Microsoft, Facebook, YouTube and Others Agree To Remove Hate Speech Across the EU

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft, Facebook, YouTube and Others Agree To Remove Hate Speech Across the EU

Posted by msmash on Tuesday May 31, 2016 @06:05AM from the hate-speech-code dept.

Tech giants in conjunction with European Union are taking a stand to fight hate speech. Microsoft, Twitter, YouTube, Google, and Facebook have launched "code of conduct" aimed at fighting racism and xenophobia across Europe. The companies aren't legally obligated, but have agreed to "public commitments" to review the "majority of valid notifications for removal of illegal hate speech" in less than 24 hours, and make it easier for law enforcement in Europe to notify the firms directly. From a TechCrunch report: Tech companies will have to find the right balance between freedom of expression and hateful content. Based on the code of conduct, they'll have dedicated teams reviewing flagged items (poor employees who will have to review awful things every day). Tech companies will also educate their users and tell them that it's forbidden to post hateful content. They'll cooperate with each other to share best practice. They'll encourage flagging of hateful content and they'll promote counter speech against hateful rhetoric. It's good to see that this issue got escalated and the European Commission was able to come up with a code of conduct quite quickly. Instead of making tech companies deal with every single European country, they can agree on rules for the EU as a whole."The recent terror attacks have reminded us of the urgent need to address illegal online hate speech," Vera Jourova, EU Commissioner for Justice, Consumers and Gender Equality, wrote in the European Commission press release. "Social media is unfortunately one of the tools that terrorist groups use to radicalise young people and racist use to spread violence and hatred. This agreement is an important step forward to ensure that the internet remains a place of free and democratic expression, where European values and laws are respected."

250 of 405 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

What could go wrong? by transami · 2016-05-31 06:07 · Score: 5, Insightful

No slippery slope here, no sir.

--
:T:R:A:N:S:
1. Re:What could go wrong? by Temtongkek · 2016-05-31 06:12 · Score: 1
  
  I'm kind of stunned over this. I'm also not stunned at all over this. It's like watching a train you know is about to wreck but you know you can't do anything about it. You WANT to help, but you...can't, really.
2. Re:What could go wrong? by umghhh · 2016-05-31 06:25 · Score: 1
  
  Zes it is OK to hate nayis (that is intended spelling - guess why).
3. Re:What could go wrong? by NotDrWho · 2016-05-31 06:31 · Score: 1
  
  I think people who disagree with my political views are engaging in hate speech. Can I get to decide?
  
  --
  SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
4. Re:What could go wrong? by war4peace · 2016-05-31 06:39 · Score: 1
  
  Fun fact: My native keyboard layout has Z and Y reversed from normal US layout.
  
  --
  ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
5. Re:What could go wrong? by bettodavis · 2016-05-31 06:44 · Score: 1
  
  Given the slant of current public discourse and "morality", I'm certain this won't impact Daesh wannabe members wishing and expressing death threats upon the Great Satan in the least, but certainly those horrible evil cis white male scum oppressing womyn by telling them being fat is not healthy, and any other horrible, unforgivable hate speech (like disagreeing with the SJW's cultish drivel).
  
  Because the modern world has its values backwards, there is no way for this to end well.
6. Re:What could go wrong? by rdelsambuco · 2016-05-31 06:47 · Score: 1
  
  What's "fun" about that? By "fun" do you mean "trivial and uninteresting?"
  
  --
  I comment occasionally so that I can mod others -1 overrated or -1 offtopic.
7. Re:What could go wrong? by MitchDev · 2016-05-31 06:55 · Score: 1
  
  The slope is nothing BUT slippery :(
  Everybody gets so damned butthurt about EVERYTHING....
8. Re:What could go wrong? by CrimsonAvenger · 2016-05-31 07:01 · Score: 1
  
  So you either support terrorism posts on Twitter and Facebook (ISIL et al.) or you don't.
  I have no problem at all with terrorism posts on Twitter and/or Facebook.
  Gives me a chance to point and laugh.
  But then, I'm not so frightened of words as some people these days seem to be....
  
  --
  
  "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
9. Re:What could go wrong? by Nyghtfall · 2016-05-31 07:15 · Score: 1
  
  So, Facebook and few others have determined that they hate this type of speech, so they will now censor such speech. Does the hating of the hate speech qualify as hate speech and thus deserve to be banned?
10. Re:What could go wrong? by war4peace · 2016-05-31 08:04 · Score: 1
  
  The fact that you don't get it. That's fun.
  
  --
  ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
11. Re:What could go wrong? by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · 2016-05-31 08:22 · Score: 1
  
  Facebook et al. certainly have the right, as companies, to censor as they wish, whether it be anti-"hate speech" or not. I think it's a silly move, and I would absolutely be against the EU forcing them to comply with their asinine "hate speech" laws, but as private companies they can do that. I doubt it's a good business move, and I think it's likely to escalate to the point of being harmful to their user communities, but that's their call.
  
  --
  Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
12. Re:What could go wrong? by JustAnotherOldGuy · 2016-05-31 15:56 · Score: 1
  
  Oh yeah, I'm sure that removing "hate speech" (whatever that is) will be simple and straightforward. What could be easier than enforcing a total ban on a nebulous, undefined concept?
  
  --
  Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
13. Re:What could go wrong? by KozmoStevnNaut · 2016-05-31 21:16 · Score: 1
  
  It's perfectly OK to hate anyone you like (or don't like, in this case), you just can't incite violence or threaten them.
  For instance, "I hate nazis and I don't want them to have any influence whatsoever" is OK.
  But "I hate nazis and I think they should all be killed, in fact let's go kill some nazi scum right now" is not OK.
  It's not that hard to understand.
  
  --
  Eat the rich.
14. Re:What could go wrong? by fgouget · 2016-06-01 00:53 · Score: 1
  
  Microsoft, Facebook, YouTube & co started down the slippery slope out of their own volition: by banning photos with too much skin or anything that might be considered slightly erotic. Yet, essentially nobody in the US opposed that by shouting "slippery slope" or even found any thing wrong with it.
15. Re:What could go wrong? by cyberchondriac · 2016-06-01 02:22 · Score: 1
  
  It all depends on the words and their context. That's the tricky thing. Words can just express an opinion, or, they can incite. That's why though they're mere words, you're not legally allowed to yell fire in a movie theatre (unless there is one), or threaten people with violence or assassination, or outright lie about them (defamation of character). Other than that though, it should all be free speech.
  Often this "hate speech" is just people expressing their personal opinion with no real teeth or intent behind it. Let's see how lopsided this gets. I'm sure certain groups will labeled as haters disproportionately to others, because it's damn near impossible to eliminate bias.
  
  --
  
  Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
16. Re:What could go wrong? by CrimsonAvenger · 2016-06-01 04:45 · Score: 1
  
  That's why though they're mere words, you're not legally allowed to yell fire in a movie theatre (unless there is one)
  The court case that used the phrase "falsely shout fire in a crowded theatre" didn't come to the conclusion you think it did. What they said was that it MIGHT be illegal, but that since it was purely a hypothetical, they didn't have any intentions of deciding that matter.
  Yes, words might be incitement. Nonetheless, I'm not actually frightened by words, and so it bothers me not at all that there might be "hate speech" on some website somewhere.
  
  --
  
  "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
17. Re:What could go wrong? by KozmoStevnNaut · 2016-06-01 23:36 · Score: 1
  
  So you think it's perfectly OK to use free speech to incite hatred and motivate others to commit violent acts against others?
  Free speech means that you cannot be prevented from saying what you want, but it absolutely does not absolve you of responsibility for the consequences of what you say. It's very emphatically not a right to "say anything I want, and you can't do anything about it".
  
  --
  Eat the rich.
of course by fyngyrz · 2016-05-31 06:08 · Score: 1

...the first comments removed will be any anti-microsoft comments. So much for the year of linux on the desktop...

--
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
1. Re:of course by fyngyrz · 2016-05-31 08:47 · Score: 2
  
  you have no right of appeal
  Not to worry. I'm used to it.
  
  --
  I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Well thats by maroberts · 2016-05-31 06:09 · Score: 3, Insightful

Doubleplusgood

--
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
Holy Mutually Exclusive Things, Batman! by ScentCone · 2016-05-31 06:10 · Score: 4, Insightful

This agreement is an important step forward to ensure that the internet remains a place of free and democratic expression, where European values and laws are respected.
So, European values don't actually include free expression. Will bouncing back and forth between these too opposing goals cause so much friction that the interwebs actually catch on fire?

--
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
1. Re:Holy Mutually Exclusive Things, Batman! by fustakrakich · 2016-05-31 06:19 · Score: 1
  
  No, you're thinking of the "Buttered cat paradox".
  The back and forth on the internet will simply bog it down.
  
  --
  “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
2. Re:Holy Mutually Exclusive Things, Batman! by Hylandr · 2016-05-31 06:20 · Score: 2
  
  More importantly the EU will have more tools to effectively squelch honest reporting about the current ISIS invasion.
  
  --
  ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
3. Re:Holy Mutually Exclusive Things, Batman! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-31 06:22 · Score: 1
  
  The people that are beating their multiple child wives will be able to operate with impunity and continue to displace long time residents from their homes without public oversight.
  What could go wrong?
4. Re:Holy Mutually Exclusive Things, Batman! by Kierthos · 2016-05-31 06:25 · Score: 1
  
  If any of those platforms were owned and operated by European governments, you might have a point. As they are completely optional to use (at least, I don't recall any laws saying using Twitter or Facebook were mandatory), and are not government agencies.....
  
  --
  Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
5. Re:Holy Mutually Exclusive Things, Batman! by swb · 2016-05-31 06:31 · Score: 1
  
  I think it's a fallacy to conflate a legal right to freedom of speech with the moral right to freedom of expression, especially in a world filled with "optional" privately owned public spaces where freedom of expression is restricted by property rights.
  Although I suppose the good news is you can stand on a crate in the public square and say anything you want because there's nobody left in the public square.
6. Re:Holy Mutually Exclusive Things, Batman! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-31 06:38 · Score: 1
  
  How true:
  http://www.prisonplanet.com/swedish-government-kicks-local-family-out-of-home-gives-it-to-migrants.html
7. Re:Holy Mutually Exclusive Things, Batman! by Kierthos · 2016-05-31 06:50 · Score: 1
  
  What I'm saying is that, for example, Facebook can already remove your posts for any reason or none. All this is doing is codifying some reasons why they might do so.
  
  --
  Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
8. Re:Holy Mutually Exclusive Things, Batman! by Kierthos · 2016-05-31 07:06 · Score: 1
  
  Er, no.
  There is a different between some racist twonk saying "ALL {X} MUST DIE!" (or other racist b.s.) and saying "Your message has no place here, and we're not going to allow it."
  
  --
  Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
9. Re:Holy Mutually Exclusive Things, Batman! by PopeRatzo · 2016-05-31 07:19 · Score: 1
  
  www.prisonplanet.com
  This is what Slashdot has come to. Alex fucking Jones.
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
10. Re: Holy Mutually Exclusive Things, Batman! by shilly · 2016-05-31 07:22 · Score: 1
  
  No country has completely unfettered free speech, including the US. In both the US and the EU. In the US, this includes:
  - incitement to imminent lawless action is not protected speech
  - false statements of fact are often not protected speech (libel and slander fit here)
  - child pornography is not protected
  - fighting words are not protected
  - speech owned by others is not protected
  - commercial speech has diminished protections (eg false adverts may be punished or prohibited)
  - speech made in a way that invokes a particular capacity of the government (eg as regulator of the airwaves, but not the Internet) has limited protection
  There are reasonable disagreements to be had about the appropriateness of the categories and scope of these limitations. But you'd have to be either an ideologue or a gibbering fuckwit to fail to recognise that these limits have all been put in place because there is a need to balance competing public interests: the right to free speech vs the risks to minority groups if unfettered hate speech were allowed, for example.
  Sadly, few people seem willing to acknowledge these kind of essential complexities of public policy and life, at least on Slashdot. Honestly, the level of debate was better in my sixth-form discussion club than much of what I see here.
11. Re:Holy Mutually Exclusive Things, Batman! by swb · 2016-05-31 07:32 · Score: 1
  
  No, what you're doing is improving the window dressing on Facebook's censorship.
  Of course they've always had the ability to remove posts for any reason they like, but they've generally been inhibited in the early years of the platform for a garden variety of motivations, such as not wanting to inhibit the network effect by discouraging users and a lack of a coherent justification outside the realm of the outer limits of decency (ie, porn or other visually explicit imagery).
  By hopping on the "hate speech" train they're enhancing their ability to remove posts by giving them a "good reason" to do so.
  My own sense of this these days is that once upon a time, European hate speech laws were largely a legacy of WWII/Nazism. I think now they're couched in terms of good intentions but in reality are an attempt by the ruling class to suppress opposition from those on the right.
  By aligning itself with this, Facebook is really aligning itself with the existing ruling class in Europe.
12. Re: Holy Mutually Exclusive Things, Batman! by Registered+Coward+v2 · 2016-05-31 08:13 · Score: 1
  
  In the US at Ieast I would characterize free speech as an absence of governmental prior restraint. Freedom of speech does not imply freedom from consequences. You can say you will do X and be arrested to prevent you from actually doing X, but it is the action or potential action that is being prevented, not the speech. I agree it is a hard line to draw and clearly society can determine where it draws the line; and not everyone will agree on where the line is drawn. Private organizations have no obligation to allow unfettered access to their property and can draw the line wherever they choose; others can then vote with their feet and take their business where the policies are more to their liking.
  
  --
  I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
13. Re: Holy Mutually Exclusive Things, Batman! by lgw · 2016-05-31 08:23 · Score: 1
  
  Incitement to immediate violence may be the only legitimate example in your list of prior restraint of speech based on content (the special treatment of child pornography is blatantly unconstitutional, but no one cares to protest that one). Libel and slander are a tort, not a crime. Fraud is a crime, but that's a regulation of business practice, not of speech per se (a lot of fraud involves what you don't say).
  Particularly in the realm of political speech, only incitement to immediate violence should ever be banned.
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
14. Re:Holy Mutually Exclusive Things, Batman! by Raenex · 2016-05-31 09:00 · Score: 1
  
  Funny how it doesn't mention anything about migrants.
  Funny how your reading skills are so poor you can't figure out that this phrase means migrants:
  "Then I was laid off from my accommodation on the phone. When I asked the reason, he said that people come from other countries."
  But stories like that aren't the kind of stories that leftist, mainstream press like to report about when it comes to the mass migration going on. But when a kid dies, well that's front page news. Nevermind the immense cost (both socially and economically) to the host countries, or the fact that the majority of migrants are military-age men.
15. Re:Holy Mutually Exclusive Things, Batman! by Raenex · 2016-05-31 09:05 · Score: 1
  
  Alex fucking Jones.
  It's actually Paul Joseph Watson, and he's pretty sane compared to Jones. But you're part of the crowd on Slashdot defending the useful idiots on the left, so I'm sure the distinction matters little to you.
16. Re:Holy Mutually Exclusive Things, Batman! by Raenex · 2016-05-31 09:15 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  There is a different between some racist twonk saying "ALL {X} MUST DIE!" (or other racist b.s.) and saying "Your message has no place here, and we're not going to allow it."
  It's more like this:
  Government: "Terrorist are a problem! We must ban hate speech."
  Pleb: "Yes, and maybe you shouldn't have let in all those people associated with terrorism, violence, and intolerance."
  Government: "Xenophobia! This hate speech must be banned!"
17. Re:Holy Mutually Exclusive Things, Batman! by AmiMoJo · 2016-05-31 09:32 · Score: 1
  
  Freedom if speech is a guaranteed human right in Europe. However, just like the US and every other country, there are limits.
  State secrets. Shouting fire in a theatre. And yes, inciting hated against certain protected attributes. Personally I don't agree with the last one, but the logic is that it conflicts with other individuals' rights.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
18. Re:Holy Mutually Exclusive Things, Batman! by PopeRatzo · 2016-05-31 10:43 · Score: 1
  
  It's actually Paul Joseph Watson, and he's pretty sane compared to Jones.
  You mean at the site that has, on its masthead, "Alex Jones' Prison Planet"?
  If Watson was sane, why would he submit an article to Prison Planet?
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
19. Re:Holy Mutually Exclusive Things, Batman! by Rakarra · 2016-05-31 12:07 · Score: 1
  
  I would like to think that amount of spinning would result in "free energy" to be harnessed.
20. Re:Holy Mutually Exclusive Things, Batman! by Raenex · 2016-05-31 12:34 · Score: 1
  
  Most of the migrants are looking for money, not fleeing war. How about you give them a job, and a place to live, instead of volunteering somebody else's property?
21. Re:Holy Mutually Exclusive Things, Batman! by Raenex · 2016-05-31 13:42 · Score: 1
  
  Probably for exposure. He actually has videos making fun of idiot conspiracy theorists.
22. Re: Holy Mutually Exclusive Things, Batman! by shilly · 2016-05-31 18:39 · Score: 1
  
  Your view may be reasonable, but the Supreme Court has disagreed for many decades.
23. Re:Holy Mutually Exclusive Things, Batman! by rastos1 · 2016-05-31 19:19 · Score: 1
  
  So, European values don't actually include free expression.
  
  EU citizen here. I would rather live with these "restrictions" to free speech then with civil forfeiture or in a U.S. territory. And don't get me started with Gitmo.
24. Re:Holy Mutually Exclusive Things, Batman! by bentcd · 2016-05-31 19:42 · Score: 1
  
  So, European values don't actually include free expression.
  The values do but the laws don't. If you look at European freedom of speech laws then they all basically say, in different languages, "freedom of speech is guaranteed, insomuch as it's speech the government doesn't find objectionable". The exception is codified into the law itself.
  When your legal guarantee for freedom of speech is this vague, you only have as much freedom of speech at any given time as your govt is prepared to give you. Europe survives this by having a very strong tradition for freedom of speech and so for the most part your govt will let you say a lot of really stupid stuff before they lock you up.
  
  --
  sigs are hazardous to your health
25. Re:Holy Mutually Exclusive Things, Batman! by KozmoStevnNaut · 2016-05-31 21:19 · Score: 1
  
  "Free expression" doesn't include threats of violence or direct action against other people with a difference viewpoint/skin color/religion/etc. than yours.
  You can complain about them as much as you want, but you'll get banned (or possibly reported to the police) for making credible threats etc.
  
  --
  Eat the rich.
26. Re:Holy Mutually Exclusive Things, Batman! by KozmoStevnNaut · 2016-05-31 21:20 · Score: 1
  
  No one is stopping anyone from being critical or having an opinion.
  However, you will be banned or reported to the police if you make direct threats of violence or try to incite others to commit violence. It's not really that hard to understand.
  
  --
  Eat the rich.
27. Re:Holy Mutually Exclusive Things, Batman! by KozmoStevnNaut · 2016-05-31 21:22 · Score: 1
  
  Uh no, your obvious strawman is showing.
  No one is going to ban honest criticism or the expression of opinions. But they ARE going to ban threats of violence or inciting others to commit violence. If you cannot see the difference, go DIAF.
  
  --
  Eat the rich.
28. Re:Holy Mutually Exclusive Things, Batman! by KozmoStevnNaut · 2016-05-31 21:25 · Score: 1
  
  Threats of violence and the incitement of others to commit violence is banned (and this will now be more widely enforced). No one is going to stop you from posting an honest critical opinion.
  If you cannot express yourself without threatening others, you should probably just stop talking.
  
  --
  Eat the rich.
29. Re: Holy Mutually Exclusive Things, Batman! by Cederic · 2016-06-01 01:35 · Score: 1
  
  Notice that none of the official 'leave' campaign spokespeople are making that claim.
  TTIP is an EU deal. Leave the EU and the UK will have TTISR - trans-atlantic trade and investment special relationship, that looks just like TTIP but with fewer protections for unions.
  I want to leave the EU and I don't want TTIP but don't fool yourself, the British Government wants TTIP more than it wants the EU - and it's officially campaigning to stay in the EU.
30. Re: Holy Mutually Exclusive Things, Batman! by Raenex · 2016-06-01 02:08 · Score: 1
  
  If you do, of course, then I can commiserate with you over this world of sin in which we reside, however I do not hold these individuals to be exceptional, rather the woeful norm.
  Right, you already made it clear before that you don't care if what I said was substantiated. You're a bleeding heart liberal afraid to be "racist" who thinks that all people and all cultures are of equal moral character, and surely there's no problem importing a bunch of sexually aggressive and violent men who are intolerant of Western values and allowing them to live in a welfare state, statistics and obvious bellwether events be damned!
  
  Can you guarantee that I shall be free from arrest and imprisonment if I were to so?
  No, just like I couldn't guarantee that if you took one in you wouldn't be raped, robbed from, or bring crime to your neighborhood. But if you are so fearful of your neighbors, maybe you should move to the land of progressive paradise, Sweden, so you can be among your beloved Muslim immigrants, and help tend the flock.
31. Re: Holy Mutually Exclusive Things, Batman! by fgouget · 2016-06-01 02:17 · Score: 1
  
  So why are Gustave Courbet's famous painting and others being banned by Facebook? From what you said publishing the painting is just fine and it's the imminent action that may warrant the police to act. Whoops, said action, lying on a bed, happened in the 19th century so it's not imminent at all, and certainly not illegal. So really, why censor this painting?
32. Re:Holy Mutually Exclusive Things, Batman! by martinfb · 2016-06-01 04:39 · Score: 1
  
  .... Will bouncing back and forth between these too opposing goals cause so much friction that the interwebs actually catch on fire?
  The fire starts when illiterate, weakly-responsible people cannot even spell 3 letter words! However, it does signify who can be disregarded as TOO unaware TO listed to any banter about thew TWO 'opposing goals'!
  
  --
  
  Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.
33. Re:Holy Mutually Exclusive Things, Batman! by Hylandr · 2016-06-01 05:05 · Score: 1
  
  No one is stopping anyone from being critical or having an opinion.
  However, you will be banned or reported to the police if you make direct threats of violence or try to incite others to commit violence. It's not really that hard to understand.
  The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
  I see no way this could be abused.
  
  --
  ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
34. Re: Holy Mutually Exclusive Things, Batman! by Registered+Coward+v2 · 2016-06-01 05:33 · Score: 1
  
  So why are Gustave Courbet's famous painting and others being banned by Facebook? From what you said publishing the painting is just fine and it's the imminent action that may warrant the police to act. Whoops, said action, lying on a bed, happened in the 19th century so it's not imminent at all, and certainly not illegal. So really, why censor this painting?
  Facebook is not a government entity and thus is free to ban whatever they want; even if it is a stupid decision it's not an free speech issue.
  
  --
  I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
35. Re: Holy Mutually Exclusive Things, Batman! by Raenex · 2016-06-01 08:17 · Score: 1
  
  they lack merit for the reasons I already presented
  Those "reasons" just being an assertion that all people are equally bad. That requires putting on blinders or pretzel twisting to explain what's going on in Europe due to immigration:
  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...
  https://www.rt.com/op-edge/345...
  http://www.breitbart.com/londo...
  http://www.breitbart.com/londo...
  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...
  
  Then can you guarantee Sweden would allow me to become a citizen?
  Yes. Go to Sweden. Ditch your passport and any other identification. Claim asylum refugee status and claim to be under 18. Presto, you are in:
  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...
  
  Will you purchase my fixed property or guarantee me property in exchange in Sweden?
  Put it on the market and you will get market value.
  
  Will you arrange transportation of my portable goods?
  One must make some personal sacrifices to avoid their dastardly neighbors and help the poor migrants, right?
  
  But even if they are lions, I'm already beset by tigers and bears. And snakes. Lots of snakes. Why don't you care about the snakes I do have to face right now?
  Then provide details. Where do you live? What, exactly, have these horrible people done to you or others?
36. Re: Holy Mutually Exclusive Things, Batman! by Raenex · 2016-06-01 12:18 · Score: 1
  
  Not quite, you must have forgot the original complaint you have, that it was young men of military age fleeing.
  Which I am not going to be surprised by, if it is true, since those persons would have a high incentive to flee when they don't want to be forced to fight.
  No, you lost track of the thread and are going in circles. I already responded to the above claim with, "Most of the migrants are looking for money, not fleeing war." And if I substantiate this, you will fall back to everybody being equally evil, as you already made clear.
  
  Still, what you seem to want to make a claim is that somehow this group of people is exceptional? That'd be more believable if I can't find such accounts, both fake, and around the world in other forms.
  It is exceptional in the Western world, and is a recent problem due to immigration. Can you find stories of swimming pool problems in Sweden before mass migration? Can you find stories of sexual gang assaults in Germany before mass migration?
  
  You may not have noticed the recent concerns about a certain university in the US, or a more local story where a police investigator dismissed sexual abuse as boys being boys, but...I have seen different news than you apparently.
  Please be specific with links to actual news stories, not vagueness.
  
  Oh, you want to encourage lying? No thanks! Honest dealings or nothing.
  Why not? Clearly being honest is of no concern to the immigration authorities in Sweden. You'd just partaking in the system you are defending.
  
  Nope, you have to commit to it, you want something from me, I want something from you.
  No, I want you to put up your own effort and valuables instead of volunteering that of others since the immigrants are of such concern to you.
  
  But hey, you want a story? Try these:
  The average citizen in the US does not have to worry about being deported. But the average women where mass migration has occurred now has to be worried about being sexually assaulted. How many rapes, sexual assault, and harrassment as a result of mass migration are you ok with?
  
  Because if you were willing, I could show you a long list of crimes, or even just slovenly indifference.
  Well if you're going to cry about your neighbors being as bad as sexually violent immigrants, real details on where you live and what they've done that's so bad would substantiate your argument. I at least gave real examples when pressed.
37. Re: Holy Mutually Exclusive Things, Batman! by fgouget · 2016-06-01 21:20 · Score: 1
  
  Facebook is not a government entity and thus is free to ban whatever they want;
  I did not say otherwise. But you implied they were only banning content based on legal obligations. This is obviously false.
  
  even if it is a stupid decision it's not an free speech issue.
  Which is the stupid decision? Banning legal content to please some prudes or agreeing to ban terrorist recruitment campaigns? It seems to me people have a very twisted sense of priorities.
38. Re: Holy Mutually Exclusive Things, Batman! by Registered+Coward+v2 · 2016-06-01 21:56 · Score: 1
  
  Facebook is not a government entity and thus is free to ban whatever they want;
  I did not say otherwise. But you implied they were only banning content based on legal obligations. This is obviously false.
  I did not mean to imply they were only banning due to legal obligations; merely that FB and other private companies can ban based on any criteria they chose since they are private companies.
  
  even if it is a stupid decision it's not an free speech issue.
  Which is the stupid decision? Banning legal content to please some prudes or agreeing to ban terrorist recruitment campaigns? It seems to me people have a very twisted sense of priorities.
  Again, I can agree or disagree with their decision but it is their choice to make.Most reasonable people could come up with a list of the types of content they feel should be banned; when governments get involved then it becomes censorship, even if we agree with what is banned.
  
  --
  I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
39. Re: Holy Mutually Exclusive Things, Batman! by fgouget · 2016-06-01 23:20 · Score: 1
  
  Again, I can agree or disagree with their decision but it is their choice to make.Most reasonable people could come up with a list of the types of content they feel should be banned; when governments get involved then it becomes censorship, even if we agree with what is banned.
  But you'll notice that what's in the news is not a law forcing Facebook to ban some content, but Facebook freely agreeing to do so. So it's not censorship.
40. Re:Holy Mutually Exclusive Things, Batman! by KozmoStevnNaut · 2016-06-01 23:38 · Score: 1
  
  Anything can be abused if you're creative enough, even your precious free speech*.
  * Which is not the same as the right to say anything you want without consequence.
  
  --
  Eat the rich.
41. Re:Holy Mutually Exclusive Things, Batman! by KozmoStevnNaut · 2016-06-01 23:39 · Score: 1
  
  Your sources are predominantly batshit insane libertarian cuckoo wacko misinformation.
  So let me please repeat my suggestion to kindly go DIAF.
  
  --
  Eat the rich.
42. Re: Holy Mutually Exclusive Things, Batman! by Registered+Coward+v2 · 2016-06-02 00:36 · Score: 1
  
  Again, I can agree or disagree with their decision but it is their choice to make.Most reasonable people could come up with a list of the types of content they feel should be banned; when governments get involved then it becomes censorship, even if we agree with what is banned.
  But you'll notice that what's in the news is not a law forcing Facebook to ban some content, but Facebook freely agreeing to do so. So it's not censorship.
  I agree it is not censorship since it was not a government passing a law requiring them to do so. The underlying law making hate speech illegal, which is censorship; even if you agree with its intent.
  
  --
  I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
43. Re: Holy Mutually Exclusive Things, Batman! by fgouget · 2016-06-02 00:39 · Score: 1
  
  Most reasonable people could come up with a list of the types of content they feel should be banned; when governments get involved then it becomes censorship, even if we agree with what is banned.
  You're wrong here. Censorship can also be carried out by private entities. References: ACLU, Oxford dictionary, Encyclopedia Britannica, Wikipedia.
44. Re: Holy Mutually Exclusive Things, Batman! by Registered+Coward+v2 · 2016-06-02 01:31 · Score: 1
  
  Most reasonable people could come up with a list of the types of content they feel should be banned; when governments get involved then it becomes censorship, even if we agree with what is banned.
  You're wrong here. Censorship can also be carried out by private entities. References: ACLU, Oxford dictionary, Encyclopedia Britannica, Wikipedia.
  I simply disagree that is censorship. Private organization's can chose what they want to say and how, simply because they chose not to speak is not censorship since it is a personal choice; I only consider it censorship if a governmental body prevents them from speaking.
  
  --
  I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
45. Re:Holy Mutually Exclusive Things, Batman! by Raenex · 2016-06-02 02:28 · Score: 2
  
  They're right-wing sources with evidence to back them up. But since the left has no interest on reporting incidents like this, you feel free to dismiss them out of hand.
  And still loving how you want me to die in a fire when you claim only violent posts will be censored. What a hypocrite and an asshole to boot.
46. Re: Holy Mutually Exclusive Things, Batman! by fgouget · 2016-06-02 02:51 · Score: 1
  
  I simply disagree that is censorship. Private organization's can chose what they want to say and how, simply because they chose not to speak is not censorship since it is a personal choice
  You're looking at this wrong: it's not Facebook which is expressing the deleted opinion, it's the user. The user has no say on whether or not his opinion remains visible so it's not "personal choice". It's censorship.
47. Re: Holy Mutually Exclusive Things, Batman! by Raenex · 2016-06-02 03:07 · Score: 1
  
  Not at all, you lost track of the thread, and forgot my original response to your claim about the age of the people involved.
  This is beyond stupid. Despite your protests, you are indeed going in circles. I can't have "forgotten" your initial response when I already responded to it.
  
  People looking for money? Oh my goodness, what a concept. I can find those all over.
  Well of course you don't care. You're a bleeding heart liberal who sees none of the problems with mass migration and welfare and no worries about what cost others will have to bear. But you yourself don't go out of your way to make personal sacrifices, do you? Even if you don't like the weather that is already too much for you.
  But beyond that, the left media goes out of their way to paint a scenario, "think of the women and children fleeing war!", which has more traction with the average person, than a bunch of violent and sexually aggressive men looking for money. That you see no difference just puts you into the liberal loony bin. That I have or have not substantiated this makes no difference, since you've already declared you care not about the difference!
  
  Why? Is sexual abuse less of a problem if it's not fitting those particular criteria?
  It's an indication of new problems that the migrants are bringing with them of a bold and widespread nature, and highlights the mindset of the migrants themselves. The average woman is now in much more danger of being sexually assaulted than she used to be where mass migration has occurred. If you had a daughter/wife/sister in your house, would you feel comfortable inviting them to stay with you? Why is this increase in sexual crime acceptable?
  
  Disrupt the bounds of society, and things go poorly. It'd be one thing if you were genuinely acknowledging and seeking to correct for that, then I'd credit you with a valid and reasonable concern.
  This is hilarious. What the fuck to you think a mass migration of sexually aggressive and violent men, who don't share Western values, is going to do but disrupt the bounds of society?
  
  Why? You can look them up with a simple search at a news aggregator of your choice, they're not hidden news.
  1) It's your responsibility to back up your own claims, not mine. 2) Even if I wanted to do your work for you, which I don't, you were so vague I'd have to end up guessing what you meant. 3) You're a hypocrite, because you've already cast aspersions when I didn't immediately substantiate claims. I've since done so, even though you've also made it clear you wouldn't change your position regardless.
  
  well, in the US, the average woman DOES have to worry about being sexually assaulted, it is a serious concern in many places
  So where are these gang rape stories in the US? And the mass immigration that's going on now is occurring in places like Germany and Sweden, bringing problems that were not there before.
  
  But no, I don't even need to give local examples.
  Right, so you're just blowing smoke and unwilling to substantiate your claims when asked to.
  
  As I said, I'm offering up my home and property already, all you have to do is convince my local government to allow it to happen.
  Why would I try to convince your local government to do something I don't believe in? The fact is you can go elsewhere to volunteer your own effort and expense to help out migrants. But it's much easier to assure yourself that you'd hypothetically help if given the chance, while volunteering other people's money, property, and well-being instead.
48. Re: Holy Mutually Exclusive Things, Batman! by Registered+Coward+v2 · 2016-06-02 04:39 · Score: 1
  
  I simply disagree that is censorship. Private organization's can chose what they want to say and how, simply because they chose not to speak is not censorship since it is a personal choice
  You're looking at this wrong: it's not Facebook which is expressing the deleted opinion, it's the user. The user has no say on whether or not his opinion remains visible so it's not "personal choice". It's censorship.
  To me it is irrelevant who originally posted the content; the site owner gets to decide the rules and users can accept them or go elsewhere. The assumption that a site has an obligation to allow anyone to post what they want and not to remove it lest they be accused of censorship is, IMHO, incorrect. People throw around terms like censorship to make someone appear to being doing something evil in an attempt to get them to do what they want; but what they are really doing is limiting their freedom of speech.
  
  --
  I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
49. Re: Holy Mutually Exclusive Things, Batman! by shilly · 2016-06-02 04:47 · Score: 1
  
  The user has no choice as to whether their opinion remains visible on FB. But free speech doesn't mean you're guaranteed any one particular platform on which to express your views, and the user has plenty of other places to publish their views. They could ultimately go to Speakers Corner in London and stand on a soapbox and shout, for free, and without fettering. Lots of people do just that.
  Equally, if I've created my whizzbang social media site, I don't see why I should be obliged to allow people to use it if they express a desire to kill all members of minority X or whatever other views I find obnoxious. It's my site, after all.
50. Re: Holy Mutually Exclusive Things, Batman! by fgouget · 2016-06-02 06:39 · Score: 1
  
  But free speech doesn't mean you're guaranteed any one particular platform on which to express your views,
  Not saying the contrary. Just that what Facebook is doing is still called censoring its users' speech.
  
  and the user has plenty of other places to publish their views.
  Until one site gets a near monopoly. Not there yet, but getting there...
51. Re: Holy Mutually Exclusive Things, Batman! by Raenex · 2016-06-02 15:24 · Score: 1
  
  In the news that you're apparently refusing to look at?
  You mean the news you refuse to cite. I will gladly look if you back up your own claims. But you don't want to be pinned down, do you? Instead you try to foist your own failure onto me. Shameful, that.
  
  But no, I don't even need to give local examples.
  You do if you claim your neighbors are the snakes. You again are trying to dodge and avoid backing up your claims. Really hypocritical after all those aspersions you cast on me for not substantiating before being asked to, even when you make clear that the substantiation means nothing to you anyways.
  
  Oh no, they had plenty of problems before. You probably just weren't aware of them.
  Then cite them. What gang rapes in Germany occurred before the mass immigration? Why does Sweden need roving body guards of feminists to prevent groping and new swimming pool rules when not before?
  The reality is you've got your hand in the sand and believe everything is equal because you can point to cases of individuals like Hastert.
  
  You're just interested in trying to create your own image of moral superiority so you can put yourself on a pedestal.
  Nope. I'm taking the callous attitude and not willing to fuck up my society for migrants. If I could wave my magic wand and make the migrants lives better without subtracting from mine or others I would. I'm just not going to be a blind idiot when it comes to helping other people.
  
  Me, I don't even expect to give up or sacrifice anything, I believe it would be to my advantage to be able to get people able to productively utilize my land.
  So do it now. You think there are no people that could use your help without importing them into another country?
52. Re:Holy Mutually Exclusive Things, Batman! by KozmoStevnNaut · 2016-06-02 18:08 · Score: 1
  
  No, they're right-wing source that deliberately spin their sources and creatively leave out the parts that could make people question their conclusions. Propaganda is always the same, no matter which part of the political spectrum it comes from. You're blindly trusting everything they say, probably only because they reinforce the opinions you already have, in your little echo chamber. If you would actually bother to read the sites you linked again, with critical eyes, you would see that they're all extremely slanted and use bits and pieces of tangentially-related new items to further their hateful agenda. There's a reason those stories aren't reported in the same way on mainstream news sites, because breitbart.com etc. are blatantly political spin sites.
  And no, I'm actually 100% serious. Go suck on a tailpite, French kiss a double-barreled shotgun, stuff a rattlesnake down your pants.
  All of you libertarian right-wing invisible hands of the free market fuckers ruined the economy and screwed millions of people out of their homes and livelyhoods, all for a bit of personal profit. We're gonna hit a financial crisis again in a couple of years, all because of your unfettered greed and disregard for human life.
  
  --
  Eat the rich.
53. Re:Holy Mutually Exclusive Things, Batman! by Raenex · 2016-06-02 22:44 · Score: 1
  
  No, they're right-wing source that deliberately spin their sources and creatively leave out the parts that could make people question their conclusions.
  Feel free to point out actual details instead of painting with a broad brush. For example, the Lauren Southern case was documented with video and Facebook later rescinded the block after it got widespread attention, which was quite embarrassing for Facebook since they just got through meeting with conservatives assuring them that no censorship of the right was going on.
  
  And no, I'm actually 100% serious. Go suck on a tailpite, French kiss a double-barreled shotgun, stuff a rattlesnake down your pants.
  Of course you are. That's what makes you a hypocrite and an asshole.
54. Re:Holy Mutually Exclusive Things, Batman! by KozmoStevnNaut · 2016-06-03 00:45 · Score: 1
  
  Feel free to point out actual details instead of painting with a broad brush.
  No need, it's all bullshit.
  
  Of course you are. That's what makes you a hypocrite and an asshole.
  A proud asshole. The whole point is that I'm tired of arguing with fact-resistant extremists, it's much more fun to just insult them.
  Have a nice weekend, go eat a hot dog. I hope you choke on it :-)
  
  --
  Eat the rich.
55. Re:Holy Mutually Exclusive Things, Batman! by Raenex · 2016-06-03 15:12 · Score: 1
  
  No need, it's all bullshit.
  Of course it is. The left never lies, and the right always lies, so need to concern yourself with pesky facts that counter the narrative. Just get your news from Pravda and all is good.
  
  A proud asshole.
  Don't forget also being a hypocrite.
  
  The whole point is that I'm tired of arguing with fact-resistant extremists, it's much more fun to just insult them.
  Good job, hypocrite, of describing yourself perfectly.
  
  Have a nice weekend, go eat a hot dog. I hope you choke on it :-)
  Why do you love hate speech so much but think others should be censored? No need to actually answer that, we know it's because you're a hypocrite.
56. Re: Holy Mutually Exclusive Things, Batman! by Raenex · 2016-06-03 15:17 · Score: 1
  
  Oh wait, you don't want to look. Because that scares you.
  No, you don't want to cite, because you're scared of being pinned down. You've been very hypocritical on this matter, are shirking your responsibilities, and trying to pin your failures on me. Since this has already been pointed out and we're going in circles, I'm done.
57. Re:Holy Mutually Exclusive Things, Batman! by KozmoStevnNaut · 2016-06-03 21:40 · Score: 1
  
  I see you've found a new favorite word. Well done, I'm sure your parents are really proud of you :-)
  
  --
  Eat the rich.
58. Re:Holy Mutually Exclusive Things, Batman! by Raenex · 2016-06-03 22:28 · Score: 1
  
  What can I say, if the shoe fits... hypocrite.
Emacs by 110010001000 · 2016-05-31 06:10 · Score: 5, Funny

Thank goodness. Now I am free to express my view that Emacs is the best editor and no one can attack me!
1. Re:Emacs by just_another_sean · 2016-05-31 06:13 · Score: 1
  
  No, no, no. It's obvious this is a victory for vi users everywhere, er, in Europe!
  
  --
  Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
2. Re:Emacs by DoofusOfDeath · 2016-05-31 18:57 · Score: 1
  
  Thank goodness. Now I am free to express my view that Emacs is the best editor and no one can attack me!
  Why would we? Using Emacs is punishment enough.
3. Re:Emacs by Bob_Who · 2016-05-31 22:53 · Score: 1
  
  Why would we? Using Emacs is punishment enough.
  ...I thought that was iMacs
4. Re:Emacs by PPH · 2016-06-01 12:46 · Score: 1
  
  M-x doctor
  
  Emacs is the best editor and no one can attack me!
  Why do you say that?
  
  --
  Have gnu, will travel.
who decides what is "hate speech"??? by ganjadude · 2016-05-31 06:12 · Score: 5, Insightful

exactly. who gets to decide what hate speech is real and what is imagined? will facts equal hate speech??? will not believing in some political views equal hate speech???

this is going to go very very badly

--
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
1. Re:who decides what is "hate speech"??? by pr0fessor · 2016-05-31 06:15 · Score: 2
  
  Will saying "I hate Monday" equal hate speech and if it does then that's a lot of posts to delete.
2. Re:who decides what is "hate speech"??? by lgw · 2016-05-31 06:24 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Hasn't it already gone very badly in some countries? When an MP is arrested for hate speech for a speech given on the floor of parliament, it has gone very badly. When it's illegal to discuss (one side of) a political issue, such as immigration, even by lawmakers it has gone very badly indeed.
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
3. Re:who decides what is "hate speech"??? by will_die · 2016-05-31 06:25 · Score: 1
  
  The various governments already do that and already have laws in place. It is just that these tech companies are now going to start enforcing local laws.
  One example as a guest worker in a European country, I was not allowed to criticize the government and I had to sign a form agreeing to that when I had to do the various paperwork.
4. Re:who decides what is "hate speech"??? by geek · 2016-05-31 06:26 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  will facts equal hate speech??? will not believing in some political views equal hate speech???
  
  Yes
5. Re:who decides what is "hate speech"??? by PPH · 2016-05-31 06:29 · Score: 2
  
  The details will be outlined in your next edition of Newspeak.
  
  --
  Have gnu, will travel.
6. Re:who decides what is "hate speech"??? by NotDrWho · 2016-05-31 06:33 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  It's simple. Harassment and hate speech is anything that disagrees with me or that I find uncomfortable or offensive.
  You're welcome.
  
  --
  SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
7. Re:who decides what is "hate speech"??? by NotDrWho · 2016-05-31 06:35 · Score: 1
  
  One example as a guest worker in a European country, I was not allowed to criticize the government
  
  Are you serious here or joking? Because if that's true, it's beyond creepy. Everyone should be allowed to criticize their government (or anyone else's).
  
  --
  SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
8. Re:who decides what is "hate speech"??? by zuxun · 2016-05-31 06:35 · Score: 1
  
  Hate speech is when you have the political view that the arabs should leave your country
9. Re:who decides what is "hate speech"??? by Crashmarik · 2016-05-31 06:37 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  No, no, no. That's the prelude to badly. When you stop people from discussing and protesting things they disagree with, it's what comes next that's the reall things going badly.
10. Re:who decides what is "hate speech"??? by INT_QRK · 2016-05-31 06:42 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  "Hate Speech" - Noun, (1) Any speech about which the Left disapproves or consider contradictory to Leftist goals or objectives. (2) A political term to justify censorship or persecution on enemies. See Stalin, Joseph.
11. Re:who decides what is "hate speech"??? by MitchDev · 2016-05-31 06:56 · Score: 1
  
  Seriously, how desperate are you that you actually took the job?
12. Re:who decides what is "hate speech"??? by misexistentialist · 2016-05-31 07:15 · Score: 1
  
  The racist hate movement against Monday inspired mass shooter Brenda Spencer
13. Re:who decides what is "hate speech"??? by rastos1 · 2016-05-31 07:15 · Score: 1
  
  Let me try (IANAL) to translate the law as it is valid in one of the EU members:
  Whoever threatens an individual or a group of people due their race, ethnicity, skin color, origin or religion, if the excuse for the threat due aforementioned reasons is committing a crime, restriction of rights and freedoms or whoever carries out such restriction or whoever is inciting restrictions of rights and freedoms of some nation,nationality, race, ethnic group will be punished by imprisonment up to 3 years
  Whoever publicly
  a)incites violence or hate against group of people or an individual due their affiliation to some race, nation, nationality, skin color, ethnic group, origin or religion, if it is an excuse for inciting due aforementioned reasons or
  b) defames such group or individual or is threatening them by publicly excusing a genocide, crime against humanity, or war crime (as defined by articles 6, 7 and 8 of Roman institute of International Court or Nuremberg Charter ) if such act was committed against such group or individual or if the perpetrator of such crime was finally declared guilty by international court or publicly denies or derogates such act committed against such person will be punished by imprisonment from 1 up to 3 years
  It is a bit of a lawyer-speak, but I can't really say I disagree with that and it's not going to change as result of this new EU regulation. Can you point out what's wrong with that?
14. Re:who decides what is "hate speech"??? by b0bby · 2016-05-31 07:22 · Score: 1
  
  When an MP is arrested for hate speech for a speech given on the floor of parliament, it has gone very badly.
  If you're referring to Geert Wilders, his arrest was for a speech at a rally, not in parliament.
15. Re:who decides what is "hate speech"??? by Registered+Coward+v2 · 2016-05-31 07:33 · Score: 1
  
  a)incites violence or hate against group of people or an individual due their affiliation to some race, nation, nationality, skin color, ethnic group, origin or religion,
  How do you define hate? If someone points out issues with say the Church of Scientology that casts them in a bad light does that qualify as hate speech? Will companies throw in the towel and simply remove anything with > X complaints giving in to astroturfing hate complaints as a way to stifle legitimate criticism? As with many ideas, the theory may turn out to be far better than the practice
  
  --
  I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
16. Re: who decides what is "hate speech"??? by ShieldW0lf · 2016-05-31 07:35 · Score: 1
  
  So, does this mean people who refer to "rape culture" will finally be forced to shut up?
  
  --
  -1 Uncomfortable Truth
17. Re:who decides what is "hate speech"??? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-31 07:38 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Butters: Do I have to, sir?
  PC Principal: All I'm asking you to do is go through their social media and delete the two or three comments that are mean.
  Butters: PC Principal, ah I don't think you quite realize how much negative stuff I have to sift through.
18. Re:who decides what is "hate speech"??? by Rakshasa+Taisab · 2016-05-31 07:42 · Score: 2
  
  You're not a lawyer, as you said, so obviously you're missing the reason why the above is pretty fucked up.
  First of all there's no clear definition of what constitutes a 'threat' against those groups, and it is established international law that 'refugees' have the right of asylum. So let's say you don't like economic (or even civil war) refugees coming to your country in the hundreds of thousands due to their way of life. (patriarchal, non-democratic, etc, views/actions) Send them back / keep them out.
  Make a facebook post about the subject and suddenly you have made a 'threat' against a race/origin/religion/... and their 'freedoms' and 'rights'. We do after all have some signed papers regarding the rights of refugees.
  And the law is so broad it will put random people in front of judges until they can show how retarded the law is, and that is going to take years to sort out which means during the next couple of decades you'd better be using an anonymous account and TOR if you want to say something the 'people' don't like you saying.
  
  --
  - These characters were randomly selected.
19. Re:who decides what is "hate speech"??? by dbreeze · 2016-05-31 07:50 · Score: 1
  
  Bingo. Hateful stupid people usually think they're doing it right. Letting them vent gives them the learning opportunity of having a listener say, "Are you stupid, and/or angry?) Bottle up their speech, and that anger and stupidity will bust out somewhere. You'll be wishing you'd just let 'em speak. It really doesn't hurt near as much as the alternatives.
  
  --
  When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law he tore his robes.2Kings22:11
20. Re:who decides what is "hate speech"??? by medv4380 · 2016-05-31 07:53 · Score: 1
  
  Same person who gets to decide it in the US. Mr. Z
21. Re:who decides what is "hate speech"??? by will_die · 2016-05-31 07:54 · Score: 1
  
  Why would I care if I could not criticize that government? It was not mine and even then I could not vote.
22. Re:who decides what is "hate speech"??? by rastos1 · 2016-05-31 08:04 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Oxford Dictionary:
  threat: noun; a statement of an intention to inflict pain, injury, damage, or other hostile action on someone in retribution for something done or not done.
  So if I post "I don't want them to come to my country because they will overload and ruin our social system" it's not a threat. If I post "we should beat the crap out of Syrians coming to establish Sharia law in my country", yes that is a threat.
  The law that I quoted, is not something that is new. It exists for decades and there are at about 2-3 cases per year,where it is applied in a court (and it makes headlines). I.e. I don't see it creating the mess you forecast. That can change as the refugee crisis mounts up again, but that is yet to be seen.
23. Re:who decides what is "hate speech"??? by ganjadude · 2016-05-31 08:07 · Score: 1
  
  lawyer speak says we can pick apart each word here. who decides what is a threat? and how serious does the threat need to be???
  
  what incites you might not incite the masses, but it still incited you, is that hate speech? with trigger warnings now everything is hate speech to some group.
  
  this is not the correct answer, the correct answer is to let the haters talk
  
  --
  have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
24. Re:who decides what is "hate speech"??? by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · 2016-05-31 08:16 · Score: 1
  
  I find that view offensive, please remove it.
  
  --
  Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
25. Re:who decides what is "hate speech"??? by rogoshen1 · 2016-05-31 08:23 · Score: 1
  
  yeah was going to ask, are muslims exempt from this?
26. Re:who decides what is "hate speech"??? by Atrox666 · 2016-05-31 08:28 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  SJWs of course. All those people can get off welfare and use those gender studies degrees.
  Only really serious hate speech, like disagreeing with anything a woman or person of colour says.
  It'll be fine, and if you disagree you will be required to get a 2 inch tall tattoo on your forehead that says "Shitlord".
27. Re:who decides what is "hate speech"??? by tsqr · 2016-05-31 08:29 · Score: 1
  
  exactly. who gets to decide what hate speech is real and what is imagined?
  According to TFS, it will be Microsoft, Twitter, YouTube, Google, and Facebook. And, you can look at the "code of conduct" here.
28. Re:who decides what is "hate speech"??? by tsqr · 2016-05-31 08:33 · Score: 1
  
  Actually that is about 1/7 of the worlds population, which is genocide. pr0fessor belongs in a re-education camp.
  Since the group of people born on Monday is not a national, racial, political, or cultural group, it's not genocide. But it could help mitigate Climate Change, so it's not all bad.
29. Re:who decides what is "hate speech"??? by liquid_schwartz · 2016-05-31 08:36 · Score: 1
  
  will facts equal hate speech??? will not believing in some political views equal hate speech???
  I think that we're already there. Certainly Brendan Eich fits in this category. Don't go with political process and your career, and maybe more, will suffer.
30. Re:who decides what is "hate speech"??? by alexhs · 2016-05-31 08:59 · Score: 1
  
  AFAIK it's not true. At least, not in any country of the European Union. Maybe Belarus (I was there with a <3 months visa, maybe different for longer term) , Ukraine or another former soviet bloc country, Turkey...
  
  --
  I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of killer sig, which this margin is too narrow to contain.
31. Re:who decides what is "hate speech"??? by pruedz · 2016-05-31 09:12 · Score: 1
  
  Hate Speech is part of the Free Speech indeed. But Google, Facebook,Microsoft or whatever is obliged to host it. Law protects people from being prosecuted, jailed or arrested for their ideias or speech. Law does not protects people from consequences. If you loose your job or get banned from Facebook due massive reporting, no one is seizing your free speech rights, they are just saying to you to be a douche elsewhere.
32. Re:who decides what is "hate speech"??? by AmiMoJo · 2016-05-31 09:18 · Score: 1
  
  Which country was that? The UK has parliamentary privilege, which means MPs can't be sued or prosecuted for anything they say there. It's been used to bust injunctions, for example.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
33. Re:who decides what is "hate speech"??? by lgw · 2016-05-31 09:23 · Score: 1
  
  There was a case in the UK where an MP was taken to a police station ("arrested", or do you say it "helping the police with an inquiry"?), but not prosecuted. But the UK is far from the worst in this arena.
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
34. Re:who decides what is "hate speech"??? by AmiMoJo · 2016-05-31 09:26 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, it's not simple at all. As the summary points it, it's a legal definition. I know reading the article is unfashionable, but the summary isn't too much to ask is it?
  Anyway, the problem is that legal definitions vary. It could be difficult for international companies like Facebook.
  They have some legal obligation in the counties they operate in, regardless. Nothing new, only the pledge to act quickly.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
35. Re:who decides what is "hate speech"??? by Triklyn · 2016-05-31 09:31 · Score: 1
  
  no, it's speak your mind, and when america changes its mind and no longer agrees with you... watch out. you'll be out of a job.
36. Re:who decides what is "hate speech"??? by AmiMoJo · 2016-05-31 09:37 · Score: 1
  
  A quick search turns up nothing. Which MP was it?
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
37. Re:who decides what is "hate speech"??? by reboot246 · 2016-05-31 09:53 · Score: 2
  
  I know some will label this post as "hate speech", but from my perspective most Europeans are pansies and even saying 'hello' to some of them is hate speech.
  
  In this country we have a whole generation of pansies whose feelings get hurt over nearly anything. Just think, Europe is ahead of the US by 10 to 15 years so we'll have it as bad here as they do there in a little while.
  
  Damn, I'm glad I'm old and won't live to see the end of civilization!
38. Re:who decides what is "hate speech"??? by Applehu+Akbar · 2016-05-31 10:07 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Hate speech, like it or not, is part of having a free society. RIP, Europe.
  Hate speech is free speech you don't like.
39. Re: who decides what is "hate speech"??? by cyber-vandal · 2016-05-31 10:29 · Score: 1
  
  Which country was this?
40. Re:who decides what is "hate speech"??? by BoberFett · 2016-05-31 10:41 · Score: 2
  
  People love to fall back on the "It's a private service" argument, but that's nonsense. These companies aren't agreeing to spend their money on policing speech because they're caring corporations who want to help people. They're doing it because governments are pressuring them to do it. Governments are using corporations to get around the rules and do things governments aren't supposed to be able to do.
  We call that fascism.
41. Re:who decides what is "hate speech"??? by Applehu+Akbar · 2016-05-31 11:11 · Score: 1
  
  yeah was going to ask, are muslims exempt from this?
  Until the next election, yes. Legislation like this represents lobbying by university battleaxe women to protect their pet minorities from criticism.
42. Re:who decides what is "hate speech"??? by Rakarra · 2016-05-31 12:01 · Score: 1
  
  The various governments already do that and already have laws in place. It is just that these tech companies are now going to start enforcing local laws.
  One example as a guest worker in a European country, I was not allowed to criticize the government and I had to sign a form agreeing to that when I had to do the various paperwork.
  A friend of mine who is a closeted gay man was required ("strongly suggested") by his company that if he really wanted to get further sponsorship on his Greencard application to the US, it might be wise to have a girlfriend and show that type of normalcy. Was this in Iran? No, just Florida. He was a database programmer in the IT for a Christian college, and homosexuality (or bisexuality, or any non-totally-hetero behavior) was listed in the employment contract as grounds for termination. But getting terminated by them would have halted his green card application and forced him to leave the country, so he toiled away in silence. After his green card came through, he didn't quite care as much if they fired him, and immediately started looking for other employment opportunities.
43. Re:who decides what is "hate speech"??? by cavreader · 2016-05-31 12:36 · Score: 2
  
  If you are a lawyer you should understand that there is no true international law, established or otherwise, because there is no enforcement mechanism that can be brought to bear equally in every corner of the world. Even countries with advanced rule of law have all kinds of problems defining jurisdiction, extradition rights, and problems leading towards sovereignty issues. Only a few countries have the ability to enforce there definition of international law and that relies on political pressure backed up by economic and ultimately military power when things truly escalate. The EU seems well on it's way towards a thought police state while simultaneously bending over backwards to accommodate people holding beliefs that would have seemed extreme even back in the 12th century. The only permitted hate speech in the EU is anything denigrating and insulting to the US and everyone living there. While the EU chattering classes were hyperventilating over the NSA they failed to notice whose national security and intelligence services were actually collecting their data and then sharing it with the NSA. Do they think all that data was deleted from the servers located in Europe after the hand over?
44. Re:who decides what is "hate speech"??? by Citizen+of+Earth · 2016-05-31 13:49 · Score: 1
  
  Hate Speech, noun: Any speech that is critical of any group other than white males.
45. Re:who decides what is "hate speech"??? by pr0fessor · 2016-05-31 14:57 · Score: 1
  
  I had to look that up. All I can say is "Wow! that's crazy!"
46. Re:who decides what is "hate speech"??? by GNious · 2016-05-31 15:11 · Score: 1
  
  Which country? Because, what you describe violates chapter 10 of the ECHR, which applies to all 47 countries in the Council of Europe, and even as a Guest Worker you would be covered by it (IANAL).
47. Re:who decides what is "hate speech"??? by JustAnotherOldGuy · 2016-05-31 15:57 · Score: 1
  
  exactly. who gets to decide what hate speech is real and what is imagined? will facts equal hate speech??? will not believing in some political views equal hate speech???
  
  Lets not get all technical and bogged down by asking a lot of questions, only terrorists do that.
  
  --
  Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
48. Re:who decides what is "hate speech"??? by DoofusOfDeath · 2016-05-31 18:56 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  No, no, no. That's the prelude to badly. When you stop people from discussing and protesting things they disagree with, it's what comes next that's the reall things going badly.
  Would you say you... "hate" that scenario, citizen?
49. Re:who decides what is "hate speech"??? by rastos1 · 2016-05-31 18:58 · Score: 1
  
  What would happen to someone saying "send them back to their own country" if that country is a war zone?
  
  I don't know. The only people who say that are real whackos who can be prosecuted for other, much less ambiguous statements and acts. What many people over here say is "we don't want them here" and they do not really care where the refugees go as long as they do not come here. And such statements can be heard from bars, to journalists, to politicians. Some media and some politicians are not happy to see that. E.g. the discussion forums in an online newspaper is disabled, but you are free to set up your own web site or express your ideas in the streets. A TV show does not get cut off if a guest says "we should not patrol seas and encourage refugees to come to EU". I never heard about this being prosecuted by a court or even suggested that it should be punishable.
50. Re:who decides what is "hate speech"??? by AmiMoJo · 2016-05-31 19:50 · Score: 1
  
  "We can't agree on a definition, therefore it's not illegal" isn't a very sound argument. I wouldn't rely on it in court.
  The law in the various EU member states does define what threats and harassment are. Like it or not, people living in those countries are subject to those laws. Companies operating in those countries are subject to those laws. Personally, I don't agree with many of them, but at least I bothered to read and understand them.
  
  So let's say you don't like economic (or even civil war) refugees coming to your country in the hundreds of thousands due to their way of life. (patriarchal, non-democratic, etc, views/actions) Send them back / keep them out.
  In the UK people saying that refugees should be kept out or sent home regularly makes the news. It's a somewhat mainstream view and no-one is being arrested for it.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
51. Re:who decides what is "hate speech"??? by AmiMoJo · 2016-05-31 20:45 · Score: 1
  
  Do you have any evidence of that? It seems more likely that Facebook finds the stories about how terrorists and paedophiles use its services problematic, as when little Mohammed wants to sign up his parents might take those things into consideration. Twitter has a long standing problem with harassment too, with several high profile names quitting the service.
  Both of those services were valued at many billions of dollars based on their large user bases. If they get a bad rep and people start going elsewhere or not signing up, it devalues them.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
52. Re:who decides what is "hate speech"??? by jandersen · 2016-05-31 23:09 · Score: 1
  
  exactly. who gets to decide what hate speech is real and what is imagined? will facts equal hate speech??? will not believing in some political views equal hate speech???
  Ultimately, the courts, one would imagine. Any one who has taken an interest in court cases, even in passing, will know that the higher courts do examine the evidence in a great deal of detail before reaching a decision, so I don't think this is something that will lead to summary executions for having the wrong thoughts on a bad day. And anyway - these huge Internet companies are still private companies; they are entitled to set the rules for the conduct of their users - if they wish, they could decide to ban people for declaring their undying love for latex clothing, or some other silly things. If you don't like it, go elsewhere.
53. Re:who decides what is "hate speech"??? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-01 00:21 · Score: 1
  
  There might be some confusion.
  A candidate for the European parliament election had the utter patriarchal white male TEMERITY to read, IN PUBLIC, out loud from a book by Winston Churchill.
  The guy was arrested for hate speech. and public shitlording.
54. Re:who decides what is "hate speech"??? by Cederic · 2016-06-01 00:58 · Score: 2
  
  Whoever publicly [...]
  b) defames such group or individual
  [...] will be punished by imprisonment from 1 up to 3 years
  
  Now throw in interpretation of defamation, where drawing attention to the race or religion of the Rotherham rapists could be construed as defamation and suddenly you can't say a fucking thing about anybody.
  Shit, a year in jail for describing the French as cheese eating surrender monkeys? That's what that law dictates. That's fucking horrific.
55. Re:who decides what is "hate speech"??? by Cederic · 2016-06-01 01:04 · Score: 1
  
  If you don't like it, go elsewhere.
  Wait, I have to emigrate because a bunch of cunts I didn't elect are trying to impose draconian limitations on speech in my country?
  Fuck that. I'm voting to leave their precious little club in a couple of weeks, lets see how they get on without our massive subsidy.
56. Re:who decides what is "hate speech"??? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-01 01:06 · Score: 1
  
  It seems more likely
  Wait, so you are making an argument based on your own dubious guesses at probability without evidence, but you ask HIM for evidence?
  And no, his claim isn't bigger than yours.
  You're making claim about threat from terrorists
  He's making a claim about threat from big government
  For evidence to back my assessment that your claim is bigger, I point to how few people actually die to the terrorism in the developed world, vs all the government oppression we see day to day either in person (people in the US had to file their taxes a couple months ago) or through the new (oh look, the courts declared an accused rapist to be innocent again)
  
  Twitter has a long standing problem with harassment too, with several high profile names quitting the service.
  Twitter has a long standing problem with harassment because most of its users are harassers. They can't cut down on harassment without cutting off large chucks of their userbase, without which they don't have a product to generate revenue for them.
  A lot of high profile names didn't quit because some small group of trolls from 8chan or whatever making some kind of coordinated harassment campaign. They quit because they got swamped by unwanted attention from the masses that naturally form mobs. Masses that had nothing better to do but shower attention over some trivial thing, like Alec Baldwin flipping over American Airlines
  Masses who get offended easily and so they scream and yell and harass and think they're somehow promoting social justice, like what they did to Ashton Kutcher for daring to defend somebody involved in a sex abuse scandal, and the Internet gave him flak for it
  Or as covered by slashdot, Stephen Fry quit because the mob couldn't handle him making a joke to his lady friend.
  
  Both of those services were valued at many billions of dollars based on their large user bases. If they get a bad rep and people start going elsewhere or not signing up, it devalues them.
  As above, twitter's (and facebook and most other social media) bad rep didn't come from people who speak "hate speech". Their bad rep comes from their main audience being a bunch of nosy gossipy busybodies who would dogpile and harass people and think they're somehow promoting social justice. They like to say freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences, apparently harassment is a valid consequences for them to dish out.
57. Re:who decides what is "hate speech"??? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-01 01:14 · Score: 1
  
  Supporting terrorism including such vile acts as:
  Calling someone fat
  Calling someone ugly.
  Generally hurting someone's feelz
  Disagreeing with immigration policies
  Posting inconvenient facts and studies
  Subjects allowed:
  White male bashing
  Male bashing generally
  Accusing someone of rape with no evidence
  Supporting pedos
  Organising social media mobs to attack non-Hilary supporters
58. Re:who decides what is "hate speech"??? by MitchDev · 2016-06-01 01:15 · Score: 1
  
  I guess this quote suits you then "BAAAAAAAAAAA!"
59. Re:who decides what is "hate speech"??? by cayenne8 · 2016-06-01 02:13 · Score: 1
  
  If you're referring to Geert Wilders, his arrest was for a speech at a rally, not in parliament.
  From my American POV....NO ONE should be arrested for any speech, unless it is DIRECTLY inciting violence against someone at that moment.
  There should be no such thing a "Hate Speech" laws.
  
  --
  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
60. Re:who decides what is "hate speech"??? by GodelEscherBlecch · 2016-06-01 07:56 · Score: 1
  
  Crap. Meant to select 'Insightful'. Sorry 'bout that. A 'confirm' button would be nice.
61. Re:who decides what is "hate speech"??? by GargamelSpaceman · 2016-06-01 07:56 · Score: 1
  
  I would sigh and say whatever happens in Europe is none of my business, except this seems to be not European only but these companies would be following these guidelines everywhere.
  People think they are 'safe in the US' but censorship in the globalist world seems to be able to reach even here where money is involved. We have Hollywood movies being censored to meet the requirements of the Chinese market. We have everyone's speech being policed to suit the <del>Soviet</del>European Union.
  It's scary.
  And we strike down Net Neutrality so only those with money ( and vulnerability to censorship via monetary bullying ) can get their message across at high speed.
  Offtopic, but the speed increase was like night and day when I turned on my VPN. I expected it to make my dog slow video get slower and it got FASTER. Makes me think I was being throttled.
  Here in the US I didn't think a VPN made sense, since I'd just use TOR if I were really interested in privacy. But sheesh!
  
  --
  ...
62. Re:who decides what is "hate speech"??? by fgouget · 2016-06-02 00:18 · Score: 1
  
  Letting them vent gives them the learning opportunity of having a listener say, "Are you stupid, and/or angry?)
  This is not about people venting. This is mostly about putting a stop to ISIS' recruitment campaign.
63. Re:who decides what is "hate speech"??? by fgouget · 2016-06-02 00:19 · Score: 1
  
  It'll be fine, and if you disagree you will be required to get a 2 inch tall tattoo on your forehead that says "Shitlord".
  Still sore about your forehead tattoo I see...
64. Re:who decides what is "hate speech"??? by beastofburdon · 2016-06-02 01:18 · Score: 1
  
  If that's the case then why aren't they targeting the CIA?
65. Re:who decides what is "hate speech"??? by beastofburdon · 2016-06-02 01:28 · Score: 1
  
  Then why are you speaking?
Hate speech by OzPeter · 2016-05-31 06:12 · Score: 1

Does that include

I don't want these ##%^&(*&@ windows 10 updates

--
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
We can't have by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-31 06:19 · Score: 1

We can't have the proletariat pointing out inconvenient truths, now, can we?
Winston Smith: Does Big Brother exist?
O'Brien: Of course he exists.
Winston Smith: Does he exist like you or me?
O'Brien: You do not exist.
Code of Conduct = Hate Speech by codeAlDente · 2016-05-31 06:21 · Score: 1

When some hateful bigot is accused of "xenophobia", this incites hatred toward people with actual phobias. The mentally ill are being equated with crappy people who don't actually have a mental illness, and whose views perhaps deserve to be hated. Some people with actual phobias, diagnosed by actual doctors, get sick of the constant media comparisons to people who are motivated by hate. More like Hatebook IMO

--
He once inserted random mutations into his code, just so he could have the experience of debugging.
1. Re:Code of Conduct = Hate Speech by axewolf · 2016-05-31 06:46 · Score: 1
  
  You seem really stupid and dogmatic.
  What is wrong with hate as motivation? How is it necessarily irrational?
2. Re:Code of Conduct = Hate Speech by b0bby · 2016-05-31 07:23 · Score: 1
  
  What about substances which are hydrophobic or oleophobic?
3. Re:Code of Conduct = Hate Speech by codeAlDente · 2016-05-31 07:31 · Score: 1
  
  Well if a policy that bans hate speech is enacted, and that policy includes language that can be reasonably viewed as hate speech, then by its own terms the policy must be deleted and all the hate censorship can end. What am I missing? FWIW TFA does list some reasons for banning hate speech, and none of them have anything to do with rationality, truth, honesty, etc.
  
  --
  He once inserted random mutations into his code, just so he could have the experience of debugging.
4. Re:Code of Conduct = Hate Speech by codeAlDente · 2016-05-31 12:04 · Score: 1
  
  I promise that I haven't been abusing any of those.
  
  --
  He once inserted random mutations into his code, just so he could have the experience of debugging.
Why do they remind you of that? by SuperKendall · 2016-05-31 06:22 · Score: 5, Insightful

The recent terror attacks have reminded us of the urgent need to address illegal online hate speech
What? What speech was said that triggered the attacks? The attacks would have been done regardless of what anyone said.
Even if you buy into the nonsense the west is responsible for the attacks that is still because of something the west DID, not because of what they SAID.
In the end the "illegal online hate speech" will be anything that displeases the ruling class. History has shown us again and again how well it turns out when all news is just censored propaganda.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
1. Re:Why do they remind you of that? by Oakey · 2016-05-31 06:35 · Score: 1
  
  No, look, if Charlie Hebdo hadn't published their 'hate speech' then those terrorist attacks wouldn't have happened. So they've fixed the 'problem', by getting rid of the 'hate speech'.
  
  --
  "Dre don't get as high as me.... I'm Cheech and Chong" - Snoop Dogg
2. Re:Why do they remind you of that? by SuperKendall · 2016-05-31 07:28 · Score: 1
  
  Why do you think it's about that? That certainly is not the only speech that will be blocked (if in fact any of that "speech" is even blocked at all).
  It will be used by and large to erase any criticism of muslim extremists, on the pretext that someone may think all muslims are extremists.
  It's pretty telling I think that you make your claims as an AC.
  
  --
  "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
3. Re:Why do they remind you of that? by just_another_sean · 2016-05-31 07:36 · Score: 1
  
  AC already beat me too it but to add - it's right there in the summary:
  
  Social media is unfortunately one of the tools that terrorist groups use to radicalise young people and racist use to spread violence and hatred. This agreement is an important step forward to ensure that the internet remains a place of free and democratic expression, where European values and laws are respected."
  Nowhere in her quote is their a suggestion that they are doing this out of some need to assuage western guilt as your comment implies.
  IMO this isn't really as newsworthy as people are making it out to be. While I don't agree with them European countries have had hate speech laws on their books since the end of WW II. If some American companies want to pander to these laws in order to grow their market or avoid some other regulatory oversight by being a "team player" than it's their prerogative.
  I believe it will only make them look bad in the long run as they won't have the resources to follow through and they will invariably make mistakes that will upset people. But again, I don't own those companies (and try to avoid using their products) so it's up to them, they certainly don't care what I think!
  
  --
  Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
4. Re:Why do they remind you of that? by just_another_sean · 2016-05-31 07:58 · Score: 1
  
  It's in TFS...
  
  Social media is unfortunately one of the tools that terrorist groups use to radicalise young people and racist use to spread violence and hatred. This agreement is an important step forward to ensure that the internet remains a place of free and democratic expression, where European values and laws are respected."
  You can extrapolate whatever you want from the article and argue that's where this is all heading, we probably agree on a number of points. But you quoted the EU rep out of context to support your point. You don't have to do that, you have a point to make and can do so without willfully ignoring the content of the article.
  
  --
  Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
5. Re:Why do they remind you of that? by myowntrueself · 2016-05-31 08:14 · Score: 1
  
  No, look, if Charlie Hebdo hadn't published their 'hate speech' then those terrorist attacks wouldn't have happened. So they've fixed the 'problem', by getting rid of the 'hate speech'.
  I've seen those cartoons. I cannot see how Charlie Hebdo is not 'hate speech', surely its a paradigm example of 'hate speech'.
  
  --
  In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
6. Re:Why do they remind you of that? by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · 2016-05-31 08:25 · Score: 1
  
  How knowledgeable are you about French politics and, in particular, the specific people they were satirizing? Because they often look offensive to an outsider, but people who know what's going on understand the message.
  
  --
  Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
7. Re:Why do they remind you of that? by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · 2016-05-31 08:26 · Score: 1
  
  You spelled "China" wrong.
  
  --
  Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
8. Re:Why do they remind you of that? by myowntrueself · 2016-05-31 08:45 · Score: 1
  
  How knowledgeable are you about French politics and, in particular, the specific people they were satirizing? Because they often look offensive to an outsider, but people who know what's going on understand the message.
  There were references to certain historical personages couched in a way which certainly appeared intended to provoke hatred and anger.
  Don't particularly care about French politics.
  
  --
  In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
9. Re:Why do they remind you of that? by ogdenk · 2016-05-31 10:50 · Score: 2
  
  If I want to publish a cartoon of Jesus and Mohammad having gay sex with Carl Sagan that's my prerogative and my right. Don't like it? Don't look at it.
  Not that I would because
  A.) I can't draw
  B.) I'm generally not an asshole until provoked
  This is a serious slippery slope. Even saying "The God of Abraham does not exist and is simply a bronze-age Jewish mythology" can be labeled as hate speech. Even if that is a core part of my [non]religious beliefs.
  I'm not going to tapdance around people's feelings under threat of prison and censor myself. Seriously. Prison? For hurting someone's wee little feelings? A term as long as you would serve for physically beating the shit out of someone? SJW's are going way too far in the EU and we need to stop them from getting a foothold here. If someone is deeply offended by the fact that I criticize/mock their religion, oppose them influencing politics... FUCK'EM.... they NEED to be offended. If mocking superstition, the violence it brings and the chilling effect it has on reasonable discourse is hateful, then I'm proud to be a bigot.
  At least here in the US if someone tries to kill me over my beliefs, opinions or speech I can legally blow their brains out in self defense. You guys in the EU are screwed and we're not far behind you unfortunately.
  Hating people isn't illegal. Making people mad isn't illegal. Losing control and beating/killing someone because you can't control your rage *IS* illegal. You have no inherent right to not be offended in a free society. Period.
10. Re:Why do they remind you of that? by Rakarra · 2016-05-31 12:15 · Score: 1
  
  There were references to certain historical personages couched in a way which certainly appeared intended to provoke hatred and anger.
  Don't particularly care about French politics.
  Why would those historical figures not be subject to ridicule if it's deserved?
  Or better yet: there is no such thing as a historical figure that is immune from the ridicule and criticism we might give a modern politician. If it "provokes hatred and anger," to violence, then that is entirely the fault of the people angered enough to commit such acts. It's a flaw in their psyche, not the cartoonist's.
  It is, for example, absolutely fair to depict Muhammad as a man wearing a turban with a bomb in it.
11. Re:Why do they remind you of that? by Rakarra · 2016-05-31 12:22 · Score: 1
  
  Killed by the same misogynistic, homophobic, barbaric culture that Charles Martel et al fought off at Tours a millennium and a half ago.
  To be honest, he was also fighting -for- a misogynistic, homophobic, barbaric culture as well.
  Or was that a whoosh that went over my head?
12. Re:Why do they remind you of that? by myowntrueself · 2016-05-31 13:44 · Score: 2
  
  I'm not saying that I agree with the existance of 'hate speech' laws, I don't.
  I'm just saying that its difficult (for me) to see how 'hate speech laws' could reasonably be formulated such that Charlie Hebdo doesn't fall foul of them.
  The law should be able to be applied impartially without looking like an ass(hole).
  
  --
  In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
13. Re:Why do they remind you of that? by DoofusOfDeath · 2016-05-31 19:01 · Score: 1
  
  The recent terror attacks have reminded us of the urgent need to address illegal online hate speech
  I totally agree. Anyone who publicly affirms Muslim, Sink, Buddhist, Zoroastrian, Mormon, pastafarian, Jedi, or atheistic beliefs is showing hatred and intolerance towards my beliefs. Because if they're saying they're right, then they're saying I'm wrong, and that's intolerant. I hereby demand that all such persons be silenced throughout the EU.
14. Re:Why do they remind you of that? by DoofusOfDeath · 2016-05-31 19:07 · Score: 1
  
  I've seen those cartoons. I cannot see how Charlie Hebdo is not 'hate speech', surely its a paradigm example of 'hate speech'.
  There are passages in the Koran which are unquestionably interpreted by many Muslims as advocating unspeakably evil acts. I'm fairly certain that if you had to label one of those two works as hate speech, it wouldn't be the French one.
15. Re:Why do they remind you of that? by DoofusOfDeath · 2016-05-31 19:08 · Score: 1
  
  Hating people isn't illegal. Making people mad isn't illegal.
  
  If certain people in the U.S. and E.U. have their way, your statement would be an is / ought fallacy.
16. Re:Why do they remind you of that? by myowntrueself · 2016-06-01 01:56 · Score: 1
  
  I've seen those cartoons. I cannot see how Charlie Hebdo is not 'hate speech', surely its a paradigm example of 'hate speech'.
  There are passages in the Koran which are unquestionably interpreted by many Muslims as advocating unspeakably evil acts. I'm fairly certain that if you had to label one of those two works as hate speech, it wouldn't be the French one.
  If there are to be 'hate speech' laws, at least let them be impartial. Or don't have them at all.
  
  --
  In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
17. Re:Why do they remind you of that? by fgouget · 2016-06-01 02:09 · Score: 1
  
  The recent terror attacks have reminded us of the urgent need to address illegal online hate speech
  What? What speech was said that triggered the attacks? The attacks would have been done regardless of what anyone said.
  This is not about speech triggering the attacks. This is about putting a stop to ISIS' Internet recruitment campaign so the recruitees don't come back to their countries with bombs and AK-47's:
  Inside the Mind-Control Methods the Islamic State Uses to Recruit Teenagers
  ISIS recruitment methods exposed after Jordanian woman flees secret compound
18. Re:Why do they remind you of that? by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · 2016-06-01 02:45 · Score: 1
  
  I think it really depends on how those laws are worded; most, I think, cover insults to groups of people but not insults to specific individuals unless it's on the basis of their membership in a group. Something that is offensive because it targets a historical person may not fall under that law. Furthermore, satire is often exempted from censorship on those grounds.
  
  --
  Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
19. Re:Why do they remind you of that? by myowntrueself · 2016-06-01 02:55 · Score: 1
  
  I think it really depends on how those laws are worded; most, I think, cover insults to groups of people but not insults to specific individuals unless it's on the basis of their membership in a group. Something that is offensive because it targets a historical person may not fall under that law. Furthermore, satire is often exempted from censorship on those grounds.
  Insult to a historical figure of extreme importance to a group of people, like ohhh I don't know maybe the *founder* of that group should definitely be seen as an insult to the whole group of people.
  I don't think satire should be an excuse otherwise there'd be satirical use of the swastika and imagery of Hitler in some German equivalent of Charlie Hebdo. To the best of my limited knowledge there isn't any such equivalent, and any attempt to do so would result in a visit from the police.
  So its ok in France but not in Germany? Not sure about that, doesn't France also have laws against Nazi imagery etc?
  
  --
  In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
20. Re:Why do they remind you of that? by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · 2016-06-01 03:37 · Score: 1
  
  Depictions of Muhammed are not necessarily an insult to Islam; only in some groups is it seen that way. Iran, for instance, has a long history of paintings of him. Moreover, even if it provokes outrage in those people, it's not designed to incite hatred or anger against them.
  
  Germany specifically outlawed Nazi imagery, to the best of my knowledge, including satirical uses. In addition, even most satirists in Germany might be unlikely to use it, since it's still kind of a touchy subject there. Whether or not satire should be allowed is a different conversation (I personally think all the hate speech stuff is stupid, and satire is an excellent tool against bigots), but in France it is covered, while in Germany it isn't always.
  
  --
  Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
21. Re:Why do they remind you of that? by myowntrueself · 2016-06-01 05:19 · Score: 1
  
  Depictions of Muhammed are not necessarily an insult to Islam; only in some groups is it seen that way. Iran, for instance, has a long history of paintings of him. Moreover, even if it provokes outrage in those people, it's not designed to incite hatred or anger against them.
  Germany specifically outlawed Nazi imagery, to the best of my knowledge, including satirical uses. In addition, even most satirists in Germany might be unlikely to use it, since it's still kind of a touchy subject there. Whether or not satire should be allowed is a different conversation (I personally think all the hate speech stuff is stupid, and satire is an excellent tool against bigots), but in France it is covered, while in Germany it isn't always.
  I think hate speech law are stupid too, what I guess I'm trying to get at is a reductio ad absurdum on hate speech laws.
  I'm not saying Charlie Hebdo really is hate speech, which I don't think even exists. I'm saying that couching such laws to allow eg Charlie Hebdo's depictions of Muhammed or others depictions of Muhammed eg as a pedophile, rapist, etc as non-hate-speech is absurd.
  You can't have your cake and eat it too; you can't say that what counts as hate speech for, eg Muslims, doesn't count as hate speech for, eg Donald Trump, or Germans wanting to make a satirical magazine about the Nazis where they make cartoon representations of EU politicians as Nazi characters.
  The law has to be impartial.
  If you try to make the hate speech laws truly impartial they become very clearly absurd.
  
  --
  In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
22. Re:Why do they remind you of that? by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · 2016-06-01 05:46 · Score: 1
  
  Ah, I see. In that case, I think I agree with you. There's never a clear line between what counts as hate speech and what doesn't, and laws rely on lines to be effective in a just society.
  
  --
  Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
i just hate this by turkeydance · 2016-05-31 06:22 · Score: 1

i hate having to read about hate.
1. Re:i just hate this by codeAlDente · 2016-05-31 06:24 · Score: 1
  
  I hate this comment
  
  --
  He once inserted random mutations into his code, just so he could have the experience of debugging.
2. Re:i just hate this by INT_QRK · 2016-05-31 06:54 · Score: 1
  
  I hate comments about hating other comments.
3. Re:i just hate this by cyberchondriac · 2016-06-01 03:34 · Score: 1
  
  I hate people who overuse the term hate to mean "something I don't agree with" and hater to mean "someone who disagrees with me for any reason whatsoever".
  
  --
  
  Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
4. Re:i just hate this by INT_QRK · 2016-06-01 04:10 · Score: 1
  
  Agree absolutely. Great point! (...and I was only being facetious, by the way, meaning "smart ass appropriate to venue and mood.")
5. Re:i just hate this by cyberchondriac · 2016-06-01 05:53 · Score: 1
  
  I know, I was just tagging on to the chain. :)
  
  --
  
  Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
hate speech = anti-immigration sentiments by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-31 06:27 · Score: 1

This will not stem the rising popularity of nationalists movements across European countries. If anything, it's going to stoke anti-immigration feelings even more.
1984 was too soon... by bobbied · 2016-05-31 06:27 · Score: 2

George Orwell was right, he was just a man before his time... He should have titled his book 2016...

--
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
1. Re:1984 was too soon... by bobbied · 2016-05-31 08:10 · Score: 1
  
  Go read the book... The word we are all converging on is "tolerance"
  So is that transparent enough for you?
  
  --
  "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
2. Re:1984 was too soon... by liquid_schwartz · 2016-05-31 08:55 · Score: 2
  
  The word we are all converging on is "tolerance"
  I think tolerance is the word that is used by the side trying to get the upper hand. I heard a lot of calling for tolerance when gay marriage was still in the trying to get legal phase. Now that the LGBTxxx side seems to have the upper hand it's about forcing bakers into making cakes and people losing their jobs over not supporting gay marriage. Tolerance went out the window as soon as they had the upper hand. I'm against any group calling for penalties based on a person's views or voting habits. If one wants to call me tolerant, so be it. However I can have serious disagreements with coworkers over a particular view without being able to work with them and it would never cross my mind to try and get a person fired over a personal view. You don't have to agree with someone to treat them with civility. Moreover talking with others who I don't agree with sometimes, not usually admittedly but sometimes, allows me to pick up a new perspective.
Hate speech? by fustakrakich · 2016-05-31 06:29 · Score: 1

As Bill Gates might say, *Two minutes should be enough for everybody*

--
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
You're not removing hate speech, just hiding it by argStyopa · 2016-05-31 06:36 · Score: 4, Insightful

Let's all remember that this doesn't really REMOVE hate speech. It hides it, allowing us all to feel wonderful about ourselves and that we've "done something" about hate speech.
We haven't *actually* DONE anything.
Like Juncker's fantastically anti-democratic reaction to the threat of the Ã-FP victory in Austria (I won't allow any far-right reactionaries any power in the EU!), Europe seems to fundamentally "not get" how democracy works. When confronted with something unpleasant, they try to ban it.
The only cure for unpleasant speech is more speech. Anything else ultimately makes it worse.

--
-Styopa
1. Re:You're not removing hate speech, just hiding it by INT_QRK · 2016-05-31 07:03 · Score: 1
  
  I stand and applaud in agreement, and second that motion.
2. Re:You're not removing hate speech, just hiding it by argStyopa · 2016-05-31 09:17 · Score: 1
  
  Notice Juncker reacted VEHEMENTLY, publicly, immediately against the ~threat~ of a conservative Austrian politician.
  Has there been any comparable reaction against the ACTUAL arrival of *millions* of people who are publicly homophobic, misogynistic, murderously xenophobic religious zealots?
  It's curious, that different reaction.
  
  --
  -Styopa
3. Re:You're not removing hate speech, just hiding it by labnet · 2016-05-31 09:30 · Score: 1
  
  Yes. Disagreement is not hate.
  I don't think a homosexual lifestyle is morally good, but I don't hate homosexuals, yet in Australia, that opinion in public is close to 'hate speech'
  
  --
  46137
4. Re:You're not removing hate speech, just hiding it by dbarclay10 · 2016-05-31 10:02 · Score: 1
  
  Europe seems to fundamentally "not get" how democracy works. When confronted with something unpleasant, they try to ban it.
  The only cure for unpleasant speech is more speech. Anything else ultimately makes it worse.
  Or, maybe, Europe has had its fill of radical fascist ring-wing asshats and the problems they cause (read: death, destruction, war, poverty, etc.), and this is one of the tools they use to keep a lid on it.
  
  --
  
  Barclay family motto:
  Aut agere aut mori.
  (Either action or death.)
5. Re:You're not removing hate speech, just hiding it by ausekilis · 2016-05-31 23:50 · Score: 1
  
  The only cure for unpleasant speech is more speech. Anything else ultimately makes it worse.
  This is one of those things that I think any rational person could agree with. Speech helps, but you need the tackle the source of the fear/prejudice. Unfortunately there's no being rational with an irrational person. Look no further than the definition:
  
  phobia - (n) an extreme or irrational fear of or aversion to something.
  
  Trying to talk a group of people (or an entire culture) out of their phobia is kind of like talking someone out of arachnophobia by showing them spider documentaries. To bring about real change involves real action from both sides. To tackle this xenophobia or Islamophobia, we would need both the western countries to stop bombing Islamic nations AND have those Islamic countries enter peaceful talks and 'integration' into the western countries. The first part would reduce that initial fear and hatred of the west (after all, we stop lobbing bombs at women and children, getting the extremists angrier and angrier). The second part would introduce that mutual understanding of the cultures.
  
  But then again, we still have confederate flags flying around in the southern U.S. some 150 years later.
6. Re:You're not removing hate speech, just hiding it by argStyopa · 2016-06-01 02:48 · Score: 1
  
  The fact that you're both actually talking about it (ok, yes, this is the interweb and some post AC and never return) is the POINT though.
  One says "you can't really negotiate people out of irrational fears", the other says "my fears have an entirely rational basis".
  God forbid any national political leaders take even this nuanced, thoughtful an approach.
  Hell, you can barely get water-cooler conversation that's not just people spouting shit (whatever monologue that they happened to just read online) at each other.
  
  --
  -Styopa
7. Re:You're not removing hate speech, just hiding it by RyoShin · 2016-06-01 10:05 · Score: 1
  
  It hides it, allowing us all to feel wonderful about ourselves and that we've "done something" about hate speech.
  America is experiencing this right now, I think. Thanks to the racial and gender equality efforts of the mid-20th century, a lot of actual sexists/racists started going quiet. The general assumption was that these forces had been bested, and would continue to shrink in size and overall these problems would improve. But this year, as Trump ran his primary campaign, it seems that racists just appeared in droves. I don't think they ever went away, though, just receded until they felt there was a candidate who granted them safety to speak their minds.
  Silencing dissent/hate speech/uncomfortable thoughts does not make it disappear, just hide in the shadows. It must be allowed, acknowledged, and confronted to make any kind of progress.
Don't you just **** it when that happens? by PhilHibbs · 2016-05-31 06:39 · Score: 1

Censorship *****.
Re:This will be abused against free speech. by jfbriere · 2016-05-31 06:41 · Score: 1

+1
My thoughts exactly
I Blame Trump's Rhetoric!!! by Baldrson · 2016-05-31 06:43 · Score: 1

Donald Trump's divisive rhetoric made this necessary -- well, that and the white trash to which it appeals. Fortunately, we are seeing increasingly rapid replacement of whites the world over by more vibrant populations that keep their women barefoot and pregnant. So this, quite reasonable, limitation of freedom of speech is only a temporary measure.

--
Seastead this.
1. Re:I Blame Trump's Rhetoric!!! by ratboy666 · 2016-05-31 09:12 · Score: 1
  
  Baldrson, I love you!
  Gay reference is important (I *hope* you are male).
  
  --
  Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
2. Re:I Blame Trump's Rhetoric!!! by Livius · 2016-05-31 09:13 · Score: 1
  
  Trump's rhetoric is half the problem.
  The other half is left-wing political correctness bullying that cheapens the concept of hate speech by labelling any dissenting opinion as hate.
  Neither half is more responsible than the other.
  Neither half is less responsible than the other.
3. Re:I Blame Trump's Rhetoric!!! by cyberchondriac · 2016-06-01 03:41 · Score: 1
  
  http://www.dictionary.com/brow...
  
  --
  
  Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
Re:more censorship? by MobileTatsu-NJG · 2016-05-31 06:46 · Score: 1

more censorship?
fuck off
Heh. Censoring of censorship!

--

"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
Re:It won't work by INT_QRK · 2016-05-31 06:51 · Score: 1

So, that's it. The best way to counter an idea which which you may disagree, especially if you believe to be stupid, evil or hateful, is to expose it to critical examination and counter it with better ideas, not hide it where it can fester unchallenged.
Hate Speech = not voteing our way! by Joe_Dragon · 2016-05-31 06:53 · Score: 1

Hate Speech = not voteing our way!
Typo by countach44 · 2016-05-31 06:56 · Score: 4, Insightful

Microsoft, Facebook, YouTube and Others Agree To Remove Free Speech Across the EU

FTFY

Babies and bathwater, slippery slopes, boiling frogs, etc...
1. Re:Typo by fgouget · 2016-06-01 02:03 · Score: 1
  
  They have been removing free speech from the start.
Re:pro-jew = 'good', pro-muslim = 'bad' by INT_QRK · 2016-05-31 07:00 · Score: 1

Outstanding! Thank you for that! This is exactly the type of hate speech that should be out in the open for all to see -- what a freaking idiot you are.
Re:pro-jew = 'good', pro-muslim = 'bad' by dadelbunts · 2016-05-31 07:02 · Score: 1

Muslims in the UK are free to rape without fear of prosecution as that would be hate speech.
1984 by brunnerabda · 2016-05-31 07:04 · Score: 1

Instead of the government censoring our comments, private industry will be forced to do it. 1984 is coming.
So Will The Dalai Lama Be Deleted by Crashmarik · 2016-05-31 07:05 · Score: 1

http://tribune.com.pk/story/11...
Seems what he is saying now qualifies as hate speech.
1. Re:So Will The Dalai Lama Be Deleted by liquid_schwartz · 2016-05-31 08:56 · Score: 1
  
  I'm sure China thinks so.
Facebook by brunnerabda · 2016-05-31 07:06 · Score: 1

Facebook is already doing this in the USA. Monitors arbitrarily decide what is bad or not.
Death By A Thousand Cuts by brunnerabda · 2016-05-31 07:08 · Score: 1

This policy will make liberals very happy. Anything they don't like will be butthurt .
1. Re:Death By A Thousand Cuts by Registered+Coward+v2 · 2016-05-31 07:35 · Score: 1
  
  This policy will make liberals very happy. Anything they don't like will be butthurt .
  Conservatives as well, it's just a different source for the butthurt.
  
  --
  I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
2. Re:Death By A Thousand Cuts by balbeir · 2016-05-31 08:58 · Score: 1
  
  Small hands and things like that
3. Re:Death By A Thousand Cuts by Mashiki · 2016-05-31 15:18 · Score: 1
  
  Conservatives as well, it's just a different source for the butthurt.
  Haven't seen very many conservatives lining up over the last 20 years pushing for limiting speech. Progressives on the other hand? Lots of them pushing for it. Especially on university campuses.
  
  --
  Om, nomnomnom...
4. Re:Death By A Thousand Cuts by Registered+Coward+v2 · 2016-05-31 23:45 · Score: 1
  
  Conservatives as well, it's just a different source for the butthurt.
  Haven't seen very many conservatives lining up over the last 20 years pushing for limiting speech. Progressives on the other hand? Lots of them pushing for it. Especially on university campuses.
  Given the complaints against having some books in libraries, religious displays that aren't the traditional Judeo-Christian, etc. I'd say there certainly is butthurt on their side as well; only the focus of their butthurt is different. I've found some people on both sides are more than willing to support free speech as long it says what they want it to say but have a surprising lack of tolerance for a differing view. I find that wrong no matter which side of the fence takes that position. Critical thinking and good decision making requires hearing various points of view, not just those that agree with yours.
  
  --
  I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
5. Re:Death By A Thousand Cuts by Mashiki · 2016-06-01 04:34 · Score: 1
  
  Given the complaints against having some books in libraries, religious displays that aren't the traditional Judeo-Christian, etc. I'd say there certainly is butthurt on their side as well; only the focus of their butthurt is different. I've found some people on both sides are more than willing to support free speech as long it says what they want it to say but have a surprising lack of tolerance for a differing view. I find that wrong no matter which side of the fence takes that position. Critical thinking and good decision making requires hearing various points of view, not just those that agree with yours.
  Well I'll start out with the obvious, I'm against any type of censorship and get what you're saying. Though there is a difference between the two. Those religious display issues and so on that you're seeing from the religious right? Those in themselves are generally pretty tiny. You're not seeing "ban all books because reasons" mentality from them unless they're extremist muslims for example. On the other hand, there are a lot on the left especially progressives that are pushing whole banning on speech/though/expression. Most recent example at the government level would be NYC and their "we'll fine you if you hurt someones feelings for not using their pronouns." Then you can get into the whole bit with leftist university professors actively coming out and advocating banning all unapproved speech, saying that free speech isn't a right and so on.
  But I do agree, I've found plenty of people on both sides who are ardent free speech advocates. What's interesting is that these people all fall into the libertarian camp, whether they're left or right libertarian is moot in their eyes. Both sides see a greater danger from progressives and the religious right attacking fundamental freedoms for various reasons, whether those reasons are "someone drew a picture" or "those words hurt my feelings."
  As someone who's been all over the political spectrum(from socialist to hard conservative to middle of the road and having been actively involved in politics at a federal(Liberal Party Cdn) party level) in the last ~35+ years, the problem right now is with the left. It's very much the same as it was with the religious right in the 60's through 80's. The progressives on the left are exactly the same in their tone. Anti-free speech, anti-sex, anti-porn, etc., some even go as far as being anti-womens lib and against the sexual liberation movement of the 70's. It's interesting to note though that this started in the 90's(see Clinton/Gore/etc's anti-violence/sex/music crusade), so with luck no one will have to put up with their BS much longer, especially since we're starting to see a larger cultural backlash against and that's good. But the liberals in general need to get their crazies under control as much as the conservative right did. As it stands right now, I've met more ex-progressives and liberals who are moving towards the middle of the road or right then ever before because of it. And are disgusted with what the left has become, especially the pro-violence, attacking/threatening people who have different opinions and so on. Myself? I see similarities in this with the religious right of the 70's, and then becoming radicalized and committing acts of domestic terrorism. Anyway cheers.
  
  --
  Om, nomnomnom...
So it begins... by Tempest_2084 · 2016-05-31 07:09 · Score: 1

Given that hate speech these days is defined as "Things I don't agree with", this is simply going to end with those in charge deciding what people can and cannot talk about. I suppose it's a plus if your guys are the ones in charge, not so much if you're on the other side. I would say that the road to hell is paved with good intentions, but I don't think there are even good intentions here. This is just a power grab by those in charge to shut up people they don't like. They're only using terrorism as a cover.
1. Re:So it begins... by cyberchondriac · 2016-06-01 03:48 · Score: 1
  
  We have deemed your insightful post [correction: baseless criticism], to be hate speech, and therefore it has been deleted. You have 1 warning remaining. A 3rd infraction may result in fines or or imprisonment or both.
  
  -Your new overlords.
  
  --
  
  Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
In the US that would be an illegal trust. by Ungrounded+Lightning · 2016-05-31 07:16 · Score: 1

Microsoft, Twitter, YouTube, Google, and Facebook ... aren't legally obligated, but have agreed ...
Great! A conspiracy of the major industry players to censor unpopular opinions from their services.
Seems to me, in the U.S., that would constitute an illegal cartel.
Remember when the Internet was going to improve freedom of speech? Apparently not in Europe.
Fortunately, the peer-to-peer approaches to conferencing still work. This just means that people using these commercial services, either to conference or to hunt for content, won't get to see or participate in the action - at least until they somehow find out about where it's going on.

--
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
1. Re:In the US that would be an illegal trust. by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · 2016-05-31 08:30 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, but because they're doing something the government likes, they wouldn't be called out for it.
  
  --
  Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
2. Re:In the US that would be an illegal trust. by Ungrounded+Lightning · 2016-05-31 13:46 · Score: 1
  
  Too true
  
  --
  Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
"European values and laws are respected" by FlyHelicopters · 2016-05-31 07:18 · Score: 1

European values and laws are respected
Yea, didn't we fight a revolution to get rid of those things?
The stupidity of people never ceases to amaze me. You might not like the Nazis, but trying to silence them just makes the situation worse.
Look at the KKK in the USA, they are a joke. They have their little rallies and parades, but most people just roll their eyes at them. But if you tried to ban them, they would grow massively in support overnight.
So let the Nazis spew their hate speech in the light where everyone can laugh at it.
Re:It won't work by PopeRatzo · 2016-05-31 07:21 · Score: 1

I don't think we need to worry about a shortage of idiots to laugh at.

--
You are welcome on my lawn.
We never "get it" for long... by dbreeze · 2016-05-31 07:37 · Score: 1

It's neat to live long enough to watch society repeat old mistakes.
Those old dudes decided that speech is an inalienable right of humans for a reason, ya know? (Of course, even they didn't anticipate government prohibiting a plant.) There will be hate speech. The only place it's safe is out in the open where the speaker gets a broad audience and some fair feedback. Push it underground to small groups of people looking for it and you've got real problems brewing.
Call me whatever you want, just don't call me late for dinner!

--
When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law he tore his robes.2Kings22:11
Does sarcastic hate speech count? by iTrawl · 2016-05-31 07:39 · Score: 1

Here's a made up example: If after this, the EDL (English Defence League) rallies start yapping "We love the Muslamics* We want to give them cookies. They deserve cookies!", what then?
*just google for "edl muslamic"

--
"Everybody's naked underneath" -- The Doctor
Difference between "hate speech" & "free speec by walterbyrd · 2016-05-31 08:07 · Score: 1

No difference as far as I can see.
You can go anywhere and say things that are politically correct for that area. You have free speech in North Korea, as long as you don't say anything politically incorrect.
We gotta do something before it's too late... by dbreeze · 2016-05-31 08:16 · Score: 1

Corporate governance over our lives is near complete already. Add your name to an effort to stop it non-violently while/if we can : http://www.movetoamend.org/

--
When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law he tore his robes.2Kings22:11
I strongly support terrorists posting on Twitter by raymorris · 2016-05-31 08:30 · Score: 1

> So you either support terrorism posts on Twitter and Facebook (ISIL et al.) or you don't.
I very strongly support terrorists posting on Twitter.
A long time ago, I was a licensed private investigator and I did a bit of bounty hunting - finding people who asked a bail bondsman to out their bail, then skipped out leaving the bondsman holding the bag. Once in a while, some idiot fugitive would post a picture or location on Twitter or Facebook; "Hangin with my homies at Kirk's Bar". An hour later, the idiot would be in jail. I would very much like for terrorists to be as stupid.
The Net treats censorship as a defect and ... by WaffleMonster · 2016-05-31 09:06 · Score: 1

... err who am I kidding... the Internet is owned by big content and you clowns don't stand a chance.
If ever there was a case for moving away from big content this would be it. Every light on the panel is flashing red.
Does hawkish govt rhetoric count as hate speech? by HongPong · 2016-05-31 09:36 · Score: 1

I wonder if material like European politicians calling for the war on Libya, or supporting Israel's assorted plans to wipe Palestinians off the West Bank, or the austerity minions trying to find ways to shaft Greek citizens, do any of these things count as hate speech? The governments - thru the unaccountable EU behemoth - are trying to terrible things to a lot of people in that general part of the world and I wonder if their advocacy for their sinister ideas qualifies as hate speech. I'm assuming rich people with suits automatically will get a pass, as long as their views are close to whoever controls the European Commission.

--
--hongpong.com
Think please by SuperKendall · 2016-05-31 09:45 · Score: 1

Yes of course that is what the article SAYS. The question was, WHY DO YOU THINK that non-squetor has any relation to what is being passed or how it will be used?
Why make the propagandists job easier than it already is?

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Microsoft? Awesome... by DRMShill · 2016-05-31 10:14 · Score: 1

Now us Windows 10 users can be considered a protected class. Down with Slashdot's hate for Windows 10.
Re:pro-jew = 'good', pro-muslim = 'bad' by Rakarra · 2016-05-31 12:28 · Score: 1

You know, at least Jews do not [...] mutilate their women.
Just their men, that's enough! :-D
Re:This will be abused against free speech. by Rakarra · 2016-05-31 12:42 · Score: 1

Watch the first target be BDS. Watch.
They were already dying, no worries, Netcraft confirmed it, until the police shut them down for inciting hate speech.
Re:I Love Niggers! by Rakarra · 2016-05-31 12:46 · Score: 1

It's -1, Love Speech that makes me uncomfortable.
The Stupid-O-Meter by JustAnotherOldGuy · 2016-05-31 15:59 · Score: 1

My Stupid-O-Meter just blew out the back of the case, achieved escape velocity, and will probably knock a chunk out of one of Saturn's rings on its way to deep space.

--
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
philosophical conundrum by bingoUV · 2016-06-01 01:27 · Score: 1

Is speech really speech if no one hears it?

--
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
Re:I strongly support terrorists posting on Twitte by fgouget · 2016-06-01 02:23 · Score: 1

I very strongly support terrorists posting on Twitter.
A long time ago, I was a licensed private investigator[...]
Your funny story is irrelevant in a situation where the terrorists post from Syria for recruitment purposes.
Welcome back to the GDR. by sethstorm · 2016-06-01 03:06 · Score: 1

If you liked East Germany or the USSR, now you get a second crack at the bat - in the name of "feelings".
Never mind that the private sector partnership is used as a shield against government accountability.

--
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
[removed] by SkyLeach · 2016-06-01 04:14 · Score: 1

This comment has been removed for anti-fascist hate content.
sincerely,
President Hillary Rodham Trump

--
My $0.02 will always be worth more than your â0.02, so :-p
Free Speach by villageelder1 · 2016-06-01 06:56 · Score: 1

This is what happens in a place that has no (similar to) First Amendment and Second Amendment rights.
Re:This will be abused against free speech. by Rakarra · 2016-06-01 09:06 · Score: 1

Huh?
First, BDS is not dying - in fact, quite the opposite
My apologies, it was a joke.
For many, many years on Slashdot, people trolled stories about the decline of *BSD: http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/...
Ban Ads! by Toshito · 2016-06-07 04:01 · Score: 1

Let's get together and create a new religion where we define Advertisements as hate speech.
Then they'll have to ban Ads.

--
Try it! Library of Babel