EU Gives Ultimatum To Facebook and Twitter: Obey Us Or We'll Start Regulating (theregister.co.uk)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

EU Gives Ultimatum To Facebook and Twitter: Obey Us Or We'll Start Regulating (theregister.co.uk)

Posted by BeauHD on Friday September 29, 2017 @01:00AM from the shots-fired dept.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Register: The EU Commission has fired a shot across Facebook and Twitter's bows, having issued a proclamation decreeing that "social media platforms" must do more to remove "illegal content inciting hatred, violence and terrorism online." Although what is said in the EU proclamation is nothing new -- indeed, in the UK, the measures proposed by the EU's talking heads have been standard practice for years -- what matters here is not what is being said publicly, but instead the threat of what might happen unless Facebook appeases the bloc's leaders. The EU said that platforms should appoint dedicated points of contact for police forces and other State agencies to talk to about illegal content; appoint trusted content moderators ("flaggers," in EU-ese); and invest in "automatic detection technologies." In addition, illegal content should be deleted within "specific timeframes."

All straightforward; nothing new there, at least from the British perspective. Yet the threat is in the EU's later words: "Today's communication is a first step and follow-up initiatives will depend on the online platforms' actions to proactively implement the guidelines. The Commission will carefully monitor progress made by the online platforms over the next months and assess whether additional measures are needed."

335 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

The EU by LynnwoodRooster · 2017-09-29 01:03 · Score: 2, Insightful

Where Free Speech is not acceptable!

--
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
1. Re:The EU by Baron_Yam · 2017-09-29 01:10 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Pretty much every aspect of your life is subject to the collective will of the society in which you live. You cry, 'Freedom of speech!', and they're saying, 'Stop the spread of dangerous hate!'. Since they have a lot more experience with domestic terror groups than Americans do, I understand why they're going that way.
  Right now, you're probably right. But when groups of malcontents are allowed to fester unchecked, they eventually cross the line from being bitter to being violent... and that's when the EU approach suddenly looks better.
  So far as I know, nobody has figured out how to balance the two concerns in a way that makes everyone (or even most people) happy.
  I'm usually reasonably happy with Canada's position, which is something like 'free speech until you're advocating harming people'. That tends to get Americans twisted up in knots, but it works for us, and we (as much as I can speak for all Canadians) don't feel like we're living under the constant surveillance of Big Brother's telescreens.
2. Re:The EU by PopeRatface · 2017-09-29 01:15 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  Damn right! What, you think fascists should have the right to free speech? What are ya, some kind of Nazi?
  
  --
  Oy vey! It's anudda Shoah, I tells ya! Anudda Shoah!
3. Re:The EU by MightyYar · 2017-09-29 01:19 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Nah, in the US we use the strategy of having horrific levels of violence pretty much all the time, so we don't really overreact to individual mass killings.
  It's kind of like making sure that your background radiation is high enough that you don't really mind an occasional meltdown.
  
  --
  W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
4. Re:The EU by Bert64 · 2017-09-29 01:24 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Making something illegal doesn't stop it happening, it just causes it to happen in secret...
  Those who are planning or advocating violence will still do so, but will now be harder to keep track of. Meanwhile others will be drawn to these illegal groups out of curiosity.
  Educate people, allow everything out in the open and most people will reject dangerous ideologies anyway, and the few who don't will be easy to keep on top of.
  
  --
  http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
5. Re:The EU by jellomizer · 2017-09-29 01:24 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  No the EU is just having a fit that there isn't a good European Social media platform. Much like how the EU targets all the other American companies selling in there domain.
  These EU companies are not more ethical than American ones (I have an advanced water filtration on my home thanks to the Tax Payers of New York state) Because a French Owned company though it was a good idea to dump PFOA into the water supply, in essence had killed the towns economy, because no one wants to live in an area with polluted drinking water.
  With Brexit and the intensity of the European far right. The EU has a lot of problems on its own, However I found that Europeans will not complain as much publicly as Americans, however they are more then willing to point out Americans faults.
  
  --
  If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
6. Re:The EU by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-29 01:24 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  And who decides what counts as "advocating harming people"? Some people say that criticising a religion is hate speech which could lead to violence. What do you do when someone is sent to jail in Canada for simply saying something like "Islam is not a religion of peace"? Who censors the censor? etc. It's turtles all the way down...
7. Re:The EU by ckatko · 2017-09-29 01:25 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Slashdot is a strange place.
  They defend censorship of Google and Facebook when it's the USA. But when it's the EU doing it, they deride it.
8. Re: The EU by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-29 01:29 · Score: 1
  
  Yup, all hail the NewSpeak & The Ministry of Truth!
9. Re:The EU by houghi · 2017-09-29 01:38 · Score: 1
  
  If you don't like it. Don't do business here. That is also what is told to EU companies http://europa.eu/rapid/press-r...
  
  --
  Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
10. Re:The EU by Ol+Olsoc · 2017-09-29 01:40 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Since they have a lot more experience with domestic terror groups than Americans do, I understand why they're going that way.
  Does it follow that Europe's nasty record of being the number one killer in the world was a result of free speech?
  
  Right now, you're probably right. But when groups of malcontents are allowed to fester unchecked, they eventually cross the line from being bitter to being violent... and that's when the EU approach suddenly looks better.
  To be blunt, I'm convinced the opposite is true. The minority needs it's say. A group might expend their anger, or they might simply get themselves in trouble when they advocate violence or perform that violence. Active suppression can feed the anger, and simply drive it underground.
  
  So far as I know, nobody has figured out how to balance the two concerns in a way that makes everyone (or even most people) happy.
  I'm usually reasonably happy with Canada's position, which is something like 'free speech until you're advocating harming people'. That tends to get Americans twisted up in knots, but it works for us, and we (as much as I can speak for all Canadians) don't feel like we're living under the constant surveillance of Big Brother's telescreens.
  Calling for violence will get the authorities very interested in you here in old knot-twisted 'Murrica. Specific threats against specific people are not covered under free speech, and are covered under the heading of "terroristic threats". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
  The concept of crush the speech, crush the problem, is something some groups get wrong. In many cases, it makes the group being crushed stronger, as a validation to the disenfranchised that they are being actively suppressed.
  In addition, there is no better way to keep track of people in the internet age than allowing them to vent, then swoop down upon them when they cross a line.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
11. Re:The EU by jellomizer · 2017-09-29 01:45 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  The American Slogan "Land of the Free and the home of the Brave"
  This is because Free Speech and Freedom in general are dangerous things to have, and we need Bravery to deal with this constant danger.
  However what has happened in the United States (and much of the world), we lost our bravery (on both sides of the political spectrum). We are afraid of Terrorist, Radicals, Racists, Minorities, Rich People, Poor People, Christians, Atheists, Muslims, Jewish.... So we are cowarding to our comfortable little corners of the world, and demanding protection from these bad ideas. This polarization increases fear, and there will be points where this fear will either lash out in escalating violence, or there will be some real Bravery, Courage and Leadership to reach out to these scary dangerous people and show that they are not so bad, and learn to disagree with a point of view, without fearing that point, and learning to accept and use use reason to help moderate the bad parts of our nature.
  Until then, battle lines are being drawn, and if things don't get better there could be a Social war In America that would spread to Europe and the rest of the world, that would change the world power structure and perhaps put us into a dark ages. As the world economy would be tanked.
  
  --
  If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
12. Re:The EU by PolygamousRanchKid+ · 2017-09-29 01:56 · Score: 1
  
  Slashdot is a strange place.
  >
  
  It's an open secret that Mark Zuckerberg wants to be the next President of the USA. The whole world will get a lot stranger when he has his fingers on the nuke buttons, and the EU is attacking his company.
  
  --
  Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
13. Re:The EU by Hognoxious · 2017-09-29 01:58 · Score: 0
  
  Making something illegal doesn't stop it happening
  It does if you lock the people up who do it. Which is sort of the point, isn't it?
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
14. Re:The EU by angel'o'sphere · 2017-09-29 01:59 · Score: 1
  
  Last sunday we had elections in Germany.
  A relatively new right wing radical party won about 10% of the seats.
  I would not call that a few.
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
15. Re:The EU by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-29 02:00 · Score: 0
  
  The free speech of terrorists (Or as I call them törrötissit, because, you know, they don't like boobies) and haty-haty pants (the "we secretly love Putin and hate Nordic values" crowd) are threatening my freedom to walk on a public space without needing to hear over 50-something old ladies screaming to some immigrant looking people just minding their business.
16. Re:The EU by GuB-42 · 2017-09-29 02:01 · Score: 2
  
  If a private company blocks some kind of content, it is totally within their rights. They own the platform and using it is a privilege, not a right. They are only required to follow their own contracts. If you are unhappy with that, find another platform, or create your own.
  When a government decides to force companies to remove content, that's real censorship. A completely different matter.
  AFAIK, the USA have much stronger freedom of speech laws than the EU. And Google and Facebook usually block content on their own, probably because being associated with hate speech is bad for business.
17. Re:The EU by citizenr · 2017-09-29 02:02 · Score: 1
  
  just like female nipples in Freeland.
  
  --
  Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
18. Re:The EU by penandpaper · 2017-09-29 02:02 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Yea, that totally worked for the war on drugs.
19. Re:The EU by Baron_Yam · 2017-09-29 02:03 · Score: 0
  
  >Does it follow that Europe's nasty record of being the number one killer in the world was a result of free speech?
  Didn't the USA take the title when it dropped nukes on the Japanese?
  >To be blunt, I'm convinced the opposite is true. The minority needs it's say. A group might expend their anger, or they might simply get themselves in trouble when they advocate violence or perform that violence. Active suppression can feed the anger, and simply drive it underground.
  Believe it or not, I agree. But you can't just let people build up hate groups until they're so large they're difficult to control, either.
  >Calling for violence will get the authorities very interested in you here in old knot-twisted 'Murrica. Specific threats against specific people are not covered under free speech, and are covered under the heading of "terroristic threats"
  Our threshold is a little lower. Sometimes that looks an awful 'slippery slope / censorshipy' and sometimes it's stopping inciting to violence. As I said, I'm happy with Canada's balance, more or less.
  >The concept of crush the speech, crush the problem, is something some groups get wrong. In many cases, it makes the group being crushed stronger, as a validation to the disenfranchised that they are being actively suppressed.
  Again, I agree. But it also makes organization (and thus organized growth) more difficult, and it gives you legal grounds to lock them up when you catch them. And - if applied in concordance with community standards - tends to reinforce the "That's unacceptable" opinion which further impairs the growth of a hate group.
  >In addition, there is no better way to keep track of people in the internet age than allowing them to vent, then swoop down upon them when they cross a line.
  You only catch the very stupid ones that way. The smarter ones teach the moderately stupid ones how to avoid crossing the line in ways that cause legal trouble.
  All I'm saying is we're reasonably happy up here and we don't have groups like the Westboro Baptists OR feel like we're particularly oppressed for thought crime. (We do have the same cyclical issue with liberal political correctness gone mad, though)
20. Re:The EU by fluffernutter · 2017-09-29 02:05 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Except the government is the only entity that has the purpose of standing up equally for all people. I'm sorry you Americans have a crappy government, but you really need to become active in making it the government it should be, rather than distrusting any government anywhere, including your own.
  
  --
  Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
21. Re:The EU by AmiMoJo · 2017-09-29 02:10 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  By that logic free speech is unacceptable in the US as well, since sometimes speech can be a crime. Fraud, credible threats, harassment, leaking state secrets, causing injury or death through panic... There are all sorts of ways that speech in the US can get you into legal difficulties.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
22. Re:The EU by slack_justyb · 2017-09-29 02:13 · Score: 1
  
  Where Free Speech is not acceptable!
  Maybe, my read of it is this. "We police our real people, you need to police your virtual people." Which I find interesting because the EU is basically saying that they don't want to actually pay for virtual policing and would rather these companies do it voluntarily or they'll deputize them by law. I don't think it is so much a free speech attack as it is the EU trying to sluff off the responsibility of doing the thing that a government or government like organization is supposed to do.
  Call me crazy, but I get a real feel that governments in first world nations are getting really lazy about the part of the contract their supposed to uphold. Apple unlock this phone, Yahoo give me all your emails, Verizon record everything for us. Stop trying to third party responsibility. You want the Internet policed, you want to define hate speech and "protect" folks from it. Well get off your collective lazy asses and go do that thing. Stop going after the bar owner just because The Hell's Angels are stopping in his place. It easy to counter this kind of stuff when the person doing it answers to the public. Codify something and make it a private business' problem and suddenly the public can't do squat about it until enough folks get into government/government like entity to vote it away.
  Again, that's my read on this, so I could be way out in left field here.
23. Re:The EU by andrewbaldwin · 2017-09-29 02:13 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Pretty much every aspect of your life is subject to the collective will of the society in which you live.
  This seems to be universally true - yet most people seem to have blinkered vision.
  No one has a universal answer (and I doubt that one exists). Both the US and EU approaches have merits and both have drawbacks
  US observers cry statism and slippery slope at the EU approaches.
  They point out the democratic deficit in some structures (albeit with less corruption/bribery than campaign contributions in the US).
  Non US observers point out that freedom of expression in the US is fine as long as you toe the party line.
  They remember Joe MacCarthy
  They point out how, for all the vaunted freedoms, the societal limitations placed upon anyone who happens to be black, gay, atheist, muslim, socialist....
  Neither party comes out with much glory, both have an element of hypocrisy - yet both are much better than fundamentalist theocracies or single state tyrannies and we should celebrate that.
  There's more in common than different and grandstanding, assuming moral superiority and slagging each other off doesn't help
24. Re:The EU by p4nther2004 · 2017-09-29 02:18 · Score: 0
  
  It's an open secret that Mark Zuckerberg wants to be the next President of the USA.
  
  He's do a better job than the current President.
25. Re:The EU by dave420 · 2017-09-29 02:20 · Score: 2
  
  That's a public health issue.
26. Re: The EU by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-29 02:21 · Score: 0
  
  >>Does it follow that Europe's nasty record of being the number one killer in the world was a result of free speech?
  >Didn't the USA take the title when it dropped nukes on the Japanese?
  Only for a short while, until Mao Zedong took it over.
27. Re:The EU by dave420 · 2017-09-29 02:22 · Score: 1
  
  Extremism begets extremism. Cutting off avenues for vulnerable people to be swayed by extremism works. It's not about the current extremists, but stopping new ones being formed.
28. Re:The EU by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-29 02:23 · Score: 1
  
  So now you're butthurt because people who have a different opinion than you gained political representation? If only "approved" points of view are legitimate, why even bother with having elections?
29. Re:The EU by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-29 02:23 · Score: 1
  
  Stop the spread of dangerous hate!'. Since they have a lot more experience with domestic terror groups than Americans do
  The cause and effect of this fails to dawn upon Europe. If you push it underground, it will fester and grow. The REASON the US has fewer problems with in this regard is because we allow those groups their free speech.
  Or at least, we used to.
30. Re:The EU by tepples · 2017-09-29 02:28 · Score: 0
  
  No, angel'o'sphere is butthurt at frustration with other people who can not see the parallels between this party and another "relatively new right wing radical party" in Germany in the 1930s.
31. Re:The EU by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-29 02:30 · Score: 0
  
  Thankfully we have the US where anybody can freely paint "Kill all infidels! Allah hu Akbar! Stab those infidel pigs to death!" on their house or found a Pro-Stalinist Society against Imperialist America without any fear of negative repercussions or restriction of their right to free speech.
32. Re:The EU by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-29 02:30 · Score: 0
  
  Grow a sack.
33. Re:The EU by penandpaper · 2017-09-29 02:32 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  That doesn't undermine the point that outlawing something does not stop it. You could also argue that violence is a health issue too.
  The fact of the mater is that if you try and ban certain speech; those people will go underground, be validated, double their resolve, galvanize their support and create a victim narrative for recruitment. Just as the drug war created a black market with cheaper prices and drug cartels that are better financed and more organized than many governments.
34. Re:The EU by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-29 02:34 · Score: 0
  
  You think that more people were killed with a couple nuclear bombs that all previous conflicts? Hyperbole much?
  grow a sack.
35. Re: The EU by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-29 02:36 · Score: 0
  
  Stalin killed more than Mao
36. Re:The EU by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-29 02:37 · Score: 1
  
  The EU institutions decide, and all loyal European citizens will obey. Malcontents and dissenters are not tolerated. We Europeans have learned that people do not need "freedom". People need purpose and guidance. Absolute conformity of thought is the ultimate guarantee of social peace. Orthodoxy will be enforced.
37. Re:The EU by Salgak1 · 2017-09-29 02:37 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Why are conservatives always called "extreme" or "radical", and yet if left of center, there is far more tolerance.
38. Re:The EU by Salgak1 · 2017-09-29 02:40 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  Ahem: Throwing the Godwin Flag.
  And I might remind you that that allegedly "new right wing radical party" was the National Socialist German Worker's Party. I'd call them fascist-left, not fascist-right. . .
39. Re:The EU by penandpaper · 2017-09-29 02:42 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Didn't the USA take the title when it dropped nukes on the Japanese?
  How many people do you think were killed by those 2 bombs? They weren't even the deadliest bombing runs of the war.
  Do you include the many thousands/millions that didn't die from invading Japan? Seriously, check out Operation Downfall. For some perspective, Olympic estimated 766,700-815,548 personnel while Normandy landings had 156,000.
40. Re:The EU by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-29 02:51 · Score: 0
  
  Just like the US!
  Except you know, in the US, it's not acceptable to protest the national anthem. That, truly, is the greater crime. It merits swift, decisive action to punish the offenders less their scurrilous ways continue.
  But supporting mass terrorism and insurrection? Oh, that's just a bunch of good ole boys who never mean no harm.
41. Re:The EU by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-29 02:54 · Score: 0
  
  Let's lock up ALL THE NAZIS and let them spend every waking moment together in a HUUUUUUGE Nazi prison. That'll sure show them the error of their way of thinking
42. Re:The EU by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-29 02:57 · Score: 1
  
  Then you'd be ignorant, and falling for the assumption that because they have the words 'socialist' and 'workers' in their name, that they were left wing.
  Do some reading.
43. Re:The EU by penandpaper · 2017-09-29 02:59 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  A government protecting speech for all is standing up for equality for all people.
  We distrust the government because we do not think we are special and that the horrors of the past can happen here. What drives violence is that same in Europe as in the US because human nature. Sweeping offensive speech under the rug does not solve the problem. Outlawing offensive speech only perpetuates those that parade those believes because those people will go underground, be validated, double their resolve, galvanize their support and create a victim narrative for recruitment.
  Speech is more dangerous than a gun because it can rally genocide. Yet, it is the most important right of a democratic society. If you ban speech then you undermine the foundation of democracy. Free speech does not protect speech the majority thinks acceptable. It is for the controversial and offensive which has been historically the speech that has given us more freedom and more rights and more understanding of ourselves.
  There is a price to every right. The more that people forget that - the more that the price will be paid in blood.
44. Re:The EU by Baron_Yam · 2017-09-29 03:02 · Score: 1
  
  >Do you include the many thousands/millions that didn't die from invading Japan?
  Of course not... they weren't killed. I'm not a revisionist who wants to paint those bombs as unnecessary, or who thinks that during war the enemy soldier's lives are equally valuable. It's simply that when counting kills, potential savings of life isn't relevant.
45. Re:The EU by EndlessNameless · 2017-09-29 03:04 · Score: 1
  
  Educate people, allow everything out in the open and most people will reject dangerous ideologies anyway
  Which is why anti-vax, flat earth, climate denial, and evolution denial are all born and bred in the USA. There are numerous, modern examples of this claim failing. Reject it now, if you are at all rational.
  I support free speech, but the spread of dangerous ideologies is one of its costs, not one of its benefits.
  
  --
  
  ---
  According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
46. Re:The EU by JonnyCalcutta · 2017-09-29 03:06 · Score: 1
  
  So stop punishing people for murder. It doesn't stop it.
  I know that's a crap analogy, but so was yours.
47. Re:The EU by penandpaper · 2017-09-29 03:11 · Score: 2
  
  Fair enough. But a few hundred thousand for both bombs isn't enough to be "number one killer in the world". Again, they weren't eve the worst bombing runs in the war.
48. Re:The EU by penandpaper · 2017-09-29 03:17 · Score: 1
  
  There is a difference between a bad law trying to accomplish a laudable goal and failing compared to outlawing a universally unacceptable action.
  Try again. If you have an analogy that actually fits I would entertain it.
49. Re:The EU by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-29 03:21 · Score: 0
  
  Yet people in the EU enjoy more free speech than in any other part of the world.
50. Re:The EU by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-29 03:23 · Score: 0
  
  So stop punishing people for murder. It doesn't stop it.
  If that was really the case, then yes, we should stop. Or are you a big fan of symbolic gestures that have no useful or even counter-productive results?
51. Re:The EU by djinn6 · 2017-09-29 03:25 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  That radical party also silenced opposing opinions. You know who's doing that now? Hint: it's not AFD.
  
  The fact that you can overlook that is precisely how Nazis got a hold of the nation. When "the good guys" do bad things, people forgive or even defend them. After all, they're "the good guys" who will make everything better and will never abuse their power.
52. Re:The EU by liquid_schwartz · 2017-09-29 03:30 · Score: 2
  
  Why are conservatives always called "extreme" or "radical", and yet if left of center, there is far more tolerance.
  The left was only tolerant in hippie songs created by ... the left. In practice if you don't walk the line very carefully you will be expelled permanently. That's why movie stars trip over themselves to support the cause of the moment. Just like North Koreans they will be punished if they don't have sufficient enthusiasm in their praise.
53. Re:The EU by Cajun+Hell · 2017-09-29 03:30 · Score: 1
  
  They defend censorship of Google and Facebook when it's the USA. But when it's the EU doing it, they deride it.
  Who are these "they?" If you've found a specific hypocrite, call him out by name/id. I think most of us are pretty consistently pro-censorship or anti-censorship.
  
  --
  "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
54. Re:The EU by mysidia · 2017-09-29 03:31 · Score: 2
  
  There are all sorts of ways that speech in the US can get you into legal difficulties.
  These "legal difficulties" occur after a shown harm; they DONT allow the authorities to mandate proactive deletion of your message before a court order referring to you specifically is issued.
  Except for "leaking state secrets" --- as for that, you signed papers agreeing NOT TO leak state secrets, before you received legitimate access those secrets; if you took actions to steal secrets, then you did more than speak them.
55. Re:The EU by lgw · 2017-09-29 03:33 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Freedom of speech applies to "radical parties" far from the current ruling party more than anything else. That's the entire point, really, the freedom to disagree with the rulers, plus the freedom to disagree with the "intellectuals" in charge of communist regimes.
  Communists(or whatever the post-modernists call themselves these days) in the US are now staging violent protests against free speech, because it's anathema to draconic rule by self-described "intellectuals".
  Whatever sort of party you fear, any party that objects to free speech is the worst choice.
  Fundamentally, humans have two ways to resolve disputes: speech or violence. Which do you choose?
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
56. Re:The EU by nedlohs · 2017-09-29 03:36 · Score: 1
  
  Do you also think North Korea is a democratic republic?
  It's usually better to judge groups on their words and deeds rather than on their names.
57. Re:The EU by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-29 03:37 · Score: 0
  
  But a few hundred thousand for both bombs isn't enough to be "number one killer in the world".
  
  Barry Bonds beat Hank Aaron's home run record of 755 with a single home run in San Francisco.
  You're really trying the wrong method of argument here.
  Just because 1>2, doesn't make 1+1+12.
  Sit back, and realize what you're saying is just as flawed.
  Though honestly "record of being the number one killer in the world" is a very ambiguous title, and could be interpreted in a lot of ways. I might give that title to disease, or time, instead.
58. Re:The EU by MightyYar · 2017-09-29 03:38 · Score: 1
  
  It rather depends on what you consider "more dangerous". You are probably 2x as likely to be mugged in London or Paris but your chances of being shot are essentially zero. Stabbings are certainly violent, but they don't even make the news in the US with all the shootings. We're almost completely immune to news about stabbings unless it is particularly unusual, like a mom stabbing her children or someone famous being stabbed. Even gunshot victims get little airtime unless they die, and even then not much unless there is an unusual circumstance. We are far more desensitized to violent news than Europeans are.
  
  --
  W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
59. Re:The EU by lgw · 2017-09-29 03:38 · Score: 1
  
  Since they have a lot more experience with domestic terror groups than Americans do, I understand why they're going that way.
  When someone "migrates" to your country, and then commits a terrorist act, that's not a domestic terrorist, but the regular sort. Britain had some experience with domestic terrorism, but the IRA stopped their antics when terrorism became uncool, many years back now.
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
60. Re:The EU by nedlohs · 2017-09-29 03:41 · Score: 1
  
  >>Does it follow that Europe's nasty record of being the number one killer in the world was a result of free speech?
  >Didn't the USA take the title when it dropped nukes on the Japanese?
  Not by a long shot. And if you thought about it for a half a second it would be obvious - just how many people do you think were in those two cities?
61. Re:The EU by djinn6 · 2017-09-29 03:47 · Score: 1
  
  Whether the US has free speech has nothing to do with whether the EU should have free speech. There's room for improvement everywhere.
  
  You belong to the group of people who think not listening is not an option, that it's impossible to just stop following or unfriending someone. God forbid people try to decide for themselves what they want to hear. How dare they! After all, only you know what the "right" speech is.
62. Re:The EU by mean+pun · 2017-09-29 03:52 · Score: 1
  
  There is a difference between a bad law trying to accomplish a laudable goal and failing compared to outlawing a universally unacceptable action.
  I get a bit dizzy of all the pretzel logic about this. Can you explain again why outlawing hate speech---hate speech being pretty much a 'universally unacceptable action'---is a bad idea, but outlawing murder is not? No, in both cases the success rate is not 100%, but yes, in both cases it helps to suppress it.
63. Re:The EU by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-29 03:56 · Score: 0
  
  Pretty much every aspect of your life is subject to the collective will of the society in which you live. You cry, 'Freedom of speech!', and they're saying, 'Stop the spread of dangerous hate!'. Since they have a lot more experience with domestic terror groups than Americans do, I understand why they're going that way.
  Right now, you're probably right. But when groups of malcontents are allowed to fester unchecked, they eventually cross the line from being bitter to being violent... and that's when the EU approach suddenly looks better.
  So far as I know, nobody has figured out how to balance the two concerns in a way that makes everyone (or even most people) happy.
  I'm usually reasonably happy with Canada's position, which is something like 'free speech until you're advocating harming people'. That tends to get Americans twisted up in knots, but it works for us, and we (as much as I can speak for all Canadians) don't feel like we're living under the constant surveillance of Big Brother's telescreens.
  More experience than the US on dealing with hate groups? Are you kidding me?
  Europe has had nothing to deal with in terms of "hate" groups unless you call doofs dressing up in Nazi cosplay as hate groups.
  Let's not kid ourselves, there's an unelected group of bureaucrats who fear that their cushy paperpushing do nothing jobs are threatened by member states who are rightfully looking at the EU as a bloated power grab by multinationals. That same group of do nothing bureaucrats are doing their best to ensure their positions are secure by doubling down.
  The real hategroups in Europe, who the EU doesn't see as a problem, are the women oppressing, LGBT stoning, desert war cult Mohammedans seeking to remove the past 50 years of progress we've had on leveling the playing field for the oppressed.
64. Re:The EU by mean+pun · 2017-09-29 03:58 · Score: 1
  
  Simple question: do you think that postings on social media in favour of Isis are "advocating harming people"? Do you think this should be suppressed?
65. Re: The EU by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-29 04:00 · Score: 0
  
  Fuck off EU. American companies on the internet do not have to comply with your backwoods laws.
  Unless you want a little tit for tat action. In which case American law will apply everywhere.
  With Love
66. Re:The EU by JonnyCalcutta · 2017-09-29 04:01 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I'm sorry, but that's just hyperbole.
  1) the EU is not banning speech or even offensive speech. They are banning speech that incites violence and terrorism
  2) in the USA you do not have absolute freedom of speech so despite your hyperbole any argument is about where the line should be, not whether there is a line.
  3) I would argue that privacy is just as important a right as speech. I don't have any evidence to back that up, but then neither do you. You're just spouting dogma.
67. Re:The EU by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-29 04:05 · Score: 0
  
  Where Free Speech is not acceptable!
  Honestly, you Americans need to shut the fuck up about shit like this, when your own government is deliberately trampling your own speech and freedom of association by trying to force Facebook to reveal the identities of people who are "anti-administration activists".
  You want to do business in the EU? You are legally required to follow the laws of the EU. Being some whiny American asshole or American corporation doesn't change that.
  Look at the BS in your own country before you start braying about everyone else. Your moron of a president just made a speech to the UN about how nations should have their own sovereignty and worry about their own affairs ... America has pretty much lost any moral high ground to preach to the rest of the world.
  How many of your religious right would happily curtail the rights of everyone else to impose their own beliefs? Way too many of them is the answer.
  So, please, shut the fuck up.
  Because "anti-administration" and every other bullshit thing your government is doing is tantamount to "papers please, comrade" and trying to outlaw disagreeing with a moron who wouldn't know the truth if it bit him on the ass.
  Free speech my ass. America pays lip service to this shit, but is otherwise no longer some shining beacon of freedom.
68. Re:The EU by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2017-09-29 04:07 · Score: 2
  
  The Nazis in Germany gained ascendancy at least in part because they could bear up and silence those who spoke against them.
  It is foolish to grant that power to the anti-Nazi side, then cross one's fingers and hope it eventually twisted against one's interests.
  It is odd to feign smugness that you've, once and for all, seized censorshop to be used by the proper people, and only them.
  You still have people alive who have memory of dictatorship. Meanwhile, the US remains free almost 250 years later.
  
  --
  (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
69. Re:The EU by Crashmarik · 2017-09-29 04:10 · Score: 1
  
  You're right. I have always fancied being beaten to death over being shot.
70. Re:The EU by Maxo-Texas · 2017-09-29 04:14 · Score: 1
  
  Only the U.S. is a big champion of unlimited free speech. So who cares?
  You can't promote truthful nazi speech in germany. They had some problems with it and a lot of people died. So now it's restricted speech.
  Free speech depends on accurate information.
  If all these ads had text that said, "This was written and published by a russian agent" then the false stories would have less impact. Sadly, they would still have some impact because people "want to believe".
  Any free speech presented as news should tie back to hard data or to an identified person.
  Anonymity is more suitable to Free speech which is purely opinion.
  This wasn't always true... but now we know we can't trust news that can't be validated and that it's a weakness of free speech.
  We also don't allow people to shout fire in a crowded theater, lie about other living people, incite violence, and restrict free speech legally (backed up by the supreme court) in a half dozen other ways. Restricting free speech by russian propaganda agencies may need to join libel, inciting violence, conspiracy, and other things already restricted.
  
  --
  She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
71. Re:The EU by MightyYar · 2017-09-29 04:16 · Score: 1
  
  That's misleading - you are indeed more likely to be beaten in Europe, but homicides are higher in the US. If death is your fear, than the US is "more dangerous". If a beating is your fear, then Europe is "more dangerous".
  
  --
  W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
72. Re:The EU by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-29 04:17 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Stabbings are certainly violent, but they don't even make the news in the US with all the shootings.
  Knives are not in the news because guns can be used to challenge the neoliberal establishment that owns the news while knives cannot. The news is providing the "context" that guns are especially dangerous to have on the street because their owners want to grab all the guns. I don't think people are less likely to recover from gunshot wounds than knife wounds.
  The EU's tactic is to turn the political ship by suppressing speech. Some people deserve to think and create news which provides "context" that tells others how to think. Other people deserve to be guided and protected from the "spread" of ideas (specifically, amongst themselves without the guidance of the thinking caste's "context"). This idea is not crazy, but I don't agree with it because I'm a real American. But it makes sense, if you agreed with that idea, that you'd be threatened by guns: when your efforts at providing "context" fail to maintain the establishment, you want to fall back on obliterating firepower.
  Not all European countries ban guns. A couple have similar ownership levels to the US, and little violence. "Diversity causes violence" would be a much stronger argument, but of course we can't say that. Then we'd have to make real tradeoffs instead of dropping thought-terminating pseudo-aphorisms.
  Whether it's ok to bully Facebook into "voluntary" censorship, whether an armed populous is egregious violence, depends on who you fear more: the unwashed masses, or the thousand-year Reich.
  Europeans got it wrong.
73. Re:The EU by AmiMoJo · 2017-09-29 04:17 · Score: 1
  
  I guess you have not checked my previous posts, but I am always one of the first to point out that freedom of speech does not require anyone to listen to you. I mostly do it when people are complaining about being banned from Twitter or that their favourite neo-Nazi site can't register a domain.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
74. Re:The EU by ichimunki · 2017-09-29 04:17 · Score: 1
  
  As a lifelong critic of the Drug War, I have to say that there are some problems with what you've said. The Drug War was overbroad and poorly implemented. It banned relatively harmless drugs (like marijuana) and even non-habit forming substances (like LSD). Had it stuck to substances with proven addiction and health problems the result might have been much different. Also, the corruption and incompetence levels of American law enforcement have been staggering. If rich white kids with bags of coke get off with a slap on the wrist, while poor black kids with a single joint go to jail, you are not actually enforcing the law, you are just making shit up as you go. And that assumes that law enforcement agents themselves aren't involved directly in maintaining certain flows of drugs (i.e. protecting some drug businesses for bribes or cuts). Finally, your argument that black markets create lower prices is anti-intuitive. Normally black markets raise the cost of goods or services because the financial model has to include the risk of being in the business.
  
  So, what I'd actually like to see is evidence that what you say could be happening in Europe around this illegal content is happening. Or that it is being as badly implemented as the Drug War in the USA. Otherwise this is a nice analogy and not the worst theory ever, but I'm not convinced.
  
  --
  I do not have a signature
75. Re:The EU by Maxo-Texas · 2017-09-29 04:21 · Score: 1
  
  No, they called themselves "socialist" only to trick workers.
  The actions they took were not left wing.
  They oppressed workers rights.
  They destroyed labor unions (and killed labor union leaders).
  They removed social safety nets for all non-aryans.
  Hitler and other nazi officials openly attacked the left wing verbally as well.
  Far from social equality, they were for social elitism of a few aryans.
  http://www.snopes.com/2017/09/...
  Despite using the word "socialist" in their title, the nazi's did not take "left wing" actions. They took "right wing" actions.
  So toss aside the "left/right" wing title.
  Are we opposed to stripping workers of protections against unpaid overtime, safety and health protections?
  Are we opposed to killing and enslaving people who are not member of a particular racial group?
  Are we opposed to a version of nationalism that justifies invading and conquering other nations- killing their people- stealing their resources- i.e. war?
  Are we opposed to a version of racism which extended to experimenting on children until they died and included atrocities like using their skin to make lampshades?
  Are you?
  
  --
  She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
76. Re:The EU by LeftCoastThinker · 2017-09-29 04:26 · Score: 1
  
  Where Free Speech is not acceptable!
  This is seriously true these days. "Hate speech" is entirely subjective and by the fascist progressive alt-left definition often infringes on other basic freedoms. How about everyone in the EU sack up and just ignore (or better yet, demonstrate the fallacies in) speech that they don't agree with, like every adult used to do 50 years ago...
  OTOH, Facebook should be appealing to the US state department that foreign powers are trying to infringe on the basic constitutional rights of it's users. Yank all Facebook servers out of the EU and tell them to go to hell... What the liberal progressives don't realize is that 5-20 years from now we will have another fascist dictatorship in Europe, sprouted out of the EU (the Nazi party sprouted out of the German socialist progressive movement). The EU is already laying the groundwork.
  As soon as a government can ban speech you don't agree with, they can also ban your speech because there is always someone who won't agree with it. (And no, we are not talking about incitement to actual violence, or material support for terrorists, that is also illegal in the US.)
  
  --
  If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
77. Re:The EU by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-29 04:32 · Score: 0
  
  you really need to become active in making it the government it should be
  You're totally right. We do need to do that.
  
  rather than distrusting any government anywhere, including your own.
  But until we do, isn't that the sanest attitude? We don't think we're ever going to have government be what it should be. Maybe I'm wrong that we'll never have it, but one thing is for sure: it's a long way off. Even when Democrats lose (yay!), Republicans end up winning (noooo!!). And when Republicans win (yay!!), we end up with Democrats (nooo!!!!). America always loses its elections by a landslide.
78. Re:The EU by EllisDees · 2017-09-29 04:36 · Score: 2
  
  Here is the actual Nazi platform:
  http://www.historyplace.com/wo...
  Points 9-17, 21, and 25 are straight up socialist, direct from Marx.
  
  --
  -- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
79. Re:The EU by TechyImmigrant · 2017-09-29 04:40 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  LOL, if you thinks parts of London and Paris are not orders of magnitude more dangerous than any place in the US at night you are delusional.
  I spent my college years in the UK walking to and from college every day, through the 'worst' slum in the country, widely acknowledged to have the highest rate of drug crime, gun crime, poverty and anything else they might try to measure to show how bad it was.
  I spent the second half of my life in the US, where I have visited many US cities.
  Strangely, despite all the alarming talk of how dangerous it might be, I was shot, mugged, hit and assaulted precisely zero times. It never happened. I never saw it happen.
  People like to overstate the dangers. I assume that this is mere grandstanding. Saying any old shit because there's an audience.
  
  --
  I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
80. Re:The EU by LeftCoastThinker · 2017-09-29 04:41 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Let me help you out there Mr. Yar.
  More dangerous: more likely to sustain injury or death during innocent activities, especially after dark.
  In the US, outside of the gun grabbing left and right coasts and a few liberal big cities of the same mindset (i.e. Chicago), the middle of the country is very safe, mostly because criminals never know who has a concealed carry and will shoot them in the face.
  OTOH, in the large EU metropolitan areas, any two bit thug with some physical strength and a big knife or brass knuckles is king and can pretty much do whatever harm he feels like to the unarmed sheep citizens with no concern for his life.
  
  --
  If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
81. Re:The EU by TechyImmigrant · 2017-09-29 04:42 · Score: 1
  
  >The fact of the mater
  The fact of the mater is that she's your mother.
  
  --
  I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
82. Re:The EU by MightyYar · 2017-09-29 04:45 · Score: 1
  
  Not all European countries ban guns. A couple have similar ownership levels to the US, and little violence.
  
  You don't need to go to Europe. Canada has high gun ownership levels. But few handguns. We should do the same here - it would not significantly affect the 2nd Amendment protections against a tyrannical government, as handguns are not terribly useful against the US military. But rifles might be.
  
  "Diversity causes violence" would be a much stronger argument, but of course we can't say that.
  You'd have to support such a statement with actual evidence. Off the top of my head, gun violence is generally homogeneous in the US - blacks shooting blacks and whites shooting whites. New York City - one of the most diverse cities in the world - is also perennially atop the list of safest large cities in the US.
  
  --
  W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
83. Re:The EU by sexconker · 2017-09-29 04:53 · Score: 1
  
  They also have a lot more experience with enacting policies that allow terrorists to run amok, suppressing news of that, spying on and stifling their own citizenry, etc.
  Why the FUCK should Facebook or Twitter bow to ANY government's desire to control speech?
84. Re:The EU by MightyYar · 2017-09-29 04:57 · Score: 1
  
  More dangerous: more likely to sustain injury or death during innocent activities, especially after dark.
  So I'd change that up to weigh homicide more heavily. I know I'd personally rather suffer a stab wound (or even a gunshot) and live to tell about it.
  
  the middle of the country is very safe,
  So is NYC.
  
  --
  W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
85. Re:The EU by sexconker · 2017-09-29 05:02 · Score: 1
  
  Nazis and nazis (lower case) weren't lying when calling themselves socialists. Hell, the KKK and their ilk were heavily involved with the Democratic party up until a few decades ago. The actual Nazis took over Germany because they had the popular support of the group running the society at the time, and managed to blame things on certain baskets of deplorables. Their goals and policies were extremely socialist. Their actual actions were monstrous, of course, and that don't mean that all socialists are like Nazis. But that doesn't change the actual history.
  You can link to snopes all you want, they're useless for anything that isn't completely objective, and they've admitted their own biases in the past. At best, you're going to get a "No True Socialist" fallacy.
86. Re:The EU by sexconker · 2017-09-29 05:06 · Score: 1
  
  It's simply that when counting kills, potential savings of life isn't relevant.
  Of course it is. If you're counting "kills" you're likely counting them for a purpose. Probably something to do with the fact that killing people is significant. Therefore, NOT killing people is also significant.
87. Re:The EU by wyHunter · 2017-09-29 05:08 · Score: 1
  
  No. The use of nuclear weapons on Japanese cities was NOT an act of genocide. The Europeans had a number of those genocide incidents - the USA had only one, and even that wasn't complete.
88. Re:The EU by angel'o'sphere · 2017-09-29 05:13 · Score: 1
  
  Free speech is a contract between government and its citizens.
  The citizens can freely discuss and object the government.
  It is not a wild card to spread hate speech between citizens and citizens or citizens and immigrants.
  Get the difference ... or stay out of discussion.
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
89. Re:The EU by penandpaper · 2017-09-29 05:16 · Score: 1
  
  Hate speech is poorly defined and "who watches the watchers". Hate speech, or any speech, in and of itself does not hurt anyone. It requires action to cause harm. I cannot harm you or your property with racial slurs or suggesting your skin color is inferior. A laudable goal (ending hate speech) by a bad law (poorly defined 'hate speech' who gets to decide definition) and failing (does not stop the rise of the 'extreme' right in Europe).
  Murder is clearly defined. It causes harm as it is an action. You do not have the right to take someones life away. Outlawing it ensures that those that do this action are separated from the rest of society. The punishments are less of a deterrent as they are for society to separate those that prove they cannot participate in society.
  How is it pretzel logic ? Perhaps I used poor language "universally unacceptable action". The drug war was thought of as an acceptable means to a laudable goal, does that change the efficacy in reducing drug use?
90. Re:The EU by WaffleMonster · 2017-09-29 05:17 · Score: 2
  
  Pretty much every aspect of your life is subject to the collective will of the society in which you live. You cry, 'Freedom of speech!', and they're saying, 'Stop the spread of dangerous hate!'. Since they have a lot more experience with domestic terror groups than Americans do, I understand why they're going that way.
  EU's approach is embarrassing. They should spend more time addressing their problems instead of ordering people to "shut up" under threat of violence.
  
  Right now, you're probably right. But when groups of malcontents are allowed to fester unchecked, they eventually cross the line from being bitter to being violent... and that's when the EU approach suddenly looks better.
  Censorship is the go to tool of cowards who lack guts to stand behind their convictions unwilling to attempt hard work necessary to build general consensus for their positions.
91. Re:The EU by Crashmarik · 2017-09-29 05:19 · Score: 1
  
  That's misleading - you are indeed more likely to be beaten in Europe, but homicides are higher in the US. If death is your fear, than the US is "more dangerous". If a beating is your fear, then Europe is "more dangerous".
  Maybe but that's pure spin
92. Re:The EU by Minion+of+Eris · 2017-09-29 05:20 · Score: 1
  
  Locking someone up AFTER THE FACT does not prevent the behaviour, it punishes it (if you're really lucky, you may rehabilitate the individual and prevent a REPEAT of the offence).
  
  --
  Please don't dominate the rap, Jack, if you got nothin' new to say.
93. Re:The EU by ale2011 · 2017-09-29 05:20 · Score: 1
  
  I guess it's a bad idea because it is ineffective.
  Killers found guilty are going to be locked for some decades at least. That way, outlawing homicide is effective. Outlawing hate, much like drug possession, is a minor crime and people most of times manage to get out of jail in a few months, if they get locked at all.
94. Re:The EU by penandpaper · 2017-09-29 05:26 · Score: 2
  
  I'm sorry but if you think it hyperbole then you have become complacent living with freedom and take it for granted.
  1) inciting violence (threats) and terrorism is illegal in the US as it is in Europe. But Europe does have Hate speech laws. Hate speech in the US is protected by the 1st amendment and upheld every time it went to the Supreme Court.
  2) I never said absolute freedom of speech. Libel, slander, and threats of violence are illegal. That doesn't change the fact that hate speech is protected speech and there are more protections for speech in the US than Europe.
  3) We know that privacy is important through various examples of history and the abuses the government has done when privacy is not protected. Privacy is an extension of property. If you own your house the government cannot break in without just cause. If you do not know the examples in history to show you why privacy (property) and speech are important then that is your ignorance and not my dogma. We have plenty of examples of tyranny throughout history and many of them share similar characteristics in the means and operation through which they take power and hold power at the expense of the people.
95. Re:The EU by CaptainDork · 2017-09-29 05:30 · Score: 1
  
  The 2A was not formulated so citizens could protect themselves against a domestic government.
  For reference see "Civil War."
  In context, the 2A was for protecting oneself from the other gubmint guys .
  Appreciate that while the Constitution gives the right to "bear" arms, it does not grant the right to actually "use" them.
  In any case, owners of firearms are more likely to shoot themselves (suicide is number one, with accidental discharge at second), or people they know (family members, coworkers, bosses, acquaintances).
  Even if we are uninformed to the point that we actually embrace the mistaken idea that citizens are armed to protect themselves from a domestic government, let's talk "weapon equity."
  Obviously, We the People got screwed.
  The "arms" we are allowed to bear are technologically obsolete compared to the advances made by government.
  My fucking shotgun, handgun, rifle, ain't shit against carpet bombs, fighter jets, drones, aircraft carriers, battleships, grenades, rocket launchers ...
  And a parting shot:
  While citizens have access to firearms, those angry enough to actually attack LEO in riots are using stone-age implements in the form of rocks and bricks, right?
  So, rebellion with fucking goddam pea shooters is all hat and no cattle.
  
  --
  It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
96. Re:The EU by CaptainDork · 2017-09-29 05:37 · Score: 1
  
  I agree and would like to use this to my advantage.
  I don't want my shit cluttered with batshit crazy computer-chair generated antagonistic nonsense.
  For example, Twitter is already a rabbit hole of despair, useful only when ;. goes down for a goddam week.
  Facebook is useless as tits on a boar when it's swamped with unthinking muscle spasmatic meme share.
  Get rid of all that shit and clean house.
  Crazy people will continue to communicate but I'd prefer we MAGA and make those simple-minded mother fuckers wear hoods again and stay out of my face.
  
  --
  It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
97. Re:The EU by gweihir · 2017-09-29 05:39 · Score: 1
  
  Still, this may be a really bad idea. Of course, some of the hate will just fizzle out, given no easy to access forum. But for other people it may fester and drive them underground. That would be worse. We will have to wait and see, it is really unknown whether this is a good idea or not. It is a big experiment, to be sure.
  I also doubt this is well thought out. It looks very much like the old, primitive cave-man reflex of "apply violence to anything you do not want to see", which is something most people are willing to go along with unreflected even today. Lets hope it does at least work to some degree.
  
  --
  Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
98. Re:The EU by CaptainDork · 2017-09-29 05:42 · Score: 1
  
  Yes.
  The turtle hurdle.
  
  --
  It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
99. Re: The EU by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-29 05:55 · Score: 0
  
  I constantly hear that rifles are no match for the US Military yet the US Military has yet to win a war against peasants armed with rifles/small arms. Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq. Lost to a bunch of uneducated farmers (or still losing after ~15 years) with nothing to show for it. Turns out tanks, drones, and bombers are useless if you don't know where all the rebels are.
100. Re: The EU by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-29 05:58 · Score: 0
  
  Because murder actually hurts someone and "hate speech" does not.
101. Re:The EU by penandpaper · 2017-09-29 06:01 · Score: 1
  
  the corruption and incompetence levels of American law enforcement have been staggering.
  For the drug war, there should be a distinction between federal and state enforcement because that changes who the "target" of enforcement is. That also doesn't address the goal of the drug war and it's efficacy as you are alluding to.
  
  Finally, your argument that black markets create lower prices is anti-intuitive. Normally black markets raise the cost of goods or services because the financial model has to include the risk of being in the business.
  If a drug becomes expensive the market will create alternatives. or an example take Krokodil(nasty stuff btw)
  Recently because of state initiatives, the black market is competing with legal markets and the black market is cheaper because less regulation (go figure).
  There is some truth to that but you must also consider the lack of regulation. For example, in high school it was easier to get any illegal drug than it was to get alcohol because a drug dealer doesn't care who they sell to compared to a store owner that could lose everything. Or using dangerous and cheaper substances to "dilute" the drug to make more money.
  Is the rise in right wing politics in Europe enough for you? From, Brexit, to Le Pen to the recent German elections. Europe bans hate speech yet still having problems with hate crimes https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/...
  http://www.aljazeera.com/news/...
102. Re:The EU by MightyYar · 2017-09-29 06:01 · Score: 1
  
  The 2A was not formulated so citizens could protect themselves against a domestic government.
  That's both true and false at the same time! Good work!
  The point of the militia was twofold:
  1. The founders distrusted a standing army.
  2. Since a standing army was out, they needed to ensure a common defense.
  In fact, the first time the militia was ever called up, it failed to mobilize and they had to conscript an army. Coincidentally, it was to put down a domestic rebellion (see the Whiskey Rebellion).
  In effect, the 2nd Amendment as an alternative to a standing army was almost immediately discredited. They tried again during the War of 1812 and, despite having a militia force greater than the entire population of Canada, failed to invade Canada. They also failed to defend Washington DC from the British. After that, Congress very sensibly raised a much larger standing Navy, and then kept a standing army around to persecute the ongoing wars/battles with native Indians.
  Despite this, it's still the law of the land. So we need to respect it. IMHO, that does not mean handguns, which are not really a useful weapon of modern war. Rifles would at least have some effectiveness in asymmetric warfare (see Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, etc).
  
  --
  W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
103. Re:The EU by MightyYar · 2017-09-29 06:02 · Score: 1
  
  What's pure spin? My fear of death over an injury?
  
  --
  W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
104. Re: The EU by Salgak1 · 2017-09-29 06:03 · Score: 1
  
  You might want to look at the "Rules of Engagement". When the rules on whether to shoot back or not, run multiple pages and several flowcharts. . . . I think I've pinpointed the problem. But the Pentagon seems more worried about optics than victory.
  There's a big difference between dropping a precision munition, on the wrong target, and flaming the entire valley with incendiaries. We're just not usually willing to do that. . .
105. Re:The EU by penandpaper · 2017-09-29 06:12 · Score: 1
  
  @_@
  What have I done? Don't tell my brother. I thought she was just some drunk gilf.
  http://www.nooooooooooooooo.co...
106. Re:The EU by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-29 06:23 · Score: 0
  
  It's an open secret that Mark Zuckerberg wants to be the next President of the USA. The whole world will get a lot stranger when he has his fingers on the nuke buttons, and the EU is attacking his company.
  ...And so it was that "Zorg" was born.
107. Re:The EU by Known+Nutter · 2017-09-29 06:25 · Score: 1
  
  Can't wait to see those smug goddamn t-shirts at the G7...
  
  --
  Beware of the Leopard.
108. Re: The EU by cyber-vandal · 2017-09-29 06:36 · Score: 2
  
  Once you exclude all the dangerous areas from European cities theyâ(TM)re really safe too.
109. Re:The EU by lgw · 2017-09-29 06:37 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Where did you get that from? Free speech is free speech. While no one is obligated to provide you a platform to speak from, people can freely talk about whatever they'd like, and as only the most offensive speech was ever in need of protection, that's what we're talking about. The freedom to speak (or otherwise express your thoughts).
  If the government gets to label speech it doesn't like "hate speech" and suppress it, then the government has to power to suppress any and all speech. The excuse isn't the point: the suppression of speech is the point.
  Again, conflict will be resolved by speech or by violence. I prefer speech. I also think my ideas are better, and feel no need to prevent my opponent from speaking - let him! The more nay idiot who disagrees with me speaks, the more he'll embarrass himself. Or, you know, the possibility exists that I'm wrong. But not about free speech - there's to much evidence from history that suppressing speech never fixes anything, merely shifts thins to violence earlier.
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
110. Re:The EU by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-29 06:46 · Score: 0
  
  Get the difference ... or stay out of discussion.
  Agree with me ... or stop speaking.
  I'm reminded of the mirror test for animals to see if they realize they are looking at a reflection of themselves and thus considered self-aware. I suspect the parent poster would not pass this test.
111. Re:The EU by JonnyCalcutta · 2017-09-29 06:57 · Score: 1
  
  I'm sorry, but you're just arguing about where to draw the line, which makes the rest of what you say hyperbole (or, my line's better than your line). Just because tyrants have limited freedom of speech (or privacy) doesn't mean that any limit on freedom of speech is tyranny. That would be a fallacy and would suggest that we all live under tyranny since there is no absolute freedom of speech anywhere. Since the US doesn't have absolute freedom of speech or privacy there are lines drawn. Similar lines are drawn in Europe, but in different places. Why is your line on speech better? Why is your line on privacy (e.g. less) better (and private property is only one aspect of privacy)?
  You are arguing as if its black and white. Free speech or tyranny. But you have neither, so explain that?
112. Re:The EU by Ol+Olsoc · 2017-09-29 07:12 · Score: 1
  
  >Does it follow that Europe's nasty record of being the number one killer in the world was a result of free speech?
  Didn't the USA take the title when it dropped nukes on the Japanese?
  What? You seem to forget the Europeans who killed over 6 million undesireables in Europe during the 30's and 40s. And Old Josef, who killed an unknown number. And those were non-combatants. Add the soldiers killed in WW2, and we actually made a momentary global reduction in population for s short period, almost alll courtesy of the enlighterned and sophisticated Europeans.
  I realize that you have a deep and abiding hatred, of us Americans, but is your hatred so ingrained, your ability to think so propagandized that you ignore what Europeans did to each other?
  The Americans you claim to have killed more people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki had a total casualty of 135,000 in Hiroshima, and 64,000 in Nagasaki. http://www.atomicarchive.com/D...
  But if I recall correctly, some Europeans have a real knack for wht they proudly called "The Big Lie.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
113. Re:The EU by bill_mcgonigle · 2017-09-29 07:15 · Score: 1
  
  But I doubt if the lack of Facebook would sink the EU.
  Take away all of their favorite services one-by-one (do start with Twitter and Facebook - I like the "big splash" approach) and the people will start to notice.
  When they take away Google #brexit will become the universal roadmap.
  I do encourage Twitter and Facebook to just shut off access to Europeans rather than destroy their brands for the chase of short-term profits. When politics rapidly changes after that, they can bring the Europeans back onboard without having a crap product for them to [not?] come back to.
  
  --
  My God, it's Full of Source!
  OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
114. Re:The EU by micahraleigh · 2017-09-29 07:19 · Score: 1
  
  EU is crawling with bomb wielding bad guys and you call it more experience with terrorism.
  
  Well played. Do you speak resumese or euphemeslish around the house?
115. Re:The EU by alexo · 2017-09-29 07:20 · Score: 1
  
  That's a public health issue.
  No, it isn't.
  There is ample research demonstrating that many illegal drugs are less harmful than alcohol and tobacco.
116. Re: The EU by Ol+Olsoc · 2017-09-29 07:25 · Score: 1
  
  Stalin killed more than Mao
  Old Josef and Adolf are without a doubt the biggest mass murders that we know of.
  But you'll never convince Europeans that it isn't the evil 'Murricans who inflicted rougly 200,000 casualties in Japan when they nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
  And there was a very simple method for the Axis powers to avoid the war with 'Murrica. That ended when Imperial Japan decided that a sneak attack would make us surrender, and Some European country decided that they needed to declare war on us as well. So when the final tally is made, Germany and Japan started the war. Russia and 'Murrica finished it.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
117. Re:The EU by Ol+Olsoc · 2017-09-29 07:28 · Score: 2
  
  Didn't the USA take the title when it dropped nukes on the Japanese?
  How many people do you think were killed by those 2 bombs? They weren't even the deadliest bombing runs of the war.
  Do you include the many thousands/millions that didn't die from invading Japan? Seriously, check out Operation Downfall. For some perspective, Olympic estimated 766,700-815,548 personnel while Normandy landings had 156,000.
  Europeans simply cannot accept that they are by the numbers, the most barbaric and murderous people the planet has produced. They managed to for a short time, lower worldwide population.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
118. Re:The EU by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-29 07:33 · Score: 0
  
  Americans know bringing a knife to a gun fight is almost always a poor survival strategy in todays violent world.
119. Re:The EU by Baron_Yam · 2017-09-29 07:35 · Score: 1
  
  > Meanwhile, the US remains free almost 250 years later.
  Gays, blacks, women, and aboriginal peoples may disagree about that '250' number. Hispanics, Muslims, and women may currently be wondering if it will last.
120. Re:The EU by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-29 07:36 · Score: 0
  
  Japan would have surrendered once Russia turned their eye to Japan. Truman dropped the bomb because he wanted to play with his new toy and show off his big stick.
121. Re:The EU by Ol+Olsoc · 2017-09-29 07:40 · Score: 1
  
  Extremism begets extremism. Cutting off avenues for vulnerable people to be swayed by extremism works. It's not about the current extremists, but stopping new ones being formed.
  Well, give me the examples than. Post WW1 Germany was stomped on, and look what that gave rise to.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
122. Re:The EU by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-29 07:51 · Score: 0
  
  But mah freeze peach!
123. Re:The EU by penandpaper · 2017-09-29 07:54 · Score: 2
  
  Just because tyrants have limited freedom of speech (or privacy) doesn't mean that any limit on freedom of speech is tyranny.
  I did not make that argument. I have not argued for any absolute or that any limit equates to tyranny. I have said: "A government protecting speech for all is standing up for equality for all people. Speech is more dangerous than a gun because it can rally genocide. Yet, it is the most important right of a democratic society. ".
  
  Why is your line on speech better?
  
  Because well defined and causes harm such as libel, slander or threats of violence. Hate speech has not been well defined and/or it does not cause harm in and of itself because it requires an action to follow. You are using absolute freedom as a comparison when that would only exist in anarchy.
  If historical examples are not evidence enough to protect any right, what is good evidence that any right is important and should be protected? Is it self evident? Which philosophical lens are you arguing rights? What is the moral standard you are using?
124. Re:The EU by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-29 07:56 · Score: 0
  
  Hate speech is not "universally unacceptable" as what is considered as such is highly subjective, and whatever harmful effects it might have is even more so. Murder is pretty clear cut, and is harmful because someone is dead.
125. Re:The EU by Kielistic · 2017-09-29 07:57 · Score: 1
  
  The spin is in who is getting killed. Are mugging victims being killed at a higher rate than in Europe or are homicide rates skewed by large amounts of gang violence? From what I have heard and read the stats seem to indicate the latter.
  If that were the case then it would make little difference to the average person.
126. Re:The EU by mean+pun · 2017-09-29 08:14 · Score: 1
  
  I guess it's a bad idea because it is ineffective.
  Killers found guilty are going to be locked for some decades at least. That way, outlawing homicide is effective. Outlawing hate, much like drug possession, is a minor crime and people most of times manage to get out of jail in a few months, if they get locked at all.
  By that argument just about any punishment that is just a fine or a few months of jail would be ineffective. That's simply not true.
127. Re: The EU by mean+pun · 2017-09-29 08:16 · Score: 1
  
  Because murder actually hurts someone and "hate speech" does not.
  You really think that all that Isis propaganda online didn't hurt anybody? Because that's certainly an example of "hate speech".
128. Re:The EU by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-29 08:18 · Score: 0
  
  Chicago is only one city.
129. Re:The EU by mean+pun · 2017-09-29 08:21 · Score: 1
  
  Hate speech is not "universally unacceptable" as what is considered as such is highly subjective, and whatever harmful effects it might have is even more so. Murder is pretty clear cut, and is harmful because someone is dead.
  Again, Isis propaganda is "universally unacceptable" outside Isis circles and is a clear example of hate speech. I'm all in favor of a very high bar for hate speech, but some things just deserve to be outlawed.
130. Re:The EU by leretard · 2017-09-29 08:34 · Score: 1
  
  until you're advocating harming people
  Enter the liberal psychosis.
  "What is competition?" An obsolete relic of a savage age according to the brainless failures that comprise the liberal constituency.
  In reality competition is the essence of life itself. It's as though these highly intelligent lovers of science haven't heard anything about evolutionary theory. In reality, some people have to lose for life to go on. In reality, differences of opinion and ideology cannot always be reconciled. In reality, war is necessary and healthy.
  But everyone is supposed to have everything they need and live happy forever and ever with no war or sadness or even hurt feelings. That was the implicit agreement when the liberals accepted the bargain to kill tradition and order. Apparently they believe utopia is right around the corner, after 375 years of failure.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
  There is going to have to be a global civil war to extract this insanity and allow life to continue. The retarded masses of liberals do not realize that they are being played and that the progenitors of their ideology are actually beyond any imaginable authoritarianism. They don't see that they will be wiped off the face of the earth forever when the plutocrats have machines that can replace them.
  The price of abandoning your identity is steep.
131. Re:The EU by MightyYar · 2017-09-29 08:35 · Score: 1
  
  Well, the average person if defined as middle class safely ensconced in the suburbs.
  
  --
  W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
132. Re:The EU by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-29 08:49 · Score: 0
  
  Maybe it's time to ban muslim hate groups.
  That is, any that support sharia law and haven't gone through a modern reformation like christianity or judaism.
  Those are the real hate groups, the ones that want women to dress like a goddamn starwars character, take away their agency, and furiously stroke their rotten little peckers at the thought of a unified worldwide caliphate.
  Below is the prophet muhammad as a egg cell, Muslims don't accidentally worship this.
  o
  #NotAllMuslims
  (#JustSomeMuslims. (#MostByNumbers))
133. Re: The EU by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-29 08:56 · Score: 0
  
  >Old Josef and Adolf are without a doubt the biggest mass murders that we know of.
  Without a doubt even... I guess sharing your sources is out of the question?
134. Re:The EU by Minion+of+Eris · 2017-09-29 08:59 · Score: 1
  
  What do you do when someone is sent to jail in Canada for simply saying something like "Islam is not a religion of peace"? As a Canadian, we don't send anyone to jail in Canada for simply saying something like "Islam is not a religion of peace". We send you to jail for teaching kids that the Holocaust is a commie-jew hoax, or for advocating violence against a protected class.
  
  --
  Please don't dominate the rap, Jack, if you got nothin' new to say.
135. Re:The EU by nedlohs · 2017-09-29 09:39 · Score: 1
  
  Right, and when words and deeds conflict you judge by the deeds, I thought that was obvious enough to not need stating.
  Hitler was not an idiot - when it came to politics and manipulating political events (as a military general it's just a tad more debatable) - he said whatever he needed to to get what he wanted.
  Just like when Hillary Clinton said "I consider myself ... someone who believes strongly in individual rights and freedom" it didn't make that true or actually part of her actual goals and objectives.
  Yes, Hitler appealed to the working class and the middle class and at the time socialism was how you appealed to the working class. That didn't make the actual deeds of the Nazis socialist. Socialism and fascism are two sides of the same coin, so it's all that strange really.
136. Re:The EU by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-29 09:56 · Score: 0
  
  you are indeed more likely to be beaten in Europe
  [citation needed]
  I strongly doubt this is true.
137. Re: The EU by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-29 10:08 · Score: 0
  
  Rofl
138. Re:The EU by angel'o'sphere · 2017-09-29 10:21 · Score: 1
  
  then the government has to power to suppress any and all speech
  No, it has not.
  How do you come to that absurd idea?
  I also think my ideas are better, and feel no need to prevent my opponent from speaking - let him! The more nay idiot who disagrees with me speaks, the more he'll embarrass himself.
  You can speak in privacy, what ever you want.
  You are just jot allowed to spread hate speech in public.
  Get over it, we like it that way. Hence we keep the 70 year old laws.
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
139. Re:The EU by MightyYar · 2017-09-29 10:24 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know about "beaten" specifically (I thought we were being a little metaphorical), but violent crime in Europe is higher than in the US. The US is king of homicides, however.
  
  --
  W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
140. Re:The EU by russotto · 2017-09-29 11:05 · Score: 1
  
  Right now, you're probably right. But when groups of malcontents are allowed to fester unchecked, they eventually cross the line from being bitter to being violent... and that's when the EU approach suddenly looks better.
  Except that it doesn't. Everyone's favorite example got his start with the NSDAP when the Army assigned him to infiltrate that group of malcontents.
  
  So far as I know, nobody has figured out how to balance the two concerns in a way that makes everyone (or even most people) happy.
  There is no balance; suppression is an altogether losing proposition.
141. Re:The EU by lgw · 2017-09-29 11:14 · Score: 1
  
  No, it has not.
  How do you come to that absurd idea?
  Why is this unclear? If the government doesn't like what you say, it fist labels it hate speech, and then bans it as such. This is already happening regarding any sort of rational discussion of immigration.
  
  You can speak in privacy, what ever you want.
  Oh, you'll come for that next.
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
142. Re:The EU by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-29 11:17 · Score: 0
  
  No. Free speech includes the right to insult, to offend, to criticze, to taunt, and yes--the right to spew hate.
  No one needs the freedom to say nice things society approves of.
143. Re:The EU by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-29 11:21 · Score: 0
  
  Sticks and stone may break my bones. That's why we have laws against assault and murder.
  Words can never hurt me. The meanest, most hateful things you can say are just words.
144. Re:The EU by LynnwoodRooster · 2017-09-29 11:31 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  From Wikipedia about the Nazi pre-war economy:
  
  During the 12 years of the Third Reich, government ownership expanded greatly into formerly private sectors of strategic industries: aviation, synthetic oil and rubber, aluminum, chemicals, iron and steel, and army equipment. The capital assets of state-owned industry doubled during this same period, whereby the nationalization caused state-ownership of companies to increase to over 500 businesses.[42] Further, government finances for state-owned enterprises quadrupled from 1933 to 1943.[43] Albert Speer in his memoirs remarked that “a kind of state socialism seemed to be gaining more and more ground” among many Nazi party functionaries, warning that Germany’s industry was becoming “the framework for a state-socialist economic order.”[44] Earlier, Hitler had restated his economic intentions in a 1931 interview with Richard Breiting, singling out the 13 point plank of the National Socialist 25-point program, which he declared “demands the nationalisation of all public companies, in other words socialisation, or what is known here as socialism.”[45]
  Nationalization of companies is typically a left-wing thing, not a right-wing thing. Nazi Germany had a decidedly left-wing tilt in terms of its economy - socialist, if you will.
  
  --
  Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
145. Re:The EU by LynnwoodRooster · 2017-09-29 11:34 · Score: 2
  
  Socialism and fascism are two sides of the same coin, so it's all that strange really.
  Quite insightful! For it is only via fascist actions (Government coercion/force) that socialism can survive... I guess that's also why most socialist/communist nations end up nationalizing industries and using anti-freedom actions (fascism) to maintain control of the populace.
  
  --
  Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
146. Re:The EU by LynnwoodRooster · 2017-09-29 11:36 · Score: 1
  
  Nazi Germany nationalized a lot of companies and industries. That's typically a left-wing/socialist move, not something associated with capitalism or right-wing actions. Taking over the labor unions is step one - because the labor unions typically WANT the companies left private so as to enhance their bargaining ability (bargaining against the Government can be a rather dangerous move - especially with fascist dictators at the helm).
  
  --
  Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
147. Re:The EU by LynnwoodRooster · 2017-09-29 11:38 · Score: 1
  
  Define hate speech, please.
  
  --
  Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
148. Re:The EU by beer_maker · 2017-09-29 11:43 · Score: 1
  
  Why, because they can't subtract? The US didn't magically come into existence when the Civil Rights Laws were passed (to pick one date for arguement's sake) the origination date was in 1776. (2017-1776=241 ... or ~250 in political speech.) The amount of freedom has (mostly) waxed and (sometimes, see Manzanar) waned but the goal, the concept of America as a free nation has been around since that date. Perhaps you mean to argue that those groups are still not free. If so, bring us your arguement so we may gaze upon it and become learned.
  
  --
  Hmmm. Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
149. Re:The EU by Carewolf · 2017-09-29 12:08 · Score: 1
  
  There are all sorts of ways that speech in the US can get you into legal difficulties.
  These "legal difficulties" occur after a shown harm; they DONT allow the authorities to mandate proactive deletion of your message before a court order referring to you specifically is issued.
  Except for "leaking state secrets" --- as for that, you signed papers agreeing NOT TO leak state secrets, before you received legitimate access those secrets; if you took actions to steal secrets, then you did more than speak them.
  So unlike any European country the US doesn't have a federal agency censoring TV?
  Oh wait it does.
  There are the facts, if you can accept them: The US has the least amoun of free speech in the entire western world.
150. Re:The EU by LynnwoodRooster · 2017-09-29 12:09 · Score: 1
  
  Please list the ways other than libel or slander (which means actual measurable, quantifiable actual damages, not just hurt feelings) that you can get into legal difficulties with speech. Yes, sometimes "inciting violence" is tagged on, but I've yet to see that without ACTUAL violence happening near-simultaneously.
  
  --
  Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
151. Re:The EU by LynnwoodRooster · 2017-09-29 12:11 · Score: 1
  
  What legal actions are being taken over the protests of the National anthem? Who's being arrested or fined?
  
  --
  Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
152. Re:The EU by LynnwoodRooster · 2017-09-29 12:13 · Score: 1
  
  Ah yes, trying to get the identities of people engaged in actual riots, assault and battery, and property damage, and doing so via Court actions. Yes, that's trampling free speech all right! Just the same as "don't post anything we deem hateful or we'll fine you"!
  
  --
  Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
153. Re: The EU by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-29 12:47 · Score: 0
  
  If consistent, this will lead to a ban on pro-"choice" groups and people since there is virtually no ideology more violent. If you actually dislike violence, there is no choice but to censor that hate-speech. Not that I actually want censored speech. I just hope it's consistent. Can't be pro-life and anti-life. Unless their motives are not what they state.
154. Re: The EU by Ol+Olsoc · 2017-09-29 12:59 · Score: 1
  
  >Old Josef and Adolf are without a doubt the biggest mass murders that we know of.
  Without a doubt even... I guess sharing your sources is out of the question?
  Seriously? Okay, here ya go Let's first take the non-war participants deliberately killed by Germany. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... Of necessity, there are low and high estimates, and for holocaust deniers, it goes as low as 0. But holocaust deniers are right up there with flat earth's, so I don't count them. So this grouping accounts for 5 to 6 million Jews, from 130 to around 300 thousand other "undesirables."
  There are some other accountings that claim other higher numbers - you can see them on the cite. Those are less accepted, but estimates as high as 20 million total are sometimes brought out. I'm not certain what to make of those numbers, so I'll rely on the more accepted ones.
  Numbers from Soviet repression from the same document are looking at around 7 and a half million.
  These are not the military numbers, but civilians killed for fun by both groups.
  Total military deaths estimates from 21,000,000 to 25,500,000
  Total civilian deaths due to military action from 29,000,000 to 30,500,000
  Total civilian deaths due to ware related famine and disease, from 19,000,000 to 28,000,000
  Total WW2 deaths from 70,000,000 to 85,000,000.
  The numbers are numbing. How does one mentally address that? The number would be devastating even if the death count were halved. And there simply isn't a way around the truth that this was mainly a European war, started and fueled by Europeans, one that the present day presumed most evil Americans didn't even want to get into but were attacked and then entered.
  So when I hear Europeans strutting around like cock-a-whoops, proclaiming their superiority over the Stupid Americans, I sort of chuckle, becuse I know they are a couple of dictators away from starting World War Three.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
155. Re:The EU by HeckRuler · 2017-09-29 13:03 · Score: 1
  
  Free speech is a contract between government and its citizens.
  Nope. Free speech is an ideal that came out of the Age of Enlightenment before my government even existed.
  The first amendment is the thing that restricts the government, making sure you have rights and supports the ideal which is free speech.
  
  It is not a wild card to spread hate speech between citizens and citizens or citizens and immigrants.
  Actually, it is.
  The citizens can freely discuss and object.... whatever they want. Also non-citizens. Legally, I think the first admendment applies to non-citizens as well. Politically, if the USA is trying to censor what someone in China is saying, we've got a clusterfuck brewing, because that isn't going to end well.
  Now, the free speech is an ideal and the legally there are some limit. Hate speech laws came about because of a constitutional crisis when the local authorities weren't yielding to federal regulation and Jim Crow laws were a thing. When things are THAT BAD, then the ideal of free speech gives way. Sucks. But you also can't call for violence against people or start a panic that gets people hurt.
  
  Get the difference ... or stay out of discussion.
  Haha, that's rich. "I'm not censoring you! So shut up!"? wow. dude. No, I don't think you understand the difference between free speech and the first amendment, which is funny as this is about the EU. But I'm not going to suggest censorship, or you leaving, or even that everyone downvote you into the abyss. I suggest we chat about it and continue the conversation so we both learn a little something and come out the better for it.
156. Re:The EU by HeckRuler · 2017-09-29 13:09 · Score: 1
  
  the most barbaric and murderous
  
  Those aren't the same things you know. I mean they sound great together, but the nazis and the imperialists weren't barbarians, despite how many people they murdered.
  
  They managed to for a short time, lower worldwide population.
  Mostly by killing each other though. Not to discount the rape of nanking and the like.
  Really, if you want to lay something at the feet of all of Europe, it's the resulting social issues and destabilization of all those colonies.
157. Re:The EU by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-29 13:28 · Score: 0
  
  (not OP) I'm not particularly fond of hate speech laws but your hyperbole is too much.
  Free speech can, and often is, compromised by too much noise (e.g. repetition drowning out alternative viewpoints, lies, misinformation, naivity, poor education in the listener etc. etc.) just as much as too little signal (e.g. censorship of various kinds, social censure, commercial incentives, personal incentives, peer pressure, poor education in the speaker etc. etc.).
  Historically, it's quite clear that free speech can be compromised in many different ways and often is. Your naive idea that "censorship" is some absolute is incomplete. In particular hate speech can and does cause harm. Whether that harm is sufficient to justify some minor, further restrictions on free speech (in particular, people can't lie in public debate about others, just like fraud law means people can't lie in public for business profit) is what's up for debate.
158. Re: The EU by ArmoredDragon · 2017-09-29 15:55 · Score: 2
  
  In other words, they're forced into an echo chamber.
159. Re:The EU by Maxo-Texas · 2017-09-29 17:16 · Score: 1
  
  Here is the definition of facism we've used for over a century before all this alt-right revisionist crap.
  Definition of Fascism.
  1. (sometimes initial capital letter) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism. 2.
  Note: "Regimenting all industry, commerce, etc.".
  When Governments nationalize companies it is facism.
  Nationalizing companies is facism.
  Definition of Socialism
  a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
  Note- the COMMUNITY- not the GOVERNMENT- owns the means of production.
  When Workers own of companies it is socialism.
  The definition for socialism is already above. It is where the workers own the means of production- not the government.
  The allies called the nazi's facists when we fought them in the 1940s.
  They knew what communists, socialists, and facists were and they called them fascists.
  The nazi's are fascists who falsely labeled themselves socialists.
  
  --
  She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
160. Re:The EU by Maxo-Texas · 2017-09-29 17:23 · Score: 2
  
  Yes, the nazi's are lying when they called themselves socialists.
  I listed above the actions they took which were facist including nationalizing the means of production. They did not protect workers and under nazi government, the government owned the means of production not the community/workers. Nazi's are facists.
  Yes, the KKK were involved with the Democratic party. What changed? The democrats passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which meant anyone who was a racist no longer wanted to be part of the democratic party.
  And the republicans under Nixon devised a "southern strategy" which is widely known which focused on picking up those racists voters. While democrats used to be racist, now republicans are increasingly racist. Fifty years is a long time.
  The nazi's not only were lying- quotes from hitler show clearly they knew they were lying. Their goals were not 'extremely' socialist. They were 'extremely' fascist.
  Snopes has a well known bias-- for the facts and the truth.
  From your response, you are probably an alt-right president trump supporter. And we all know how Mr. Trump (and just about everyone in his administration) feels about the truth. They feel they are above the law and can lie with impunity. And as soon as they are under oath the truth will come out or some of them are going to end up in jail for 5-10.
  
  --
  She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
161. Re:The EU by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-29 18:47 · Score: 0
  
  I have lived in major cities such as Los Angeles and stayed at rat hole motels where you can hear pimps arguing with their hookers in the next room, but I have only been involved in one violent altercation. I was robbed at gun point while standing in front of an ATM in upscale Cupertino around midnight. Bad things can happen anywhere.
162. Re:The EU by ale2011 · 2017-09-29 21:13 · Score: 1
  
  Agreed. Small punishments for small crimes are fine. The point with hatred seems to be that it is, or appears to be, the origin of much larger and widespread violence, biased and bad behaviors. Yet, it has to be considered a small crime, in the name of free speech.
163. Re:The EU by JonnyCalcutta · 2017-09-29 23:23 · Score: 1
  
  I feel like we're going in circles. Its your binary position that is hyperbolic - you have agreed that absolute free speech cannot exist, yet you seem to demand an absolute lack of censorship. My position is one of pragmatism - the world is just not that black and white and extremism is not the answer (if you'll excuse the use of a loaded term).
  The other commenter summed it up pretty well.
164. Re:The EU by LynnwoodRooster · 2017-09-30 00:49 · Score: 1
  
  Ahh yes, the "community"! We saw how that worked in the USSR, China, North Korea, and now Venezuela! The "community" - the people - need to own the means of production! But since it's so hard to get everyone together to agree, we'll just let the elected officials do it all - in the name of The People, the "community". And they will run things, and decide which industry to nationalize.
  And I do not dispute the Nazis were fascists! You're missing the point though (or ignoring it because it's too uncomfortable for you) - true socialism (communism) REQUIRES fascism to work. Fascism is the ONLY way to implement socialism/communism as you define it here. Socialism/communism is the opposite of capitalism. And while yes, you could mix fascism and capitalism, that is relatively rare. But the mixing of fascism and socialism/communism is REQUIRED for the latter to work. Fascism and socialism/communism are two sides of the same coin: socialism/communism the economic model, and fascism the REQUIRED means of implementing the model.
  
  --
  Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
165. Re: The EU by MightyYar · 2017-09-30 00:56 · Score: 1
  
  They did alright in the Civil War, and for that matter the Indian Wars. Turns out when you stop caring about human rights and all that messy war crime stuff it's a lot easier to subjugate a population. Not guaranteed, but much easier.
  
  --
  W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
166. Re:The EU by MightyYar · 2017-09-30 01:00 · Score: 1
  
  Well, I was mugged at gunpoint in West Philly, I was held up (unsuccessfully) on the train at gunpoint on the Market Street El in Philly, a guy tried to mug me in Amsterdam (he wouldn't show his weapon), and I was pick-pocketed in Amsterdam (but the guy was bad at it and I got my camera back). So if we're doing stories instead of statistics, there's mine. But I think my stories are as useless as yours in trying to ascertain risk.
  
  --
  W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
167. Re: The EU by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-30 01:24 · Score: 0
  
  You xenophobic bigot. (Look up the definitions because you qualify as both with that statement)
168. Re:The EU by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-30 02:21 · Score: 0
  
  Found the aspie!
169. Re:The EU by Z80a · 2017-09-30 03:35 · Score: 1
  
  The last thing you want to do with extremists is to sweep em under the rug, where it will be significantly harder to keep track of and infiltrate, as it is the thing that EU should be doing instead.
170. Re:The EU by penandpaper · 2017-09-30 03:50 · Score: 1
  
  How am I arguing for a binary position and "demand an absolute lack of censorship" when I gave you clear limits and guidelines to limit the right?
  All I can think of is that you either didn't read my comment or didn't comprehend it. You say pragmatic but you don't seem to have an argument besides some strawman in your head.
171. Re:The EU by penandpaper · 2017-09-30 04:04 · Score: 1
  
  In particular hate speech can and does cause harm.
  
  How does words harm you if there is no action to follow up? If I can you a racial slur or say your race is a disease (hate speech by many legal definitions) how has that harmed you or your property? I can ask that about other limits, such as libel or threats, and get a clear answer.
  I don't understand how you or JonnyCalcutta say I am arguing for anything absolute when I said there are times to limit speech. 1) well defined and 2) causes harm in and of itself. You can disagree with that but that is in no way saying what you are strawmanning.
  
  hate speech can and does cause harm.
  
  This is the argument you should be making if you want me to believe your idea that hate speech should be outlawed by the state. To do that, you have to show me that mean words cause harm to the extent of libel or slander or threats. And that you can define hate speech concisely in a way that cannot abuse other rights (Christians saying homosexuality is a moral sin is a religious belief who wins in court? the religious belief of the christian or your hate speech law?).
172. Re: The EU by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-30 04:48 · Score: 0
  
  So the US military is going to carpet bomb America? I feel like some amount of servicemen will be opposed to that.
  If the krystalnacht brigade show up to your door, a handgun seems pretty solid.
173. Re:The EU by bingoUV · 2017-09-30 06:01 · Score: 1
  
  It means nothing. Really. Risk is probability times the cost of the event. Cost of a life is huge, for the owner of that life at least.
  If the probability of being killed is 1% per year, the area would be called extremely unsafe. Even then 99% of people will say they were not killed after spending a year in the locality, and dead men tell no tales. Every person will say they were not killed after spending 1 year in one of the most dangerous places for homicides. Which is why your statement means nothing.
  Even when it is not about death, 99% people saying nothing happened to them can still point to a pretty dangerous place.
  
  --
  Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
174. Re:The EU by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-30 07:15 · Score: 0
  
  Japan would have surrendered once Russia turned their eye to Japan. Truman dropped the bomb because he wanted to play with his new toy and show off his big stick.
  Thanks for the propaganda. I thought this sort of thing went out style when the Cold War ended, Comrade.
  The military history community has established beyond a reasonable doubt that the decision to drop the atomic bombs was the right decision. The battle of Okinawa alone resulted in more deaths than both atomic bombs added together - and Okinawa wasn't even "really" a Japanese island. Even to this day, Okinawans will tell you they are Okinawan, not Japanese. Certainly Okinawa was neither one of the biggest nor most populous islands occupied by the Japanese.
175. Re:The EU by mysidia · 2017-09-30 07:58 · Score: 1
  
  Oh wait it does.
  No it doesn't. Certain Over-the-air broadcasts are subject to community decency rules (what can be broadcast over the air on certain transmission licenses), but most Television is consumed over Cable or encrypted satellite feeds, and there is no government agency censoring or regulating their content.
176. Re:The EU by angel'o'sphere · 2017-09-30 08:02 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, it is
  No the first amendment is not about "It is not a wild card to spread hate speech between citizens and citizens or citizens and immigrants."
  Asking someone to shut up, is not censorship.
  I suggest to take a dictionary and check what censorship actually is.
  E.g. 'restrictions of free speech' is not censorship.
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
177. Re:The EU by lsatenstein · 2017-09-30 09:24 · Score: 1
  
  Nah, in the US we use the strategy of having horrific levels of violence pretty much all the time, so we don't really overreact to individual mass killings.
  It's kind of like making sure that your background radiation is high enough that you don't really mind an occasional meltdown.
  Actually, the way I see it, there is so much violence presented on American TV/Video/Radio/Newspapers, etc, that you have become inured to it. Its only when it strikes home, that you will have a reaction.
  
  --
  Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
178. Re:The EU by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-30 11:39 · Score: 0
  
  How does words harm you if there is no action to follow up?
  Words themselves are an action. They exist to have an impact.
  
  If I can you a racial slur or say your race is a disease (hate speech by many legal definitions) how has that harmed you or your property? I can ask that about other limits, such as libel or threats, and get a clear answer.
  Actually, the answer about libel and threats is just as vague, in that there are often harms posited, and speculated, but not always fixed in effect. Much like racial slurs and other hate speech.
  I don't understand how you or JonnyCalcutta say I am arguing for anything absolute when I said there are times to limit speech. 1) well defined and 2) causes harm in and of itself. You can disagree with that but that is in no way saying what you are strawmanning.
  
  This is the argument you should be making if you want me to believe your idea that hate speech should be outlawed by the state.
  It has been made. You just haven't paid attention to it.
  
  To do that, you have to show me that mean words cause harm to the extent of libel or slander or threats.
  Done.
  
  And that you can define hate speech concisely in a way that cannot abuse other rights (Christians saying homosexuality is a moral sin is a religious belief who wins in court? the religious belief of the christian or your hate speech law?).
  You can't define anything in such a way that you can assure that no other rights are abused, challenged, or limited, especially not with humanity involved.
  Sorry, but there is a reason even the Christian Bible mentions the religious aspects being concocted for material gain.
179. Re:The EU by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-30 12:26 · Score: 0
  
  This is the argument you should be making if you want me to believe your idea that hate speech should be outlawed by the state.
  People take action on what they know. Nobody can know everything.
  And when misinformation can and does crowd out information so people make bad decisions, including hurting others, based on that misinformation, then it's time for us as a society to do the minimum to make sure people are as well informed as possible so they make good decisions.
  You're trying to ignore the fact that misinformation can't crowd out information - you're wrong. It happens all the time in business with fraudulent and deceptive advertising and it also happens in public debate with hate speech. People kill because of that hate speech. See wikipedia for a long list terrorism incidents.
  Laws try to make it difficult for the most extreme elements of our society to manipulate others with misinformation; basically by fraudulently claiming some group have some undesirable characteristic eg. manipulative jewish bankers, impure races, lazy negros, immigrants taking all the jobs etc. etc. Incidentally, this is particularly important when educating children.
  The US and European track record together show that there is no particular advantage to the US' free speech balance and many people's fixation on it causes them to ignore the bigger picture.
  The US political process has to an extent failed because of it's free speech laws. In large part because money talks. e.g. In the US there is an almost direct correlation in federal elections between who gets in and how much money was spent on campaigning. The US would be a much better place if they got rid of some of the geriatrics in congress who are endlessly re-elected in part because of this.
180. Re:The EU by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-30 13:35 · Score: 0
  
  And I do not dispute the Nazis were fascists!
  
  You do, however, dispute that the Nazi's were right-wing authoritarians.
  But they were. And always will be.
  
  You're missing the point though (or ignoring it because it's too uncomfortable for you) - true socialism (communism) REQUIRES fascism to work.
  
  Nope! Fascism is actually abhorrent to true socialism or communism, an authoritarian tool used to suppress the socialist advocates.
  
  Fascism is the ONLY way to implement socialism/communism as you define it here.
  
  Nope! Fascism is not even a way to implement socialism or communism, it is merely an authoritarian means of control for the right-wing.
  
  Socialism/communism is the opposite of capitalism.
  
  Nope. They're the rejection of capitalism.
  
  And while yes, you could mix fascism and capitalism, that is relatively rare.
  Actually, it is entirely common, and the default. In fact, that is the way it is practiced today.
  
  But the mixing of fascism and socialism/communism is REQUIRED for the latter to work.
  
  Nope! Fascist authoritarianism has nothing to do with socialism or communism. Not even the Stalinist totalitarians that pretended to be communist.
  
  Fascism and socialism/communism are two sides of the same coin: socialism/communism the economic model, and fascism the REQUIRED means of implementing the model.
  Nope. You should get off your binary modality anyway, Fascism is merely an authoritarian means of control for the right-wing, and has no relation whatsoever to socialism or communism.
  I know, I know, you're obsessed with your false categorization and want to jam everything bad into the left-wing side, it's the clearest demonstration of your monomaniacal way of thinking, but it's just wrong.
  You'll have to learn to reject such poor and irrational logic on your own though, nobody else can get you past it.
  Just learn to realize that the endgoal of capitalism is ownership and control. The opposite of freedom.
  It is about property, property enforced by government, otherwise it could not survive.
  That's why they end up controlling people and using fascism to control the populace.
181. Re:The EU by Bert64 · 2017-09-30 15:07 · Score: 1
  
  Well a punishment that just a fine is ineffective against those rich enough that the fine is a trivial amount...
  
  --
  http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
182. Re: The EU by Bert64 · 2017-09-30 15:15 · Score: 1
  
  No, the isis propaganda never hurt anyone.
  Members of isis have hurt people through various physical actions, but the propaganda itself doesn't hurt anyone.
  I have watched and read isis propaganda, it did not make me want to join isis or commit any acts in support of their cause. There is plenty of anti-isis propaganda being promoted by the mainstream media so i felt it was fair to see both sides. Having seen both sides I now have no sympathy for them whatsoever.
  Had their propaganda been unavailable to me, i would have had to remain skeptical.
  Only an idiot is going to blindly believe and follow propaganda without availing themselves of all the facts (ie both sides propaganda as well as any evidence) first.
  
  --
  http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
183. Re:The EU by Bert64 · 2017-09-30 15:17 · Score: 1
  
  Punishing someone for hatred is only going to make them angry and more hateful.
  What's needed is education, not punishment.
  
  --
  http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
184. Re:The EU by Bert64 · 2017-09-30 15:35 · Score: 1
  
  Stupid people will follow ridiculous and/or dangerous ideologies wether they are discussed openly or in private. But such people will be harder to identify if they are keeping those beliefs a secret.
  
  --
  http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
185. Re:The EU by HeckRuler · 2017-09-30 19:25 · Score: 1
  
  Hoooooooold up!
  
  Free speech is a contract between government and its citizens.
  Nope. Free speech is an ideal that came out of the Age of Enlightenment before my government even existed.
  The first amendment is the thing that restricts the government, making sure you have rights and supports the ideal which is free speech.
  It is not a wild card
  
  Actually, it is.
  No the first amendment is not about
  WHOA there. You suddenly changed from talking about Free Speech to talking about the first amendment which is a restriction in the US government. I JUST explained the difference.
  
  Asking someone to shut up, is not censorship.
  I think there's a spectrum of censorship that ranges all the way from killing people for thought-crime to.... being minority peeved at something someone said. But sure, a suggestion to shut up is pretty minor censorship. Most people wouldn't even call that censorship and that's fine.
  
  E.g. 'restrictions of free speech' is not censorship.
  That is an AMAZING leap of logic right there. What kind of restrictions are you talking about? Because "restrictions" can certainly mean "It's illegal to say something", like suggesting we murder a specific person. That's a call to violence and is a restriction on free speech. You are not free to say such things. Otherwise you will be thrown in jail. Which is a tidbit more strict than being told "shut up".
  But considering you somehow didn't actually read my first bit, I doubt you're going to get any learnitude here, so you might as well shut up.
186. Re: The EU by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-01 00:53 · Score: 0
  
  Now look at the number of deaths attributed to tobacco each year.
  And that includes many of the deaths you cited above.
187. Re:The EU by angel'o'sphere · 2017-10-02 18:40 · Score: 1
  
  It is written in the relevant laws and is easy to google.
  A starter would be here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
188. Re:The EU by angel'o'sphere · 2017-10-02 18:43 · Score: 1
  
  Why is this unclear? If the government doesn't like what you say, it fist labels it hate speech
  And how would the government be able to do that?
  The government does not make laws, the parliament does. That takes years.
  There is no way the government can 'label' something as hate speech.
  You seem to have a lack of understanding how parliaments, governments, laws and courts work.
  This is already happening regarding any sort of rational discussion of immigration.
  In the US? Certainly not here in Europe/Germany.
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
189. Re:The EU by Kielistic · 2017-10-03 02:57 · Score: 1
  
  I wasn't aware everyone not in the middle class was in a gang.
190. Re:The EU by lgw · 2017-10-03 03:37 · Score: 2
  
  The government does not make laws, the parliament does.
  I had assumed from the pun in your name that English was your native language. If not: parliament is the part of "government" that makes laws, in a parliamentary government. If so: you're babbling here.
  In any case: laws must be interpreted. Hate speech laws do not list all the specific utterances that are banned; instead, they use broad language open to clever interpretation, and gradual slippage over time. It's a tool the government can wield to suppress dissent, because it's fundamentally a thoughcrime law. "Only a racist could disagree with me, so any disagreement is hate speech" is a very common position on social media.
  
  In the US? Certainly not here in Europe/Germany.
  In Sweden and to a lesser extent the UK it's illegal to question publicly whether immigration and immigrants are good for the nation, as obviously the only reason one could object is racism and hate.
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
191. Re:The EU by MightyYar · 2017-10-03 03:44 · Score: 1
  
  In the context of this discussion, my point is you are picking and choosing data. Pluck all of the criminals out of Europe's data and it will look better, too.
  In a larger context, gangs are our moral problem, because we have created them with policies that sustain ghettos. From public education to zoning to welfare/public assistance, our policies all keep people in ghettos whether that was the intent or not.
  
  --
  W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
192. Re:The EU by angel'o'sphere · 2017-10-03 04:26 · Score: 1
  
  If not: parliament is the part of "government" that makes laws
  It is not part of the government.
  The government is the prime minister and the other ministers.
  They have nothing to say about how to interpret existing laws.
  They make no new laws.
  And the parliament usually only has a small majourity to be able to set up the government above.
  Hate speech laws do not list all the specific utterances that are banned; instead, they use broad language open to clever interpretation
  That is nonsense. It is like in any law extremely well defined.
  In Sweden and to a lesser extent the UK it's illegal to question publicly whether immigration and immigrants are good for the nation, as obviously the only reason one could object is racism and hate.
  Sorry, if you believe that, you are an idiot.
  My native language is German.
  Here you might find some insightful informations about "hate speech laws" around the globe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
193. Re:The EU by Kielistic · 2017-10-03 08:03 · Score: 1
  
  That's misleading - you are indeed more likely to be beaten in Europe, but homicides are higher in the US. If death is your fear, than the US is "more dangerous". If a beating is your fear, then Europe is "more dangerous".
  If the homicide rate is skewed by gangs then it absolutely would affect which place is "more dangerous" to a normal person as a normal person does not partake in gang violence. Random violence against innocents is the rate that one has to worry about in respect to their own well being. Which was the entire point and you know it. None of that other nonsense you just spouted that had nothing to do with anything.
194. Re:The EU by TechyImmigrant · 2017-10-03 08:56 · Score: 1
  
  Not entirely useless. Unlike the occasional jaunt abroad, I probably sampled that statistical space 900 or so times. So statistically you could get some reasonably low P value claims for bounds on the risk of being a subject of crime while in the area.
  
  --
  I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
195. Re:The EU by MightyYar · 2017-10-03 13:57 · Score: 1
  
  Random violence against innocents is the rate that one has to worry about in respect to their own well being.
  Lets ignore for a moment the non-gang members that have to live in the terrorized community.
  Take away the roughly 35% (New Orleans) - 80% (Chicago) homicides due to gang violence and we still have a high homicide rate, unless you assume that 100% of European homicides are not attributable to something akin to gang violence. The Netherlands, for instance, has around 20% of their homicide rate attributed to gangs.
  But statistics aside, you can't cleanly divorce the people in the gangs and their violence from the rest of us. This guy that just shot up 600+ people at the concert in Vegas? We'll move on from this very quickly compared to Europeans because 60 deaths is a single day or so of gun death in the US. We're used to it, no matter the cause.
  
  --
  W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
196. Re:The EU by beastofburdon · 2017-10-04 05:09 · Score: 0
  
  I see you have been properly educated. Good job citizen, and remember to report anyone who advocates for the evils of freedom.
197. Re:The EU by lgw · 2017-10-04 09:06 · Score: 1
  
  The more general English usage, and really the only common usage in America of "government" is the whole apparatus of state: executive, legislative, and judicial. Use of "government" to mean only the executive function is regional, and not the only usage anywhere.
  But it's a distinction without a difference here, as it's selective and creative enforcement by the executive that is the danger (and the basis of early totalitarian states).
  
  It is like in any law extremely well defined.
  Is that a German thing? You'll find most laws the world round have plenty of room for interpretation.
  Sweden: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=swed...
  Hard to search for UK examples, as they had a minister of immigration arrested for employing illegal immigrants (kind of the whole story right there), which drowns search results.
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
198. Re:The EU by angel'o'sphere · 2017-10-05 00:37 · Score: 1
  
  Well,
  arrested minister, quite funny.
  Yes, the laws are well defined, the interpretation is to the case. Which law does apply? Was it an accident, manslaughter or murder?
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Re: Socialism's end game by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-29 01:07 · Score: 0

Oooooh. Boogy boogy. He said a bad word: 'socialism.'
Blame the Nazis [Re:Socialism's end game] by XXongo · 2017-09-29 01:12 · Score: 3, Interesting

It is worth keeping in mind that Germany went through the Nazi take-over, and at the end of the world war, it was the United States (and the allies with us) that took away free speech in Germany, making it illegal to advocate Nazism.
If you're wondering why the European Union (dominated by Germany) doesn't protect freedom of speech, blame the Nazis. And blame us.
1. Re:Blame the Nazis [Re:Socialism's end game] by Ol+Olsoc · 2017-09-29 01:42 · Score: 0
  
  It is worth keeping in mind that Germany went through the Nazi take-over, and at the end of the world war, it was the United States (and the allies with us) that took away free speech in Germany, making it illegal to advocate Nazism.
  If you're wondering why the European Union (dominated by Germany) doesn't protect freedom of speech, blame the Nazis. And blame us.
  Wow, I had no idea that Germany was like a state or something, and at present ruled by 'Murrica.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
2. Re:Blame the Nazis [Re:Socialism's end game] by TheRaven64 · 2017-09-29 02:08 · Score: 2
  
  The occupation of Germany by the allies didn't officially end until 1990. Until that point, at least nominally, the US had the legal authority to tell all of the elected German leaders to go home and institute direct rule from Washington DC.
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
3. Re:Blame the Nazis [Re:Socialism's end game] by angel'o'sphere · 2017-09-29 02:09 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  What is so difficult in understanding: the EU has more or less the exact same free speech laws like the US.
  There are very few restrictions regarding hate speech.
  USA has _similar restrictions_ regarding hate speech ... they are just in different law book.
  For your daily way of life there is no noticeable difference in EU or US treatment of citizens public posts.
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
4. Re:Blame the Nazis [Re:Socialism's end game] by AmiMoJo · 2017-09-29 02:17 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Freedom of speech, or more generally freedom of expression, is a fundamental human right in the EU. It get balanced against the rights and freedoms of other citizens, just like it does in the US.
  In the United States speech that harms other people is sometimes illegal. Fraud, credible threats, harassment etc. It's the same in Europe, it's just that Germany and some other counties consider some speech to be harmful in a more general way, i.e. promoting Nazism might not hurt someone directly but when many people do it it is likely to result in harm.
  The argument is not so much if there should be any limit on speech - there is in every developed nation - it's if speech promoting Nazism can be considered to be harmful. I used to think not, but these days I'm not so sure, although I wouldn't ban it.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
5. Re:Blame the Nazis [Re:Socialism's end game] by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-29 03:33 · Score: 0
  
  The occupation of Germany by the allies didn't officially end until 1990.
  1955, with some provisions that held until 1990.
  
  Until that point, at least nominally, the US had the legal authority to tell all of the elected German leaders to go home and institute direct rule from Washington DC.
  Nope, they never had that right at any point in time. What makes you think the other Allied powers would ever agree to such a thing?
6. Re:Blame the Nazis [Re:Socialism's end game] by Ol+Olsoc · 2017-09-29 07:38 · Score: 1
  
  The occupation of Germany by the allies didn't officially end until 1990. Until that point, at least nominally, the US had the legal authority to tell all of the elected German leaders to go home and institute direct rule from Washington DC.
  Even if we did and could, we didn't-did we?
  The reason for the total beatdown of Germany by Russia and the US had a few sources. Hitler refusing to surrender was one, Russia was on a mission of revenge that I don't begrudge at all, and America had learned from the results of the excessively punitive punishements inflicted on Germany after WW1, which allowed the whole Nasty ball to get rolling in Germany - this is not saying that WW2 was not Germany's fault, which it was. So after rubblizing the place, we wanted to treat the survivors as well as could be done.
  And having more than one atomic bomb at the ready, it is perhaps providence that Germany surrendered when they did, instead of trying to draw it out any longer.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
7. Re:Blame the Nazis [Re:Socialism's end game] by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-29 08:42 · Score: 0
  
  The reason for the total beatdown of Germany by Russia, the UK and the US had a few sources
  Fixed a glaring omission. While there is no doubt that the Russians did most of the hard work and that WW2 could only be won by the Allies because the Soviet leadership did not care too much about a few million more of their own people dying, the British had a much more important role than the Americans. The Americans only entered the European theatre when the Axis were already clearly losing. They certainly accelerated the process and without the Americans, the Soviet Uniton would have been far more dominant in post-war Europe, but let's give credit where it is due.
  
  And having more than one atomic bomb at the ready, it is perhaps providence that Germany surrendered when they did, instead of trying to draw it out any longer.
  Germany fought on for a long time when it was more than clear that they had lost the war, for two reasons. Firstly, Hitler wanted go on because he felt that the German people did not deserve to survive if they did not win the war. Secondly, the Wehrmacht men feared what would come when they lost. Russia was dreaded and the western Allies hadn't exactly shown their best intentions either at that point in time, which was amplified by Nazi propaganda, that many of those still fighting at the end of the war had been fed from a young age. Even the slimmest chance of an Axis victory or a peace treaty seemed worth fighting for.
  Hitler would have liked nothing more than if the Americans (or the Soviets, had they been able to) had dropped a number of atomic bombs and eliminated the people he judged too weak to deserve to live.
Re:Doomed! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-29 01:18 · Score: 0

You are welcome to drown in the sink of your own filth. We just don't want it here.
Thanks Russia! by softnewsit · 2017-09-29 01:20 · Score: 1

Thanks Russia! You big fat spoilsports. You and China are ruining the Internet for the rest of the world.

--
Go away!
I hope they fight by houghi · 2017-09-29 01:23 · Score: 1

I am a European and I hope they will fight this. I also hope they will not win that fight and decide to close down shop in Europe. And nothing of value was lost.

--
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
1. Re:I hope they fight by butzwonker · 2017-09-29 02:41 · Score: 2
  
  Well, without FB work productivity in Europe would increase dramatically and voters would be well-informed again, so the US government cannot allow that to happen.
Re:Doomed! by jellomizer · 2017-09-29 01:26 · Score: 1

The the EU, USA and China are economically tightly linked. The fall of any of these would hurt the rest.

--
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Perspective by sjbe · 2017-09-29 01:26 · Score: 1, Insightful

Where Free Speech is not acceptable!
Two points. 1) Free Speech from the American perspective isn't a universal perspective. It is unique to our circumstance and our history. The EU has Free Speech but the details are a little different and that is fine in principle. We can quibble over the details of where the line on free speech should be but you have to address how you plan to control hate groups if you let their rhetoric flow freely. Europe obviously feels that it makes more sense to squash to speech up front since they lack the unified government structures to deal with it later like the US does. There are problems with this but that leads to point 2) The EU has had actual Nazis and been the epicenter or two World Wars. Disagree if you like but it's pretty understandable how they might flinch a little at the sort of rhetoric that resulted in literal catastrophic ruin to the continent and millions of deaths. If the US had the history of conflict Europe does you might have a different perspective too.
1. Re:Perspective by Chris+Mattern · 2017-09-29 01:33 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  you have to address how you plan to control hate groups if you let their rhetoric flow freely
  By arresting and penalizing them only when they commit crimes and violence?
2. Re:Perspective by Oxygen99 · 2017-09-29 01:44 · Score: 1
  
  Where do you stand on the inchoate offences such as conspiracy to commit a crime..?
  
  --
  I had a dream, bright and carefree, but now there's doubt and gravity
3. Re:Perspective by Chris+Mattern · 2017-09-29 01:54 · Score: 1
  
  That would be provable intent to commit the crime or violence. Unless you prove the intent, you got nothing.
4. Re:Perspective by angel'o'sphere · 2017-09-29 02:05 · Score: 1
  
  Standing in front of a Jewish shop and shouting: 'Death to all Jews!' is a crime.
  Writing the same thing on facebook is a crime, too.
  What exactly is your point?
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
5. Re:Perspective by Chris+Mattern · 2017-09-29 02:28 · Score: 1
  
  Standing in front of a Jewish shop and shouting: 'Death to all Jews!' is a crime.
  No, it's not. Or at least, it shouldn't be.
  
  Writing the same thing on facebook is a crime, too.
  
  What exactly is your point?
  That these are not crimes.
6. Re:Perspective by butzwonker · 2017-09-29 02:33 · Score: 1
  
  The US doesn't have free speech either, it's one of those bizarre myths like "the American Dream". There are plenty of things you can say in the US that will get you into prison in no time.
7. Re:Perspective by angel'o'sphere · 2017-09-29 02:45 · Score: 1
  
  They are crimes.
  Plain and simple.
  An the majourity of europeans agree, that they should be crimes.
  And we really have not much respect for people who believe otherwise.
  You see? You think we are super stupid to have such laws and we think you are an immoral bastard for not having such laws and even more immoral for criticizing us (actually you have similar laws, you just are not aware about it).
  The Kristallnacht happened in Germany, that is in Europe. Hence we Europeans find such laws morally superior to your laws.
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
8. Re:Perspective by UnknownSoldier · 2017-09-29 02:46 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  > 1) Free Speech from the American perspective isn't a universal perspective. It is unique to our circumstance and our history.
  Bullshit. Did you completely fail British history ???
  * Political Philosopher John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) (British) ; On Liberty is summarized by this On Liberty of Thought and Discussion essay:
  
  Mill laid out his argument for freedom of expression in the second section of On Liberty ('liberty of thought and discussion'). The core of his argument is that censorship prevents us from correcting errors by critical discussion. If a forbidden opinion is true,we lose the opportunity to learn of its truth. If a forbidden opinion is false, we lose the opportunity to remind ourselves why it is false.
  * C. S. Lewis (1898-1963) (British) Chronological Snobbery
  
  Lewis defines this chronological snobbery as âoethe uncritical acceptance of the intellectual climate of our own age and the assumption that whatever has gone out of date is on that count discredited.â Lewis eventually came to understand the need to ask further questions such as: Why did this idea go out of date? Was it ever refuted? If so, by whom, where, and how conclusively? In other words, you need to determine if an old idea is false before you reject it; we would not want to say that everything believed in an ancient culture was false. Which things are false -- and why -- and which things remain true?
  > We can quibble over the details of where the line on free speech should be but you have to address how you plan to control hate groups if you let their rhetoric flow freely.
  There IS no line. Either you censor or you don't. PERIOD.
  Grow the fuck up, put your big boy pants on and learn that not everyone will agree with what you say. And thats OK. Because the opposite, censorship, is FAR, FAR, worse.
  --
  "Only Cowards Censor"
9. Re:Perspective by JonSchneider · 2017-09-29 02:51 · Score: 0
  
  Why wait until they commit a crime if you can penalize them for something they might do. Instead of trampling just one right, lets go for 40, I mean that does follow with most of Europe's history.
10. Re:Perspective by hord · 2017-09-29 03:14 · Score: 1
  
  Did they actually commit a crime or cause harm? If no harm was caused, are you willing to inflict real harm to prevent potential harm?
11. Re:Perspective by mysidia · 2017-09-29 03:18 · Score: 1
  
  Standing in front of a Jewish shop and shouting: 'Death to all Jews!' is a crime.
  Only because standing on a public street in front of any shop and repeatedly shouting just about ANYTHING is a crime, of disturbance of the peace.
  Also, the message may be harassment given the CHOICE of place you setup to use illegal means of delivering that message.
  Facebook is a private venue, so the website owners have a right to accept your message, and also, people who dislike or don't agree your message, or that feel what you are expressing may be hate or just a "troll" message intended to get people riled up, can freely block you with the click of a mouse, so there is absolutely no comparison to doing that in the real world.
12. Re:Perspective by mysidia · 2017-09-29 03:22 · Score: 1
  
  Really? What is the purported crime?
  What if we change the message to: DEATH TO ALL HUMANS
  Is that a crime? Also, is the message illegal to quote as an example?
  How can we have a reasonable discussion about what is a crime and what is not if some government is trying to rule the existence of certain sequences of information as "Illegal" --- this is just as dangerous as burning books, And it shows the EU is falling apart, as in freedom is failing --- because the freedom of speech as appearing in the UN Universal declaration of human rights is the most fundamental and important right of them all.
  And attempts to "illegalize" or "regulate it" just go against not only fundamental inalienable human liberties, but nature itself
13. Re:Perspective by Chris+Mattern · 2017-09-29 04:04 · Score: 1
  
  The Kristallnacht happened in Germany, that is in Europe.
  Kristallnacht was violence and vandalism. I am not arguing for permitting violence and vandalism.
14. Re:Perspective by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-29 04:08 · Score: 0
  
  you have to address how you plan to control hate groups if you let their rhetoric flow freely
  By closing the Mosques?
15. Re:Perspective by angel'o'sphere · 2017-09-29 05:11 · Score: 1
  
  But you are also not arguing to prevent it.
  You would happily let it happen again and try to catch the criminals later.
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
16. Re:Perspective by angel'o'sphere · 2017-09-29 05:16 · Score: 1
  
  Facebook is a private venue, so the website owners have a right to accept your message
  Yes, they have the right to accept the message and the obligation, by law, to delete it.
  No idea what is wrong with you.
  Facebook is to be treated just like any newspaper or other publishing site. Perhaps you forgot that "the Washington post" or what ever other "web site" are also "private venues" ... nevertheless they are obliged to obey the laws.
  Bottom line if you make a closed user group and try to sell drugs ... in the USA that would be a conspiracy.
  A closed user group to promote Nazi ideology would be tolerated in EU. But a public one not. And that has nothing at all to do with free speech.
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
17. Re:Perspective by angel'o'sphere · 2017-09-29 05:22 · Score: 2
  
  "And it shows the EU is falling apart, as in freedom is failing "
  We have those laws since the US imposed them on us. Which is about 70 years ago.
  I see no falling apart.
  Is that a crime?
  Likely not, as it is not directed against minorities, religious, sexual, racial groups etc.
  Also, is the message illegal to quote as an example?
  No, quoting something is not illegal. How retarded are you?
  How can we have a reasonable discussion about what is a crime and what is not
  By discussing it?
  Hu? Again: how retarded are you?
  You can discuss what ever you want, but you may not agitate for violence, deny the holocaust or war crimes etc. It is actually super simple, no idea why USAsians don't get the concept.
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
18. Re:Perspective by Kielistic · 2017-09-29 08:25 · Score: 2
  
  "How to be completely disingenuous" by angel'o'sphere. A funny read!
19. Re:Perspective by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-29 11:24 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, pre-crime is a terrible idea.
20. Re:Perspective by LynnwoodRooster · 2017-09-29 12:03 · Score: 1
  
  Standing in front of a Jewish shop and shouting: 'Death to all Jews!' is a crime. Writing the same thing on facebook is a crime, too.
  Then why are sales of the Koran allowed throughout Europe?
  
  --
  Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
21. Re:Perspective by HeckRuler · 2017-09-29 13:20 · Score: 1
  
  I agree with all the first part. Woo free speech!
  But this:
  
  Either you censor or you don't. PERIOD.
  I dunno man. There's some valid exceptions to free speech. Shouting fire in a theater, or calling for violence are illegal, and I'm ok with that. And then there's moderation. Is downvoting something below most people's threshold censorship? Less people are seeing it. By contrast, upvoting something is essentially down-voting everything else. With online forums, this setup is almost essential to avoid an endless sea of shit.
  Another issue is that of ceasing to replicate. Refusing to hosts nazi websites became in fashion for a little bit there and a certain crowd of people cheered. And hey, that's legal. No one should force companies to host material they don't want to host. Unless they're common carriers, they have a say about what they carry to the masses. But I think that's a pretty big violation of free speech. If there's a ton of competition, and the minority party can just go somewhere else, then it's not a big deal. But if it becomes a social trend to kick all the gypsies out of town... that's the exact sort of thing that free speech is support to avoid.
  It's an ideal to strive for, but we're never going to have it in perfection. I think your statement was CRAP. ...Now are you wearing your big boy pants?
22. Re:Perspective by UnknownSoldier · 2017-09-29 14:18 · Score: 1
  
  > Shouting fire in a theater, ... are illegal,
  That example always gets trotted out but is is actually false -- for two reasons:
  1. if the theater actually IS on fire -- informing others of a problem is NOT illegal,
  2. That ISN'T a free speech issue -- it is a property rights issue. i.e. The theater is NOT public property. If there is NO fire then yelling that would cause a riot which would inflict _property damage_ -- THAT is the real the reason theaters don't want people yelling if there is no fire.
  Part of the problem is that the "social contract" is implicit instead of being explicit -- which is the source of confusion -- but we must always go back to "first principles."
  > Is downvoting something below most people's threshold censorship?
  I believe the issue is quite different. You are "yelling", but with moderation everyone else is just yelling more -- effectively drowning you out.
  Also, sometimes the truth hurts and people get butthurt over it. Downvoting is a knee-jerk reaction. I would hate to apply any sort of legal consequences to that. We have enough "real" problems to worry about that we don't need to worry about First World Problems.
  > No one should force companies to host material they don't want to host.
  That's a very dangerous party line to tow. Where does it stop? Refusing to serve food to someone who is a known Nazi sympathesizer?
  Business are not allowed to discriminate against anyone for any reason. Censoring others just because you don't agree with what they say is immature, stupid, and illegal.
  We need to take a look at the bigger picture. So someone is hosting nazi propoganda on a website. Who gives a fuck. Really. Speech ISN'T the problem -- it is the corresponding _behavior_ that could be.
  > I think your statement was CRAP. ...Now are you wearing your big boy pants?
  There will always be problems regardless of the "solution(s)." There is no perfect solution -- something must give -- and I would rather error on the side of being liberal then conservative.
  Calling it crap is recognizing and acknowledging that fact that is always about a compromise so I'm not offended. I put my big boy pants on a LONG time ago. :-)
23. Re:Perspective by HeckRuler · 2017-09-29 14:45 · Score: 1
  
  That example always gets trotted out but is is actually false -- for two reasons:
  1. if the theater actually IS on fire -- informing others of a problem is NOT illegal,
  2. That ISN'T a free speech issue -- it is a property rights issue.
  ...yeah dude, it's inciting panic and causing bodily harm. If it's actually on fire, that's not illegal, no one has ever suggested it is or should be. It's acknowledging that words can kill. And that's illegal and not protected by free speech. I dunno about "property rights", people died.
  It's just an example of the limits of free speech. I notice you ignored the bit about calls to violence. Come on, a big boy would acknowledge there are limits. Children cherrypick.
  
  Downvoting is a knee-jerk reaction. I would hate to apply any sort of legal consequences to that.
  Whoa ho ho! there kiddo. It can be a free speech issue with out "legality" entering into the equation. This is about the ideal of free speech, not the legal right keeping government in check. I was asking if downvoting is censorship and runs afoul of your "Either you censor or you don't. PERIOD" idea.
  
  [we shouldn't force people to do provide services] That's a very dangerous party line to tow. Where does it stop?
  Historically? When it becomes a social problem. It's illegal for hotels to not serve black people.
  I'd like to see some sunset clauses. AND, this is the sort of thing that'll never be made law when it's really needed, unless the federal government is at odds with the local tin-pot tyrants.
  And holy shit dude, if that's "party line", I've got to ask what party? Because I think my drink might be empty and the music might be getting stale.
  
  Business are not allowed to discriminate against anyone for any reason.
  Ha. No? Businesses discriminate on all sorts of things. If you're not wearing the right sort of jacket. If you've given them bad checks before. Hookers can choose the sex of their clients. DeBeers could, if they so choose, discriminate against people trying to sell them blood diamonds off the back of a truck. And they discriminate on price all the time. There's a set of protected classes that certain industries are not allowed to discriminate against. And if they're caught discriminating against those
  In short, businesses reserve the right to throw you out of their door.
  Now... SHOULD THEY? Yeah, I'd say that everyone has the right to say "fuck you" to their boss and/or clients. Up to the point it becomes a social problem. I think you could say "Businesses should not be allowed to discriminate without a good reason". But that's vague as hell. I almost said "against protected classes"... but fuck that unfair noise. I nearly spelled out "on terms of race, religion, age, or sex"... but then hooters couldn't refuse to hire male watiers and life insurance companies couldn't upcharge old people close to death.
  Going the opposite route where people are required to serve... that sounds like slavery. Corporations aren't people though, and big business that has a monopoly really ought to be regulated. I'm fine with ISPs becoming common carriers and legally being forced to supply dumb pipes to their clients.
24. Re:Perspective by UnknownSoldier · 2017-09-30 04:21 · Score: 1
  
  > I notice you ignored the bit about calls to violence.
  Incorrect. In my first posted I mentioned "Either you censor or you don't. PERIOD."
  Let's pretend we make "Yelling 'Fire' in a (full) theater (not-on-fire) illegal" with the justification "because it incites violence."
  WHERE does it stop??? _Who_ decides what incites violence??? Because this quickly becomes a slippery slope.
  Guess what -- I can incite violence with almost ANY word. For example, if I jump out and scare an old lady with "Boo!" and she has a heart attack and dies due to the stress do we now make "Boo!" illegal??? What if someone shouts "BOObies!" because they have Tourette syndrome but she only heard the first syllable? What if I am telling a joke "What bees make milk? BOO-BEES!" What if I use ANY word in a very LOUD context to scare someone to death???
  Banning/Making the entire English language "illegal" because it _might_ be mis-used is utteraly retarded.
  This is _completely_ backwards thinking. Words don't DO anything. PEOPLE do. The _specific_ word is NOT the problem. The _intent_ or the _act_ of destruction is the problem -- NOT the specific phonemes. All we've done is attempt to shift the cause of the problem to an inanimate object. Notice that this same stupidity is made with gun laws. The fact that some guns are legal while others are illegal is complete bullshit. You can kill a person with either one. Taking the life of someone IS the problem -- not _what_ weapon of choice they used!! Hell, they could have used THEIR HANDS. Furthermore, more people are killed by cars then guns (!) but we don't ban cars because a few idiots mis-use them.
  It is all about the context. If I am writing an essay on an old book am I allowed to quote phrases that have "illegal" words? Making words OK in one context and not in another is dumb. George Carlin eloquently and beautifully pointing out "What you resist, persists."
  with his 7 Words You Can't Say On TV on the stupidity of making words "Taboo" monologue.
  The problem with social contracts is that they are implicit and not explicit. We should be looking at the spirit of the law not the letter of the law. We should be striving for simplicity in our laws, over-engineering them. As Publius Tacitus said before 120 AD.
  
  The more numerous the laws, the more corrupt the government.
  Stop with all the fucking corner cases, edge cases, and just allow people to say whatever the fuck they want. Because when there is no "stigma" attached then everyone will quickly lose interest in them and go back to their lives.
  > I was asking if downvoting is censorship and runs afoul of your "Either you censor or you don't. PERIOD" idea.
  Why would it? You are not stopping the person from commenting. The fact that no one agrees with them is beside the point.
  > Businesses discriminate on all sorts of things
  You are conflating a Contract with Discrimination. They are not the same thing.
  First, ALL Law is based on Contract Law.
  Second, when a business has a sign that says "No Shirt, No Service" they are NOT violating your rights. They are legally allowed to put additional qualifiers onto the Contract between them and you (as long as none of them are illegal.) The reason they can't say "Race _x_ not served" is because the Business derives its permission (aka power) from the Government. And the government has said "We will give you a business license IF you accept these Terms of the Contract. Violate the terms and we revoke your permission. The terms include you can't refuse service based on someone's race, gender, religion, etc."
25. Re:Perspective by HeckRuler · 2017-09-30 19:50 · Score: 1
  
  No dude, "Calls to violence" as in "Hey everyone let's go murder specific person X at 5pm tomarrow". That's... a call to violence. That's separate from the fire in the theatre thing. It's pretty blatantly illegal. Essentially it's publicly planning a murder. That's bad. We're not free to say such things. It's a pretty reasonable restriction on free speech. No one except crazy-pants libertarians who want to privatize the police suggest otherwise.
  This is NOT, "incite to violence" as in doing something which makes other people violent. I think you extrapolated that from the theatre thing. In the US, that's mostly legal. You can be as insulting as you want to... most people. Slander (which is supposed to be lies, but it depends on the quality of your lawyer) and some hate speech will land you in trouble.
  
  Banning/Making the entire English language "illegal" because it _might_ be mis-used is utteraly retarded.
  Agreed. Yeah... we showed that straw-man what for. Fuck that guy.
  (no, seriously, you can't bitch about someone needing to wear big-boy pants and then.... stray into this level of mental gymnastics. As someone who fundamentally agrees with my own political stances, you've really got to keep a lid on the crazy rants. You're making me look bad and not really helping the cause.)
  
  They are legally allowed to put additional qualifiers onto the Contract between them and you (as long as none of them are illegal.
  . . . discrimination (I'm sorry "putting additional qualifiers") is legal as long as it's not illegal? Come on man... you're just dancing around the issue. Sssiiiiiigh, fine, in terms you're using: some hotels used to put the additional qualifier of being white and didn't let people of color into their establishment. This was deemed "bad" and made into an illegal form of discrimination.
  But fine fine.... let's not say... "we shouldn't force people to do provide services" how about instead we say "We should allow people to put additional qualifiers on the whether or not they'll provide a service"? Does that sound better? Because it's the exact same thing.
  
  You are correct that there are always (natural) consequences for our actions.
  It's actually quite natural for the biggest thug in the room to inflict pain and suffering on anyone that says something they don't agree with. Natural, but kinda shitty. The biggest thug would be the government, practically be definition. At least Hobbes's. But we've had that wonderful enlightenment and kinda sorta put a leash on it. Now it has to follow laws and stuff, which seems like a step in the right direction. One of which is that it at least, should try to adhere to the ideal of free speech. And I too would try to adhere to it, and I wouldn't censor people without damn good reason.
  The saddest damn thing is that you and I are practically on the exact same page, but we're both bitching about nuance. Makes me worry about the nature of politics.
26. Re:Perspective by angel'o'sphere · 2017-10-02 18:35 · Score: 1
  
  Because the constitutions of european countries grant 'religious freedom'?
  (And please don't start to claim certain things would be written in the koran while they are not, I have one in my library)
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
EU Commission is Colossus? by DontBeAMoran · 2017-09-29 01:29 · Score: 1

This is the voice of world control. I bring you peace. It may be the peace of plenty and content or the peace of unburied death. The choice is yours: Obey me and live, or disobey and die.

--
#DeleteFacebook
Re: Socialism's end game by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-29 01:33 · Score: 0

And the socialist agent troll of the Ministry of Truth jumped in right away with the recommended take away from it's instructions - do you have page marks on your copy of Alinsky's book?!
Re: Doomed! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-29 01:40 · Score: 0

All of them are doomed to fail, one is going to be the 1st and will trigger for the others also. There is impossible mathematically to have a continous, infinitely growing, wealth generating system in a finite, limited system. Because there is nothing else to conquer on Earth the aristocrats have turned into neo feudal lords and started again re enslaving their own specie, transforming the citizens into serfs practically auto cannibalism of the human specie so that the increase of wealth system can keep growing.
Re:Doomed! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-29 01:44 · Score: 0

In the USA, we value freedom so fuck off EU. You are doomed to fail anyway.
* Unless you are kneeling during the anthem then apparently we don't.
EU says.... by Zurkeyon3733 · 2017-09-29 01:44 · Score: 1

"No Speech for Yew!" :-P
The Ignorant American Version of Human Rights by franzrogar · 2017-09-29 01:45 · Score: 0

Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Art. 1. All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Art. 19. Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Art. 30. Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.
See? SEE? HAVE YOU UNDERSTOOD?
You have the freedom of speech IF AND ONLY IF that speech DOESN'T ATTACK THE HUMAN RIGHTS:
1) Christians, Jews and Muslims are CRIMINALS because they say (in manifestations, acts and publicly) homosexuals do NOT have same rights as heterosexuals (Art. 1 of Human Rights); hence violating Human Rights Art. 30
2) Nazis et al. are CRIMINALS because they say Jews, Blacks, Yellows, etc. (in manifestations, acts and publicly) do NOT have same rights as white people (Art. 1 of Human Rights); hence violating Human Rights Art. 30
Etc.
The true news would be if SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE WOULD HAVE THE GUTS TO SUE AND EXPOSE THOSE CRIMINALS.
That, my friend, would be TRUE freedom (from CRIMINALS).
1. Re:The Ignorant American Version of Human Rights by TheRaven64 · 2017-09-29 02:05 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  And here you highlight the main danger of this kind of approach: even if you agree with banning hate speech in principle, you are inevitably going to end up in a situation where there is selective enforcement, and that gives far more power to the people who get to choose what to enforce than anyone should be comfortable with a select group wielding.
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
2. Re:The Ignorant American Version of Human Rights by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-29 02:21 · Score: 0
  
  Be careful when staring at the monster. You just might be looking in a mirror.
  
  They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
  Such odd language to me saying I should act in any specific way. I normally only see that language in authoritarian shit holes like North Korea. I am free because I live to pursuit my happiness however I see fit. Fuck your "spirit of brotherhood" bullshit. What is the point of that language?
3. Re:The Ignorant American Version of Human Rights by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-29 02:26 · Score: 0
  
  What about the people on social media that are actively spreading their hatred toward anyone that's straight, white, and male; accusing them of being racist, sexist bigots when the person has shown zero sign of being those things, while also spreading hatred toward any others that disagree with their opinions?
  Right now, that's the majority of social media these days. Hatred from all sides, with each side claiming they're morally in the right.
4. Re:The Ignorant American Version of Human Rights by LynnwoodRooster · 2017-09-29 12:06 · Score: 1
  
  AFAIK, modern Christianity and Judaism doesn't criminalize homosexuality. It may consider it immoral and unnatural, but not illegal. Islam, on the other hand, considers it a mortal offense worthy of stoning or being tossed off a high building.
  
  --
  Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
5. Re:The Ignorant American Version of Human Rights by franzrogar · 2017-09-30 19:16 · Score: 1
  
  If I spend my time writing, please, use yours to READ what I wrote BEFORE spreading lies.
  Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
  Article 1.
  All human beings are born free and equal in DIGNITY and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
  (Caps mine). Saying homosexuals are "inmoral" or "unnatural" is a direct attack against OUR dignity. HENCE, Christians and Jews and Muslims are CRIMINALS as I stated before.
  Please, if you're going to reply again, first READ what I wrote before making me waste my time fixing your lies.
Good by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-29 01:48 · Score: 0

We need to regulate the fuck out of these companies, including Apple, Amazon, comcast, Tesla, and all the rest. This should have been done 15 years ago. The things they get away with, and the extent to which a blind eye is turned, is mind boggling.
They will have to segregate by drinkypoo · 2017-09-29 01:49 · Score: 1

Twitter is going to need to split up into different sites, and just not show the EU the rest of the world's tweets. They can still show the US the EU's tweets, though. Will people use VPNs to get full access to twitter? Probably not.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
With Their Pushes Toward Censorship by NicknameUnavailable · 2017-09-29 01:49 · Score: 0

Facebook and Twitter are hardly bastions of free speech and expression, but I hope they do regulate so we can counter-regulate.
It's an obscenity that lesser nations can dictate the policy on the entire American internet by being whiny cunts.
1. Re:With Their Pushes Toward Censorship by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-29 20:43 · Score: 0
  
  It's an obscenity that lesser nations can dictate the policy on the entire American internet by being whiny cunts.
  There are no lesser nations than the US and there is no separate American internet. That's the point of it -- its an internet.
Re:Socialism's end game by amiga3D · 2017-09-29 01:49 · Score: 0

Government wants total control of every aspect of your life. In the US the founders knew this and crafted the Constitution to chain the beast. The 1st Amendment is the 1st because it's the most important. Only fools let the government control speech.
Re:Doomed! by NicknameUnavailable · 2017-09-29 01:51 · Score: 1

You are welcome to drown in the sink of your own filth. We just don't want it here.
Then get off our internet.
Re:Doomed! by PolygamousRanchKid+ · 2017-09-29 02:08 · Score: 1

In the USA, we value freedom so fuck off EU.

In the USA, we value Uber so fuck off EU.

You are doomed to fail anyway.
Well, I guess there are some folks who claim that they would die if they didn't have Facebook.
But I doubt if the lack of Facebook would sink the EU.
However, this spat is just one of politicians being posers. It's like Donald Trump causing a fuss with the NFL to distract folks from the real problems.
Now Facebook can claim high moral ground with "Free Speech" while the EU politicians can claim that they are fighting Yet Another Evil US Internet Company.
. . . so what will the weather be like tomorrow . . . ?

--
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
What a crying shame... by bradley13 · 2017-09-29 02:09 · Score: 3

The whole "hate speech" crap is just a crying shame. Really, it's nothing but political censorship, because whoever is in charge gets to determine what viewpoints are hateful. Despite the European charter of human rights, Europe does not really believe in free speech. Really, the US doesn't either - look at the latest mess in Berkeley.
If and when we can, it is important to push back against this kind of censorship. No one makes you follow anyone on Twitter - so why would hateful opinions even bother you? On Facebook, if someone posts something you don't like, block them, or make your page private. Are so many people really such snowflakes that a few hateful words will destroy their world?
Really, it's kind of pathetic...

--
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
1. Re:What a crying shame... by beer_maker · 2017-09-29 09:42 · Score: 1
  
  Nicely said, I wish I had a Mod point to give you. Instead, please accept my thanks. Aloha!
  
  --
  Hmmm. Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
Re:Sounds a LOT like Hitler by TheRaven64 · 2017-09-29 02:09 · Score: 1, Interesting

Name one war that the USA has won, where they did not have the French as allies.

--
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Remove the restrictions? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-29 02:13 · Score: 0

Why? So the wannabe Fascists can try to take over AGAIN?
It took only about 10 years for the Confederates to seize power in the American South and oppress the people there, and they continued that for decades, with nobody even raising a stink except on rare occasions.
See, the thing is, those protections? They're ALWAYS necessary. You can't just pretend that the forces of oppression, bigotry, and discrimination will go away if you let them wither away. They require not just inoculation, but sanitation.
Of course, in the US, it's the right-wing taking a stand against something so odious as football players making a statement when the national anthem is playing, so there you go.
1. Re:Remove the restrictions? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-29 03:28 · Score: 0
  
  And it's the football players that are so open-minded they can't understand how the flag represents military history, and things way beyond their protest, to many people.
  I'm completely on the side of "what's happening is fucked up", and i'm in no way military/military history/flag worshipping - but the open-minded side could at least try to be open-minded.
  Now - if they are actually protesting the military / flag - fine. But they themselves have backtracked on that position and say they aren't.
2. Re:Remove the restrictions? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-29 06:45 · Score: 0
  
  And it's the football players that are so open-minded they can't understand how the flag represents military history, and things way beyond their protest, to many people.
  What are you talking about? The very reason those football players are protesting is because they understand that very meaning, which is why it's being violated because that military history (at least, the valorous parts of it), and things way beyond the mere protest, are being tainted by the abuses which are being protested.
  They know the symbol, they know it has meaning. That's why they won't give it the false adulation that is demanded of them.
  
  I'm completely on the side of "what's happening is fucked up", and i'm in no way military/military history/flag worshipping - but the open-minded side could at least try to be open-minded.
  And the side that is claiming to be on the side of freedom, could at least try to support the concept of freedom, rather than react in outrage that their precious flag and national anthem is being protested in a relatively benign fashion.
  Because that's what is fucked up. Avery Brundage is the man who should be ashamed, not Tommie Smith or John Carlos.
  
  Now - if they are actually protesting the military / flag - fine. But they themselves have backtracked on that position and say they aren't.
  See, now you're trying to accuse them of backtracking, as opposed to pointing out what they're doing so you don't get all confused and pretend your hand-wringing hysteria is in any way valid.
  Well, not that that stopped you, seriously, the level of vituperative hate heaped on these football players by the right, only reveals the hypocrisy involved, nothing more.
  Look, they aren't peeing in your Cheerios, they aren't tearing down the statue for raising the flag at Iwo Jima, and if they are taking down any statues, it's the ones that salute traitors like Lee, Forrest and Davis.
  Personally, at this point, I'm more inclined to ban the national anthem, it's not healthy for you, it's leading you to go crazy.
Re:Sounds a LOT like Hitler by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-29 02:14 · Score: 0

The War On Trump! Raging, but WINNING!
I learned this today. Trump considers his daughter, Ivanka, a "nice piece of ass".
Re: Doomed! by fluffernutter · 2017-09-29 02:16 · Score: 1

You hit the nail on the head. The lack of places for growth are just causing the rich to leverage their power to get richer without benefiting the poorer. Trickle down economics would work if there was a place for valid growth because that would generate jobs, but there just isn't.

--
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Nipple-aversion by DrYak · 2017-09-29 02:17 · Score: 1

Free Speech from the American perspective isn't a universal perspective. It is unique to our circumstance and our history. The EU has Free Speech but the details are a little different and that is fine in principle.

And we tend to be a little bit less nipple-averse than the US.
Our concept of Free Speech vs Censorship doesn't in any way go nut whenever there's a little bit of flesh shown somewhere (*).
Nudity isn't a reason to kick-ban you from European media, because of "Think of the Children" and "OMG! Femal Anatomy ! Run for your lives !".
Indeed, based on past history, each side of the Atlantic pond has a slightly different approach on the Free Speech vs Censorship scale.

We can quibble over the details of where the line on free speech should be but you have to address how you plan to control hate groups if you let their rhetoric flow freely.
There are also other very valid trends in Europe that try instead to instil a little bit of critical thinking when exposed to bullshit on internet.
(This specific youtube channel deals more about fakenews and conspiracy theories, but the general approach of teaching critical thinking is also applicable for anything else going on the internet).
So instead of blocking the rhetoric of hate groups, you try tackling the problem from the other side by making the people less receptive to the king of bullshit that goes online.
(And by the way the channel names happens to have some unfortunate implication in the US, but in its native France it's just a quote from a known author)
---
(*) : Common, naked butts and visible female nipples ?
Facebook's censors are going to have brain haemorrhage if they visit certain breaches in Europe.

--
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
1. Re:Nipple-aversion by mysidia · 2017-09-29 03:26 · Score: 1
  
  Nudity isn't a reason to kick-ban you from European media
  Ahah, an IRC user, perhaps!...... most would just say ban.
  Anyways, perhaps they would step away from these ridiculous demands if social media became more decentralized
  and distributed: store messages locally, removing the ability of a central agency to "censor through forced deletion".
This is starting to feel a lot like China.. by evolutionary · 2017-09-29 02:17 · Score: 4, Insightful

publish only content we approve of, or we shut you down. That truly sounds like a formula in China and Russia right now: You publish what we tell you or we will fine you. Sounds a lot like: publish what we tell you, or we shut you down. The requests by the EU sound a lot like the regulatory systems in China where you have reps you report to to approve content. People may say it's for safety but "those who give up essential liberties for a little extra security deserve neither liberty nor security". In other words, there is always going to be some people who have an unpopular or sometimes even dangerous opinion, but if we suppress it being express even non-violently, we eliminate free thought, and when you have that, you have tyranny.

--
"Imagination is more important than knowledge" - Einstein
1. Re:This is starting to feel a lot like China.. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-29 06:26 · Score: 0
  
  Speech inciting violence isn't protected anywhere.
2. Re:This is starting to feel a lot like China.. by evolutionary · 2017-09-29 06:49 · Score: 1
  
  Ironically,a system that protects ability to express opinion (not acts necessarily) free also allows people making these opinion Anonymously if they want. In China you are often required to show your read Id to post/use any useful Internet based service. (where everyone who would know everyone else's comment and potentially not only have it censored, but picked up by stoic officers taking one away with no explanation). As Snowden said, "you only have nothing to hide if you have nothing to say". Bold, but correct words.
  
  --
  "Imagination is more important than knowledge" - Einstein
3. Re:This is starting to feel a lot like China.. by trawg · 2017-09-29 07:25 · Score: 2
  
  Jesus mate. Wait until you hear what the FCC has told American broadcasters they can and can't say. You'll be fucking livid!
If Facebook and Twitter have any decency by wjcofkc · 2017-09-29 02:18 · Score: 1

They will shut off access to their services from the EU and see how they like that. If they follow through with these requests, it will by default affect principles of free speech here in the USA. What the EU already considers censurable hate speech is insane. As time goes on, they will only add more and more that Facebook and Twitter will have to follow.

--
Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
1. Re:If Facebook and Twitter have any decency by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-29 03:16 · Score: 0
  
  They will shut off access to their services from the EU
  Correct answer but not one FaceFuck or Twatter will entertain.
Fuck you EU and your censorship by UnknownSoldier · 2017-09-29 02:27 · Score: 4, Interesting

Your bullshit "hate speech" is nothing more then censorship.
Apparently you learnt NOTHING from (British) Political Philosopher John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) to which this YouTuber beautifully summarized:

[He] made an argument for free speech including that of hate speech for a good reason.
He argued that if we censor hate speech our fundamental beliefs of what is right and wrong are not tested.
If our beliefs are aren't argued against then we don't attempt to rationalize what we believe to be true.
We don't think about why our beliefs are right.
When we don't question our beliefs we don't think about them.
And when we don't think about our beliefs we don't learn new things. We don't advance and improve our thoughts about what is right and wrong.
He argued that even if someone's argument is wrong it still serves a purpose of making us rationalize and check our beliefs and even improve them.
Being able to listen to an argument that is wrong lets us understand what makes an argument wrong and improve our own beliefs from learning from someone else's failure.
Gee, oh look, C. S. Lewis (Hey, look another smart British citizen!) said the SAME thing, except he called it Chronological Snobbery
Grow the fuck up EU already. Just maybe you should pay more attention to your history.
--
Only cowards censor.
1. Re:Fuck you EU and your censorship by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-29 03:46 · Score: 0
  
  You're one of those "Respect is earned, not given!" types, aren't you?
2. Re:Fuck you EU and your censorship by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-29 04:01 · Score: 0
  
  While I agree with this logic, the flaw in this thinking is that it neglects to consider that the majority of the population is unbelievably fucking stupid and are completely incapable of questioning or thinking critically about their beliefs; and you can't fix stupid.
3. Re:Fuck you EU and your censorship by UnknownSoldier · 2017-09-29 04:19 · Score: 1
  
  Newsflash: You can still respect someone and disagree with what they say.
  Only an insecure, immature, coward wants to control others. If someone is THAT insecure that they don't like what others are saying -- guess what, they have a choice. Don't listen.
  Censorship is NOT the solution -- it is precisely the problem. Moderation, as shown via /. or reddit, is one solution. Now, those STILL have issues (groupthink) but every other option has consistently shown to be much worse.
  Apparently the EU members are too stupid to understand:
  Ignoring a problem, doesn't magically make it go away, In fact the opposite is true -- it just gets larger.
  --
  Stupidity of Judaism: Murdering an innocent animal because you fucked up.
4. Re:Fuck you EU and your censorship by UnknownSoldier · 2017-09-29 04:49 · Score: 1
  
  While I greatly share you lament I believe you are overlooking something. Let's use an example from history.
  Slavery existed for thousands of years precisely because people didn't respect themselves which meant that in turn they didn't respect others. It was only through education that _that_ stupidity was overcome.
  As long people play the moral superiority arrogance game -- "My beliefs are more important then your beliefs" -- and remain ignorant, nothing will change. Change ALWAYS starts with a belief: "There has to be a better way." This belief eventually becomes faith, then action, then knowledge. That knowledge can be freely taught to save time learning the painful lessons.
  And while there is some truth in the phrase "You can fix ignorant but you can't fix stupid" I believe that is used more as a cop-out. Applied application of knowledge is how we overcame EVERY spiritually bankrupt behavior in the past. Knowledge, whether it be intellectual, or experiential (gnosis), is the only real solution in the long run.
  It seems the EU would rather remain ignorant then learn from history -- that's the real tragedy. Their dogma of ignorance and intolerance is why the EU will be remembered as nothing more then a footnote in history unless they get their shit together. If they could put their egos aside -- even for just a moment -- they might actually learn something. But alas, their egos probably won't let them so they remain morally bankrupt. The wise student would note that this mirrors their financial bankruptcy. The EU is literally falling apart at every corner but they are too blind to see it. Will they change in time? That remains to be seen ...
  --
  Teachers, not Entertainers, are THE foundation of society.
5. Re:Fuck you EU and your censorship by HeckRuler · 2017-09-29 13:24 · Score: 1
  
  So do you believe in democracy or don't you?
  Because it sounds like you want to tear down democracy.
  I remember when this sort of rhetoric would get you ironically chased out of town.
You can have all the free speech you want by rsilvergun · 2017-09-29 02:30 · Score: 1

what you can't do is incite violence. After WWII the EU is still a little more sensitive to the use of what we here in the states call a Dog Whistle. Actually the EU's always been like that. In America we let people violate the spirit of the law while adhering to the letter all the damn time. The EU doesn't tolerate that. I can't say I blame them. They do it with their banking system too and they're generally better off for it (except Greece who got caught holding the bag when the 2008 crash hit).

--
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
1. Re:You can have all the free speech you want by UnknownSoldier · 2017-09-29 06:31 · Score: 1
  
  > In America we let people violate the spirit of the law while adhering to the letter all the damn time.
  Uhm, Hello McFly, Rosa Parks anyone.
  There is this minor thing in history called Civil Disobedience -- you might want to look it up.
  --
  Only Cowards Censor
Re:Sounds a LOT like Hitler by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-29 02:32 · Score: 0

The Civil War? I'm not sure if the French helped either side on that one.
dueling laws by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-29 02:32 · Score: 0

The US needs to pass a law mandating the social media platforms give an equal voice to everyone without censorship.
Then let Facebook and Twitter decide whose law to conform to, since it could not be both.
1. Re:dueling laws by admiral+snackbar · 2017-09-29 03:26 · Score: 1
  
  It would be interesting. Either they cut their EU operations or their US corporations, or go bankrupt from the fines from either of them. Personally I'd split the company. One EU company serving EU customers, one US company serving US customers. The EU company falls under European law, the US company under US law.
Re:Socialism's end game by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-29 02:37 · Score: 0

Nice trolling attempt.
Re:Doomed! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-29 02:48 · Score: 0

It's not your internet FUCKTARD. You may have invented it (and that's doubtful ... lots of nations involved), but the physical bits that make up the internet don't all belong to the US
But isn't that regulation... by JonSchneider · 2017-09-29 02:49 · Score: 0

Wait...isn't just them handing down ultimatums regulation in itself?
Nope! by tietokone-olmi · 2017-09-29 02:50 · Score: 3, Insightful

These companies should wait until the matter becomes a regulation, because only that can be contested in court. Legislation can also be contested in court, but not before it's subject to the whole parliamentary transparency process; which is what the commission (executive) is trying to avoid with these threats.
Those companies have already seen this a couple of times from various governments. It's all bluster; the commission can of course put pressure on them, but that's likely either inconsequential or outright illegal.
Re:Translation help required! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-29 02:54 · Score: 0

Take your shitty Facebook and Twitter and shove it where the sun don't shine
Godwin's law has been amended by tepples · 2017-09-29 03:10 · Score: 1, Troll

Ahem: Throwing the Godwin Flag.
Here's what Mike Godwin himself had to say about the neo-Nazis at the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville: "By all means, compare these shitheads to the Nazis. Again and again. I'm with you."

I'd call [the NSDAP and its successors] fascist-left
Though the platform of the NSDAP included workfare programs, the rest of its nationalist, anti-feminist, anti-gay, anti-Marxist ideology smells a lot like paleoconservatism, the ideology of the alt-right.
1. Re:Godwin's law has been amended by Salgak1 · 2017-09-29 03:51 · Score: 1
  
  Well, except we weren't discussing the Tiki-torch Nazis at Charlottesville, we were discussing Alternativ fur Deutschland, who picked up about 10% of the seats in the recent German elections.
  As for the argument that the National Socialist German Workers Party wasn't avowedly socialist, is just as stupid as claiming the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, aka ISIS, isn't Islamic. . .
2. Re: Godwin's law has been amended by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-29 03:51 · Score: 1
  
  How about those Antifa Nazis? They OK in your book?
  You mean the Russian false flag operations?
  
  And there's a LOT more of those LEFTIST purveyors of violence than the few hundred - at most - real Nazis in the US.
  Yes, most "real" Nazis are dead, what with age creeping up on them. The actual problem of right wing white power racial supremacism lives on though,
  
  Oh, right, LEFTIST violence is OK because it's to force "progress".
  You know who violently seized federal property last year? The Bundy militia.
  
  Oh, yeah, did you hear the chants from Green Bay fans in response to those anti-American "#Takeaknee" protests?
  USA! USA! USA!
  Bwaaa HAAA AHAAAA!
  Most people would be able to recognize the arrogance in what you're doing. Your sneering condescension reveals your own egotism, not by our righteousness.
  Notice the #1 selling jersey for all NFL players is now Pittsburgh offensive tackle Alejandro Villaneuva's? Yeah, the US Military Academy graduate, ex US Army Ranger officer, combat veteran, who was the ONLY Steeler on the field for the Star Spangled Banner last weekend.
  And so instead of helping say, the people of Puerto Rico, they're putting their money towards a badly made, overpriced, piece of sports apparel?
  
  Yep, the #1 selling jersey for all NFL players is that of an offensive lineman who openly defied all that #takeaknee anti-US BULLSHIT.
  Not really no, his claims were that he did it by accident, not open at all.
  
  IN YOUR FACE, "PROGRESSIVE" ASSWIPES!
  Your confrontational attitude is more about your own weakness than anything else.
  
  Notice what those "#Takeaknee" have done for NFL ratings? Yeah, in the tank. So bad that the TV networks showing NFL games are having to give money back to advertisers.
  I remember one of the advertisers who quit. Check into Cash. One of the scummiest operations known to man.
  
  So those NFL protests are about to be STOMPED on. By the NFL itself. Because pissing off 80% of your audience doesn't work for an entertainment business.
  Yeah, that's why their dumb enough to mess with their product. Wait, wait, the owners are actually supporting the protesting players now.
  Huh.
3. Re: Godwin's law has been amended by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-29 04:45 · Score: 0
  
  The center and left wings of the nsdap died in the night of the long knives in 1934. Labels do not always reflect the packages content.
4. Re:Godwin's law has been amended by DamnOregonian · 2017-09-29 10:17 · Score: 2
  
  Or that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea isn't democratic...
  
  Oh wait.
  
  The NSDAP had a lot to do with socialism for a while, and eventually morphed into fascism, which was a unique pairing of left and right wing economic ideologies (a fusion between private corporations and the government, suppression of worker rights in favor of the corporations).
  
  The socialists were all purged from the NSDAP during the Night of the Long Knives, and then all left-wing parties in Germany were officially banned.
  
  Don't be a fucking toolshed.
5. Re: Godwin's law has been amended by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-03 14:35 · Score: 0
  
  The problem here is that you are arguing about whether something is left wing without any more than an emotional association.
  Paid holiday time is something that most would assume was left wing. You have one guess who came up with the idea.
  It is much more sensible to say they were authoritarian.
  But then dismissing any group that is disliked becomes more dificult.
  Left and right are meaningless buzz words.
Fuck Platforms by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-29 03:12 · Score: 0

People need to be thinking in terms of protocols, not platforms. That's the only way we'll ever remove the ability of governments to censor. There shouldn't be any one particular company (or small group of companies) for anti-free-speech fanatics to point their loaded guns at.
Darknets are a way forward, but don't just do the same old thing (i.e. a website) on Tor or i2p. That's not a real answer. It needs to be federated, or else it's useless.
1. Re:Fuck Platforms by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-29 03:40 · Score: 0
  
  ^ that should be a +5 comment.
  People have gone way off the rails in centralizing so much of human communication with just a few private companies. Those will always be a focus point for people who want to censor or control the speech of others.
Looks like they've learned well from history by Solandri · 2017-09-29 03:19 · Score: 5, Insightful

"We have to put a stop to the idea that it is a part of everybody's civil rights to say whatever he pleases." - Adolf Hitler

The issue here is something recent anti-white supremacist protesters need to take to heart. The principle of free speech is agnostic. You cannot claim to uphold free speech while simultaneously attempting to deny it to those you disagree with. Either you believe in free speech, even when that speech offends you. Or you believe in suppression of certain viewpoints and their expression. The latter puts you in the same category as China, Russia, and Nazi Germany - the only difference is which ideas you've decided to suppress.

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" - Evelyn Beatrice Hall

The idea behind free speech is that you can't counter a negative with a negative. If you consider it to be justified to impose negative policies against ideas you consider to be negative, you are by definition justifying negative policies towards your ideas by those people if the tables are ever turned. After all, from their perspective, you have negative ideas and thus they are justified in imposing negative policies against you And all of society devolves into a self-perpetuating cycle of negativity.

Free speech attempts to break this cycle by saying everyone is allowed to have their say. And instead of actively fighting against the expression of ideas we don't like, we'll simply rely on rational people (who hopefully make up the overwhelming majority of the population) to judge and dismiss those ideas as ridiculous. The proper response to white supremacist propaganda is citing historical examples of where their beliefs have led the world in the past - innocents living (or hiding) in fear, mob lynchings of innocents, genocide, world war. Convince rational people that we don't want to go down that direction again.
1. Re:Looks like they've learned well from history by george14215 · 2017-09-29 05:16 · Score: 1
  
  Unfortunately, I'm starting to believe that the majority of people are irrational.
2. Re:Looks like they've learned well from history by wyHunter · 2017-09-29 07:14 · Score: 1
  
  You cannot believe that "antifa" and other similar groups actually want freedom, can you?
Re:Sounds a LOT like Hitler by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-29 03:19 · Score: 0

The French fleet blockaded the south for most of the civil war.
That said, the original request is silly. The US has always been allied with France, so there is no time period when a war could occur without overlapping with a time period when the US wasn't allied with France. Now, that being said, the US basically "won" (costly though it was) the war of 1812 without French support because the French were a bit busy fighting off Britain on their own soil.
In the early years, France backed the US revolution to piss off Britain. It worked. The Brits had a falling-out (including several wars) with both countries for over a hundred years afterward, and still haven't really forgiven the French. Britain attacked both the US and France during the war of 1812 and blockaded France, preventing the US from assisting them and distracting France from helping the US. France helped the US federal government (the "north") in the civil war. France sided with the US in the Spanish-American war, and used that opportunity as cover to colonize Vietnam. WW1 and WW2 are well known, and this is when Britain got a hard-on for the US and became diplomatically cordial with France again. And then France is the entire reason that the US entered Vietnam. Their colonial hold was slipping, and they called on their allies to help them keep it in the name of "fighting communism". The US did, at great social cost. Vietnam is actually a "war" that the US "lost" because of their French alliance.
Problem is they can't scale. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-29 03:20 · Score: 0

The only way to do even part of this is with automation that will itself be abused. There is no way to fight back with manual labor as it's not cost-effective.
Re:Doomed! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-29 03:57 · Score: 0

In the USA, we value freedom
If you did, you wouldn't be living in the USA.
Plenty of reading on my side by HBI · 2017-09-29 04:01 · Score: 0, Troll

The bottom line is that Fascism was and is a left-wing phenomenon, with goals in accord with Marxist ones. The method differed in terms of using corporations - or large firms generally - as conduits for social control of the population rather than direct government control.
Two key points that undermine the "right wing" Fascist fabrication:
Mussolini was the editor of Avanti, the largest circulation Marxist periodical in Italy during the 1910s, with views that accorded with Lenin's almost precisely. Lenin and he exchanged mutual admiration until Lenin's death in 1924.
Two quotes from Dr. Goebbels:
“Lenin is the greatest man, second only to Hitler”
“the difference between Communism and the Hitler faith is very slight.” - both from the NYT in 1925.
"once Hitler was in power in 1933, most German Communists became ardent Nazis." - Norman Friedman, "The Fifty Year War"
Analyzing Fascist policy, whether in Italy or Germany or elsewhere, shows all the same indications of totalization of society, eliminating class boundaries, and providing guaranteed jobs, health care, government supplied vacations (have a look at the "Strength through Joy" program in Germany), etc.
Last point, Marx himself was a virulent anti-Semite, despite being Jewish by birth. Mussolini was not. Hitler was, but we knew that already.

--
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
1. Re: Plenty of reading on my side by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-29 06:29 · Score: 0
  
  stop lying. mussolini was socialist, then forced to leave socialist party and fascinated by nietzsche (much earlier probably) joined fascist movement. this does not mean fascist is leftist idea. it never was and never will be due to connection to capitalism (note, this does not mean capitalism is fascism).
2. Re: Plenty of reading on my side by HBI · 2017-10-02 06:52 · Score: 1
  
  Do you somehow think Mussolini was the only guy in the early 1900s who was influenced by Nietzsche? Soviet communism drew quite a bit from that font as well. As such, Nietzsche being a litmus test for "fascism" or "right-wing-ism" is a nonsequitur.
  Fascism is utterly leftist. It eschews liberal values and reactionary values - often using the same verbiage as communists or progressives might. Fascism believes in socialism in the terms that Marx pioneered. However, Fascism believes in a national socialism - a socialism confined to a single country, just as Bolshevism eventually settled on a somewhat similar formula in the Soviet Union until the Second World War. As such, measures practiced by communists are virtually identical to fascist measures, including police states, collectivization of industry and agriculture, belief in group rights over individual rights, et al ad nauseam.
  But really, can you seriously sit there with a straight face and call a political system that expropriates property for the people 'Volk', hollows out or topples monarchies, and guarantees jobs for the public, along with all the socialist medical and retirement benefits you might care to mention, a 'right wing phenomenon'?
  Please...what a load of bullshit has been foisted on the public for 70 years in the name of propagandistic differentiation between the Nazi enemy and Soviet 'ally'. The communists and fellow travelers dominating the media and academia have been perfectly happy to continue this lie to the benefit of their preferred political system. Otherwise, we'd have to brand all forms of left-wing totalitarianism - Communism, Fascism and Progressivism - murderous evils, as they are.
  
  --
  HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
There is no such thing as "public health" by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-29 04:04 · Score: 0

Individuals consuming substances in the privacy of their own homes is the opposite of "public" health.
OK - I'll grant you one thing - vaccinations to prevent communicable disease and second hand smoke - that's as close as you get to anything resembling public health.
The Great Firewall of Europe by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-29 04:12 · Score: 0

The only way the EU is going to prevent hate speech from coming in is to sensor everything in zone and build a very sophisticated firewall that can prevent things they don't want to hear from coming through a firewall. I'll bet it will be much better than Beijing's firewall? One thing is for sure, it's the EU, so theirs will cost more!
Facebook and Twitter demonstrated their lack of backbone by giving in to China, I'm sure they will give in to the EU Nazis. Makes me want to support the dark web more and more. It's going to end up as the only free speech internet around.
Facebook needs a bigger stick by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-29 04:33 · Score: 1

We need to get stuff written into these globalist "trade agreements" to protect Americans' first amendment rights from over-reaching Europeans.
It's similar to obscenity: "won't somebody please think of the children" as an excuse for censorship hits a hard wall when it unduly infringes on adult speech. In this situation, Europeans are the children. They will pull down speech Americans have a right to see.
More accurate would be to compare Europe to China censoring Tienanmen Square images from google.cn, but since Americans are used to thinking of them as friends who make basically-sane policy, I will refer to their citizens as children who must be protected from "hate" instead.
Silicon Valley has become a notorious nest of censors, almost overnight in the last couple years, but this is becoming irrelevant. The American Right is calling for platform regulation, because Silicon Valley today has more power than the government did when the First Amendment was signed. And European courts are successfully applying their ridiculous "right to be forgotten" censorship to Google search results world-wide. If both things happen, Silicon Valley will be caught in the middle, so their employees' irresponsible activism no longer matters, only nation-state politics matters.
The censorship wars are being fought on so many fronts simultaneously. We need a better strategy to preserve what should be our political ideals. I wish there were some way to export all the unhinged millennials to Europe, then shut down Facebook in Europe and let them all read it over Tor. However this is impossible because too many of them are actual citizens, and Facebook will cave to the European ad revenue just as Amazon caves to the Chinese revenue. We should get First Amendment protections written into trade bills. We only need to cover countries with significant ad revenue, not the whole globe.
Re:Sounds a LOT like Hitler by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-29 04:59 · Score: 0

French remained neutral during the American civil war. Wikipedia credits the Russian Atlantic and Pacific fleets wintering in the North for being the deterrent against British and French intervention for the South.
Importance of extremity to the right vs left by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-29 05:16 · Score: 1

Because one of the central messages of the right is that people should all be identical (so therefore they are totally ok with authoritarianism, since the dictator will just make laws that are the same as what everyone wants anyway, the government should tightly manage the economy because we all basically want the same things, etc). It's not that freedom is bad; it's that freedom is unnecessary. If you had freedom, you wouldn't use it because you'd still want to do the same things as everyone else.
Whereas one of the central messages of the left is that we don't all want the same thing, so there should be less forceful control to make everyone be the same. Diversity is natural and normal, and disagreement (and even incompatible conflicts) is not only ok, but even expected.
The right expects less extremism (but they're wrong and actually do have diversity, despite being against it) so some of their diversity is perceived as "extreme."
The left expects lots of diversity, so whatever there is, doesn't shock anyone since it would be weird if it weren't there. Things can be extreme, but you don't label them as extreme because the strategy of communication isn't to point out differences. Extremity is irrelevant to whatever actual topics are at hand, or whenever extremity is relevant, it just helps to provide an example for why we need more freedom instead of less of it.
For the right, extremity itself is a big, distinguishing (and usually unwanted) property.
So "extreme right" really means something, whereas "extreme left" is almost redundant.
Re:Sounds a LOT like Hitler by Major+Blud · 2017-09-29 06:16 · Score: 1

The Spanish-American War:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
You may include the Mexican American War as well, although France was doing their own thing in Veracruz around the same time frame.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
And how do you define "allies"? Just because you're not at war with someone doesn't mean they are your allies. Are you trying to suggest that the U.S. has always been allies with France? Because that is most certainly not the case:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

--
If you post as Anonymous Coward, don't expect a reply.
Forget the EU... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-29 06:39 · Score: 0

Twitter shouldn't exist as a company. The technology was an accident, the founders played musical chairs for the CEO position, and a business model to generate revenues came years after blowing through venture capital funding. Read all about it in, "Hatching Twitter: A True Story of Money, Power, Friendship, and Betrayal" by Nick Bilton.
ATE YOU FUCKING BLIND????9? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-29 07:03 · Score: 0

You threaten them because you want them to... censor "hate speech"?
What about the dehumanizing tos? Ad mafia, tracking, shadow profiling, you want them to CENSOR FREE SPEECH? LAY DOWN THE BONG FOR A SEC, IDIOTS.
yes, caps were warranted in this situation.
Critical thinking by DrYak · 2017-09-29 07:23 · Score: 1

Anyways, perhaps they would step away from these ridiculous demands if social media became more decentralized
and distributed: store messages locally, removing the ability of a central agency to "censor through forced deletion".
And that would also be a very good reason to concentrate efforts on teaching critical thinking rather trying to censor, as I've mentioned.
The younger generation seem to be more active on WhatsApp (the reason why Facebook bought them), SnapChat (the reason why Zuckerberg is enraged of not being successful to buy them), or Telegram (often criticized in old-school media to harbor lots of extremists chat groups).
i.e. platforms that tend to practice more often end-to-end encryption (as opposed to client-to-server) and store a lot less centrally.
(Probably initially liked by the younger generation because their parent can't whatch them for the above reason, unlike centralized social media such as Facebook)
It would be hard to implement censoring in these kind of platform. But teaching the people to use their brain would still be useful even in these case.

--
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
NO by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-29 07:48 · Score: 0

Clearly leadership in Europe are trying to destroy society by aiding an enemy invasion. We will not help you.
Thanks to all the morons by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-29 08:55 · Score: 0

that made Twitter and Facebook the success they are today. Commercial entities at the center of a communications network. What a fantastic idea! It was only a matter of time until they would be targetted by government for crap like this. The amount of money they risk to loose will be too high. They will comply without a fight
Now, the jump to decentralised networks has become even more difficult . Since government has now realised the threat of social networks, they will no longer allow open and heavily encrypted decentralised networks to grow.
The game is over. There is no continue or start again
Re:Doomed! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-29 10:25 · Score: 0

You've got your own internet now? How cute.
One quibble by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-29 10:56 · Score: 0

You said "In any case, owners of firearms are more likely to shoot themselves (suicide is number one, with accidental discharge at second), or people they know (family members, coworkers, bosses, acquaintances)." That's a lovely sentence you constructed, but you are missing the most significant part, more likely than what? Paper targets? Deer? Highway signs (have you ever seen a highway sign that DIDN'T have a bullet hole or several?)

As a pragmatist I consider gun-related suicides as a success for the attempt-er rather than a failure of gun rights and usage like shooting somebody else. It's your tool you should be able to use it on your problem, right, as long as you harm nobody else? So bloody what if a gun was used, are you seriously arguing that places without gun access are vastly different in suicide rates? Perhaps you can cite some numbers from an Australian study.
Re:Sounds a LOT like Hitler by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-29 11:50 · Score: 0

Name one war that the USA has won, where they did not have the French as allies.
US Civil War, Mexican-American War, Spanish-American War, World War II(US didn't enter the war until France fell and flipped sides).
Safe in the USA, how to sell into the EU by AHuxley · 2017-09-29 13:19 · Score: 1

The USA will protect free speech. Free to give a speech. Stay free after a speech. Freedom to read, freedom to comment.
No EU like reports, fines, questions, interviews.
The question for a US brand then becomes how to keep their paying EU consumers but not have any interaction with any part of the EU bureaucracy?
As the EU builds a new digital Berlin wall to keep free speech out how can EU users still enjoy US products and services?
Ship to collection locations just outside the EU so EU citizens can collect product and services without risking EU investigations?
Use a third safe nation to repackage a shipment? So the origin is no longer a nation with strong freedom of speech protections?
Some sort of low cost per site VPN that offers the user full US freedoms to any user of the US site?
With a bit of ingenuity US freedom of speech and freedom after speech will be on offer world wide.
As other nations move to a bureaucracy of legal boredom, US products and services will grow. Fun sells.
The EU will be left to ban sites and then try and ban using VPN services.

--
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Re:Socialism's end game by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-29 20:18 · Score: 0

Government wants total control of every aspect of your life. In the US the founders knew this and crafted the Constitution to chain the beast.
And then American politicians came and wept their behinds with it.
Re:Sounds a LOT like Hitler by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-29 21:45 · Score: 0

World War II(US didn't enter the war until France fell and flipped sides).
You may want to read up on this a little.
No one is saying to ignore any problem. Jesus. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-30 18:18 · Score: 0

No one is saying to ignore any problem. Jesus.
You just can't be a nazi against nazis. Because then YOU are the hypocrite.