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.
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.
First, let me say I'm an American. Second, let me say that I think the constitution is a great thing, but it's by no means perfect, which why it's important that the constitution can change and can be re-interpreted. Third, I think you can clearly define "hate speech" in the current culture and there's no reason we shouldn't make an effort to stop it.
To me hate speech is a severe form of slander and libel which is pushed upon one entire ethnic group or race. I think laws for hate speech are possible as long as you put strict requirements on it. Should I be able to walk down the street and call you a N*****? Legally, yes I should be able to. Should I be able to create a book detailing with no real scientific proof, that african americans are an inferior race of stupid people who should be shot an hanged on site for merely existing? Absolutely not. To me it's an extention of the same slander and libel laws. I could walk down the street and call you an asshole if you cut me off, but if I cook up some lies and speak about them publically or write an article on the web about you just to damage your reputation and make it harder for you to keep or find a job, then that should be illegal.
No society is absolute. Americans hold up the constitution as the ultimate black and white definition of what should and should not happen, but as time marches on, people evolve and grow ever more savvy about how to game the system.
And to those who think that the hate speech would evolve into squashing all free speech are offering up a red herring. Libel and slander as they are now are laws that limit your freedom to speak your mind, because in those cases you are hurting someone else. Same with yelling fire in a crowded theater. Freedom of political and social speech can been preserved just fine. Free speech is not a simple black or white philosophy and we forget exceptions and how we frame them when look at the freedom of speech.
The EU countries already have bans on hate speech, as does Canada and probably others. Different countries deal with different problems differently, and the US, while it has a strong protection of freedom of speech, also has problems with evil reactionary groups who are allowed to exist and spread what I consider the most evil of lies under the banner of free speech. I don't see the EU collapsing now because they crack down on hatemongers and I don't see it happening any time soon either.
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
"Should I be able to create a book -- ?"
Yes. Absolutely. End of story.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is insufficiently documented.
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!"
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.
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. You don't support the criminalization of hands, penises, or the infinite multitude of objects that could serve as murder weapons, do you?
If someone actually does you harm, by all means call them a criminal.
If the actions of someone hurt your feelings, gross you out, strike you as immoral, or irrationally frighten you: get over it, ignore them, and mind your own business.
"Prefiero morir de pie que vivir siempre arrodillado!"
Drill baby drill - on Mars
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!
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!
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.
How many years has the US *not* been at war? 10-20, in it's entire history, maybe?