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?
At last, freedom from speech!
I really hate this, and having said that, can't vacation in Belgium any more.
You can't talk about Wikipedia's flaws on Wikipedia
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.
Gotta love how some governments think they have power over the internet.
God spoke to me.
Isn't this article a "hate page" it's even in the topic. But then again, you could take all the anti MS stuff around here for the same thing.
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
I thought Europe was a bastion of freedom and civil rights. Oh wait, it isn't that at all.
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"
You hateful hating haters, I hate you with hatred!
Rights disappear whenever people stop using them. So I suggest we let go on the hate speech in this specific thread and have a hateful conversation (you fucking nerdy retards)
\u262D = \u5350
"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
Drill baby drill - on Mars
Libel and slander, like yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater, are not crimes of speech. They are crimes because of the actual harm they cause (such as monetarily verifiable damage to a professional reputation or physical injuries caused by a panicked mob).
We already have laws for the things you are talking about, involving things like inciting violence.
How often have you heard about a case where someone caused actual harm to anyone, that went unprosecuted, that would have been a violation of your vision of a hate speech law?
"Prefiero morir de pie que vivir siempre arrodillado!"
damn, how can I talk about microsoft then?
The MAFIAA is a bunch of mindless jerks who will be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes
There is little argument nearly so good against bigotry as the exposure of that bigotry in its naked form. You want to see something that will sicken, and make you realize how truly small-minded these people are? Visit the forums of white supremacists, anti-semites, or anyone that such a law would legitimately be used against.
Show people the worst malformed logic and ranting and hatred of that world, so they know better to check themselves of its beginnings.
Drill baby drill - on Mars
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.
I wonder how many people that got inflamed by this post read the name of the poster's website....
Imus' freedom of speech was never at issue. He can say whatever he wants, and his employers can fire his ass if he's not bringing in the money anymore because people get sick of him.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. -Possibly Franklin
The boisterous sea of liberty is never without a wave. - Thomas Jefferson
You don't see EU collapsing because they crack down on hate mongers but you do see them putting up cameras and proposing DNA databases. Little steps at a time. Hitler didn't come to power either in one day, he took gradual progress steps till it was too late.
If you want to write a book about how Asians are devil race and problem with America and use some crappy facts to back it up, go for it. Same 1st Amendment that gives you the right to write such a book gives everyone else the right to write a book calling you a crackpot.
What are you going to do when that "evil revolutionary group" has now been declared to be ACLU or NRA which you might be a member. (At least NRA will be armed)
Sound familiar?
Ancient history.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Hello. I am new. I hope everyone treats me well. I am pretty sensitive.
Drill baby drill - on Mars
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
Thats the rub. Who gets to decide what is legitimate criticism and what is slander?
If I publish a book that says Blacks have lower average IQ and back it up with scientific studies, am I afoul of your proposed law? Is it automatically assumed that all people are 100% equal and that any stated deviation, by its nature, is 'hate'?
What about the holocaust? What if I believe it did not happen, or did happen but the numbers were exaggerated and want to publish my ideas with some interpretations of evidence and history to back up my claim? Many people are in jail right now for doing just that.
These kinds of laws are severe assaults on objectivity and freedom of conscience as well as freedom of intellectual pursuit. Many people are more interested in keeping people from being offended and protecting ideologies from being questioned because it may hurt feelings or question widely accepted dogma.
Yes you can.
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
Drill baby drill - on Mars
Not black and white. Right and Wrong.
You are right that the Constitution is a living document, open to interpretation by the Supreme Court. However, stilfling free speech no matter how reprehensible, goes against the core tenet upon which the United States was founded. Once you hand over to the Government the power to decide who can say what, democracy will have failed. It becomes a slippery slope, and all it would take is another 9/11 for the Government to expand the definition of hate speech to unforseen things. Pre-9/11 would you ever have thought wire-tapping, secret prisons, and torture would be openly condoned by our Government? The Bill of Rights are not subject to withdrawl, they are Rights, not priviledges. As people like to say, freedom isn't free. And one of the prices you pay for freedom is giving the most vile and evil citizens their voice too. They also say the price for freedom is eternal vigilence, and that too is apropos. Just because you allow hate groups to voice their thoughts, does not mean you don't keep close tabs on them.
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...
There were quite a few nazis tried for various war crimes and crimes against humanity. If Hitler hadn't punched his own ticket straight to hell, you can bet that the Nuremberg Trials would have done it for him.
"Prefiero morir de pie que vivir siempre arrodillado!"
Drill baby drill - on Mars
Come on, man. That is probably the lamest thing I've heard all day. Just because someone used the power of speech and propaganda for the purposes of evil certainly doesn't mean speech was to blame.
That line of reasoning will get people into way more trouble than whatever these laws are supposed to prevent.
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!
Imus will probably get a bigger job or write a book and make even more money, or god knows what. He's famous now. Before this no one had heard of him. Grats to him.
Being able to be fired or made fun of because of public outcry over something you've said or done is FINE. He has free speech just as the rest of society can shun him or his employer can fire him for saying something dumb. Personally, I don't think he should have apologized one bit. He shoulda called all the offended people nappy headed hoes too, but whatever.
The difference here is he isn't being threated with charges or put in jail or anything like that.
Society is free to stop giving the guy any money. His employer is free to fire the guy. The government isn't going to come after him, though. Huge, HUGE difference.
Say I worked for a company that was ran by a jewish guy. I then go out into the street a few years later with a huge "jews worship satan and are all fags" sign. I get fired because my boss was offended. This does not mean i odn't have free speech. The government isn't going to come arrest me. Instead, society is goign to laugh at me for being an idiot, I'll lose my job, and people will make fun of me for saying something dumb. Doesn't mean I don't have free speech. If, like in some places in europe, you could get in trouble from the government for saying something like that, then we wouldn't have free speech.
replacing it with NEW Folger's Crystals! (lets see if they notice the difference)
He was fired because several large advertisers publically distanced themselves and their money from the show. No advertisers, no money, no show - no matter how many listeners you have. That, ultimately, is why I think he got fired. Doesn't change a lick about the fact that what he said showed him to be racist and sexist, but that's beside the point.
Freedom of expression means that you can say whatever you want, and I can't enlist the government to sop you from saying what you want. However, it doesn't mean that I'm forced to subsidize anybody's attempts to make themselves heard. Don Imus could get into pod-casting (though there's no guarantee he'll be carried by iTunes). Due to the ISPs common carrier clause, they'll take his money and host pretty much whatever he wants. So Don, you wanna talk about nappy-headed hos - go get a server, a T1 (or 10), and set up shop on the internet. But don't complain that your constitutional rights were infringed, because they weren't. Your constitutional right to be an ass does not preclude my constitutional right from calling you on it, and pressuring your advertisers to drop you like a hot potato.
I have to stay, I'm stumped by the amount of people who misinterpret the first amendment as a requirement for others to stay silent when they say anything.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Having spent some time living in Germany, and more than a little touched by the horrific things the Nazis did myself, let me point out that freedom of speech in the 1930 and 1940's did NOT do that.
It was simply a streak of evil that ran through the Axis, and one that is still not fully resolved today. That streak was exploited by the DDR for example - freedom of speech was not something East Germans knew about, but murder, torture and discrimination were still common right up to 1989.
Today Nazism is rampant in the former Eastern German states (nearly 1.8 million votes at the last election) and the current policy on banning free speech in Germany disguises what a truly significant and growing problem it really is.
The Imus case is a perfect illustration:
Europe: Hate speech is banned by law (state censorship)
US of A: Hate speech is curtailed through auto-censorship (commercial censorship)
The question is, in the end, which model is the more restrictive one ?
I would love to jump on the bandwagon here, and I do think this is a silly move, but it is not always easy to pass judgments like this about free speech issues. Slightly offtopic, but this comes up alot on slashdot:
In places where the concerned population is largely homogeneous in their beliefs, interests..etc, the public voicing of sentiment that is aggressive towards the said populace/causes them considerable disturbance is not always easy to defend. This is because the "hate speech" is seen as an affront to the nation as a whole, and the government is supposed to be a collective representation of that nation. Defending the right to that kind of speech in public places/widely publicized media would mean that the government would have to protect the speaker against an overwhelming majority of its own populace, and in recent times that kind of defense becomes food for extremism of all kinds.
The solution is not always to uphold free speech defiantly. That would be a great ultimate goal, but it doesn't happen overnight. Solution: education. The said public needs to understand and embrace the notion of free speech fully before a government can protect those rights.
In this case of course, the internet does not apply, and the proposed law is stupid, taken from any angle. Also, that this is being proposed in Europe of all places is very, very sad. What happened to France, champion of liberty, and the eastern block which remembers the horror of totalitarianism to this day? Haven't they learned from their post-Nazi policies that have produced nothing but xenophobia and racism in their countries?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Theroux's_Weird _Weekends
The man's style is great - just let them say all kinds of crazy, no need to be aggressive back, they'll do all the work.
All that means to me is that those countries were prone to Hitler/Stalin ideas in the past, and they're prone to them again.
True freedom of speech INCLUDES the freedom to offend. Otherwise, you must accept that it is NOT free. That's a fact, Jack!
What?
Freedom of Speech does not mean immunity from the consequences of that speech. Imus generated a great deal of negative opinion and while his coverage may have increased, there were a number of advertisers who had threatened to pull their business from the network. The network, not the government pulled his show off the radio. Freedom of Speech only covers the government suppressing speech - private individuals are allowed to ignore or punish speech that they don't agree with in any (legal) way that they choose. In the Imus case we have a excellent example of social pressure limiting him from a soapbox that gives his attitudes legitimacy. He can call anyone he wants a 'nappy-headed hoe' now, but he will have to do it without his radio show. NBC is under no obligation (other than contractual) to provide him a soapbox, and when it threatened their bottom line they dumped him. Until the latest outrage NBC had tolerated his intolerant speech because none of their sponsors had received any pressure over their presence on his show. I think that this is a great thing - it shows that the free market can enforce a certain amount of decency on the air. I'll admit that I like it a lot less when the social pressure is coming down on me for an unpopular opinion, but if you can't take the heat then stay out of the kitchen.
Sorry, but nazis are banned, it does not matter whether you are a real nazi or a grammar / spelling nazi, the law is blind you know. I have just called Europol to report your transgressions, have a nice day!!!
"Civis Europaeus sum!"
How long before the definition of "hate" is expanded to speech politicians don't like?
I'm sure that its just a matter of time before speech/writing involving other sorts of emotion are similarly banned...
The UK is already effectively banning speech critical of the government...
They have a thing called an "Antisocial behavior order" or "ASBO" with which they can slap a restraining order on someone, restraining them from pretty well anything the judge feels like, eg raising your right hand above your waist. Violate the terms of the ASBO and you go straight to jail until you agree to comply.
Naturally, since (as Tony Blair would say) criticising the government is antisocial behavior ("You can't get much more antisocial than attacking the government") any form of dissent could be subject to an ASBO.
I am sure that hate is just one of the emotions which the government (and EU) will save us from.
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
"Should I be able to create a book detailing with no real scientific proof, that african americans are an inferior race of stupid people"
....But if it was illegal...
Yes. And the rest of us will make fun of you for being an idiot. You will be mocked, your friends will leave you, your family will alienate you, and your ideas will be shot down as coming from a complete retard. You will be fired from your job for being a hateful bastard. Kids will point at you. You will die alone and scorned. Your ideas WILL GO NOWHERE.
"Psst, this book is illegal. The government doesn't want you to read this." What does that make you wanna do? It makes you want to read it.
If you wanna get powerful off of hateful ideas, it's probably a lot better for you to if they are illegal. It basically automatically gives you credibility and attracts followers.
replacing it with NEW Folger's Crystals! (lets see if they notice the difference)
Obviously we should try to prevent people from murdering others (preferably we should encourage people to avoid letting themselves be murdered), but saying that we could prevent murder by restricting people's right to free speech is just ignorant.
You can't erase hatred, intolerance, and bigotry by forcing it into the shadows; you can only combat it with enlightenment.
"Prefiero morir de pie que vivir siempre arrodillado!"
I'm not the grandparent, but I don't see it as a good thing or a bad thing. Sometimes, when you say mean things, people get offended. That's just the way society works. If others learn a lesson and mind their manners, that's just a result of society's reaction to bad behavior. If you really want to say things like that, go right ahead. Just be aware that a large segment of society doesn't particularly approve. Personally, I think that the whole social dynamic that was exposed in the process was interesting. I like Matt Taibbi's take on it quite a bit.
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
Where would Slashdot be without hate speech?
Hopefully I didn't put any [] around my words.
Classifying speech is inherently hard to do. The problem comes because brightline definitions in these cases are inherently overinclusive or underinclusive in speech they cover. Lets take you definition for example:
Using your definition, "severe forms of libel or slander" would be allowed against homosexuals because they are not an "ethnic group or race." "Fine," you say, "let's extend the definition to include sexual orientation." Now you have just protected pedophiles from "severe forms of slander and libel" because they can claim their views on sexuality as a sexual orientation. How about little people? Can I call them midgets? How about the handicapped? Can I advocate for their extermination because they are a drain on the resources of society? I hope this illustrates the problem with drawing a bright line.
Then we get to the question of whether banning "severe forms" of libel or slander is enough to stop hate speech. You suggested the following is hate speech because it is libelous:
How about if someone were to write a books saying that African Americans were inferior (and shoudl be shot) because they were more likely then the general population to have sickle cell anemia, and because they score demonstrably lower on standardized tests and have lower graduation rates? There is nothing libelous or slanderous about that because assertion of inferiority is based on true facts. This would be completely acceptable under your definition (i.e., not hate speech), and, if anything, would have a greater effect then mere libelous hate speech because the assertion is based on verifiable facts.
My point here, isn't to disparage homosexuals, African Americans, or little people. It's merely to illustrate why a brightline definition for hate speech is so hard to come up with. I'm just a second year law student and I eviscerated your definition. Imagine what a real lawyer or the ACLU could do. Heck, the Supreme Court has been trying to draw lines around the First Amendment for 60 years, and they haven't even been able to come close to defining and delineating types of speech. Speech is inherently hard to define or classify; that's why the best solution is not to define or regulate it and let the market place of ideas work its magic.
The sun beams down on a brand new day, No more welfare tax to pay, Unsightly slums gone up in flashing light...
If I may paraphrase Dennis Miller from his pre-conservative-ideologue days on this subject:
Suppression of speech produces people like Hitler; free speech produces people like David Duke.
Not allowing speech that is hateful just drives it underground where such ideology can fester. I would much prefer to let people blow off their steam in freely and in a controlled manner where everyone can see who they are. I have never understood this presumed right to not be offended. I know that hearing hearing a racial slur can be quite painful (having endured a couple in the last few years) but do these people really think they are going to stop racism by banning some expression of that racism. All it will do is lull the target race into thinking everything is okay when in reality the hate is still there, just hidden. This is a bad idea, it is.
My other computer is a Jacquard loom.
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.
He might not end up in jail that easily but chances are he'd end up in hospital or even dead.
It' just that aspect what has thought the Europeans a historic lesson, there are limits to what a democratic society can bear before it falls victim to it's own liberties.
Many of us Europeans prefer some legal tools to stop the idiots.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
If the US is still acting like this in 2400, you might have a point.
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
In the words of the great ones... QQ more EU n00bs!! (If you deny hate in a text format what do you think it will become?)
Since this is Slashdot, shouldn't you use some slurs for certain technical subcultures, like Mac users?
Oh, looking again, you did mention "fags"
Hopefully I didn't put any [] around my words.
No, all of his sponsers dropped him because they did not want to be unassociated with him. Further, black members of NBC were pissed off and told NBC and started to threaten to quit. This is free speech at its finest. Say what you want, but don't expect other people to like what you say. Further, Imus is hardly a victim. Imus is a millionaire. Not only is he a millionaire, but he is a millionaire likely to pick up a big fat contract from satellite radio if he so desires.
Freedom of speech is not promise that people have to associate with you. The KKK can run around screaming for blacks to go back to Africa, but it isn't like anyone is obligated to give them coverage. Freedom of speech is as much about saying whatever you damn well please as it is being able to freely associate or not associate with whomever you damn well please.
Imus free speech rights are have been perfectly protected... as have the rights of all the people who decided to speak negative things about him or refuse to give him money to continue speaking.
Wow.. what gaul you have speaking for me (a jew).
I dont like what they say, but i'll be damned if im going to step on their right to speak, because once its gone for them it could be gone for me too.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
if by "society" you mean a few, shrill extremists who feign oversensitivity to attack people they dont like than sure, "society" determined that doing so was unacceptable.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
If you're arguing that the distinction between "hate speech" and "speech inciting violence" is too weak to merit legislative protection, I would offer an adaptation of the following argument, one I heard recently and found compelling.
Hate crimes are terrorism. We single both of these out because there are two crimes being committed: the first is the violence committed against the person(s) and the second is the threat of violence to the group that person represents. That person is targeted- and that group is threatened- because the violence contains an additive, symbolic threat of violence against the rest of the group.
I expect you will argue that I've entirely missed your point, since you're concerned with speech and I'm talking about crimes. The symbolism of the violent act requires the violent act by definition, and the threat of violence alone cannot carry that symbolism. However, violence rarely emerges from nothing, and by definition the "hate crime" emerges from a culture of hatred. The conditions for the possibility of the hate crime are created by the speech we're discussing; this is also the forum where such crimes are celebrated and the executors- sometimes literally- elevated. The speech is carefully crafted to encourage individual action against a group for grievances- most imagined- endured by another. Legally, it is very, very hard to tie the particular crime to a "culture of hate"; those responsible for creating the culture that begets directed violence- the organization ensuring the "threat" intended by violent hate crimes is clearly understood by the target group- are unlikely to face any penalties, ever. That doesn't seem quite right.
This observation doesn't recommend any particular type of law that might thwart such speech, but it is a sound argument for discouraging it, somehow. At the very least, it recommends against regarding all speech as equally benign (the "only actions matter" argument).
>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!
He could, and still can, say anything he wants. He was dropped because sponsors were dropping ads on his show in large numbers. His freedom of speech was not violated, his employers just made a prudent decision.
I'd just like to say that I HATE the EU for doing this.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Coverage is pointless if you don't bring the money in. Pets.com got tons of coverage with their Superbowl ads, not that that really improved their business any. He was dropped by the station because the sponsors dropped him after the controversy flared up. They dropped him because they didn't want to be associated with him. Freedom of speech means you can say what you want, but it doesn't mean that people have to provide you a forum for it if they don't want to, nor does it mean anyone has to agree with you or has to support you in it.
Yes, but the US has a nice clear European example to work from so let's hope it can learn this lesson in less than 400 years. After all, the US has done a pretty decent job of getting up to speed in many other aspects of its culture.
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
Oh, us American types do, too. Our tool to stop the idiots is called the "1st amendment." It just isn't working very well right now. Free speech zones, radio and television censorship, permits required to assemble, that sort of thing. We've got some legislators and judges that can't read plain English, and that tends to break things.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Let me suggest some different actions:
Should I be able to give a speech saying "Kill the niggers... we intend to do our part!" as long as I am not at the same time moving to make such promises a reality? Absolutely.
Should I be able to write a book saying that Jews are out there to take over the world, have already done so with core institutions and are going to establish a dictatorship? Absolutely.
Should I be able to write a book suggesting that Islam was founded by someone who invented the religion to satisfy the needs of his war-based empire? Absolutely
However, when people start booing at me, when people start sending me hate mail, or suggesting that I am a bad person because I write or say such things, should I be able to hide behind the idea that I was "only excersizing my freedom of speech?" Absolutely not. Their speech should be as free as mine. And in the US, I guarantee that any of the above ideas would not win me too many friends.
And just because you *can* write or say something doesn't mean there won't be consequences.
BTW, most countries have a sort of wishy-washy definition of free speech (and this includes all of Europe and the Islamic world too, and even the US prior to Whitney, Yeates, and Brandenburg). In this idea freedom of speech is inherent provided that it is not a part of a "bad tendency" that is dangerous to society (to paraphrase Oliver Wendle Holmes). The problem is not just that this is a slippery slope but that it also denies the society the corrolary to the freedom of speech, which is the right of rebuttal.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Yeah, but in 1984, the gov't arranged a "two minutes hate", while in real life, the governments are actually banning hate. Explain that one!
:/
Oh, right. The doublethink
"When the atomic bomb goes off there's devastation...but when the atomic bong goes off there's celebraaaaation!"
Oh please you can't even say "fuck" on US tv..
Well... not really. In the US, first the government created artificial scarcity by denying the people access to the airwaves unless they were rich, in which case they were sold the right to broadcast for many miles. Then we applied direct censorship and religious preference to the resource, via the FCC. "Obscenity" and other religious impositions, you see. Since it is the government that artificially made radio a commercial enterprise, you can still lay the blame for "commercial" censorship, as you call it, at their feet.
Without the government, anyone could have access to the airwaves. There's nothing magical or technically difficult about running a radio station. Takes about $50 worth of parts to reach all over a small town, and there are many available channels and bands upon which we could do so. But that's all a pipe dream. We're not allowed to have anything like that. That would require... a free country. Nothing like that around here.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
He wasn't fired because he wasn't bringing money in.
He lost several major sponsors in the week before they canned him. His boss decided he wasn't worth the trouble anymore.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
The reason you don't ban hate speech, at least, the reason beyond the fact that it leads to the suppression of all speech, can be illustrated by something that happened in my town about a year back.
I live in Austin, Texas. Texas is a conservative state, and Austin is a liberal city that also happens to be the capitol of our state. The means that groups from across the state congregate here to protest, rally, and so on. Well, about a year ago, the Ku Klux Klan of Texas decided to hold a rally in front of our city hall. For weeks beforehand, there was debate over whether the city was right to grant a permit for the rally to the KKK. They decided to in the end. And what happened?
Maybe ten Klan members showed up. Maybe. They were greeted by something close to a thousand protesters as cops watched on in riot gear. There was no altercation, it was just made clear for the crowd, the media, and the people at home that the Klan was exactly how they perceived it: a group of ugly, not-so-bright rednecks that is very few in number.
The lesson? Let these people expose themselves for who they are, the population's mean attitude towards such things has shifted to the point where even ultraconservatives find groups like the Klan repugnant, and they'll only diminish the popularity of their cause. If the rally had been suppressed, it would have only served to reinforce the perception that Klan members [and whites in general] are being persecuted, and groups like this operate by convincing economically disadvantaged people that they are being persecuted.
The solution to hate speech is to not listen. An even better solution is to listen and laugh.
Before this no one had heard of him.
He was the #2 shock-jock in the country, right after Howard Stern, and ahead of Rush Limbaugh. Lots of people had heard of him.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
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.
I thought Europe fought hard to prevent fascism in WWII against the Nazis. Now they are turning to fascism to fight hate? How in any way does this make any sense? It is just crazy!!!
I'm all for free speech, but when it incites violence against specific people, ethnic groups, or whatever it may be, that's when it crosses the line. I've posted this before, but about a year ago a there was an incident in Warsaw where a man was beaten and stabbed by some skinheads who got his info off of an anti-socialist website run by neo-nazis that posts photos, addresses, and phone numbers of "antifascist activists" which used to be loacated at www.redwatch.info and now has several domains probably due to some ddos attacks. Those pricks deserve alot worse. It would be nice to see such hate inciting sites banned, but I'm a little wary of possible excessive use of it.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. indymedia
you know.. georgia speaches?
they make a really good cobbler
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
those that thrive on it will go underground, out of the public eye, recruiting more members.
they serve as an example... a bad example
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
I suspect that freedom of speech was somewhat freer during the NS-Zeit in Germany than it is currently anywhere under 'political' correctness. Anyway, so-called 'hate-speech' laws is not really an attempt to stop the hate but an attempt to control political discussion about those subjects that the alleged haters care about. These tend to be focused around immigration, migrant workers and refugees. If you can control and manage what people talk about on a particular subject, you can also control the outcome. This is what 'political' correctness is really all about.
Racist.
Drill baby drill - on Mars
Dear Members of EU Parliment, I have absolutely had it with Politically Correct bullshit. Fuck you and everybody who thinks like you. Hateful enough for ya'?
I live in Brazil, and here, any form of hate speech is not only banned (Against Gays, Blacks, Indians, Jews, Muslims or any other minority group), but its a criminal act, meaning that you are going to face up to 5 years in jail with no right to bail.
Recently, there has been a case of a man who was considered guilty for saying that "even an animal would make a better mascot than an indian", and some time ago an Argentinian soccer player was arrested for calling another player a "Black piece of sh*t" or something of the sort. (He didn't know the law)
Not only can you not say those things in the media, but you can't say them in any circumstance, even walking down the street. If you say something racist, and someone near you is offended, they can sue you, and provided they have witnesses, you *WILL* very probably be facing some kind of punishment.
Right now, the government checks message boards for hate speech, chat rooms, and it's probably not long before they start checking your e-mails. Google, who controls the social-networking site Orkut (The number 1 site in Brazil), has been forced to reveal real identities and the IP addresses for literally hundreds of people with similar charges, and while they were reluctant to hand them in at first, now they do it with relative ease, all the police/federal agents have to do is ask.
To Americans, this law may seem like a huge violation of one's civil liberties, but here in Brazil, most people support the law, (Well, they could be sued for hate speech if they said they didn't) but anyway, so far it has been working as intended. (If that Imus thing happened in Brazil, he'd be in real trouble). Unlike in the US, hate speech here is relatively rare, specially after those new laws were passed.
Before you say "how long until politicians start censuring whatever they don't like", the anti-hate laws are very clear, they only apply to hate speech, and any attempt to increase the scope of the law would be met with fierce resistance from civil liberties groups.
However, one thing that *does* happen very often here is that politicians/etc. can sue newspapers for defamation and slander with relative ease, even if what the paper is reporting is 100% true. As a matter of fact, usually if anything "damaging" is printed on the newspaper, they will get sued, and unless it's some sort of huge scandal, it's not unheard of for the newspaper to lose.
This would be consistent with Europe's history, and it seems they have not learned a thing from the history of their past 200 years.
I agree with you up until right there.
I think they have learned from the last 200 years -- but remember, the people currently in power are, indirectly at least, the winners of the past armed conflicts, in most cases. So on some deep level, they may not be that afraid of producing conflict, because mentally they'll always position themselves on the winning side.
I'm not sure that's the whole of the explanation (actually I'm sure it's not) but it's something to keep in mind whenever you see a government or group of people within a government that's gone through a lot of violent conflict, provoke more violent conflict -- since they see themselves as already having survived a lot of it, they commit a sort of reverse-gambler's-fallacy and assume they'll definitely win the next round.
What keeps people at the table, doing the democratic thing, is the fear that if push came to shove, they might lose.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
What is the slashherd's consensus on this?
No it isn't. The question is: which model is the more dangerous one?
:)
:) ... they call themselves the "National Front". A few years ago there was a big student rally in my home city against racism. These guys decided to have a counter rally at the same time, and claimed to be bringing hundreds of people who supported their views. Nobody would send them to jail for it - they were welcome to show up and voice their views to the crowd.
Clearly the former.
Historically, oppressive governments have been very quick to both (a) gain control of the media; and (b) stifle dissenting / critical opinions voiced publically, in order to solidify their power. Heck, not just historically - take a look around the world today. China is a classic example of this tactic in current use.
Freedom of the press and freedom of speech / expression for individuals is a principle intended as a defence against the government. That's a very basic point. Heck, I'm not even American and I understand that much
That does not mean there are not social consequences attached to what you say - you're still responsible for your actions. This is something a lot of people don't grasp. If you're a radio host your job is to keep the listeners entertained and the advertisers happy - in short, to keep the cash coming in. If you want to be a sexist and racist dickhead on the air then nobody can arrest you for that - which is as it should be - but you shouldn't expect your employer to wish to continue your employment when you're bringing his station into disrepute and losing him money.
Where the line is drawn is at the point when the state can arrest you purely for holding certain opinions (and obviously having expressed them, thus people know you hold them). That is a dangerous position to be in, because it is the state who gets to decide which opinions are 'wrong' - one of the key defences against oppression is removed.
That doesn't automatically mean you are living under an oppressive government, of course, or even that you are moving toward one - it simply means that it would be that much easier for your government to become so in the future. I doubt anybody could argue that the present government in Germany is oppressive, for example - yet, if you hold certain looney views on the holocaust (ie. that it didn't happen), and are stupid enough to express those views in that country, it can get you arrested and possibly put in jail for your views.
I can completely understand a country with a history such as theirs having a law like that, but it's still fundamentally wrong in my opinion. The state should never be in a position where they are the sole dictators of the truth, no matter how widely that truth is accepted.
There is also another argument, which says that it is dangerous to push the looneys underground, where they slowly gain strength in secrecy. Much better to allow open debate on the issue and show them to be wrong publically, or at the very least let the public see how unreasonable their position is. In short: give those with hateful or unreasonable views freedom of expression, and watch them shoot themselves in the foot.
There's a particularly racist and Nazi-like group of people in my country (that's a purely descriptive term - I believe they wear swastikas and have white supremisist views - and I'm not comparing anybody in this discussion to a Nazi, so I don't believe this should invoke Godwin's law
Well, the anti-racism rally consisted of 3000 students. The National Front showed up with twelve people. Yeah, that's 12. All they managed to demonstrate was their complete and utter lack of credibility. I much
--Gareth
I say I do. Anyone who tries to suppress the ideas of another is guilty of hate speech, as it is hate towards freedom.
I fully support outlawing bigoted religions. Those who won't join us in the present are free to wither into the past.
How many years has the US *not* been at war? 10-20, in it's entire history, maybe?
I never said I'm happy about it (I'm not), I am just exposing the truth as it is.
People here don't feel like they aren't free, on the contrary, they think those laws protect the freedoms and rights of the minorities. It's just a matter of perspective, they probably have a slightly different definition of freedom, and draw the line a little further.
Not that the U.S isn't doing just the same with the Patriot Act and etc...
For all the ranting that Slashdotters do toward the right, this is just proof that both the left and the right seek to institute fascism, banning anything they don't like and telling you how to think and live. It's a spectrum coming to a point at the top of a bloody triangle.
"Sufferin' succotash."
There is a world of a difference between expressing views that might be hurt someone's feelings (i.e. making fun of someone's religion) and expressing views that incite violence. For example, I shouldn't be able to publish a website that calls for the genocide of black people in the name of white supremacy. There are countless clear-cut cases of freedom of speech abuse that *should* be outlawed. Yes, I share your concern that certain people with agendas will try to twist the law to suit their needs but what else is new? People already do this with existing laws and that doesn't mean we should not have those laws to begin with. It is up to judges to apply the laws within reason and you can be sure they will be reluctant to let people abuse it. Hate speech has been outlawed in Canada for years and you don't see your doom and gloom predictions taking form there. Judges are very lenient in the application of the law (frankly I think they should be tougher).
Theft, rape, and murder are crimes that affect people beyond the criminal. The laws against these crimes don't involve any kind of prior restraint on the populace, intended to prevent the crimes from happening.
What about the conspiracy laws then?
LOL, yeah, true Stalin probably would've won the war on his own by sheer volume of Mongolian cannon fodder. All these great replies and I'm score 1: Troll. LOL America was definitely the savior of England, at least, and for that I don't think the rest of the world really thanks us, nor should they.
rhY
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
Actually, you may want to check out speech act theory then. It proposes that some expressions can be used to affect the world around us, causing harm on a similar level. (Think of a bet, for example. It doesn't exist outside of speech, but has very real effects. Or marriage vows as part of a ceremony. In the case of hate speech, it's a long discussion but consider the idea that people would/will often say things to the effect of "So and So is ignorant, ignore them..." Eventually, it can get to the point where that person is ignored, silenced, etc... It's complicated, but the basics are in the wiki.)
I don't know if I necessarily agree, but it's interesting in any event.
and you guys consider these fools as saviors against Microsoft?
-- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000
In reality, what we say is
"La liberté des uns s'arrete ou commence celle des autres"
In America, what we say is
"Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me."
I think our way works pretty well.
Oh, man! You've just doubled my vocabulary...
I think you meant "gall"
:-P
given that the topic of conversation is Nazis and germans though, you might just have made a REALLY funny pun with the word gaul
...that there's a US "hate speech" bill in congress right now, and it has a good chance of passing? H.R. 1592 is the number. Out of committee already. Has gotten zip to nothing US press. It's so blatantly sucky, casual flaming on the intartubes can (and most likely will) be construed as "intimidation" and fall under the tenets of the bill. Like most of their bogus sneak attacks onrights, it has feel good sounding crap in the title, then you look at the details and think about it for a second, it's broad, vague, scary, gives them even more excuses to crack down on the internet and make criminals out of people just for viewpoints. It's designed on purpose to make a new broad wide ranging class of criminals. there's no other reason for it near as I can see.
The government is completely out of control, there isn't a single born with right they haven't screwed with extensively now.
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.
To misquote the 1800s newspaperman (whose name escapes me) who first said it...
"Some of them have but one redeeming feature, and that is a colossal Gaul."
Egads!!
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
"The young women on the basketball team Mr. Imus insulted are over 18 and can speak for themselves. It's disconcerting to see third parties become involved and presume to speak collectively for minority groups. It is precisely this collectivist mindset that is at the heart of racism."
t m
From http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2007/tst041607.h
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom to be heard. Sorry. Maybe you want some other plain English added in there to make sure your voice is the loudest?
Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
Saying how much I hate people who want to restrict free speech. Oh wait, why is that police care stopping outside?
From the European declarayion of human rights: http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html /005.htm
Article 10 - Freedom of expression1
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
As far as I see it hate speech would be legal unless it was likely to incite crime or infringe the rights of others.
"La liberté des uns s'arrete ou commence celle des autres"
In America, what we say is
"Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me." I don't know about America, but considering some European regions, like many parts of Germany with its increasing neo-nazi plague (alongside a newly strengthening nationalist-patriotic mainstream), you can be quite sure that the more neo-nazi propaganda is being published through open channels, the more bones of victims to neo-nazi hate will be broken. Which won't just be coincidence, but cause and effect.
It's indeed a very difficult matter of deciding where liberties of one have to stop in order not to jeopardize rights and liberties of others. European governments seem to get the idea that they have some kind of obligation especially towards those groups typically endangered by racist hate. The big question is, where does "hate speech" begin and where does it end, especially when it goes about religion. Religion should always be ok to get critized and even ridiculed.
The sticks and stones saying may serve well for an individual trying to immunize himself against verbal attacks, but it is not necessarily suited for being a principle for governments trying to set up equitable legal frameworks for whole populations.
In this case, five members of the European Parliament has called for such law. Since the parliament has 785 members, they are still a bit off from majority. And note that the European Parliament can't make laws in any case (it's mostly an advisory body, though it does have the power to veto proposed laws in certain cases).
This is no news. European Union Parliament can't legislate laws or directives by itself. European Union Commission only has power to bring new directives to parliament, and parliament has two options: either accept the directive or send it back to commission. It should be noted that European Union Commission is not formed by parliament but it's formed by member countries, meaning that parliament doesn't have quite much direct power on the workings of commission. As we here hear that few parliament members are making drafts, it doesn't mean in real world anything, they have no power to put that draft into a directive. No news.
Survey research tool for commercial and scientific use
kiss my white hairy ass
Karma
I agree with you completely/ However, in reality those rights have been usurped. The 10th amendment is long gone. In the context of the laws applicable and their current interpretation, everything I described was by the books, but I in no way said it was right.
And most of the things we bitch about most were enumerated in the first ten amendments. Freedom of speech was the first among those, so we Americans are kind of bitchy about it, but for a good reason. As an American, I see the first amendment as the foremost of amendments. The second has its utility in guaranteeing the ability to revolt, but the first has the ability to avert that through peaceful and rational means.
Let's say I point out that Mohammed, the Muslim prophet, was a paedophile (he married an 8 year old). Is that hate speech? Most people hate paedophiles, and so it seems somewhat logical to assume that they would hate followers of paedophiles.
What is some idiot reads my site, and then goes and attacks a Muslim because of it. Whose fault is it? I pointed out a fact, one that I find distasteful and problematic, but none the less a historical fact.
Presumably, history books trying to explain the motivations of the Nazis, which could be read by someone who might agree with them and even act on them, should be banned too.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Americans have taken up arms against each other twice in their short history on a large scale, and many more times on smaller scales. Americans enslaved, in some cases, the majority of their population and extracted forced labour. Americans have waged wars of conquest against Mexico and Cuba, and attempted to do so against Canada. Americans have been at war, in some form or another, for most of their history. Americans even declare war on abstract concepts, like drugs, poverty, or terrorism.
If you're American, read some history from beyond your borders.
...does that mean I'll be banned?
You know, free speech is quite big in the USA, still murder, torture (at least in Gitmo etc.) and discrimination are also quite common. Come to think of it, free speech is also going away.
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
Actually the only peoples that see themselves as winners in the western world are the British, the Russians, and the Americans. The others have either suffered major defeats and occupations in the last two centuries, or are so weak compared to a greater neighbour that they never had an interest in provoking wars (Switzerland for instance).
The main difference between the North American continent and Europe is that North America is unipolar (hence no balance of power to maintain, and a natural leadership of the US that the others must simply accept) while Europe is multipolar, and an attack by a major power on a weaker state tends to draw in other major powers.
As a weaker state this mechanism can be used to preserve independence and autonomy: here in the Netherlands the policy of using one bigger neighbour as assurance against domination by the other one and vice versa was called "double anchor policy" in previous centuries. The doctrine involves 1) making sure you neighbours are not eachothers allies, and 2) giving them sufficient reason (for instance with trade policy) to strongly prefer an independent Netherlands over one occupied by the other major neighbour. The doctrine has basically been abandoned (in favour of the cold war "keep the Americans in, Russians out, and Germans under the feet" doctrine) in the twentieth century, since the doctrine naturally involves being someone else's battlefield from time to time and this is getting increasingly costly. The price to pay is loss of autonomy. A new "double anchor policy" has been in vogue that involves competition of "Europe" and "the Atlantic" (US and UK).
People who are afraid of ANY word or series of words are by definition complete idiots.
I'm part every race (American), so I could give two shits what anybody calls me... LOL
rhY
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
Indeed both people who voted for the UKIP have the political establishment very concerned.
The pastor arrested was in Sweden.
t or.accused.of.hate.crimes.not.guilty/4649.htm
http://www.christiantoday.com/article/swedish.pas
Which is why the extreme right-winger Jean Marie Le Pen looks set to be the next president of France, having gained an unprecedentedly high share of the vote. Oh, wait. No, actually he came flat last.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
"Define Hate"
.history books trying to explain the motivations of the Nazis . . ."
."
You've concisely highlighted the fundamental problem with idiotic laws that ban Free Speech. Once it is banned, the people that can define "hate" can RE-define it and ban speech that had previously been "legal". Major slippery slope!
". .
Yes. There is a disturbing example of this. An author named David Irving (who's British) was arrested in Canada, extradited to Austria and and thrown in a PRISON for writing books and making statements questioning the holocaust. The SCARY thing is that under the current laws, TRUE statements, when formulated in specific ways can constitute "hate speech". IANAL, and have no clue about European law and the rights of the accused, but Irving was prohibited from calling witnesses who could verify the factual basis of certain things he wrote/said because "The truth is no defense".
FTA: "The preamble to the declaration mentions anti-Semitism . .
Former President Jimmy Carter recently wrote a book drawing a parallel between the Israeli treatment of Palestinians in the occupied territories and the Apartheid system in South Africa. He has faced widespread criticism about it and his book has been labeled as "anti-Semitism" multiple times. Does this law mean that Google, etc. need to filter out web pages(like amazon?) that might possibly show excerpts from the book? Sounds more like China to me.
Free speech is a good thing, sure. But the point is: there are cases where current European laws fail. Poland has this problem with a fascist organization called (I think) Redwatch. They have a webpage listing "enemies of the race". Photos, addresses, warnings if they can be dangerous in a fight, etc. How can you get on that list? Simple - promote tolerance, be active, be a member of a homosexual organization, etc. Lately an entire group of pupils of a school landed on the list for cleaning an old jewish cemetary.
People from this list were already attacked, landed in hospitals with knife wounds. The page must disappear - but how would you go about removing it, when no law obligates the providers to do so? They removed it once, it reappeared on another server.
This is exactly the sort of problems this law is supposed to fix. However, the exact wording of any law limiting the freedom of speech is extremely important and side effects can be extremely bad. We'll see...
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
An exemplary racist rant, whining about the oh so poor nationalists' failure for democratic success, building a pathetic conspiracy theory by blaming laws supporting exactly those people who would right away fall victim to deportation or worse once there'd actually happen to be such success. Quite amusing that it's always supporters of the most aggressive and inhuman political movements acting up as if they were the poor, pitiable victims of some (purely delusional) malevolent intent.
The estimated average time before hate speech laws are used to punish those with non-conformist opinion is roughly five minutes. Three recent examples:
m
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%85ke_Green
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlaams_Belang
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2005/s1398319.ht
It is inevitable, that once the legal space exists to ban people who express non-conformist views, the powers that be will use them. After all, throughout history, repression of people who hold "faulty" opinions has been the norm, not the exception.
"Hate speech law" was first introduced in Europe as a means of fighting direct incitement to violence against various minority groups. This is, not surprisingly, the way hate speech law is currently being sold in the United States (usually as an extra penalty in cases of 'ordinary' crimes).
Over the years, however, the laws were gradually expanded to cover more and more ground, and now in many cases cover (forceful) expressions of mere disapproval of, say, homosexuality, or religion (usually Islam), even when these expressions are completely lacking in incitement to violence. The latest trend is to legislate against those who deny certain historical events, such as the Holocaust or the armenian genocide. Some countries (in the recent EU debates on the subject) now advocate criminalizing those who hold a revisionist position on Stalinist crimes. It will be interesting to see what other historical events that will be added to the "illegal to question" list as time goes on.
I should add that "conformist" here refers to conformism with elite opinion - hate speech law is usually applied aggressively when there is a significant, unorganized popular dissent from elite consensus. This is especially relevant on topics such as immigration, Islam and homosexuality, where elite and popular views are often greatly at odds. By acting aggressively and punishing those who speak out against elite consensus, the status quo can be maintained with less effort compared to a free speech scenario.
It should also be said that there is indeed no reciprocial reason to grant those who speak against democracy and freedom of speech the rights of free speech. In none of the cases linked to above, however, the defendants had advocated violence or the abolishion of democracy. On the contrary, it was the advocates of "tolerance" who moved to squash the democratic rights of their opponents.
It is exactly because of the large risk of abuse relating to speech restrictions (see above) that my personal opinion on the matter is that restricting debate and speech should be an emergency measure only. Usually, though, politicians advocating speech restriction don't bother with theory, reciprocity, etc. They prefer slogans - "we need to stop hate", "hate isn't a right", and so it goes...
What if I wanted to paint a huge swastika on my Garage door? Or use the big "N" word? Aren't authorities limiting "cyber-bullying" ?
But I'm curious, so I'll bite although I don't expect to actually learn anything useful. So what was the US's other civil war? The Revolution? I have to assume you're talking about the Loyalists that helped the British and eventually fled to Canada. The only other thing I can think of that you could possibly mean are what used to be called the Indian Wars which were a sporadic series of battles covering about a hundred years with different parties on the one side, which I have to point out wasn't considered a civil war by either side.
And there was no war of conquest against Canada. I doubt that you could even convince very many Canadians that there was. Again I have to assume that you mean the War of 1812, which was provoked by the British Navy kidnapping US sailors and enslaving them. Annexing Canada was talked about at the time and York (now Toronto, more or less) was burned, but that was the extent of it. Talking about annexing the land of an actively beligerent power in not a war of conquest.
Sure, "buying" a third of Mexico (most of which was unsettled by Mexicans, by the way) at gunpoint was not very neighborly, but if it were Britain or France, the US would have installed a thinly disguised puppet government (something France tried to do, incidently; the French puppet's defeat in Mexico is celebrated every year in May) or taken over the whole place outright.
And Cuba? There were people in the US and its government who wanted to keep Cuba, but the US honored its promise to the Cuban people of independence. If you wanted to complain about that incident, the least you could have done is taken the part of the people with the real grievance against the US: the Filipinos who switched from fighting the Spanish to fighting the Americans. The whole episode of the Spanish-American War being fought to sell newspapers is distasteful, but any European power (even freaking Belgium in the Congo) would have behaved much poorer by modern standards in that circumstance based on what happened in Africa and Asia around that time.
Yes, the US had about a hundred years of overt imperialism and some claim that the economic imperialism practiced since then is just as bad. Bad, in some cases; as bad, not even close. France held onto its imperialism until the 60s, quitting only because it didn't have the strength to go on. The US has let go of its imperialism much more gracefully, deciding to let the Phillipines go before World War II (although implimentation happened after).
I won't dispute that there are defects in the US national character and its present government, but harping about the choice of metaphor in a PR campaign?
And more on topic France outlawing "hate speach" (which is a stupid class of laws whose end game is shown in Farenheit 451--any non-thought crime connected to them is already on the books) while they have government oppression of regional languages and minorities (most of the rest of the EU has stopped that particular kind of shenanigans) is hypocritical.
Hate speach was the justification for banning all books in Ray Bradbury's classic.
He didn't mention hippies. He probably should have.
I certainly wouldn't argue that all speech is equally benign.
I would point out that censorship and other curtailments of liberty are found far more often in the company of large scale acts of violence (like genocide) than freedom of speech is.
"Prefiero morir de pie que vivir siempre arrodillado!"
Despite what TV tells you, this is not a meritocracy.
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
Cases like this, would be convenient to remove by law, but come to think of it, such laws would cause more harm than good, as it would soon be extended to all kinds of minorities who you might not like, but at least aren't doing anything illegal and just want to exercise their right of free assembly. Like a group discussing the legalization or Marijuana ? Euthanasia etc? Opinions you might not like, and which may be illegal under the current laws (ie: selling and possesion, or performing euthanasia). But thats the point of such groups no? To try to influence the current political system to accept their views. I dont mind Holocaust denials, because they're such a small blip on the radar, like people who still think the world is flat: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_Society . They are annoying, but mostly harmless. As such - there is no need for a hate speech law, and it has been discussed alot in Denmark in the last couple of years and rejected. Although there are laws against racism, they are similar to the laws against slander. Heres the current law: In English: Those, who publically or with intension to publicize in a wider audience, makes statements or other messages by which a group of persons are threatened, humiliated due to their race, color, national or ethnic origin, beliefs or sexual orientation, are punished by fine or prison up to 2 years. Rougly translated - but anyways this is our current "hate speech" law in Denmark as of 2007, and while it restricts free speech, it only restricts parts where you humiliate or directly threaten a group of people. From our constitution: I believe the EU laws are incompatible with our constitution, as censorship is not allowed. The part about responsibility to the court of law is the loophole where the racism paragraph is introduced (and slander). I dont think youre allowed to make threats to anyone in pretty much any country, especially not as a part of a propaganda system. Other than that, censorship is strictly prohibited.. Last I checked, America very much censor pretty much everything. So wheres YOUR free speech?
Interesting point, though I wouldn't say that censorship engenders violence; in the same way, you point out that hate speech doesn't necessarily result in violence. Both create the conditions for the possibility of violent acts: censorship enables a violent state, hate speech incites a mob. That was more pithy, but were I to attempt to be more accurate in the cases we're discussing: hate speech incites individuals, whose symbolic violence is appropriated and exploited by a mob.
More to the point, I don't think genocide is what we're primarily concerned with. I have no statistics- so I forward this tentatively- but I wouldn't describe the Southern US as laden in "large scale acts of violence" during the early 20th century. To my knowledge, there was nothing that could properly be termed genocide. What *did* exist was a culture that used violence against individuals to imply a threat against a group. Organizations also staged demonstrations to ensure that such threats were clearly understood and broadened beyond that incident.
I expect we find the same thing objectionable, but I seem less confident in my solutions. In its effect, hate speech censors the group it targets. Both censorship and hate speech, ironically, appropriate power from the vulnerable, exploiting the society in a pretty cynical way. Censorship takes the responsibility to protect the citizenry- and uses it to weaken it- while hate speech takes the society's openness- and uses it to silence others.
I don't know what is to be done.
Considering that most people murdered in the 20th century were murdered by governments, I can say without hesitation that I would rather incite some mobs than empower a (potentially) violent state. There is also the fact that it is far easier for individuals to defend themselves from other violent individuals than from their own government.
"Prefiero morir de pie que vivir siempre arrodillado!"
And you proved it for him, thanks. Your requirements for something to constitute proof are clearly deficient. It's a fine excuse for racists to support their racist claims by lamenting they'd always be "branded racist" - of course they'll be, since they bloody are. (Right, and then there's the problem that if one concrete alleged act of "criticism" was "branded racist", that'd actually be far from proof that "any criticism" was "branded"...) Its the same in the U.S. - anyone who complains that their neighborhoods have deteriorated beyond recognition, crime has risen, and quality of life has plummeted due to unchecked illegal immigration, is branded "racist" and "xenophobic", regardless if the facts support their complaints. You might have simply overlooked, then, that critics of racism might not deny whatever "facts" there may be, but rather and correctly find that blaming the problem on immigration (if not immigrants) instead of how is dealt with it is indeed and unquestionably racist. Most of the time, the people calling others these names are silly little youngsters, who have never worked 40 years for a home and a good life, only to see it destroyed by the doomed social experiments of wealthy government Utopians who don't have to live there. It is always interesting to see how well racism and social envy go along, and how complete social envy can even disturb a mind so thoroughly that it's unable to distinguish between an argument and the person uttering it or even his or her background. And it's similarly interesting that people still draw an utterly stupid and false notion of superiority out of the sole circumstance of their prolonged agreement to decades of their unquestioned submission to exploitation in a stupid job, making others rich. It's no coincidence though that it goes so well with an apologetic or even affirmative attitude towards racism and xenophobia.
But the British should have seen the example of the Spanish and so on. Expecting people to learn lessons from their neighbor is a stretch, but asking the same of countries is just silly. We're so much more (insert culture's most revered virtue) than they were, it'll work this time!
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?