European Court: Websites Are Responsible For Users' Comments

An anonymous reader writes: A new ruling from the European Court of Human Rights found it perfectly acceptable to hold websites responsible for comments left by users. Experts are worried the ruling will encourage websites to censor content posted by users out of concern that they're opening themselves up to legal liability. The judgment also seems to support the claim that "proactive monitoring" can be required of website owners. Peter Micek of digital rights group "Access" said, "This ruling is a serious blow to users' rights online. Dissenting voices will have fewer outlets in which to seek and impart opinions anonymously. Instead, users at risk will be dragged down by a precedent that will keep them from accessing the open ocean of ideas and information."

Comments

I for one,

[Anonymous Coward]

Welcome our new authoritarian overlords.

Re:I for one,

[Z00L00K]

So now we have invented the Ministry of Truth.

Re:I for one,

[Guildor]

Thus proving you're free to say anything you like! ... as long as they agree with it. Otherwise you're a dissenter, and nuisance, and in breach of disturbing the peace online. Well, I'd make sure my website was hosted in a "free" country, and argue that EU has no jurisdiction there. So naff off! Way to encourage IT in the EU! People should be able to say what they want. Freedom of speech should be an unalienable right if you ask me.

Re:I for one,

[Anonymous Coward]

So you really think it would be better if there was no restrictions on statements like this on a website/newspaper: "Let all us good xxxx get together and beat/shoot/kill all those bastards from group yyyy!"?

That is an opinion I respectfully disagree with, historically that has proved to be real dangerous, we have many many examples where such statements has been followed, I claim 9/11, former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Cartoonists in Paris...... No, we do not need to go back to the '30s in Europe to see that there must be limits to hate speech or where there needs to be a balance between free speech and suggestion of violence against opponents or another group.

This court says there is such a line and IN THIS PARTICULAR case the national court ruled on the right side of said line. Nothing more was said. No future cases can be ruled based on this. This is good legal work.

Better to know someone's real thoughts than a filtered politicialy-correct, government-approved interpretation of the person's thoughts. It is easier to expose dumb people when they are allowed to speak freely.

Re:I for one,

[Daemonik]

That is the most laughable thing I've ever read, coming from an AC. How about signing in with your real name and address, THEN posting comments about being able to speak freely.

Re:I for one,

[hawkinspeter]

The right to anonymity is an essential part of freedom/free speech. Deciding whether to sign in or not should not have any bearing on the validity of any arguments espoused. Just because you feel safe enough to post comments under a username does not mean that everyone has that same luxury.

Re:I for one,

[Totenglocke]

I don't get why Europe spent so much money and wasted so many lives fighting against dictatorships in the mid-20th century when they just went and established the same goddamn policies in their place. Loki was right, humans (well, the majority) crave oppression and someone else telling them what to do.

Re:I for one,

[KGIII]

No, you should teach your kids to avoid hate speech so that you do not end up with dumb children.

Re:I for one,

[Penguinisto]

Quick - define "hate speech" in a completely objective way.

Fact is, you cannot, because "hate" is a subjective emotion, and the recipient(s) refuse to adhere to any consistent behavior upon hearing/seeing it. It also refuses to be equal in application and/or influence. Example? No problem: Call me a "honkey" in anger, and I'd just laugh my ass off (it's a funny word), in spite of the fact that it's a term specifically created to denigrate someone based on pale skin color. Call my best friend the "n" word in jest, and he'll explode in rage, then proceed to kick your ass.

  Here's the problem I have with it, especially in matters of law: "Hate speech" can mean anything the presumptive victim wants it to mean, which in turn means that the definition is too fluid to be useful in law. See also "microaggression", which I'm certain will bloom into 'hate speech' if given a chance and the right authorities with a grudge to nurse.

Re:I for one,

[Pubstar]

Quick - define "hate speech" in a completely objective way.

Hate speech is speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as gender, ethnic origin, religion, race, disability, or sexual orientation.

Just because hate is a subjective emotion doesn't mean that you can't have a legal definition of something.

Re:I for one,

[budgenator]

Sounds good in theory, but in practice kids tend to tune-out that type of parental advice beginning around 12 or 13 and it lasts until around 27,28; or at least hear "don't do" as "don't get caught doing"/

Re:I for one,

[budgenator]

Europeans just can't process the concept of individual sovereignty and that rights and privileges originate with the individual and Governmental Authority is granted to the government by the individuals and Government governs only at the pleasure of the People not the other way around. Centuries of being conditioned to except sovereignty as top-down coming from God -> Pope -> King -> Duke -> Serf, makes the concept of individual sovereignty too alien; Government Bureaucrats like the top-down fine.

Re:I for one,

[ray-auch]

Quick - define "hate speech" in a completely objective way.

Hate speech is speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as gender, ethnic origin, religion, race, disability, or sexual orientation.
 

And is that a _perceived_ attack or an _intended_ attack, and how do you tell ? Physical attacks are identified by their effects or the effects they would have had if successful (e.g. shooting at someone and missing). Speech attacks are defined... how ?

Is accurate factual speech an "attack" or does it have to be lies ? Is reading from religious holy books an attack, or would it rather be hate speech on religious grounds to criticise someone preaching from their holy book ? Could you be arrested for quoting from the bible or the koran, or would those who accuse you be arrested for attacking you, with an accusation of hate speech, verbally on the basis of your religion ? Or both ? Or neither ?

Turns out the most usual definition is that someone feels attacks, or offended. As a believer in free speech I find it terribly offensive when others suggest that speech should be curtailed merely to ensure that others do not take offence, even if none was intended. I do not try to ban such speech, but I do point out that it is offensive to me, usually only to be told not to be so silly, that no offence was intended and I shouldn't be so easily offended.

Re:I for one,

[dl_sledding]

You forgot "female"... Your description would have been a grand slam then...

But you are right: anything should be able to be written, especially in a detached environment such as the Internet. This is not like yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater: there is a physical separation at work here that will not directly affect your immediate safety from someone's "speech". However, freedom of speech has never, ever been a strong point in the Old World, which is why it was important enough to the founding fathers of the US to vault it to the very first thing that is protected in the Bill of Rights.

If one person acts on another's words, it is the actor at fault, not the writer. If this was not true, there would be many, many artists that would be brought up on charges. For instance, the Beatles could have been brought up on charges for Charles Manson's ilk's actions. As it was, even old Charlie himself almost wasn't able to be accused; it took a lot of work to get the prosecution to take the case.

Now, in the EU, this seems like it is soon to be the case, though...

Dear EU Courts,

[Anonymous Coward]

Suck it.

- An American Enjoying Their Freedom of Speech

Re:Dear EU Courts,

[BlueStrat]

- An American Enjoying Their Freedom of Speech

Well, for as long as even the illusion of 'free speech' lasts, with things like TPP, SOPA, PIPA, and whatever other secret treaties are waiting in the wings for a distraction to provide the right opportunity to sneak a 'yea' vote in.

Strat

Re:Dear EU Courts,

[garyisabusyguy]

That seems like a stretch

Re:Dear EU Courts,

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't worry, the NSA has already tracked him down by IP.

Re:Dear EU Courts,

[johanw]

You are currently in your assigned free-speech zone, aren't you? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone)

Re:Dear EU Courts,

[mwvdlee]

Why are you posting as AC if you have true freedom of speech?

Re: Dear EU Courts,

[Anonymous Coward]

Because they can

Re:Dear EU Courts,

[Anonymous Coward]

Because there are some idiots that might not like what you say and mistake their dislike for it to being entitled to do nasty things to you for voicing your opinion. Having the choice to posting as AC promotes freedom of expression by permitting free speech in situations that might otherwise inhibit or prohibit it.

Just look at what happens in countries where freedom of speech is not a given. Journalists having to work under cover, gambling their lives just to get the truth out there because those in power would rather silence them. Anonymity matters.

Having the option to posting as AC doesn't make your opinion invalid - though you're more likely to surround yourself with assholes that way, and make yourself less likely to be heard. But some messages are important enough that even then they're worth voicing.

Re:Dear EU Courts,

[William Baric]

What's the difference between posting as AC or using a random nickname?

Re:Dear EU Courts,

[Daemonik]

Suck it.

- An American Enjoying Their Freedom of Speech

Posted by an Anonymous Coward, so certain of their freedom of speech they won't identify themselves.

Re:Dear EU Courts,

[Jason Levine]

One of the reasons the court gave for making the website responsible for its commenters postings was that the commenters in question couldn't easily be identified and prosecuted. Maybe these comments weren't "good" comments (they were allegedly defamatory), but they were people exercising free speech. Anonymous speech and free speech have a long history together. In the US, some of the founding fathers wrote under pen names because using their real names might cause backlash.

Re:Dear EU Courts,

[Totenglocke]

My assigned free-speech zone is the shooting range. I find that the two compliment each other well and both terrify politicians with dreams of unlimited power.

Re:Dear EU Courts,

[Daemonik]

"Free Speech" is not without it's limits. You can't shout fire in a crowd, you can't threaten other people, you can't say outright lies about people. 99.9% of the AC's commenting on /. are not afraid of government reprisals, they're worried about their friends and family finding out what raging a-holes they are, and possibly getting sued for libel.

Re:Dear EU Courts,

[liquid_schwartz]

That seems like a stretch

To be fair we won't know if that's a stretch or not since the POTUS won't allow any citizens to read the trade treaties and those who can read the various treaties can't comment on them. I wouldn't rule it out at all. For example wouldn't corporations, who write these trade agreements, love to have a law against negative reviews or complaint oriented websites? That could fall under broad definitions of trade. Never take freedom for granted or figure that "they would never" when they happily would and increasingly are taking it away.

Re:Dear EU Courts,

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

Perhaps. But the NSA still needs to drag him into court over his speech (likely to fail) or declare him a terrorist (rare and highly visible) if they want to do anything to him,

Re:Dear EU Courts,

[suutar]

nah, just start with food libel laws and then extend them a bit to protect some other segment from commentary, and then a bit more, and then...

Re:Dear EU Courts,

[Rakarra]

What's the difference between posting as AC or using a random nickname?

You leave a history with that nickname. The longer the history is, the more chances you will have of leaving something identifiable. Idiom usage and sentence construction at first, but as months turn to years, chances grow that you start mentioning enough things about the place where you live to narrow things down to a geographic location. And if you mention specific events or things that only you or a few others know, you're really setting yourself up for trouble.

Re:Dear EU Courts,

[BlueStrat]

To be fair we won't know if that's a stretch or not since the POTUS won't allow any citizens to read the trade treaties and those who can read the various treaties can't comment on them.

The whole idea of a proposed Treaty being Classified material is ludicrous on it's face. I don't mean drafts and such within ongoing negotiations. I mean any Treaty with foreign powers presented to Congress being Classified is repugnant and an illegal end-run around the Constitution and the entire process. Any proposed Treaty submitted for consideration by Congress should be made publicly available to read/copy/analyze at the same time as anyone in Congress is able to view it.

Not that details like end-running Congress and the US Constitution (when not flat-out violating the shit out of it) seem to bother anyone anymore. Hell, people citing and/or carrying a copy of the US Constitution are considered potential terrorist threats by DHS.

In 2009, The DHS issued a report entitled "Right-wing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment."

"Right- wing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly anti- government, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration."

About two weeks later, the DHS released a second report entitled: "Domestic Extremism Lexicon". That report labeled the following to be extremists, bordering on terrorism:

Those concerned over the economy; loss of jobs; foreclosures; antagonism toward the Obama Administration; Criticism of free trade programs; anti-abortion; oppose same sex marriage; believe in the âoeend times;â stock pile food; oppose illegal immigration; oppose a New World Order; oppose the UN; oppose global governance; fear of Communist regimes; oppose loss of US manufacturing to overseas nations; oppose loss of US prestige; use of the internet (or alternative media) to express any of these ideas.

Basically, if you disagree with anything the government does or says, and/or hold any traditional American values and believe in God and/or the principles in the Constitution, and particularly if you communicate your values, beliefs, and opinions to others using modern communication methods, you are a 'possible domestic terror threat' and put on a 'list' or several, maybe even the infamous 'No-Fly' list, possibly be subjected to more detailed surveillance/tracking and data analysis to identify 'pressure points' for possible future use and identify/monitor anyone you may have 'radicalized' with your dangerous views and opinions.

Strat

Re:Dear EU Courts,

[Rakarra]

Do you have Tourette's? Did anything you said really have anything to do with what I said, or are you throwing random insults around?

Good thing Slashdot isn't in the EU

[weilawei]

I quite like the freedom to swear up a fucking storm and make unpleasant comments.

Re:Good thing Slashdot isn't in the EU

[hcs_$reboot]

Yes, but you get to be censored not by the EU, but by the /. moderators.

Re:Good thing Slashdot isn't in the EU

[weilawei]

The Slashdot moderators don't censor; they rate things. I still see every single post. Zero posts are hidden. Which posts have you had outright deleted or modified against your wishes lately?

Re:Good thing Slashdot isn't in the EU

[weilawei]

What on earth does freedom of speech have to do with my political persuasions? For the record, I'm not a Republican. I'm not registered to any party, nor have I ever been. I think party/machine politics are bullshit.

You think some awfully weird things on very little evidence.

Re:Good thing Slashdot isn't in the EU

[weilawei]

Let's say that Slashdot is liable for facilitating my uncouth comments. How exactly would that make me not liable in such a situation?

Also, the right to offend is more important than the right to not be offended. Now get the fuck off my lawn.

Re:Good thing Slashdot isn't in the EU

[tompaulco]

Good thing? If Slashdot is not responsible for your comments then you're the one risking a lawsuit if someone is offended.

If people are prone to getting offended by what they see, boy are they looking at the WRONG Internet.

Re:Good thing Slashdot isn't in the EU

[garyisabusyguy]

You should see the 'preening' that goes on in the Discus forums. The EU would be pleased

Re:Good thing Slashdot isn't in the EU

[lgw]

This isn't the /. of old. GNAA posts and the like are outright deleted with some regularity. See that little flag on each comment? Yeah.

Re:Good thing Slashdot isn't in the EU

[A Friendly Troll]

... and parent's post is exactly why websites need to proactively publish comments, instead of being retroactive, or doing nothing at all.

Re:Good thing Slashdot isn't in the EU

[Zontar The Mindless]

IOW, Slashdot now has its very own Golden Dawn operative. Isn't that special.

Re:Good thing Slashdot isn't in the EU

[ihtoit]

there is no "right" to not be offended. Anywhere. Sure, there are Statutes that seek to punish anti-semitism and the ilk, but there is not much in the way of $random_person saying what the fuck they like on whatever forum they want, with the exception of House Rules which have no weight in Law particularly when they directly infringe on individual rights of freedom of expression.

Re:Good thing Slashdot isn't in the EU

[rtb61]

Still comments need to be separated in the three distinct classes of comment, threats, intent to deceive for gain and opinions.

The claim that forums can monitor all comments is intent by that court in the most corrupt fashion imaginable to silence all forums that can not 'AFFORD' full time comment regulators to read and evaluate every comment, this with the express intent of purposefully creating a price barrier for commenting.

This to shut down all public forums in favour of empty propaganada forums that just pretend to be public as they are fully funded with the express intent of censoring all comments that do not adhere to corporate message. The European court Human Rights actively working to deny the right of 'FREE' speech and ensure only 'PAID' speech is allowed on public media channels, because factually it needs to be 'PAID' in order to be professionally moderated.

Re:Good thing Slashdot isn't in the EU

[phantomfive]

Isn't that special.

Yes, it is. The ability to speak with people of different viewpoints, and understand them, has prevented wars in the past. Getting rid of someone because you don't like what they say is foolhardy.

Re:Good thing Slashdot isn't in the EU

[goose-incarnated]

You should see the 'preening' that goes on in the Discus forums. The EU would be pleased

You - I linked to one of the myriad of studies that display the well-known inverse correlation between IQ and religious conviction. No text, just the link, and it was deleted in about 8 hours :-)

Websites tend to like disqus discussions - by removing all the dissenting voice they can present a "this is what the general readers think" picture which might only be a minority view of the actual readers.

Re:Good thing Slashdot isn't in the EU

[fustakrakich]

GNAA posts and the like are outright deleted with some regularity.

You'll have to prove it. Save it locally to your machine, and then try the link later. If it is missing, please post the URL here(anywhere on Slashdot) for us to verify. If Slashdot is deleting posts we must know about it and send the site straight to hell.

Re:Good thing Slashdot isn't in the EU

[msauve]

"Still comments need to be separated in the three distinct classes of comment, threats, intent to deceive for gain and opinions."

Sounds like the New York Times - content, ads, editorials. I may have gotten the order wrong.

Re:Good thing Slashdot isn't in the EU

[Carewolf]

You mean Estonia. This is an Esonian law not overruled by a court that is unrelated to EU.

Re:Good thing Slashdot isn't in the EU

[dunkelfalke]

Can you give me an example? Because right now this ability looks like the tiger-repellent rock to me.

Re:Good thing Slashdot isn't in the EU

[weilawei]

I thought we were talking about Elbonia!

Re:Good thing Slashdot isn't in the EU

[antiperimetaparalogo]

Posting as anon to preserver mods While I see that this has been modded troll it is really not. You posted your opinion and granted while considered a somewhat controversial one it is none the less one that shouldn't be censored and in this case marked as troll.

I am very glad that you Sir, even if you may disagree with me, understand why i made, AND the point of, my comment - SADLY, and for just keeping it sort (and only about our small "Slashdot universe"), i am afraid that you are the very rare type of Slashdoter/moderator who still tries to save his soul... AND the world!

Re:Good thing Slashdot isn't in the EU

[Anonymous Coward]

The Slashdot moderators don't censor; they rate things. I still see every single post. Zero posts are hidden. Which posts have you had outright deleted or modified against your wishes lately?

Every AC post that does not get a vote within an hour or so from posting is routinely removed. As an exclusive AC poster, I am well aware of this. Regardless of your filter settings or how far you drill down, if an AC post does not get at least one vote within some time after it's posted (my best estimate is an hour) it is gone forever. You think you get the whole story at slashdot? Think again, you only get to see the posts of the karma whores.

Re:Good thing Slashdot isn't in the EU

[Errol backfiring]

Good thing Slashdot isn't in the EU

Are you sure? Tax havens like the Netherlands are "home" to a huge lot of companies who are only there on paper to avoid taxation. However, there have already been a lot of lawsuits by such companies abusing Dutch treaties. So many in fact, that other countries are thinking of revoking all their treaties with the Netherlands.

Re:Good thing Slashdot isn't in the EU

[weilawei]

You're full of shit. I post AC all the time, logged in and not, and my posts have never been removed. Prove it, and I'll listen.

Re:Good thing Slashdot isn't in the EU

[weilawei]

Are you sure?

Uh, yes. What the fuck are you smoking and why do you even need to ask this? Slashdot is a US company.

Re:Good thing Slashdot isn't in the EU

[antiperimetaparalogo]

Can you give me an example? Because right now this ability looks like the tiger-repellent rock to me.

I am not the one you asked the question to, but i am "that Greek NATIONALIST".... so allow me please to offer my opinion on what the fellow Slashdoter means: the word diplomat originates from a Greek word (yes... one more Greek word you barbarians use - not so diplomatic to write that!), that as a compound word can mean "double-view" - the fact that it is not easy to offer an example of "prevented wars" is because diplomacy did its thing... but i can give you many examples of UN-prevented wars because of failure for this "double-view"!

Re:Good thing Slashdot isn't in the EU

[budgenator]

Only one comment has ever been delete in the history of slashdot and that on court order due to a law suit filed by the Church of Scientology; so your claims of censorship are highly over-rated.

Re:Good thing Slashdot isn't in the EU

[hcs_$reboot]

I think /. moderation is a necessary and pretty good method to help the reader focus on the best posts. However, besides mods, who reads the -1 and even 0 rated posts? Typically the posts TS likes to read end up rated <= 0. Hiding information is a kind of censorship - while, again, this is necessary here, for our own reading comfort.

Re:Good thing Slashdot isn't in the EU

[phantomfive]

It's hard to prove that a war was avoided, but that was kind of the point of what Bismark meant when he said that the most important factor in modern history would be that North Americans speak English.

Re:Good thing Slashdot isn't in the EU

[geminidomino]

So are Microsoft and Google, both of which have gotten their peepee spanked at one point or another in the EU since they have a presence there.

Re:Good thing Slashdot isn't in the EU

[budgenator]

I get mod-points so often that I don't bother adjusting up from -1, but the mod system does protect the faint of heart.

Re:Good thing Slashdot isn't in the EU

[samzenpus]

Nothing is "outright deleted with some regularity." The flag just puts the comment on a list that an editor looks over every day. We ban spammers who we find leaving links in comments, and occasionally mod down any egregious trolls that aren't already at -1. That's it. We've deleted comments in the past under legal threat but it's not our policy to do so normally. This comment showed up on the list but none of the editors are going to delete it. We think it's important to maintain a place where you can say whatever you want, even if that thing isn't popular or as in this case, correct.

Re:Good thing Slashdot isn't in the EU

[Coren22]

Did you actually read the ruling?

Delfi removed the comments as soon as they were notified of them. The court case was over damages, which also makes no sense as Delfi didn't create the comments, so where is their responsibility?

Re:Good thing Slashdot isn't in the EU

[Coren22]

You should read the comments, they are in the court document under section I. B.

Many of those comments aren't even questionable. One of them was simply "rascal!!!!" in Russian, how is that even inflammatory? Now some of them were calling for L to go to ovens, or to kill himself, which aren't nice, but still aren't even threatening.

Re:Good thing Slashdot isn't in the EU

[Coren22]

Do they even have computers in Elbonia? I thought the waist deep mud precluded actual electronics.

Re:Good thing Slashdot isn't in the EU

[Rakarra]

Can you give me an example? Because right now this ability looks like the tiger-repellent rock to me.

The United States vs the Soviet Union, for one. There are many examples, but a notable one was the secret communication that Chairman Khrushchev made to President Kennedy. It was a very long and emotional. While the two leaders were brash with each other in public speeches, privately Khrushchev begged Kennedy:

"It is thus that we, Soviet people, and, together with US, other peoples as well, understand the questions of war and peace. I can, in any case, firmly say this for the peoples of the Socialist countries, as well as for all progressive people who want peace, happiness, and friendship among peoples. [...] Consequently, if there is no intention to tighten that knot and thereby to doom the world to the catastrophe of thermonuclear war, then let us not only relax the forces pulling on the ends of the rope, let us take measures to untie that knot. We are ready for this. [...] There, Mr. President, are my thoughts, which, if you agreed with them, could put an end to that tense situation which is disturbing all peoples. These thoughts are dictated by a sincere desire to relieve the situation, to remove the threat of war." *

I think it's pretty certain that Krushchev and Kennedy being able to talk to each other helped diffuse a situation that brought the superpowers closest to the nuclear brink.

It was after the Cuban Missile Crisis that the Moscow Washington direct hotline was installed so that the leaders could communicated directly to resolve crises.

Re:Good thing Slashdot isn't in the EU

[shutdown -p now]

There are all kinds of interesting (or "interesting", depending on your perspective) people here if you care to look. For example, I once had a rather enlightening discussion with a guy who was a self-professed fundie worldwide caliphate Islamist (several years before ISIS, even!), about when and in what circumstances it is appropriate to cut off people's heads according to the Sharia.

Re:Good thing Slashdot isn't in the EU

[hr raattgift]

It's far from "unrelated" to the EU.

After the accession to the Treaty of Amsterdam in 2004 (after a popular referendum in 2003), Estonia was obliged to be a member in good standing of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), the court of which (ECtHR) is only nominally independent of the European Union.

The ECtHR and ECHR are administered by the parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE, see below), which is dominated by EU member-states and in which since the Treaty of Lisbon the EU's institutions themselves directly participate. The explicit goal of the EU is ever closer cooperation with the COE, specifically that means greater subsidiarity, as in courts across the EU that are local or specialist in nature, and legislative assemblies at all levels, will take into consideration the previous decisions of the ECtHR, and the guiding principles laid out by the PACE with respect to human rights law. The reasoning is that this will lead to less litigation and fewer appeals (which benefits individuals), and facilitate the progression to higher courts (including the ECtHR) with novel or difficult human rights questions.

This is what the Commission of the European Union says about the ECtHR:

http://europa.eu/legislation_s...

This is what the UK Parliamentary all-party website says about the PACE. Much of the "tear up the UKHRA, withdraw from ECHR, Brexit if necessary!" faction in the UK Parliament are well aware of the work that their benchmates (and sometimes they themselves) do in PACE, which is almost always much more constructive and progressive than their public positions would suggest:

http://www.parliament.uk/mps-l...

So, it's not "unrelated" because it [a] all of the member-states of the EU participate in it at all levels, [b] the EU's principal organs (the Commission, the Council, the Courts and the Parliament) and the court in question have had a formal partnership since 2012, and [c] while there are other non-EU members and observers of the COE, the COE strongly reflects the consensus of the EU and its member-states by virtue of numbers (which makes sense, as the EU itself forms the largest part of the human-geographical area with which the COE is most directly concerned).

It is only barely safe to say that the ECtHR is independent of the EU; that's still true formally, but the lines have been deliberately blurred by the EU and the COE deliberately in recent years, because that makes for more efficient administration of human rights law in the EU itself, and opens up greater access to the ECtHR by non-EU-member-states (i.e., the idea is that UK or ES cases won't clog up the ECtHR to the point where cases from UA or TR have difficulty being considered).

Re:Good thing Slashdot isn't in the EU

[weilawei]

You're full of shit about AC posts disappearing. They DO NOT DISAPPEAR. The lowest a post can go is -1, which you should know if you've been modding.

samzenpus posted in this very article about how nothing is regularly deleted. Only in one particular instance have comments ever been removed and that was due to legal threat for obvious copyright infringement.

Again, you're full of shit.

Re:What a load of shit

[darkain]

No problemo. You can find my IP address here: https://torstatus.blutmagie.de...

Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Hopefully this ruling will be used to muzzle the euroskeptics and silence unwarranted criticism of the EU institutions. People don't know how good they have it. They don't need "freedom" they just can't handle, they need unity and purpose and only a united Europe can provide this. Europe is more important than the life of a single human or indeed of whole generations, but small folk do not have the scope to understand this. Silencing dissent is a starting point to instill a European mindset into the populace who has the duty and the privilege to toil for the great destiny of the greatest civilization that has ever been and will ever be.

Re:Good

[fustakrakich]

Definitely +5 Funny!

Re:Good

[IamTheRealMike]

The European Court of Human Rights is not actually an EU institution, regardless of the similarities in naming. It's more like a court that countries submit to
voluntarily. I saw quite an interesting presentation about it from some human rights lawyers a year or two ago. Apparently it does some good work, especially in addressing more run-of-the-mill rights violations in former Soviet bloc countries.

Regardless, this is now the second time that some EU court has fucked up extremely basic internet related rulings. First there was the idiotic "right to be forgotten" ruling that makes it effectively impossible for anyone to make a search engine unless they have a vast human army of lawyers and money for lawsuits. Now they want to make websites responsible for everyone who comments on them? Like someone who runs a party should be responsible for anything anyone says whilst there?

It's quite clear that the judges at this place must either be interpreting extremely vague and piss poor laws, or have never used the internet, or both.

At the moment the Tory government in the UK is wanting to pull out of the ECHR, partly because it keeps blocking deportation of various 'undesirables' on the grounds of their right to a family life. They want to replace it with a British-specific bill of human rights. I don't really trust the Tories on this matter, their track record of upholding civil liberties is pretty terrible lately, but every time the ECHR produces a disastrous ruling like this I think - you know, maybe there's something in it.

Re:Good

[Carewolf]

There is no EU institutions involved anywhere in the story. The human rights court is not an EU court. It has many more members and intervenes less.

Re:Good

[IamTheRealMike]

The ruling is now established for all similar cases, no?

Re:Good

[hr raattgift]

See my comment here: http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...

Roughly and in terms of English law, the ECtHR ruling upheld the Estonian Supreme Court's ruling (and that of several Estonian courts) that "L" was defamed, and that Delfi AS exacerbated the defamation by its actions, incurring a small liability for damages. Delfi admits there was the equivalent of defamation in the comments and that they were fairly treated in the Estonian court of first instance, in terms of procedure. Its argument that the Estonian law on defamation is in conflict with the ECHR has been rejected by almost everyone who has heard the case. I'd be strongly surprised if their advocates at every stage had not suggested to them that they did not have clean enough hands in the matter to pursue it through the courts with hope of success.

The ruling is not a disaster, IMHO. It tries to strike a balance for protecting the general rights of freedom of communication with the general protections from lies that are calculated to injure the reputation (and/or income and/or quiet enjoyment of life without fear), and to make striking such balances in more local courts and legislatures easier.

In brutal terms, the quantum of damages assessed by the court of first instance against Delfi was very small -- a mere slap on the wrist -- and the ECtHR took that tiny figure into account in considering the reasonabless of the law and its application. Other courts should too. Nobody went to prison, lost their business, or the like. Delfi consequently should pay costs in the appeal -- they insisted on their right to have their day in court on a small matter, and lost.

Finally, since you ask in another comment below, this would not in any way prevent someone assessed a much more severe quantum of damages (or fines, incarceration or other punitive measures) even in similar circumstances from pursuing relief through the courts, including the ECtHR. Such a person could indeed point to this case in the first instance and likely achieve a better outcome than they would have absent this decision. That's why I say it's not a disaster, not even for free speech enthusiasts. Indeed, there are some newspaper publishers in England who likely will be wishing this ruling had been made before being pressured into a deal with the late coalition government on similar matters.

Re:Good

[cavebison]

Europe is more important than the life of a single human or indeed of whole generations, but small folk do not have the scope to understand this.

Interesting point of view, considering Europe is made up of lots of single human beings, and would not exist but for each generation of them. Are you really proposing that the set of standards to which a nation adheres is a completely separate issue to those its people wish for?

Free Speech

[the_Bionic_lemming]

I guess the United States is ahead of the world when it comes to the freedom to speak.

It's a bit shocking that other governments need to make sure that everyone is politically correct and doesn't bully people, and are forced to accept other peoples opinions without being able to actually address them.

My Mom once told me that if I swim in the sewer, , I'll start to smell like it.

If a person considers a site to be bad - stop swimming in that sewer.

Re:Free Speech

[Anonymous Coward]

Your free speech is but an illusion that can be taken away at a moment's notice.

Re:Free Speech

[ihtoit]

it's not illegal to say that homeopathy is bogus, English law might seek to punish such utterances but it does NOT outlaw saying it.

By the way, contrary to the example you gave, the practice of homeopathy in the UK is, in fact, illegal, in light of the fact that there is no evidence to claims of efficacy and the fact that the Advertising Standards Agency has pulled the industry on its claims of same and basically said that they're falsely advertising (tantamount to fraud). Ergo, it's not defamation to say that homeopathy is bogus since the official word is that it in fact is. http://www.asa.org.uk/Rulings/...

Re:Free Speech

[ShanghaiBill]

English law might seek to punish such utterances but it does NOT outlaw saying it.

I see. So it is legal to say it, but the legal system will punish you for doing so.

Re:Free Speech

[ihtoit]

precisely. :)

Re:Free Speech

[ihtoit]

To give further example, I am absolutely free to say that Scientology is a scam. I can say that in light of the fact that no claims that Scientology has made have ever been proven. Scientology might try to sue me under libel laws BUT they would have no case considering that I'm merely commenting on the lack of evidence to support their claims (such as the efficacy of the Hubbard E-Meter), which they would have to prove for them to have a case against me. I've made my case by stating that Scientology has not proven their claims as an organisaiton that claims to use science, using the scientific process (ie peer reviewed study and repeatable double blind experiment); such statement is absolutely and provably factual as far as ANY right-thinking person is aware unless and until Scientology shows otherwise - for example, by providing detailed description on how the E-Meter functions to a public court. Claiming it as a religious artifact then offering it as a treatment for cognitive impairment does not cut it. Ask France.

Re:Free Speech

[jandersen]

If a person considers a site to be bad - stop swimming in that sewer.

What a nice and pious sentiment; the problem is that sometimes the sewer bursts and we all get covered in shit. When that happens, who is responsible for the repairs, and who is to blame for the epidemics that follow? The millions of people who used the sewer to take a dump, or the company providing the service?

I think this is about freedom under responsibility; the internet company that provides the service makes money out of it, and just as other companies are responsible for the harmful effects of their business activities on society or the environment, so it is for internet companies. Now, please note that I am not saying that people making stupid comments is harmful, just that there has to be responsibility when there is freedom. It still remains to be determined whether harm has followed from the content posted on Youtube or elsewhere; but if it is seen to be the case, then these rules mean that responsibility can be placed with the service provider.

Re:Free Speech

[oobayly]

The thing about English law is that whilst it cost Simon Singh (amongst others) a shitload do defend himself, it can now be used as a reference when a similar complaint is brought against someone. I'm not defending the insane libel laws we have over here, nor am I defending our lack of free speech.

Re:Free Speech

[ihtoit]

the mistake people often make while mounting a defence is hiring solicitors. It costs NOTHING to defend oneself. The cost comes in hiring a bloodsucker to do it for you because you're too fucking lazy to learn some Law. I'm not saying you have to turn into Perry Mason in a week, just get the specific source dealing with your issue (be that public liability, building code, libel, marriage, divorce, adoption, vehicle excise, or whatever else I can't think of right now), learn how the system "works", and understand that the judge and the clerk are there and obligated by Law to aid litigants in person. Lawyers exist simply because they already know the Law (ostensibly) and already know how the system works.

Re:Free Speech

[david_thornley]

Losing a case because you're defending yourself and don't quite understand what you're supposed to be doing can be REALLY expensive. You don't get a do-over if it turns out you've screwed yourself through ignorance. If it's a low-stakes thing, sure, represent yourself. If it may involve lots of money, the lawyer is often much cheaper.

Beneficial For Trolls?

[hercludes]

I would think this would be beneficial for trolls/assholes/etc. You could pretty much just say whatever the fuck you wanted to and let the website get in trouble or force the website to enforce some stricter policies.

Re:Beneficial For Trolls?

[garyisabusyguy]

I wonder what effect it would have had in recent cases where posters were held liable for making threats towards sitting judiciary

Re:Beneficial For Trolls?

[Bob the Super Hamste]

They will just throw in a realname requirement, tied to Facebook or Google for authentication.

Good thing that Facebook and Google while requiring a "real name" don't have any way to really verify that.

Re:Beneficial For Trolls?

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

No, it will simply mean that political speech in Europe reverts to what it has always been: something approved by the state and engaged in mostly by statist academics, politicians, and media personalities.

Newspapers may go back to publishing just selected "letters from their readers" on their web sites, and blogs may disappear entirely. Well, except for the US and a few other places, where the new European fascists can't enforce their laws.

European Court Are Stupid!

[Anonymous Coward]

European Court of Human Rights are idiots! And now slashdot can be held liable for my comment! Hahahaha!

Re:European Court Are Stupid!

[ihtoit]

ECHR rulings aren't worth the ink they're printed with. Per Lord Neuberger, ‘The British and Europe’ (Cambridge Freshfields Annual Law Lecture 2014,12 February 2014) and Wall LJ, in Re: H [2010] EWCA Civ 6 (Addendum to Judgement) (Unreported), and pretty much every British national rag on 3 October 2014 who ran the headline that Cameron on the advice of Grayling is to sever ties with the ECtHR by ditching the HRA altogether - which also is not worth the ink it's printed with because it comes with the GLARING omission of Article 13 - the right to effective remedy.

Re:European Court Are Stupid!

[ihtoit]

Wall in Re: H said that ECHR decisions are not legally binding in England and should be at most considered advisories, evne those directly connected with the case at hand. Other judges have said the same, particularly during the Musa case where the judge also said that the Human Rights Act didn't even apply to the case where the State was seeking to permanently separate children from their parents and deport the parents!

Re:European Court Are Stupid!

[ihtoit]

The judges' comments are in a connected judgement given in the citation in http://slashdot.org/comments.p... (hence you won't find it on BAILII, the decision itself is on BAILII, however), and the Musa case which has been all over the press.

The admission of the UK as party to the ECHR comes both with the Human Rights Act 1998 and the fact that Article 13 was deliberately omitted with the excuse that "Article 6 ought to be enough for everybody".

My response to that: a fair trial does not constitute effective remedy. Effective remedy is equible solution to abuses from State, which includes but is not limited to abuse of the judicial process. What part of Article 6 covers a complainant against the Police following a savage beating in a cell, for instance? This is an example of what Article 13 is meant to cover, in that complaints against one public body should not be investigated BY THAT SAME BODY.

Re:Well this is the end of YouTube...

[tompaulco]

and that is what the Republicans want.

You know what is funny, is every single time somebody puts in the word Republican, the word Democrat works just as well.

The EU sucks

[enantiomer2000]

What the hell is wrong with them?

Very sad

[fustakrakich]

So, the only relevant question to me is, how do we defeat or circumvent this?

Re:Very sad

[phantomfive]

how do we defeat or circumvent this?

Host your own website.

Something I've noticed recently are a surprising number of people willing to censor, or otherwise punish, those they disagree with. I'm not sure what to think of this trend.

Slashdot does it right.......even comments about host files stay around if you want to browse that low.

Re:Very sad

[fustakrakich]

Slashdot does it right...

That's why it's worth hanging around. Nothing has been deleted since 1999 that I know of... except for that 'thing'. But yeah, I can understand the money angle. That's just how shit works..

Re:Very sad

[bill_mcgonigle]

So, the only relevant question to me is, how do we defeat or circumvent this?

Shutdown Facebook in those countries. Wait for something to happen a few hours later when Parliament is on fire.

Bullshit

[msobkow]

I read about this today, and what this Slashdot/Dice crap summary is claiming is absolute BULLSHIT.

The case in question is regarding defamatory comments posted to a site that the victim went to court over. The courts ordered that the content be taken down. The lazy assed website owners took SIX WEEKS to remove the content.

There is not ONE jurisdiction in the world where that would be considered acceptable.

Websites are NOT being held generically responsible for the content posted. In fact, the articles about this topic make it clear that the courts said only large commercial operators such as newspapers can be held responsible and fined for failing to take down content in a timely fashion when ordered to do so.

But hey, Dice just LOVES their clickbait lately, don't they?

Re:Bullshit

[fustakrakich]

In fact, the articles about this topic make it clear that the courts said only large commercial operators such as newspapers can be held responsible and fined for failing to take down content in a timely fashion when ordered to do so.

And what? You consider that a good thing? The only problem with this issue is the lack of resistance. We need to make the internet absolutely indelible, by whatever means technically available.

Re:Bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

When a court orders you to take down defamatory comments, then yes. It is a good thing to be held accountable to take it down.

I'm quite far on the individual liberties side of the spectrum, but if a comment is basically slander then I don't see why it shouldn't be able to be removed in a court of law.

The problem is if companies have inroads into fast tracking removals (such as 3 strikes rules on Youtube or DMCA requests). That's where the real nasty stuff starts happening.

Re:Bullshit

[phantomfive]

I'm not sure you have your facts right. According to this report, they removed the comments as soon as they were notified by the victim of those comments. They didn't wait for a court order, but the victim wanted money given to him. The website refused, the court said to pay.

I don't know where you are, but in the US, the court case Zeran v. America Online provides that websites are not responsible for comments, even if they are notified of defamatory material and neglect to remove it. You can read the relevant law here.

Re:Bullshit

[hankwang]

"The case in question is regarding defamatory comments posted to a site that the victim went to court over. The courts ordered that the content be taken down. The lazy assed website owners took SIX WEEKS to remove the content."

No. RTFJ(udgment), under the chapter "FACTS".

The comments were removed the day the complaint came in, at which time the comments had been online for 6 weeks. This happened in 2006, by the way. The website had a mechanism for users to flag comments; apparently the complaining party had not used that and demanded monetary compensation at the first contact.

The judgment is surprisingly legible, though rather long. Much better than the average EULA. I didnn't read past the description of initial events. I'm sure that it also explains why this particular website owner was held responsible.

Re:Bullshit

[phantomfive]

if a comment is basically slander then I don't see why it shouldn't be able to be removed in a court of law.

This is your problem, you don't understand why censorship is bad.
Here is what the US supreme court says on the matter:

If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence. Only an emergency can justify repression.

Re:Bullshit

[AmiMoJo]

The ruling is more subtle than that. It states that the Estonian law which requires the site to pro-actively monitor the comments is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. It doesn't apply to the whole of Europe, just Estonia and countries which have similar laws. I don't know how many that is, but for example in the UK there is no such liability and reactive moderation is fine.

What is needed now is a new EU directive clarifying this issue and harmonizing the rules for the whole of Europe, which would require Estonia to change its local laws to comply. It's not the huge deal some media outlets are making it out to be, at least not for media outside of Estonia.

Re:Bullshit

[AmiMoJo]

From the ruling:

15. Having regard to the clearly unlawful nature of the comments in question, as well as the fact that they remained on the news portal for six weeks before they were removed, we do not find it disproportionate for the Supreme Court to find Delfi liable as it had âoefailed to remove the comments

Re:Bullshit

[phantomfive]

They removed the comments as soon as it was requested. It was six weeks before anyone requested that the comments be removed.

Re:Bullshit

[reikae]

It's an emergency, I'm being offended. Repression is now justified.

I'm kidding, but frankly when isn't there a state of emergency? There are wars on terror and drugs going on permanently, war seems to be an emergency.

Re:Bullshit

[phantomfive]

but frankly when isn't there a state of emergency?

It's a interesting question. SCOTUS defines 'emergency' for the purposes of speech very narrowly. As with anything legal, there is somewhat of a grey area, and the definition has changed over time.

For a while, if speech presented a clear and present danger, it counted as an emergency.

Later, the court found that meaning of 'emergency' too abusable, and limited it further. Currently there must be a threat of imminent lawless action. If I am telling a crowd to go burn down a store, and the crowd seems like they might do it, then the police can stop me from speaking.

Re:Bullshit

[queazocotal]

This is not referring to a decision of the Supreme Court of any EU body.
This is stating that a decision made under national estonian law is not incompatible with the international treaties that Estonia signed.
It has as much bearing on the rest of Europe as if a state in the US decided to legalise certain drugs. This does not mean they are federally legal or legal in other states.

This is a EU decision saying 'Estonia has the right to make this law'. If Estonia was not a member of the EU, then the original defendant would not have been able to appeal (and fail) to the ECHR, the decision of the Estonian courts on an Estonian matter would have been enough.

Re:Bullshit

[Livius]

But hey, Dice just LOVES their clickbait lately, don't they?

(I don't have anything to add, I just thought that was worth repeating.)

Re:Bullshit

[oobayly]

I hate to be that person, but does that include people who falsely accuse you of being a rapist, paedophile or fraudster? I don't like the lack of free speech in the UK, however the polar opposite - where anything can be said with repercussions - is not a valid solution either.

Re:Bullshit

[fustakrakich]

Accusations are bullshit. If you believe them without verifying for yourself and act in bad faith, you are the bad guy, not the accuser.

Re:Bullshit

[msobkow]

Apparently all the articles I read (three of them) got the facts wrong, then. They all claimed the website operator took six weeks to remove the comments.

Then again, that itself could be clickbait/trolling of the facts, because it did take six weeks to remove the comments -- because no complaint was made for six weeks.

Re: Bullshit

[oobayly]

Well that's lovely in theory. Then again, in theory communism works!

I'd love to live in a world where accusations weren't acted on unless evidence was shown, but I don't think there's a single place where that happens, so we have to forgo ideal laws with ones that are workable. Human nature is a bitch.

Re: Bullshit

[fustakrakich]

I'd love to live in a world where accusations weren't acted on unless evidence was shown...

Well, we have to make that world. Nobody is going to come down and do it for us.

Re:Bullshit

[Charliemopps]

Defamation = speech. Limiting it, is limiting free speech. I'm not sure I like it, but trying to control defamation leads to all sorts of far less palatable scenarios. I had a stalker a long time ago... it was very irritating... but I still don't support the sorts of legislation that would have stopped her. Because that sort of legislation would be used for all sorts of evil things that had nothing to do with preventing me from being annoyed by a crazy lady.

Re:Bullshit

[jfengel]

Is it necessary? Is there any particular reason to compel Estonia to change its laws? If they want to be the-country-that-censors, is there a reason not to let them (and deal with the consequences)?

The consequences could well be serious, and compel them to change their laws on their own. If web sites start fleeing because they don't want to risk what their users might say, the monetary loss might compel a legal change. But for all I know the Estonians themselves are more comfortable living in a country where they are free from offensive opinions. If they can coexist with the rest of Europe that way, maybe they should.

Maybe they can't; perhaps cross-border commerce means that the local law is incompatible with being a functioning part of the EU. But off the top of my head, I don't know of any specific reason why (being only passingly familiar with the rest of EU policy).

Re:Bullshit

[david_thornley]

How about if I give credence to them without verifying them myself and act in good faith? I can't possibly verify that you're not an abuser of underage sheep by fraud, and it may take more time than I've got to try to track such a claim back to the maker. There's a natural tendency among humans to believe what other people say, and eliminating that would be disastrous.

Are you saying I should disregard anything anybody says about you? Are you saying I should verify everything I hear (and how do I do it without trusting other people?)? Are you saying I should make decisions about you without considering what I know? Would you care to put your position into operational terms, rather than just vague and almost meaningless generality?

Re:Bullshit

[shutdown -p now]

One could argue that without a fully protected freedom of speech, there's no real political freedom, either - i.e. maybe there are elections, but what good are they if people who believe they're wronged can't publicly state their grievances and call for legitimate remedial action via voting?

That's the problem with any kind of censorship... the ultimate threat is that being against it becomes censored as well, and then you don't know if it's really a democratic decision or not.

Re:Bullshit

[jfengel]

I think you're kinda screwed either way, actually. Words do hurt; you can tell people to just tough it out but it means that you end up conceding large amounts of the political space to the ones most willing to be cruel and least injured by being defamed.

I'm not calling for speech policing here. I'm just pointing out that the real people who participate in political processes are subject to human failings. It's not a logical conversation; it's emotionally charged rhetoric. So just saying "everybody says whatever they want" amounts to a different kind of censorship. It may well be the most unbiased form of censorship and the one that is most "just", but it's not without downsides.

You see it in social media all the time. Trolls can shut down conversations. Web sites that don't want to be primarily about trolls and up providing tools to reduce their visibility, one way or another. It's often called "censorship", and in some senses it is, albeit not government censorship because it's not a state matter. The national conversation is a state matter, and a state may well want to think about what kinds of tools are appropriate for keeping the conversation civil and productive.

Again, not calling for censorship. I haven't got any policy to offer. It's just that I think it's important to recognize that free speech has non-obvious feedback loops that make it less free than it appears.

Re:SLAPP?

[Fallen Kell]

ummm... when did the US become a European nation?

Here is why Europe has no Silicon Valley

[iamacat]

I am sure there is no lack of smart and highly educated people, but you can not have innovation without a high degree of freedom. Imagine running Facebook or Twitter under these kind of laws. The tragedy is that US laws can be easily improved on by a country that wants to be in forefront of technology. Certainly a country motivated to become tech center of the world can respect privacy much more than NSA.

Re:Here is why Europe has no Silicon Valley

[phantomfive]

And what country would you trust to respect your privacy? China? Russia? Obviously not anywhere in the EU.

That's his point (or her point, I don't know)......the GP was saying that if a country wanted to get a competitive advantage in technology, here are some things they could fix; and that so far, the US is best in those points, which is why (one reason why) it is winning in technology.

Re:Here is why Europe has no Silicon Valley

[shallot]

I am sure there is no lack of smart and highly educated people, but you can not have innovation without a high degree of freedom. Imagine running Facebook or Twitter under these kind of laws.

So, in your opinion, all relevant innovation in hi tech is related to social networks (that may in turn be vulnerable to defamation lawsuits)? What a dystopian view.

Re:Here is why Europe has no Silicon Valley

[iamacat]

So what in your opinion are computing/internet service innovations that originated in Europe?

In unrelated news...

[Karmashock]

... many European websites have started hosting in East Asia.... apparently the last bastion of free speech...

Seriously how sad would that be? Fucking France and Sweden. They really need to stop it.

Re: In unrelated news...

[Karmashock]

If the site is anonymous or held by a shell company than what are they going to do? Shake their dicks at Taiwan and demand they turn over the name of the owner of the site that said the prime minister's topee looks like a dead rat?

The whole thing is stupid. The EU and many EU nations have been trying to strong arm various internet companies... mostly US companies to bow to European codes even the intertional or US version of the stie. France I believe was demanding that google remove search results from the US version of google that had links that were supposed to be removed under french law.

Good luck with that France.

And Spain had an embarrassing encounter with Google News where google just terminated the service in Spain rather than comply and it created such a political backlash that the Spanish government had to backtrack.

The french are especially presumptuous on this issue. And if they think European sites and users are going to accept this then they can enjoy either being bypassed legally or politically crushed if they actually inconvenience users.

Re: In unrelated news...

[phantomfive]

And Spain had an embarrassing encounter with Google News where google just terminated the service in Spain rather than comply and it created such a political backlash that the Spanish government had to backtrack.

The government still hasn't backtracked. You still can't get to Google News from Spain.

Also, if you had your Google News page set to "Spanish -Spain" in the language menu, then there you've been blocked from using google news, and there is no way I know of to change that, even if you don't live in Spain. Super annoying.

Re: In unrelated news...

[fustakrakich]

Is Google the only news aggregator around? Where's there's prohibition, there's always a great opportunity. Circumvention is paramount.

Re:In unrelated news...

[AmiMoJo]

Uh, you know this is a local Estonian law, right? The ruling is basically that their local law is compatible with European human rights. All it means is that individual European countries can pass laws like this and they won't be struck down under current human rights rules, but they may still be incompatible with other rules such as EU rules on telecommunications.

It's actually a shame they didn't appeal under telecoms rules because they would have won. For some legal reason I don't really understand (I'm not an expert on Estonian legal procedure) they went to the ECHR instead.

Re: In unrelated news...

[Karmashock]

They're going to crack. By some estimates the traffic for the Spanish sites that lobbied for the change in law dropped by about 15 percent because of that.

That's a lot. Perhaps they're taking their time, perhaps they're seeing if things return to normal at some point... maybe there is bureaucratic thing where they have to wait for the next meeting or something... possibly they're trying to save face.

But 15 percent is a knee to the groin.

Re: In unrelated news...

[phantomfive]

I hope so. Alternately, I hope Google fixes their UI so I can switch to a different news region.

Re:In unrelated news...

[Gryle]

Unfortunately there's a notion that the right not to be offended supersedes my right to free-speech. There were a lot of editorials about from both the US and Europe on the subject in the wake of the Charlie Ebdo shootings. Most of them amounted to "Well, speech that offends people shouldn't be protected speech." It's hard to believe people don't understand that offensive speech is the speech that needs to be protected the most.

Re:In unrelated news...

[Karmashock]

The concept of free speech needs to written in steel because it was paid for in blood.

Re: In unrelated news...

[Karmashock]

It apparently would amaze you how fast they can get teams of guys with machine guns to drop out of helicopters if they feel threatened.

Re:In unrelated news...

[Karmashock]

Who is to say what is false or what is true?

And consider that simply challenging someone on that level can be a chilling effect.

As to the blood of your people... I assume you're Estonian. Let me first say that I have a lot of respect for Estonia and for your information the US has great hope for your future. We're hoping you do well and we've been watching you. That said, while many Americans are callow morons... this is unavoidable in any population. You must understand that the US constitution is almost a religious document in my country.

So the constitution isn't just a collection of laws. It is the law above all other laws. To oppose it is often seen as taboo and immoral.

Does that mean that other people should be able to lie about you? What is a lie and what is an opinion?

Lets say I think you're a pedophile. Are you a pedophile? Maybe you are or not but that I think you are is my opinion. And I have the right to express my opinion and be free of legal consequences should you feel my opinion is wrong.

The law here can get a bit complicated and I have to simplify it for this setting. But the point is that your best defense in the US against statements like that is to either say nothing and hope no one heard what you said OR you express your opinion that the first opinion was in error or you can offer evidence or something. its up to you what you want to do. But you don't get to silence the other person.

People have a right to say what they want. Even if what they say is untrue or even mean spirited. You have a right to say what you like in response however you like.

And the public will decide.

That is basically how our system works.

And as the most successful society in history and a model for most other societies in regards to freedoms and rights... maybe you should take a tip from us. Just saying. You risk far more than you gain by engaging in that. And what is more, your efforts will be ineffective because people will just bypass your jurisdiction. You're making the cardinal mistake of any government by passing a law that will not be obeyed and that will actually diminish your power.

I wish your nation well and I wish nothing but destruction upon this foolish law you're supporting. Its a bad idea. It will fail. If your country specifically has these sorts of laws and I can evade them by putting my business outside your territory... then I can avoid your regulation very easily and your people lose out on jobs etc.

Again... I wish your nation all the luck in the world. The US is truly hoping the best of things for you. :-)

Re:Wow?!

[phantomfive]

Governments aren't as easily tricked as you might think......if you live in EU, they can still find ways to get you to do what they want.

The abstract is misleading

[Anonymous Coward]

The abstract is misleading in so many different ways...

1) this court is not a court of the EU but the European Court of Human Rights, "belonging to" the Council of Europe, a completely seperate entity.
2) the court "only" decides, if a *specific* ruling of a court in one of the member states violates human rights
3) the claimant that wanted the local ruling to be overturned is a largish company that not only *six weeks* to remove "hate speech" but has earlier done so faster *and* automatically

Not only does the ruling not apply to small bloggers etc (IIRC specifically said so by the court!), it only says that member states *may* (or may not!) have legislation that makes it possible to sue a *company* that does not remove hate speech *if the company knows of it* and therefore *knowingly* distributes it.

Re:Well this is the end of YouTube...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi, Republican here.

Nope, that's not what I want.

Thanks.

Bizarro world

[rogoshen1]

In the soon to occur dystopian future, 4chan will become the last beacon of light for freethinking individuals everywhere. God help us all.

Re:Bizarro world

[fustakrakich]

The fact you're defending cesspits like 4chat is disgusting.

To see anybody defend censorship is much more so. It is truly offensive.

Re:Bizarro world

[rogoshen1]

1. You're posting as AC......
2. it's a website, not Mos Eisley.

Re:Bizarro world

[suutar]

One of the problems with defending free speech is you often have to defend people that you find to be outrageous and unpleasant and disgusting.
Salman Rushdie

Re:facts

[weilawei]

1. the ruling is about comments on news articles, not discuss boards.

Am I commenting on a news article or a discussion board?

Once again

[Vinegar Joe]

"He sounded like Jean-François Revel, a French socialist writer who talks about one of the great unexplained phenomena of modern astronomy: namely, that the dark night of fascism is always descending in the United States and yet lands only in Europe." - Tom Wolfe, 'The Intelligent Coed's Guide to America'

The short version:

[ihtoit]

Wilkommen am viertel Reich.

Re: The short version:

[ihtoit]

bullets are expensive, yanno?

Re: The short version:

[ihtoit]

hah... I meant viertes Reich. Those keys are so damn close together...

moderator censorship war!

[lkcl]

fuck me as if we don't have enough to contend with here on slashdot with moderators (users) getting into a bun-fight over what comments are appropriate and which aren't, under this ruling the slashdot web site owners would have to review all the comments *and* the moderations *and* all the meta-moderations *anyway*! let the moderation wars begin... starting with this comment, yaay!

There is a balance between article 8 and 10

[jopsen]

Article 8 protects people against slander, lies etc, article 10 grants free speech, these must be balanced. And when someone clearly violates article 8 in a comment, and a credible professional news organization, refuses to remove the comment, they can be held liable. Opinions from the ruling:

8. ......Instead, the Court has adopted case-specific reasoning and at the same time has left the relevant principles to be developed more clearly in subsequent case-law.

15. Having regard to the clearly unlawful nature of the comments in question, as well as the fact that they remained on the news portal for six weeks before they were removed, we do not find it disproportionate for the Supreme Court to find Delfi liable as it had “failed to remove the comments

There is nothing sensational here. The court didn't say you were liable upfront, it didn't say that you couldn't be (and in some extreme cases that might make sense). But in this case the court ruled that holding someone liable for refusing to take down illegal speech hosted by them is not a free speech violation.
There is nothing new here. The ruling does not say you must moderate all comments.

Re:There is a balance between article 8 and 10

[phantomfive]

The court didn't say you were liable upfront, it didn't say that you couldn't be (and in some extreme cases that might make sense). But in this case the court ruled that holding someone liable for refusing to take down illegal speech hosted by them is not a free speech violation. There is nothing new here. The ruling does not say you must moderate all comments.

Yes it does. The website took down the comments as soon as the 'victim' complained about them. He wanted money for damages because the website didn't take them down before someone complained about them. The only way to do that would be to moderate all comments.

Re:There is a balance between article 8 and 10

[jopsen]

Yes it does. The website took down the comments as soon as the 'victim' complained about them.

The ruling clearly states otherwise:

15. Having regard to the clearly unlawful nature of the comments in question, as well as the fact that they remained on the news portal for six weeks before they were removed, we do not find it disproportionate for the Supreme Court to find Delfi liable as it had “failed to remove the comments.

(Emphasis is mine)


Note, the opinion of the court specifically says that they did not rule on the whether or not the website could be liable for not moderating upfront, and concern themselves with the case where removal had been requested.

Re:There is a balance between article 8 and 10

[phantomfive]

You misunderstood the ruling. The comments were taken down as soon as the website owners were notified. The comments were on the website six weeks before anyone complained about them.

The only way they could have removed them before the complaints were made was by moderating upfront.

Re:There is a balance between article 8 and 10

[hab136]

Remained on the new ports for six weeks after... what? After the post was made, or after the complaint about the post was made?

1. Post is made
2. Six weeks later, guy complains
3. Same day as complaint, company removes comment

Re:There is a balance between article 8 and 10

[IamTheRealMike]

holding someone liable for refusing to take down illegal speech hosted by them is not a free speech violation

That's rather a contradiction in terms, isn't it. Refusing to take down illegal speech is not a free speech violation. How can you have both free speech and illegal speech simultaneously?

I think this case sums up one of the most glaring problems with the ECHR which is obvious the moment you read the document they are interpreting. This list of rights is nothing like the American Bill of Rights. The BoR is quite specific, clear and the rights are fairly tightly defined, arguments about the meaning of "well regulated militias" notwithstanding.

The European equivalent (and I say this as a European) is a complete clusterfuck. It lists many rights that directly contradict each other, with no way to prioritise between them. Every "right" has exceptions. It is written so vaguely that anyone could reach any conclusion at all based on it. The fact that nobody knew about this so-called right to be forgotten before it was "found" in the text by a court ruling is indicative of the deep-rooted problems with the document. It's a design-by-committee wishlist written by people with no strong principles.

For instance Article 2 supposedly grants a right to life. It says governments may not engage in "unlawful killing". Except suppressing insurrections by killing the rebels is explicitly allowed. And lawful executions were also totally OK, meaning of course the entire article disappeared into a puff of contradiction as any execution at all could be considered lawful if the government so wished it. Eventually the absurdity of that one became too much even for the ECHR and there was a "protocol" passed (sort of like an amendment) that barred the death penalty. Of course, this article does not stop ECHR members from going to war either.

Article 4 forbids slavery and forced labour. Unless you're a prisoner. Or it's the draft. Or unless it's a part of your "civic duties".

Article 8 gives the famous right to privacy ...

except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others

In other words you get a right to privacy unless someone deems it inconvenient for almost any purpose. This article is such a joke it may as well not exist.

But article 10 is the best. The First Amendment and it's interpretation by the US Supreme Court is quite clear: freedom of speech and freedom of the press are highly protected. Article 10 in the European equivalent says:

Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

LOL! But it gets worse:

The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

So freedom of speech can be subject to penalties if they "are necessary in a democratic society" for example "for the protection of morals". Oh yes, exposing state secret

Re:There is a balance between article 8 and 10

[locofungus]

You misunderstood the ruling. The comments were taken down as soon as the website owners were notified. The comments were on the website six weeks before anyone complained about them.

The only way they could have removed them before the complaints were made was by moderating upfront.

No, You misunderstand the ruling:

Estonian law means that the website publisher can be liable for comments by their users. Effectively to comply with Estonian law, the websites are required to proactively monitor comments and remove illegal comments.

This is Part II: RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE

European law does not require this - merely that such comments are removed as soon as the publisher becomes aware of them.

The ruling effectively says that Estonia is allowed to gold plate the European requirements. Removing coments only after you become aware of them is not sufficient if you fall under the jurisdiction of the Estonian courts.

In particular, note that Estonia is the defendant in this ruling. Delfi was trying to claim that Estonian law is illegal and the ECHR has *UPHELD* national sovereignty, i.e. upheld the decision of the Estonian courts.

Re:There is a balance between article 8 and 10

[IamTheRealMike]

Free/illegal speech is about government restrictions, not restrictions on speech in private forums.

Re:There is a balance between article 8 and 10

[suutar]

So they're saying "we're not saying you have to moderate, just that Estonia is allowed to tell you that you have to moderate."

Re:There is a balance between article 8 and 10

[hr raattgift]

"What kind of idiots actually write such things?"

In most of your particular extracts, it was mainly the administrators of the Marshall Plan, namely Americans and British politicians, and principally Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe MP (as he then was) taking inspiration from the work of John Peters Humphrey.

Codification was considered a good idea to avoid relitigation of common exceptions and strikings-of-balance, and to avoid imposing the need to reference foreign case law on the non-common-law countries that would agree to the document. Conflicts arose as well because some well-organized political party groupings (Christian Democrats in particular) threatened to slow ratification in a number of states simultaneously.

I think the vast majority of the people of Estonia would disagree with your assessment of the ECHR; it was a live issue in their accession referendum and is far better than the Soviet equivalent in every practical way.

Likewise, at the time it was written, Nazi laws were still on the books in the various sectors of Germany, and the legal system was a mess in all the different occupied sectors. Getting it working in *all* the sectors of occupied Germany (and Austria), including the Soviet sector was an explicit goal of the convention, and it actually succeeded in that respect for about a decade.

Finally, the document is a live one, and PACE proposes changes to clarify conflicts, to strengthen individual rights (that's the main theme) and subsidiarity, and so forth. PACE is made up of parliamentarians from each of the COE's member-states, meaning it's mostly EU parliamentarians, and since so few of their constituents engage with them on PACE, a letter written to one in an arbitrary EU member-state is likely to be looked at seriously. Maybe you could put your questions to one of them, or make some suggestions for improvement? "Just scrap it" is something they hear a lot more often from non-politicians than "fix it like this, and I'd be happier".

Seems

[no-body]

The higher up the heads are, the thinner the air gets and with less oxygen, brain function diminishes. Blown up heads don't affect this. Quite the opposite, with less density, oxygen can escape even better.

Hopefulle responsible for their ads too

[johanw]

So if some website presents a malware ad that infects someone who is still stupid enough not to use an adblocker the site can be held liable for the damage? That sure would be a good thing.

Re:SLAPP?

[Anonymous Coward]

The EU is a police state, far more than the US.

Interresting point of view

[mwvdlee]

Hmmm, that's an interresting point of view, european court.
Do you have a website where I may comment on this?

The ruling is pretty scary (IANAL)

[bradley13]

The ruling (linked in TFA) is conveniently written in English. It is pretty scary stuff, but IANAL - any professionals out there want to comment?

First of all, the comments made to the article in question "were vulgar in form; they were humiliating and defamatory and impaired L.’s honour, dignity and reputation. The comments went beyond justified criticism and amounted to simple insults."

Here is one of the more egregious comments: "What are you whining for, knock this bastard down once and for all [.] In future the other ones ... will know what they risk, even they will only have one little life.". Others were just name calling.

This is where the European Charter of Human Rights gets it wrong, because it allows exceptions to freedom of expression for a huge array of possible reasons. In this case, presumably, "for the protection of the reputation...of others". Seems to me, if you can outlaw simple insults, and vague threats, you can outlaw essentially anything.

In any case, the case was appealed all the way to the ECHR. While the ECHR says some of the right words in their appendix - they're all worried about censorship - none of that has any legal relevance. The core of the actual ruling:

"Based on the concrete assessment of the above aspects, taking into account the reasoning of the Supreme Court in the present case, in particular the extreme nature of the comments in question, the fact that the comments were posted in reaction to an article published by the applicant company on its professionally managed news portal run on a commercial basis, the insufficiency of the measures taken by the applicant company to remove without delay after publication comments amounting to hate speech and speech inciting violence and to ensure a realistic prospect of the authors of such comments being held liable, and the moderate sanction imposed on the applicant company, the Court finds that the domestic courts’ imposition of liability on the applicant company was based on relevant and sufficient grounds"

tl;dr: The news company should have pro-actively moderated comments and immediately - without any court case being required - removed the illegal comments. The court then goes on to express hope that this does not introduce a new reign of censorship, but that is exactly what is may do.

Re:The ruling is pretty scary (IANAL)

[Luckyo]

Indeed, this is straight up shock scaremongering. Original article itself in fact goes to state:

T J McIntyre, who is a lecturer in law and Chairman of Digital Rights Ireland, the lead organisation that won an important victory against EU data retention in the Court of Justice of the European Union last year, explained where things now stand. "Today's decision doesn't have any direct legal effect. It simply finds that Estonia's laws on site liability aren't incompatible with the ECHR. It doesn't directly require any change in national or EU law. Indirectly, however, it may be influential in further development of the law in a way which undermines freedom of expression. As a decision of the Grand Chamber of the ECHR it will be given weight by other courts and by legislative bodies."

Basis for decision:
The Grand Chamber emphasised a number of factors that led it to rule that Delfi was liable: the "extreme" nature of the comments which the court considered to amount to hate speech, the fact that they were published on a professionally-run and commercial news website, the insufficient measures taken by Delfi to weed out the comments in question and the low likelihood of a prosecution of the users who posted the comments, and the moderate sanction imposed on Delfi.

Basically the problem was the fact that the company was informed that comments were easily distinguished as illegal and refused to remove them. This does not mean a change to national legislation, or pre moderation or anything of the sorts. It simply means that if comments are easily distinguished as illegal, you can't just ignore the law and let them stay up. Court also notes that punishment is moderate and serves as a warning to follow the law hopefully without stifling free speech.

Overall, it looks like they did all they could on court's side to not make a decision against national hate speech laws without giving ammunition for broader call for censorship.

Re:The ruling is pretty scary (IANAL)

[nava68]

Some of the comments do refer to killing or harming the responsible persons:

• [2] ... Proposal – let’s do as in 1905, let’s go to [K]uressaare with sticks and put [L.] and [Le.] in a bag
• [14] ... As they sow, so shall they reap, but they should nevertheless be contained (by lynching as the state is powerless towards them – it is really them who govern the state), because they only live for today.
• [17] ... Estonian state, led by scum [and] financed by scum, of course does not prevent or punish antisocial acts by scum. But well, every [L.] has his Michaelmas ... and this cannot at all be compared to a ram’s Michaelmas. Actually sorry for [L.] – a human, after all... :D :D :D

Re:The ruling is pretty scary (IANAL)

[oobayly]

Nice to see some clarification about what it *actually* means, not the immediate jump to conclusions that so many people (including myself) made. As you say it might influence other countries which can now look at this Estonian law and say "why don't we do that too - the ECHR says it's ok". It's the kind of shit UK governments (of both flavours) would do, even if the current one is wanting to opt out of the ECHR

Re:The ruling is pretty scary (IANAL)

[Luckyo]

Except that you'd get taken to EHCR, and likely lose. This ruling was extremely narrow in scope and court went to great pains to emphasize this. Attempting to jury-rig it to fit broad scope censorship would fail for a number of reasons, many of which are listed in my post.

Re:The ruling is pretty scary (IANAL)

[suutar]

so they have to screen comments enough to evaluate whether they're illegal. ("easily distinguished" still requires _some_ effort.) And that's not pre-moderation how exactly?

Re:The ruling is pretty scary (IANAL)

[nachtkap]

The court then goes on to express hope that this does not introduce a new reign of censorship, but that is exactly what is may do.

IANAL either but I know from frequent conversations with law students I know that intent plays a major role in a court's decision. A good example for this is theft. If I take your property it isnt automatically theft, unless the court is convinced that I didnt intent to return it. Under no circumstances do I see another court (and appeals courts) not paying attention to the intent of the ECHR. Especially because an actual censorship case could to make it back to the ECHR. They would most likely ask the lower court if they are off their rocker, because they explained their intent in the original ruling.
If anyone claims free speech impairment by the ECHR, that extra ordinary claim better have extra ordinary evidence. This doesnt.
I have been paying attention to the ECHR (and the German high courts) for over 10 years and NOT EVEN ONCE have I noticed a sliver of unreasonableness. More the complete opposite. Think of a law that could be part of a conservative wet dream and you will probably find high court decision against something similar.

Re:The ruling is pretty scary (IANAL)

[Luckyo]

Read and comprehend the post and relevant explanations. Your question has already been answered.

About this court

[Anonymous Coward]

This ruling is about balance, it balances the freedom of speech against the freedom from harassment. You all scream that this hinders free speech, no it dosen't, it creates a legal protection against "let's all go and beat the shit out of Mr. L". To protect against such statements you basically have two roads, let everybody have a Colt and the right to use it, or a balanced court system. In Europe we have prefer the later.

The European Court of Human Rights and it's associated European Commision on Human Rights has been in the forefront of developing Human Rights in the last 50 years. It especially has frustrated governments by protecting individuals. It was the first international institution where an individual could get a case reviewed, though only after exhausting all national options. The court itselfs is composed of Human Rights experts representing no national government, they are elected based on their own personal merit and good name. This court represents the best protection an individual has against an overreaching government or a discriminating state, or if you will the terror of the majority.

Most of the individuals we on Slashdot hails as champions of free speech would probably find protection under this court, unless they break all laws intentionally without proper cause. As such, the end does not always justify the means, having exposed the secrets of a bad government does not automatically protect you from rape charges.

Tip: Read the ruling...

[nava68]

I fear that not all posting here have read the ruling. There are a few things to consider:

• 1. The Ruling was made by the ECHR, which is not a part of the EU but an instrument of the European Council which is based on the CPHRFF (European Convention on the Human Rights)
• 2. The ruling only stated that the Estonian Law did not violate the human rights of the complainant and notes why the ruling by the Estonian court was held up.
• 3. The Annex and Concurring Opinions of the ruling describe the interpretation of the court that "Delfi was [not] liable as it did not “prevent” the unlawful comments from being published, and its liability was aggravated by the fact that it did not subsequently “remove” the comments; ... [but] Delfi did not “prevent” the unlawful comments from being published, and as it did not subsequently “remove” the comments without delay, it was liable for them." The judges issuing the concurrent opinion urged the Court to clarify this important part of the ruling (and there is a big difference in those 2 interpretations...)
• 4. The ruling makes clear that the original Estonian laws and ruling is within the "margin of appreciation afforded to the respondent State" and "the measure did not constitute a disproportionate restriction" on the human rights of the complainant.

So if any country within the European Council does issue a law that binds professional outlets to monitor comments and take down hate speech and comments incensing violence it may feel justified by this ruling, but vice versa no government within the European Council may be forced by this ruling to pass such laws.

The downside of all this is, that certain governments (I'm looking at you [name redacted]) will use this ruling to implement laws which will restrict the free expression of opinions online, but then there is still the ECHR to decide if such a law would violate Article 10.2 of the European Convention of Human Rights ...

Re:Well this is the end of YouTube...

[Anonymous Coward]

I found that weird as well. I'm about as liberal as they come, but even I can see that most of the pearl-clutching about mean comments made on websites is coming from those of us on the left.

Re:Wow?!

[moronoxyd]

No. The ruling expressively said that it only applies to this specific case.

And the ruling does NOT say that you have to moderate every post. Only that if you have an option for users to report offensive content and if you are known to moderate comments on your own (as this website did) then you can be expected to do it fast.

Re:SLAPP?

[Ash-Fox]

The EU is a police state, far more than the US.

I've never been stopped on motorways in the EU at 'check points' to present my identifying information like I have been in the US.

What about censoring ?

[giorgist]

If a website is responsible for my comments, then I want to be able to sue it if it censors me. So it's responsible for both leaving and removing comments. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. That should make the internet a wonderful place.

Re:European Court of Human Rights is retarded

[Chrisq]

But that's just my opinion.

Yes but now slashdot will be held responsible for it

If someone writes on the wall of a building?

[koutheir]

If someone writes on the wall of a building, would you hold the building owner accountable?

Re:If someone writes on the wall of a building?

[oobayly]

Well, if the owner of the building told people that they're free to write on their walls... Do you know many property owners that provide that service?

I see

[MitchDev]

Fascism is alive and well in the EU...

Re:Well this is the end of YouTube...

[strikethree]

You know what is funny, is every single time somebody puts in the word Republican, the word Democrat works just as well.

Hm. Not really.

Republicans and Democrats belong to the same party: The authoritarian and corrupt Pwned by Corporations party.
vs
Democrats and Democrats belong to the same party: The authoritarian and corrupt Pwned by Corporations party.

It just doesn't sound the same if you replace Republican with Democrat... but, I know what you were trying to imply. :)

Re:SLAPP?

[hawkinspeter]

Maybe, but there's a lot less gunning down of civilians by the police in Europe compared to the U.S. (I don't know whether that's down to less racism or less guns or some other socio-political difference).

Re:SLAPP?

[GLMDesigns]

Do you have stats for that? In France what happens in the banlieues are, for the most part, unreported.

Yes we have gunning down of civilians? Give me figures comparing the US with Europe (from Norway to Greece and Iceland to Ukraine).

Re:SLAPP?

[hawkinspeter]

I don't have easy access to the raw stats, so here's some relevant news stories that do quote some stats. I doubt that the stats are cherry-picked as there's such a clear difference between the US and the rest of the world:

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/police-kill-citizens-70-times-rate-first-world-nations/
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2014/08/armed-police/
http://www.businessinsider.com/why-do-us-police-kill-so-many-people-2014-8/
http://mic.com/articles/105036/here-s-the-shocking-tally-of-how-many-americans-die-from-police-shootings/

Re:Well this is the end of YouTube...

[KGIII]

As I recall, the first use of "Free Speech Zones" was by the Democrats. That was the first I heard of it at any rate.

Re:ECHR judgment

[KGIII]

Or they know you are Greek because you tell them - in almost every post.

Re:SLAPP?

[GLMDesigns]

Is there a difference between shooting an unarmed person fleeing the scene and having a shoot-out? I think so. I can't access these articles from work but simply tallying totals is not accurate. The phrase I reacted to was "gunning down civilians". That phrase implies something totally unwarranted. If the police are being fired, or they interfere in the course of a crime (say armed burglary) then those actions are not "gunning down civilians."

There would be a lot fewer shootings if the US police simply did not engage (as the French police simply do not engage in the banlieues.) If the French police did engage then there stats would sky rocket.

All the above does not mean that there isn't horrible actions done by the police; nor does it mean I excuse or condone those actions.

Re:SLAPP?

[cayenne8]

The unwarranted police shootings of civilians is being WAY overblown on the 24/7 news channels. It isn't and epidemic or anything. While one is too many, it also isn't the every day thing we all live in fear of over here in the US.

My thoughts are, if you are afraid of police interactions, then the thing to do is...try NOT to provoke them. That means if you are pulled over, comply with their demands (you can still assert your rights if need be), don't run, don't make sudden movements, move slowly and don't provoke a reaction...speak as little as possible, don't be belligerent and above all, keep calm.

When I see films of the police engaging someone and that citizen goes bat shit crazy ranting and raving or resisting the cops or running away (you can't run away from a radio idiot)...well, while I don't agree with it, I think they are often asking for trouble by escalating the incident.

Re:SLAPP?

[Ol Olsoc]

Maybe, but there's a lot less gunning down of civilians by the police in Europe compared to the U.S. (I don't know whether that's down to less racism or less guns or some other socio-political difference).

I think you really need to go to the previous century, say the late 1930's to the mid 40's.Think about some things that happened then. Then come back and tell us about this vaunted European superiority over teh evulz 'murricans.

And that isn't the only example. It seems y'all like to go on killing rampages against each other every so often. Would you like them listed?

Re:SLAPP?

[hawkinspeter]

If you get a chance to view any of the articles (there's plenty more to be found, by the way) then you'll see that the difference is large enough to make your distinctions moot. I'm not saying that the statistics can't be distorted (as almost all stats are) but when you're 70x more likely to be shot by the police in the U.S. than any of the "1st world" countries, then it devalues accusations of Europe being a police state when it comes from a U.S. citizen (assuming you are).

Re:ECHR judgment

[antiperimetaparalogo]

That is a good explanation too my friend... but i think that in THIS case (and reason for my "paranoid rant" you respond to) it's not so important the fact that i tell them that i am a Greek (in almost every post... i think i made one comment about systemd that i did not mentioned it!), but the fact that i tell them that i am Greek (ooops... i did it again!) NATIONALIST...

Re:SLAPP?

[GLMDesigns]

I wouldn't call Britain, France, Norway (and others) as being a police state. But a police state also includes the scenario where citizens are micromanaged, are under the watchful and benevolent eye of the state apparatus AND they do not resist said micromanagement.

I see the US and the EU hurtling toward serfdom (as defined by Hayek)

Re:SLAPP?

[hawkinspeter]

I agree. My replies about "police state" were in reply to the post stating "The EU is a police state, far more than the US."

Re:SLAPP?

[Fallen Kell]

Maybe, but there's a lot less gunning down of civilians by the police in Europe compared to the U.S. (I don't know whether that's down to less racism or less guns or some other socio-political difference).

It isn't due to less racism for certain. It is due to less racial diversity at the local level. Someone forgets about a multi-million person racial/ethnic purge that occurred in Europe 70-80 years ago. Between the people killed and the ones who fled, the racial diversity in all of continental Europe was swept away. Researchers in Havard released a map a few years ago showing the racial diversity of different nations. It can be found on the following link:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/05/16/a-revealing-map-of-the-worlds-most-and-least-ethnically-diverse-countries/

Re:SLAPP?

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

I've never been stopped on motorways in the EU at 'check points' to present my identifying information like I have been in the US.

Well, I have, many times. Also on the street. Perhaps you just don't drive very much?

Europe does have fewer interactions between police and drivers, however, for the simple reason that in many places in Europe, they don't have to stop you to give you a ticket.

Re:SLAPP?

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

Maybe, but there's a lot less gunning down of civilians by the police in Europe compared to the U.S.

It's unclear whether that's true, since Europeans keep even worse statistics on police brutality than the US.

The media that middle class Europeans pay attention to, however, generally tend to be more favorable to the government side of things and are less likely to report on it in my experience, so that may result in that impression.

(I don't know whether that's down to less racism or less guns or some other socio-political difference).

A lot of violent police/citizen interactions in the US happen at traffic stops. If there is a difference, its primary cause is likely that police in Europe often don't need to stop motorists; they just send a ticket to the registered vehicle owner in the mail.

I nearly feel sorry for facebook

[mythix]

Facebook could now be liable for millions of retarded posts...

Re:SLAPP?

[budgenator]

Maybe, but there's a lot less gunning down of civilians by the police in Europe compared to the U.S. (I don't know whether that's down to less racism or less guns or some other socio-political difference).

Don't worry, you'll be catching up fast, and the report of it will be considered illegal hate speech. Europe has enough drug and human trafficking to be approaching a tipping-point. With increased immigration, European Country's historical advantage of cultural homogeneity will turn into a liability and you'll be wrestling with the same problems as the US.

Re:SLAPP?

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

I doubt that the stats are cherry-picked as there's such a clear difference between the US and the rest of the world:

The articles you cite are pretty superficial in their use of data and analysis. In fact, nobody knows for cerrtain where these differences come from.

However, culturally, there is a big difference between the US and Europe: Americans generally consider it OK to use deadly force to defend themselves, their family, and their property. If a criminal robs someone or breaks into their house, he runs a high risk of getting shot dead and the shooter being found innocent.

And that carries over to police: I may not want to shoot people breaking into my house myself, but I may believe that it's the job of police to do that kind of dirty work for me.

Naturally, these attitudes result in higher rates of killing in self-defense and by police. Is that wrong somehow?

Re:SLAPP?

[hawkinspeter]

I personally think it's wrong to kill people over mere property and I don't believe that the average person is a good judge of when to use "deadly force". Higher rates of killing is definitely wrong no matter what excuses are presented, but then there's such a huge cultural difference between the U.S. and Europe that we think that capital punishment is barbaric.

Re:SLAPP?

[hawkinspeter]

I think you're deluding yourself if you think that hundreds of people get shot by police in Europe and it's just not reported. That's simply not the case and I defy you to show me any evidence that the press ignore police shootings.

Re:SLAPP?

[mspohr]

The Guardian has been doing a lot of research on police killing people in the US compared to the rest of the world.
Here's a good summary article:
http://www.theguardian.com/us-...

A few statistics from the article:
Fact: Police in the US have shot and killed more people – in every week this year – than are reportedly shot and killed by German police in an entire year.
Fact: Police in the US fatally shot more people in one month this year than police in Australia officially reported during a span of 19 years.
Fact: Police in Canada average 25 fatal shooting a year. In California, a state just 10% more populous than Canada, police in 2015 have fatally shot nearly three times as many people in just five months.
Fact: Police fired 17 bullets at Antonio Zambrano-Montes, who was “armed” with a rock. That’s nearly three times what police in Finland are reported to have fired during all of 2013.
Fact: In the first 24 days of 2015, police in the US fatally shot more people than police did in England and Wales, combined, over the past 24 years.

Re:8====D~~

[weilawei]

I've never seen a post moved. I browse in chronological order. You got a citation to back up your claim?

Re:SLAPP?

[russotto]

Not anti-SLAPP legislation (which are state laws), but the Communications Decency Act section 230, a rare case of an evil plan backfiring. The idea was to censor the Internet and throw a sop to dissenters by providing a shield from liability for user-provided content, but the courts ended up ruling everything but that sop unconstitutional.

Re:SLAPP?

[geminidomino]

I wouldn't call Britain, France, Norway (and others) as being a police state. But a police state also includes the scenario where citizens are micromanaged, are under the watchful and benevolent eye of the state apparatus AND they do not resist said micromanagement.

I don't know about France or Norway, but doesn't the UK, at least England, have exactly that what with the ever growing surveillance camera coverage?

Re:Well this is the end of YouTube...

[geminidomino]

That was the first I heard of it at any rate.

When was it? The first time I remember it was the G8 conference in 2002, under our old friend Redneck Nero.

Re:SLAPP?

[Ash-Fox]

Europe does have fewer interactions between police and drivers, however, for the simple reason that in many places in Europe, they don't have to stop you to give you a ticket.

I think you're confused about my terminology of 'check point'. It is nothing to do with giving somebody a ticket.

This court says ...

[micahraleigh]

The Europeans are responsible for a lot of stupidity.

Re:SLAPP?

[Coren22]

When did Sweden become a state of the US?

Re:Well this is the end of YouTube...

[KGIII]

I had to look. 1988 Democratic National Convention.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

See the History section.

Re:SLAPP?

[david_thornley]

Are UK citizens micromanaged? (I don't live there, so I don't really know one way or another.) Surveillance does not make a police state, although it sure helps.

Re:SLAPP?

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

I think you're deluding yourself if you think that hundreds of people get shot by police in Europe

I think you are deluding yourself if you think that's not true; Europe runs from Lisbon to Moscow, after all.

That's simply not the case and I defy you to show me any evidence that the press ignore police shootings.

I defy you to show any substantive statistics on police shootings or police violence in Europe at all.

Re:SLAPP?

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

I think you're confused about my terminology of 'check point'. It is nothing to do with giving somebody a ticket.

No, I simply made two separate points: (1) there are plenty of checkpoints in Europe, for the same reasons they exist in the US: immigration, terrorism, smuggling, drugs, fugitives, and drunk driving.

And (2) in addition to that, in the US people get stopped when they get a ticket.

Re:SLAPP?

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

I personally think it's wrong to kill people over mere property and I don't believe that the average person is a good judge of when to use "deadly force".

So, in different words, you and people like you are substituting your judgment for the will of the people. Yes, that's exactly what's wrong with Europe.

Higher rates of killing is definitely wrong no matter what excuses are presented, but then there's such a huge cultural difference between the U.S. and Europe that we think that capital punishment is barbaric.

When much of Europe abolished the death penalty as part of European integration, it wasn't by popular will, it was by imposition from above, so that's not a "cultural difference", it's difference in opinion by Europe's ruling classes. And even today, many European countries are still split about the death penalty, despite decades of indoctrination.

In reality, Europeans don't "think" much at all; they parrot what their government and their intellectual classes tell them, usually with a good deal of European chauvinism and anti-Americanism thrown in. And what you call "European culture" is really the preferences of the educated upper middle class that you happen to be part of.

Are those preferences good? Not really. The worship of law and order is what has driven European nations to totalitarianism over and over again. Thanks, but I'd rather live in a "barbaric" and "uncivilized" country.

Re:SLAPP?

[mjwx]

Or if you prefer the Parents post in infographic form.

Re:SLAPP?

[Ash-Fox]

there are plenty of checkpoints in Europe

Maybe in Europe, but doesn't seem very likely in the European Union, which really is what you should be comparing to when it comes to comparing US verses EU.

US: immigration, terrorism, smuggling, drugs, fugitives, and drunk driving.

Border control, sure (but they aren't between European Union countries usually). But check points? I really haven't seen them and I've lived in Poland, Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Czech Republic, England, Scotland and now Northern Ireland. Not to mention been to a bunch of other European Union countries as part of holidays and work. I lived in ex-soviet territories that still have a strong influence of sorts and I still never had the sort of stuff I encountered in the US.

If someone kills someone in a courtroom...

[ayesnymous]

Should the judge be held responsible for the murder?

Re:SLAPP?

[hawkinspeter]

I'm not sure who you think I am, but I'm not aware that I'm doing anything with/for/against the "will of the people". You do realise we're posting on Slashdot, right? Are you having one of your delusions where you're a member of the secret world council again?

With just a brief checking of facts, it appears that you are flat out wrong about "much of Europe abolished the death penalty as part of European integration". Have a look at http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777460.html/ for the official banning of the death penalty by country.

You seem to have a strange, paranoid view of Europeans, so I'd guess that you've never travelled very much. I'd recommend going to other countries as travel really does broaden the mind and gives you a better perspective. (You also learn that people are really the same everywhere and cultural stereotypes are just that - stereotypes).

Re:SLAPP?

[hawkinspeter]

Thank you for joining this discussion. However, you seem to be trying to devolve this into a "the land-mass I live on is better than the land-mass you live on" debate.

I assume you're referring to the whole Nazi Germany thing and yes, I imagine that the situation in the U.S. is somewhat better than Nazi Germany. Well done in setting yourself a high standard there.

Re:SLAPP?

[hawkinspeter]

Did I miss a memo? Moscow is in Europe now? I'd better run and tell Putin as he seems to be wanting to start a war with Europe - how he'll laugh when he finds out his mistake!

Here's some stats for the UK https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/298435/Police_use_of_firearms_Commons.pdf/ and here's a German report http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/justiz/polizei-schoss-2011-seltener-im-dienst-a-832037.html/ although you'll need to translate it (or read a summary http://gawker.com/5909283/german-police-really-dont-like-shooting-at-people-used-only-85-bullets-last-year/ ).

Honestly, here in the UK, police violence tends to get newspaper headlines as there's been history of institutional racism in a lot of police forces. It's not something that typically get brushed under the carpet, but instead is used more as a political bargaining chip.

Re:SLAPP?

[Ash-Fox]

You started talking about "Europe" not the "EU". In any case, it's irrelevant to this point

I didn't, posting history confirms this.

And, yes, I have seen them in pretty much every of the dozen or so European countries I have lived in and traveled to

Whatever you say Anonymous Coward.

Re:SLAPP?

[Ash-Fox]

Your definition of check point is clearly different from mine. I am referring to an actual barricade where you are completely stopped and regardless of what, you are asked to provide identification. I am not referring to border control. This is something I have only experienced in the USA. Not even in post-soviet countries where this was the norm did I even encounter this.

Re:SLAPP?

[hawkinspeter]

Not that I'm aware of. I'd say it's pretty far from being a police state despite the many transgressions of our police.

Re:SLAPP?

[Ol Olsoc]

Thank you for joining this discussion. However, you seem to be trying to devolve this into a "the land-mass I live on is better than the land-mass you live on" debate.

Actually, no. I just get a little weary of the concept that many Europeans have of their superiority. While conveniently forgetting that their hands are not particularly clean.

Yes, it was the National Socialists I was referring to. Don't forget Bosnia either.

World War one was sort of special also. Trench warfare yummieness. Mustard gas and chlorine is so civilized.

I assume you're referring to the whole Nazi Germany thing and yes, I imagine that the situation in the U.S. is somewhat better than Nazi Germany. Well done in setting yourself a high standard there.

You have no idea of "the situation in the US. You hear something in the news, and treat it like it's the whole country. "Somewhat better than Nazi Germany" - takes a special smugness to even type that out. Thank you for proving my point. The US has it's issues. Only we don't act like we don't have any, while constantly accusing Europeans of them. My post was only in reaction to yet another assertion of how it's better in Europe, because your police are not "gunning people down". Which is completely ignoring the evidence.

Re:SLAPP?

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

Did I miss a memo? Moscow is in Europe now?

Yes, Moscow is in Europe. Where did you think it was?

UK ... German

I have no doubt they are low in the UK and Germany. But that's not all of Europe, and the reasons they are low are not reasons that I'd like to see apply in the US.

Re:SLAPP?

[hawkinspeter]

Just to fill you in - my first response in this series of posts was to refute an Anonymous Coward who claimed:

The EU is a police state, far more than the US.

I'm glad to have proved your point (although you only just mentioned it, so I don't know how anyone else was supposed to work out what the hell your point was), but I'm afraid that your assertion of

The US has it's issues. Only we don't act like we don't have any, while constantly accusing Europeans of them.

is ironic given the nature of the post that prompted my replies.

So, can you please point me towards the "evidence" you mention so that I can educate myself and not have my facts so clearly wrong in future?

P.S. I wasn't alive in either World War, so I do apologise for any wrong-doings, but it was somewhat beyond my control.

Re:SLAPP?

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

I'm not sure who you think I am, but I'm not aware that I'm doing anything with/for/against the "will of the people".

I have no idea what you "do", if you do anything at all. But you said clearly what you think:

I personally think it's wrong to kill people over mere property and I don't believe that the average person is a good judge of when to use "deadly force".

The implication of what you are saying is that you consider your personal moral judgments to be superior and more informed to that of the "average person", and that you want your moral judgments to be the basis of law even if they disagree with the will of the majority or run up against individual liberties. And that is typical for European attitudes towards government.

With just a brief checking of facts, it appears that you are flat out wrong about "much of Europe abolished the death penalty as part of European integration".

Most of those are post-WWII, aren't they? When did you think European integration started?

You seem to have a strange, paranoid view of Europeans, so I'd guess that you've never travelled very much.

No, I have a realistic view of Europeans because I grew up in Europe, spent a large part of my life there, and don't delude myself about its dismal history and culture.

I'd recommend going to other countries as travel really does broaden the mind and gives you a better perspective.

Ah, more typical European chauvinism: "Americans are untraveled and stupid". Well, if I'm untraveled and stupid, it's Europe that made me that way. In any case, basking in the sun on a Florida beach or getting drunk in a Phuket bar doesn't make you historically or politically educated; for that you have to read and understand, and in the case of Europeans, you have to overcome decades of indoctrination and cultural chauvinism.

Re:SLAPP?

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

I always thought that Moscow was in Russia ***runs off to check an atlas*** Yep, it's still there.

Yes, and Russia is a country that spans two continents, Europe and Asia. Moscow happens to be in Europe. It's not a difficult concept to grasp.

Apologies for using facts against you like this.

I'm not arguing that the Guardian numbers are wrong (they seem pretty plausible to me), I'm pointing out that you don't even understand the data if you believe that those numbers represent facts. My point is about your ignorance, not the numbers.

The numbers themselves are irrelevant: whether a bunch of inbred Icelanders or guilt-ridden Germans have low rates of police violence has no bearing on what US policies should be or what is just, right, or moral. There are certainly things that can and should be improved about policing in the US, but you simply are too ignorant to weigh in on that.

welly-well-well

[justifythis1]

Well people need to be held accountable for their actions. What? Some think this is a violation of rights? Try privileges. People should be able to destroy the lives of others with the click of a button? And safely behind the mask of the "right" to do so? I don't think so. Policing every individual isn't realistic. Policing the owners of the services allowing individuals to engage in easy drive-by seemingly unaccountable "road-rage" or rather "internet-rage" where they think there isn't any consequence to their behaviour ... well.... That makes sense to me. Buck's gotta finally stop somewhere. Especially if people do not know how to behave towards one another in a civil society.

Re:SLAPP?

[ahodgson]

And we have water.

I foresee a thriving business...

[Reziac]

...in forums hosted in small island nations and obscure African anarchies.

loul

[bobmajdakjr]

here is your fine âââââââââââ lolololoolol

Re:Well this is the end of YouTube...

[geminidomino]

Learned something new today.

Europe

[paul mafinga]

The slave trade, french and english prison colonies, opium and tea wars, the assassination of Ferdinand, the reparations to France, 70 M. dead in the 1st and 2nd world wars, the boston bombers, the shoot-down of MH17, the worsening Ukrainian conflict, the rapid reopening of fallout shelters, the stand-up of nuclear first-strike capabilities on both sides, and the potential for around 50% of the European population to be vaporized within minutes.

Truly the cradle of democracy and civilization, a wide spectrum, bright and brilliant flash of a thousand points of light, illuminating the way toward our planet's "crispy on the outside, tender on the inside" future. Perhaps the Europeans should try shedding a tear at a war memorial for a change, rather than drinking themselves into a stupor, dancing around in lederhosen and clogs, and wolfing down bangers and mash as they power up for another goo session with the local bicycle, at least when they're not trying to censor the mean things people say on the Internet.

As the linked documents show, under Estonian law :

“No one’s honour or good name shall be defamed.”

"Everyone has the right to freely disseminate ideas, opinions, beliefs and other information by word, print, picture or other means. This right may be restricted by law to protect public order, morals, and the rights and freedoms, health, honour and the good name of others. This right may also be restricted by law for State and local government public servants, to protect a State or business secret or information received in confidence which has become known to them by reason of their office, and the family and private life of others, as well as in the interests of justice."

"There is to be no censorship.”

"The Government submitted that the interference with the applicant company’s rights under Article 10 had the legitimate aim of protecting the honour of others."

You, your morals, honor, and "good name".

Europe had some massive peace demonstrations in the 1970's and 1980's, where hundreds of thousands of people marched to try and put an end to the madness.

Please, march again, blame Reagan, Obama, or whoever is currently the steward of NATO. Burn effigies of the GOP leadership, blame the greedy Americans for the world's problems, blame the Republican Party war mongers, call us ignorant, backwards, racist, all the names you want, insult me, my family, and my ancestry -- I'll bow my head, hat in hand, and apologize for my crude and callous offenses to your collective honor and good name.

Just stop marching towards WW-3.

Re: SLAPP?

[baristabrian]

"Actual barricade." Huh. Yeah, right. 56 years old. Lived in U.S. of A, all of them. Driven---easily---a half million miles, maybe more. All over. Never seen one. Never. But, hey, if our country is more of a "police state" to you, well ... good luck with that. Just saying.

Re: SLAPP?

[baristabrian]

But what if somebody offends me by drawing a cartoon of Muhammad? Then can I kill?

Re: SLAPP?

[baristabrian]

Damn, all that "police state" killing going on! Yet, some how, I just do not feel *any* fear of getting shot---by police. But, if I were to date going into any number of, uh, certain "hoods," I'd fear for my life. Just saying. Seriously. I'll take the statistical chances of [not] getting shot by police over getting assaulted by somebody who doesn't like the color of my skin (been assaulted four times by people who didn't like my complexion) any day.

Re: SLAPP?

[baristabrian]

Damn, all that "police state" killing going on in America! Yet, some how, I just do not feel *any* fear of getting shot---by police. But, if I were to dare going into any number of, uh, certain neighborhoods, I'd fear for my life. Just saying. Seriously. I'll take the statistical chances of [not] getting shot by police over getting assaulted by somebody who doesn't like the color of my skin (been assaulted four times by people who didn't like my complexion) any day.

Re:8====D~~

[rmdingler]

Threads often move around the discussion, based on popularity and moderation, but nothing is ever deleted.

Timing, it seems, isn't everything after all.

Posting the first inane thing that comes into your head doesn't deserve the top of the page automagically. This is Slashdot. Post smart or go home.

Re:SLAPP?

[GLMDesigns]

You pose an interesting question. Can one be free without privacy? Where government officials track and know the physical location of everyone; know when they get home; what they eat, read, spend their money on, watch on TV and everything else? Under such a watchful eye are you still a citizen of that society? Or are you something lower (maybe above a serf) but still not quit a citizen?

Just asking. I haven't an answer but I think an omnipresent state is almost indistinguishable from a police state.

Re:SLAPP?

[Ash-Fox]

Police in the US put up barricades to direct traffic and control access to, say, parades and public events.

Unrelated to this, I already described exactly the circumstances involved.

The fact that you think there is any relationship between such activities and police states is merely a testament to your ignorance.

I'm pointing out that I don't get the whole "papers please" just travelling within a country like I did in the US. Something you would expect to happen in a police state.