Slashdot Mirror

← 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 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."

53 of 335 comments (clear)

  1. The EU by LynnwoodRooster · · 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 · · 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 MightyYar · · 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.
    3. Re:The EU by Bert64 · · 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!
    4. Re:The EU by Anonymous Coward · · 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...

    5. Re:The EU by Ol+Olsoc · · 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.
    6. Re:The EU by jellomizer · · 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.
    7. Re:The EU by GuB-42 · · 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.

    8. Re:The EU by penandpaper · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yea, that totally worked for the war on drugs.

    9. Re:The EU by fluffernutter · · 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.
    10. Re:The EU by andrewbaldwin · · 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

    11. Re:The EU by dave420 · · Score: 2

      That's a public health issue.

    12. Re:The EU by penandpaper · · 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.

    13. Re:The EU by Salgak1 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Why are conservatives always called "extreme" or "radical", and yet if left of center, there is far more tolerance.

    14. Re:The EU by penandpaper · · 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.

    15. Re:The EU by penandpaper · · 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.

    16. Re:The EU by penandpaper · · 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.

    17. Re:The EU by djinn6 · · 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.

    18. Re:The EU by liquid_schwartz · · 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.

    19. Re:The EU by mysidia · · 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.

    20. Re:The EU by lgw · · 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.
    21. Re:The EU by JonnyCalcutta · · 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.

    22. Re:The EU by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · 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.
    23. Re:The EU by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    24. Re:The EU by EllisDees · · 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!
    25. Re:The EU by TechyImmigrant · · 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.
    26. Re:The EU by WaffleMonster · · 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.

    27. Re:The EU by penandpaper · · 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.

    28. Re: The EU by cyber-vandal · · Score: 2

      Once you exclude all the dangerous areas from European cities theyâ(TM)re really safe too.

    29. Re:The EU by lgw · · 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.
    30. Re:The EU by Ol+Olsoc · · 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.
    31. Re:The EU by penandpaper · · 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?

    32. Re:The EU by LynnwoodRooster · · 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!
    33. Re:The EU by LynnwoodRooster · · 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!
    34. Re: The EU by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 2

      In other words, they're forced into an echo chamber.

    35. Re:The EU by Maxo-Texas · · 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.
    36. Re:The EU by lgw · · 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.
  2. Blame the Nazis [Re:Socialism's end game] by XXongo · · 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 TheRaven64 · · 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
    2. Re:Blame the Nazis [Re:Socialism's end game] by AmiMoJo · · 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
  3. Re:Perspective by Chris+Mattern · · 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?

  4. Re:The Ignorant American Version of Human Rights by TheRaven64 · · 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
  5. What a crying shame... by bradley13 · · 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.
  6. This is starting to feel a lot like China.. by evolutionary · · 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 trawg · · 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!

  7. Fuck you EU and your censorship by UnknownSoldier · · 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.

  8. Re:I hope they fight by butzwonker · · 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.

  9. Re:Perspective by UnknownSoldier · · 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"

  10. Nope! by tietokone-olmi · · 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.

  11. Looks like they've learned well from history by Solandri · · 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.

  12. Re:Perspective by angel'o'sphere · · 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.
  13. Re:Perspective by Kielistic · · Score: 2

    "How to be completely disingenuous" by angel'o'sphere. A funny read!

  14. Re:Godwin's law has been amended by DamnOregonian · · 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.