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

[jandersen]

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

I know this is not a popular thing to say, and judging on my previous success in this area, I will get modded down to around absolute zero, no matter whether what I have to say actually makes sense, but ...

As I have said many times in the past - there is no such thing as perfect freedom. If one party - say, the state or society - doesn't put some limitations in place, then other parties - like the loudest bullies, for example - will do it by intimidation. This is true for freedom of speech as well, as we can see now in several forms: on one hand, the extremists try to oppress the freedom to criticise their view of the world, and on the other hand, the uproar against them tries in their own way to oppress dissent. In my view, there has to be some form of compromise that strikes a balance between the legitimate needs for all, not just a few, groups in sociaty to be able to express their views, and the need to protect other, just as legitimate interests that contribute to the stability and growht of society.

I don't have the solution to this problem, and I don't think you have it either. But I don't think it is beyond the capabilities of rational, thinking humans to find the solution.

Re:WTF

[Wootery]

Go look up what constitutes "freedom of speech". It doesn't mean "I say whatever I like [without consequence]"

People often confuse the two... but not here. Here, we really are talking about government censorship. Did you miss that?

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

[qeveren]

I guess they want to lock it away someplace safe to make sure no terrorism gets on it or anything. XD

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

[gl4ss]

look, if it's not offending anyone then it doesn't need freedom of speech protection now does it? nobody cares about stuff that nobody cares about.

thing with stingy satire is that it will always STING SOMEONE.

all it takes is for the government to decide that saying it's policies are bad "incites hatred" you know. that's the situation in Thailand now(no really, press is forbidden from saying 'bad' stuff because it 'causes conflict'). what that bad stuff is well, it's not explained, except that explaining why the current policies could be bad for the nation is of course 'bad'.

and damn well the protection of free speech should mean that you can say anything you want without legal consequences - and despite whatever you say you should still be legally protected from harm, like everyone else. now if some people in your community dislike you for saying shit you say, that's entirely up to them, but that doesn't give them permission to attack you through illegal means.

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

[loufoque]

In France, it is even illegal to contest justice decisions that were classified as crimes against humanity.
This was implemented to help the Jews maintain their honor.

Re:WTF

[umafuckit]

and damn well the protection of free speech should mean that you can say anything you want without legal consequences

No it doesn't. If I publically incite/encourage harm against a group of people and they come to harm then I should face the consequences even if all I did was talk. If I was the cause of the harm then I'm responsible. You're free to say what you want but you're also responsible for what you say.

despite whatever you say you should still be legally protected from harm, like everyone else. now if some people in your community dislike you for saying shit you say, that's entirely up to them, but that doesn't give them permission to attack you through illegal means.

I agree. But that's a different point.

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

[umafuckit]

You're right. The limitations are there now. If you don't see them, it's only because you accept those limitations so completely that they vanish for you.

Re:WTF

[Anonymous Coward]

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. Voicing an opinion is, and always will be, outside the domain of governments to censor. Planning an attack on someone or instigating violence is not protected speech. Yelling fire in a crowded theater is not protected speech and only morons would suggest it is.

Freedom of speech means freedom to express an opinion without consequence from any institution legally mandated to enact sanctions.

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

[Cenan]

There is no difference. How do you propose to censor speech if not by the threat of consequence?

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

[fnj]

and damn well the protection of free speech should mean that you can say anything you want without legal consequences

No it doesn't. If I publically incite/encourage harm against a group of people and they come to harm then I should face the consequences even if all I did was talk. If I was the cause of the harm then I'm responsible. You're free to say what you want but you're also responsible for what you say.

That has validity, so long as one understands that the crime of incitement is a very slippery slope. Objectively there is a huge fundamental difference between saying "jews are all evil bastards and all jews should be killed", and "faggots are disgusting" or "muslims are intolerant and dangerous". Anyone with a working sense of logic should agree that the first steps over the line and needs SOME sanction (exactly what sanction is saved for another discussion), and the others are nothing more than the expression of the right NOT TO LIKE.

There can be no guarantee that everybody likes everybody and everything, or even that nobody is allowed to express dislike or fear or disgust. Yet many such expressions have come to be regarded as "hate speech" against protected minorities, and prosecuted or suppressed as such by the force of the law.

Of course the goal of suppressing hate cannot be thus achieved at all. The only achievement is an atmosphere of repression.

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

[umafuckit]

Of course the goal of suppressing hate cannot be thus achieved at all. The only achievement is an atmosphere of repression.

I agree it's hard, but I don't think it's the case that no hate supression can be achieved or that attempting to do so results in repression. We currently have a system where hate speech is supressed and it's not repressive. It's a balancing act and always will be.

Re:WTF

[nbauman]

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.

I don't know how they do things in the UK, but in the US many people in the film industry went to jail for being a member of the Communist Party, or for refusing to testify about it, or refusing to testify about the political activities of their friends. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:WTF

[Lunix Nutcase]

No, free countries allow even speech that is filled with hatred.

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

[mwvdlee]

In one case, the speech can still be heard or read, in the other it can't.

Re:WTF

[nbauman]

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. Voicing an opinion is, and always will be, outside the domain of governments to censor. Planning an attack on someone or instigating violence is not protected speech. Yelling fire in a crowded theater is not protected speech and only morons would suggest it is.

Freedom of speech means freedom to express an opinion without consequence from any institution legally mandated to enact sanctions.

Unfortunately, despite your assurances, people have gone to prison in the U.S. for those kinds of comments and less.

You should read the history of the anti-Communist movement in the U.S., and particularly the Supreme Court decisions that erased the distinctions between abstract advocacy and "conspiracy to overthrow the government." The most disgraceful was Dennis vs. U.S. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... . A majority of the Supreme Court decided that publishing newspapers and books, giving lectures and classes, and holding demonstrations, wasn't protected activity under the First Amendment, but was a conspiracy to overthrow the government by force and violence. Go read the dissent by Black and Douglas; they can explain it better than I can.

Today under U.S. law they simply have to designate someone a terrorist, and then anyone who gives that terrorist "material support" can be sent to jail for the rest of his life. "Material support" can be a web side containing the terrorist's writing.

Take a look at the Holy Land Foundation case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... where the founders were given prison sentences of up to 65 years, They were convicted in part on the basis of the testimony of two anonymous Israeli security agency employees.

Re:WTF

[Flavianoep]

I don't know how they do things in the UK, but in the US many people in the film industry went to jail for being a member of the Communist Party, or for refusing to testify about it, or refusing to testify about the political activities of their friends. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Wasn't that, like, more than 50 years ago?

Re:WTF

[itsdapead]

No, freedom of speech is the freedom to offend (or rather, "criticize") your government.

I think you're confusing laws like the 1st Amendment to the USA Constitution, or article 10 or the European convention on human rights with the wider, concept of freedom of speech as an ideal. Even the 1st Amendment goes further than you suggest, but I think you've hit on the original motivation behind it.

As a non-USAian it took me a while to work out that the spirit of the US Bill of Rights is to protect local government, corporations and organised religions against (specifically) the federal government, and that any benefit for individuals implicit in the letter of the law is a nice bonus.

The European convention of human rights, by contrast, seems to be mainly about enumerating all the exceptions to freedom of speech, so that the government can micro-manage your freedoms for you. Sounds cynical, but freedom is a paradox, and if you want to enshrine all human rights in law, that's the tarpit you end up in.

I think it is true, though, that both of these examples only prohibit suppression of free speech by government - they don't specifically oblige that government to prevent others from restricting your free speech (but then that really is a can of worms, and a lot of the people who pushed for Amendment 1 or Article 10 to protect their right to express their views really don't want to eat their own dogfood).

However, you should never rely on the law of the land as the last word on right and wrong, and general freedom of speech (insofar as it can be protected without descending into paradox) is a good thing.

Re:WTF

[nbauman]

I don't know how they do things in the UK, but in the US many people in the film industry went to jail for being a member of the Communist Party, or for refusing to testify about it, or refusing to testify about the political activities of their friends. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Wasn't that, like, more than 50 years ago?

1. The anti-Communist movement eliminated not only Communists but anyone on the left from the U.S. entertainment industry, teaching profession, unions, etc., and has left its effects today. It moved the political center of gravity far to the right. It was particularly damaging to unions, where Communists had been some of the most effective leaders.

It also demonstrates how the U.S. doesn't allow people to express unpopular views, especially when they are politically effective.

2. The Holy Land Foundation case ended in 2009. They're still in prison. It was a brazen violation of freedom of religion and political association.

Re:WTF

[Triklyn]

we also have a thing called prior restraint, and a thing called imminent violence.

controlling what people say is the very first step in trying to control what they think.

some people, myself semi-included, take issue with hate crime legislation for a similar reason.

aren't all crimes hate crimes? what is hate crime legislation but an attempt to penalize thought?

Re:WTF

[itsdapead]

There is no difference. How do you propose to censor speech if not by the threat of consequence?

You can't if you get punishment confused with consequences - but calling "punishment" "consequences" is a circular argument.

To use the cliche'd "Shouting 'fire!' in a crowded room" example: the 'consequence' is the risk of causing a dangerous stampede. Acceptable 'punishment' is what comes after you've convinced a court that the stampede actually happened, or presented compelling evidence that it was a serious risk. Unacceptable censorship is banning the discussion of combustion in a public place based on a hypothetical worst-case "stampede" scenario.

Re:WTF

[umafuckit]

There are various other restrictions to free speech in the US, in addition to the two you mention. I agree that by making a fuss we are giving the assholes the attention they crave but I don't think it's fair to blame WWII on a lack of freedom of speech. There was a lot more to it than that. Interestingly, one of the first thing the allies did when they occupied Germany was to censor the media. Later, Germany re-drafted its laws.

Re:WTF

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:WTF

[umafuckit]

controlling what people say is the very first step in trying to control what they think.

There are already restrictions on what you can say and these vary by country. If you don't see that, it's because you accept utterly what those restrictions are. The only question is where the line is drawn and in the light of recent events we are debating whether it needs to be re-drawn. This is not a new idea and isn't itself problematic. The really important line however is whether or not you're allowed to criticise the government and what the country stands for in general. There are certainly places in the US where doing the latter will get you beaten up or verbally abused. Frankly, I see that as a bigger problem than muzzling muslim fundamentalist nutjobs who mostly live abroad.

aren't all crimes hate crimes?

No, of course not. Read the definition on the internet.

Re:WTF

[bigpat]

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

That has always been the difference between American and European legal traditions... in Europe free speech is protected from everyone but the government, while in the US free speech is (supposed to be) protected just from the government. Having free speech attacked by terrorists is the perfect scenario for European government propaganda.

Re:WTF

[rogoshen1]

Religion? 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. Should be clear about that. No one is going to break into your workplace and shoot 12 people if you make a disparaging cartoon about the Virgin Mary.

Re:WTF

[cdrudge]

No, freedom of speech is the freedom to offend (or rather, "criticize") your government.

No. Freedom of speech is your right to communicate your ideas and opinions to others that wish to hear it without government interference from doing so. Typically it comes with a restriction that such communication does not cause harm to others. Causing hurt feelings because your prophet was satirized in a cartoon is not generally causing harm to others.

Re:WTF

[Shakrai]

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.

"Abusive" and "hateful" speech are not limited in the United States. You must be confusing us with Europe and/or Canada.

Re:WTF

[LordLimecat]

Republican speech is often characterized in exactly this way. But I cant play the victim card here, because it could very easily shift in the opposite direction.

Stifling free speech truly doesnt benefit the average citizen of any party.

Re:WTF

[nehumanuscrede]

Considering the timing, do you really believe this idea isn't designed to be applied to folks like Charlie Hebdo ?

They'll simply classify satire as abusive or hate speech and that will pretty much be the end of it. Can't make fun of the Muslims anymore, they tend to lose their minds and firebomb embassies, behead " infidels ", or shoot up the place.

The thing to consider going forward is now that Islam knows violence works to get their way, they'll continue to use it to enforce their will / beliefs upon the rest of the world out of fear of further violence. :|

Re: WTF

[Triklyn]

it's not a easy line to walk, but at least we're trying to walk it.

when the sarah palin released images of rival politicians with hunting targets overlayed over their faces. well, we thought she was incredibly ignorant of the danger, but we didn't think it was necessarily intentionally inciting imminent violence either.

we have a active neo-nazi party, and the klan has rallies. half our political system seems to want to drive the latinos out of our country with pitchforks and fire and the other half can be quite bitchy with anyone not towing the line of political correctness.

i would not have it any other way, because any other way would not be as honest.

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.

Re:WTF

[ultranova]

Sometimes the terrorists win, sometimes the counter-terrorists win. But either way, the Devil always gets his cut.

Re:WTF

[CrimsonAvenger]

1. Speech that directly and immediately puts human lives in danger (The old, yelling fire in a crowded theater, thing.)

FALSELY yelling fire in a crowded theatre. The "falsely" is important.

Re:WTF

[umafuckit]

Considering the timing, do you really believe this idea isn't designed to be applied to folks like Charlie Hebdo ?

I do not believe it will be used this way, no.

They'll simply classify satire as abusive or hate speech and that will pretty much be the end of it. Can't make fun of the Muslims anymore, they tend to lose their minds and firebomb embassies, behead " infidels ", or shoot up the place.

I don't think that's the idea. Nobody has said or hinted this, as far as I know.

The thing to consider going forward is now that Islam knows violence works to get their way, they'll continue to use it to enforce their will / beliefs upon the rest of the world out of fear of further violence. :|

They know that, yes, and have known that for some time. Hence their reliance on terrorism, which is what this is.

Re:WTF

[jandersen]

You say that extreme speech needs to be controlled

Not really - I say, we need to have that discussion. All the time, really; unrestricted freedom is an illusion, all you can do is try to influence which restrictions you have to live with. If we don't, then it will always be the bullies that win - as you say:

In the 40s and 50s it was far-left political ideology. Today, might it be the far right? Tea partiers?

The great tolerance that is required of members of society, in order for freedom of speech to work, has to be very near universal - the venomous idiocy of Westboro Baptist Church is only harmless because the vast majority agree that they are idiots and that you just have to tolerate them. But this level of tolerance and insight is not a given, it requires a lot of education - everybody has to grow up to learn to accept that these ideals are right. Ironically, the people who are up in arms about freedom of speech are showing exactly the traits that will choke society's ability to allow freedom of speech - they are confrontational, unwilling to seek compromise, deeply intolerant, unwilling to educate themselves about their perceived enemy - "the Muslims". So, it has descended into chest-beating, dick-waving and "Islam is so and so". You can't beat the enemy by becoming part of him and repeating his wrongdoing.

That was what happened during the great Communist scare - freedom was used as an excuse to attack certain groups, and once it was started, it became horribly easy to 'prove' that this or that person was 'a communist'. Do we want to get to the point where we persecute 'Muslims'? Where it becomes a crime to use a head scarf? Where you are under suspicion if you are unwilling to burn a copy of the Qur'an? That is where we appear to be going.

Re:WTF

[Xest]

"but then that really is a can of worms, and a lot of the people who pushed for Amendment 1 or Article 10 to protect their right to express their views really don't want to eat their own dogfood"

This shows a complete ignorance of historic context and is a rather unfair portrayal. The European Convention on Human Rights was drafted in the years that followed World War II and the lessons learnt from that. It was put together explicitly to try to prevent a repeat of things like the persecution of the Jews.

There was an explicit recognition at the time that much of what happened in Nazi Germany happened because the Jews had no external recourse against their own fascist government. The government's word was supreme and there was no higher international power they could appeal to in the face of wrongdoing by government. There was a belief that if you could give the people a last resort against government, a higher international order that held oppressive governments to account, that you could prevent a repeat of Nazi Germany's concentration camps.

Just because that has been perverted somewhat now and attempts at further perversion are growing doesn't mean those in charge have always succumbed to modern authoritarianism. Post-war was a period of relative political enlightenment in the West, but unfortunately due to the weight of the cold war, it was far too short lived. The ideas and intentions of leaders at the time were genuinely quite noble - look at the reasons behind the creation of the European Court of Human Rights too for example, it was all part of the same noble goal - to attempt to give the oppressed by government a voice against government.

It wasn't a complete failure, the European Court of Human Rights still does a great job in many cases of upholding the rights of citizens against overbearing government and corporations using the convention as it's guiding principles. It's imperfect but we can thank it for putting things like Phorm in the UK to death for example calling it out as the blatant widespread invasion of privacy that it was after the government refused to deal with it and instead opted to allow it.

People often cherry pick cases where it protects the bad as well as the good, but it has to, because once you start differentiating between people on fundamental rights it's not long before everyone falls into some exception category rendering the whole thing useless. But it was a good idea, pushed through with good intentions, by people who saw genuine horrors that even they knew must never be repeated. It's for that reason that we should not take it for granted, or belittle it, or claim it as a trap by the elite - on the contrary we should be pushing to keep upholding it and fighting to reclaim it as a charter for everyone, all the time, not just as something that governments can pick up and put down as and when it suits.

Re:WTF

[orgelspieler]

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.

Is that really so different from "I don't want to get get shot at or firebombed by fans of the prophet." Using violence or threats of violence to curb unwanted speech is an age-old phenomenon. I am surprised that people are just now getting rankled about it.

I'm a little befuddled by your conflation of European free speech curbing and the run-up to WWII. Keep in mind that most of the press during WWII was very right-wing and pro-fascist. And not just in Germany. There were several US and British newspapers that saw nothing wrong with Brownshirts destroying the godless communists and social democrats. In fact, it was common for the pro-fascists to hide behind free speech laws when "marching." They would claim it was just a legal protest against social democrats (and Jews). But that's a little off-topic and lot Godwin.

Re:WTF

[Half-pint HAL]

Political protest isn't limited? Do you know how many restrictions have been applied to the right to assembly and protest so far this century? Do you remember the kettling and brutal assualt of non-protesters who happened to be in the wrong part of London? And then the latest laws banning organised protest groups from any and all public campaigning in the run-up to an election? Or what about recent revelations about undercover police offers being paid to infiltrate peaceful protest groups and attempting to incite them to violent action, while sh*gging women under false pretences? Talk about sleep-walking into a police state....

Re:WTF

[Bob the Super Hamste]

No different from this one:

I’ve abandoned free market principles to save the free market.
George W. Bush

The Europeans are just learning type of messaging works for the US and applying it to their own countries.

Re:WTF

[Anonymous Coward]

Anti-Semitism is racism. That is unacceptable.
Anti-Religious sentiments are critical of a mode of thought, so acceptable.

'Muslim' is not a race. 'Jew' is used as a racial epithet, even though it is also a description of people who follow the Jewish faith.

Note that Charlie Hebdo is/was critical of several well known religions: Christian, Jewish, and Muslim. Freedom of speech includes freedom from the imposition of blasphemy laws. Charlie Hebdo is/was not supportive of racism. There are plenty of right-wing publications in France that are.

To be clear: Charlie Hebdo mocked Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. As far as I know, the magazine has never supported racism, and in fact campaigns for minority rights, including the rights of Arab immigrants in France, and their France-born children who are subject to discrimination.

More background on Charlie Hebdo here: http://blogs.mediapart.fr/blog/olivier-tonneau/110115/charlie-hebdo-letter-my-british-friends

Re:WTF

[Half-pint HAL]

As others have said, Islam is criticised more than any other religion (even Scientology!). Islam is insulted more than any other religion. When Gerald Scarfe, the artist behind the award-winning artwork to Pink Floyd's The Wall, drew a cartoon depicting Benjamin Netanyahu building a wall on the bodies of Palestinians, he was shouted down for anti-semitism, and there was a huge cry for apologies. Don't go trying to claim Muslims are getting better treatment than others.

Re:WTF

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

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.

Sick of apologists arguing for those in power to gain approval from he masses by clobbering small factions over the head.

Art is expression is speech, and government censoring it is wrong for the exact same reasonzas words.

Re:WTF

[Bob the Super Hamste]

Even in you first example I don't believe that the government needs to sanction the individual saying it even if as a society we should ostracize them. To me this still seems like someone expressing an opinion since it isn't a specific threat, or someone command others to go and kill, riot, burn shit down, etc. I had a grandmother who who had views like that and she felt that the US joined the wrong side in WWII and was very vocal about the Jews, Romas, and the other mongrel races to use her own words. You know what she was my bat shit insane racist grandmother, she didn't command others to kill, incite violence or anything else but was none to pleased to meet my fiance being both of Jewish decent and one of those mongrel races.

Re:WTF

[ichthus]

...he was shouted down for anti-semitism, and there was a huge cry for apologies.

Yeah? But, who died as a result? Where was the slaughter?

There's a bug fucking difference -- you're just too obtuse to acknowledge it.

Re:WTF

[Opportunist]

And that's exactly why NOT criticizing Islam is the wrong reaction. Because all it tells people is "hey, if I want to keep my best imaginary buddy from being made fun of, all I have to do is blow up a few editorial offices or kill a bunch of journalists".

That's the message you want to send?

Re:WTF

[Opportunist]

I guess this is due to the perception of whether someone is a victim or an aggressor...

Re:WTF

[Opportunist]

My freedom of speech entails no obligation on your side to listen. If you don't like me calling your imaginary friend a lying dipshit, you should simply choose not to listen to me.

Re:WTF

[Opportunist]

And how do you want to keep someone from saying something? At least once he can before you can react and jail or kill him.

There's an old joke: Is there freedom of speech in Soviet Russia? Of course! But there may not be freedom after speech.

Re:WTF

[Opportunist]

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.

So Manning and Snowden are convicted for/accused of what now again?

Re:WTF

[chihowa]

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.

Is that really so different from "I don't want to get get shot at or firebombed by fans of the prophet." Using violence or threats of violence to curb unwanted speech is an age-old phenomenon. I am surprised that people are just now getting rankled about it.

Because it's clearly a tongue-in-cheek reference to the tyrannical rule of the womenfolk over us men archetype. At the same time, it pokes fun at the terrorists by comparing their actions to prudish housewives being offended by dick jokes. I don't think he was actually afraid of being bludgeoned by heavy cookware for making dirty jokes.

In other words, "whoosh".

Re:WTF

[x0ra]

Bs. You can't offend the jews, but nobody give a shit about arabs.

Re:WTF

[Curunir_wolf]

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?

Some prosecutor or bureaucrat with an axe to grind, or sometimes a group looking for a scapegoat to blame for some tragic event.

Or at least that seems to be the way it currently works.

Re:WTF

[x0ra]

In the US, the KKK and white supremacists have a right to free speech. Not in Europe.

Re:WTF

[x0ra]

I guess in this case, Netanyahu is the executioner of US-sanctioned terrorism...

Re:WTF

[Curunir_wolf]

There are various other restrictions [wikipedia.org] to free speech in the US

There are also a number of restrictions on making false statements, and they are applied prejudicially. It's possible to make false statements against a public figure or politician, but you can be held civilly liable for slander. And law enforcement are allowed to lie, misrepresent their identity, use phony identification, and make fraudulent statements during investigations. Citizens, however, are not allowed to make any false statements of any kind to law enforcement or government officials or agents. To do so is a criminal offense.

Re:WTF

[x0ra]

The US allow the KKK, white supremacist, and feminazi to speak...

Re:WTF

[Triklyn]

in the united states, i can say whatever the hell i want. people can choose to interact with me if they so choose, and the government can't interfere. I'd advocate the government protecting citizens from the tyranny of the masses. brendan eich's ousting for example, but that's the price of freedom i suppose.

the price of freedom is that people can react to what you say as they will. beating you up will certainly sometimes follow, but is already illegal too.

was being slightly hyperbolic, but what makes murdering someone for hate worse than murdering them for financial gain? we already criminalize all things that can fall under the umbrella of hate crime.

Re:WTF

[nbauman]

I was being ironic. No wonder Stephen Colbert quit using his character.

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?

Some prosecutor or bureaucrat with an axe to grind, or sometimes a group looking for a scapegoat to blame for some tragic event.

That seems fair.

Re:WTF

[d34thm0nk3y]

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.

Don't forget #4. It is illegal in the US to tell someone how to defeat copy-protection.

Re:WTF

[N1AK]

Anti-Semitism is racism. That is unacceptable.

I agree with you that Charlie Hebdo is a useful, if pretty shocking by British standards, force for a better society.

The difference I was alluding to is that cartoons equivalent to the ones Charlie Hebdo publish about Muslims have been attacked for being anti-semitic when they are about Jews in Europe. People can say things about Muslims virtually without consequence in Europe (with rare tragic exceptions) that if they had been said about Jews would have gotten them fired or arrested. I'm not suggesting we all go out and insult Judaism, and call Jews greedy, but highlighting that this behavior would be at least as controversial in America or Europe as insulting Islam and calling Muslims terrorists; which the person I was originally responding to ignored when he suggested that it is only Islam that you cannot speak freely about.

Re:WTF

[Charliemopps]

1. Speech that directly and immediately puts human lives in danger (The old, yelling fire in a crowded theater, thing.)

FALSELY yelling fire in a crowded theatre. The "falsely" is important.

No it's not. "Falsely" is often a subjective determination. What if you smelled smoke and it was just a cigarette?
Ambiguity and law are a bad mix.

Re:WTF

[BitterOak]

No, freedom of speech is the freedom to offend (or rather, "criticize") your government.

That's absolute poppycock. I can't fathom how you were modded up to +5. According to your logic, in the US, if the Democrats are in power, no one is allowed to criticize Republicans and vice versa because they're not the governing party. Political debate, which is at the heart of free speech, would become impossible.

Re: WTF

[Opportunist]

That's quite unfair when you think about it, and the usual preferential treatment of foreign workers. If, say, a Russian agent would have stolen secrets even despite swearing not to, the US would certainly not have prosecuted him but maybe even rewarded him.

As if it wasn't bad enough that corporations abuse H1Bs, but I sure expected better from the government!

Re:WTF

[jonwil]

Libel laws in the US generally may not be as broad as those in Europe. But try criticizing a company like Monsanto or Cargil or ADM or others in "big agribusiness" (even with the most rigorous proof that what you are saying is true) and see how far you get before being sued under "food libel" laws (which exist to make sure all the nasty stuff the "big agribusiness" companies do stays hidden)

Re:WTF

[reve_etrange]

the cliche'd "Shouting 'fire!' in a crowded room" example

A cliche first cited in law in order to uphold a criminal conviction for arguing against US entry to the first world war - in other words, a euphemism for what you call unacceptable censorship.

Re:WTF

[Wootery]

No, freedom of speech is the freedom to offend (or rather, "criticize") your government.

What total nonsense. Are you serious?

Re:WTF

[Half-pint HAL]

...he was shouted down for anti-semitism, and there was a huge cry for apologies.

Yeah? But, who died as a result? Where was the slaughter? There's a bug fucking difference -- you're just too obtuse to acknowledge it.

When little Johnny calls little Terry a "son-of-a-bitch" in the playground, and Terry beats him up for it, they both get called in to the headmaster's office. Terry says "he started it", and the teacher tells him that's no excuse for that sort of behaviour. But Johnny gets in trouble too, because you can't justify an insult by the reaction you get after the fact.

The same goes here, but even more so. You cannot say that the act of insulting Muslims is justified by the fact that a tiny minority of Muslims react violently.

Moving on...

Look at the thread history, and you'll see that I was responding to a claim that Islam is uniquely off-limits, and I was trying to demonstrate that this was not the case. One of the reasons the reaction to perceived slights against Islam is so strong is that some sections of the western press are persistent in repeating the insults and totally unrepentant about the offence caused.

This is completely the opposite of any perceived slights against Israel and/or Judaism, where apologies are immediate and jobs are often lost. Repentance is total.

My point is that Islam is not off-limits, and it is far more socially acceptable to criticise Muslims publically than Jews.

Re:WTF

[Half-pint HAL]

Anti-Semitism is racism. That is unacceptable. Anti-Religious sentiments are critical of a mode of thought, so acceptable.

'Muslim' is not a race. 'Jew' is used as a racial epithet, even though it is also a description of people who follow the Jewish faith.

Anti-Semitism is in a great many ways a misnomer, and a label of convenience. "The heinous thought crime" Maurice Sinet committed was to comment that Jean Sarkozy was planning to convert to Judaism in order to marry a millionaire heiress, and follow up with what translates as "he'll go far in life, that lad". People read into that that all sorts, including the suggestion that the French business world was controlled by Jews. What I read into that is the suggestion that Sarkozy was willing to compromise his beliefs (or even lie about them -- some people convert for appearances' sake only) in order to get what he wants.

Now even if you do read anti-Semitism into that, is there any justification for calling it racism in this instance? Clearly Jean Sarkozy was never going to undergo gene therapy in order to become a member of the Jewish "race". Maurice Sinet cannot, therefore, have been legitimately accused of racism.

Furthermore, how can "Jewish" be a race when some Jews bear racist attitudes to other Jews? The Sephardim (the North African Jewish people descended mostly from the Iberian Jews exiled at the of the Islamic occupation of Spain) are subject to prejudice and discrimination in Israel.

Many other things that are decried as "anti-Semitic" are political commentary in opposition to the actions of the State of Israel. What makes this even more ridiculous is that many of the worst actions that Israel commits are targeted at a semitic people who speak a semitic language. How is it anti-Semitic for me to raise my voice in support of the Palestinians?

The label "anti-Semitism" blends and confuses all these things -- race, religion and politics -- so that the religion and the politics can misappropriate the protection that we rightly give racial minorities.

Re:WTF

[romons]

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.

Actually, terrorists do far less damage than falls in bathtubs, or falling off ladders. They have the potential to do far more damage, but only if they get access to nuclear or biological weapons. That probably won't happen, given the current controls. So, controlling speech does almost nothing for most people, and hurts them by limiting knowledge.

Listening in on people has the potential to help prevent terrorist attacks, but hasn't really done anything yet. Given the multi billion dollar investment the NSA has already made in it, it seems more like a way to sell equipment and services by vendors than a national security strategy.

We are scared of our shadows. That is the harm that terrorism does. The terrorists have already won.

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?

[Anonymous Coward]

The winners in this case is the ruling class.
This has nothing to do with fighting terrorism, the laws weren't suddenly written last week, they have been planned a long time.
Terrorism is just the scapegoat for taking more control.

I do however admire the reasoning. "Since terrorists try to censor you with violence we are going to protect you by preemptively censor you with the threat of violence."
That is pretty brilliant.

Re:Who wins or loses?

[gweihir]

The State Security organizations win along with the terrorists. It is eminently plausible that they have no interest at all in preventing terrorism. An external enemy is a tried-and-true approach to extend state powers, to suppress free speech and to eventually establish a police-state and then a totalitarian regime that has some sort of fascism as its state-religion.

Re:Who wins or loses?

[gweihir]

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

Re:Who wins or loses?

[rastos1]

Most people are far too dumb to be enjoy the right to free speech. They could proliferate and exploit the main weakness of democracy: that two idiots have twice as many votes as one intelligent person.

Re:Who wins or loses?

[gweihir]

Yes, very much so. Benign insightful people very rarely seek power, the scum always does. Hence that state of the world we live in.

Re:Who wins or loses?

[gweihir]

While I have no idea about the Bible (tried to read it once despite being an atheist, but seriously, this thing is incomprehensible...), I have doubts that Marie Antoinnette was actually very smart. She belonged to a class that was given power without having to do anything for it. She may well have been a "sheep".

Re:Who wins or loses?

[x0ra]

Yes, because all these censorship tools can also be used by the government to censor opponents.

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).

Re:uhhh....

[umafuckit]

There are already limitations on freedom of speech. Speech that encourages violent acts, such as those last week, is already restricted. I don't see how "preventing such sites" is not the same thing "killing a dozen people", even as simply "an act against freedom of speech."

Re:uhhh....

[jopsen]

I do believe that Sweden is on a dangerous path when they prosecute artists for hate speech (who draws the line).

Courts draws the line...

But to be honest, freedom of speech is somewhat more limited in Europe than in the USA.

Mostly it's only corner cases... Like special laws about special events.
By the way, under the human rights article 12: "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary ... attacks upon his honour and reputation."
That is I have right not to have false accusations made against me.

I'm pretty sure the US doesn't tolerate people inciting violence and terrorism, which is likely what this is all about.

Re:uhhh....

[jlar]

The above case is not about inciting violence or terrorism. Let me cite a bit of the official court press release about the conviction* (google translate, with small corrections):

"The district court writes in the judgment that those who exercise their freedom of expression - in the picture, voice or text - also have a duty to the extent possible, to avoid statements that are unjustifiably offensive to others and statements that do not contribute to any form of public debate. The judgment is that Dan Parks and gallery owner aim of the exhibition have not been to bring an informed debate, but rather to provoke. On the way they spread the pictures, they have not taken responsibility. Protection of the individual to avoid insults and slurs are therefore in this case of higher priority than freedom of expression and the right to freedom of art."

*) Official press release

Breathing air

[hcs_$reboot]

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

Re:Breathing air

[epyT-R]

Well it is true that oxygen enables terrorists to carry out their attacks. We should probably license those who are allowed to use it, tax them heavily for the privilege, and force them to wear tracking devices used on house-arrestees.

It's the only way to protect us from the terrible secret of space. It has a terrible power. The humans must go down the stairs, the only part open for debate is whether they should be pushed or shoved.

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;

[Half-pint HAL]

And of course, even where legislation does target "high-risk groups", it often descends into harassment of your minority demographic du jour. Right now, that tends to mean black people and Muslims. When I was child, here in the UK, Irish people in a certain age-band were targeted by police as potential terrorists. A lot of people are happy as long as they're the us that's being protected at the cost of some other "them".

Re:At this point the game is so obvious;

[Anonymous Coward]

Write up draconian legislation, wait for a terrorist attack to happen, and immediately unleash it on the public.

Why wait for an attack when you can plan it yourself from behind the scenes? That way it'll happen as soon as any new piece of legislation is ready...

Re:At this point the game is so obvious;

[DNS-and-BIND]

It's a good thing that not all the world is that crazy. The USA is solidly NOT Charlie. Nobody of any importance showed up at the "world leaders link arms" show of force, and this was no accident. It is consistent with US policy.

Was this really an attack on free speech, or the predictable result of pointless provocation? Defending freedom of expression in the face of oppression is one thing; insisting on the right to be obnoxious and offensive just because you can is infantile. Baiting extremists isn't bravely defiant when your manner of doing so is more significant in offending millions of moderate people as well. And within a climate where violent response however illegitimate is a real risk, taking a goading stand on a principle virtually no one contests is worse than pointless: its pointlessly all about you. USA condemns those heinous killings, but IS NOT CHARLIE.

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

Re:At this point the game is so obvious;

[Cyberax]

Duh. The US betrays its own principles once more. The fundamental US right of the freedom of speech? Who cares!

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.

Re:At this point the game is so obvious;

[Shakrai]

Was this really an attack on free speech, or the predictable result of pointless provocation?

Would you make the same statement if we were talking about Scientology and the target of the attack was Comedy Central?

Nobody of any importance showed up at the "world leaders link arms" show of force

Because, once again, our feckless President doesn't understand the importance of symbolism outside of political campaigns. As an American who has friends scattered all over the EU I'm extremely disappointed that he couldn't be bothered to make the trip.

Re:At this point the game is so obvious;

[Beck_Neard]

You don't even need to go that far. Terrorists are always coming up with stupid plans to blow stuff up. All you have to do is just sit back and let them do their thing.

Was there anyone familiar with the situation who _didn't_ see this attack coming? And couldn't it have been prevented with just tighter security around Charlie Hebdo's offices?

Re:At this point the game is so obvious;

[Half-pint HAL]

Freedom to practice your chosen religion was one of the most fundamental principles of the US constitution. The US is a secular state not because the founding fathers were atheists (they weren't) but because they recognised that religious bigotry and intolerance was the biggest threat to the unity of the country (outside of being re-invaded by the King's forces).

Re:At this point the game is so obvious;

[Half-pint HAL]

Mockery and criticism are different things. There is a lot of criticism of Islam in the press. That's par for the course. Mockery is a dangerous tool, and better avoided than used. CH's last round of Muhammad pictures were "satirising" the offence caused by a delibarate troll (the Innocence of Muslims trailer) by... offending.

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!

Re:When the freedom of speech is taken away ...

[Mashiki]

We already have this in Canada on the books, and is codified in our charter of rights and freedoms. Basically it boils down to: "You can do whatever you want, as long as law or society deem it to be harmful." Generally it's worked out well, and when it's over-reached, people have rallied around getting the law changed and it's happened.

Re:When the freedom of speech is taken away ...

[Joe_Dragon]

In Nazi Germany they took away freedom of speech and put people in camps a long with the jews. no we do not need that to start up aging as soon as you control speech then you control the vote and after you control the vote then you can control the army the people and so on.

Re:When the freedom of speech is taken away ...

[stealth_finger]

What law?

Whose law?

Re:When the freedom of speech is taken away ...

[poetmatt]

In respect of US law, obviously. It's not an accident that the timing here is identical to CISPA, because it is much of the same parties with the same interests.

Re:When the freedom of speech is taken away ...

[CrimsonAvenger]

"You can do whatever you want, as long as law or society deem it to be harmful."

Methinks there might be a "not" missing in the above.

Otherwise, your Charter of Rights & Freedoms seems to boil down to "murder is okay, since law or society deems it harmful"....

Re:When the freedom of speech is taken away ...

[Opportunist]

Godwin's law, obviously.

Re:When the freedom of speech is taken away ...

[Curunir_wolf]

War is peace!
Freedom is slavery!
Ignorance is strength!

Fear is Freedom!
Subjugation is Liberation!
Contradiction is Truth!
Those are the facts of this world,
and you will all surrender to them
You PIGS IN HUMAN CLOTHING!

Re:When the freedom of speech is taken away ...

[davester666]

Harper is working to fix this. The same day as our last "terrorist attack", he announced he just had to rush through some already-written legislation, that previously wasn't passed due to complaints from the public. Hey, I can use this death for my personal gain.

Newspeak?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why does this remind me fatally of Orwell's "newspeak"? Or of those "ten commandments" in (also Orwell's) "Animal Farm"?

Sometimes I'm deeply ashamed of the politicans we vote into power.

Swedish Social Democrats filed criminal charges

[Anonymous Coward]

In Swedish: http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=83&artikel=6063116

Someone wrote on Facebook: "The religion of peace has shown its face".

The ruling party filed criminal charges, calling it similar to race hate.

Islamists and the Left is pretty much one and the same.

I look forward to trying to reconcile condemning Saudi Arabia for whipping a guy who insulted the Prophet Muhammad, with jailing a guy who ironically called Islam the religion of peace. Oh wait, nobody will say anything to Saudi Arabia, because the modern left-wing IS Saudi Arabia just slightly milder.

Re:Swedish Social Democrats filed criminal charges

[hooiberg]

Lefties are in a knot here. Because on the one hand they want freedom of religion, and on the other hand they want equality of genders. What we have fought for, and are still fighting for, for over a century. They have not yet realized they cannot have both at the same time. It is very difficult for them to chose...

Either you value free speech or you don't

[Crashmarik]

Makes me glad the U.S. still has the right to free speech even though we are far down the road to replacing that with the right not to be offended.

Re:Either you value free speech or you don't

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't help you, since you're bunch of cowards. None of the big US (and UK) newspapers dared to publish the cartoons offensive to muslims. French and German newspapers did.

Re:Either you value free speech or you don't

[Crashmarik]

Doesn't help you, since you're bunch of cowards. None of the big US (and UK) newspapers dared to publish the cartoons offensive to muslims. French and German newspapers did.

Anonymous coward questions other people's courage ?

Re:Either you value free speech or you don't

[fnj]

He's on the money, though, isn't he? Doesn't change the message.

Re:Either you value free speech or you don't

[Crashmarik]

Last time I looked most of us didn't list our profession as journalists.

Re:Either you value free speech or you don't

[Shakrai]

That's because the unwritten "Right Not To Be Offended" trumps the written "Right To Free Speech" in the United States. I particularly love the irony of seeing college kids chanting "Je suis Charlie" while they simultaneously shout down speakers that they don't agree with and do their utmost to get them banned from speaking at their universities.

Re:Either you value free speech or you don't

[chihowa]

The "Right Not To Be Offended" stifling media censorship is really more of a UK thing. In the US, the media censors itself in the name of maximizing profits (or minimizing any threat to profits). This may seem like an insignificant difference, but the motivations behind the censorship are vastly different. There is no moral imperative to avoid offending people in the US, only the pragmatic desire to avoid losing customers or provoking boycotts and the like. There are plenty of media outlets in the US that cater to the offensive speech seeking crowd and there's no popular movement to silence them.

Censorship is the wrong thing to do

[DrXym]

If you want to catch bad guys you don't want to block them from reaching resources because they'll just use proxies and the likes of tor to get them any way. And in doing so it becomes that much harder to track their activity. The better choice is to let them access what they like and monitor that activity. Use that activity to determine who they interact with, what sites they visit, what aliases they use, what search terms they plug in, what hours they operate, what IP address and location they come from. Shutting off that sort of information is self defeating.

Yeah some terrorists are probably supersmart and security concious and would cover their tracks in any event. But most terrorists are idiots - petty criminals and the dregs of society who've fallen under the spell of the movement. These people should be rich pickings if they are allowed to do what they like and given enough rope to hang themselves.

Lets fight for the freedom of speech ...

[janoc]

... by censorship!

The governments will be busy chasing Facebook and Twitter "jihadists" while the ones with kalashnikovs will be killing people in the streets. *facepalm*

The hypocrisy of the politicians that "were Charlies" this weekend in Paris and at the same time are calling for more Internet censorship really is staggering.

Re:Lets fight for the freedom of speech ...

[janoc]

Are you too ashamed to post this antisemitic and islamophobic screed under your own name that you have to post as an anonymous coward?

How fitting, mate.

Possible best practice

[leadinglights]

To best avoid inciting any discriminatory hatred maybe the portrayal of any group should be obscured. A code should be used for names. e.g., replace "Islamist" with "W4FK9zists". Photos should be edited to replace all extremist group related persons with a common icon. I am sure "Bob" Dobbs wouldn't mind if his likeness replaced those of terrorists, religious leaders, members of political parties - or anybody else for that matter.

This relates to the Clean IT Project (2011-2013)

[Anonymous Coward]

This statement is a manifestation of policy developed during the Clean IT Project, in which seven out of twelve countries who signed this statement participated somewhere between 2011 and 2013. Some details here:

https://blog.cyberwar.nl/2014/08/reducing-terrorist-use-of-the-internet-result-of-clean-it-project-2011-2013/

And here:

https://blog.cyberwar.nl/2014/08/dutch-govt-announces-plan-to-fight-jihadist-internet-use-through-sort-of-voluntary-censorship/

An unofficial HTML version of the outcome of the Clean IT Project can be found here:

https://cyberwar.nl/d/20130118_Reducing-terrorist-use-of-the-Internet_CleanIT.html

Recall that leaked documents contained some controversial items, including the idea to ban non-compliant ISPs from govt contracts; that idea was internally scheduled as a topic for debate. It is unclear what happened to that idea. See more here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_IT_Project#Opposition

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]

In what way was anything I said "dumb"?

I'll note that my opinion is mirrored by the president of Egypt who is himself not only a Muslim but a leader of Muslims.

So... who here is really stupid? Me for making a substantiated argument backed up by facts and the respected opinions of leaders within the culture.

Or some asshat AC too cowardly to use even his fake name?

Exactly. You're nothing.

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]

Yes, many in Islam are calling for reform.

That said... there is a time limit here. There is a clock. Every time we get another atrocity it winds a spring... and once it is fully wound there are going to be sudden reactions.

Islam needs to take this seriously and it needs to move more quickly then it is moving now. The Hindus are already through with them. The Russians and Coptics are through with them. Many portions of Africa have absolutely had it with Islam. The Chinese are increasingly losing patience with Islam.

And in the West... our facility for martyrdom before our ideals is being tested. Every time westerns are killed in western cities by fanatical muslims and we in the west simply hold hands and sing songs... The people that were killed become martyrs to our faith that if we just believe in the goodness of people everything will work out. That is why we don't go on murder sprees to revenge such killings. We take a deep breath and hope. But that is being tested. And at some point... we'll get tired of it.

Islam for all its frothing at the mouth death threats is unable to survive a head to head fight with any major power in the world. Their threats should be proportional to their ability to deliver them.

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.

Re:Islamists don't need the internet

[crunchygranola]

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.

You should brush up on your own history. As much as I despise the Inquisition, the Crusades (where massacres were indeed common), and other depravities of Christendom which are real - I must protest when imaginary depravities are added to the list.

The Catholic Church never burned Muslims at the stake. They burned Christian heretics at the stake. Thus self-proclaimed Christians, suspected of being Muslims or Jews in secret, were burned alive (if they confessed to being secret Muslims or Jews, then they received the 'mercy' of being strangled before being burned). But the execution was not for being Muslim or Jew, it was for practicing Christianity in a heretical manner. The Inquisition had no authority over non-Christians.

Also the assertion that "through the inquisitional killed all muslims that did not convert to Catholicism on the spot" is flatly untrue. Muslims were actually permitted to stay for a time after the Reconquista's completion, then once the monarchy (not the church Inquisition) decided that Muslims would no longer be tolerated, they were given the choice of conversions* or expulsion. The mass executions of Muslims you imagine never happened.

*A bad choice as it turned out. Any self-proclaimed Christian in the lands controlled by the Iberian monarchies who had Jewish or Muslim ancestors was perpetually suspected of heresy, and in danger of persecution/prosecution by the Inquisition.

Re:Islamists don't need the internet

[Karmashock]

A distinction without contextual relevance. The point is that Muslims would not be tolerated by Christians in the 21st century in societies that would have remained rabidly Christian if Christianity had not gone though a transformation.

Are people of other faiths permitted in Islamic countries? Notice the large Jewish, thriving Christian, Hindu, and Buddhist populations in Islamic countries. Right?

I mean, if there is anything Islamic society is known for... it is tolerance.

Right?

Do you have any doubt that if the West were full of the zeal of the 15th century that we'd even be having this discussion?

That is my point. Christianity reformed. Islam is overdue.

Re:Islamists don't need the internet

[Karmashock]

The point was not to pass judgement on Christianity but rather to point out that the religion reformed where as Islam has not. It no longer acceptable in the 21st century for Islam to not reform and for its believers to mingle freely in the global culture if they view everyone else in the culture as someone they can kill at will without moral consequence.

That was my point.

Re:Islamists don't need the internet

[drinkypoo]

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.

You can find Christians making the same claims just by turning on the television set, you don't need to go searching. Buddhists and Hindus, not so much. Which is why far less people even think about their religion, which is how it should be. Your* religion is between you and your gods, it has nothing to do with me.

* Obviously, the global you, not you personally

Re:Islamists don't need the internet

[msobkow]

You, sir, generalize a population that comprises something on the order of 20% of the entire planet's population as "must go through a reformation" despite the fact that only a few thousand of them are terrorists. You provide no verifiable or disputable statements in your own post, despite your self-righteous claims that you only respect the opinions of of people who provide their statements in a "falsifiable" fashion.

You are the very stereotype of a bigot and a racist, spewing hatred and bile and inciting people to "do your dirty work" of committing the actual violence against others with your words.

Worse, you completely ignore little details like the Crusades and try to pretend that Islam is unique in it's spewing against gay culture and such things, despite recent statements from the Catholic church.

I despise low life scum such as yourself.

What this world needs less of is you.

Re:Islamists don't need the internet

[DutchUncle]

"Live and let live" is a good attitude; the problem is that the OTHER person has to have the same attitude towards YOU. This is a core problem with trying to have a tolerant and multicultural society: one is supposed to be tolerant of other people's positions, INCLUDING the position of being an intolerant bigot insisting that the society become restrictive and intolerant to satisfy the requirements of one or another old book.

Re:Islamists don't need the internet

[DutchUncle]

The president of Egypt also has a political angle on this, because some of his opposition comes from the fundamentalist religious leaders, and he has to attempt undermining their *moral* authority (since they can't argue on the *civil* authority side). OTOH there should be no distinction between religion and state (at least, according to the religion). Not very different from any Western royalty who ruled "by grace of God" (sic).

Re:Islamists don't need the internet

[Bob the Super Hamste]

Well there has been a recent spat in India over some forced conversions so they aren't mellow as you believe.

Re:Islamists don't need the internet

[d34thm0nk3y]

ISIS is literally crucifying children right now. In the name of Islam.

And, right now, Turkish and Kurdish Muslims are fighting a war against ISIS.

I guess the Turks and Kurds aren't true enough Scotsmen for you.

Re:Islamists don't need the internet

[Karmashock]

Find me a video please.

Mine will top it.

And then I'll cite internationally respected statistics that put your position to shame.

Do it. I can't wait.

Re:Islamists don't need the internet

[Karmashock]

http://www.pewglobal.org/2010/...

Any one that has done any looking at all could find these statistics and better.

Pew and Gallup polls both agree that over 20 percent of the total islamic population of the planet is radicalized. It varies a bit. You have some areas where its over 90 percent and you have some areas where it drops down to about 15 percent. But 20 percent is pretty common.

One in fucking five. That is not a tiny minority.

I am not a fascist. I am just not a fucking retard like you. You WANT things to be better. And so you close your eyes and BELIEVE it because you just can't handle the truth.

I don't want this to be true. I really don't. But it is true. Accept it so that something can be done about it.

Re:Islamists don't need the internet

[Karmashock]

Nah, you're just ignorant and intolerant of new ideas. Ironically, you're the bigot because you're prejudged me without understanding anything.

Allow me to open your beady little eyes:

That is the president of Egypt agreeing with me:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com...

Guess he's a bigot too, huh? Shit for brains :D

And here is an example of what is going on in many of these mosques since you're apparently fucking clueless:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Notice all the moderate muslims raising their hands agreeing with death penalities for various infractions against their religion? Yeah. Maybe the real difference is that when they mean moderate, they don't mean something tolerant of western values but something rather where they'd be less inclined to actually kill them personally. But they sure as hell approve of it apparently.

And because you're pretty fucking thick, lets get some stats from the Pew polling service. I have other ones from both Pew and Gallup if you'd like:
http://www.pewglobal.org/2010/...

So you see, shithead? You're wrong. Suck it. Suck it long. Suck it hard.

Re:Islamists don't need the internet

[Karmashock]

Alright Mr AC, lets talk about it.

As to your claim that all radicalism is the fault of western imperialism, that is kind of cool. So what you're saying is that the reason they are the way they are is because we made them that way.

Dos that little theory go both ways? Because we did nice things for South Korea. Can we assume that all their modernity and accomplishments are really ours? Like... could I go to South Korea and tell them to bow down to the awesomeness of my country because we gave them everything they have?

Or does your stupid little theory only flow one way? Bet it does. I bet it only is kept in place so long as to blame us for things and then the instant the same theory might show we did nice things for someone you'll hypocritically and arbitrarily use a different standard.

Guess what, we're not responsible for their radicalism. Look at Eastern Europe. Similar situation and yet not so much suicide bombing and death to the infidel... right? So your little idea is garbage.

Clean the shit out of your head and try again.

Re:Islamists don't need the internet

[Karmashock]

The most successful Islamic society is Turkey.

That country's current government was founded by a fellow by the name of Ataturk. And he agrees with both me and the Egyptian president.

I am not a bigot. I stand with evidence behind me and the good consenting opinion of prominent statesmen from within their society.

What do you have behind you?

Nothing.

You are the bigot. You are the one that is prejudiced. You prejudge ME. You can't accept that your world view is wrong and so you're going to just run around labeling people like me as Heretics, unbelievers, and infidels.

Open your little beady eyes. This is reality. I don't like it anymore then you do. But it is here and it is real.

Deal with it.

Re:Islamists don't need the internet

[Karmashock]

I didn't say the Indians were mellow. I said to the contrary that the Hindus had HAD IT with islam. They're not alone.

Islam is on poor terms with literally ALL of its neighbors.

No one that lives next to an islamic country has good relations with them. Find me exceptions and even if you do find an exception, I will show it is the exception that proves the rule.

From Africa, to Europe, to west Asia, to middle asia, to east asia... problems with everyone.

I dare you to contradict me. Double dog dare with mustard on top. Do it.

Re:Islamists don't need the internet

[Karmashock]

If ISIS were the only example you'd have a point. But then its all over the place.

And I'll note further that the elements in Turkey, Kurdistan, and Egypt that are fighting against these people agree with me that Islam needs to reform.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com...

I am in good company with facts at my back. You've got nothing on me.

Re:Islamists don't need the internet

[DutchUncle]

Ummm . . . Not sure why you're attacking *me*. I'm not even disagreeing with you; just pointing out that in this society where religion is such an integral part of society and authority, there are both religious and political angles to consider. As it happens, I'm a member of a religious minority in my own country, and very used to going along with (for example) the public school chorus that I was in singing lots of songs for the majority religious festivals - of which I was an unbeliever.

Re:Islamists don't need the internet

[Karmashock]

You're inferring that he's only cynically saying this to undermine political rivals and otherwise doesn't believe it.

That is attack on the credibility of my citation which if validated would would undermine my position.

I responded by defending my citation and attempting to undermine you.

Quid pro quo, no?

Re:Islamists don't need the internet

[Karmashock]

As I said, I believe in being nice but not in being a door mat. I believe in common courtesy but not allowing people to take advantage of me.

Islam has crossed this line. At least in the case of about 20 percent of their population. Which is not a small minority.

Re:Islamists don't need the internet

[DutchUncle]

Ah. Then I did not state my position clearly. I think he does believe this position, and I also think that he has multiple reasons for believing it - some religious, some secular and practical, some political. In order to modernize in the secular world, one must modernize people's attitudes about the world in general, and since religion is a serious component of those attitudes, religion faces (as I see it) two options: it can modernize as well, or it will be left behind. Young people in the US do not explicitly "leave" their parents' religious teachings; but they make less and less effort to follow them actively, or to belong to religious organizations - EXCEPT for the most fervent, who seem stronger than ever. Extremists in ALL religions seem to do well because they offer certainty and simplicity in a complex world. But those certainties tend to be rooted not just in old ideas, but in old interpretations of those old ideas. Old ideas may be perfectly valid - many of Plato's quotes still resonate - but old interpretations and attitudes may pass from usefulness, yet be maintained simply out of dedication to "tradition". "Women must be protected" - yes, very chivalrous, but "protected" doesn't have to mean "restricted", and in a knowledge economy where mens' physical strength is not the only form of labor and value, a society can't afford to handicap itself by eliminating half of its potential brain pool. So the interpretations of five hundred years ago - which are *only* interpretations, not the original text! - could be reviewed, and rethought, and reinterpreted . . . except that the elders of ALL religions always deprecate ANY thought of changing "sacred tradition", whether it comes from the original text, or some one particular scholar's thinking about one particular case at one particular time and place and social situation. Many cultures used slavery, and thought it was acceptable, if only for prisoners of war; most societies decided over time that it was not acceptable. If "religion" is about living a good and moral life, then so many issues of ritual and tradition should be similarly reviewed in the light of changing times and technology. So . . . to somehow come back to the original point . . . it is completely sensible to take a position for modernizing religion based on both religious, and secular, and even political BENEFITS to the society, rather than allow "tradition" to be a straightjacket locked to the past, *and* rather than allow all tradition to be discredited and lost. We can still cook Grandmother's recipe, but now we can do it with stainless-steel pots and utensils, with pure water and pasteurized ingredients; just so we can still give honor to ancient texts and traditions, in a manner consistent with modern understanding.

Re:Islamists don't need the internet

[Karmashock]

We generally agree then.

Re:Islamists don't need the internet

[Karmashock]

As to islam being the way it is because of no pope. That assumes that both religions are analogous. They're not really.

And I think a bigger problem for Islam is that they have a very strong prohibition against changing or reinterpreting their religion. That is a big problem because it means it is very hard to mold them into something more reasonable.
As to the Ottomans, they also had the Janissaries. The real irony is that the Ottomans went into decline pretty much the instant they abolished the Janissaries. Look it up, they got rid of them around 1826 and were officially in decline around 1828. Two years and down the crapper.

What we can see from Islamic society is that it doesn't self regulate very well. The solution appears to be using institutions to prevent it from destroying itself.

The modern Turks use their military to keep their government mostly secular. The Ottomans relied upon a slave caste that basically ran the empire for them. They did all sorts of stuff. Clerical work, audits, enforcement, etc. They were the voice of the Sultan. He would give an order and they would see it done. Once removed all of that stopped happening and/or was incompetently done.

which is it

[hanwenn]

So, will anti-Muslim cartoons like Charlie Hebdo's be forbidden in the future (hate speech), or is it now allowed to deny the Holocaust (free speech for everyone?).

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 !!

Re:Terrorists are not scapegoats ...

[elgatozorbas]

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

Occam would disagree. It is far more likely that some egomaniac fuck wants to immortalise himself by attacking a cartoon magazine, on his own. Your conspiracy theory, while not impossible, seems much less likely and unneeded. At least, if I was "in control", I would prefer other, more reliable methods. Or just wait. Terrorist attacks have been happening regularly, so why stage on of your own?

Freiheit (Freedom)

[andremerzky400]

"Freiheit ist immer Freiheit der Andersdenkenden."
"Freedom is always the freedom of dissenters."
- Rosa Luxemburg

... 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

We are Winning!

[Anonymous Coward]

Mein Führer! We are winning the next elections in France, Germany, Latvia, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Spain, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Sweden and the U.K. Our internment camp plans are progressing again!

Are you sure it is that new ?

[aepervius]

We already have law on the book with respect to speech and hatred, and those being forbidden... It sounds to me it is only required to really enforce those law now in a speedy manner.

Re:Are you sure it is that new ?

[fnj]

We have proto-law in the form of the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech". So long as that provision is not amended via Constitutional process, do you see any wiggle room there? Hemming and hawing doesn't count.

As it stands, any Federal law whatsoever abridging freedom of speech in any manner is null and void on the face of it. But this in no way restricts the laws of individual states.

Re:(European) left-wing = "red fascism"!

[SilenceBE]

Funny here in Belgium we have a right wing government and they where one of the first to and I quote "to give up a bit of our freedom of speech". The N-VA for example a couple of weeks ago was attacking the local press - so much that journalistic organisations needed to intervene - so it taste a bit bad if they are now portraying them-self as the fighters of freedom of speech.

It isn't a problem of right or left but the problem is the politician as a whole and people who always see the things in black and white. And it is not even the problem of religion but the small minority that uses violence.

Did you know that - even if the right is abusing this drama - that Charlie Hebdo was seen as a left wing magazine that combated any form of (religious) extremism? Tell that to some right-wing nuts and their head explodes because they can compute it in their black and white world where everybody "left" is Islam loving or whatever they call it.

The world is a bit more complex then the simplistic views that a lot of sides seems to hold.

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.

Blowback

[benjfowler]

I can understand that everyone is mad as hell from the Charle Hebdo thing, and that the boundaries between free speech, as opposed to incitement and hate speech, are shifting.

Those boundaries need to be well understood, and set in stone.

That said, the sneaky efforts of religious people, especially Muslims and Catholics, to ban rude words against their beliefs, and paint themselves as victims, must be opposed. I don't know if people appreciate how sneaky and sophisticated, pro-Muslim propaganda actually is; Muslim groups and Islamic countries have paid PR outfits in the United States a lot of money to find ways to turn criticism of radical Islam into a thought crime. The Muslim Brotherhood, for instance, commissioned a PR shop, to invent the term "Islamophobia", to attack feminists. Accusation of "Islamophobia" has proven to be a powerful weapon for Islamic triumpalists and cultural imperialists.

Here it comes

[goarilla]

The European Patriot Act.

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:Disregards the people completely

[ilparatzo]

A good politician would never miss an opportunity to use an emotional moment such as this one to push their own political agenda. It's rarely been about looking at the situation and what the government can do to better protect against it or learn from it. It's most frequently about finding some way to connect something you and those around you want to push through and manipulate the situation to make them apparently connect.

The same politicians that stand up and exalt scientific studies and research routinely fail to use the scientific methods in their own processes. Because in politics there is little worse than finding out you might be wrong or your opponent may be right on a subject.

Re: Disregards the people completely

[Areyoukiddingme]

Unarmed men are corralled

Unarmed men who have access to diesel fuel, styrofoam, and a hardware store need not remain unarmed for long.

And the governments in question really don't like that I can say that legally.

In other words

[Anonymous Coward]

Give in to terrorists and let them win.

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.

May I remind you all

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

that the Charlie Hebdo terrorists were under surveillance by the French interior surveillance services. They were known, identified extremists and the police failed to prevent their attack.

What we're dealing with here is a police failure, not a surveillance failure.

The Charlie Hebdo events are the perfect excuse for the powers-that-be and the rich fucks of this world to inch a little closer to their wet dream of a 1984-style society for the rest of us - as if those who pay attention to the erosion of individual liberties didn't see it coming. It's disgusting...

Re:May I remind you all

[fustakrakich]

What we're dealing with here is a police failure...

We are dealing with our own failure, to control the authoritarians, but it's basically because most people identify with and support the authorities that we have this problem. People want to be the authority. I heard a guy once say, paraphrasing, *I don't mind a dictatorship, as long as I'm the dictator*. This is what most people feel. So, we have what we have. We are certainly NOT Charlie. The voters are siding with the terrorists with all this censorship crap. And we are seeing the fascists grow stronger for it.

Re:May I remind you all

[Opportunist]

And what should we do? Vote Kodos next time? It's not like you have a lot of choices, you know?

Not even in Europe where you can actually choose between more than two parties, you're usually stuck. Mostly because even politicians CANNOT change shit. You think voting could change that? We're in the stranglehold of international treaties and contracts with various corporations that abused the lack of intelligence in governments. Every 3-6 years, depending on country, governments change, and sooner or later you WILL eventually get one that is staffed with idiots (or worse, corrupt assholes) that will sell your country out. And then you're fucked.

Politicians know that, and they also know that they're fucked and that your ONLY way out will eventually be using violence. Why do you think they do everything in their power to ensure that there will be nobody that could present a focal point of the collective anger boiling in the population? There are more than a few countries in Europe where all that's missing for a full blown civil war is someone with the charisma and the will to yell "follow me". And I wouldn't count on the army to defend against them either.

Europe's democracies are sitting wedged between Islamist nutjobs that threaten to bomb and shoot whatever they don't like, and Fascists luring in people with the fear and anger the Islamist nuts cause. And in between is our democracies with very few people left within the population that would willingly defend them, let alone with their life.

Re:May I remind you all

[fustakrakich]

You think voting could change that?

I can't say until you try. 95% reelection rates say you're not trying. If all you're going to do is show up once every two years, I don't expect much to happen. Working the system means working the system.

Re:(European) left-wing = "red fascism"!

[misexistentialist]

their head explodes because they can compute it in their black and white world where everybody "left" is Islam loving or whatever they call it.

Leftist subverters promote Islam to destroy the status quo, but of course the ultimate goal is an atheistic orthodoxy. This contradictory "dialectic" makes opponents of leftism look like they are chasing their tails until they realize that leftism is a government disease. No welfare subsidies+no employment regulation=no immigration problem

WHO GETS TO DECIDE!?

[kheldan]

Who gets to decide what is and is not 'hate speech', hmm? You may as well have some committee deciding for an entire planet what 'is' and 'is not' art. Oh, and of course no politician will ever use something like this to advance any agenda they might have, oh no! Keep up the good work, EU! You'll be living under Sharia Law before too long if you keep this up!

Terrorists: 1
European Union: 0


IDIOTS!

Re:WHO GETS TO DECIDE!?

[Opportunist]

You haven't been keeping score for long, have you? We're closer to the Germany:Brasil result of that last soccer championship. And I'm not so sure whether the EU really scored yet.

Re:WHO GETS TO DECIDE!?

[kheldan]

I really have no idea what that even means, I don't watch sports.

Re:(European) left-wing = "red fascism"!

[SilenceBE]

ALL MUSLIMS BELIEVE WHAT MUSLIMS BELIEVE...

Which doesn't make any sense because like in a lot of religions you have different views. In Christianity you have Catholicism, Anglican, Coptic Christians, ... that is the same for Islam and the interpretation of their scriptures. You have salafism, shia Islam, sunni's,... why do you think they hate each-other guts? You should put somebody from Iran with somebody from IS and see what happens, I think you will have quickly a different view that that "All muslims believe what muslims believe"...

I have Muslim friends who are practicing their religion and for the most part - with the exception of the Ramadan that is the only time I am confronted with their religion - aren't that different. The girls don't wear a hijab and go out and drink like my "western" friends. I even have western friends who are married with a muslim and they are as free as before.

Granted that wouldn't be the case for those who practice salafisme, but fortunately - because that is a believe that develops terrorists - these are the minority.

Criticizing the press is also a form of free speech, don't you think?

Yes of course but unfortunately in Belgium it becomes less about the argumentation but more about automatic shrugging it of as left and even trying to silence those who have an opposing view. If a TV personality say somethings that opposes the view of right the whole social sphere explodes and a barrage of mails starts to the point somebody needs to apology. Why the hell is that ?

When a cartoonist post a cartoon that is negative for a popular right wing politician it is just the same. Like some cartoonist reacted after the Charlie Hebdo attack, people doesn't seem to accept opposing views.

You too seem to see the world in black and white: a world where every right-wing 'nut' sees the world in b&w.

I live in a society that shifted from a left-central view to a more right wing view, that introduced a lot of more black and white thinking. And not only about the press but also about those who are weaker in our society or are different, like for example Muslims but not only them. I have a disability and have been battling my whole life with PTSD (suffered from a lot of physical abuse as a child) and I can tell you for a fact - and really in all honesty - that I had it a lot harder since the right became more popular.

And it is not about the social benefits as I still work as a developer, but the the constant mantra that every "weakling" lives on the head - I don't know the English equivalent - of the "hardworking middle class" doesn't do a lot of good for those who aren't a member of that group. The hateful and stupid things you hear on the street these days... . Sometimes it is like everyone that is unemployed or is disabled is trying to abuse the system or faking it which is ridiculous.

But you can't hear any of those kind of politicians talking without creating any new form of enemy: first it was the french, then the socialist (although they call them-self "social") , the trade unions, the unemployed and those who live on a disability income... . And when I confront some of them it is always about those who abuse the system, but they - for some bizarre reason - never seem to make that distinction in their speeches or interviews.

Censor IS the how, no approval - prior restraint

[raymorris]

Censorship is a specific METHOD of restricting speech. Specifically, it means having the censor approve publications before they are published. Under a censorship system, the Charlie cartoon wouldn't have been published, because the censor would not have approved it for publication.

Threat of punishment is ANOTHER way of getting similar results. The effect my be similar to censorship, but the method is via punishment, not via censorship.

It may still be bad, evil, unconstitutional, etc. It's just not censorship, because censorship is a specific process, not a result.

more internet censorship is on the way

[fustakrakich]

Let's hope it brings about more incentive to route around it. Censorship must be defeated by any means possible.

Extreme speech detection tool:

[aepervius]

If you preach that XYZ needs to be : * lose right they have now
* ened to be "eliminated", "purged", "kicked out of the countries"
Then your speech is most probably extreme.

Most Left political ideology in the US did not meet those criteria. In fact witch hunt from holywood and the FBI *did* meet that criteria.

Finally in europüe we have many hate speech law. I may be wrong, but they are speaking not of new law, which already cover the case, but rather speed up enfrocement.

This is twisted!!!

[jopsen]

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

They are not talking about censorship... Nor are they talking about people making bad cartoons...
They are talking about videos encouraging young extremists to up arms against innocent civilians.

This is perfectly reasonable, one is not allowed to encourage criminal activities. We often tolerate bloggers encouraging people to disregard speed limits, disregard copyright law, or participate in civil disobedience, etc... But if you encourage murder, terror, violence, it is perfectly reasonable to prosecute you.

Note, free speech, does not imply speech without consequences. It is not okay to incite violence, perpetrade fraud, spread false rumours about people (UDHR Article 12). Also speech crime does not equal censorship.

Censorhip

[q4Fry]

..for heavier internet censorhip

You've got to be pulling my censorleg.

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

[lgw]

One historical note: the Patriot Act merely extended "you have no rights if we just say that you're a drug dealer" to "you have no rights if we just say that you're a drug dealer or terrorist". Be very wary what power you give the government - they never give any back.

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

[Half-pint HAL]

*Sigh*. I look forward to the day when Coursera runs An Introduction to Sarcasm for Americans...

"Blasphemous" according to whom?

[DutchUncle]

After all, there are *lots* of prophets.

Re:Common Sense

[Opportunist]

It's actually kind of cute. Every time someone comes and says the US is a Democracy, rest assured someone will come along and point out it's a Republic.

It's neither. Ok? Can we finally get over the petty shit and ... oh who am I talking to, you're thinking you have two different parties when all they really differ in IS petty shit.

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

[Areyoukiddingme]

*Sigh*. I look forward to the day when Coursera runs An Introduction to Sarcasm for Americans...

Won't help. You're looking for An Introduction to Sarcasm for Aspberger Syndrome Patients.

European ?

[pebear]

If my ancestors wanted to be European they would have stayed...... The place sucks and that is why the left. They left for greener and more free pastures right here in the US of A.

"döms för hets mot folkgrupp"

[jopsen]

I read Danish which is close to Swedish, and the summary says: Convicted for "character assassination"/"smear campaign" against a segment of the population.

Depending on circumstances and interpretation, this can certainly be a violation of the human rights.
Also note the source mentioned here doesn't say he was sentenced to prison...