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

[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

[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]

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

[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

[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

[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

[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 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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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]

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

[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]

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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...

[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...

[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...

[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

[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

[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

[colinrichardday]

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

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

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!

[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?

[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?

[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

[mwvdlee]

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

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?

"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

[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

[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

[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.

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?

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: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.

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.

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.

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

[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.

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

[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

[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.

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"

[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"

[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"

[fustakrakich]

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

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.

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...

[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?

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

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.

Re:Pretty sure

[Opportunist]

Zis is werry razist!

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.

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]

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.

Re:well they do have marvelous health care

[Opportunist]

They do!

But I can't talk about the details.

Re:Gamergate is Hate

[Opportunist]

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

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.

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.

Re: Progressives

[BronsCon]

3D chess

final solution

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

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.

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?

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.

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

[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?

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

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?

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?