Slashdot Mirror
EU To Give Internet Firms 1 Hour To Remove Extremist Content (go.com)
European authorities are planning to slap internet companies like Google, Twitter and Facebook with big fines if they don't take down extremist content within one hour. From a report: European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker said in a speech Wednesday that the Commission is proposing the new rules as part of efforts to step up the bloc's security. He said that removing material within an hour is important because it's "the critical window in which the greatest damage is done." The EU's executive body said "propaganda that prepares, incites or glorifies acts of terrorism" must be taken offline. Content would be flagged up by national authorities, who would issue removal orders to the internet companies hosting it. Those companies would be given one hour to delete it. The proposal, which still needs approval from EU lawmakers and member states, would be a departure for the EU, which until now has allowed online companies to a take a voluntary approach to battling extremist content. The one-hour rule was among a series of recommendations the Commission made in March to fight the spread of extremist content online.
They can't define "extremist content", but it's banned.
2 much better laws, with the same lack of logic:
1) Everything bad is banned.
2) Everything good is required.
"He said that removing material within an hour is important because it's "the critical window in which the greatest damage is done...Content would be flagged up by national authorities, who would issue removal orders to the internet companies hosting it. Those companies would be given one hour to delete it."
So the hour after national authorities find it is this critical window? Everything before that is fine? The greatest damage is only done after the national authorities have flagged it?
The problem is extremist ideas can be created in very insidious ways. Much like the Fat Tony from the Simpsons approach...
Fat Tony: Bart, um, is it wrong to steal a loaf of bread to feed your starving family?
Bart: No.
Fat Tony: Well, suppose you got a large starving family. Is it wrong to steal a truckload of bread to feed them?
Bart: Uh uh.
Fat Tony: And, what if your family don't like bread? They like...cigarettes?
Bart: I guess that's okay.
Fat Tony: Now, what if instead of giving them away, you sold them at a price that was practically giving them away. Would that be a crime, Bart?
Bart: Hell, no!
The normal arguments from extremists depending of their audience will work to push the gray areas where parts of the ideas are reasonable, then slowly push the gray areas into the extremist territory. But with an argument with a large gray area, where does one draw a line.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
It sounds good, but who defines "extremist content" or worse "incites acts of terrorism". It might be clear to you and me what this would be, but how about if you don't agree with what people say who are in control of this definition?
Just to note, you don't need a definition if instead you have a decision procedure.
That's basically true of much of common law, and why a lawyer will so often tell you "I can advise you on how to mitigate risk based on precedent but the only way to get a definitive answer for your question is to take it to court".
I think DMCA is a good example of this. It talks about "infringing material" but the DMCA law as written is actually independent of the details of what counts as infringing. Everything is expressed in terms of the process of sending a takedown letter, then responding, then going to court should there be disagreement. (It didn't touch upon how to deal with DOS takedown-letter attacks, nor how an SLA for responses, but in the light of DMCA then I bet the EU will at least think about these).
So what it would ultimately boil down to is this: the people who control the definition would be (1) the nation's supreme court, albeit with the narrow remit of having to stick with the intent of the vague words in the statute rather than complete freedom to define it any way they want, and with the various institutional checks and balances that countries have built up over the centuries to stop the supreme courts getting far out of line, and with the ultimate sanction of popular revolt if they do, (2) the practical business considerations that encourage companies to use caution rather than pushing at the edge of the definition, (3) the practical business desires to make money even when that does push at the edge of the definition.
If the bottom line is you think we shouldn't have any laws unless there's a 100% objective unarguable measurement to determine things -- that would be an interesting thought experiment, but it's far removed from how things are today.