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"!
No, Twitter will show up halfway through the trial and the French will immediately surrender.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
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...
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.
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.
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.
Anti-Israeli is not the same as anti-Semitic.
Surely you can see the difference? Just like one might protest the actions of the US government while holding no ill will towards her people.
Google could just purchase Italy outright. I hear it will be rather a bargain. Problem solved!
Anti-Israeli is not at all the same thing as anti-Semitic.
Anti-Israeli material is directed against the policies of a nation or its government.
Anti-Semitic material (despite the broad name) is racist stuff directed at Jews in general.
No. Arabs and many other people belong to Semitic people too. Anti-Semitic term is widely misused and it should stop.
The correct term would be Anti-Sionistic when its against Jews and Israel (state).
They should pay the fine in batches of 140 single cents.
KERNEL PANIC -SIGFAULT AT ADDRESS #51A54D07