Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

EU Moving to Ban Online Hate Speech

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the slippery-slopes dept.

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.'"

13 of 452 comments (clear)

  1. Yeah, and... by Khaed · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...How long before the definition of "hate" is expanded to speech politicians don't like?

    1. Re:Yeah, and... by harrkev · · Score: 5, Funny

      ...How long before the definition of "hate" is expanded to speech politicians don't like?
      The logical error in your statement is that you assume that there will be some period of time where this WON'T happen.
      --
      "-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
    2. Re:Yeah, and... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Indeed, the true measure of the freedom of speach is being able to tolerate speach you don't like. Many political parties in europe are banned, which I think is a travesty. In a free society people should be able to express their political views, no matter how distastful.

    3. Re:Yeah, and... by katani · · Score: 5, Informative

      Just because we have a first amendment doesn't mean that the powers-that-be will follow it.

      For example, consider the Alien and Sedition acts, passed by the Fifth congress (1798) under the direction of John Adams. The Federalists at that time were trying to consolidate their hold on the government. The Alien and Sedition Acts were passed, as part of a Federalist blitz to prepare to defend the United States from French attack. Never mind the fact that France currently busy invading Europe, making an attack on the US unlikely. The Federalists were fearful of foreign subversion by French and Irish immigrants, especially since both groups were active in the Jeffersonian party, the Federalists opposition. To counter this threat, the Federalists passed the Alien and Sedition Acts.

      Part of the A&S acts, the Sedition Act, "made it a crime to publish 'false, scandalous, and malicious writing' against the government or its officials." (Wikipedia: Alien and Sedition Acts). Publishing such offensive information against the government would lead to fines and imprisonment. This act was used to stifle the Jeffersonian opposition, and lead to the imprisonment of several key Jeffersonian printers, such as David Brown.

      Fortunately, all of the A&S acts, except the Alien Enemies Act, were repealed. However, the fact is that the constitution was blatantly violated for the reason of protecting the nation from the dangerous French subversives.

      The scary part is, our congress and president are now casting similar laws (*cough*Patriot Act*cough), to protect us from dangerous Islamic terrorists.

    4. Re:Yeah, and... by moronoxyd · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Many political parties in europe are banned, which I think is a travesty.

      I can't talk for all those parties and all members of the EU, but here in Germany a party is going to get banned when it doesn't accept the democratic basis of the country's society.

      Why should a democracy allow and even support a group with the declared aim to destroy that democracy?

      You shouldn't assume that parties get banned lightly.
      A lot of people call for banning two right-winged (and I mean _right-winged_, not just 'very conservative') parties here in Germany. But because they don't openly talk against democracy and because their actions stay within the limits of the law, they are free to do their political work.

      Every freedom hast limits and has to have limits.

  2. Finally by zantolak · · Score: 5, Funny

    At last, freedom from speech!

  3. This is a bad thing. by Skadet · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The preamble to the declaration mentions anti-Semitism, Islamophobia and anti-Romany campaigns. Should the providers refuse to act more forcefully the five initiators of the declaration have vowed to pressure the European Commission into drafting appropriate legislation.
    This is a bad thing. Freedom is based upon the ability to express your ideas without the threat of Government backlash. Some ideas can be called "bad", certainly, but they should not be preemptively squashed because of the possibility that they might turn into action.

    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
  4. Hate speech banned eh? how much do you bet... by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  5. Anything that removes the liberties of thought... by fudgefactor7 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...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.

  6. Re:I think you can pretty clearly define hate spee by gillbates · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    • Those who hold errant and hateful views are not known - as they are afraid to express their views.
    • Those who hold errant and hateful views are never held accountable for their views. The topic discussion of discussion is prohibited. Instead, their hatred turns into action, and then the evil manifests itself in ways far worse than name-calling.
    • Those who hold errant and hateful views in secret never have their views challenged or corrected - that is, prior to their arrival in court. Even a rational person can grow up racist if their views on racism are never challenged. Societies which encourage open and unlimited discourse provide a mechanism for reform of would-be offenders without ever having to resort to legal proceedings.
    • Those unafraid to express their opinions can appeal to government for change, rather than having to resort to violent revolution.
    • The prohibition of certain topics of discussion prevents the study and greater knowledge of the subject, and withholds legitimate research. Furthermore, it prevents legitimate social progress through changing of public opinion.

    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.
  7. we need REAL tolerance by Original+Replica · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  8. Re:Godwinning this Topic by EllisDees · · Score: 5, Insightful

    >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!
  9. I LOL'ed by Rix · · Score: 5, Insightful

    the US has remained relatively stable from a civil perspective. It seems that whenever there are problems in Europe, rather than discussing the issue, they take up arms and slaughter each other. The US has been at war with all of it's neighbours in that period, and with many countries with which it shares no borders. Further, it's been in two civil wars, the second of which is still on the minds of the losing section.

    How many years has the US *not* been at war? 10-20, in it's entire history, maybe?