Slashdot Mirror
Twitter Sued For $50M For Refusing To Identify Anti-Semitic Users
redletterdave writes "After a French civil court ruled on Jan. 24 that Twitter must identify anyone who broke France's hate speech laws, Twitter has since refused to identify the users behind a handful of hateful and anti-Semitic messages, resulting in a $50 million lawsuit. Twitter argues it only needs to comply with U.S. laws and is thus protected by the full scope of the First Amendment and its free speech privileges, but France believes its Internet users should be subject to the country's tighter laws against racist and hateful forms of expression."
Is an internet company responsible to the country that it operates from, or is it responsible to every country that they can be reached from?
The second would be a remarkably scary result.
And the worms ate into his brain.
The US government expects websites worldwide to bow to its law, it seems perfectly reasonable for a US website to follow the laws of any foreign nation.
Oh wait, neither of those things make any goddamn sense.
France believes its Internet users should be subject to the country's tighter laws against racist and hateful forms of expression.
Then France can filter their internet. Why does Twitter have to do anything? If France wants censorship, they should implement it.
Twinstiq, game news
Note, I have nothing against France. But all countries (including the USA), need to recognize that the internet will their citizens do business with foreign companies and that foreign companies are NOT required to obey their laws. It is up to the citizens of a country to obey that countries laws, not everyone in the world.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
France's nuclear power infrastructure can now be decommissioned, as they have coupled all the turbine generators to Voltaire's grave.
Set your phasers on "funky"!
While I commend this action, I am afraid that share holders may be upset with twitter taking a $50 million hit for their morals.
Some people die at 25 and aren't buried until 75. -Benjamin Franklin
No, Twitter will show up halfway through the trial and the French will immediately surrender.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
If Twitter has any sort of physical presence in the country then they should have to follow their laws, be it offices, servers, sales people operating, etc.
I always post to the wrong one. so again.
I read Twitters TOS as listed today (Mar 22 2013)
"We also reserve the right to access, read, preserve, and disclose any information as we reasonably
believe is necessary to (i) satisfy any applicable law, regulation, legal process or governmental request..."
https://twitter.com/tos [twitter.com]
Reading the translated article then wikipedia. The case was heard and judged by the
Tribunal de Grande Instance of Paris (Google Translate) a minor jurisdiction, that hears hears minor civil cases.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judiciary_of_France [wikipedia.org]
http://books.google.com/books?id=hJaEzC1CBe8C&pg=PA153#v=onepage&q&f=false [google.com]
I would think Twitter has the right not to acknowledge this court as being applicable or relevant.
Again Twitter TOS
"(iv) respond to user support requests,
They said no, enforcing their TOS of
"(v) protect the rights, property or safety of Twitter, its users and the public."
I'm sure it says no hateful comments somewhere but at the most the guilty persons account be deleted.
After all most countries in the EU have similar law, Canada has similar laws(still) since the bill to strike down various parts of the hate speech laws are still stuck in the senate. The US is the odd ball out. Remember the next time someone starts screaming that hate speech laws are a good idea, they're not. This is spoken by someone who already lives under them. You have no "freedom of expression," you have limited expression as deemed by the government in a very and exceptionally narrowing scope as deemed by unelected bureaucrats in HRC's(human rights councils) who run tribunals outside the court system.
Om, nomnomnom...
Al Jazeera, the Arabic news channel, is broadcast across most of Europe. Can France take action against it if it broadcasts any anti-Israeli material?
"I bless every day that I continue to live, for every day is pure profit."
They ignored a court order because the court lacked jurisdiction. Not the greatest way of handling it, but ultimately, unless they have a presence in France, the French courts have no jurisdiction. What they should have done was shown up and filed the relevant motions to have the case dismissed with prejudice as they aren't a French firm or operating anywhere in France. The courts with relevant jurisdiction would be located elsewhere.
A fairly recent survey found the group of people who have the lowest opinion of the French people are the French people themselves. So, aren't they all taking to Twitter to complain about French people and violating their own law? Racism is racism, lol.
My cousin is going through boxes in the garage to get all my dead uncle's "I HATE FRANCE" shirts. We're selling them online once the washing machine finally gets the meth sweat.
This has damaged my relationship with my French bulldog as well. She is contacting her lawyer in Paris after having seen a picture of herself holding a demeaning sign online.
we identify all the Semitic users. That way the anti-Semitic people will know who to direct their tweets to. ~
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Does Twitter have a physical presence in France? If not, then the French government can fuck off. If they don't like it, they can block Twitter access to their citizens - I'm sure that will go over well....
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
I've never understood the motivation in censoring racism online.
Posting slurs on Twitter is one of the least harmful things these morons could be spending their time doing.
Seconded. And I'll add to that to say that a nation's laws should only extend to the borders of the nation. I am personally ashamed of my nation (the USA) for its trickery, manipulation and deceit in trying to extend and expand its laws (at the request of business) to other nations.
I hold that everyone who hates me is completely entitled to hate me. Call me names. Say what you like about my opinions and the things I do. (So long as they are the truth with evidence or are merely opinion.) As a US American, I believe in the constitution as it was written and that the freedom of speech [especially] covers unpopular speech. So screw the Jewish (leaders... I love the people actually) for attempting to trample and silence free speech.
We have seen concession after concession made on behalf of France by internet companies all over. It's about time someone brought this to a stop and fought back.
As far as I'm concerned, this is the first useful thing Twitter has done. I hope they prevail. Of course the court will likely be a French court and the liklihood that Twitter will even appear is, I'm guessing pretty low. How this all plays out will be very interesting. In previous cases which were similar in nature, Twitter rolled over. I hope this will end very differently.
Of course, I think this is Twitter realizing it is a major media entity now and should begin acting like one.
This is spoken by someone who already lives under them. You have no "freedom of expression," you have limited expression as deemed by the government in a very and exceptionally narrowing scope as deemed by unelected bureaucrats in HRC's(human rights councils) who run tribunals outside the court system.
Taken from http://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2013/03/17/supreme_court_reaffirmed_canadian_balance_on_free_speech_siddiqui.html
Anti-hate laws undermine free speech.
No, said the court, they “appropriately balance . . . freedom of expression with competing Charter rights and other values — a commitment to equality and respect for group identity and the inherent dignity owed to all human beings.”
Anti-hate laws breed political correctness, stifle debate.
No, “hate speech legislation is not aimed at discouraging repugnant or offensive ideas. It does not, for example, prohibit expression which debates the merits of reducing the rights of vulnerable groups. It only restricts the use of expression exposing them to hatred.”
Hate speech is hard to define.
The judges have defined it — as that which “a reasonable person, aware of the context and circumstances, would view the expression as likely to expose a person or persons to detestation and vilification on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.” They also provided “a workable approach” to combating it.
Apply the rules “objectively” (their emphasis).
Interpret “hatred and contempt” “as being restricted to those extreme manifestations of the emotion described by the words ‘detestation’ and ‘vilification.’ This filters out expression which, while repugnant and offensive, does not incite the level of abhorrence, delegitimization and rejection that risks causing discrimination or other harmful effects.”
Look to the effect of hate speech on the target. “Is the expression likely to expose the targeted person or group to hatred by others?”
A no-holds-barred debate may hurt but it does not harm anyone.
“Preventive measures do not require proof of actual harm. The discriminatory effects of hate speech are part of the everyday knowledge and experience of Canadians.”
Provocateurs do not mean to malign the group they attack.
Good try, but “allowing the dissemination of hate speech to be excused by a sincerely held belief would, in effect, provide an absolute defence and would gut the prohibition of effectiveness.”
The court could have added that human rights codes are not the only limitation on free speech.
Libel laws don’t allow writers to say whatever they want about, say, Conrad Black. Why is that chill less corrosive of free speech than anti-hate laws? Are minorities less worthy of legal protection?
The Criminal Code, too, limits free speech. I may be marched off to jail for up to two years if convicted of spreading hate. Granted, the bar to prosecute is higher there than under human rights codes. Still, it makes no sense to criminalize speech and jail people for their words, rather than merely imposing a fine on them.
Oh please.
Almost noone in France or Germany is affected by these laws in any way shape or form. The vast majority of people isn't even aware of these laws (which isn't a good thing by itself, but it does show how little of a deal this law is to most people).
If your definition for "freedom of expression" really is absolute freedom (as your post seems to imply) then there is no country on earth that i'm aware of, offering freedom of expression (certainly not the USA). Sure, the US doesn't have hate speech laws like many European countries (mostly a mark left by the second worldwar being fought on their own soil as opposed to as a war overseas), but there are tons of examples of US laws that impede freedom of speech/expression in the very same way (and for good reasons). Popular examples include yelling fire in a cinema, telling people you're gonna kill the president, disturbing the peace laws and so forth.
I remember seeing a movie a long time ago with Bruce willis in it, i think it was "Die Hard with a Vengeance" in which Bruce Willis ended up standing in harlem wearing a big sign on his chest saying something like "I Hate ". Ofcourse it didn't take long for a fight to erupt there, as it would in real life, both in the states and most of europe.
Nobody in his right mind considers this a healthy use of freedom of speech, in the US the police would pick that person up for disturbing the peace or some other dubious charge (even if only to break up the uproar for a few hours and then kick the person loose). In France (or germany or most other countries) the exact same thing will happen except the law used to do so is considered a hatespeech law.
Hate speech laws are problematic in an academic sense, and i do agree that a government broadening the definition of exactly what constitutes hatespeech to serve itself is a valid concern, but the current implementation of hate speech laws as seen in Western Europe are fairly harmless and not likely to result in people being censored without real cause.
I'm sure there are some examples of these laws being misapplied or abused (just as with any other law), but that's more of a problem with the people in power.
So, you're saying that France should be able to file random requests against speech they don't like on twitter until they randomly hit on somebody from France? Seems like something that could be easily abused, don't you think?
The political environment added with each countries customs and beliefs will not let them just say "oh hah.. lol sorry, forgot it's the interenetz!"
Afghanistan/Iran and other countries already censor. Many will follow. It's the only logical, but unfortunate, recourse a country has over something they cannot otherwise control. Or, you just make your own state-sponsored trucks 'n tubes
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
Google could just purchase Italy outright. I hear it will be rather a bargain. Problem solved!
Because Twitter is registered in France, thus they are liable (or at least Twitter France SAS is). http://www.societe.com/societe/twitter-france-sas-789305596.html [In french, registration numbers are the RCS and the SIRET]
Hebrew?
I am sephardic jew my family has lived in latin america for around 500 years and I have seen the local natives gone through horrible things, well just in argentina they're the only ones who want to make the country white. Brown is ok in all the other countries. And I want to know when will be OK for people to make fun or say things about the jews. There are other ethniticies that had gone through harder and still going through worst things than the Jewish population has endured, but somehow we have to be very carefull when the Jew subject appears.
Does Twitter even have a physical/legal presence in France? It not, the most France can do is force its ISPs to block Twitter and I find that unlikely.
How is that "begging the question"?
You can't handle the truth.
...riots and storming of the US embassy! Let's not mess it up this time like in Benghazi, or we'll have to find a another new Secretary of State.
Twitter, and all companies and people, should fight this sort of power grab by France hard. France is a fool to try this. If Iran uses this logic the French would scream bloody murder.
*Suggesting the question* is the phrase you're looking for. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
And Isreal wonders why the rest of the world hates Israel so much...
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
Hate speech is hard to define.
The judges have defined it â" as that which âoea reasonable person, aware of the context and circumstances, would view the expression as likely to expose a person or persons to detestation and vilification on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.â They also provided âoea workable approachâ to combating it.
Why would a reasonable person ever make this determination? The detestation and vilification is already there. It doesn't go away merely because you've criminalized playground language and certain conspiracy theories.
France is scared of Anonymous Cowards. The jokes just write themselves these days, all over the EU. Don't get me started on Cyprus, really... well, isn't somebody going to get me started? /Crusty.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Right, this is the end result of hate speech laws. They become political tools, especially when "offending" a particular group may come into play.
Om, nomnomnom...
They should pay the fine in batches of 140 single cents.
KERNEL PANIC -SIGFAULT AT ADDRESS #51A54D07
You have no "freedom of expression," you have limited expression as deemed by the government in a very and exceptionally narrowing scope
Seriously, have you looked at far left/right/wacky websites lately and seen what kind of drivel is within the law? The kind of things that are picked up by the police usually goes far beyond just derogatory and insulting and far more towards thinly veiled threats like "Hitler should have finished the job." (Also, thread officially Godwin'd) Many of the loony toons want to rid themselves of democracy because they claim the system is corrupted by their enemies and want to lead an armed revolt against the majority on behalf of the "true" inhabitants and conduct mass deportation, mass revocation of civil rights or genocide. Except for the religious wackos who want to install a theocracy in the first place and kill off all other religions any way they can. Many controversial characters have received death threats and live under police protection but very few convicted of hate speech.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
How is that "begging the question"?
... Circular reasoning, perhaps?
That, or OP has no idea what "begging the question" actually means.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Seriously, have you looked at far left/right/wacky websites lately and seen what kind of drivel is within the law?
You mean like the law turning a blind eye when people actually advocate that stuff until they flee the country? Right, see my post above, oh and that's not the first time either. Don't be so ignorant. Of course you could always go to hmm was it Norway or Denmark? Where a fellow had a Quran thrown at him by muslims, while being insulted and berated by them, so he ripped it. And he was the one charged with the hate crime.
Om, nomnomnom...
Your mother was a hamster, and your father smelt of elderberries!
Hey, now, that's just uncalled for!
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Human.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Popular examples include yelling fire in a cinema, telling people you're gonna kill the president, disturbing the peace laws and so forth.
These largely cover cases where speech is also action.
Disturbing the peace is the most obvious example. If I park myself in front of a few houses at 3AM and start shouting completely innocuous things (I LIKE PONIES! ROY G BIV TELLS YOU THE COLORS OF THE RAINBOW!) into a megaphone, the problem isn't with the content. The problem is that I'm a noisy pain in the ass while people are trying to sleep.
It's a restriction on free speech only when the words themselves are the problem.
William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
Where is Twitter located?
If not in France, then its the French citizens that might be breaking the law. 'Might', because I'm not certain how French law extends to its citizens behavior doing business outside its borders.
Have gnu, will travel.
#venezobligez-moiÃrÃler
This. I agree completely.
is one of very early sparks that leads to world governments.
-Ultimate Stickman Game Developer Infinite World Puzzler
That doesn't mean what you think it means. It means that if a foreigner goes to the US on vacation or to transfer flights, the US has jurisdiction during the period where the individual is in the US. It does not however mean that the US gets to try the person for things that are on foreign territory where there's a court they could have used.
It would be a real mess if we had to consult with experts in international law any time we wanted to do something, in case it were illegal in some other part of the world.
Earlier this year, a French civil court ruled that Twitter needed to identify any users that posted hateful or anti-Semitic messages; on Wednesday, the Union of Jewish French Students (UEJF) sued Twitter [2] for roughly $50 million, claiming the San Francisco-based social network failed to honor that court ruling.
The whole concept of making everyone in every country liable to every other country's laws is just a farce. The French judges who make these rulings are a farce and they turn the whole country of France into a farce. There's no way the world can be safe if this kind of farce is allowed to happen.
In the US a judge that would make such a ruling would be subject to sanctions. So these stupid French judges need to be taken to USA and made subject to the sanctions. A year in jail in a prison in Texas sounds good to me. And they get to work on the chain gang.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Were they French tweets - originating in France? If not, there's not much of a case. If they were it will be interesting to see whether local laws cover the customers.
Wrong on so many levels.
One, Bruce Willis, irrespective of what he's wearing, is more than enough cause for a fight. Two, nobody in Harlem can read. Three, Bruce Willis doesn't wear shirts. Ever.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
I wonder if they'll miss out the section from Luxembourg to the channel.
Again.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Possibly. Beer is kosher, as long as you don't use pulped fish giblets as a flocculating agent.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Given that France is the place where yahoo has lost its perceived power of teh interwebz precisely over the same crap ( only then people were bidding on nazi memorabilia - forbidden in France ), it will be very interesting to see if twitter folds on that one. I do not see why it should, but France, along Germany, is the country that gives orders in the EU now.
And yahoo caved in...I certainly do hope does not repeat itself; antisemitic content or not.
This post is provided without warranty as to reliability, accuracy or otherwise or fitness for any particular purpose.
Racism is wrong. So's invasion of privacy. And all this is doing is turning them into victims. (Wrong is wrong, including when done to someone who's doing wrong) So that's two wrongs and one tactical error. Congratulations, France; if you've ever wondered why some people think you're bad at strategy...