Council of Europe Pushes Net Hate-Speech Ban 642
omnirealm writes: "The N.Y. Times is reporting that the 43-nation Council of Europe is trying to ban racist and hate speech from the Internet by adding a protocol, or side agreement, to its cybercrime convention, which was stamped for ratification on Thursday."
Haven't we learned anything? (Score:2, Insightful)
b i c y c l e
b1cycle
bycycle
b icycle
All to the same effect. And there simply aren't enough people out there to monitor hate speech and get it removed, which is why we haven't solved the drug problem in most countries.
-Evan
Re:Haven't we learned anything? (Score:0, Insightful)
Going too far. (Score:3, Insightful)
Free Speech (Score:1, Insightful)
How relevant? (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a very real danger of conventions like this to grow into a "meta-government" only within reach of lobbyists, especially if additional meta-government enforcement measures are provided, e.g. through the WTO in the case of certain WIPO treaties. But in this specific case, as in the Hague Convention, it should be possible for Europeans to lobby effectively against blatant violations of free speech and new privacy-violationg laws on a national level. Just don't be fooled by politicians telling you that they have to obey "international treaties". Tell them what you think these treaties, signed without any prior democratic discourse whatsoever, are really worth.
It only confirms that the 1st amendment is unique (Score:4, Insightful)
In France for example, you can easily go to jail if you say anything about the Jews : for example, if your opinion is that most banking establishments are run by Jews and you voice it publicly, you open yourself to antisemitic lawsuits against you, and most likely lost by you as well. That opinion isn't particularly antisemitic, and is frankly quite dumb (IMHO), but it's your right to have it. Just don't say it otherwise you could be in trouble.
If the same laws were even proposed in the U.S., people would scream bloody murder, and it's good. But in Europe, things like that happen all the time and people don't even notice.
So, what is surprising here ? nothing. This is a piece of non-news (for Europeans) reported by the US-centric Slashdot team. It's exactly like the Nazi memorabilia ban France tried to impose on Yahoo.
Re:Going too far. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:so what is hate/racist speech? (Score:3, Insightful)
I have two parts in response to this question. Here we go.
In specific reply to your question, if you were directly criticizing one or a subset of Muslims [those supporting/advocating female circumcision] for the practice, this would not be racism in the true sense. If you were criticizing the faith as a whole for the practice (when clearly the vast majority of Muslims do not support it), this *would* taking racist actions.
Unfortunately, given the nature of the proposal, even using "harsh language" containing anything resembling a racist slur would be considered "hate speech", no matter the intended target. This is where the core issue really lies, in the ability of a person to criticize freely the actions of another person or group of people based on specific criteria.
Furthermore, as much as I may dislike racist thought in general, it must be maintained that people are allowed to express themselves in this manner if they desire to. I may not like what people say, but I am compelled to defend their right to say it.
Just my thoughts on the matter. Thank you for your post!
Re:Going too far. (Score:1, Insightful)
Reflections of Hate Speech and Legislation (Score:2, Insightful)
Free speech doesn't end where you disagree with what the other person has to say. You can't muzzle people just because they're evil or stupid. Information wants to be free, even if it'll be misused. etc.
To all of those people - will you please not talk about things you don't understand? It's very easy to talk about freedom of speech whilst being very far away from the real issues, posting comfortably over your DSL link. Right here, right now, teenagers are being seduced into neo-fascist ideological groups every day. In France alone, there are local governments which have started banning books and newspapers that oppose them; Germany saw hundreds of attacks on blacks and non-Germans, with many of them dying in the attacks.
People were burned to death in their sleep.
There's a deep-seated strain of virulent fascism in Europe that's been intermittently expressed in politics and popular culture for most of the 20th century. Hitler and Mussolini didn't come out nowhere - there were fascist governments in many European countries because the authoritarian tradition instilled by the former feudal/royal systems was a fertile breeding ground for fascists.
Sure, Germany and Italy lost the war. That doesn't change the fact that Italy has a Prime Minister with strong ties to the fascist right. That doesn't change the fact that neo-Nazi skinhead groups in Germany are getting more and more support from stupid teeangers every day. Jewish cemeteries are being defaced. Blacks are attacked, asylum seeker homes are burned down.
What's that have to do with freedom of speech? Someone once said that in order to stop the hate, you'd have to kill all the grandmothers. (paraphrasing badly, basically in order to stop having hate passed on through generation)
Hitler's autobiography Mein Kampf (My Struggle) remains banned in Germany. Even though public education in Germany is far better than in the US, with history being one of the most thoroughly-taught subjects, and the Nazi regime being thoroughly exposed as the evil that it was, a small minority will still flock to neo-fascist ideals. They will use everything they can as propaganda material. They will find followers - probably not many, but enough. People are being killed by those 'few' followers. Hate is being spread. A lot of harm has been done to Europe through politics of hate, wars have been started, millions and millions have been killed.
The internet is difficult to regulate. Neo-nazis use it to co-ordinate their activities unchecked, and to spread as much hate-filled material through the net as possible. You can't make accessing it impossible, but you can make accessing it illegal. You can make it illegal to spread false propaganda that's only intended to harm people and cause harm. You have to try.
Most of you haven't lived through the type of hate that's being spread by the hate speech being banned. It's easy to be an armchair critic. It's easy to criticize. Please don't. I know many of you will say that the only way to fight this is by allowing the complete and unfettered flow of information, with public education taking center stage to show the people how wrong all of that hate speech is. Sure. That has been done, for more than half a century now. But a small minority persists, a small minority causing a disproportionate amount of evil.
Yes, we have to be very careful not to let matters escalate too much - after all, who watches the watchment? It's important to note that banning hate speech is an approach that crosses party lines in Europe: in Germany, both the ruling Socialist/Green coalition and the right- and left-wing opposition are strongly in favour of dealing harshly with neo-Nazis.
In closing, hate speech is a genuine problem. There are very, very few solutions to dealing with it, and trying to criminalize its flow is one of the few approaches we have.
Maybe you want to think about that next time you make fun of France banning Yahoo! nazi auctions. A lot of the stuff auctioned off could conceivably be worn by people burning down houses simply because they didn't like the skin colour of the people living in them.
Andrew T-B
St Alex
No, there isn't (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't disagree that racism and fascism are serious problems in Europe, but those are serious problems everywhere, including the United States. We have the Klu Klux Klan, and Al Sharpton and every other kind of maniac you could imagine. But we also have a key philosophical premise that it is unacceptable to make thought or speech illegal, because that is the real root of facism: the desire to control another persons thoughts and actions.
Re:Free speech? There's a difference. (Score:1, Insightful)
Today, and even for the last half century, Europe has banned practically anything to do with Nazism, yet I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that a larger number of Neo-Nazi's exist in Europe than they do in the U.S. If I'm wrong, someone please enlighten me, but if I'm right, then it shows that censorship (or lack thereof) has little to do with the spread of such "hate".
It is an unfortunate truism that governments rarely shrink, and that civil liberties rarely grow. Let's say we ban everything that we consider "hateful" today. Well, what about next week? Next month? Next year? Sooner or later, someone will say "it's illegal to say hateful things about jews, blacks, insert-race-or-religion-here, but what about political parties?"
Or even more subtle: what if you don't like a politician who's a jew/black/whatever? You may genuinely disagree with their politics, but what if someone decides to think you're disagreeing with them because of your "hate" towards their ethnicity, sex, nationality, sexual preferece, or whatever? You're now classified as a "hate" offender.
Or worse, much much worse, you decide to NOT object to this politician publicly because you FEAR being classified as spreading "hate". Coming from the most litigious society in the world (the U.S.) I must say that many companies and organizations will go far out of their way (keeping inept employees is a biggie) to avoid the very POSSIBILITY of a discrimination lawsuit. There are reporters who will not comment on newsworthy items because they fear being castigated by politico's, politically-correct editors, or the very public they purport to inform.
It's simply naive to say that such a thing as partial censorship can exist. You can only say that as long as the censorship works in YOUR favor. One day it might not, and if it happened, you'd have no way to fix it; after all, at that point, you're just spewing "hate", right?
Re:Free speech? There's a difference. (Score:5, Insightful)
Read that bold part again. Apparently, the author of this post abhors censorship of unwelcome ideas if his opponents are doing it, but encourages those with whom he agrees to censor all they want.
And that, my friends, is what's wrong. Everybody "knows" what content is "wrong" -- but no two people agree on the cut. So, for the safety of our right to self-expression, we must make the distasteful but necessary choice to allow all speech, even that which we know to be false and vicious. To do otherwise is to become as bad as our enemies, as the quote above vividly demonstrates.
Re:Free speech? There's a difference. (Score:3, Insightful)
First, if governments decide what constitutes acceptable speech it makes situations like Nazi Germany MORE likely. An honest debate is more constructive than government thought-control.
Do you think that "another Hitler" is more likely somewhere where Mein Kampf is studied, or banned? If you believe it is the latter, you haven't studied your history.
Finally, you cite a LOT of criminal activity. The laws against those activities haven't stopped the perpetrators. Why will they suddenly obey this one? Or will only the law-abiding be hurt? (Yes, a precedent that the government is the ultimate authority on what one may say will hurt them.)
I'm sure many of you who are subjects (or wish to be) will not understand.
-Peter
Re:Free speech? There's a difference. (Score:4, Insightful)
Hitler's autobiography Mein Kampf (My Struggle) remains banned in Germany.
Who is this Hitler person? I tried to look up his autobiography (Mein Kampf) to find out, but my searches just keep returning something about "access forbidden". Hold on a sec, someone's banging on the door so hard it sounds like they're about to break it down! I'll be right ba...
Re:Free speech? There's a difference. (Score:2, Insightful)
Much of the EU member countries, at least Finland, DO already clearly criminalize certain kinds of behaviour on the net. I've seen it - nazi material, child porn, etc. doesn't live long on local servers. No - this isn't any kind of "we're best, you're not" talk, just one thing that imo, at least currently, is somewhat under control. Probably it's because we're a relatively small country. The problem has been real here though, newspaper articles come up now and then speaking of removed content this and that, person jailed for spreading something unwanted.
But of course, we've gone over the edge. A big ISP had a nice service of providing a lot of extra temporary space for compiling large programs, temporary location for downloads etc... of course, many abused it, and because one or two abused it badly, the police had the whole service shut down. The ISP was threatened in every possible way. If in such a small country, and such a small environment, it gets so badly out of hand, I can imagine the problems it will do to hundreds of thousands of innocents on a large scale.
I mentioned local servers above, so what about non-local servers? Yep, it's a problem, but in my view, everyone has to look under their own nose. It's not realistic in today's world, but responsibility is a key word in "political evolution".
So, what is realistic now? Common sense. In us - many of us know what to avoid on the net, and can spread our knowledge onwards. Help others know that the net isn't always friendly. The less popularity any extremists receive, the less they'll live on. And common sense in law enforcement - there'll always be problems on the net, and they will always be found. Make effective ways to deal with REAL problems. Don't harm the masses. Free internet has made many young people into very smart young people, who have learned a lot and moved our world ahead.
And common sense at homes and schools. There's a lot you can learn when you're young, but there's a lot of things parents or even teacher just don't know to teach. Like in real life, there's a lot of things on the net that can be "fun", but the risks are just as big. I've seen parents surprised when they suddenly get a call hearing their son has been helping illegal operations on the net - and because they didn't have a good idea how stupid it was, they may have done extreme things, like serve nazi material on their homepage - only thinking it was fun.
But don't take away people's right to disagree. People must have the right to have personal opinions, even direct ones. Of course there's a limit - you can't post death threats, but you can dislike a politician, a law, or even a country. You can have an opinion, IRL and on the net. Sensible people know how to express these, and others will hopefully learn from these. More directly - it's not a nice thing usually, but you have the right to hate. Just do it with your words.
Re:Free speech? There's a difference. (Score:4, Insightful)
I could try to explain the difference between:
1. Banning propaganda solely intended to cause the breakdown and destruction of a democratic system, and spreading of hate
2. Banning things you disagree with.
The things being banned are the former. Material that is intended to incite people into overthrowing a democratic system. It's not that I disagree with it (I do), it's securing everything that allows us to be the way we are.
There's no irony. It's very sad that people don't seem to understand that. Sure, Hitler burned books and imprisoned/killed people who disagreed with him. The fundamental difference is that he wanted to take away everybody's rights; the reason hate speech is being banned is because it's trying to replicate the situation in which everybody's rights would be taken away.
Alex T-B
St Andrews
Re:Free speech? There's a difference. (Score:3, Insightful)
Censorship is one of those weapons which it is simply too dangerous to give to any power. It is far too easy to abuse, for too little real benefit. If you ban Nazi propaganda on the net, do you really imagine that people won't find it elsewhere, or even on now-illegal web sites outside the reach of European authorities? If anything, you'll add to the feeling of persecution and solidarity against attack that helps groups cohere and grow.
The only productive way to fight information is with more information, not less. If you disagree with right-wing propaganda, then start cranking out left-wing propaganda, or attention-grabbing critiques of right-wing propaganda. Do you truly believe that the only way to protect your teenagers is to keep them ignorant? Let them see and choose. Provide guidance and put all the facts out there. Give them alternatives.
Re:Reflections of Hate Speech and Legislation (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh,man, not again... (Score:3, Insightful)
If all people are to be held equal before the law, then all human thought must also be held equal before the law, because it is thought which truly makes us human. And if that is true, then all human speech must also be held equal before the law, because it is via speech that ideas are formed and propagated. Even the right to say things as reprehensible as hate speech must be held as absolute and sacrosanct.
The reason for this is simple: no one person knows the absolute truth. Not just about morality, but about basically anything (even sciense; Heisenberg showed that with his Uncertainty Principle). And yes, I include myself in this. It is only at some point in between all the differing viewpoints that the truth can ever be found. Start disallowing thoughts of any type, and you permanently cripple humanity's ability to seek truth. This is a far greater crime against humanity than any hate speech could ever be.
Trying to eliminate racism is an honorable goal. But this must be achieved through education, not legislation. Yeah, it's not as efficient. But it doesn't limit the human mind, and that is what makes it ethical.
Re:Free speech? There's a difference. (Score:2, Insightful)
Are you kidding? Americans have honed hatred into a fine artform. We have more social groups who would like to annihilate each other than any other nation on earth. Heck, we still bicker about our civil war, and that was over a hundred years ago.
But the answer is not to tighten down the lid -- then the pressure builds until it explodes. Instead we let all these groups go on and on about how much they hate each other, until quite frankly everyone is bored. With twelve talk shows a day to let off your Nazi steam in public, it's hard to pretend you're not just a bunch of idiots in black boots with nothing better to do.
Re:Going too far. (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed. And the most grevious harm that can be done to a community through speech is the repression of any of it. Only if all people are free to speak their minds on all topics, without prior restraint or fear of governmental retribution, is a nation free. The lesson drawn from history is that any restraint of speech based on content, no matter how well-intentioned, is corrosive to the freedom of the people involved.
Not entirely true -- Canada has similar guarantees, as does Australia, I believe -- but the poster is right on one count: Only in the United States has this ptinciple been raised to an absolute. Through either foresight or a beneficial quirk of history, in the States, this right is enshrined in the First Amendment: with connotations not just of "earliest" but also "primary".
The trade secret laws deal with speech not as speech but as theft of property. One can argue that ideas cannot be property -- I do -- but the restraint of discussion of trade secrets is not based on the content of the secrets but on the fact of their secrecy (and economic worth). That's why it's legal to distrubte trade "secrets" that are publicly available elsewhere.
Likewise the laws on slander deal not with the content of the slander but on the veracity. Uniquely in the United States (I believe), winning a slander or libel case requires demonstration that the statement made was untrue, not merely that it was "harmful". That bar is much higher than in any other nation in the world. Why? Because courts have ruled that slander and libel suits all too easily chill the exercise of free speech, and that the nation has an interest in protecting the dessimination of true information. Informtation that is demonstrably untrue has less social value and can be actionable... but the presumption is, more discussion is better.
Here's a lesson too often left unlearned in "free" countires (sadly, including too much of the USA): Freedom is hard. That's why it's so rare in hisotry. Freedom means putting up with people with whom you disagree, people who set your teeth on edge, people who violate your most cherished beliefs. Freedom means offering to others all the rights you expect for yourself, and more. Freedom means allowing the possibility, no matter how remote, that you are wrong on something. Further, it means accepting that even if you are right and someone else is wrong, that person has the right to live his/her life as he/she sees fit.
Popular causes need no protection. Majority opinions need no guarantee. You don't have to defend the likable speaker or the "acceptable" speech in court, because the wheels of democracy make sure that popular, majority opinions don't end up in court. Always, you must defned the least likable, least appetizing opinions, for they are the ones most liable to restriction; they are the entry points through ignorance and repression will seep into a free society.
It is nothing, nothing to support the free speech of the people with whom you agree. The rubber really meets the road when you defend the people with whom you most vehemently disagree.
I have more faith in humanity than people who want to censor "hate speech" or "racist speech". I believe that if the facts are presented clearly and forcefully to the average Joe/Jane, he/she will choose the right way. So, if there's racist speech out there, counter it through speech of your own. Don't force your opponents to shut up; speak more loudly and more clearly than they. Of course, that takes work, skill, and dedication. And that's hard, so the human tendency is to seek the easy way out, to restrict a priori speech with which you disagree.
You know what? It does take effort, skill, and determination. Find a way to cope with it, because freedom is hard .
Re:Going too far. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
Experience.
All freedoms flow from and depend on the freedom of conscience, the freedom to think, the freedom to hold opinions and to express them. It is that which most clearly makes us human and it is that which so overwhelmingly adds value to life. It is not too far off to say it is freedom of thought and expression that is the point of human life.
History makes clear that there will always be people holding vile, noisome opinions; people who need to blame ill-defined "others" for their hardships; people who feel compelled to spread villiany and hatred. But history also shows that the best incoluation against these virulent strains of political bile is free and open debate on them.
Censorship of any form allows -- virtually begs for -- broader and broader censorship. It constrains the universe of discourse and a priori cuts off lines of thought and exploration. It reduces the material available to thinking citizens.
Free speech is an expression of faith in the public. Ask yourself: Would you like someone else -- someone who, perhaps, disagrees with everything you believe -- given the power to decide what you can say or think? If you don't want others having that power over you, how can you ask it for yourself?
"But my opinions are right and true," you might reply. Wonderful. If that's truly so, then their rightness and trueness should be apparent to those who hear them. In which case, the right and the true will drive out the false and wicked, because the former will prove more robust and more attractive. A dedication to free speech is a statement of faith that the good and the true are intrinsically appealing to an informed public; that given equal footing, the good and the true will triumph because the public can be relied upon to choose them when presented with all the alternatives.
All moves to restrict speech based on content betray a fundamental disdain for the people so loudly championed. All such moves express a derision of one's fellow citizens. " I know best; I must must be listened to; I must be obeyed." How small a step from protecting the public to controlling it! How small a step from laws banning fascist thought to laws enacting it.
The awful irony here is, people are eager to fight a despicable enemy by becoming the despicable enemy...
Re:Going too far. (Score:4, Insightful)
Hmmm. Let's see.
(I have to admit, I'm not really sure where the stupidity comment fits in. How does this proposal reduce or eliminate "everyday stupidity"? Indeed, by blocking "ugly" thought from sight, I suggest that it increases everyday stupidity.)
The lesson would seem, to me, to be: Regimes that censor their own people can easily wander into dangerous territory and often become a threat to the peace and stability of the world.
On the other hand, the United States was excorciated for its war in Viet Nam. Many fingers were pointed at us. And you know what? Public opinion -- given access to all views of the war -- shifted and eventually the war ended. Militarily, the US was not even in danger of "losing" that war (in the sense of military collapse). But politically it became untenable
Hmmmm. Seems that perhaps free and open debate is a surer way to peace and freedom than restriction of speech and thought.
Re:It only confirms that the 1st amendment is uniq (Score:2, Insightful)
The Council of Europe has priorities different from the priorities of the people writing the US constitution some hundred years ago. For example, in Europe death penalty is banned, because the life has a higher priority than revange.
The reason for the different priorities about anti-nazi laws is the different history.Anyway, i hope 10 years later all those anti-nazi laws will not be nescessary anymore, then maybe it will be more harm than use and the law should be changed. (In most european countries it is far easier to change a constitutional law, than it is in the usa)
Censorship by stupidity is worse.... (Score:5, Insightful)
While the US does have the 1st amendment there is much to say for the claim that there is less free speech in the US than in many other countries.
US TV is phemonmenally bland, there is also a marked lack of decent media to really question goverment and business. What has been built up is a system where it is okay for someone to stand up on national TV and say "Evolution is rubbish" but someone who stands up and says "God doesn't exist" is liable to get lynched.
The US has one of the most terrible self-censorship mechanisms in place on planet earth. Examples of this are demonstrated above. Most people in the US have no clue about the laws of other countries, and don't attempt to find out. You can't "easily" go to prison for saying anything about Jews. For godsake if you knew anything about French politics you'd know they have a real problem with racism with the Front Nationale who polled 15% of the vote a few years ago.
Now as to the idea that the US would scream bloody murder if the same laws are applied... take scientific bigotry there are States in the US (esp Kansas) where Evolution isn't accepted. No one in Europe would have a _chance_ of getting that even close to being approved, they'd be laughed at so hard and then locked in the nut house.
The self-censorship applied by the US media and US citizens is quite stunning, opinions voiced about "Global Terrorism" from the country that supported Pinochet, the IRA, Contra rebels etc etc. The country of the McCarthy Witch Hunt. The country of DMCA.
In other countries people fight for freedom, the US clings to the 1st ammendment as if it solves the need to fight.
In the UK if a policeman pulls me over I do not have to be carrying my driving license, or any other identification, I do not have to give my identity. Sure he can then take me into custody on suspicion... but it is not a crime to not say who you are. Do you have the same freedom ?
In France if a company wishes to close down they must first discuss it with their employees, do you have such power over your life ?
In the Netherlands you can smoke cannabis for your own personal enjoyment, do you have such Freedom.
The last 3 prime ministers in the UK have been a middle class lad turned new Labour (Tony Blair), the son of a bloke who worked in a circus and who was an accountant and very working class who led the conservative party (John Major) and the daughter of a grocer who got a degree in Chemistry and led the Conservative party in 3 successive election victories. Working class, middle class, upper class, man or woman and no-one cares about religon... all have led the UK. Do you have such equality.
Freedom is education.
We dont have freedom of speech (Score:3, Insightful)
Try threatening the president.
Fact is hate sites should be monitored, any site which threatens anyone should be taken down.
Non violent hate sites can stay up but they should all be monitored.
kiddie porn sites too, people who subscribe to these kiddie porn sites should be arrested, and kiddie porn sites which profit should be illegal, but you cannot legally stop the free trade of information on the internet.
So that means you cannot stop mp3s, hate sites or kiddie porn, this all must be legal to have true freedom, it should be legal, but there should be concequences if you try to profit from it, or if you get caught downloading it.
Napster should be legal, but hey if you use napster ot pirate mp3s, thats your problem, and if you use morpheus to get kiddie porn, and someone monitors you and reports you, that is your problem.
The Protocol... (Score:2, Insightful)
Another thing that bugs me... How do you define the Internet? If I have two boxes that are "connected" the the Net, using external IPs, and transfer "hate speech" between them over LAN, am I on the Net? The whole thing with the net is that it's not so clearcut... And don't tell me that they're going to regulate what I send over my own network! When the packets get into someone else's network, I can see them objecting if they wish, but suppose I have run a small ISP? It all gets rather confusing...
Just some food for thought...