Slashdot Mirror
EU Pushes to Limit Internet Speech
minamar writes "CNN is reporting that at an international conference, the EU is urging the US and other nations to ban racist and 'hate' messages from the internet. The US seems to be resisting, but is this another step away from free speech and how could an international group possibly regulate message on the internet anyway?"
If you don't let people vent their anger on websites that no one will read, then they might go out and use violence to vent that anger.
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. --
I think you suck. Everyone who looks like you sucks.
Will you now censor me?
To be sure...'hate speech' sucks. Sucks big, raw, donkey balls. But in the search for freedom of speech, you gotta take the bad with the good.
Do they really think they can fix hatred by telling people they shouldn't talk about it on the internet?
There are signs that online hate is getting worse.
Perhaps the online expression of it. The hate itself was always there and will only be minimized/eradicated with gradual cultural shifts on a global scale that will take centuries, if not millennia.
The coolest voice ever.
That simply not letting some one say something racist in a public forum will make racism magically go away.
I for one do NOT welcome our thought police overlords
It amazes me how we can revolt against something so much, we push ourselves away from it so strongly, that that we end up meeting it on the other side.
500 dollar reward for tip(s) leading to the arrest of the person(s) who stole my sig.
abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press... How much simpler could it be?
The internet by its very nature is not, and cannot be, under any government's jurisdiction to control content. Period. Let folks say what they want to say, and you always retain the freedom to read it or ignore it.
"We are the first generation to influence the climate and the last generation to escape the consequences." - John McCain
What part of "European Union" don't you understand?
"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...
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?
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.
Like maybe those "hateful" communists. Or was it the "hateful" capitalists? Let's not forget those "hate-filled" Christians. And, gee, how often do I hear Rush Limbaugh referred to as "hate radio"?
Face it, as much as we might like to think that there is an objective assessment as to what qualifies as hate speech; the truth is that any hate speech laws will eventually be used to protect ideas and prosecute dissenters. These laws are not designed to protect people--the laws on the book already do that. These laws are designed to regulate thought, and it positively ignorant to believe that someday someone will not think that they can "help" society be eliminating that harmful capitalist/communist/whatever branch of thought.
When things get complex, multiply by the complex conjugate.
MOD UP! And to think that I wasted all my mod points yesterday on stupid stuff.
This is what is starting to be pushed for in the US by some groups. They label things "hate speech" and seek to have them outlawed. Also look at 'hate crimes'. Where you aren't punished based on the crime you did but what you were thinking while you did it.
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
Socialism and stifling free speech go hand in hand.
Only if your leaders/educators are really lazy. Otherwise it's simple to engineer the problems with racism and the main cause of racism out of a socialist society to begin with; by eliminating the possibility of ENVY and GREED. It's only if you're already treating your citizens differently based on bogus criteria such as looks, family name, or luck that you need to worry about racism (or any other form of discrimination).
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
I'm glad to be on the other side of the Atlantic, the land of the Free...
Land of the free? Where large organizations can buy laws such as the DMCA. Where people are arrested for lecturing on cryptography? Where distributing a 7-line perl code can land you in jail?
what nation does have good records on 'free' speech?
like, at least in europe you don't get the whole nation in panic if you show a NIPPLE accidentally in the middle of a very sexually oriented dance act.
can you say that scientologists are total fuckheads in the states then now? because they at least they ARE fuckheads.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
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.
Those Gay Nazi half-breed Nigger Europeans will only take my hate speech when they pry my tongue from my cold dead body
I'm reposting this because I have Karma to burn, and some nit-wit mods can't take a joke. Do your worst.
Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.
You can show as many nipples as you want in the U.S., the idea is that parents should have warning so that they can DECIDE for themselves whether they want to introduce that matter to their children.
In the U.S., you can do damn near anything you want (except fuck animals), but it has to be in the right setting.
Each has it's plusses and minuses. I mean, how about the Netherlands. They are still in Europe right? Free spech, and you can toke up and pay to get laid, all legally. So how free are we really?
Also, check out the Patriot Act sometime and see how truly free we are.
But all of this is a moot point really. Europe can whine all it wants, it's not going to change anything in this country. It's constitutionally protected, which means no treaty can stop it. So they'll just have to cope with all the Nazi's offshoring their websites.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
That must mean every socialist regime that's ever existed had leaders and educators that were lazy. Show me a shining example of glorious socialism that did not have a very active propaganda and censorship bureau.
There will always be envy, there will always be greed, and it has nothing to do with "historical preconditions" or "culture war" or anything else those Marxist space cadets shoved down your naive and willing gullet. Declaring war on the bourgeoisie and enslaving them is still war on people and slavery. And you can't wave away the moral implications thereof because you find them less than human, for the crime of owning property.
B
"I'm payin' taxes, but what am I buyin'?" -- James Brown
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.
Take 2 clearly defined words that are used to describe a clearly defined and well understood concept and some retard still manages to totally miss the point. Free speech has nothing to do with Nazi propaganda or racial hatred, you either acknowledge people have a right to freedom of speech in whatever form or you don't.
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.
Hahahaha hahah hahahah hahaha, that was funny. Is this the first right wing troll i have seen in Slashdot today.
Thanks mate, you just made my day. You may not be aware of this, but there are plenty of conservative news outlets and even *gasp* political parties in Europe. At least those outlets and politicians have the balls to let other people know they are conservative. Unlike the conservative outlets in the US which try to pretend they are "fair and balanced"
Oh, and in Europe people actually understand the difference between reporting and editorial. Most US news outlets have forgotten the distinction.
But yeah, the US is has a far better track record when it comes to freedom of speech, unless it involves nudity, or strong language, or unpopular opinions, or bad comments about the president during a time of "war," or graphic images of destruction, or....
A was using this as an argument against censoring the internet, but I guess it's only a matter of time before it becomes a reality on voice lines too.
France may suck with laws, I can still say whatever I want. Of course I can't create my own nazi web site but who would do that anyway? If free speech means nazi propaganda, I don't need it.
North Korea also has free speech, as long as you don't make a website filled with capitalist propaganda.
Excuse my french, but I think you are missing the whole fucking point of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech protects your right to say contraversial things. The right to say things that the government approves of is NOT freedom of speech.
Diverse and accepting of those who are diffrent are two serperate things. We are one, but not the other.
The darkness... controls the music. The music... controls the soul.
The United States is a shining example of glorious capitalism that has a very active propaganda and censorship bureau.
Actually, I'd call it a shining example of Corporatism- true capitalism and true communism are very similar, under both you own only what you need to survive and no more (because so does everybody else). Corporatism, like socialism, has a tendency to impose a hierarchial structure on those pure forms, thus destroying the pure form.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
You missed the point. The entire dance act was extremely sexual. Nobody would have complained if that's all it was. But a NIPPLE pops out and OH, LORDY!
Grow the hell up. Being offended by a nipple is about equivalent to kids on the playground freaking out about "cooties." It's okay for young children to suck on the goddamned things, but not to see them?
I mean CRIPES. You turn on a news channel these days and what do you hear? "Young black man shot by police. Girl kidnapped, raped, and decapitated. 10 soldiers die in Iraq. Man beheads niece with samurai sword. Meth lab discovered in science closet at the high school."
It's okay to expose your children to that shit, but a brief show of flesh is a catastrophic event?
Have you ever considered that our "offense" at seeing a nipple is merely a neurosis our parents have transferred to us, down through the Puritanical generations? For Christ's sake, there are more important things in this world!
which are far right, further right and KKK
What's that good 'ol Voltaire quote, something along the lines of "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it"?
The problem, when you think about restricting free speech on any specific grounds, that in general it sets a precedent for removing other forms. Specifically, consider your statement above: "If free speech means nazi propaganda, I don't need it."
On the counter to that, just because there's nazi propaganda out there on the web, doesn't mean it has to bother you. If you're not gay, does it bother you that there is gay porn on the internet (or vice versa)? No, at least it should not. You can't make a case for censorship in any form based on one particular thing you don't like. There is no one size fits all solution, and any attempt will probably cause more annoyance and innocent censorship :)
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.
I'm an upper middle class white male. Given that, which of these is true:
Since you've offered a simple explanation for the supposed continued existence of racism, I really want to know whether I'm the source or target. If you can't pick one of those four and defend it, then shut up and admit that society is a lot more complex than you're making it out to be.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
What constitues rasist remarks and hate messages? Does changing the name of French Fries to Freedom Fries constitue rasism or hate messages when it is posted on the internet? Does me saying French people smell here on slashdot constitue hate messages?
The EU is going to have a very tough time enfocing this since most people on the internet now use Google, and Google is a US based company. And since the first ammendment still exists in the US, and is not going to go away in the forseeable future, this kind of censoring will never happen. For your convience:
Amendment I (1791) Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
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.
Name a regime, socialist, capitalist, communist, ANY regime at ALL that did't practice propaganda or censorship.
Now, all of you, get some fucking perspective. This isn't some left vs. right or Capitalist Pig vs Pinko Commie thing. This is basic human nature.
The people in power will attempt to stifle the ideas they disagree with. Period. The USA has a good track record for allowing 'disagreeable' speech but you don't have to go far to find censorship there.
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?
For christ's sake, people, get over it, leave your neighbours alone, and get on with living your life in your own little community and you'll be happier for it.
^ That's the fucking truth.
The darkness... controls the music. The music... controls the soul.
That proves there's no freedom of expression at all in France today. Yes, you can say anything at all, as long as you don't criticize [Hitler | Stalin | Fidel | Mao | The Pope | Elvis | Jay Leno], but who would do that anyway? Freedom of speech means being allowed to say anything, no matter how controversial or disgusting it may be.
"I couldn't disagree with you more, but I'll fight to the death to defend your right to say it"
Voltaire...
Also well known for: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
I will work to elevate you, just enough to bring you down
That's why I, as a parent, don't let the kids see news channels until I see what's playing. I didn't get the choice of screening Ms. Janet's chest. That is why people were upset.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Before throwing accusation only based on the hate of some Americans for the Germans and French, mainly fueled by the political international fiasco of the Iraq war you should look at this analysis of the free press around the world.
France and Germany are well respected free press countries. There is even this report of 2002 where Germany received a better rate for free press than USA.
USA is a great country with free press tradition but this doesn't means that other countries can't do a better job in this department.
Yahh, hiii haaaaa! -Major Kong, from Dr. Strangelove
warning is a good idea but the EU wishes not to warn but censor..to not let us say what we want to say..and that is scary. if we let the eu tell us what we can say and not say what will be next..its the classic slippery slope.
Coffee, you can sleep when you're dead!
The German regulation on "free speech" is essentially: it is forbidden to lie about the Holocaust, i.e., to deny the murder of millions of jews by the Nazis. In my view (and probably in the view of most Germans) this restriction is necessary in order to retain the memory of what happened and to prevent that it can happen again; furthermore, it is the least we can do for survivors and the families of victims. It is nothing to look down upon, in particular not for Americans.
The fact that all that is shown on TV, and people are also allowed to complain about seeing a part of anatomy that everyone, men and women, have, is a proof that there is freedom of expression in the USA. Remember this, freedom is *not* a question of the quality of the ideas expressed. Freedom is being allowed to express *any* idea, even if some people may feel shocked by it. No, I'm not a gringo. But I do envy the freedom o speech people have in the USA. In my own country (Brazil), saying anything the Roman Catholic Church or its followers don't like will put you in jail.
Ahh yes, the old "parenting" cop out...
Advertising for a four hour erection... Absolutely!
Three hours of men beating each other to a bloody pulp over a ball... You Betcha!
Flash a little boobie... WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!11!!oneone
[yawn]
...Rob
The American Dream isn't an SUV and a house in the suburbs; it's Don't Tread On Me.
Let's see- you have two groups that look different, but both are basically human (they don't even have to look all that different, it's amazing what the Norwegians call the Swedish). One group is percieved to have more than the other group (once again, it doesn't have to be much more either, just a majority in numbers is enough). So the other side has to start making up excuses for their lack- and that excuse is "we must be oppressed" (Envy). Likewise, the group with the power is using it to keep their position (Greed), and so make up excuses for the obvious disparity (the other side must be stupid/lazy/whatever). Since the only truly obvious difference is in looks, the pundits convince the stupid that looks is a difference- and that's where the racism comes in.
Simple fact of human behavior- and simple to eliminate by decentralization of power.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Unlike the conservative outlets in the US which try to pretend they are "fair and balanced"
You know what the funniest thing about this country is? Nobody EVER thinks anybody is 'fair and balanced'. If you are conservative you think the news outlets, Hollywood, etc.. are liberal. If you are liberal you think the news outlets, Hollywood, etc... are conservative. If you are black you think every white person is racist. If you are male you think every female is feminist. If you are woman you think every man is a pig. If you are straight you think there's a big gay conspiracy. If you are gay you think everyone is a homophobe. Of course I'm stereotyping, but I'm pretty sure nobody is as corrupt or biased as we all think they are.
As far as your comments concerning the US's track record for freedom of speech - most of the restrictions on the items you cite are imposed by public opinion, not the government.
For example, cable television stations are not under FCC regulations regarding content, but most still adhere to nudity and profanity standards. Some, like IFC, most movie channels, HBO, etc.. do not, but the majority do. Why? They are concerned about their ratings and public opinion, not any kind of legal ramifications.
In another example, I am a Sirius radio subscriber. Again, they are not subject to FCC regulations as to content. A few months ago they created an additional comedy station for adult content. Appearantly they felt that their customer base wanted a comedy station without vulgarity.
Find coupons in Greeley
-
"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.
It's called mercatilism, a prevalent economic form in Europe in the 19th century, and the primary economic policy of the Whig's and later, the Republicans, in the U.S. It was fought against for eighty years until Abraham Lincoln instituted it, imposing protective tariffs, subsidizing railroad and canal building, centralizing the money supply in a national bank, and giving birth to the military-industrial complex. Until then, yes, the U.S. was capitalistic - now, almost every administration since Lincoln (and certainly every administration since FDR) has broadened and expanded the mercantilist system in the U.S. The primary result? Now people distrust corporate America as much as they distrust the government, simply because they work so well together...
...and you run and you run and you can't stop what's been done...
As opposed to, say, France - where you have to show a Big Mac to get a whole nation in a panic.
"He who throws mud, loses ground." - proverb
Perhaps that might be true if this article was even close to accurate. However, this story had nothing at all to do with the EU or the EU government.
According to the story, the people who are proposing this are delegates at a conference organized by France and an organization called the Organization for The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe.
According to their website, this organization is "the largest regional security organization in the world, with 55 participating states from Europe, Asia, Central and North America."
Seems to me therefore, that it would be just as accurate for this story to have been written 'US Federal Government pushes to limit internet speech'.
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
As opposed to, say, France - where you have to show a Big Mac to get a whole nation in a panic.
Perhaps, but I hear that they're rather partial to a Royale with cheese.
What are you talking about? YOU GET FREE TELEVISION. This isn't a Movie you rent that says, "Brief Nudity, Mature Language..."
Be thankful you get Television in the first place and through Marketing/Advertising dollars you get to be entertained without costing you beyond the cost of a television set. When HDTV arrives and you become forced to either choose Satellite or Cable, then bitch about not having the right to descriminate. You'll still have no foundation since changing the channel still resides in your hands.
You are a prude when you can't fathom the natural phenomenon of human nudity as a normal part of human existence.
The top parent poster is right. People who bitch about the breast being exposed have deep seeded neuroses that go to the core of America's extreme Moral Minority who feel they know what is best and how to define the terms Liberty and Justice for All, Freedom for All.
I happen to think they're wrong, but when it comes to the danger of racist demagoguery, they have a very direct and painful perspective on the matter that you don't appreciate.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
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
"But yeah, the US is has a far better track record when it comes to freedom of speech, unless it involves nudity, or strong language, or unpopular opinions, or bad comments about the president during a time of "war," or graphic images of destruction, or...."
"involves nudity, or strong language, or unpopular opinions, or bad comments about the president during a time of "war," or graphic images of destruction, or....""
Well, let's try this one out:
1: Nudity. Pornography is legal in the United States, so long as it is not child pornography, and so long as it is not displayed in public (e.g. broadcast TV).
2: Strong language. Again, legal unless it's in public, and even there, it's rarely an issue. There are 14 words that can't be said on broadcast TV or radio. You can say whatever you want on cable.
3: Bad comments. No problem there. Many prominent figures, including John Kerry, are saying "bad things" about the president. Remember, there is a difference between something being "legal" and it being "acceptable". Kerry can't say but so much or he would alienate the public. Note also that you may have liability with libel/slander, but this is extremely difficult to prove in the US (you must prove that the comments were untrue, intended to be damaging, and that they actually did damage).
4: Graphic images. The media has made a choice not to broadcast such images. It is not illegal to broadcast such images. Many websites in the US do just this.
Now, on the "US media sucks" point, I agree 100%. Fortunately, newspapers and public radio are far better than cable news. There are plenty of high-quality, objective news sources in the US. But most of them aren't on cable TV.
which are far right, further right and KKK
I love how anti-Americans always bring up US racism. I talked to a bunch of Indian expats in France, and they had plenty of complaints about similar or worse problems over there compared to the US. France also recently banned its Muslim citizens from wearing headscarves and making a living at the same time, not to mention Germany's insanely restrictive citizenship policy.
Google confirms: Ruby is the world's most beloved programm
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?
The Nazis gave us a warning from history about the potentially lethal power of the spoken word. one of the most technically advanced and civilised nations on Earth was whipped into a frenzy of mass hysteria by the power of words. The holocaust should never have happened, it should never be forgotten, and it must never happen again.
The right to free speech is not absolute, nor should it be. There are more pressing rights such as the right to life. Where one conflicts with the other, it is the right to life that must prevail.
Drill baby drill - on Mars
But love of liberty has been ingrained and enshrined in the American character and laws for over 200 years.
Two hundred years, huh? And when was it that you repealed the laws on slavery exactly?
No one else except perhaps Britain can match that
Nah, we learned everything we need to know about freedom from the USA. Really. We'd still be in mud huts if it wasn't for the American people bringing us freedom and civilization.
Dude, your kids saw tits for the first time when they were sucking your wifes' so called "chest".
:P
As for Janet's little stunt, yes it was sort of retarded of her/them, but seriously, what damage did it do? Was a picture of Janet's tit permanently etched to your kid's retina? Yes, your kid saw someones tit... Not to be a troll, but why the fuck is that a problem? It was pretty innocent, and you sort of go over the top when you express your moral indignation about something that trivial... On the other hand, I live on the other side of the pond, so... I might not have the right mindset... ?
Our news stations were asking how you americans managed to procreate when you were so upset at seeing a *gasp* breast... With the lights off maybe? With gloves on? hmm....
Yes, I know, it's not that simple, and not every one of you shares the same opinion on this etc, but for chrissake, those of you that are capable of rational thought, slap a little sense into your poor rationaly challenged countrymen...
I'll probable be modded down... Oh well...
eh, did you read what you were replying to?
the whole act was a display of acting 'sexy', the showing of the nipple just bummed it less sexy if anything.
if you didn't want your kids to see a nipple(or anything sexual) you shouldn't have been letting them watch the show anyways. booty ass shaking was more than expected from the show, even more expected than what any breaking news murder at 7th street newsblurb would ever be.
-
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Who determines what propaganda is? If it's the government then it's bad. What may be "propganda" to one set of people may be considered truths by another set. Look at the different views in America between the left and the right - speaking politically. Liberals put out propaganda and conservatives put out their own. Other groups have their own propaganda.
Allowing the government to determine what is or isn't harmful is a "bad thing" because once you give the government an inch (or centimeter for you Europeans) they'll run with it and take much more than a mile. Good intentions notwithstanding, people should be allowed to say what they want - although I agree with punishment for abuse like you said.
Thanks
The reason why socialism will NEVER truly work (based in its true form) is due to human nature. As a species, Humans have evolved their brains through survival of the fittest. That is, only the strong survived and carried on their genetics to future generation. And thus, to this day the Human species continues to envy, hate, and extort those in the process to better suit them selves in hope of successfully procreating with the fairest of females. Ever wonder why society revolves around sex in some way or fashion? Basically, this is evolutionary psychology. It's a both a fascinating and sobering subject about our true nature. We are after all, animals. Some are just more civilized then others depending on who you talk to.
As stated before, socialism will never work because it leaves a vacuum of power and thus is a perfect breading ground for corruption (organized crime, mafias...etc). Prime examples are found in China and former Soviet Union.
Capitalism however works by going with human nature and exploiting it for all of society in a positive manor. Obviously, it's not perfect. But given Human nature, it's the best system available. I'm sure one day millions of years from now, socialism will work far better then capitalism will (that, or accelerated human brain modification through genetic engineering). But until then, just accept your race for which you are now a part of. Live it, love it, at the very least, and understand it.
Life is not for the lazy.
Yes You DID ! What did you think you were watching? A previously recorded, edited broadcast? No! It was LIVE. That means anything can happen, including "wardrobe malfunctions", and it won't be edited. Either accept your choices, or choose differently (ie, watch a later edited version).
Nathan's blog
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)
"Who the hell are the unthinking morons modding this crap insightful or interesting? At least somebody got the Flamebait right."
Whats a matter did someone get modded down?
"The fact is that anyone in power will stifle whatever they please. Or was Janet Jackson permitted her nipple exposure?"
No that is what the constitution is there for. Get it now?
"Jesus, you Americans and your so-called Free Speech and your worthless Constitution."
Well no bigotry there....You don't like it or us fuck off. See that is the down side of free speech. It mean anyone can express their opinion and not get arrested.
"Haven't you noticed that the Constitution is worth its weight in paper and nothing else?"
Want to bet? I am with my life. I have with my life and if I have to I will again.
"Haven't you noticed all the crap that's being done in the "land of the free" to remove those so-called freedoms?"
Not beyond the basics life liberty and the pursuing of happiness the right to peaceably assemble
"The US is no less censored nor restricted than France or Germany, it's merely done in different ways and in different spheres."
Actually it is. The neo nazis even have marches and web sites here. Because no matter how asinine the thought they are allowed to express it.
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.
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.
It is illegal in the US to kill a black. It is also illegal to tell someone to kill a black. It becomes a gray area to say that blacks should be killed. It's OK to say that you don't like blacks.
France for instance, partly because of its past, equates the statement "I love Hitler" with the intent to commit a crime. The US doesn't. But you have to see that it's all the same continuum of actions, with each country drawing the line at a slightly different place.
I think your point is that not all expressions of thought are legal. I agree. You can't yell "fire" in a theater or call in a phony bomb threat.
Sometimes rights conflict. The right of free speech and public safety as in the case of yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. However, most of the time when the right to free speech is challenged there is a clear conflict between exercising that right and the public good.
In the case of child porn there is a victim. The child must be protected and therefore you don't have a right to express yourself by taking pictures of under aged children engaged in sex acts.
In the case of hate messages it is less clear that there is a victim. Yes, it is possible that hateful posts could incite an unstable person into doing violence but so could a Rambo movie.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
Personally, I'm horribly offended that you think that the sight of a female nipple is potentially dangerous to your children...or to you. After all, male nipples are just fine on prime time. It's only women who are persecuted in this fashion in America; in fact, the outrage about Janet's nipple is a form of hate against women. But I digress; this discussion is not about hate crimes themselves, it's about attempting to prevent the discussion of hate on the Internet.
No, Muslim women aren't required by their religion to wear a headscarf: that's a fallacy.
Show me where it says that in the Koran and I'll stand corrected. But it's not in the Koran, so I don't think there's any danger of me having to do that.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
Ok and if I cut off the head of my neighbor because they are gay or because they piss me off, that should be tried different? Either way I went over there and cut off their head.
That is exactly the slippery slope that this sort of activity brings.
/., but the technological methods to restricting information of any sort on the internet are impossible. You might throw up roadblock and slow the data down somewhat, but it will still get through, particularly if the two people trying to exchange information are very determined.
And the U.S. diplomats are "resisting" this move? Give me a break, if they just don't outright say, "I'm sorry, but this is unconstituional and will never be allowed in the U.S.A." I might think they speak for me and my country. To even suggest that something like this could be compromised upon is missing even the basic principles of which America is founded upon.
Of course, the U.S. constitution has the same value as a roll of toilet paper now, so I'm not surprised either. International diplomats representing America seem to think the constitution is just a set of guidelines that can be compromised whenever they need to for their own self-interest or to achieve some diplomatic score, keeping some political ally happy.
Where the line is between stuff that is blatant political speech and truly graphic and vulgar acts (like the execution of Nick Berg or child pornography) unfortunatly is not as clear as it ought to be. Different cultures obviously have different viewpoints that determine what should and should not be allowed. The internet, unfortunately, follows the lowest common denominator with the idea that if it is allowed anywhere, it is allowed everywhere. I understand how this would be offensive to some people, and a large number of websites are offensive to me.
Who or what would be able to do that sort of policing on the internet? How? What about subsystems (like Freenet) that can bypass locks and controls? (Before you start blocking ports, keep in mind that if anything is available from a server, you can send anything of any sort... it is simply up to the person running the server to determine the content that is being offered, not the government that the data is being sent through.) All of this has been discussed amply before on
The next question to be asked: Why is anybody bothering to restrict this information? It is a futile exercise and the only answer I can honestly give is if government bureaucrats are spinning their wheels trying to resolve issues like this, they are eating up their time on unproductive issues that is keeping them from messing up other things. Maybe that is a good thing.
I realize that I'm pretty old-fashioned by Slashdot standards, but I believe that it's my duty to raise my children in a moral environment. Yes, I do believe that my morals are the correct ones; if I didn't, I'd change them. It has nothing to do with harm. Rather, I just don't want to force adult content (whether sex, nudity, violence, or the evening news) onto my preschool-age children. By the time they reach their teenage years, they'll have started to develop their own worldview and my responsibility at that time will shift to guidance and support. Right now, though, I'd rather not explain pictures of decapitations or sexual innuendos to the little girl running around in her My Little Pony pajamas.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
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
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
I *don't* care about the breast. It wasn't even noticeable. I thought the rest of the halftime show was in poor taste, but that's not the issue.
I don't let my kids watch live sporting events without a remote control in my hand because of the inappropriate *commercials* they show. Primarily movie trailers and promos for upcoming TV shows. I personally object to the violence rather than the sex (though it's the combination of the two that is the worst). Many of the ads for slasher movies or cop shows IMO cross the line, but the one that pushed me over the edge was an ad for "24" (a show I *watch*) where someone was being tortured. You didn't see much, but with a lurid voice-over, a bit of blood, and plenty of screaming, you didn't need to. Why are they showing that at noon on a Sunday?
They can show anything they want. That's their right. But they'll lose audience from the people who don't want to watch that stuff.
He decided to just watch the government, and kind of scale it down to size, and run his life that way. --Laurie Anderson
(ABC could even use Maniacal Wood-Sprouting Al Michaels' wardrobe malfunction as a message from their sponsor, Levitra. "Do you believe in miracles!?! YES!!!")
--All your stolen base are belong to Rickey Henderson
You know, every once in a while I have to add a few lines to a database, where I work, to prevent certain books from being shipped to the U.K., France, and Germany. Some of the books that are illegal to sell in France and Germany are 1936 Olympics memorabilia. (They were held in Berlin that year. There are swastikas in some of the pictures.) No such restrictions apply to the U.S. We regularly ship out books on how to do many illegal things...
* And remember, it's spelled N-e-t-s-c-a-p-e, but it's pronounced "Mozilla."
IANAL, but impossible necessary things don't stop being necessary, just because they are impossible. They're just impossible, and because they are necessary to the definition of a "Free" state, just like Microsoft produces non-Free software, they define western governments in general as non-Free. That in this particular case, it's quite legitimate for a French or a German not to be reminded every day of a lost loved one, or that a lost loved one may have been a war criminal, because that would border on harassment in many jurisdictions, means we have a hard(NP-Hard) problem.
How do we prevent an ideology who has been found guilty in court of crimes against humanity, from being hate and race-based, from promoting itself as hate and race-based? How many radical groups attract converts, not for their ideology or their ideas, but "who they are against"? When "who they are against" are a group of people that cannot be "discriminated against"(circa laws against discrimination in your own jurisdiction), you have two people who are arguing the position of a comma in a law. You have one person's face, and one person's fist, and the law becomes just how hard the fist has to hit before it's a crime...
As I said this is a hard problem, how do you determine the difference between the meaning of two relatively innocuous terms: National and Socialist, who basically mean "Us" and "Together", and their use as the label of a party who was identified as the perpetrator of (the numbers aren't all agreed on in all particulars) anywhere between 6 and 26 million dead. How do you tell the difference between "they had good words"(defensible, at least in the abstract, humans have defined "Us" vs "Them" since time immemorial) and "they had the right idea in killing those people"(which cannot be entertained lightly by a consciencious, sane human being even in numbers in single digits: I am trying to clarify the process in which law enforcement can express its reasoning here, because I believe that such a law enforcement process has to be transparent and understandable to someone without a law degree, not presenting my views). How do ideologies of damage and destruction can be defended, or find new converts, when the damage and the destruction itself are "not guaranteed rights" even when their espression in their abstract are inalienable rights? In this case, I'd redirect our readers to look a little closer to home, perhaps to Criminal Biker Gangs, who commit crimes, and where law enforcement officials demand methods to deal with such organised groups, and who are often denied, because "the right of association" is paramount; indeed it is paramount, yet its application, aka the details can certainly be argued for a more contextual interpretation: while the right to join into a group may certainly be a right, when this right is used to cover evidence of one or more crimes, we have to pick our poison... In light of the Enron and Worldcom scandal, we can also wonder just how many "legal associations" have been turned into a sham for using "rights" to hide evidence of crimes, or to protect those who think such schemes up from prosecution. How many people are hurt by such crimes? How many lives broken? What about the purchasing of political power through less-than-legal methods? Is a country where millions are affected by such crimes less or more free?
How can we tell? We usually can't, usually because the small, yet emotional cases can certainly be used as cover, for the large, unemotional cases that really affect our daily lives in a significant manner. How many policemen checking for "illegal content" do European governments in general have to task to finding paraphernalia vs locating child porn traders?
Europe is not more or less free than America or Canada, no, we're all non-free, to the last of us.
The world needs far less 'logical objections' and a severe reduction in US population.
Funny thing is, what you wrote could be considered hate speech, and therefore not allowed.
Fellowship 9/11
OK, then how about premeditated versus non-premeditated murder versus murder in self defense.
There's no such think as murder in self defense - if it's legitimate self defense, then it's just killing.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
The problem is once you ban racist speech in public, you immediately open the door for more laws that do nothing to actually curtail the problem, but rather limit the rights and freedoms of everyone.
That door has already been opened in the US: you may be able to defame minority groups, but you can't defame beef, milk, or trademarks. Likewise, you face restrictions on other kinds of speech: there are limits on the copyrighted content you can include in your speech, and as the Scientologists show, those can be made to stick. There are limits on how you can use trademarks in US speech. Etc.
No, what rankles people like you about these kinds of laws is that they are foreign restrictions on US speech. But every nation has restrictions on speech, every nation tries to export their restrictions, and every nation is successful to some degree at that.
Freedom is expensive, but it's something worth fighting and dying for.
Terrorists believe they are dying for freedom, and you can see what US attitudes towards terrorists are--people who blow things up and fight the US government. Face it: fighting and dying for freedoms is neither acceptable nor effective anymore, and it is becoming less so.
Gory murder, people getting killed by guns, violent cartoons that promote bad morals and bad habits, people blowing eachother up, and the late-night propaganda...er...news. And people complained about Janet's magical breast?
How bout you do yourself, and your kids, some justice and take your TV out into the middle of a forest, shoot it a few times, then go back to the store and pick up a computer for each kid, a family computer, and a fast internet connection (DSL or cable). Put it in their rooms, let em' go crazy, and make sure you tell them "if you've got any question, ANY question, ask me" and when they come up to you with the enivitablly crazy questions, don't get pissed, talk with em'.
"But we love the TV, the TV is our friend"
All the god box ever brought anyone is a cheap way for you to zone out for a few hours and do nothing. What about your dreams? Where are those every night you come home? Do you want to wake up one day, suddenly 60, and realize "I'v done nothing with my life, accept sit on this couch, and watch this TV".
Here's a challenge; go one week without TV. Find something else to do.
Candy-Coated Knowledge
Here's an article you should read: http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/egypt/?
I'll pull the relevant section out for you here:
(Bold emphasis added by me.)
So, tell me again about my "scewed" (sic) misconceptions?
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
That would be a magnanimous sentiment if you were actually the victim of hate speech.
I don't give a rats ass about being the "victim of speech" from some schmuck. However if I am a victim of an actual non-speech crime then throw the fscker in prison.
But by your likely economic status alone, chances are that you aren't, even if you are Jewish or homosexual or a member of another minority that is the target of hate speech.
I dunno about the original poster, but I qualify.
When you add up jews and homosexuals and blacks and muslims and asians and latinos and native americans and whoever else, it's damn near 50% of the US population. Several US states are substantially over 50% "minority".
I'll stick with the Stormfront.org assholes who get thrown in prison if/when they pull out a gun. They are much prefferable to government assholes pulling out guns and throwing people in prison because they don't like what someone says.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
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.
It always starts with the easiest argument.
Hate speech is bad. Let's ban hate speech.
Everybody agrees.
Racism is bad. Let's ban racism.
Everybody agrees.
Then of course, delighted with their success, it progresses.
Pirating is bad. Let's ban pirating.
Some grumble, but considering how we did it already, everybody agrees.
Pr0n is bad. Let's (restrict, then)ban Pr0n.
A LOT of people start objecting. But we've done it already, there is precedent, and Pr0n is much worse than pirating and we banned that right.
It progresses to violent films, hacking websites, open source, anti-globalisers, drugs, Rk&Rl, etc, etc...
The slippery slope has already begun. BT blocked access to kiddie porn sites. Now we all wonder, what will they ban next. And you know, some execs in BT are thinking the same thing.
You think it won't happen? It HAS happened. Several times. EVEN in America. Remember prohibition.
Sadly the price we pay for our free society is having to put up with racists and haters on the net. Call me apathetic, but I think this is a price worth paying.
May the Maths Be with you!
I believe Voltaire once said: "I may not agree with what you say, but I will fight to my death for your right to say it." I really like that quote.
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.
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
There is no such thing as unlimited free speech. Not in the EU, not in the US.
There are a lot of good reasons to stop "some" speech.
Consider:
- "Hi, Im William H. Vanderbilt, could I get a free ride on this here staten ilse ferry?" (I am not William H. Vanderbilt)
- "Fuck you cop"
- "Ill shoot you dead"
Three easy examples of were speech is limited.
Is it a good thing to ban "hate" speech? Hell, I dont know, define "hate"
"/Dread"
I hate to burst your bubble but that's reality, not racism, and to label every kid in the ghetto as envious is a total misconception. I live in a town that is basically divided into two sections. One section is a white, upperclass, society, and the other, where I live, is lowerclass and has many more minorities than whites. I am white but I learned a lot from living here. The cops practically live on my street. When I go to the center of town, where all the little shops are and where all the rich people live, I never see a single cop. They don't really ever leave my part of town unless called. Their presence puts a lot of pressure and stress on the people who live here. It feels like you are always being watched, and that feeling causes a lot of friction.
Time makes more converts than reason
The I would say that this is much more a social issue then a racial one. If the affluent neighboorhoods are able to sustain themselves without much police presence, but the lower class areas need to have near-constant patrols, it speaks more to the social instability of the lower class then it does the racial mixture in that area.
It's practically a fact that lower class neighboorhoods are more prone to crime. In the south, where many in the lower-class are white, crime is just as much an issue as it is in the poor urban areas in the north, mostly inhabited by "minorities". Haven't you ever watched the TV show Cops?
The unfortunate side effect of this is that, because of the stigma that the poor minorities cast on their races, affluent socities (in this case, whites) are more likely to associate those traits to any member of that race. It's Pavlovian Conditioning at it's worst, because it leads to discrimination, distrust, and hate. The only cure for this sort of behavior is education, both in the lower class areas (don't shoot people!) and upper class (just because a man is a member of a race that's associated with a bad part of town, doesn't mean he'll shoot you).
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