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
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. --
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 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.
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...
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?
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.
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.
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
"Too bad the US government can't be trusted to censor hate groups.."
No goverment anywhere should censor any private citizen. Unfortunately this seems to be exactly what the EU is proposing.
Its all about protecting the minority from the majority. Racists are the minority, just cause the majority of the people dont like what they have to say does not mean they should use the goverment to censor them.
What if racists became the majority? I would hope the laws in place would prevent them from having the government censor ME. And that _can_ happen. See WW2 for more information.
but I cant agree with "Too bad the US government can't be trusted to censor hate groups.." _NO_ government anywhere ever should be 'trusted' with that.
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....
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.
I think you're equating the federalism of the US with the quasi-confederalism of the EU. There are far too many key distinctions between the two models to justify your statement. The design of the EU's government and parliament, the rotating presidency, and the fierce nationalism that still pervades much of continental Europe really prevents the kind of powerful central government from emerging the way it did here in the United States. Unless some demagogue comes to the EU presidency and makes some substantial changes to the design of the EU government, the most power the EU will wield will be economic power, and even there such reach will be governed by the WTO.
I doubt you'll see a U-turn on this issue, primarily because of the fundamentally different outlook on government and rights between the two continents. For Americans, rights really are important, even though everyone who says "I'm defending the Bill of Rights!" tends to defend only their favorite few (i.e., the 1st for the lefties, the 2nd and 4th for the righties). Europeans still have an essentially monarchistic view of government's relations to its citizens: citizens are subjects of the government, and all rights they enjoy, they do so at the government's pleasure. Thus stopping people from saying bad things doesn't get people as uppity there as it does here. It's the same reason gun control is not as much of a hot topic as in the US.
B
"I'm payin' taxes, but what am I buyin'?" -- James Brown
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!
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 :)
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
This a fact that most people (even most Americans, sadly) do not seem to understand, and why much of the various "human rights" laws and such by various other "governing" bodies, like the EU and UN, are fundamentally flawed:
The United State's Constitutional Bill of Rights does not grant rights to the people, instead it seekes to limit our government from violating rights we intrinsically have because we are (supposedly, though eroding every day, it seems) "free men" - the rights we were "born with". That isn't to say our Constitution is "etched in stone" - it can and does change with time.
Back when our Constitution was written, for example, most, if not all, of the limitations in the Bill of Rights did not apply to black people or women. At the time, these groups of people were not seen as "free men", but rather as chattel, or property - thus members of these groups were unfairly prosecuted and worse. Over time, though, our Constitution was changed, via the ammendment process, to include these groups as people became more "enlightened" as to who was a person (sad, but true).
I could see such a process occurring again for hate speech - that is, an ammendment banning it. It would run counter the the first ammendment - but that hasn't, unfortunately, stopped things in the past (see the 18th Ammendment, for example).
What is more likely to occur is a similar "end-run" around our Constitution, much like both the DMCA and PATRIOT were rammed through - but first, they need to come up with a "boogyman" to allow for it (what that will be, is unknown)...
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
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'.
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.
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?)
"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.
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
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.
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
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)
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 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?
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"
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