Several European Countries Lay Groundwork For Heavier Internet Censorhip

Gigaom reports that more internet censorship may be on the way, as several European countries' governments do a unity rally of their own, in the wake of the last week's terror attacks in France: The interior ministers of France, Germany, Latvia, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Spain, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Sweden and the U.K. said in a statement (PDF) that, while the internet must remain “in scrupulous observance of fundamental freedoms, a forum for free expression, in full respect of the law,” ISPs need to help “create the conditions of a swift reporting of material that aims to incite hatred and terror and the condition of its removing, where appropriate/possible.” ... It seems, to say the least, an awkward reaction to what was in part a free-speech-related attack — the left-wing Charlie Hebdo has itself frequently been accused of hate speech for its portrayal of Muslims and others. On that front, a German newspaper that reprinted blasphemous Charlie Hebdo cartoons of Mohammed in the wake of the attack was firebombed in the early hours of Sunday morning, with no injuries. Others that did the same remain under police guard.

Comments

WTF

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, we have to take away freedom of speech in order to protect freedom of speech, don't you get it? Duh....

Re:WTF

[Half-pint HAL]

Ah, but we're only taking away free speech from those who would take away free speech. You know, dangerous people like political protesters who might threaten our politicians' way of life.

Re:WTF

[SQL Error]

Freedom of speech is the freedom to offend. Speech that offends no-one needs no protection.

Re:WTF

[LordLimecat]

and the US

Comparing the two is disingenuous. True, we have nastygrams for infringement, NSLs,etc-- but their use tends to be fairly limited. We do NOT have grossly expansive libel laws that allow entities to demand that true-but-damaging information be suppressed for no other reason than that it is damaging.

It never ceases to amaze me how much people on the internet love to hate on the US, all the while European countries (and Australia) seem to be running with open arms towards heavy state-controlled censorship. Maybe Europe isnt the utopia people love to paint it as. Maybe you truly cant trust the government to have your best interest in mind all the time.

Re:WTF

[LordLimecat]

You say that extreme speech needs to be controlled: Wonderful! Theres only one problem left to solve-- figuring out who makes the call of what constitutes "extreme". In the 40s and 50s it was far-left political ideology. Today, might it be the far right? Tea partiers?

Noone denies that "free speech" brings out some nasty characters like the Westboro Baptist Church. But you really cant tread down the middle on this issue; when you start saying "we're only going to allow the reasonable folks" you have to have someone deciding who that is, which in fact ends up controlling the entire political dialogue. Inevitably you will end up with a scenario where "reasonable" is synonymous with whatever ideology is in power.

Re:WTF

[r.freeman]

No, if you will punish people, they will self-censor because your thread of violence.

Re:WTF

[Anonymous Coward]

"speech that incites hatred" is arbitrary weasel words for "whatever critical views we don't like".

Anti-Scientology? Doesn't incite hatred. Anti-religion? Doesn't incite hatred. Anti-Islam? Incites hatred. Anti-homosexuality? Incites hatred. Anti-sexual abstinence? Doesn't incite hatred.

This is evil. It's evil that belongs in literature or horror movies. I hope the responsible people suffer the worst fate any person can do. They have chosen to place themselves at the heart of a nightmare, and don't belong in this world.

Re:WTF

[umafuckit]

I'm not hating on the US. I know the UK libel laws are different. I'm just pointing out that, even the US, there are exceptions to freedom of speech. Every country does it differently, but the most important thing is that the government can't persecute you for what you say. e.g. critising it.

Re:WTF

[captainpanic]

No, freedom of speech is the freedom to offend (or rather, "criticize") your government. And that is why it is so frightening that governments are now tightening their grip on information that is spread on the internet. Sure, they might catch some (rather naive and dumb) terrorists as a side effect. But they are also more likely to be informed who is disagreeing with the government.

Other than planning actual terrorist attacks, nothing else may (yet) lead to actions by police... but all the juridical groundwork has been done for a good police state.

You cannot give up liberties to give you more protection. There will be a time when the lack of liberties will pose a greater threat than any terrorist can ever do. Maybe not today, but certainly some time tomorrow.

Re:WTF

[Anonymous Coward]

So in a country where criticism of religion is illegal, there is freedom of speech, because religion != the government?

Where do you get these wacked definitions from?

Re:WTF

[ScentCone]

You're incorrect. The difference is clearly defined in all countries I'm aware of where such restrictions apply.

If you can't see a difference between "Meet me at the docks after lunch and we will kill all the jews" and "I believe all jews ought to be killed" then that is your problem.

You're being obtuse, here. "Inciting" hatred is exactly something like "All Jews/Muslims/Christians/Musicians/Whatever ought to be killed." That's what's so awful about what they're doing, here. It's not about planning a killing. It's about, say, using your Mosque's web site to say that you think heretics should be done away with. That's inciting hatred among that web site's audience, right? It's not a plan, not a specific call to a specific action. And indeed it appears that in certain demographics, that sort of talk fits right in with a widely held urge to go out and kill people. But the problem is there are other demographics that don't seem to have that cultural problem, and won't react to an identically worded (other than swapping out "Jew" for, say, "Atheist" or "Catholic" or "Cartoonist") phrase the same way. And these governments are looking to set up a structure in which such speech is illegal.

Just because way too many Muslims can't restrain themselves from being violent doesn't mean that we need to make it illegal for another group to express their opinions. So we should err on the side of allowing even dimwitted, medieval-minded backwards Imams to say what they will (unless they are calling for a specific violent act), and just shout them down. Right now, they're being coddled in their police-are-afraid-to-go-there enclaves in places like France, and THAT is the problem. Not freedom of speech.

Re:WTF

[nbauman]

Speech that is abusive or incites hatred is one of the things things that is limited.

Who decides when speech is abusive or incites hatred?

Re:WTF

[nbauman]

So in a country where criticism of religion is illegal, there is freedom of speech, because religion != the government?

And art. In a country where the government censors art, music or theater that it doesn't like, there is still freedom of speech.

Re:WTF

[Charliemopps]

Free speech hasn't been taken away. There already are limitations on what constitutes free speech in the UK (and the US, and other countries, for that matter). Speech that is abusive or incites hatred is one of the things things that is limited. Political protest isn't limited. The press is free to insult the government. Go look up what constitutes "freedom of speech". It doesn't mean "I say whatever I like [without consequence]"

In the US? The only legal limits we have on free speech here are:
1. Speech that directly and immediately puts human lives in danger (The old, yelling fire in a crowded theater, thing.)
2. Slander... and this isn't unprotected, it's just that you can be sued for liable for making things up. And slander in the US has a much different definition here than it does in the UK.
3. Those limits imposed by society. i.e. I'm not allowed to make wiener jokes around my wife's friends. But this isn't a legal limitation, it's a "I don't want to get hit with pots and pans" limitation.

I see a lot of nonsense and talking heads on TV that talk about how the US is different and we just don't understand that the rest of the world has a different view on free speech. We do know that, we've fought wars over it. We know exactly what Europe's limits on free speech lead to, and it appears to be happening again! Seriously, pull your heads out of your asses. You've got a few douche-bags running around blowing people up. That sucks, but really the number of people getting killed is very very low. Remember WW2? Because that was a real war, and that's what restrictions on speech and the press lead to.

Man alive I'm glad that I'm too old to get drafted.

Re:WTF

[Anonymous Coward]

"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither." -Benjamin Franklin

Re:WTF

[N1AK]

No. I'm free in most of Europe you'd be absolutely free to blaspheme Jesus, Moses, the Bible, Torah, Pope etc -- but anything Islam related is off limits

Charlie Hebdo fired a cartoonist for being 'anti-Semitic' but revelled in publishing cartoons mocking Islam. Why Dieudonne is ostracised for his anti-Israel statements, shunned as anti-Semitic. Why footballers across Europe who dared to use the quenelle gesture to show support for him were banned from matches. Dieudonne has been blocked from entering the UK, but Murdoch who questions whether all Muslims aren't violent and says they are all responsible for the actions of a vanishingly small minority owns a collection of our most popular newspapers and TV channels.

Does any of that make it acceptable that a radicalised bunch of nuts threaten to, and sometimes do, attack journalists? Of course not. But only someone wilfully ignorant would think that their is only de facto censorship of Islam and not other religions.

Who wins or loses?

[QuantumLeaper]

When you censor speech in this case, all your doing is letting the terrorist win and We as a people LOSE. Do you really want to let the Terrorists win?

Re:Who wins or loses?

[gweihir]

Most people are sheep and are far too dumb to realize what is going on.

uhhh....

[SuperDre]

Not that I agree with the content on those sites, but how is preventing such sites not exactly the same (in that I mean an act against freedom of speech) as what those morons did at the satirical comic office in france... If you really want freedom of speech, you'll have to allow for those hate sites, otherwise you're no better than they are..

Re:uhhh....

[jlar]

But to be honest, freedom of speech is somewhat more limited in Europe than in the USA. But even between European countries there are som marked differences. Sweden is for example jailing (provocative) artists for hate speech while neighbouring Denmark has no such tradition (although Denmark does also have hate speech legislation). See for example Dan Park (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Park).

Not that I like Dan Parks views (even though he says that the court in Sweden is misunderstanding his art pieces). But I do believe that Sweden is on a dangerous path when they prosecute artists for hate speech (who draws the line).

Breathing air

[hcs_$reboot]

If air could be linked in any way to terrorism, that would likely be restricted as well

At this point the game is so obvious;

[Beck_Neard]

Write up draconian legislation, wait for a terrorist attack to happen, and immediately unleash it on the public. The media will be all to eager to play into your hand by whipping the public up into a frenzy. Ever since 9/11 every single terrorist attack has been an excuse for tighter surveillance and censorship across the world.

Look, it was sad that a bunch of people died over cartoons. But it changes nothing - absolutely NOTHING - about the importance of our freedoms. In fact, if anything, it highlights the importance of our freedoms, as these cartoonists died over free speech.

Anyone who tells you that increased surveillance and censorship will be 'selective' and 'only target high-risk individuals' is either ignorant or lying, as a cursory glance at previous measures will readily reveal.

Don't let them bait you.

Re:At this point the game is so obvious;

[AmiMoJo]

Mockery is an important part of democracy and free debate. If any subject cannot be insulted or mocked, it cannot be properly debated.

Almost any kind of criticism or mockery could be described as baiting by those who wish to respond with violence to it. When people talk about there always being consequences to free speech, they don't mean murder. They mean more words, more argument and debate. Shunning, even hatred, but not physical violence.

If your religion is so weak, if your god is to insecure that it can't handle satire and ridicule then your religion sucks. In any case, it never justifies violence. The problem is with you, not the people annoying you.

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam."
-- President Obama, addressing the United Nations General Assembly

Said in the context of not allowing Muslim extremists who consider harming those who criticise their beliefs to gain power.

When the freedom of speech is taken away ...

[Taco Cowboy]

... there will be no freedom of speech left

And from TFA

" ... while the internet must remain âoein scrupulous observance of fundamental freedoms, a forum for free expression, in full respect of the law ...

What law?

I don't need to get a crystal ball to know that a lot more restrictive laws will emerge - and we all know what kind of the future world we will end up with if we do not stand up for our own rights!

More?

[Anonymous Coward]

France is one of the countries with a huge spying network and they trade with all the other intelligence agencies.
(http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/04/france-electronic-spying-operation-nsa)
And if they can't get things by law, they just do it anyway. But that hasn't stopped this attack just as the US and UK agencies didn't stop 9/11 and the londen subway attacks.
So why give them more budget and powers? Start firing people for not doing their job properly and clean up your act first...

Islamists don't need the internet

[Karmashock]

They're preaching hatred in this Mosques at this moment. Here someone will say I am exaggerating or generalizing.

I will show you statistics that cover millions of people as well as video recordings in english of sermons that encourage the killing of homosexuals, adulterers, and anyone that converts from Islam to anything else including atheism.

I am not exaggerating. Islam has a problem. The entire religion must go through a reformation.

That is the issue. Not trolls on the fucking internet.

Re:Islamists don't need the internet

[Karmashock]

Catholic church went through a reformation otherwise they'd be burning Muslims at the stake.

Know your history before you pass judgement.

Look up the Reconquista. The Catholics drove the muslims out of Spain and through the inquisitional killed all muslims that did not convert to Catholicism on the spot.

Are you suggesting that the Catholic Church go back to that practice? Because really... having one religion acting in a pre modern context with no moderating reformation is unacceptable.

Either they reform or all other religions and ideologies are going to have to nuclear just to protect themselves. Shall we go back to crusifying people are you beginning to understand that this cannot be tolerated?

ISIS is literally crucifying children right now. In the name of Islam. Do you want me to show you rooms full of muslims agreeing that killing homosexuals, jews, and anyone that leaves islam is a good idea? I can do that.

Can you show me Christians or Buddhists or Hindus making the same claims? Look for them.

Your moral equivalency betrays an ignorance of the world.

Re:Islamists don't need the internet

[Karmashock]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

It is really easy to find, guys. This is not conversial. It is just really really hard for modern western society to deal with because we really want to be tolerant.

But just because our ancestors were frequently intolerant and nasty doesn't mean we need to be door mats for insanity.

This is a very important distinction. There is a difference between being a nice guy and being a door mat.

I believe in being a nice guy. I believe in giving people the benefit of the doubt. I believe in trying to work for the common good of everyone. I believe in live and let live.

But I am not a fucking moron and I am not going to let someone just do whatever they want to me. I do not believe in being weak.

Islam needs to go through a reformation. Or if you prefer simply reform.

Call it reformist islam.

Here is the President of Egypt basically saying the same thing I am saying:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

Lots of articles covering his statements on the issue if you don't like that one. I am not a bigot. I do not hate muslims. I do not think their faith or their culture is irredeemable.

However, it does need to go through reform. And contrary to what many foolish people have been saying mostly out of misplaced hope... is that extremism is extremely common in islam.

To say that most muslims are peaceful ignores that those that literally kill people are themselves a subset of a large number of people that approve of or encourage the killing. And that group is significant. It rarely falls below 20 percent in any muslim population and it can get as high as 90 percent in some countries. But it doesn't fall below 20 percent in any country. Look at the stats. I'd cite some now but people always say "oh that site is biased" even if I'm citing a Pew or Gallup poll.

So instead... YOU look it up. It is one easy google search away. It will come up on the first page and you can read it yourself. I don't like the facts of the matter anymore then anyone else. I wish things were better. I think they can be better. But the first step is acknowledging the problem. The denial makes reform impossible. Everyone denying that Islam has a problem with extremism is effectively ensuring that the extremism will continue. Stop it. Islam needs an intervention.

Re:Islamists don't need the internet

[Karmashock]

Remind me how many Hindus are randomly killing people in the name of their faith throughout the world... I'd love to see those statistics.

I'm not funny. You're either an idiot or a liar. Pick one.

Terrorists are not scapegoats ...

[Taco Cowboy]

... rather they are the TOOLS

I have a feeling that the politcos have a secret pact with the terrorists, or whoever is/are behind the terrorist movement, just so that they can get a terrorist or two carrying out a really despicable terrorist act, in the middle of a major Western city, something that generates MAXIMUM IMPACT, and the sheeples be of course be scared shitless

The scared shitless sheeples will in turn agree to sign away whatever fucking rights they have left in the exchange (no guarantee, only a promise, an empty promise) of the so-called "safety"

That is why I do not foresee a great future for the so-called "Western Democracy" --- simply because the sheeples are too damn stupid to notice that they have been conned, again, and again !

I am not saying that there is no terrorists, yes, there are !

The act of using "terrorism threat" as a tool to further their goal to concentrate their power over the people, is itself as despicable as whatever the terrorists have done !!

... not doing their job properly ... ?

[Taco Cowboy]

Oh c'mon, folks !

Them spooks are doing exactly what they are being paid to do ... to let terrorist events transpire, to shock the sheeple, to shock them so much that they will voluntarily give up their rights

And that is what is happening, in America, in UK, in Spain, and now, in France

Every single time something really terrible happen them ruling elites will play the "superman" role, to "lead", to "protect", to "save"

But who are they saving? Who are they protecting?

Fact is that sheeples never think

If they ever use their brains to think they would see that the ruling class is nothing but a bunch of lying megalomaniacs

Blasphemous?

[Anonymous Coward]

"blasphemous Charlie Hebdo cartoons of Mohammed"

The term "blasphemous" is itself problematic: The legal concept of blasphemy no longer exists in most democraties, where religion is not above humor and criticism.

Disregards the people completely

[loufoque]

Yesterday, in France, more than 3 millions people gathered in Paris, and in smaller cities hundreds of thousands of people gathered as well.
This is something that hasn't happened since the liberation in 1945.

Everyone is gathering to proclaim freedom of speech.
And what's the answer of the government? We're going to restrict freedom of speech...

Re:WTF - What they WANT us to think..

[darkonc]

They're taking those rights away from all of us. Islamists are the excuse for that. If the general public realized that these restrictions are ultimately gonna bite all of us on the ass, they'd never be allowed to pass these laws.

You always need an identifiable "other" to justify laws that remove rights from all of us. In th McCarthy era it was 'the communist threat'. In Nazi Germany it was "The jewish threat". (then communists, gays, Gypsies, dissidents, and by the end of the war tanks were roaming the streets shooting at any window that was flying a flag of surrender).

The Patriot Act was supposedly to catch "Those damned (Muslim) terrorists", but then the NSA and the FBI used those laws to justify listening in on everybody . Do you really think that it's going to be any different with this new law? Do you really think that wasn't the intent of the old one? I'm almost disgusted enough to say "Yeah, go ahead -- give up your freedoms, and see what happens!" -- but the problem is that when you give up your freedoms, you give up mine too.