Slashdot Mirror
EU Moving to Ban Online Hate Speech
WED Fan writes "Several members of the EU Parliament are moving to ban online hate speech. 'The draft of the declaration, which heise online has seen, calls on providers in somewhat vague language to make provisions against "hate pages" part of their standard terms and conditions.'"
...How long before the definition of "hate" is expanded to speech politicians don't like?
How do they ID hate speech? Is a cartoon Mohamed hate speech? How about a cartoon Jesus (South Park anyone?)
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
It's the beginning of a slippery slope that ends up where web pages, emails, documents, or speech that is anti-establishment becomes illegal as well. It's important to set precident with the less-obvious things early on so this slope is avoided altogether.
Sony ha
hate will grow as a result. This is a common human trait : when something is forbidden, people are attracted by it. Just ask any teenager smoking a cigarette in hiding.
But here's the proof, imho : in the US, where you can pretty much say any old darn thing short of direct calls to violence, neo-nazi, KKKs and other white supremacist groups exist, express themselves (much to the dismay of the local populace around them) and... they look like a small group of retards. On the other hand, in Europe, where you can't say something even remotely critical of the jews, and where naziism has become taboo to the point where it's not even possible to discuss the official head count of the holocaust without landing in the pokey, antisemitism, racism and extreme-right groups are growing at an alarming rate. Why? because these people stay hidden, embedded in the general population, by force of law, instead of coming out and showing themselves as the numbskulls they are like in the US.
So in short, banning hate speech will do nothing but promote hate. Well done EEC, some insight...
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
...is something to which I must express my disdain. People shouldn't be afraid what they say will be illegal. Think what you like, speak how you feel, but do not play innocent: your words can call you to be held accountable--but that doesn't mean you have no right to speak them. Should anyone attpemt to silence you, your writings, your thoughts, your person--this is even more of a reason to speak louder. I would rather there were a thousand Hitler-wannabe's speaking openly, than one doing so clandestinely. The evil we see can be defeated; the evil we don't see can defeat us.
Prohibition doesn't work for:
Alcohol
Drugs
Guns
Bad speech/thoughts
All attempts to enforce prohibition result in oppressive government, reduced civil liberties for all, and greater dissemination of the originally prohibited contraband.
"Prefiero morir de pie que vivir siempre arrodillado!"
First, let me say I'm an American. Second, let me say that I think the constitution is a great thing, but it's by no means perfect, which why it's important that the constitution can change and can be re-interpreted. Third, I think you can clearly define "hate speech" in the current culture and there's no reason we shouldn't make an effort to stop it.
To me hate speech is a severe form of slander and libel which is pushed upon one entire ethnic group or race. I think laws for hate speech are possible as long as you put strict requirements on it. Should I be able to walk down the street and call you a N*****? Legally, yes I should be able to. Should I be able to create a book detailing with no real scientific proof, that african americans are an inferior race of stupid people who should be shot an hanged on site for merely existing? Absolutely not. To me it's an extention of the same slander and libel laws. I could walk down the street and call you an asshole if you cut me off, but if I cook up some lies and speak about them publically or write an article on the web about you just to damage your reputation and make it harder for you to keep or find a job, then that should be illegal.
No society is absolute. Americans hold up the constitution as the ultimate black and white definition of what should and should not happen, but as time marches on, people evolve and grow ever more savvy about how to game the system.
And to those who think that the hate speech would evolve into squashing all free speech are offering up a red herring. Libel and slander as they are now are laws that limit your freedom to speak your mind, because in those cases you are hurting someone else. Same with yelling fire in a crowded theater. Freedom of political and social speech can been preserved just fine. Free speech is not a simple black or white philosophy and we forget exceptions and how we frame them when look at the freedom of speech.
The EU countries already have bans on hate speech, as does Canada and probably others. Different countries deal with different problems differently, and the US, while it has a strong protection of freedom of speech, also has problems with evil reactionary groups who are allowed to exist and spread what I consider the most evil of lies under the banner of free speech. I don't see the EU collapsing now because they crack down on hatemongers and I don't see it happening any time soon either.
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
"Should I be able to create a book -- ?"
Yes. Absolutely. End of story.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is insufficiently documented.
The core issue here is that we ultimately end up with a government sanctioned list of approved ideas. Any idea not on the approved list becomes anathema. In any sane society, the government has no business deciding on the merit of individual ideas. It exists to exercise the existing ideas and will of the electorate.
Remember, freedom to choose is the freedom to make bad decisions; there is no controversy in making good decisions.
"Man is nothing without the works of man" -- Helvetius
Hey Slashdotters, which is better, Linux or BSD? How's about emacs vs. vi? PS3 vs. Wii? Gnome vs. KDE? Best distro out there? Gun control: good or bad? What's hands down the very best language out there?
There, that should do it.
Want to improve your life? This guy will show you how!
So you can define hate speech.
And we could probably agree on what is acceptable and not.
But, the effect of an a priori prohibition speech based on its content damages society as a whole.
The battle over free speech isn't merely about public statements. It is also a battle over how best to address the problem of troubled individuals, who, while not criminal (yet), exhibit pathological tendencies. Without freedom of speech, we would have to wonder if everyone was out to get us. With freedom of speech, I have a reasonable assurance that I'm on good terms with others because they are free to let me know if they hate me or love me, or are merely indifferent. Hence, our collective sense of security and civil stability is very much tied to our freedom of speech.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
Sound familiar?
Drill baby drill - on Mars
Drill baby drill - on Mars
There is a HUGE cultural gulf between the US and Europe with regards to minorities. The United States, from the days of the colonies onward, has generally tolerated heretics and offshoot groups outside of local areas. While a town might have had an official religion, or even a county, it rarely expanded beyond a small local area. In addition, from the founding of the republic, the concept of all people here being citizens (except for Indians and black slaves) helped form that culture. In Europe, Jews were not considered citizens until relatively recently, and while having to contribute taxes to the crown were generally left alone complete with their own courts for civil and criminal matters, and communities. Similar rules applied to other groups of "others."
With Napoleon's conquests, the idea of people as citizens took hold, but it was culturally foreign, and integration never happened. Combine this with relatively small areas with different languages and religions, and you have homogenous countries that have been reared to hate the other because one was often at war with them.
Indeed, the initial efforts of the Nazi's were not the extermination of the Jews (although that was the end goal, they took stages), the first effort was to separate the assimilated Jews out of German culture, restoring their status as "others" to be distrusted by the people. Before they rounded my ancestors up into camps, they prohibited inter-marriage, and forced them to be separated from the culture. This was an important first step, because in Germany, the Jews were highly assimilated into the local culture, indeed the Reform movement was born in Germany setting the goal to assimilate, which is why so much of Reform cantorials and other German Jewish customs are borrowed from Lutheran protestant Curches through the assimilation there. In order to rile the people of Germany up against them, they needed to draw a line between Germans and Jews, which naturally made Jews the enemies and ripe for being attacked.
Europe's problems of racism and xenophobia stem from a culture of being at was with other groups and having them nearby. In contrast, in the United States, the former Slave and Jim Crow states, which have had a much shorter history of integration, suffer from more severe attitudes towards different races. It's not that racism and persecution doesn't exist in former Union States (it does, and may often be more severe), but the portion of the populace that would support race based laws is more minor.
I don't think that one can simply point to the US's First Amendment and Europe's post-War speech regulations and attempt to show that the latter causes growth of neo-nazism and the former stops it. I think that we have yet to see Europe get 3 generations from killing people for being "other" and Americans outside of the deep south haven't fought over the matter in 150 years and even in the deep south the civil rights movement was accomplished with relatively minor violence. Sure their were showdowns over integration of schools, but no pogroms. Even the worst abuses of people by the KKK pale in comparison to the European's behaviors, including wars over churches, kidnapping Jewish children if someone claimed the child was baptized, prohibitions of land ownership, etc.
There is a massive cultural gap between the US and Europe in these regards, the Europe's cultural elites are so removed from it they don't understand it. While the gulf is smaller in the US, our elites understand it enough to make fun of those that hate others, which is probably better than ignoring it... call someone an idiot or wrong, they fight back, just mock them, and they get embarrassed...
In this country, you have the right to say just about anything you like, including "nappy headed hoes." Nobody, however, has any obligation to listen to you or provide you with a venue to do so. Don Imus can stand on any street corner in the US and repeat that phrase over and over and he'll never wind up in jail over it.
Societal disapproval is not the same as illegal.
-- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
The GP said "condeming immoral behaviour" and you translated that as "hate homosexuals". (BTW my christian church does not consider homosexuality immoral) It is becoming more and more common that , stating your morals = hate. Unless of course those morals are the same as your morals. Then it's just helping to better society. Everyone likes to talk a good game about appreciating diversity and tolerance, but it's self deluding bullshit and this kind of law proves it. Tolerance is accepting someones right to have a different moral code or lifestyle than you. If it becomes criminal to publicly have a moral code that disagrees with a segment of society, then that law is the opposite of tolerance. Is the public defamtion of heroin addicts a hate crime? What about the legal and social punishment of those who practice beastiality? ...OH, we're only applying the new law or people we disagree with. How tolerant.
This law will become the equivelent of the UnAmerican Activites Committee. Welcome to the Witch Hunt.
We are all just people.
>The question is, in the end, which model is the more restrictive one ?
No contest. The one where you can actually end up in jail for something you've said.
-- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
If there's one thing that history has shown us is that banning something from the mainstream doesn't make it go away, in fact it makes it more cool and alternative.
Anyway one mans hate speech is another's fight for freedom.
Hate is always okay if you hate who the government wants you to. The two minute hate was hate for who Big Brother wanted them to hate, not hate for whichever group was whining and paying politicians at the time.
(rant coming) That's what this is. And it's ridiculous -- I have friends, lots of them, that belong to various groups that are maligned by other groups for ridiculous reasons. Everything from sexual preference, to religion, to skin color (and in one special case, all three, the poor bastard, he's got like eight groups hating him). But I still think banning any sort of "hate" speech is stupid.
It's a band aid. Most forms of hate speech come from ignorance. Fix that, you fix the people buying into the hate speech. At least, the ones that can be saved. The rest are fucking idiots. And banning hate speech won't fix it. It'll just push it under ground, and like marijuana in the United States, give it a "cool" status. Forbidding something naturally creates curiosity. Let the morons rant and rave and expose themselves for the fools they are so we know who to avoid.
I'd rather know who the racist/sexist/religionist/homophobic assholes are, than not. It makes life a lot easier for me when someone says "well you know how 'those people' are" and nods at me knowingly. No, asshole, I don't, and you can take your baseless hate elsewhere.
How many years has the US *not* been at war? 10-20, in it's entire history, maybe?
Um. One Asian-bred youth at Virginia Tech murdered 32 mostly American-bred people (modulo a Holocaust survivor here and there). And I don't even know what point you are trying to make about Iraq. You're probably just an idiot or a troll, but I did have to at least clear up that the murderer at Virginia Tech was not born in America and, if Virginia Tech were not a defenseless victim zone, he may have been the second or third to die instead of the 33rd.
Please stay where you are, you will be brought to Guantanamo very shortly.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
I am already pretty against the "hate crime" laws in the US for the very reason mentioned above. The crime should be what is punished for, not the thought and intent behind it.
Given crime == 5 years in jail
Given crime + hateful thoughts == 8 years in jail.
Then following through...
hateful thoughts == 3 years in jail
The fact that you have quantified a pattern of thought as being punishable by 3 more years in jail is far FAR too Orwellian for my tastes. It's the legal equivalent of venial sins, not bad enough to be a sin on it's own, but definitely bad enough to increase your penance for a mortal sin.
Something which is free , by definition, is something which has no restrictions placed on it. Freedom of speech means freedom to say things which aren't popular opinions. The EU is futher taking away free speech with this. (It was already not really free with the current laws in place)
Here's a question, since the Quran tells Muslims to kill the disbelievers wherever they find them (Q. 2:191), to murder them and treat them harshly (Q. 9:123), slay them (Q. 9:5), fight with them, (Q. 8: 65 ) even if they are Christians and Jews, humiliate them and impose on them a penalty tax (Q. 9: 29). (quick and dirty google for that.. http://www.sullivan-county.com/x/sina.htm ) Does this mean the Quran is a "hate text"? Would reading those passages be "Hate Speech"?
Whereas I don't agree with those things, I respect the right of someone else to think and believe them. Now, if they act on those beliefs then they are transgressing against the rights of others to things such as life and liberty. At that point it's punishment time. But not punishment for believing it, punishment for the act expressing it.
I'm a fiscal conservative, it's a pity we don't have a political party anymore