why is the Washington Redskins, a name that's offensive and derogatory towards Native Americans, OK? How about the Kansas City Chiefs? And the mascot for the Cleveland Indians?
Your society can't even show a decent level of respect for its indigenous peoples, and it's only a couple of generations ago that non-whites were second-class citizens yet you want to run down Europe as a racist's paradise?
You want to talk about Germany's "insanely restrictive citizenship policy"? You don't think that someone wanting to become an American citizen has to jump through any hoops? Or that there are artificial ceilings put in their place? Why can't someone who's adopted US citizenship be the President? Does where a person was born or what nationality his/her parents had relevant if they are the people's choice for the job?
There are two sides to every story, and the US has just as many faults as many European nations do. Utopia doesn't exist either side of the Atlantic so, please, stop the overt "you guys suck, we rock" jingoism. And if you really do have to run down other nations to feel superior then at least get your facts straight first.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
How exactly could they do that though? What happens when some student in a history class looks up stuff on the KKK or Nazis and can't get information. I think the EU needs to think about what they want to do and find a better way of doing it. But besides, like hackers are going to sit back and let their battlegrounds be invaded...
"Instant gratification takes too long." - Carrie Fisher
I, for one, believe in a sort of intellectually capitalist "marketplace of ideas", as was spoken of by some of the founders of the United States, and based off of widely accepted philosophical theory. Like a marketplace, you're going to find faulty products or products you have no interest in.
However, there exist many laws now to prevent faulty products and misleading claims from being made in the marketing of physical goods. Should the same sort of laws be applied to the marketing of ideas, the use of speech? To be honest, I'm not entirely sure. On one hand, you could argue that the laws apply to physical products, rather than ideas, because products are more concrete and life-affecting.
However, ideas are just as vital and dangerous if flawed or deceptively presented. Some degree of caveat emptor still applies in the physical marketplace, and I think that the marketplace of ideas might benefit from a purity from the sanitation its physical counterpart has endured.
Afterall, the safest environment of all is one where there is no life, no change, no variance from codeified laws and customs. I think danger is among the prices that must be paid for freedom, in speech or any other endeavor. Those willing to endure the danger should have the option to do so. Still, that leads to ideas like "free speech zones".
It's definitely a double-edged topic, that's for sure.
France also recently banned its Muslim citizens from wearing headscarves and making a living at the same time
Not really, no. France banned the muslim cult of covering women's face. Because it is considered sexual discrimination and opression. France did not ban the religion or race in itself.
Although I cannot say I agree with it. Trying to impose a diferent mindset to someone from a different culture doesnt usually works as expected.
The above statement is wrong, I apologise. I didnt check the facts first. Stoopid me.
It's a 2/3 majority in congress then 75% of the states. Very difficult for anything, and as you said, near impossible for the first 10.
However that doesn't mean that congress can't be talked into passing a law that curtails the 1st ammendment. They've done it before. It gets overturned, but they do it anyhow.
The BIG difference is that muslim women are pretty much required to wear a head scarf. Not doing so is violating their religion.
Does wearing a head scarf really bother children?
Hmmm... Pie...
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.
The parent only said Germany and France couldn't handle free speech; He never said the US could.
"We have got to make Stan understand the importance of voting, because he'll definitely vote for our guy." - South Park
NP
"Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
The parent makes an insightful (and true, just check Skeptic's Dictionary for example) correction on the grapndparent's fallacy, yet he's got a score of 1, whereas the promoter of disinformation is up to 5.
...
And, since the moderators are representatives of the majority here, what does that say about the majority of Slashdotters?
"Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
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
http://www.icra.org/webmasters/
Wouldn't this be a valid solution?
Limiting free speech is a bad idea. As much as I don't like a lot of the content on the internet, taking away people's rights to say what they want could have harmful side effects.
I mean, what's next, you can't talk about religion? You can't talk about politics? You can't talk about someone elses mother?
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
and pay to get laid
*ANYONE* can get it for free. Why the hell would you pay for it when you can go to the bar...
It's not like the hookers are better looking or less diseased than what you can find in a bar in a college town...
"Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
The parent was arguing that morality is entirely subjective because different people have different ideas about it. My analogy was intended to show that disagreement about something doesn't always imply that it is entirely subjective. I'm not sure what you took my meaning to be, but I'll try to explain things in the future instead of relying on the critical thinking skills of others.
"The international group" can regulate speech by putting my cock in their mouth.
-- I was raised on the command line, bitch
Ok, so who decides what is and is not hate speech and racism? Will there be exceptions made for certain groups due to religion, heritige or locality? Will this be the end of polish jokes? Look at how arbitrarily things like that are handed out in America by politicians, and you expect other countries, some of which are famous for stifling free speech and thought to do better?
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."
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
Fuck you very much, French Foreign Minister Michel Barnier.
* And remember, it's spelled N-e-t-s-c-a-p-e, but it's pronounced "Mozilla."
When you consider what the Jewish people do to others ( heard of Palestine? ), you have to admit there is a lot to hate. Screaming `antisemitism` into the wind isn't going to protect your hide forever, even if it did buy you some time after the Holocaust.
... the Palestinians ... and you are on the wrong side of it.
But remember: there is another Holocaust going on now
The US / Israeli military alliance doesn't help your cause either. A lot of people who normally couldn't give a frig either way are becoming more anti-US and anti-Israeli.
The world is not out to get you . But the world has a strong ( if slightly slow ) sense of justice and karma.
this is the book we can't ship to the U.K. We used to, but we were sued just for selling it, and we lost.
* And remember, it's spelled N-e-t-s-c-a-p-e, but it's pronounced "Mozilla."
Free speech does not mean that you can protest anywhere you like at any time. If you want to protest at any time, feel free to do it on your own private property. But, once you decide to assemble in a public space, if such an assembly prevents the rest of the public to travel conveniently, etc., you are then imposing yourself on others. Free speech does not mean you have the right to physically impede or otherwise inconvenience your fellow citizen.
Shame on Google.
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.
Bzzzt. You are wrong the Canada (england) kicked our ass and burnt down Washington DC (we attacked them.) We had a Civil War that you wouldn't be able to distunguish from a war in europe from the same period. You are wrong.
Cencorship is full of shit. The OSCE is full of it.
If you don't like what I write don't be a CS and mod it down. Refute it.
Yea I can't spell. So what is your point?
Pawn? Ha!
There are certainly pawns in the game, but I'm not one of them.
And lets not get carried away calling Israel a democratic nation. Even the Israelis are strongly critical of the Zionist leaders. And of course the Palestinians don't get much say in the matter, do they?
Medieval warlords? Sounds far more like the US & Israeli army than the Palestinians. The Palestinians seem to me to be more like peasants revolting against an evil ruling class.
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.
Yeah, or maybe they'll sprout second heads, or they'll join the Hare Krishnas. Nobody knows, and so that isn't a basis for making laws. If there were compelling evidence that such restrictions on speech lead to widespread violence that outweighs the harm that such speech causes, then you would have a point.
What we do know is that the people who are "venting their anger" are spreading lies about other people and those other people object. If your neighbor puts up a web site accusing you of child molestation and fraud, are you going to say "oh, let him keep doing that, because otherwise he might use violence to vent that anger" or would you want him to stop? I think most people would want him to stop.
If someone says the holocaust never happened there is crime.
CORRECTION! Then there is NO crime.
I *did* use preview but I missed it. Argh.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
why do they want to terminate a perfectly working system where ideots can, without our time & efforts, identify themselves???
I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.
..." or "homosexuals are ..." and you can't back them up with facts, every person falsely defamed by you should be able to take you to court individually, just like if you had defamed them by name.
That would be a magnanimous sentiment if you were actually the victim of hate speech. 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. So, it's a good bet that your grand statement actually reduces to "I don't care about giving these groups their rights because it doesn't affect me".
And I don't care what anyone says, my liberty trumps your sense of security (not necessarily your *safety*, but rather your misguided *sense* of safety).
It's not a question of "safety", it's a question of rights.
If you call someone a child molester or a person of inferior intelligence by name and in public and can't back up your statements, they can take you to court for defamation of character and win. It's not a question of their safety, it's a question of their rights. Your liberty doesn't trump their rights.
Well, hate speech is just like that, except that it uses racial tags instead of names to make false assertions about people. There is no a-priori reason why the law shouldn't restrict defamation of people identified by race just as much as it restricts defamation of people identified by name.
But perhaps we don't even need new laws--the existing libel laws might be sufficient. Maybe if you go out and make statements of the form "Jews are
Obvious.
First you start ranting about the "holocaust" of the Palestinians. Now you're upping the ante by mentioning class warfare. You lefties crack me up.
I believe that everybody can have an opinion. I also believe that everybody can make their own choices about sexuality without being verbally and physically attacked because they have a different type of relationship than another. You can not like gay people all day long for all I care. But you should at least not attack their right as an American to the pursuit of happiness. If your religion does not like the thought of gay marriage then fine. Don't marry gay people in your church and don't recognize them. But the state and the church are to remain separate and so then, the state should recognize marriage regardless of the gender combination.
"Freedom is expensive, but it's something worth fighting and dying for." That sounds extremely noble in writing,
No, it doesn't. For someone living in a democracy, it sounds like someone who wants to replace the democratic process with violence when he isn't getting his way.
The specific freedoms guaranteed by democracy are something worth fighting and dying for. But there are many other "freedoms" that are not only not worth fighting for, they are just not acceptable in a free society. You don't have the freedom to go around killing people or the freedom to go around stealing their money. You don't have the freedom to defame, or incite violence against, people identified by name. Well, laws against hate speech are saying that you also don't have the freedom to defame people identified by race.
At least Americans can express hateful views and criticize their government without (much, if any) fear of retribution.
;-)
Say that about the EU w.r.t. the former, or China or N. Korea w.r.t. the latter...
Yes, the DMCA is a retarded piece of legislation, and I'm all for its repeal. But the EU was working on their own version anyway. Assuming it passed (couldn't find a link re: whether it did or not, but IIRC, it did), where's the EU's comparative advantage in free-speech law again?
Oh yeah, nudity. OK, you beat us on that. I'd *love* to see us surpass the EU though.
Is Capitalism Good for the Poor?
I went over the methodology summary used in creating this survey, and I hardly see a scientific basis for it. There's plenty of room for interpretation and statistical horseplay.
Quite frankly, the academic and journalist types who gather to write this sort of crap are from proffessions known to be generally of a 'hate/blame america first, europe is so fucking sophisticated' attitude
The fact that they run this little report out of New York tells you just how much they actually fear repression in the united states, and I'm pretty sure their placing The USA behind countries with 'hate-speech' laws is just partisan politics.
Anytime any organization comes out of the woodwork to start handing out something resembling a 'report card' I usually smell bullshit right quick. A small amount of investigation usually confirms this theory.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
XML causes global warming.
Well at least there is a methodology in those conclusion because all the "USA is the most free country of the universe and you all from else where are miserable turds" comments have no methotodology at all, no argument, no reference, nothing! Just plain USA is the best and most free country since ages and that's all.
My point is that there is also liberty outside USA. Maybe they ban some stuff related to Nazi heritage (and I don't really see the point of banning that to be honest with you) but on another hand they don't make of simple nipple shown on TV during a sport event an all out national crisis.
Now this as been said I still affirm that USA is a great free press country but not the only one in this world.
Yahh, hiii haaaaa! -Major Kong, from Dr. Strangelove
EU has not allied itself with Arafat, but gives foreign aid to the Palestinian Authority, which is in dire need of economic aid. EU has good relations with the state of Israel and e.g. grants Israel special status on trading issues. Quoting from the EU website:
There are some issues where the Israel and EU views differ, e.g. EU has protested current Israel practice of labelling products produced in the occupied territories as "made in Israel" but in general the foreign and trade relations are good with trade with EU consisting 40% of Israel's imports and 30% of exports.In order to reach a sustainable solution in the ongoing Middle-East conflict foreign powers, in my view, should not try to ally themselves with either side but to try to look at the issues fairly and support the warring sides to reach a consensus based on the UN security council's resolutions.
"There is a terrorist behind every bush"
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)
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.
of things that would be banned should this law pass. I do not support censorship, even of racist or antisemite speech, but to claim that the EU does not recognize antisemitism as hate speech is a flat-out lie and a troll of the first order. Only anti-muslim/arab speech is considered to be as much of a problem in Europe today than antisemitism by the EU leaders.
It's sad to see that they were people clueless enough to mode you up...
What do you know about World Politic? Find out in this quiz
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!
Those EU Nazi racist fag bastards!!!
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.
I recently did a report on censorship for university and this is COMPLETELY FALSE. Banning of books is a common occurrence in America. TONS of people in America are scared of books. This really just goes to show that Americans truly do think they're the land of the free.
Wake up and smell the coffee. You're not that much better then the rest of the world. And I'll get labelled a troll for that, but it is fucking true.
It was "required" when I was a freshman in High School. I don't think it is any more. They make you read some crap "multicultrial" novel instead now.
If you don't like what I write don't be a CS and mod it down. Refute it.
Yea I can't spell. So what is your point?
You may be trolling, but some things are too important to be denied unchallenged.
it is not banned. it is just that the state of bavaria owns the rights and disallows to print it.
Conservatism: The fear that somewhere, somehow, someone you think is your inferior is being treated as your equal.
People go to war because they have to.
Some may have lofty ideals like freedom, most have other reasons for enroling in the army (have you seen the disproportionate amount of Latinos in the US army? Guess why the joined...), normally it is a way to get out of poverty and during nasty wars plain and simple forced conscription.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Saying that back then when all the black people were either slaves or considered lesser human beens.
Very moral, very telling about the religiousness of that society.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Most judges and congressmen don't get past "Congress shall make."
I just wish they wouldn't "make" all over the constitution.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
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
Speak for yourself.
As a Brit, I hate the monarchy's guts and wish it would go away. Or at least be officially relegated to nothing more than a tourist attraction (the head of state still technically has the powers to dictate law, though they're never used). I'd love to see this anachronism be confined to the past where it belongs.
Please don't tar all British with the 'monarchy loving' brush. We're not all stupid enough to want to stand out in the rain, franticly waving a Union Flag, just so that we can get a glimpse of the Queen in her latest dress.
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
It all started oh so slowly. We don't like hate speech. It's damaging, inciting people to violence. So banning hate speech saves lives, right? So we banned hate speech on the Internet, and later, in all public places too. Thank God! No more ugly nazi propaganda, antisemitism, etc.. Looked good.
A few years down the road: Minispeech (Orwell's Ministry of Speech) monitors the Internet hunting offenders and bringing them to justice. Due to the large amount of communications going on, Minispeech needs to expand quite a lot. Currently, over 100,000 public servents work at Minispeech. Because Minispeech also needs to monitor public conversations, it needs to pay a lot of spies (a.k.a. offers rewards), so its budget is quite big and always strained.
Ten years later, the busybodies at Minispeech discovered new pattern in communications: People are still preaching hatred, but in cloaked or disguised form. This is unacceptable, because we all know that hate speech is BAD(tm). A new legislation passes Congress which bans indirect hate speech. Minispeech needs to expand even more to enforce this.
Here, the real problems started. People were increasingly facing harrassment from Minispeech, because they dared to express their dissatisfaction with some burocrat assh*le. Because burocrats are also protected by law, expressing dissatisfaction against them is hate speech. Well, not directly hate speech, but this insideous, cloaked, hidden form that is currently banned.
Advertising also changed quite a lot. It is now forbidden to compare your product with your competitors' because that would amount to hidden hate speech against them. [Incidentally, in Europe, comparative advertising is already forbidden]. A lot of prosecution happened there.
It is now very difficult to say "Hey buddy, your service is miserable!" because that is (disguised) hate speech. People are very careful now not to say anything dangerous, because Minispeech spies are everywhere.
WELCOME TO THE NEW SOVIET UNION!
cpghost at Cordula's Web.
The EU's Copyright Directive (EUCD) did pass. However last I heard thre were big problems with the fact that almost no member countries passed laws to implement it by the deadline, or that passed incomplete/incompatible laws. Something like 20% compliance?
I don't understand much of the workings of the EU directive system, but I believe widespread failure/refusal to implement a directive somehow works it's way back up to invalidate that directive. If not, then I assume there will be some sort of pressure brought on member states to force them to implement it. Maybe someone else can jump in here?
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
If so, why the president can occupy public space and his supporters can be noisy and onboxious, the security roadblocks can prevent the rest of the public to travel conveniently, etc.?
Free speech does not mean you have the right to physically impede or otherwise inconvenience your fellow citizen.
It cuts both ways. The prez should either organize meetings on his own property (I think his ranch is big enough for this purpose), or the protesters should be allowed to his vicinity.
Free Speech Zones are a dirty cheat.
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"
It's technically not possible to censor the Web. But that's not the point. It gives governments a lot of handles (sticks and brooms) to knock you off, if you express an opposing opinion. All it takes is one person to tell the authorities what you are saying in those hidden black market links and pronto, you're in jail.
This is not a technical discussion, it's a social problem. We ought to be very scared by those attempts to limit our civil liberties. We're already on a slippery slope, and it's spiraling downward at an ever increasing pace.
cpghost at Cordula's Web.
Hate speech is detestable. It should however be permitted, although subject to the same restrictions as other categories of speech, with some reservations.
Should a person who is deliberately inciting hatred take objection to another person's criticism of his speech, the fact that the hate speaker's speech was itself malicious should be taken into account should the hate speaker decide to take legal action for defamation.
--
E
f*ck
sh*t
motherf*cker
http://erichsieht.wordpress.com/category/english/
... because of this, to get the maximum total amount of freedom, some people's freedom needs to be limited a bit, so that many others can retain theirs. You can't all have total freedom. Laws are needed to regulate and protect the more important freedoms over the less important ones. It really doesn't have to be all that complicated -- what is more important, zealot nazi racists being able to ventilate their hate speech, or, to protect the people who are the target of their hate speech from another holocaust?
Unfortunately, in some countries, the law doesn't always get its priorities right, especially when there is money involved. That's when you get laws that protect the strong from the weak instead of the other way around. I tend to consider individuals weaker than companies -- most cases companies can easily ruin individuals' lives by suing. Other than protecting freedom, in a democracy laws should reflect what people (in general) want- the desires of the majority having priority over the desires of a minority. I believe most people want good music at a low price. I also believe that a minority of people is making way too much money out of talented artist who hardly see a dime of their work. Sure there are (not necessarily) artists who sell a lot, who do you think earns more from those sales? Them or their record company? Drifted off topic far enough now...
Visit http://ringbreak.dnd.utwente.nl/~mrjb/growingbettersoftware to download your free copy of the book
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?
You're confusing self-censorship or editing on a private basis with state sponsored global censorship.
Private censorship is normally dictated by market needs. A newspaper won't publish your rubbish, if they think that readers won't buy it. Sometimes, they won't because they belong to a political party opposing your views. That's all well and good, because it's not a real censorship. Nothing prevents you from taking your speech elsewhere and have it published there.
State sponsored censorship is something completely else. You can't (legally) escape the almighty Censorship Buro. If you have opinions that conflict with Government or society's point of view, you have absolutely no chance of putting them on the "market of ideas." It's not a matter of finding a newspaper or radio station to express yourself anymore. Saying something out of line would be illegal.
State censorship is a very bad thing, because it stiffles the competition of ideas. A society which needs legal censorship against some kind of speech is very immature; perhaps because it knows that it is vulnerable to it. It is understandable that countries like Germany have deep rooted fears w.r.t. nazi ideology; but please don't force everyone else in the world to be just as fearful.
It's actually a shame that discussions like these pop up so frequently nowadays. The censorship tendencies in Europe have traditionally always been stronger than in the US. Since 9/11, it's the other way around. Now we're quite paranoic and giving up all our civil liberties. And Europe is merely copying the bad example that we set. They need some years to catch up, but they'll eventually reach our standards of "Patriot Act" etc... Sad, but true.
When the fog of war dissolves, we'll have a lot of work ahead to revert what we've done to ourselves and other countries. Winning back our liberties won't be a peace of cake.
cpghost at Cordula's Web.
Being jailed for 48 hours withy out charge is legal in the US. In Europe some places it's less time but someplaces it's much longer.
So what is your point?
If you don't like what I write don't be a CS and mod it down. Refute it.
Yea I can't spell. So what is your point?
You need guns, training and an inclination to use them in America. In the Brittish Empire (when it existed) on the otherhand you didn't need those things. Just one person who was willing to not eat.
It was a fundamentally important insight: I agree that we simply have the right to freedom of speech, but it's also an incredibly practical concept. It saves a lot of time trying to change morality-based laws every fifty years or so...
So I say shame on the EU, or the OSCE, or whoever. I also say shame on the Australian government; get freedom of speech into our bloody constitution!
Just my two cents, and don't forget: as long as we keep both sides talking there's no way we can lose.
You used the phrase "should be banned" which is a suggestion and not a statement of fact. It is therefore incapable of being true or false.
Do you care to cite the source from which you obtained your evidence of "tendency to degeneration of the immunological system found in children..."?
Gypsies? or Zionists.
Kill all the Zionists for they will kill you so that they may inherit the earth.
Remeber the poor Gipsies celebrate the killing of the zionists.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
Bashing the US is the norm on slashdot. If this story was reversed (the US wanting to limit what people can say and EU wanting total freedom of speech) you would see a lot of self-righteous posts about how the US is turning into a police/corporate state. See any argument about patents/DMCA/PATRIOT Act for evidence. As it is, most of the discussion I have seen on this topic is about the merits of limiting free speech.
compare EU media to CNN...you'll be amazed at how much more -unbiased- information we get
I am from the UK, and when I compare CNN to the BBC, I draw the opposite conclusion.
Free speech does not mean that you can protest anywhere you like at any time.
The "free speech zones" that the person is referring to took place at events where Bush was speaking. At least, the articles that I read about them said so. I haven't attended any events where Bush was speaking so I can't tell you for certain if it's true or not. The people with anti-Bush/Republican signs were made to stand in a "free speech zone" about half of a mile away. As an American I am appalled at this.
But, once you decide to assemble in a public space, if such an assembly prevents the rest of the public to travel conveniently, etc., you are then imposing yourself on others.
This is very true and I think that is how it should be. But, if you get the proper permits you can assemble in public space. The events in question were permitted and the Bush supporters were allowed voice their approval. The anti-Bush crowd was made to stand a long distance off where no camera would see them.
I believe that everybody can have an opinion.
Well, that goes without saying. Anything less, well then you wouldn't be human.
I also believe that everybody can make their own choices about sexuality without being verbally and physically attacked because they have a different type of relationship than another.
And you calling bsDaemon a 'homophobe', because he/she believes that homosexuality is wrong, follows this how? I do believe that it falls under "...being verbally... attacked..." Yet you do the very thing, which makes you a hypocrite
You can not like gay people all day long for all I care.
Really? You seemed to care? Try doing that in society today! You'll be labeled an old fashioned religious zealot and a homophobe.
But you should at least not attack their right as an American to the pursuit of happiness.
Their right? Since when is it a right? When that famous author penned that line, 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness', homosexuality was not in his mind. Remember that up until recently, and still in most local locations, homosexuality is still a crime, classified among all the other deviant sexual crimes (rape, molestation, bestiality).
If your religion does not like the thought of gay marriage then fine. Don't marry gay people in your church and don't recognize them.
While in your perfect world that may work, in reality it doesn't fly. A church isn't just a church building it is its members. It's a community. Church's have members run organizations and businesses. Church members are on school boards and go to business meetings. Are you expecting these people just to check their believes at the door of the church when they leave? They carry their believes throughout the week, not just at church. These beliefs that they carry all week long influences their decisions and choices.
But the state and the church are to remain separate and so then, the state should recognize marriage regardless of the gender combination.
Please don't forget that this county was founded by VERY religious people. You must also remember that it was still people, imperfect people. But being imperfect does not preclude you from following God's law. The founding fathers thought it necessary to separate church from state. Freedom of religion does not be freedom from religion. No matter how you want to color early American history, our founders were still Christians. Maybe not perfect, but still Christians, which is why the line, '... life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness' falls under the context of God's law.
Well, it looks like you believe one thing, and yet wrote (i.e. 'verbally attacked', your words, bsDaemon) another.
Hypocrite
The somewhat more expanded version.
Parent's argument:
1. There is disagreement about morality
2. All things that people disagree about are subjective
3. Therefore, morality is subjective.
The second premise isn't stated, but is required by the conclusion.
My argument:
1. There is disagreement about Math
2. Math is not subjective
3. Therefore, there is disagreement about some non-subjective ideas.
You see how my conclusion disproves his second premise? His conclusion may still be true, but this particular argument for it is not valid.
This has nothing to do with how similar or dissimilar math and morality are. He could have been arguing about ice cream flavor preference. The key point is that disagreement about some idea does not by itself indicate whether or not it is subjective.
Really? Never would have guessed that! They already managed to crap all over the rest of the constitution. I guess the First Amendment is all thats left.
i cant seem to come up with a sig.
With this movie. Even Fox News is saying Disney was stupid for not releasing it. It's going to be a smash hit because of all of the publicity. In America, if someone attacks your speech, you make money off of it and get to say more!
This is my sig.
This page is on a site for Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) of Topeka, Kansas. A web page showing a memorial plaque for Matthew Shepard who was murdered in 1998. The plaque reads in part: "Entered Hell October 12, 1998 ..."
http://www.godhatesfags.com/main/shepard_monument. html
I tried to read your post, but all I could get out of it was:
I hate America. I hate Reagan. I hate Bush.
Europe good, America bad.
*sigh* You're a walking, talking cliche and you don't even know it. Programmed to spew out someone else's thoughts.
I'm no Republican conservative, so save your ad hominems, but here's a suggestion...go study what Reagan actually did for the economy and for the destruction of communism. Study a mixture of the left wing rantings that you like so much, and some right wing glorification, and some *gasp* independent analysis. Factor in the good with the bad. If you do this honestly and dilligently, you will see what a true patriot, skilled statesman, and great overall president Reagan actually was.
p.s. Isn't it amusing that Reagan's hate-filled detractors stopped calling it "Reaganomics" when it began to turn the sour economy around?
I've said such things before, and had such things said to me, and that's life. No complaints. I don't need a law in place to enforce what should and should not be said. I'll trust in the forces of self-correcting social awareness to regulate how and what people speak.
Of course, self-correcting systems don't always pan out the way you'd like when you have huge extra tendrils of influence at work. --Like the Military Industrial Complex with it's hands on popular culture and education doing everything in its power to turn people into savages so that it can point and say, "See! People need to be controlled. How about a nice Military Lockdown? --I think we've got one around here somewhere we'd be willing to sell at a bargain!"
The only ones who should be punished for doing annoying things on the internet are corporations and advertisers.
-FL
Let's hope they don't discover usenet.
That would be understandable: he has been such an asshole with foreign politics, and the French (and some others) precisely pointed why the Iraq war would be a mistake. Note that the whole "French suck" campaign was the equivalent of the email stating "I hate the French", except it was from a whole country.
That said, this time it's the European who are wrong. The freedom of speech at all cost is what I really like in you Americans, and seriously, banning some speech on Internet is a bad thing. Currently it's uncensored, and I like it this way. Prohibiting hate speech won't make Internet safer for kids (too many porn sites in there) or otherwise irresponsible people. I think this time, the USA must take the lead and impose free speech.
You came here to experience these events. Best to enjoy them and learn from them rather than let them get you down. Though, high ground is probably the wiser of the vantage points available. . . Dodging the draft is half the fun!
-FL
Corporatism was coined by Mussolini, it is based on the latin word "corpus", or body. It simply refers to the reorganization of society around a metaphor where the people make up the body of the culture. Each plays an important, but inherently different role. The legal concept of the corporation is a English invention, and was not what any fascist leader was talking about.
Fascism was primarily an aesthetic political ideology. What I am talking about doesn't make sense when you believe politics is utilitarian and egalitarian, ie supply and demand of material goods. Fascism didn't believe the sole purpose of a society is to supply the people's demands.
What it was focused on was artistic specialization, creating an opportunity where artists and craftsmen could create beauty again. The issue we find with materialistic and egalitarian political orders is the majority of people demand nothing more than to exist and procreate. Corporatism was a response to the alienation of the average European, they were separated from the body of their culture.
Since those days, Corporatism as a term hasn't meant anything. It is simply used as a strawman by various groups.
I don't read or respond to AC posts
For real amusement value, try showing a nipple on US television ;)
no taxation without representation!
If so, why the president can occupy public space and his supporters can be noisy and onboxious, the security roadblocks can prevent the rest of the public to travel conveniently, etc.?
You can actually do these things, provided you have permission of the owners of the property you are gathering on. In this case, the "owners" are the city/town (typically). You merely need to get the permits to do so.
The protesters can do the same. That's essentially what the "Free-speech zones" are. Public places that have been set aside with the proper permits for a large public gathering.
It cuts both ways. The prez should either organize meetings on his own property (I think his ranch is big enough for this purpose), or the protesters should be allowed to his vicinity. Or, alternatively, both groups can be given permits for different areas of public property to spread theri message. Oh wait! That's what free-speech zones are! No inequality there.
And the best thing about the seperate areas is that both groups can get their message out, without worry that the other will drown out their message (which would be restricting freedom of speech).
As an American I am appalled at this.
As an American, I'm not. It's not a Good Thing, but it's not like anyone was actually censored, either.
Remember, right to free speech doesn't include the right to do so whenever and whereever you want to, and it doesn't include making people listen.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
Drifted off topic far enough now...
Yes, you did. You also have taken actions performed by record companies and applied the resulting sentiment that all companies must therefore be bad.
There is an "us versus them" attitude prevelent on Slashdot, and it's almost entirely anti-corporate and anti-capatilist. Most (that's right, most) companies are not these big bad corporations who would like nothing more than to enslave their workforce and make them work more hours for less pay and benefits.
Most companies recognize their employees, compensate them appropriately, and very often some of these large companies you rail on against give great benefits to their employees. You may read about a few bad companies, even dozens, but there are thousands of companies out there who are very attuned to keeping their employees and customers happy. But, like most things, you wouldn't want to read "Disney Gives Employees Great Benefits" when you could read "Enron Steals Retirement From Employees". So that's the news you hear. Take it in context. There are good companies and bad companies, just like there are good people and bad people.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
First and foremost, in the US, if I want to wear a yalkmaka (skull cap or whatever you want to call it) because my religion requires me to wear a head covering, *Bam* i can. Telling me I can't wear religious garb because the school is netural on religion is like saying everyone has to go around in wheelchairs because the school is neutral on physical dissability.
There is a difference between neutrality and forcing everyone to be the same, afterall, overtly religious symbols (and they don't have to be that overt) don't affect anyone and don't require anyone to do anything. Being told how you can and can't dress because is ludicrous (i'm not saying it isn't done here, tehre and everywhere, but I can't see a reason for it). What's more, the ban goes on to include religious facial hair
Many people i know are quite religious and would not be able to live as they do under such laws. Are people really that offended by others practicing their own religion. Their laws show nothing but intollerance and are inexcusable
The Neo-Bohemian Techno-Socialist
"Freedom of religion does not be freedom from religion."
Yes it does. People are not required to adhere by a religion. There are quite a few athiests in our country.
"Really? You seemed to care? Try doing that in society today! You'll be labeled an old fashioned religious zealot and a homophobe."
I mainly care about equal rights regardless of your sexual preference. This person was openly attacking gay marriage whereas I do not view a problem with it. And before you start, if marriage is so sacred and holy and blah blah. Then remove marriage completely from state and federal law. If the government doesn't recognize it from anybody then it's still equal.
This country was founded on people wanting to escape a country that persecuted them for having different beliefs. Yes, it may have been different religious beliefs, but they recognized that in the future there would be more people with more different beliefs, and so they separated the church from the state.
Yes, and so you can call me a hypocrite all day long. Anybody that's ever had the ability to communicate will at some point do something or say something and have it turned around on them and be labeled as a hypocrite. But at any point, if there was any group, whether it be christians, homosexuals, or a minority, being arrested, killed, or persecuted for believing something different. I would take up for them.
Well let not forget that slavery is still alive and practiced to this day. Several parts of "the mother land" africa still have slavery and still buy and sell people like cattle. Wippings and such also are common.
How many brits are going to be willing to dies to stop that slavery?
My point was- without an artifical separation of the two groups to begin with (thus the Envy & Greed comment), you won't have racism- because all the people will see themselves as a part of the same group. Your experiment proves my point- that creating artifical divisions and treating groups unequally will always create racism, thus to destroy racism you've got to tear down the artificial divisions.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
If HIV/AIDS is really an epidemic, why aren't those infected put in quarantine to try to stop the spread?
Honest question. Isn't that what you'd do to contain any other infectious communicable disease?
Constitutionally Correct
The title as it stands is not inaccurate; a limit on hate speech is certainly a limit on speech. However the particular choice of title puts the subject matter in a realm that is beyond debate for most /.er's...it's like skewing a poll's responses by a choice of phrase.
I'm not in favor of banning any type of speech, however, appeals to racial and national hatred are a problem that merit serious discussion. I feel that the way this article was presented throws a straw man into the works that prevents discussion of the real issue -- that is to say, what can legitimately be done about this issue?
I survived the Dick Cheney Presidency 7 to 9 AM 7-21-07
After the revolution, everything will be better.How many times have we heard this one before? You want to start a revolution? Well, we'd all love to see the plan.
If you want a working alternative, you have to build it before you tear down the old one. The new system, if it works, will simply push out the old by disuse.
Eliminate the old without something to replace it, and you will quickly discover in hardest way imaginable just how much government interference is required to make your way of living possible. Revolutions really only work when they are the forceful recognition of an already existing situation (as in the American Revolution.) Change through revolution is a very ugly business. Look at the French and Russian revolutions.
Try making a satirical comic book with characters that bear any resemblance to Disney characters. You will be bankrupted by spurious lawsuits.
Try making any movie or television show critical of conservative christians, or even at odds with their 'values'. It's no accident that the main networks are about to roll out the most boring programming line-up in the history of American television.
Try working in any business related to music, publishing, or games, and you will feel the power of Wal Mart to dictate the content of what you make.
If you think there is no suppression of free speech in capitalism, it's only because you've gotten used to it. I would rather have Josef Goebbels censored than Joss Whedon.
So you mean that Amazon is selling these books illegaly? I admit that I don't know the details of the law. All I can say is that it is not uncommon to see swastikas and swastika flags in books and on TV in Germany. School books, history books, childrens books about that time (one of the links above) and many reports on TV, also war movies...
One must understand , that the "hate" message from a news source is probably a "inspiring or great" message for some other readers.In other words, "hating" is not ***wrong*** always.It is the first step to understand someone.
.It may be a hate propaganda or a praise one.Nevertheless , sustenance of both is required for balance of anything.
It is not quite right to practically preach everyone to love every other guy.We all live in "survival of the fittest world and we would not hesitate to kill someone to feed our starving stomach".Ofcourse i meant that in the extreme instance.
Practically , its upto the individual to decide whats good for him and whats not.Hence there is nothing such as "wrong Propaganda"
Hello , this is my way.
Which way is yours ?
btw there is no right way
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
That's not evidence of Dubya's virtue, that's evidence of the virtue of the US system, which at least makes an attempt at guaranteeing free elections, and prohibits staying in for more than two terms. Saddam racked up the bodycount that he did because he's been in since 1978.
And the US system also ensures that the power is spread across a cabinet. So it's meaningless to compare a US President's criminal record with that of an Iraqi dictator, who has no "last-call" bell when 8 years are up. Rather, the comparison should be between the current cabinet and Saddam: Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Negroponte , etc.
"Last I checked there weren't any mass graves filled with turkish insurgents on GWB's resume."
If you're talking about the Kurds, I would give several people in the current White House full credit for their part in this. And full credit for helping Saddam brutally crush the Shia uprising too, ensuring that he stayed in power.
Saddam couldn't have done it on his own.
Sorry I misidentified you. The fact of the matter is that Israel's crushing of the Palestinian people's freedom may be quite abhorrent, but comparing Israel to Hitler is just plain despicable. Israel is not Hitler's Nazi Germany. It is not as much of a slur against Israel as it is a trivialization of the evil of Nazi Germany.
Ich kann in meinem vorausgehenden Post keine Erwähnung von Nazis in irgendeiner Form erkennen. Vielleicht solltest Du mal einen Optiker aufsuchen? Oder Dir hilft dieser Link weiter?
PS: Auf Slashdot sollte man auf Englisch posten. Das ist die Sprache mit dem komischen "th" (in Kompjuta-Bild-Notation: tieh-äidsch). Du kommst ja bald in die 5. Klasse, und hast dann auch Gelegenheit, diese schöne Sprache zu lernen.
I love C++
Ahem... isn't this state-sponsored censorship?
Private censorship is normally dictated by market needs.Market surveys indicate there is a high demand for pornography on TV. Why doesn't the FCC allow it?
It's actually a shame that discussions like these pop up so frequently nowadays. The censorship tendencies in Europe have traditionally always been stronger than in the US.Then I wonder what all this fuss is about. All in all,
It's actually a shame that discussions like these pop up so frequently nowadays. The censorship tendencies in Europe have traditionally always been stronger than in the US. Since 9/11, it's the other way around. Now we're quite paranoic and giving up all our civil liberties. And Europe is merely copying the bad example that we set. They need some years to catch up, but they'll eventually reach our standards of "Patriot Act" etc... Sad, but true.I hope you are wrong. :-(
I love C++
Yes, you're right. FCC regulations are state sponsored censorship and just as bad. If the political situation here remains the same, it's just a matter of time until we get more invasive FCC rules. The Communications Decency Act was declared unconsitutional by the Supreme Court. Well we be as lucky a few years down the road?
It looks like every society has its taboos.
I hope you are wrong. :-(
Me too. It would be great to see Europe help the US regain its liberties... :-)
cpghost at Cordula's Web.
I'm very much a 'live and let live' type of person, so I don't really understand the thoughts.
Look at materials about some of the really remote african and island tribes. Their language often marks only the tribe as 'human', or maybe 'people'.
Also, look at the old Phrenology research (skull bumps indicators of personality?). There were all sorts of 'studies' that showed blacks had smaller brains, more prone to violence, were not civilized, and much more. Add in religion and some creative quoting, and you'll keep society in line. You convince the logical with the studies, the religious/emotional with stories/religion, and the greedy, well, they have the profit motive.
Most ancient societies practiced slavery, whether it be for redemption of debts, captures from other tribes/countries, hereditary, or for crimes committed. Both the greeks and romans practiced slavery, and it was for people who were essentially the same race. The vikings had the 'dane-geld', essentially a fine for commision of a crime, and you'd essentially become a slave if you couldn't pay it. Heck, even murder was a fine for them. If you couldn't pay, you were given to the familiy for them to do what they wanted with you, including killing you.
My belief that it was a combination of greed and ignorance. You have the 'stands on the shoulders of giants' thing that's went on in the US. Many of the 'founding fathers' didn't necessarily agree with slavery, and they sowed the seeds for it's destruction in the constitution.
I don't read AC A human right
Then you're most likely comparing BBC and CNN Europe, which is nowhere comparable to CNN USA.
I love C++
You know how many times I've gone to a German forum and started talking shit about Germans? Zero.
Oh come on, admit it! That's just because your German is worse than my English. :o)
I don't care about Germans, their country, their culture, or what have you.
What I always wonder is why Americans are seen to expose an arrogant sort of ignorance.
They can buy some of our goods, I can buy some of their goods, and maybe if we both have good years we might go vacation in each other's country for a week and enjoy many of the wonderful natural treasures we both surely possess. That's the extent that I give a fuck about Germany, France, Belgium, ..., or Sweden.
Think about the amount of international influence that the USA wields on Sweden, as well as other regions of international interest (the Middle East, the Far East, South America etc.). Then, think about how much influence Sweden has on e.g. the Middle East. Notice a difference?
Next, consider other international questions. Which country poses 5% of the world population, but emits 25% of greenhouse gases, with a per-capita output 2 to 3 times that of European nations? Which of those countries - Sweden or the USA - has waged more wars in the last 15 years? These are international questions, and Europeans are interested in them, and should be allowed to.
That's about how much the average person I know cares about any of you, so we don't on average go to your forums and tell you that you're fucking retarded or that our media is better than yours or whatever.
Isn't the USA proud of being the last military superpower? Aren't you proud of being the economically most influential nation? Isn't it you who keep telling the world how free and brave and democratic your country is, and what a beacon for the rest of the world? Doesn't your government reiterate all.these things at any potential opportunity? And doesn't your president emphasize that in international affairs, the USA is all that matters ("America First")?
If so, why shouldn't others be allowed to measure your country by the standards you (claim to) set for yourselves? And isn't it legitimate to criticize an arrogant foreign president that gives so fucking little about international concerns? And aren't you yourself an arrogant nation if you elect people like Bush (ok, last time you didn't, but next time, you may) and deserve the due criticism. Not because some things go wrong in your own country, but because these very things affect ALL of Earth, and all nations, and so are the legitimate concern of all the nations?
Just imagine how it would be with roles reversed. That Germany had nukes and you don't. That Germany would plan to wage a war that you oppose, and that will affect you (including via oil prices), and that you had no way to stop it. That whenever you would mouth a concern regarding the Earth in total, the German chancellor would sneer at you, saying "Deutschland, Deutschland über alles!" and "The USA? Now that's the old America. Countries like Brazil are much more interesting, and they support our war in the coalition of the willing.". Imagine that this coalition, on further research, looks more like a coalition of a few willing nation, and a dozen other bought & bullied nations.
And now please tell me with a straight face that given sufficient German language skills, you would leave their discussion boards alone and refrain from exercising your right to free speech. I mean: pardon?
I love C++
The divisions aren't natural- or at least, not to everyone. Small children and autistics couldn't care less about skin color- it's what you can DO not what you LOOK LIKE that matters. I strongly suspect that it was an Asperger's Syndrome mind that created the Hacker's Ethic; judge people on what they can do, all the rest is bogus criteria. If the divisions were natural, such human beings would not exist- and every child would shy away from people who looked different.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
One of things the founders of the US held in highest regard was a persons right to freedom of speech. Which ties in to freedom of expression.
As for the hate sites and racist dribble that is on the net, it's everywhere else too. Are you going to censor that?
I am no racist nor do I condone hatred of any group. I say hate someone if they wrong you, and only them not the whole race. These hate groups tend to shoot themselves in the foot when they are allowed to speak. As it gives everyone a chance to hear just how idioc their ideals and beliefs are. It is my belief that by allowing them their platform to get their message across, it allows the world to see them for what they are, uneducated morons. No offense to the morons out there.
There will always be hatred in the world. People will always believe what they choose to, the fact remains that anyone with half a brain can make their own decisions given all the facts. If these groups choose to let someone make their decisions for them, then I say let these sheep lead themselves to the slaughter.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!