Facebook Must Delete Hate Postings Worldwide, Rules Austrian Court (reuters.com)

An Austrian court has ruled that Facebook must delete hate speech postings worldwide. "The case -- brought by Austria's Green party over insults to its leader -- has international ramifications as the court ruled the postings must be deleted across the platform and not just in Austria, a point that had been left open in an initial ruling," reports Reuters. From the report: The case comes as legislators around Europe are considering ways of forcing Facebook, Google, Twitter and others to rapidly remove hate speech or incitement to violence. Facebook's lawyers in Vienna declined to comment on the ruling, which was distributed by the Greens and confirmed by a court spokesman, and Facebook did not immediately reply to a request for comment. Strengthening the earlier ruling, the Viennese appeals court ruled on Friday that Facebook must remove the postings against Greens leader Eva Glawischnig as well as any verbatim repostings, and said merely blocking them in Austria without deleting them for users abroad was not sufficient. The court added it was easy for Facebook to automate this process. It said, however, that Facebook could not be expected to trawl through content to find posts that are similar, rather than identical, to ones already identified as hate speech. The Greens hope to get the ruling strengthened further at Austria's highest court. They want the court to demand Facebook remove similar - not only identical - postings, and to make it identify holders of fake accounts. The Greens also want Facebook to pay damages, which would make it easier for individuals in similar cases to take the financial risk of taking legal action.

Comments

if we learned anything in the past

[ganjadude]

this will end well *grabs popcorn*

Re: if we learned anything in the past

[Anonymous Coward]

Can we pronounce the internet dead yet?

Re:if we learned anything in the past

[Big Hairy Ian]

Doesn't the Austrian appeals court know the limitations of it's own jurisdiction?

Re: if we learned anything in the past

[Anonymous Coward]

It routes around censorship.... except after we re-centralize it all back onto just a few commercial services.

Re:if we learned anything in the past

[i_ate_god]

the company is operating in Austria and probably has an Austrian-registered company, meaning it is well with in the jurisdiction of austrian courts to make that order

Re:if we learned anything in the past

[nucrash]

I think this would be a demonstration that they are not aware of the limitations of their jurisdiction.

Remember the last time an Austrian tried to dictate policy globally?

Re:if we learned anything in the past

[FatdogHaiku]

I think this would be a demonstration that they are not aware of the limitations of their jurisdiction.

Remember the last time an Austrian tried to dictate policy globally?

Oh My Godwin!

Re: if we learned anything in the past

[guruevi]

Arnold was pretty moderate for a Californian Democrat.

Re: if we learned anything in the past

[Anonymous Coward]

Aaand there's the Godwin's Law post

Re:if we learned anything in the past

[stealth_finger]

Right lads, we can compromise our world wide business or we can pull out of Austria. Hmmmmmm decisions.

Re:if we learned anything in the past

[Kernel Kurtz]

the company is operating in Austria

Time for that to end.

Re:if we learned anything in the past

[stealth_finger]

I think this would be a demonstration that they are not aware of the limitations of their jurisdiction.

Remember the last time an Austrian tried to dictate policy globally?

Oh My Godwin!

I did nazi that coming, did jew?

Re:if we learned anything in the past

[Bender Unit 22]

Not to worry, I doubt that they will be forced to delete any posts calling someone nazis.

I just read a news article about some "extreme right" nazis. (Sorry, in Danish http://jyllands-posten.dk/inte... )
And they might be nazis, but who knows, it's a word that gets thrown around a lot these days so it has lost all meaning.

Re:if we learned anything in the past

[bluefoxlucid]

They are essentially suggesting Facebook is not allowed to possess certain samples of published speech in any form anywhere in the world, and not allowed to publish certain such samples anywhere in the world. That means if someone in France publishes something that Austria says to remove, and it's stored on a US server, Facebook isn't allowed to just remove it from Austria; they have to remove it from everywhere.

Seems like they're trying to play games to control speech worldwide.

Re:if we learned anything in the past

[Anonymous Coward]

What, or who, defines "hate" speech? I found the above two posts to be funny... but if some hyper-"sensitive" person complained about similar postings (on facebook), would it then be considered hateful? If I posted "Jesus loves you" and 10,000 people reported it as being hateful, would it be removed? Is there an internet vote on each potential post before removal?

Re:if we learned anything in the past

[Anonymous Cow Ward]

Yep, the Austrian court can order Facebook's subsidiary in Austria to do things. It cannot order Facebook Germany, Italy, Canada, etc. to do anything.

Re:if we learned anything in the past

[Anonymous Cow Ward]

If only I had mod points...

Re: if we learned anything in the past

[Anonymous Coward]

Because he was a republican, like all strong white men.

Re:if we learned anything in the past

[Anonymous Coward]

the company is operating in Austria and probably has an Austrian-registered company, meaning it is well with in the jurisdiction of austrian courts to make that order

If you have a child move to Austria, does that subject you to Austrian law too?

If it were me... I'd tell Austria that it should shut the fuck up, laugh at their "ruling" and not only NOT delete it everywhere, I'd not even delete it THERE. In response instead, I'd tell the country that gave the world Adolf HITLER, that they're being a little fascist, and even if they're now trying to atone for the murder of millions upon millions of innocent people, and untold human suffering, doing so by MORE fascistic behavior only shows they've learned NOTHING from their own history.

Fascist bullshit isn't fascist because of WHOM it targets, it's fascist because of WHAT IT DOES. For example. So-called, "anti-fascists" or "antifa," seem to employ fascist or even outright terrorist tactics, making their name not only ironic, but a bitter euphemism. Austria's so-called "ruling" is the same way...

So obviously, Austria's laughable attempt at overreach should be laughed out of the room as the garbage it is, and be disregarded, ignored, and not worried in the least about. They're just an also-exists pseudo-country waiting around for Germany to annex them again.

And something about Wiener-schnitzel. That should really piss them off.

Re:if we learned anything in the past

[Anubis IV]

You've conflated jurisdiction with authority. They have the jurisdiction. They lack the authority.

While the subsidiary is within the court's jurisdiction, the court's authority does not extend beyond their jurisdiction to cover what the parent organization does outside of Austria's borders. The court can order them to remove the content from servers in Austria, order them to hide it from display to Austrians, and may even be able to do the same across the EU*, but they most certainly do NOT have the authority to enforce those rules against Facebook globally.

Rulings like these effectively trample on the sovereignty of other nations where one country's laws may not be the ones they've chosen to follow. This sort of issue has been a constant struggle in recent years with the US, as it's been attempting to overstep its bounds in similar ways. It's something we need to push back on regardless of where it occurs if we want to have any hope of encouraging the US and others to be good neighbors by confining their rulings to their borders.

* I know there are some country-level courts that can make rulings that are binding across country borders within the EU, but, as an American, I don't really have an awareness of which courts those are or if this is one of them.

Re:if we learned anything in the past

[Sperbels]

No reason to pull out. Just have to let the Austrian government block facebook. No effort required.

Re:if we learned anything in the past

[Anonymous Coward]

And let local Austrians continue using US proxies and VPNs.

Re:if we learned anything in the past

[Midnight Thunder]

I suppose all content can be blocked as NSFA (not safe for Austria), by default, unless the user certifies it Austria friendly?

Re:if we learned anything in the past

[mrbester]

That's exactly what everybody in ROW thinks when a US court decides something must happen outside US borders.

Re:if we learned anything in the past

[thomas.galvin]

Seems like they're trying to play games to control speech worldwide.

There's no "seems like"; that is explicitly what the Austrian court ruled. "We don't like this, therefore it is illegal around the world."

Re:if we learned anything in the past

[fustakrakich]

The danger isn't Austria per se. The bigger problem is the Greens. They're a global outfit. If they can win there, they can win anywhere. It's important to vote them out of the seats they have until they learn what freedom means. The freedom to 'offend' is essential.

Re: if we learned anything in the past

[Anonymous Coward]

Arnold was pretty moderate for a Californian Democrat.

He was Republican...

Re:if we learned anything in the past

[Flea of Pain]

In before the Austrian government sees this and demands Slashdot remove it across the world.

Re:if we learned anything in the past

[badzilla]

Remember the last time an Austrian tried to dictate policy globally?

You mean when Max Schrems got Safe Harbor overturned? I sure do!

Re:if we learned anything in the past

[FunkSoulBrother]

I think the number of Facebook users who understand what a proxy or VPN is and how to use one is vanishingly small. But sure.

Re:if we learned anything in the past

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you sure Facebook actually has a subsidiary in Austria? Their locations page show no office there.

Re:if we learned anything in the past

[Holi]

Does it though? I can find no references to Facebook operating in Austria.

I say close down the country specific url and call it a day.

"The case - brought by Austria's Green party over insults to its leader " - yep political censorship at it's finest.

Re:if we learned anything in the past

[Anonymous Coward]

they would probably learn quite fast.

Re:if we learned anything in the past

[Holi]

It seems that Facebook does not have offices in Austria
https://www.google.com/maps/d/...

So in what way can Austria enforce this "ruling"?

Re:if we learned anything in the past

[Anonymous Cow Ward]

Huh. That's actually a great point, and upon looking further I also can't find one. It seems they run most of their European operations out of Dublin. Which makes the court ruling even more puzzling. Even so, it should only have to follow Austrian law/court orders within Austrian borders.

Re:if we learned anything in the past

[Holi]

"While the subsidiary is within the court's jurisdiction"

That's the rub, there is no Austrian subsidiary of Facebook. This would have to be done under EU law as no part of Facebook actually resides in Austrian jurisdiction.

Re:if we learned anything in the past

[Anonymous Coward]

they would probably learn quite fast.

They're Facebook users. They've already self-selected as "cannot learn." So no.

Re:if we learned anything in the past

[Anonymous Cow Ward]

My guess would be through some legal framework within the EU, but I don't know. Maybe if FB does not comply, they can go through the EU courts and fine their office in Ireland?

Re:if we learned anything in the past

[FunkSoulBrother]

they would probably learn quite fast.

Ironically, the Nazis posting the hate speech probably would. Because they would take it as a personal affront and would see a victory in beating the system.

I think the average users (teenagers, housewives, grandmas) who would get caught up in the fallout would just move on to some other social media site, Facebook isn't THAT sticky.

Re:if we learned anything in the past

[Anonymous Coward]

No they aren't It's arrogant presumption to say that a company was once in our border, so we can rule over them all over the world no matter what country they are currently in.

It's time to start insulting and hating the Austria leader more. How many of you remember the Barbara Streisand effect?

Re: if we learned anything in the past

[Anonymous Coward]

The biggest problem with this direction is that what if Iran or some such country rules at their highest court that Facebook must remove all anti-Islamic references worldwide? Heck, if this is allowed, every court in the world can start trying to impose their own worldwide laws (on the internet).

Re:if we learned anything in the past

[mjwx]

Right lads, we can compromise our world wide business or we can pull out of Austria. Hmmmmmm decisions.

A pretty stupid move.

The Austrian court has overstepped their bounds here, but ignoring the ruling just means they'll legally be able to take actions against Facebook in other countries (at the very least, EU wide). I expect Facebook to appeal this decision and to demonstrate the the Austrian court's authority does not extend past Austrian borders.

I'm certain this will be defeated in an appeal (not that you'll hear about it mind you).

Re:if we learned anything in the past

[mjwx]

What, or who, defines "hate" speech? I found the above two posts to be funny... but if some hyper-"sensitive" person complained about similar postings (on facebook), would it then be considered hateful? If I posted "Jesus loves you" and 10,000 people reported it as being hateful, would it be removed? Is there an internet vote on each potential post before removal?

Like you, I found the above posts funny.

"Hate" speech is a actually well defined, its centred around the concept of intent. With the above post, the intent was humour. Hate speech requires a clear malicious intent.

Hate speech is not actually a crime, it's a catch all word used to dumb down a very complex legal issue for people who have trouble breathing with their mouths closed. Certainly in the UK you'll never be charged with "hate" crimes, if you are charged the exact nature of the bigotry will be in the accusation (I.E. racism, xenophobia) and it will almost never be for a single comment. In order to be bad enough to be bought before the court, it must be a concerted effort. Usually when we define a "hate" crime in the legal sense, we're talking about a protected attribute like race, religion and gender.

Making a single racist or anti-Semitic comment wont get you dragged up in front of a judge. Repeatedly threatening someone because they're black/Jewish/gay/has ginger hair will.

Now whether FB would remove a post because "hyper-sensitive" people complained. Well that is commonplace, but its nothing to do with the government of any country, rather Facebooks policies and I suspect they have automated it so that if a post gets X reports, it's gone regardless of if it were offensive or not.

Re:if we learned anything in the past

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't get past the ad bløcker bløcker....

Is there anythïng in thëre abøut the majestik møøse?

Re:if we learned anything in the past

[Anonymous Coward]

the company is operating in Austria and probably has an Austrian-registered company, meaning it is well with in the jurisdiction of austrian courts to make that order

I suspect if this ruling holds, continued operation in Austria will be an open question and a corporate restructuring is eminent to avoid this cross-national situation.

For example, each country could have an operation which licenses facebook content (kind of like newspapers license AP or Reuters' content). A country could rule that the local operation needs to censor the content, but the provider of source content (like AP or Reuters' content) would not have an operation in the country, so any *world-wide* ban would be out of the local courts' jurisdiction.

Re:if we learned anything in the past

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah this is true! And if the USA want a free trade agreement with the EU, it can be taken up a notch. See investor state disputes.

Re:if we learned anything in the past

[Anonymous Coward]

It can order whatever it likes. Enforcement is a separate issue.

Re:if we learned anything in the past

[fustakrakich]

Not only does this ruling need to be overruled, but more importantly, the Greens need to be voted out of the office seats they have until they learn to respect free speech rights. Using this case against them is a good way to start. Even the American's 1st Amendment isn't safe from them if they become too popular. Shame to lose another party to this crap.

Re:if we learned anything in the past

[Anonymous Coward]

Nein, but I am fuhrerous!

Re: if we learned anything in the past

[WillAffleckUW]

No, that's Internet 3. We're not saving the old Internets. You guys don't even have 40 Gbps on that.

We're cooking with solar!

Re:if we learned anything in the past

[mysidia]

Illegal around the world according to the Austrian court, perhaps, now let the plaintiffs take that ruling to the courts in the other countries Facebook operates in and try and have them agree....

Re:if we learned anything in the past

[Anonymous Coward]

But they also have direct experience with the effects from hate speech.

Re:if we learned anything in the past

[rogoshen1]

probably by compelling Austrian ISP's to block access to FB.

Re:if we learned anything in the past

[mysidia]

If you have a child move to Austria, does that subject you to Austrian law too?

It depends. Is the child's name shared on the title to any property in your care back in the US?
Maybe there's some far-fetched scenario where the Austrian court could order your child to list their assets, and then order they turn over title to your home in the US to creditors in order to satisfy a debt, their creditors could then come to the US and try to force a foreclosure on your property or repo on your car.

Re:if we learned anything in the past

[mysidia]

That's the rub, there is no Austrian subsidiary of Facebook.

The subsidiary has activities within the court's jurisdiction, because they're conducting commerce within Austria (Austrian User accounts, Advertising, Publication of their website to users in Austria). When you conduct commerce in another country, your entire company becomes subject to that country's laws.

For example, if your company does business in the US, then your company's worldwide income becomes subject to taxation by the IRS.

While the Austrian court might not see Eye to Eye with the lawmakers in Facebook's home country: If Facebook refuses to follow the court order, there's a possibility the Austrian court might be persuaded to start issuing criminal sanctions against people in company management for contempt of court.

In similar situations, the US has been able to extradite people for less. For breaking its own laws when they never physically left their own country.

Re: if we learned anything in the past

[unami]

It sets a legal precedent for the whole EU, though.

Re: if we learned anything in the past

[Anonymous Coward]

Who gives a fuck about the 1st amendment in austria. Abide by the rules of the country you operate in or don't operate in that country. I bet an Austrian Facebook will be 90% used within the month.

Re:if we learned anything in the past

[interkin3tic]

Well they won't want to give an uncontested market to... um... google plus?

Re:if we learned anything in the past

[Altrag]

That would have to go through US courts though. The Austrian government can't just claim property on US soil arbitrarily, even if that child was sole owner of the asset.

Now the US courts will likely take the Austrian ruling into account, and essentially decide whether to uphold the request or not. But they Austrian government still has to go through the procedure in the US.

The FB thing is a totally different issue. Because the internet is globally connected, some neo-Nazi jackass in Utah can post some racist hate speech on FB, which would likely be stored on FB's US servers, but an Austrian citizen could potentially still discover it.

Lots of countries (including my own here -- Canada) have been trying to apply their internet rulings worldwide because of this. Jurisdiction is a heck of a problem though and courts around the world are essentially just testing their boundaries because there's no real precedent for how to deal with the problem of cross-jurisdictional information.

Eventually I imagine we're going to have to end up with some sort of internet court where countries can bring these complaints and that does have jurisdiction over such border-spanning issues. I don't know whether that will be a good thing or a bad thing in the long run, but I can't see anything good coming out of the current situation -- the absolute best scenario is that we keep the status quo where countries can only enforce rulings within their borders that are essentially meaningless due to the border-agnostic nature of the internet.

Re: if we learned anything in the past

[Anonymous Coward]

Bla bla bla. Free speech is much more important than your stupid Austria. They can can in hell! They sure as hell have no right to tell anybody outside their borders what to do.

Re:if we learned anything in the past

[K. S. Kyosuke]

I have no objections when it comes to Slashdot removing the Austrian government across the world.

Re: if we learned anything in the past

[Anonymous Coward]

By Nazis I assume you mean liberals. They are very similar in beliefs. You aren't specific but it makes sense.

Re: if we learned anything in the past

[Anonymous Coward]

You wouldn't know Fascism if it kicked you in the nuts.

You sound like a 13 year old punk who thinks he's an Anarchist but wouldn't know an Anarchist if he was kicked in the nuts by one.

Re: if we learned anything in the past

[FunkSoulBrother]

By Nazis I assume you mean liberals. They are very similar in beliefs. You aren't specific but it makes sense.

You are incorrect. I am hating on honest-to-god swastika toting, jew-hating, white nationalist Nazis that are growing in power in America. Hate on 'liberals' all you want, but you'll have to come up with another name for whatever they are up to since Nazi-ism is already defined and not really applicable here.

Re:if we learned anything in the past

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit. Your armchair lawyering is completely wrong.

Re:if we learned anything in the past

[KitFox]

I appreciate dangling participles almost as much as I appreciate people who make them into jokes.

Re:if we learned anything in the past

[Anonymous Coward]

[E]xplicitly what the Austrian court ruled. "We don't like this, therefore it is illegal around the world."

Can we have a citation for that quote?

Re: if we learned anything in the past

[Anonymous Coward]

Arnold was pretty moderate for a Californian Democrat.

wasn't he Republican?

Re:if we learned anything in the past

[Anonymous Coward]

You need to learn about the concept of subsidiaries. Facebook US is a separate entity from Facebook EU. No matter what these Austrian courts order Facebook EU to do, Facebook EU can't force Facebook US to delete any insults, such as Austria's leader is a corrupt bumpkin, or their justice system is run by totalitarians with global delusions of grandeur. Just for example mind you.

Re:if we learned anything in the past

[freudigst]

I think it's safe to say you've never been to Austria, and you haven't read a sentence about modern history since high school.

I would even conjecture to say that this is exactly how the bankers running your country want it to be. This, from a (clearly fellow) American.

Re: if we learned anything in the past

[Anonymous Coward]

Ain't none of those around except in your imagination.

Re:if we learned anything in the past

[Anonymous Coward]

That's exactly what everybody in ROW thinks when a US court decides something must happen outside US borders.

An example of this happening might be elucidating.

Re: if we learned anything in the past

[FunkSoulBrother]

Ain't none of those around except in your imagination.

It really doesn't matter if you're trolling or disingenuously lying here, denying them either way just makes you complicit in their crimes.

Re: if we learned anything in the past

[Anonymous Coward]

And where did you see people like that?
Give us a date and a place where YOU did see people with swastika flag?

Re: if we learned anything in the past

[FunkSoulBrother]

In Tennessee, in February of this year.

Re:if we learned anything in the past

[almitydave]

but I can't see anything good coming out of the current situation

The potential good is that speech is more free and harder to censor. Sure, there are downsides to that, in the occasions when you do have a legitimate reason to clamp down on something; but in general the dangers to the public of over-censoring are greater than under-censoring. At least if individual liberty and human rights are your priorities.

Re:if we learned anything in the past

[Anonymous Coward]

Better: translate them into African and forget them. No information loss, only transformation. I bet translation will lose verbosity.

Farenheight 451

[goombah99]

ANyone ever read Ray Bradburys forward on why he wrote F451? He wrote it years later and it was included in some editions. He described something akin to creeping political correctness arguments put forth by narrow interest groups were going to strangle all expression because everything offends somebody. The solution the politicians favor is to ban things that offend. So soon books would be not only banned but people would go out of their way to try to make sure nobody could have access to offensive books. It would all be bread and circuses.

At the time I read that, San Francisco was going through a phase where the public libraries were Bolwderizing Mary Poppins so that the slang spoken by the Black maid was converted to a more respectable kings english. Original copies were pulled from the libraries.

I felt he had a point. It doesn't really matter if the book is offensive. Protecting people from offense is worse.

Re:Farenheight 451

[goombah99]

Adding to my own post. I'm all in favor of community standards and even community laws that ban behaviours. Even libertarians should be in favor of not interferring with communities that want to regulate themselves. It's a free country. But banning something in someone elses community because you don't like it is something to fear.

Re:Farenheight 451

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not afraid. The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.

Re:Farenheight 451

[Anonymous Coward]

"ANyone ever read Ray Bradburys forward "

Who is Ray Bradburys? And I always read forward, did you read it backwards??

Did you mean FOREWORD?

Sheesh.

Re:Farenheight 451

[PopeRatzo]

Do you really think there are fewer venues in which you can give offense today than there were 50 years ago?

By the way, I fucked your mother in the ass.

Re:Farenheight 451

[Anonymous Coward]

In Europe, you can get arrested for making a tasteless joke.

A while ago in Glasgow, a bin lorry driver fell asleep at the wheel and crashed into a bunch of people. Someone tweeted "That's the most trash it's picked up all week" and got arrested for it.

Re:Farenheight 451

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a free country.

I agree with your post(s), except for this "detail" - i think you confuse Austria (and/or E.U.) with U.S.A. (maybe you are from the U.S.A.?).

I am a Greek (so, also from the E.U.) and i must help you understand that this "free speech" thing many/most people from the U.S.A. consider a God given sacred human right of the individual, in the basically Socialist/Communist Europe it is just a privilege granted from the state (the organized society/community).

As for the "hate speech" in this case, it is posts that simply describe the Austria's Green party (which is a leftist party, as all "Green" parties in Europe) leader Eva Glawischnig as "corrupted" and "traitor" - so, in Austria you can not call a politician "corrupted" and "traitor"!

The only hope is for God to bless America - or this would happen to the world...

Re:Farenheight 451

[Anonymous Coward]

Say that when your running from a grizzly.

Re:Farenheight 451

[CrimsonAvenger]

By the way, I fucked your mother in the ass.

If she enjoyed it, fine.

If not, I'm going to have to sue you on her behalf for offending her by being a terrible fucker....

Re: Farenheight 451

[Anonymous Coward]

That why we take our guns to school at the DeVos brainwashing academy

Re:Farenheight 451

[93 Escort Wagon]

ANyone ever read Ray Bradburys forward on why he wrote F451? .

The thing I remember about the forward was Bradbury's explanation of the book's title - and how he had a dickens of a time finding the temperature at which book paper caught fire. After striking out with reference librarians and researchers, in desperation he called up his local fire station... which provided the answer to him within seconds.

Re:Farenheight 451

[GLMDesigns]

Amen.

This is something that both the Left and Right should get together on. Free Speech means just that. The government should not censor thought and its expression,. And, Yes there can be very limited limitations such as the incitement to IMMEDIATE violence.

"Kill X now." x={blacks,whites, jews, christians, muslims, Trump, Obama, Bush ...}

or creating a panic situation such as FALSELY crying fire in a crowded theater.

Re:Farenheight 451

[Anonymous Coward]

Adding to my own post. I'm all in favor of community standards and even community laws that ban behaviours. Even libertarians should be in favor of not interferring with communities that want to regulate themselves. It's a free country. But banning something in someone elses community because you don't like it is something to fear.

Where does one community start and the other end?

Re:Farenheight 451

[Anonymous Coward]

In a world where even basic scientific facts like "boys and girls are different" are considered hate speech, everyone should be concerned. And I'm talking about this world. Today. Not something from fiction.

Re:Farenheight 451

[jandersen]

He described something akin to creeping political correctness arguments put forth by narrow interest groups were going to strangle all expression because everything offends somebody.

He had a point, of course, but the arguments can also be turned the other way - anti-PC has already become the new PC, where anyone who dares to criticise hate speech, anti-science stories or similar, is shouted down and bullied, and where every sober presentation of facts is met with a mindless repetition of falsehoods that have long since been disproved. Ironically, the self-same people who are anti-PC and anti-science, are also talking the loudest about 'freedom of speech' as if they knew or cared, completely disregarding that there is no freedom, unless you are willing to let others enjoy the same freedom as yourself. The oppressor is inevitably his own jailor.

Re:Farenheight 451

[clonehappy]

Show some respect for this Internet you've got: you could lose it.

Stop being so dramatic. That ship has sailed, long ago. We have pervasive TCP/IP support in every device, literally from toasters and refrigerators on up to big-iron servers. Internetworked communications aren't going anywhere. We might have to route around assholes like you who want censorship-disguised-as-couth, but the network will be fine.

That being said, I don't disagree that keyboard muscles seem to grow a lot faster these days, but singling out "The_Donald" for example is disingenuous and you know it. Everyone on the internet, from far-left communists and fascists to right-wing tinfoil hat nutters use the ban button as their method of choice when dealing with opinions and facts they don't want to hear. Keeping your mouth shut is of course a virtue sometimes, but being forced by some borg enterprise to shut your mouth with no recourse is something else entirely.

I'm not sure why, but leftists especially seem to think that not saying something because you're level-headed and being shut down by force are somehow equal.

Re:Farenheight 451

[PopeRatzo]

If not, I'm going to have to sue you on her behalf for offending her by being a terrible fucker....

I'm an average fucker at best.

Re:Farenheight 451

[fustakrakich]

In Europe, you can get arrested for making a tasteless joke.

In the U.S. you can get arrested, and convicted for laughing at a tasteless joke.

Re:Farenheight 451

[fustakrakich]

Protecting people from offense is worse.

I think the sad part is that it turns out the Greens are behind this. What a bunch of fascists! I hope (but don't expect) they lose lots of votes over it. I'll never consider them again until they straighten up.

Re:Farenheight 451

[Anonymous Coward]

Shut the fuck up, Sheldon.

Re:Farenheight 451

[Anonymous Coward]

Go back to reddit if you want to be pedantic. You knew what the poster meant. If you want to be pedantic then start with your own use of the language. Starting a sentence with 'And'?

Sheesh.

Re:Farenheight 451

[Anonymous Coward]

What rubbish thinking! You're thinking like a member of that vatnik propaganda import you are so quick to defend. Do you really think that if push comes to shove, we can't legislate the Internet in a pushback? Just who is being dramatic with these wild fantasies of Internet libertarianism?

You seem to be trapped in a naive IT intern's fairy tale where OSI layers are somehow above the "human stack." I don't know what to tell you if you think that backbone providers can't be made to submit, or made complicit in BGP fuckery, or that we can't ratchet down the concept of global availability by incremental policymaking.

Also, 'jer boi Trump is setting the groundwork to make that happen by killing off net neutrality. Won't be much healthy debate or conversation left when lobbyists get to make suggestions on who gets the 9600 baud tier by default, or whose sites accidentally get blackholed by various means both technical and not--Downie-in-Chief already showing his willingness to go on witchhunts for Twitter users, no surprise his admiration for autocrats like Erdogan and Putin--so you may want to rethink your position, again, while you are still allowed to express one on the open Internet.

Re:Farenheight 451

[Opportunist]

You think that's bad? You can get into trouble for making a PC joke. Like, say,

"I think it's a good sign on our way to more political correctness that the only recent US president that wasn't compared to a monkey is the black one"

Re:Farenheight 451

[Opportunist]

The network is worthless if you can't use it for what you want to use it. What good is a set of teeth if you have no food?

Re: Farenheight 451

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't criticize the state not its leaders, so basically you have no meaningful free speech PERIOD

Re:Farenheight 451

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, antifa and the loony left want the US to stop imposing its will on the world.

Re:Farenheight 451

[SuricouRaven]

But they are not together.

The Right believes in freedom of speech, so long as that speech doesn't involve dirty words, or contain any type of sexually explicit material, or offend their God or holy text, or undermine patriotic values.

The Left believes in freedom of speech, so long as that speech isn't in any way offensive to anyone, who worded in such way (even unintentionally) as to exclude a protected minority group, or promoting even non-violent hostility towards same.

They both say they value freedom of speech, but then are happy to make a lot of exceptions. They only differ on the choice of exceptions.

Re: Farenheight 451

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't qualify it with "leftists". Everyone mistakes coercion for compliance in some area. We do not know exactly why people do the things they do. We like to believe people are generally kind and rational; Statistically, they are. Everyone has doubts about their actions and no one should assume people agree with policies simply because there are few dissenting opinions.

Re:Farenheight 451

[moeinvt]

"FALSELY crying fire in a crowded theater."

That particular restriction is not a limitation on speech. It is protection of private property rights.

The government does not have the power to ban Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" speech. Imagine trying to recite that speech in a crowded theater and refusing to leave when asked. You would likely be arrested, but not because the government has the power to restrict certain types of speech. For the same reason, you can't barge into someone's house and claim that you have a First Amendment Right to speak. You do have a Right to speak, but that doesn't entitle you to create a disturbance on private property.

Re:Farenheight 451

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck Glasgow, then.

Re:Farenheight 451

[GLMDesigns]

So then Libertarians and free-market atheists are not "Right"?

Antifa would disagree.

Free market libertarian types don't give a f**k about those examples - and except for a limited few no one on the right wants to make laws regarding blasphemy. Sexually explicit material is fine for most except for being front and center to children - that limitation is not on the item but the presentation. Remember we're talking about the "Right" in 2017, not 1957.

Remember "Right" doesn't mean anything. It just means "Not Left."

Why do I say that? Because individualism != collectivism.
Atheism != Theism
Free Market capitalism != Corporatism != State Regulated Economy

So if an individualist, atheist and free market person such as Ayn Rand is Right Wing then a proponent of a state regulated economy, a collectivist, and theist, such as Patrick Buchanan cannot be Right Wing (and vice versa).

As mentioned earlier "Right Wing" today simply means "Not Let". And "Far Right" means "Really, Really Not Left".

Re:Farenheight 451

[GLMDesigns]

Nice!!!

100% agree. It is a property rights issue. So the alternative would be dropping fire crackers and shooting gunman in a crowded public space knowing full well that there would be a panic and there would be a reasonable assumption that people might get hurt.

Re:Farenheight 451

[Anonymous Coward]

ANyone ever read Ray Bradburys forward on why he wrote F451?

I suspect that you're referring to the coda, not the foreward. It's available online at

http://rjgeib.com/thoughts/451/451.html

Re:Farenheight 451

[mjwx]

Adding to my own post. I'm all in favor of community standards and even community laws that ban behaviours. Even libertarians should be in favor of not interferring with communities that want to regulate themselves. It's a free country. But banning something in someone elses community because you don't like it is something to fear.

This particular judge is overstepping their bounds, I expect Facebook to appeal and win if the decision isn't reversed sooner. This is less of an oppressive government and more of what the Americans would call an "activist judge".

Re:Farenheight 451

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a class of person that does not reflect on the big-picture consequences of their thoughtless knee-jerk reactions.

We call them "Extraverts."

Re:Farenheight 451

[HiThere]

Black Maid? The Mary Poppins books that I read didn't *have* a black maid. The maid's name *might* have been Sarah, but when she was described it was quite clear that she was caucasian and lower class (as seen by a banker's family).

Re:Farenheight 451

[vel-ex-tech]

Slight nitpick before I launch into crazy mode: You jumbled some letters in bowdlerization (redirects to that page).

Just for the peanut gallery:

The term derives from Thomas Bowdler's 1818 edition of William Shakespeare's plays, which he reworked in order to make them more suitable, in his opinion, for women and children. He similarly edited Edward Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.

The puritans have been at this for a while, and they're not going to stop any time soon. The real world is not childproof. etc etc. If anything, I would fault the Abrahamic religions with this. Political Correctness really is just an extension of puritanism, Victorianism, etc. That's how I really feel anyway.

Crazy mode engage!

San Francisco was going through a phase where the public libraries were Bolwderizing Mary Poppins so that the slang spoken by the Black maid was converted to a more respectable kings english. Original copies were pulled from the libraries.

You're behind the times, you LUDDITE! We freak out about transSEXuals now! They're editing everything so that nobody is allowed to identify within the gender dichotomy! All pronouns are being replaced with zie and zem and zhey! It's the end of the world! Your daughters are being raped in the bathroom by transgendered Illuminati lizard people!

Re:Farenheight 451

[Anonymous Coward]

The left doesn't equal the right. It's a lot more fragmented.

Those of us that are proper libertarians are almost always considered on the right and are strict in our interpretations of freedom of speech to include just about every fucking thing. The right has been drastically affected by getting in bed with the "social" conservatives but they haven't completely hijacked our philosophy, they've just hijacked our ability for reasonable candidates to be elected.

Re:Farenheight 451

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay, lower class maid. Perhaps not black.

Re:Farenheight 451

[SuricouRaven]

"and except for a limited few no one on the right wants to make laws regarding blasphemy. "

Laws, no, but the AFA and their like have been behind a few campaigns to have television series canceled by mass-complaining to the FCC or petitioning advertisers. I only learned of Lucifer because I read an article about them (can't remember just which agency, there are a few) condemning it for blasphemy and calling upon their supporters to file complaints.

"Free market libertarian types don't give a f**k about those examples"

They are also vanishingly rare in politics. Plenty of posers, though.

Right, left... currently they are for most purposes indistinguishable from republican and democrat. It's a consequence of a political system in which there are only two parties with a snowball's hope in hell of winning any election: People have to choose sides, and once they chose sides they no longer get to pick and choose on issues.

Re:Farenheight 451

[GLMDesigns]

"Free market libertarian types don't give a f**k about those examples"

They are also vanishingly rare in politics. Plenty of posers, though.

In elected office yes - but not as far as voters are concerned. I would place 5-10% of the Republican party in this camp (as regards pornography, speech, markets -- not drugs).

Re elected officials I would put most of the Freedom Caucus in this category. They are large enough to be heard.

Re:Farenheight 451

[moeinvt]

Who has the property rights when it comes to your "public space"? This type of scenario, which seems to necessitate restrictions on The Right to Free Speech, arises directly from the fact that the ownership of the property is not clearly defined. The guy shouting "gunman!" on his own property is within his rights. If the crowd owns the property, he's violating their rights. The nebulous "public" ownership obfuscates things.

Re:Farenheight 451

[interkin3tic]

I'd agree if "Someone is going to be offended" were the concern behind the cleanup, but it mentions "incitement to violence."

IMHO, we get to Fahrenheit 451 not by being overly concerned that people are going to get upset, but because people like Infowars and 4chan continue with swatting, releasing personal details, and spamming victims. State-sponsored hacking and propaganda too.

Any government whose goal is to clamp down on free speech that says "Oh, people might get upset if they see uncensored twitter" is a government too incompetent to be likely to make it stick. That's terrible marketing. They're going to sell you eroding your rights the same way they have forever: by saying it's for public safety.

Re:Farenheight 451

[GLMDesigns]

For the foreseeable future there will be common spaces: roads, sidewalks, parks. This is area that we all own, It's analogous to several couples sharing a brownstone (yes I'm a NYC guy). We may come to an agreement that pissing in the sink and having s3x in the common area is verboten. Cool. We came to an agreement on how to share our space.

The same thing holds true for public spaces.

Re:Farenheight 451

[JesseMcDonald]

So the alternative would be dropping fire crackers and shooting gunman in a crowded public space knowing full well that there would be a panic and there would be a reasonable assumption that people might get hurt.

Even then, the liability for any damage resulting specifically from people panicking properly lies with those who panicked and, in their state of panic, took actions which harmed others—not whoever "caused" the panic. The latter is liable for trespass against the property owner and whatever damage resulted from their demonstration, but not the actions of others.

The proper response to a claim of fire in a crowded theater is an orderly exit. If you trample others in your haste to escape then you are personally responsible for that harm, whether or not there really is a fire.

Never mind that the original "fire in a crowded theater" case was a politically-charged travesty and more about doing an end-run around the 1st Amendment to punish political speech in opposition to the Draft than any literal fires. The court made that ruling only because the obviously correct alternative (ruling that speaking against the Draft was protected speech) would have resulted in the President and Congress stacking the court with lackeys until they got their desired response. (This was before the Supreme Court was formally limited to a maximum of nine justices.)

Re:Farenheight 451

[JesseMcDonald]

Even libertarians should be in favor of not interferring with communities that want to regulate themselves.

The "unit of society" for libertarians is the individual, not the community. A libertarian would have no problem with individuals regulating their own behavior as part of a voluntary community which they joined of their own will and have the option of leaving. However, they would have a problem with a non-voluntary community—determined, for example, by birth or geographical boundaries—imposing regulations on its members by force. In practical terms, most "community standards" and "community laws" which would attempt to ban certain types of literature are of the latter category, involuntary rather than voluntary.

Re:Farenheight 451

[HornWumpus]

This is /.

Type: 'Fucking'...1000 times, you prude.

Re:Farenheight 451

[ebvwfbw]

It would all be bread and circuses.

Point well made... Wanted to comment on this part of what you said

No, there will be no more circuses. That's exploiting the animals, or someone, or something. We can't have that.

It's almost here. Especially with the "antifa" fascists. Society needs to mature back to where it was. Right now they're at about a 6 year old level.

Re:Farenheight 451

[GLMDesigns]

I have a filter on my company firewall. It won't go through, If I would quote your reply it would be blocked as well.

:(

Re:Farenheight 451

[HornWumpus]

https?

Don't do any banking or anything else important on that computer. You have a _bad_ root cert, put there by IT.

Re:Farenheight 451

[GLMDesigns]

Everything is monitored; every website visited..Words are flagged and blocked from delivery. Even words like pr0n, s3x - not to mention all the other words that would obviously be blocked.

Real simple solution...

[r_naked]

Tell them to piss off and block Austria from Facebook. I hate Facebook, but I can't stand it when some country (be it the USA, some member of the EU, or Austria) tries to enforce their laws on another country. Someone is going to have to eventually show them the middle finger.

Re:Real simple solution...

[r_naked]

UGH - some *other* member of the EU. One word makes all the difference ... sigh.

Re:Real simple solution...

[Anonymous Coward]

You won't be so quick to flip Austria off when their stormtroopers are marching through your streets enforcing the laws with quick and brutal efficiency.

Re:Real simple solution...

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. The people want Facebook more that any single politician. Facebook, google, etc. just need to pull out of the country and then return once the public has thrown those leaders out of office.

Re:Real simple solution...

[nitehawk214]

Austria doesn't have a navy and they are in the southern hemisphere. How would they even get over to North America or Europe?

Re:Real simple solution...

[stealth_finger]

You won't be so quick to flip Austria off when their stormtroopers are marching through your streets enforcing the laws with quick and brutal efficiency.

C'mon, we all know storm troopers can't hit shit.

Re:Real simple solution...

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait. What?

Re:Real simple solution...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, if they have storm troopers we are safe!

Re:Real simple solution...

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that supposed to be a joke or are you really that stupid?

Re:Real simple solution...

[misexistentialist]

You think Zuckerberg will defend users' freedom? He wants to enslave them more than anyone

Re:Real simple solution...

[budgenator]

Corvette Captain Georg Johannes Ritter[1] (Knight) von Trapp (4 April 1880 – 30 May 1947), often incorrectly referred to as Baron (Freiherr) von Trapp, was an Austro-Hungarian Navy officer.[2][3] His naval exploits during World War I earned him numerous decorations, including the prestigious Military Order of Maria Theresa. Under his command, the submarines SM U-5 and SM U-14 sank 13 Allied ships totaling about 45,669 gross register tons (GRT). Georg von Trapp

Wrong Austria, it's the one between Switzerland and Germany.

Re:Real simple solution...

[fustakrakich]

Tell them to piss off

Tell the Greens the same thing. They're the ones behind this, and they won't limit their efforts to just Austria. They'll be taking the act on the road. We need to send a message and vote them out.

Re:Real simple solution...

[Opportunist]

Only if you find enough people who can use light sabers.

Re:Real simple solution...

[Anonymous Coward]

Congratulations, you got one to bite.

Re:Real simple solution...

[colinrichardday]

Eastern Hemisphere.

Re:Real simple solution...

[nitehawk214]

4, biters, and one downvote. Yep, Slashdot is dead stupid.

I'm going to get Slashdot in trouble

[MightyYar]

Austria's leader is a giant douche. He rapes babies. Once I saw him watching hardcore bestiality porn in his car, stealing WiFi from a nearby cafe. I hate him. This is hate speech.

Re:I'm going to get Slashdot in trouble

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet strangely, this didn't change my opinion of the guy.
It's probably because snowflakes melt when they land on me.

Re:I'm going to get Slashdot in trouble

[MightyYar]

Well, sure she's a she NOW, after her surgery. Hate!

Re:I'm going to get Slashdot in trouble

[Anonymous Coward]

*zhe

Re:I'm going to get Slashdot in trouble

[ReeceTarbert]

Austria's leader is a giant douche. He rapes babies. Once I saw him watching hardcore bestiality porn in his car, stealing WiFi from a nearby cafe. I hate him. This is hate speech.

No, I think this could be technically described as libel: "the communication of a false statement that harms the reputation of someone".

Calling Frau Eva Glawischnig "lousy traitor" and "corrupt bumpkin" certainly doesn't qualify as hate speech either, or at least it shouldn't, but once the proper legislation is in place it doesn't take long to abuse it, and in fact this sound more like censorship to me. A more sensible course of action would have been to have Facebook reveal the identity of the poster and bring him to court but, let's face it, even insulting someone is far from libel material!

RT.

Re:I'm going to get Slashdot in trouble

[stealth_finger]

Austria's leader is a giant douche. He rapes babies. Once I saw him watching hardcore bestiality porn in his car, stealing WiFi from a nearby cafe. I hate him. This is hate speech.

Down with this sort of thing

Re:I'm going to get Slashdot in trouble

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone desperately needs an anatomy lesson.

Oh wait, this is Slashdot, that'll be useless.

Re:I'm going to get Slashdot in trouble

[Opportunist]

Really?

Wow, that bland idiot is more interesting than I gave him credit.

Re:I'm going to get Slashdot in trouble

[cellocgw]

Austria's leader is a giant douche. He rapes babies. Once I saw him watching hardcore bestiality porn in his car, stealing WiFi from a nearby cafe. I hate him. This is hate speech.

I am Down with this sort of thing

FTFY.

Re:I'm going to get Slashdot in trouble

[Repentinus]

No, I think this could be technically described as libel[.]

Not in the US. Only false statements of fact or opinions implying false statements of fact can be defamatory in the US. The original message is clearly hyperbole and no reasonable person would interpret it as a false statement of fact in its context, so no US court would find it libellous either.

Re:I'm going to get Slashdot in trouble

[Anonymous Coward]

There have been many child abuse rings among the people in powerful positions. I don't know the prime minister of Austria, so depending of the source and it's context it might not be hyperbole at all. But saying that somebody is in fact a plastic sanitary device used before anal intercourse and in fashionable wellness treatments is clearly false and may indeed indicate the hyperbole mentioned.

Re:I'm going to get Slashdot in trouble

[colinrichardday]

OP (MightyYar) said leader of Austria, not the Green Party

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

Or Just Exclude Austria From Facebook

[Anonymous Coward]

Way to go, Austria. Facebook simply excludes your entire country, and now you have no jurisdiction.

If thine eye offends you, pluck it out.

I did not know!

[tomxor]

... That Austria was the ruler of the world.

Seriously though, when countries do this they are just showing that they are still growing up, they have politicians that haven't been exposed to the real world where people can and will call you names, and the internet is just a larger more accessible world.

Re:I did not know!

[Anonymous Coward]

This discussion is just begging to have Godwin's Law apply to it.

Re:I did not know!

[Anonymous Coward]

This discussion is just begging to have Godwin's Law apply to it.

Lol... number of comments between OP and Hitler = 2

Re:I did not know!

[BronsCon]

To further that point:

Next, we'll have Austria invading countries that offend their sensibilities and, of course, they'll be compared to the USA for doing so. And rightly so, I suppose; after all, when we do it, it's not like we're overthrowing a murderous dictator or putting a stop to the development of chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons that might be used against us, or any other country who'd rather roast us for getting involved rather than backing our protection of their interests.

Of course, the US is involved in some pretty fucked up stuff, as well; I'm not claiming we're perfect and fault-free. But really, when Austria starts invading countries over stupid shit like this, please don't go comparing them to the US. Remember what has come out of Austria in the past, all the hate and death and suffering, the invasion of neighboring countries that resulted.

Coming full circle, getting back on topic, please remember that all of this was the result of banning political dissent under the guise of "hate speech".

Re:I did not know!

[HiThere]

Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be a country in the world that doesn't have people that feel that way in power. Some are more blatant about it than others. And by "in power" I don't necessarily mean the top spot, though I also don't exclude it. The courts in the US have done similar things. So has Britain. I believe I've heard basically similar rulings from every major country that is English speaking, and the one's that don't aren't covered well in the media that I follow.

Re:I did not know!

[colinrichardday]

And what jurisdiction does Godwin have?

Re:I did not know!

[djinn6]

The mighty Godwin's Law rules over discussion forums, social media posts, comment sections, group chats and image boards. It spawns shit posts, derails discussions and brings hatred to the threads. Cursed are those who follow it, but follow it they must. There is no other choice.

Re:I did not know!

[colinrichardday]

I'm well aware of Godwin's Law. By what means does it "rule" over discussions?

Re:I did not know!

[djinn6]

Please don't think so hard about a joke.

Re:I did not know!

[tomxor]

Your absolutely right, in fact Britain where I live has some of the worst laws in this regard, they are actively endanger freedom of speech (which we never had) by having purposely vague laws along the lines of "public vulgarity" or some nonsense.

However it's when a country attempts to imposes it's own laws on the web or entities on the web in ways that would affect all other countries that they have really lost the plot.

Jurisdiction?

[sinij]

Austrian court can pass any law they want, however how do they expect to enforce this outside of their jurisdiction? Under what legal authority?

Re:Jurisdiction?

[fred6666]

I guess they would be fine if the content was blocked in Austria but it's probably easier to block it worldwide (for Facebook)

Re:Jurisdiction?

[spikenerd]

I would guess that they intend to enforce it the same way every country enforces laws that reach outside of their jurisdiction. They levy unreasonable penalties against the portion of the company within their jurisdiction until they get what they want from the company as a whole. The companies almost always comply in the long run out of fear of losing business in that country to some other company that will comply. Very few large companies have the chutzpah to sacrifice a portion of their market just to take a moral stand. Governments everywhere know that, and that knowledge is what gives them "authority".

Re:Jurisdiction?

[AHuxley]

If its too hard to create a block list just for Austria, just block the world.
Wait for every theocracy, monarchy and kingdom try this over cartoon issues.
China has issues with terms like Tiananmen Square, protests,1989.
Oother nations communist parties want to protect their leadership and history too.

Re:Jurisdiction?

[Anonymous Coward]

Israelis can expect the entire world to protect their feelings, as can Muslims (Charlie Hebdo really brought the French in line!) so why not Austrians?

Re:Jurisdiction?

[Anonymous Coward]

how do they expect to enforce this

Confiscate all of Zuckerberg's property and march him into a camp.

I'm surprised Mark hasn't played the Shoah card yet.

Re:Jurisdiction?

[bluefoxlucid]

No, they said specifically that blocking it in Austria doesn't remove it from the world, and it needs to be removed from the whole world.

Re:Jurisdiction?

[fred6666]

I guess another alternative is for Facebook to stop doing business, selling advertisement and registering users in Austria.

Re:Jurisdiction?

[Anonymous Coward]

Google in China anyone?

Re:Jurisdiction?

[Opportunist]

Well, an election is coming in Austria. Not officially yet, but all signs point to early elections in 2018.

Do you want to be the party that gets to explain that FB pulled out of the country because of you?

Re:Jurisdiction?

[Actually, I do RTFA]

But what you describe seems entirely reasonable. Suppose Saudi Arabia had a law that no store could sell pork products, inside or outside Saudi Arabia, and have a business in Saudi Arabia. I would fully expect that WalMart would not have any Saudi Arabian stores. Alternatively, that they would pay the fines for violating that law. I would not think that WalMart could blithely ignore the law, or what would be the moral justification for that.

You might think it was a stupid law, but I fail to see how it's not a just law.

Re:Jurisdiction?

[Gojira Shipi-Taro]

I doubt that Austria itself constitutes a significant fraction of Facebook's market.

Re:Jurisdiction?

[swillden]

Oops, accidentally modded "Overrated". Posting to undo mod.

You Cannot Give Offense

[RobotRunAmok]

You can only take it.

Re:You Cannot Give Offense

[goombah99]

You can only take it.

Fuck you

Re:You Cannot Give Offense

[Anonymous Coward]

If someone offends you, you should apologize to them because...

1: You took offense at something not intended to be offensive.
2: You took offense purely to start a fight.
3: You did something in the past to warrant being subject to offensive matter.

If none of the above apply, you should ignore the person and not feed the troll. Otherwise, apologize for your loss of control.

Re:You Cannot Give Offense

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, but I'm rather selective. Thank you anyway.

Re:You Cannot Give Offense

[Anonymous Coward]

You're welcome.

Re:You Cannot Give Offense

[mwvdlee]

You CAN take offense, you don't HAVE to.

Re:You Cannot Give Offense

[Anonymous Coward]

In that case, roll over and take it like a man!

Re:You Cannot Give Offense

[DickBreath]

I would only take offense if it is free or at a sufficiently low enough price.

Give me liberty or give me something of equal or lesser value.

Re:You Cannot Give Offense

[larryjoe]

If someone offends you, you should apologize to them because...

1: You took offense at something not intended to be offensive.
2: You took offense purely to start a fight.
3: You did something in the past to warrant being subject to offensive matter.

If none of the above apply, you should ignore the person and not feed the troll. Otherwise, apologize for your loss of control.

I look at this differently. In my mind, there is a huge difference between feeling offended and actions triggered by feelings of offense. There's nothing wrong with feeling offended. Those are simply feelings and internal thoughts. However, the targeting of feelings and thoughts as immoral or impermissible is an attempt at mind control and freedom of conscience and should be challenged.

This is what I try to teach my kids, that there's nothing wrong with feeling mad, frustrated, or offended. They are responsible for their actions and how they treat other people, but no one can tell them that their feelings are wrong.

Re:You Cannot Give Offense

[Catiline]

You Cannot Give Offense, you can only take it.

Fuck you

Certainly -- before or after dinner?

Re:You Cannot Give Offense

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh. Is that how it works? I'm sorry for your extra chromosomes :(

Pretty sure

[Anonymous Coward]

that the Austrian court does not have that kind of power.

I rule that Austria citizens must stop talking funny!

Re:Pretty sure

[Opportunist]

Zis is werry razist!

Re:Pretty sure

[Anonymous Coward]

You mistake that accent with their Northern neighbours ;)

Thin edge of the wedge

[Anonymous Coward]

If this is allowed, then other jurisdictions will demand other material, which is acceptable in the vast majority of the rest of the world, be deleted worldwide because they object to it.

Better solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Remove all servers from Austria. No servers = Not subject to Austrian law. It is then on the onus of the Austrian government to regulate access to it which will go down like hot sick.

Re:Better solution

[HiThere]

You *might* need to remove all servers from the EU, though that isn't clear. Better to try appealing first.

Perhaps you need to ensure you never do business with any country that is in a position to shut you down. Now that Britain is withdrawing from the EU you could put all your servers that handle the EU in Britain and all the servers that handle Britain in the EU. Possibly split into two separate corporations (with initially identical ownership). Etc. Then an EU court would need to get agreement from Britain and conversely. This could still happen, but it would be a major roadblock.

"hate speech" is it's defined by idiots

[Chrisq]

The problem is that "hate speech" is it's defined by idiots. A muslim saying that atheists should be killed is seen as an expression of faith. Someone saying that Islam is backwards and violent for sentencing atheists to death is hate speech

Re: "hate speech" is it's defined by idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

That isn't the problem.

"Hate speech" is any speech I don't like. It is literally censorship for a government to demand its removal. YOUR criteria for hate speech is bullshit too, buddy. All of them are. It is just the latest attack on free speech.

Re:"hate speech" is it's defined by idiots

[Drethon]

The problem is that "hate speech" is it's defined by idiots. A muslim saying that atheists should be killed is seen as an expression of faith. Someone saying that Islam is backwards and violent for sentencing atheists to death is hate speech

I say Austria trying to censor Facebook is hate speech and Facebook should censor Austria.

Re:"hate speech" is it's defined by idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

"A muslim saying that atheists should be killed [independent.co.uk] is seen as an expression of faith. Someone saying that Islam is backwards and violent for sentencing atheists to death is hate speech."

I call bullshit. The muslims saying atheists should be killed is the same kind of inbred, mouth-breathing hateful turds as the people saying that Islam is backwards and violent per se. It's also completely stupid, of course, because the majority of muslims living in first world countries don't think it or feel it, so it's not the religion per se that's the problem, it's the hateful dumb fucks. It's a distinction that anyone with a high school diploma should be able to manage.

Re:"hate speech" is it's defined by idiots

[Opportunist]

Pretty much any expression of faith is hate speech. I don't know a single faith that is really cool with someone not drinking their particular brand of cool-aid.

Re:"hate speech" is it's defined by idiots

[SuricouRaven]

There are plenty of very community-focused religions which promote near-total isolation from outsiders. They don't care in the slightest what the rest of the world is up to - they can all go to hell, literally. The Amish, the strictest sects of orthodox Judaism, Largely ignorant people, because they deliberately shun education, but at least they keep to themselves and only terrorize the occasional member of their own community who tries to leave.

Re:"hate speech" is it's defined by idiots

[Opportunist]

And that's ok because it doesn't directly affect you? Then you're probably also ok with the treatment of women in the more insane cults because, hey, doesn't affect you, right?

Re:"hate speech" is it's defined by idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it's hate speech. The latter is almost also. Why? Both sentences target the whole groups of people, not the individuals. The latter is nearer to "disturbing religious peace" than direct hate speech, and that is something that is probably not a crime in UK.

Re:"hate speech" is it's defined by idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

That's just natural selection at work. Those faiths that motivated their members to seek converts tended to displace those that did not.

The neat thing about the scientific method is that the benefits it provides motivate others to seek it out...no preaching needed.

Re: "hate speech" is it's defined by idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi. I am a Buddhist.

Re:"hate speech" is it's defined by idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

Then that is your willful ignorance of all of the faiths that tell you to love your neighbor regardless of whether he believes the same as you. You know, like actual Jews, and Christians believe, and likely Buddhists.

Re:"hate speech" is it's defined by idiots

[Prien715]

Governments define hate speech.

If the Saudi government wants to kill heretics, that's a Saudi issue *not* a Muslim issue. In the same way, when the US kills a wedding party, it's not the fault of Christians -- it's the fault of the American government and by extension, us, since someone voted them into office.

Re:"hate speech" is it's defined by idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with your example is, it doesn't show a muslim saying "atheists should be killed" within the bounds of a civilised country. It just lists a bunch of countries where atheism is illegal.

If you could cite a story where a muslim stood up in, say, Britain or France or Germany and said "atheists should be killed", and then another person said "Islam is backwards and violent for sentencing atheists to death", and only the second person was prosecuted, then you'd have a talking point.

Re:"hate speech" is it's defined by idiots

[Opportunist]

Should I quote Deuteronomy 17 or Leviticus 24 as an example of the bible telling you to kill everyone who doesn't suffer from the same kind of delusion?

You do have a point with Buddhism, though. Maybe that's why these people usually don't really piss me off remotely as much.

Re:"hate speech" is it's defined by idiots

[djinn6]

Other people can live the way they want as long as they don't affect me. If you want to impose your way of life onto them, especially with force, then you're no better than ISIS. They have every reason to believe they're right, the same way you have every reason to believe you're right. Who can say you're more right than them?

Re:"hate speech" is it's defined by idiots

[Opportunist]

Civilization?

Re:"hate speech" is it's defined by idiots

[djinn6]

Oh please, is there even a civilization that could agree with itself? We still have people who think letting poor people freeze in the cold is necessary for "progress", and less than 100 years ago they were slaughtering their own countrymen for being too successful while having the wrong skin color (US) or culture (Europe).

And by the way, the entire Middle East thinks we're the barbaric ones. We fully embraced our greed and blew up people halfway across the world for cheap oil (or "to spread democracy" as people like you would put it). Our invasion killed between 400,000 to 900,000 muslims, 130,000 of which were direct casualties (think bombs, missiles and bullets). How many has ISIS killed? 1 million? 5 million? No... 15,000.

I don't condone the abuse of women (or anyone else for that matter), but good and evil has always been, and always will be subjective.

Re:"hate speech" is it's defined by idiots

[Opportunist]

Well, we did spread all right. Entrails, not democracy, but then again, we're eager to export democracy. Mostly 'cause we don't have much use for it anymore ourselves, so maybe someone else can use it. Slightly used, a bit singed at the edges, but it's still good.

The topic of the thread was the expression of religion and its relation to hate speech. Maybe we can return to that.

Re:"hate speech" is it's defined by idiots

[djinn6]

I don't think we're that off-topic. Austria thinks their censorship should be enforced worldwide, just like how ISIS thinks their treatment of women should be enforced worldwide. The difference is that Austria isn't going to kill anyone over it, and this the difference that really matters. If Facebook ignores their ruling outside of Austria (and it should), then my life isn't affected by them. They can ban whatever the hell they like in their own country, and whether I think it's wrong doesn't need enter into the discussion.

Re:"hate speech" is it's defined by idiots

[Opportunist]

The difference is ... well, essentially nonexistent. Nobody outside their territory takes their claims and demands serious, that applies to Austria as much as it does for ISIS. That verdict will not even hold in Austria, no later than when it as much as touches the ECJ it will go up in flames and nobody will give half a shit about it. Neither before, nor after.

It's the usual "judge has no idea what the internet is like" verdict. I really have no idea why this goes so way out of proportion this time around, it's not like it's anything new.

Austrian Empire

[Anonymous Coward]

Austria seems not to have realised that its influence on the world is now a tad smaller than in the good old days when it reached from Venice to the Ukraine.

I am not surprised the Greens made such an absurd request, rather by the court actually attempting to grant that.

Re:Austrian Empire

[Opportunist]

You're by no means the only one.

That such a silly demand is made is a given. That it's by the Greens is, well, we got used to it.

That they actually found a judge that knows so little about the internet in general and the effect his verdict has on it in particular, that's the actually surprising part of the whole blunder.

Not happening, Austria

[Headw1nd]

So looking it up, apparently the Greens were upset that their leader, Eva Glawischnig, was being called a "lousy traitor" and a "corrupt bumpkin". I would say it's relatively important for people to know, so we can tell this lousy traitor and the corrupt bumpkins on the courts in Austria what we think.

Re:Not happening, Austria

[Opportunist]

But, let's be honest here, calling Eva Glawischnig a "corrupt bumpkin" is uncalled for. Bumpkin, ok, but corrupt... how would you know?
  Who the fuck would consider her important enough to bribe her?

Community standards?

[Anonymous Coward]

The reason why black people were treated as they were in the US slave system was because community standards were that they were not fully human. They were the missing link between apes and humans and to state otherwise was quite offensive to whites.

Sometimes people need to be offended.

Re:Community standards?

[goombah99]

Surely one can find exceptions to the rule. Afterall the whole US is under a constitution. THe larger the community one calls a community the less restrictive the regulation or the more egregious the behaviour needs to be to warrant regulation.

Re: Community standards?

[Anonymous Coward]

And they were right!

In other news

[nospam007]

A Saudi court has ordered Facebook to cover up ankles and hair of women, worldwide.

Sic transit gloria mundi.

Re:In other news

[MightyYar]

Excellent. Much better irony than my post.

Re:In other news

[Thanatiel]

Where are my mod points when I need them ...

Re:In other news

[hesiod]

Sic transit gloria mundi.

I didn't know Gloria was sick!

Re:In other news

[Tablizer]

If it applies to Kardashians, I'm for it.

Re:In other news

[worf_mo]

I'd appreciate if they could cover up women's ankle hair, too...

Re:In other news

[Anonymous Coward]

Sic transit gloria mundi.

I didn't know Gloria was sick. I hope she gets well soon.

link

[goombah99]

http://www.upi.com/Archives/19...

Hm

[argStyopa]

"The court added it was easy for Facebook to automate this process."
Speaking as an American who's freedom of speech is pretty important, I rather expect that human ingenuity can outwit whatever automated system is out there.

If I didn't work for an Austrian company that might suffer unwarranted blowback for it, I'd be tempted to test how well their filters would work...even though I couldn't give a damn about the person or her political leanings.

Maybe 4chan will take this one up as a hobby.

Re:Hm

[Rastl]

"The court added it was easy for Facebook to automate this process."

As always technology is 'easy' when you have no idea how it works.

well they do have marvelous health care

[Anonymous Coward]

at least according to one president trump.

Re:well they do have marvelous health care

[Opportunist]

They do!

But I can't talk about the details.

Barbra Barbra Barbra

[ArhcAngel]

I hear that Barbra Streisand is a special advisor to the court on this case.

Re:Barbra Barbra Barbra

[fustakrakich]

I would use this case in an election campaign against the Greens. They clearly don't understand the meaning and importance of free speech. Evidently it's just not part of their agenda.

Progressives

[Anonymous Coward]

Progressives, expanding censorship from one country to the world. Can't wait for similar court orders from Russia, China and Saudi Arabia.

You could well argue this is progress, by the time they're done Facebook will be dead.

Re: Progressives

[Anonymous Coward]

The Austrian judge is paying 3D chess here, zhey has devised the final solution to the Facebook issue.

Re: Progressives

[BronsCon]

3D chess

final solution

Not sure if Star Trek reference or Godwin's Law.

Gamergate is Hate

[Anonymous Coward]

Gamergate is Hate.

Re:Gamergate is Hate

[Opportunist]

When's the bus arriving with the people who still care about gamergate?

Will Facebook just have the balls to cut Austria?

[mpercy]

Sure they make some money from their users there, but is it worth entertaining Austrians while opening up to these sorts of demands?

Just shut down Austria, right now! And see if a) you miss the revenue vs overhead problems and/or b) they come to their senses?

right wing israelis

[Anonymous Coward]

Any criticism of Israel is anti-Semetic hate speech. And we always see at least once "As a Jew I am offended."

Re:right wing israelis

[Anonymous Coward]

Any criticism of Israel is anti-Semetic hate speech. And we always see at least once "As a Jew I am offended."

As a Jew, I find this offensive .... oh wait!

Re:right wing israelis

[Opportunist]

As a person, I don't give a fuck.

The Anschluss is coming!

[mpercy]

Herr Zeller:
Perhaps those who would warn you that the Anschluss is coming - and it is coming, Captain - perhaps they would get further with you by setting their words to music.

Captain von Trapp:
If the Nazis take over Austria, I have no doubt, Herr Zeller, that you will be the entire trumpet section.

Herr Zeller:
You flatter me, Captain.

Captain von Trapp:
Oh, how clumsy of me - I meant to accuse you.

So, Austria?

[Anonymous Coward]

Austria gets to tell the rest of the world what they can and cannot say? What about other countries; can North Korea dictate what can and cannot be said? If not, why does one country get to do so and another not?

I cannot imagine a more dangerous precedent for free speech.

Re:Will Facebook just have the balls to cut Austri

[Anonymous Coward]

No, because facebook is run by cowardly money grabbing advertisers who are very much in favor with this type of censorship.

Interestingly...

[Anonymous Coward]

...when I read this at first, I mistook it to say "Australia" and was a little shocked. Then when I realized it was Austria, I thought, "ah, that figures".

Do with this information what you will.

Re:Interestingly...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm going to print it out and lock it in a safe. I'll cherish it forever!

Re:Interestingly...

[Anonymous Coward]

Same here, and I was happier before I was reminded that Austria existed.

This in unpossible

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought EU nations were paragons of free speech and devoid of judicial overreach. Are you sure it wasn't a US court? Mind blown!

Jurisdiction issues

[John Allsup]

Suppose Facebook seek a court order in the US, say, that the Austrian court has no jurisdiction with regards to Facebook posts outside of Austria. What then?

Re:Jurisdiction issues

[Anonymous Coward]

OMG a 3 digit id.

Re:Jurisdiction issues

[omnichad]

Then the Austrian court would say that the US has no jurisdiction over Facebook's Austrian servers and subsidiaries. They can fine Facebook Austria all they want anyway. The only (good) solution here is for Facebook to pull out. The other end-game, which is more likely, is that Facebook complies.

Re:Jurisdiction issues

[Richard_at_work]

That doesnt remove the ability of the Austrian court to do anything - the Austrian court still has as much jurisdiction as it can encircle with its ability to enforce its judgements.

Re:Jurisdiction issues

[Anonymous Coward]

As much as I think that jurisdiction should end at the border, the US is very fond of applying it's laws to things that happen outside the US. Personally I'm in favour of freedom of speech, but if you're going to do business in countries with different laws to your own, you have to comply with them. It's the cost of doing business.

The fact of the matter is that Austrian courts can demand whatever they like of the Austrian company Facebook Austria. They can demand that they change their logo to upper case, or that they display facebook.com in Austro-Bavarian by default, or turn the sky green every Oktoberfest. If Facebook doesn't want to comply, then their options are to fight it in court (which they are doing, and losing), refuse to comply and get fined/assets seized/offices raided etc, or to just not do business in Austria any more. The courts could order a block, but there wouldn't be much point.

I think that most countries are a bit tired of multinationals taking real money out of their economies for dubiously-worthwhile "services" like advertising, and using every trick they can to avoid paying tax on it. Although your average citizen might miss facebook if it were banned, Austria would probably be better off.

Re:Jurisdiction issues

[Holi]

Quick question, are their any Facebook subsidiaries or servers operating in Austria?
I see this argument but a quick bit of research does not show any Facebook companies operating within Austrian borders.

Re:Jurisdiction issues

[Holi]

there fucking phone

Re:Jurisdiction issues

[omnichad]

I have no idea, but they might be leasing rack space. They also probably collect payments from Austrian advertisers. Robbing from that is probably the limit of what the Austrian government can even do.

Re:Jurisdiction issues

[Anonymous Coward]

How would a US court have any say about who has jurisdiction outside the US?

Re:Jurisdiction issues

[Anonymous Coward]

Does the USA want a FTA with the EU? This type of state investor dispute will be included.

Re:Jurisdiction issues

[Anonymous Coward]

Suppose Facebook seek a court order in the US, say, that the Austrian court has no jurisdiction with regards to Facebook posts outside of Austria. What then?

Then Facebook has no style.
Now if they get the court order in Nepal, Madagascar or Maldives, then they get style points.

I call those exceptions "rights"

[raymorris]

> Surely one can find exceptions to the rule.

I believe those exceptions are called rights, or human rights. An individual or group may do as they please, but should not infringe on anyone's rights.

If you only have the "right" to say things everyone agrees with, that's no right at all; that's just agreement.

Note that the US Constitution and others modeled on it do not by their terms create rights, they bar the government from *infringing* on the rights. It also says "the right of free speech", not "a right of free speech" - the framers recognized that human rights *already* existed and said shall not infringe rights.

Re:I call those exceptions "rights"

[AHuxley]

Thats whats set the USA apart. Freedom of speech and freedom after speech.

Re:I call those exceptions "rights"

[93 Escort Wagon]

Yeah, we used to have an amazing country!

Re:I call those exceptions "rights"

[bluefoxlucid]

Fun fact: the First Amendment to the United States Constitution carries the following original text:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

A few years ago, I was introduced to the codified version of the First Amendment. That version is the legal definition of the current law, and is nearly three pages long. It details that the original amendment intended a limited category of speech to exclude speech harmful to society, such as libel, slander, and lying under oath. Case law has refined this particular law to explicitly express its limitations and the exceptions to those limitations themselves.

Re:I call those exceptions "rights"

[Archangel Michael]

Free speech is free. Liable, slander, and such are Civil, not Criminal law. Lying under oath is a criminal violation of that oath, one you took freely of your own will ("I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth"). You are free to lie, outside of courts and even inside courts while not under oath you have taken.

So, the Free Speech bits of the First Amendment is really really broad. Hell, I've even argued against people making the "Yelling Fire in a crowded theater" bit, by saying you can yell "fire" in such a scenario. However, you are responsible if there is 1) no fire, and 2) you cause harm doing so. An actor on the stage can yell "fire" all day long (Ready, Aim FIRE!!!!). Context is everything.

Rights come with responsibilities. The modern left doesn't want any responsibilities, except that which they can impose on others, such as "not offending" people. Not my responsibility to not offend, it is your responsibility to stop being offended over everything.

Re:I call those exceptions "rights"

[fustakrakich]

All that would put the codified version in violation, or the constitution is moot. Which is it?

Re:I call those exceptions "rights"

[drinkypoo]

the framers recognized that human rights *already* existed and said shall not infringe rights.

That's nice and all, but it's bullshit. It's a nice idea and I applaud anyone who actually believes it for their surplus of imagination, which I hope they continue to share with the world so that we can be exposed to new ideas. But in practice the only "rights" you've got are those which others will fight to defend, and this one other: to do as you will. And I don't mean this in some kind of religious sense, but in the sense that all living organisms have certain things in common based on physical reality. We all have to consume, digest, and excrete. We all reproduce, at least as species. We all attempt to survive.

The idea of "natural rights" is a lovely one, and the idea that the constitution should not exhaustively enumerate our rights as people or as citizens equally laudable, but in the really real world of people with conflicting opinions and desires, it's only those rights which are explicitly protected which you can even pretend you've got. And even then, there's practically innumerable examples of their infringement.

Re:I call those exceptions "rights"

[spire3661]

not everyone who testifies is doing so willingly...Many people are compelled to testify. You should re-examine your logic here. Forcing me to take an oath in court is not an agreement between equal parties .Its a reminder that the court will punish you if it thinks you are lying, not that i am morally bound to tell the truth.

Re:I call those exceptions "rights"

[bluefoxlucid]

They're not "rights"; they're laws. It's a privilege. The concept of "rights" is a philosophical one which, essentially, suggests that some laws are somehow different from other laws in a metaphysical way. It's sort of like religion or some other belief system.

It's certainly convenient for us to have certain things codified as law, so long as enforcement operates in our benefit. From an economic standpoint, certain things which people might think should be rights aren't always possible. Food, medical care, shelter, and communication have all been cited as things which should be human rights; these things are possible to supply to everyone if your economy is sufficiently-developed, and they're cheap to supply to everyone if your economy is developed beyond that point, and yet you can't supply them in poorer economies because it simply won't work. An economy is poor because it doesn't have the means to produce; we think too much about the means to represent exchange (money), and not enough about where what we exchange comes from.

Freedom of expression is extending to the point that obscene speech isn't considered criminal, and nudity in public isn't illegal. A Federal court recently ruled that women's breasts are legally allowed exposure in public; and a guy at MIT used to go to class in only sandals, having won a court case that said nudity without lewdness isn't illegal. That's fine for most of us who either don't care, would like more boob flashes from cute girls, or are cute girls giving the boob flashes. However, it also means that parents will have their kids exposed to such a culture, which removes their control over their childrens's values. Girls will grow up in a world where it's okay to go topless. 15-year-olds will be flashing college students 10 years their senior, and this is totally okay now.

There are multiple groups of people here with conflicting so-called rights. Of primary importance, there's a group who believe certain behavior is impropriety, and want to instill "good family values" into their kids; and another group who believe Victorian ideals are outdated and a little playfulness and eye-candy is a good thing--including the ones who don't like being told they can't show themselves off a bat as the eye candy. These groups cannot cohabitate the same space without one oppressing the other, either by force of law or by sheer influence of presence.

So yeah. Things like rights, responsibilities, and imposition are relative based on your viewpoint. A lot of words we use to describe rights have no meaning; things like "freedom", "democracy", and "justice" are contextual to the speaker's and listener's minds, and have conflicting definitions depending on who you ask. "Patriotism" is often about doing what you're told without questioning if it's right, although the revolutionaries will tell you you're not a true patriot unless you love your country enough to remove villains from power and set it back on the path of righteousness; and in America, we talk about patriotism in a context with the Constitution and the rights it lays forth to subtly suggest that not supporting whatever the American government says right now is not supporting human rights.

I don't have warm, fuzzy feelings.

You've come up with words and statements and justifications to frame things that make you personally comfortable as some kind of spiritual mandate from a higher power, and to frame laws as holy scripture. I only see that certain things make the world more convenient (for me and others), and that power hasn't stripped those things yet. I understand that someone else pays for those so-called rights as well, in the form of things they can't do because it would violate my more-important rights.

Delusion became dangerous to me at some point. This is how I responded. I was raised being taught that the governments of the world secretly trade with the half-fish people of sunken Atlantis and that carrying certain metals will cause spiritual energi

Re:I call those exceptions "rights"

[Anonymous Coward]

Rights come with responsibilities. The modern left doesn't want any responsibilities, except that which they can impose on others, such as "not offending" people. Not my responsibility to not offend, it is your responsibility to stop being offended over everything.

Yeah, damn hippy commie leftists. Not my responsibility to not kill black people, its their responsibility to not intersect my gun's line of sight. Not my responsibility to not pollute, it is their responsibility to move away from my coal plant.

Moron.

Re:I call those exceptions "rights"

[Anonymous Coward]

25 years ago i was thinking about moving there.....
15 years ago i moving there was completely unthinkable..

Today more any more places in the world are infringing on peoples rights making a move to the US almost acceptable... You have sunk a long way down, but other places seem to be on the way to total destruction instead of just partial destruction.

Need to do some research, but think it was fairly easy if you have enough funds ($500k+?) or if you would finance a company that would employ people. (minimum amount of employees?)

Re:I call those exceptions "rights"

[jader3rd]

Thats whats set the USA apart. Freedom of speech and freedom after speech.

To bad we don't have freedom after laughing. I'm facing jail time after laughing at Jeff Sessions.

Re:I call those exceptions "rights"

[pakar]

To kill someone is to cause physical harm... Not acceptable..
If i say something they can choose to ignore me or they can choose to argue with me and try to convince me that their ideas are better..

As long as i don't cause harm to a person or property i should be free to do what i want. And no, i do not consider your feelings being hurt to be harm to a person.

If i slander then that can cause harm (financial or reputation) to a person.
If i say "I do not like X" then who does that harm?
If i say "Y is happening" and Y is false i would be liable for any harm that may cause.. If it's about a immediate danger then people cannot reflect on it and act on impulse.. If it's not about an immediate danger then people can reflect on what i said and choose or not choose to believe me.

Re:I call those exceptions "rights"

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, this is the general problem with libertarianism or anarch-capitalism (in that general "area" of political thought). They want everything to be done via contracts, but contracts are collectively enforced by a government organ (the courts). If you evict someone from an apartment the government police do it. When you win a lawsuit, the government uses the threat of force to get the parties to pay up. And not just the defendant of said lawsuit; any banks holding the defendant's assets will be forced to turn them over because the court recognizes the plaintiff's *right* to that money.

And state and federal government already regulate what parts of contracts they'll enforce (marriage laws, bankruptcy, tort reform, etc.). And since they have the power to enforce contracts, they have the power to enact regulation. No theories about the Commerce Clause are required.

Re:I call those exceptions "rights"

[bluefoxlucid]

The longer one is the current law as the Supreme Court evaluates it in any case examining first-amendment rights to determine if any particular exceptions apply.

Re: I call those exceptions "rights"

[Anonymous Coward]

That's rather dishonest. Her crime was disrupting an active session in congress and protesting on capital grounds.

Re:I call those exceptions "rights"

[Anonymous Coward]

freedom after speech.

Well, at least you are guaranteed to be processed in a due manner and tried with the help of your peers. What the private parties do to you after that is limited only by other laws. Maybe the government would have the responsibility of protecting your rights also? Many people seem to disagree, or we all speak beside each other as the same sentences have different meanings, or no meaning at all, to different people.

Re:I call those exceptions "rights"

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with most of this post but you surely know this is far too long for a public forum.

At least make your points numbered to make it easier for one to reply.

Re:I call those exceptions "rights"

[Anonymous Coward]

To bad we don't have freedom after laughing. I'm facing jail time after laughing at Jeff Sessions.

She wasn't convicted for laughing. According to the foreperson of the jury, "She did not get convicted for laughing. It was her actions as she was being asked to leave". See

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/jeff-sessions-laugh-congressional-hearing_us_590929bbe4b05c39768420ef

And if you look at the following video, you will see that when she was asked to leave, she yelled and screamed and brought the hearing to complete standstill for over 10 seconds.

https://twitter.com/ryanjreilly/status/818837991217123328

And oh, by the way, she's a repeat offender. According to the following article, she was charged with a similar offense in 2007.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/05/code-pink-activist-convicted-laughing-sessions-170504001328276.html

Re:I call those exceptions "rights"

[fustakrakich]

I consider that a mistake. I guess the constitution really is pretty meaningless then.

Re:I call those exceptions "rights"

[Anonymous Coward]

Better than "rights" or "laws" ... is power , and the social contract behind it! That is, we say I have a right vis-X behavior if fellow citizens will physically defend my exercise of that behavior. Justice comes at the end-of-a-fist, or gun-barrel. Think otherwise? Then you pooch the FSM or live in snowflake land ... or like a real Jew make money from bullshit!

Re:I call those exceptions "rights"

[Anonymous Coward]

They're not "rights"; they're laws. It's a privilege. The concept of "rights" is a philosophical one which, essentially, suggests that some laws are somehow different from other laws in a metaphysical way. It's sort of like religion or some other belief system.

Not really. All laws are based on some idea, if only a dictator's idea that he is a god on Earth. The concept of "natural law" and the rights which it implies are the idea our system of government and its laws are founded on. Blithely tossing it out by claiming it's not real may make you feel clever but it's not actually much of a point.

Freedom of expression is extending to the point that obscene speech isn't considered criminal, and nudity in public isn't illegal.

And so it always goes. Somebody's doing something you don't like, so you feel you should be able to make them stop, and you're being oppressed if you can't. Hey, here's a clue: While you're pontificating about people not really having any rights at all, consider that the right to not be offended is one of the ones which doesn't exist.

Your mouth and your brain have the ability to make an amazing range of sounds. Groups of people have decided that making certain sounds in a certain order has a meaning. You may or may not understand that meaning, and you may or may not like it. But to say that you should be able to stop someone from making a certain sequence of sounds because you don't like what you think it means is rather putting yourself above the rest of the crowd, yes? Delusions of grandeur much?

As for nudity in public, you're born naked. Everybody reading this has seen a naked body, if only their own. Wishing to put someone in a cage because they let someone else see them the way they entered this world is just a bit ridiculous, don't you think?

Yes, I know you don't. You're wrong.

However, it also means that parents will have their kids exposed to such a culture, which removes their control over their childrens's values.

You're being ridiculous again. That statement only makes sense if you accept that exposing a child to any idea or behavior different than their parents' constitutes loss of control over their values. As I said: Ridiculous.

Here's how that generally actually works: Child enters society. Child sees something you believe is wrong. You teach child that said thing is wrong. Yes, I know, actually teaching children is hard. Raising children is hard. Get over it, because you're not going to change that.

Girls will grow up in a world where it's okay to go topless.

In many parts of the world, this is and has been true for a long time. Nothing Earth-shatteringly horrible has happened as a result.

15-year-olds will be flashing college students 10 years their senior, and this is totally okay now.

I'm pretty sure such things have also been going on for a long time now, and whether you think it's totally okay or not isn't going to have much affect on that.

This all seems to come down to the fact that you are (or are perhaps playing the part) of a narrow-minded individual who believes that because you don't like something that you should be able to stop people from doing it. This, I think really, is your money quote:

I only see that certain things make the world more convenient (for me and others), and that power hasn't stripped those things yet. I understand that someone else pays for those so-called rights as well, in the form of things they can't do because it would violate my more-important rights.

And yet every single example you've given of "things they can't do" takes the form of "I can't stop them from doing things I don't like." Sorry, but not being allowed to oppress someone does not constitute oppression of you. Besides, if, as you postulate, the only thing which matters is the "law" as imposed by thos

Re:I call those exceptions "rights"

[Anonymous Coward]

Great post.

What's that bit about Atlantis? Is that some kind of religion/cult I haven't heard of?

No, you never thought that.

[Anonymous Coward]

And nobody told you that either. You made it up so you can whine.

Awww. Did Austria offend your sensibilities?!?!?

Re:No, you never thought that.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you like being a cuck, have you no self-worth?

I'm so happy

[Dunbal]

I'm glad that the court took the time to define "hate speech" in a clear and concise manner. Right? Or is "hate speech" just defined as "they said something I don't like"?

Re:I'm so happy

[Opportunist]

There's another definition of hate speech?

Fortunately

[computational super]

Fortunately for Facebook, there's a well-defined, broadly accepted, unambiguous, non-contentious definition of what constitutes "hate speech" which remains constant from one culture to the next.

Re:Fortunately

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently the court believes that such a definition exists. FTA: "The court added it was easy for Facebook to automate this process."

smh

If you disagree with the status quo and agenda

[Anonymous Coward]

then it's hate-speech. Non-compliance is not allowed.

Re:If you disagree with the status quo and agenda

[orgelspieler]

Straw man subject line. That's a new one. If "hate speech" really meant dissenting speech, then banning "hate speech" would be a pretty bad thing. If a company chose to do it on their own, it would run afoul of social norms in American civil discourse, and probably other countries as well. But for a government body to ban dissent would be unconscionable.

Fortunately, that's not what the Austrian definition of hate speech is. And if FB chose to ban these things on their own, I think it would make it much less of a cesspool.

However, I still think it's bad for a government to ban hate speech. Unlike you, I am comfortable enough in my conviction to make that statement using the actual definition of hate speech, not some made up definition that is easy to argue against. I think that the government should not have the right to keep people from denying the Holocaust, or saying derogatory things about certain racial groups, or advocating for the relaxation of sexual assault laws. These are horrible things, and companies should have the right to keep others from using their platform to espouse them, but Austria's government can suck it.

Explains a lot

[Anonymous Coward]

This is why social justice and authoritarian Islamic states are allies. They both want to impose their version of rights on everyone.

If the average Austrian is on board with this, just block the site.

If not... well, perhaps it is time for new leaders?

Re:Explains a lot

[Opportunist]

The average Austrian? You don't know that country, do you?

The average Austrian cares about 3 things: His Schnitzel, his beer and the soccer results of his favorite team. Plus that he's by definition a better national trainer than the goofball they hired now to train those idiots that can't hit a goal if the other team stayed home.

I dare say that nobody in the country except the 3 people who can actually use a computer AND give a shit about free speech even heard about the verdict. And 2 of them didn't give a shit because their favorite soccer team should fire its trainer.

Just what was said about Eva Glawischnig-Piesczek?

[Anonymous Coward]

That she can't take criticism? That she's not the hottest party leader? That she is, pardon my French, a total bitch?

Isn't it odd?

[Archtech]

Uttering or posting "hate speech" - whatever that may be - is illegal; but calmly, unemotionally dropping bombs on civilians or launching missiles to kill them is just fine.

Priorities just a little off-kilter, I think.

Re:Isn't it odd?

[judoguy]

Uttering or posting "hate speech" - whatever that may be - is illegal; but calmly, unemotionally dropping bombs on civilians or launching missiles to kill them is just fine.

Priorities just a little off-kilter, I think.

Them what has the bombs and missiles make the rules.

Re:Isn't it odd?

[Opportunist]

Certainly. Sticks and stones may break my bones but words, oh don't you dare to speak them!

"hate" speech...

[bagofbeans]

...is a political definition, moves with the times. For example, in USA, it doesn't take much for criticism of Israel (the country, as opposed to the religion Judaism) to be painted anti-semitic, yet anti-Islam rhetoric is currently regarded more tolerantly.

Re: "hate" speech...

[Anonymous Coward]

What reality do you live in? It is exactly the opposite in the US.

Re: "hate" speech...

[Anonymous Coward]

I want a world where we could all be intolerant towards all religions... We have to have equality!

Re: "hate" speech...

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know, some religions aren't that bad. Buddhism for example, I can see that being a case of bad apples here and there but not a systemic problem with the religion itself. Various pagan faiths seem to be ok too. My favorite is Asatru, and plenty of Wiccans seem ok with the exception of Dianic Wicca.

The Abrahamic religions however absolutely must go. Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Mormonism, and various others under that umbrella are religions not just of hatred, bigotry, and child abuse but full scale warfare.

Of course we should never forget about those religions, because we should never repeat those religions. Anybody who seriously practices an Abrahamic religion really ought to be compelled into some kind of therapy. So they absolutely should be studied, and perhaps one day we can discover exactly why the Abrahamic religions are so effective at spreading hate.

Re: "hate" speech...

[Anonymous Coward]

Cool to see another person who knows what Asatru is.

I miss spending holidays boasting and passing the horn...

Re:"hate" speech...

[Triklyn]

i think it's because we're currently seeing a lot more islamists trying to terrorize us collectively, than we are of the israelis.

criticize israel, sure, but do it in proportion to their crime, and maybe in proportion to how much you criticize other countries for similar things.

yes, the israelis are committing a genocide against the palestinians. ... are you fucking kidding me?

stalin killed 6 million Ukrainians by accident. through starvation. you telling me the jews can't wipe out the palestinians if they really gave it the old college try? the armenians?

what evidence could change your opinion on the israel-palestinian conflict? what proof would you need to flip you? ask yourself that about every issue, and see how reasoned your position is.

Surely Austria can't be that stupid?

[mwvdlee]

Facebook has two choices.

1. Ban the posts and wait for China or UAE or some such country to sue for similar censorship without having the defense.
2. Don't ban the posts and dump the Austrian market.

Austria can't be stupid enough to assume the first and they can't be stupid enough to want the latter, so what are they trying to do?

Protest time...

[Anonymous Coward]

I strongly recommend everyone post on facebook how the leader of the Austrian Green party is a corrupt tramp and a rotten traitor. Optionally, you may include that you do not recognize Austria's right to censor the world.

Brought on by the Greens?

[fustakrakich]

Obviously they're not the liberal, freedom loving party we thought they were, are they?. Oh well, they just lost my vote in future US elections. Sorry Ms. Stein, you're working for fascists. Spread the word

Re: Brought on by the Greens?

[Anonymous Coward]

This kind of stuff is why, although I was a founding member of my local Green Party beach during Nader's âpresidential campaign, I have for some time been no longer able to identify as a Green. It's a terrible shame we let despicable Progressives take control of the party and drive out all the real environmentalists.

It needs to be said...

[Trailer Trash]

The leader of Austria's Green Party is an idiot. A moron. Etc.

There, he's been insulted on slashdot, too.

These people take themselves way too seriously, which is one reason the first amendment in the US is so important.

Re:It needs to be said...

[Trailer Trash]

The leader of Austria's Green Party is an idiot. A moron. Etc.

There, he's been insulted on slashdot, too.

These people take themselves way too seriously, which is one reason the first amendment in the US is so important.

Wait, what am I doing? They're Austrians.

Eva Glawischnig-Piesczek ist Scheisskopf! Ja, die ganze Partei sind Scheisskoepfen. Und Arschlochen.

Okay, now they're properly insulted.

Re:It needs to be said...

[fustakrakich]

The leader of Austria's Green Party is an idiot.

I suspect the entire party is going along. It's time to vote them all out unless they change their tune real fast.

Austrians like XXXX

[Anonymous Coward]

HATE SPEECH: reject the concept / reject the practice ... pure slut.pimping tyranny so common in Europe! Now Austrians like snowflake-XXXX .... engineers note if somebody took a 2x4' to that Stalinist judges fingers then he would never write that kind of Troksy-drooling Euro-fag decision again. True ? Next ... XXXX =! iazn

SO much for the conservative viewpoint

[Anonymous Coward]

The fucking pillock Suckerberg has been looking for a reason shut down opinions different from his own. This is it.
I'm glad I stopped using it a decade ago.
And a big fuck you who think this is a good idea. And please, give me the legal definition of 'hate speech'. I'm all ears.

Re:SO much for the conservative viewpoint

[orgelspieler]

Do you really think Facebook is a bunch of 'libtards' just itching to kick true patriots off their network? They've had ample ability and excuses to do just that, but there is a lot of evidence that Zuck just doesn't give a shit. As long as the human eyeballs are there to sell to his customers (hint: customers != users), he makes craptons of $$$$.

As to your question regarding the definition:

Violence against a church or religious society or any other criteria of race, skin color, language, religion or belief, nationality, descent or national or ethnic origin, sex, physical or mental disability, Age or sexual orientation, or a member of such a group, expressly requests that they be affiliated to or be incited to hatred against them,

With the intention of violating the human dignity of others, insults one of the groups referred to in paragraph 1 in such a way as to condemn or reduce that group in public opinion; ... [Google translation, my German is not quite up to snuff]

It really wasn't that hard to find. Also, you might find it interesting that America has a similar doctrine called "fighting words." The Supreme Court has ruled that they are not protected speech. I think that's bullshit, but it's the law of the land.

Dear Australia

[Anonymous Coward]

FU! Dear Facebook FU! Enjoy getting the HIV from each other as you screw yourselves relentlessly.

And what happens when technology achieves....

[3seas]

human thought interfaces?
Maybe we should create non-jails for those having all good thought, for the rest of us the world is our jail and it may become not big enough.

So with this in mind, I welcome our new expression police overlords....

How USA defines hate speech, for example

[tepples]

I know little about Austrian law because I live in the United States. But here, "hate speech" consists of incitement to imminent crime with victims chosen based on race, color, religion, national origin, age over 40, sex, gender identity, pregnancy, citizenship, familial status, disability, veteran status, or genetic information. This combines these definitions:

Protected class
Bias incident: hostility based on protected class membership
Hate crime: a bias incident violating criminal law
Imminent lawless action: What Brandenburg excludes from freedom of speech

Re:How USA defines hate speech, for example

[Anonymous Coward]

But here, "hate speech" consists of incitement to imminent crime with victims chosen based on race, color, religion, national origin, age over 40, sex, gender identity, pregnancy, citizenship, familial status, disability, veteran status, or genetic information.

That's actually a reasonable definition, "incitement to imminent crime..." So if I say, "I hate disabled male homosexuals," that's just stating an opinion and not really inciting a crime, right? Or does that still depend on the circumstance, if I say it on the air with many listeners vs speaking it to a single person. This might be where the whole facebook / online factor can change what would not otherwise be considered hate crime. Because of the (potential) large audience, a simple statement could possibly be taken as inciting a crime against another, even if it wasn't really meant to do so.

Re: How USA defines hate speech, for example

[Anonymous Coward]

There are no Hate Speech laws, in the US. At least there aren't at the federal level.

We do have other laws, just not hate speech laws. I'm not sure if such laws would pass constitutional muster, actually.

So no more hate speech against criminals

[Anonymous Coward]

REJOICE everyone. Now they just need to ban hateful action of getting thrown in jail

I would like to see some one start a country and have court rule online company must delete all Austrian websites.

  "The court added it was easy for Facebook to automate this process." I would like to see the court write the automate process since they claim it was easy

Re:Just what was said about Eva Glawischnig-Piescz

[Opportunist]

No, allegedly they said something about her that isn't true.

Ban the crickets

[AndyKron]

If everyone got their favorite topic banned there would be nothing left but crickets. Ban the crickets, they're annoying!

Allow me to set this straight

[Opportunist]

Let's take a step back from sensationalism and see what really happened here.

Nothing. A court in a country nobody gives a shit about made a decision that doesn't matter to anyone. Not even the people in the country itself. What will probably happen now is that libel against Austrians gets deleted quicker. Maybe. Aside of that, not much will be done.

If she should try to play hard ball, maybe FB has the guts to actually make FB unavailable for Austria and ensure that Austrians get to see in no uncertain terms why this is the case. Election times are coming. And somehow I have this hunch that the Greens, whose main target audience are between 20 and 40 years old, might not enjoy that fallout.

What was in this hate speech?

[LQ]

Difficult to comment on a court ruling about posts you haven't read. I think we all would all know the difference between reasonable criticism and hate speech but how can we judge the judge without quoting the offending material?

Austrian court is simply being stupid.

[fyngyrz]

This would have to be done under EU law as no part of Facebook actually resides in Austrian jurisdiction.

Still couldn't be done. "Worldwide" != "EU."

The ruling as described in TFS isn't just wrong. It's outright stupid.

Godwins all arguments

[fyngyrz]

I did nazi that coming, did jew?

This kind of humor is truly a gas. Please come back oven and provide more.

Rights in actual practice

[fyngyrz]

But in practice the only "rights" you've got are those which others will fight to defend

Well, sometimes, and/or perhaps elsewhere, but mostly here in the USA, it's this:

In practice the only "rights" you've got are those which you can afford to pay others to fight to defend.

That's the overriding reality, unless you're one of the very fortunate few the ACLU or similar decides to use as a lever on some issue they have a contrary (to the system's) viewpoint on.

Of course that doesn't mean the fight will succeed. Particularly when congress and/or the judiciary are in receipt of more effective motivation than your defense turns out to provide.

MAKE PARASITISM UNPROFITABLE THROUGH PUNISHMENT

[Anonymous Coward]

1) You donâ(TM)t argue with âliberalsâ(TM), âprogressivesâ(TM), socialists, and feminists.

2) You prosecute them. You point out that theyâ(TM)re liars, parasites, thieves.

3) Then you beat them, deprive them of property, enslave them if you must, and kill them if necessary.

When parasitism is unprofitable it will stop.

As long as parasitism is profitable it will continue.

So:
Hit, hurt, beat, deprive, enslave, kill. We are men. We defend capital. We defend capital against all enemies familial, domestic, and foreign.

Every man militia, every man a sheriff, every man a judge, every man a hangman.

There is only one source of truth, prosperity, sovereignty, and the conditions of liberty and freedom and subsidy:

The reciprocal insurance of natural law by ENOUGH men willing and able, to make alternatives too costly to pursue.

What did you expect?

[Anonymous Coward]

What did you expect from a country that generated the stupidest, most idiotic economic system ever thought of?

Good luck with that

[Anonymous Coward]

Austria has no jurisdiction outside their own country (duh), which makes me wonder of the competence of their part that came up with this.

But, please define "hate speech" and then apply it culturally around the world. Makes me laugh.

So what if we know?

[fyngyrz]

I think we all would all know the difference between reasonable criticism and hate speech

Sure. The former is stuff people say that doesn't offend you, so you don't perceive it as hateful. The latter is stuff people say that offends you, so you perceive it as hateful.

Now, me... religious speech severely offends me. I find it hateful by its very nature. Anything constructed in the image of "my imaginary friend says you must... [FITB]" is something I react to as an attack on sanity, liberty, and manners. Such attacks are hateful. Period. Now:

Do you think I should be able to tell others not to speak about such things?

I will spoil the suspense: I should not be able to do that. Nor should anyone else be able to tell me what I may say, or may not say. Anywhere. Any country that so indulges its whims has foundered on a major rock of failure. To be blunt, they're being stupid.

So...FB just leaves Austria...

[x_t0ken_407]

...right?

48th anniversary of Brandenburg is next month

[tepples]

"Incitement to imminent lawless action" laws have passed constitutional muster since Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969). "Hate speech" is just a harsher penalty for incitement or other unprotected speech when it is also a bias incident.

Re:48th anniversary of Brandenburg is next month

[Anonymous Coward]

Different AC, but the parent is correct: there are no Hate Speech laws in the US (or if there are state laws somewhere, would likely be declared unconstitutional if challenged). You are confusing Hate Speech with Hate Crimes, which are crimes that were motivated by the victim's race, sex, sexual orientation, etc. They would be crimes anyway, but provide a vehicle for levying a harsher sentence.

You also don't understand the decision in the Brandenburg v Ohio case, which struck down an Ohio law as unconstitutional restriction of free speech. The decision had nothing to do with racial hate speech.

Re: 48th anniversary of Brandenburg is next month

[Anonymous Coward]

I find it very funny when Americans preach about free speech and rant about other countries trying to limit their blah blah blah Amendment rights, when you as a nation have ridiculously draconian copyright and intellectual property laws controlling how people communicate with each other and feel entitled to extradite foreigners for illegal communication any time you wish.

Re: 48th anniversary of Brandenburg is next month

[tepples]

How is U.S. copyright any more draconian than that of other TRIPS members, particularly those without a "fair use" provision as broad as 17 USC 107?

As Bad As A Condo

[JimSadler]

Boards of directors in condominiums seem to know no bounds at all and overstep and make rules they are not entitled to make. Apparently Austrian courts suffer from the same problem. Do they think they have a right to define acceptable speech in all other nations? Guess what ! I don't know a single American that gives a fig about laws in Austria. I wonder how they would react if we insisted that they obey our speech laws. Could they tolerate American pornography? Would they declare that the idiotic American Nazi party must be banned from the net?

The same country that ordered

[Anonymous Coward]

The same country that ordered all its women (and eventually ALL worldwide) to wear hijabs to show they aren't islamaphobic? Color me shocked.

(it won't stop the rapes, murders and bombings though - culturally enriched muslims happily kill each other constantly so what makes anyone think they will spare others)

This is excellent news

[WillAffleckUW]

As I was saying to the shirtless King of Thailand last week on a topless beach near Paris, we can't have people saing things that are hate speech.

Then we got ready to cosplay with the Princes of Lesser Britain in the national uniforms of their ancestral country during the World War.

What fun!

Well, looks like 0% get it.

[Anonymous Coward]

This isn't about "I'm offended", this is about inciting riots. You know that shit that happened after the Dutch newspaper? The rioting? The violence, the damage? All those rioting muslims where riled up and primed by BS from imams who made up most of that shit.

That's the sort of shit Austria is trying to ban here.

Not to protect the feels.

But to prevent crimes.

It's a shitload easier to stop someone being wound up and going armed to a pizza parlour to "save sex slave children" than to try someone for multiple counts of murder.

But, no, merkins have free speech and that means everyone else has to STFU and live with it.

Because.

Re: Well, looks like 0% get it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Free speech. Absolutely. Yes. Austria can go sit on a fencepost and rotate.

Re: Well, looks like 0% get it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds to me like Islam IS the problem. The solution is therefore simple: ban Islam.

Re:Well, looks like 0% get it.

[knorthern knight]

> This isn't about "I'm offended", this is about inciting riots.

There were riots in the US after Trump got elected. Your kind of logic would imply that voting for Trump should be illegal, because if enough people vote for Trump to elect him, some people will riot. Discuss.

Re:Well, looks like 0% get it.

[Triklyn]

it's also nice how you attribute the culpability of the rioters to the cartoonists.

don't draw a cartoon of muhammed... the muslims will riot.

the muslims will CHOOSE to riot. why are they not responsible for their choice?

No Standing

[Tjp($)pjT]

Sorry Austria. You have no standing outside your own borders or to a limited extent the EU. There may indeed be jurisdictions where Facebook is required to non delete postings (perhaps in an effort to aid police in tracking criminals? who can say) ... But Austria doesn't get a voice outside its own jurisdiction.

Think "Shock Jock". Think hate preacher, Imam

[Anonymous Coward]

Just saying "I hate jews" isn't hate speech, it's the speech of a fuckwit. But going on a half-hour screed about how they are baby killers, how they murder christians in their sleep and basically are doing a Borat but without the humour, THAT is hate speech.

It's the same BS that makes Muslims riot. They get hate speech against the west. Then eventually they riot and kill westerners.

Most people would think it a good idea to stop the violence before it starts rather than deal with the obvious crimes after the violence.

YMMV, though.

How about we just

[louzer]

How about we just get off Facebook and use OStatus clients? See Mastodon, all the cool kids are using it.

There's an easy fix for this

[Anonymous Coward]

Ban all freedom hating Australians from your website. The entire country

Bingo, problem solved. It's funny how courts think they have a right to view someone's website

Re:Will Facebook just have the balls to cut Austri

[Anonymous Coward]

No, I see them more as cunning money-grabbing advertisers. This kind of thing the judge ordered would stand in the way of Facebook's plans for world domination. I'm expecting a fight.

Just block Austria

[Anonymous Coward]

Just block Austria from the rest of the internet for a few weeks. Let them learn the hard way what they are actually in charge of and what they get as members of the international community.

It's not a TUMOR!!

By FB standards?

[Anonymous Coward]

- "I'm black and proud!"
FB: cool!

- "I'm proud to be white!"
FB: hate speech!

- "Kill all males!"
FB: np!

- "there's no wage gap"
FB: hate speech!

- "the future is female"
FB: yeah!

- "based on history, most of the important scientific breakthroughs in the next 50 years will comes from males"
FB: hate speech!!!! (plus doxxing and attempt to fire from job)

I Hate Censorship

[Anonymous Coward]

Wil my feeling about broccoli be deleted?

European level

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget, such a verdict has the potential to progress to European level courts.
Sure, loosing a market of 7 Millions doesn't really hurt, but what about loosing much of Europe as market?

original posts

[peawormsworth]

I don't know what the original post said. I found this link which gives some kind of clue:

According to the Austrian newspaper Die Presse, the posts called Glawischnig "miese Volksverräterin" and "korrupten Trampel," which translate roughly as "lousy traitor" and "corrupt bumpkin." http://www.npr.org/sections/th...

If these translations are accurate and those parts are the offence, then I really don't like the Green Party in Austria.

Um.... No?

[thesupraman]

the company is operating in Austria and probably has an Austrian-registered company, meaning it is well with in the jurisdiction of austrian courts to make that order

Very good..

Now:
As the company is operating in Malaysia, then the Austrians will be happy to comply with all Malaysian laws?
As the company is operating in Turkey, then the Austrians will be happy to comply with all Turkish laws?
As the company is operating in Russia, then the Austrians will be happy to comply with all Russian laws?
As the company is operating in Saudi Arabia, then the Austrians will be happy to comply with all Saudi laws?
As the company is operating in Eritrea, then the Austrians will be happy to comply with all Eritrean laws?

I would guarantee at quite a few mutually exclusive laws, for a start..

you see how this works?