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!
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.
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"
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
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!"
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.
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."
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!
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 ?
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!"
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.
>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!
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.
Oh please you can't even say "fuck" on US tv..
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.
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?
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 know it's a flamebait/troll, but you, sir, are a blithering idiot. Let me take the time to reply anyhow.
> proclaimed that all people are equal, have equal rights, should have equal lives
No, Yes, No. The EU-countries tend to declare all citizens have equal rights, and thus the right to an equal opportunity for education, future, etc etc. Nothing in there says we're all equal.
> They have inspired fear of capitalism
No they didn't. For crying out loud, companies like HP see more than 43% of their total revenue coming from the EU nowadays. Plus, the Dutch invented bloody capitalism together with the Jews. First stock-exchange, first publicly traded company in the world. Hell, the EU has forgotten more about capitalism than the US ever knew.
> leads the same place: Communism.
I don't see how a capitalist system with huge tax breaks for corporations and still a Social policy equals Marxism. To give you an example, in Holland the Dutch Communist party *went bankrupt* at the end of the eighties, and the word communism hasn't been heard since then.
> America/Israel/The Jews/Christians vs. Islam, the Middle East, Europe, Russia, China, the UN.
I find this particularly interesting. Are there no Christians in the Middle East, Europe, Russia and the UN? Again, Christianity in its current form (including the trinity and the divinity of Jezus) was decided upon by papal edict somewhere around 380 AC.
Protestantism, Calvinism, Lutheran and all that were established during the 15th Century. The Middle East and Europe already had large Christian populations before Columbus ever thought he reached India. Hell, we've forgotten more about Christianity than the US will ever learn.
Israel, by the way, is also in the Middle East. It shares the same food, music and general culture of hospitality with the Arab nations in the vicinity. Then again, you wouldn't know that since you seem to be a bit of a redneck retard.
> WWIII was US against the USSR
Heh. Nobody outside of the USSR and the US actually cared much about this. There hasn't been a WWIII. It was all a scam to relieve you of your 19-year old sons and your tax money.
> WWV will be America vs. Communism
Way you folks are handling yourself, by the time WWV rolls around the smoldering ruins of what once was the US won't be participating in it, I assure you. The way things are going, China, India and the EU will get bigger and bigger financial clubs to swing, and the US will diminish.
China is even proving today that hard-line communism will also long vanish by that time. I don't know what you're smoking in your shack in Ohio, but neither the US nor Communism will be factors of importance in the future.
> because the US stood united
No they didn't. Ever seen Vietnam war demonstrations? Ever see Iraq war demonstrations? Ever saw the debate about abortion, euthanasia or further wars going on? There is no such thing as the United States standing United. The constitution calls for that. Which is one of the few saving graces of the US, for that matter.
Hell, if the Japs hadn't bombed pearl-harbor the US wouldn't have gotten involved in WWII. Then their role in WWI was minimal at best. Lastly, WWIII was a figment of your own (McCarthy, anyone?) feverish imagination. So just quit talking bollocks, OK?
In most countries in the EU, people can say just about anything they want, like in the US. Inciting others to commit crimes is a crime, like in the US.
There are some exceptions, like in France where there are special laws to protect the Jews. You will be arrested in France if you deny that the Holocaust existed.
In some countries, there are even extremist right-wing parties. In my particular country, the fascist ideology is forbidden, because we had a fascist dictatorship for 48 years that ended in '74. But, in my opinion, the prohibition of fascism wouldn't be necessary, because many of the things that constitute fascism would be made crimes by other laws, like race supremacy or encouraging the use of violence. The same for left-wing extremists, and by the way, extremists of any kind.
I don't like the idea of the nazi scum being able to propagate their bullshit freely. But maybe it would be better to just let them speak. They would lose much of their strength if people just ignore them, making them look silly.
About being a bastion of civil rights, your affirmation sounds just like anti-Europe senseless bashing. Just look at the vast majority of countries in the World, and you'll find that the freedom enjoyed in Europe, US, Canada and a few others is not the rule, but the exception. My people only knew what freedom was exactly 33 years and 1 day ago. And it feels fucking gooooood!
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