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:2)
Re:Haven't we learned anything? (Score:2, Flamebait)
The problem with prohibition is that it dosn't have the affect it's advocates trumpet. The results are highly contaminated drugs where the supply is controlled by gangsters. Which is generally a considerably worst problem than dealing with the effects of people abusing the same drugs of regulated purity sold by legitimate bussiness.
Going too far. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Going too far. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Going too far. (Score:2)
What does slander have to do with being rich?
The standards for libel and slander, in fact, are much higher for many wealthy folks because public figures must prove malicious intent, and many of the "rich" are public figures because of their economic status.
whilst advocating the repression and murder of jews, blacks, and other minorities is "free speech".
You can certainly advocate the repression and murder of wealthy white people if you like. Its not particularly uncommon.
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, Interesting)
Also a lot of the time those who advocate such censorship advocate it in highly selective ways. e.g. "racist speach" is ok if the speaker has dark skin, "sexist speach" is ok so long as the speaker has 2 X chromosones, "religious intolerance" is ok if the speaker is the "right" kind of Jew/Christian or Moslem.
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.
But you can only do this where there is unrestricted free speach.
Restrictions can easily be used to protect all sorts of bigoted speach. Since then an opposition or questioning can be silenced...
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:Questionable: Re:Going too far. (Score:2)
Large-scale outbreaks of racist or religious murders in the last 50 years have always been preceded by gov't sponsored propaganda campaigns to stir up the hate. (the middle East, Burundi, Bosnia, Croatia, & Serbia.) The US has (greatly to our shame) had a few hundred hate-crime murders in the last 50 years, and a few thousand in the last 100, but we just had 7,000 murdered by foreigners raised on a program of hate in Saudi government schools. With government control of the media 60 years ago, Germany murdered at least 12 million just because of their ethnic origin; it's a lot harder to find accurate information about the Soviets, but probably Stalin killed more of his countrymen than the Germans did, sometimes for ethnic reasons. Present Western European gov'ts do't do this sort of thing, but will you bet your life that your countrymen will never elect another Hitler or Milosevich?
In the US, we drag the hate out into the open and discuss it, and only a few real wackos still express their hatred violently. How do countries that suppress this discussion do? I suggest you try to find how many Turkish guest-workers have been murdered in Germany lately. German law-enforcement is generally very efficient, and not bound up in so many constitutional restrictions as in the USA, but they seem to be either unable or unwilling to stop racist attacks on people of color living within their borders.
Re:Going too far. (Score:2)
So why is your example different? Only because you believe fascism is wrong while you don't believe all non-Catholic religions (or atheism) are wrong. But what about those who do? Would they be right in advocating a ban on non-Catholic speech?
I think we should have absolutely free speech (Score:2)
On the internet at least.
Meaning warez files are legal,
mp3s are legally traded, source code legally shared
true freedom of information.
However some people will abuse this so there should be strict rules to follow. Like no profiting from it, meaning hate groups cannot accept donations.
Meaning napster like companies cannot earn a profit off of other peoples mp3s.
Meaning warez people cannot earn profits off of other peoples files.
Free information is one thing, but there should be rules.
Anyone should be able to say or share any information, but there needs to be rules.
If the people in europe believe hate sites are bad, while its not right to totally censor, they do have a right to make it difficult to host a hate site, by setting rules in place that make hosting a hate sitee difficult
Re:Going too far. (Score:2)
Actually commiting a "crime" can be at least as subjective. e.g. if the "crime" is breaking a law because it is unjust or the law itself infringes some higher law be it a constitution or a religious practice.
Re:Going too far. (Score:3, Interesting)
The Europeans think that calling for the elimination of a category of people is at least as bad as calling for the murder of one particular person. Racism is simply a call for murder disguised as political speech (just like Bin Laden's ramblings are calls for murder disguised as religious speech).
The French consider this a crime that they call "incitation a la haine raciale" (enticement to racial hatred). I think it's perfectly fine to make that illegal. The Germans (and most of the rest of Europe) suffered from complacency toward hateful speech in the last century. That's why they are careful now. Some Americans suffered from that too, many still do, but they represent 10% of the population (to which you probably do not belong).
If you think freedom of speech exists in the US and not in Europe, then explainto to us why we don't see naked bodies anywhere on American network TV (unlike in Europe). Explain to me why the government can't stop me from calling for the murder of people of one particular color, but Microsoft can stop me from publishing benchmarks of their SQL server, and my ISP can regulate what I can put on my web page.
Freedom of speech in the US (as well as privacy) is an illusion: money and corporate greed have almost total control over what can be said and done. The government can't stop me from speaking, but the corporate world controls our lives.
The US government does NOTHING to help me protect my freedom of speech or my privacy. European governments actually protect the privacy and the freedom of speech of their citizens to a much larger extent (and I have lived on both sides of the pond).
- Anonicous Moward
Re:Going too far. (Score:2)
The law in its majestic equality forbids the rich as well as the poor from stealing bread, begging and sleeping under bridges. -Anatole France
What I wanted to illustrate with these words was that equality is not a good justification for a law.
Why do they see the need for such a law?
Speech can be harmful. The problem is that unhappy people, who have no work, fell easily for words which blame their situation on a minority. Their unhappiness turns into hate towards this minority.
Usually, those propagandising people are a minority themselve.
So what about the majority?
If you have an active majority, which works against those people, the situation will be fine.
Now the historical experience in Europe was that this process might not work.
As some German once said:
In Germany, they first came for the communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Catholic. Then they came for me -- and by that time there was nobody left to speak up." -Martin Niemöller
But these words show also a way how to cope with this problem: You have to educate the people, to give them the knowledge and the moral courage to cope with these people.
My problem with the law is, that it only works against voicing the thoughts in public, whereas the hatred remains.
Educating works against both, but costs you more time and dedication.
But maybe you agree with me that it's quite hard to decide against suppressing racist voices with a historical guilt for several million death people.
Re:Going too far. (Score:3, Insightful)
so what is hate/racist speech? (Score:3, Offtopic)
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:so what is hate/racist speech? (Score:2)
And if the practice is occurring in your country which already has such laws on the books, you should press for enforcement.
No, this doesn't mean I support the proposed side agreement. Free speech is free speech, and I'm with the ACLU (who supports free speech protections for neo-nazis as well as less odiforous groups).
Still
Just how many Europeans do you think support the practice? Nearly nada. How many European countries protect it as a religous right? Nada? I don't know
My shorter answer is that you're raising a strawman, which is unfortunate because there are *serious* reasons to worry about this.
Re:so what is hate/racist speech? (Score:2)
No, I don't believe the original poster was raising a strawman. The point is, Euorpeans don't support the prsctice of female circumcision. (I'm going out on a limb here, but I think this is true.) Therefore one might expect that they would accept speech decrying the practice. But wouldn't that be hypocrtical, since such speech would be directly against a particular race or creed?
The hypothetical here was raised to make people think: What if "good" speech ( = "speech I support") were banned as "hate speech"? Who draws the line? And do we really want anyone drawing the line, given the possibiility for abuse? Even when we think we're right, we might have to accept not acting on it, because maybe we are wrong. And maybe we don't have the authority or the overwhelming need to insist that everyone agree with us.
Re:so what is hate/racist speech? (Score:2)
The difference is, that cutting this very part of the woman's genital leads to less pleasure in sex. That is the very reason why they do this.
Speak with a fellow jew and ask him in what ways "chopping off the end of your dick" did affect him.
BTW, it's not the end of your dick but the surrounding skin.
In case no one notices.... (Score:3, Offtopic)
I wonder how hard the DOJ fought against some of the other recent bills that have been passed that fly in the face of the Constitution.
Hate speech (Score:2, Troll)
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.
Re:How relevant? (Score:4, Informative)
Council of Europe meetings are typically held behind closed doors and are usually attended by civil servants rather than ministers. Legislators sometimes attend but there is no democratic mandate and national parliaments do not consider COE decisions to be binding, in fact they are rarely even reported in the European press.
As a result the decisions made tend to be all things to all people. The decision will require legislation that considers X while also considering ~X.
European Union legislation is very different. EU directives are binding on the member states. But the voting rules are pretty complex and there is some democratic input in the form of the EU parliament. National parliaments still have to vote through the implementation legislation.
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:It only confirms that the 1st amendment is uniq (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah I'm glad in the US we don't censor anything on TV,Radio or the internet like the beepheads at the European Union. I mean what a bunch of beepholes.
Re:It only confirms that the 1st amendment is uniq (Score:2)
Re:It only confirms that the 1st amendment is uniq (Score:2, Informative)
Sorry the clause in bold above negates the entire document. Rights by definition may not be subject to any law. They exist through providence, divine or not, and therefore are not subject to the whims of a filthy democracy. This is why Canadians have "hate speach" laws in place. Thanks for playing "Who Wants to be a Freeman". Try again.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It only confirms that the 1st amendment is uniq (Score:2)
#1 The common foot soldier is still the most devastating part of any army. If you look at all the wars of the twentieth century, you'll notice that the longest and hardest part of the wars were fought by foot soldiers carrying rifles and pistols. In Somalia and Vietnam, all the technological might of the U.S. forces were actually bested by shoeless rebels with nothing more than AK-47's. And what about artillery and tanks? Well, you can build cheap bombs and build tank traps, or shoot the driver when he pops out to take a piss. It doesn't matter because there are ways to shut them down without high powered weaponry. You've also got nuts like me to help out...I've got a Barrett
#2 But I think that's a rather pointless argument anyway. All branches of the U.S. military are made up of 100% volunteer citizen soldiers. If a dictator somehow came to power in Washington and ordered the military to take control of all major U.S. cities, about 90% of the soldiers would politely tell him where he could shove it. Very, very few volunteer soldiers would follow an order to undermine the U.S. Constitution and fire on their friends and families.
#3 Your comment smacks of defeatism. Even if the military went along with a government overthrow of some type, and even if they had us completely outgunned, there are many of us who would rather fight and die than meekly submit to oppression. I personally don't care what the government has in it's arsenal, I know what I have in mine and I know how to use it. If worst came to worst, we could at least make life a living hell on an oppressive government long enough to incite a full scale rebellion.
USA vs Europe (Score:2)
The more recent Anti Terrorist bill is more of a hassle, especially since members of congree didn't even get a chance to read it before passing it [insightmag.com] Many of the problems in the European measure are is a secondary or side agreement which is not binding on everyone - Citing from the article:
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.
Re:Censorship by stupidity is worse.... (Score:3, Funny)
George W. Bush was a criminal (DUI), doesn't that count for anything? You hoity-toity brits...
Re:It only confirms that the 1st amendment is uniq (Score:2)
Re:It only confirms that the 1st amendment is uniq (Score:2)
Killing in self-defense is not a crime at all, while killing while committing a felony is a capital crime punishable by death (in death penalty states of course).
If I kill you because I am upset you're sleeping with my wife, my punishment will be entirely different than if I kill you because your wife paid me to.
Intent and motivation is a major part of the crime. Mens Rea. This is not a liberal concept.
Re:It only confirms that the 1st amendment is uniq (Score:2)
#1 I kill you because I don't like you.
#2 I kill you because I don't like you since you're black.
How exactly is #2 worse than #1? Are hate crime advocates stating that I should get off easier for #1, simply because I didn't take your race into account? Shouldn't both crimes be treated equally harshly in court?
Don't misunderstand us anti-hate crime people. We aren't objecting to the fact that murderers and criminals are being harshly punished for their hate crimes, we simply think that a white man who rapes a white woman should be sentenced just as harshly as a white man who rapes a black woman and calls her a "n*gger" in the process. If we're willing to double the sentence for someone who commits a "hate" crime, why don't we just double the sentences for everyone who commits that crime? A raped woman is a raped woman, regardless of why she was raped. A dead man is a dead man regardless of why he was shot. Don't just stiffen some penalties, stiffen them ALL!
Re:Yeah whatever ! (Score:2)
In Europe, hate speech is censored, period. You cannot SAY that you think Jews are evil, for example. You cannot record a video glorifying Hitler and sell it, as another example.
In the US, on the other hand, you cannot broadcast vulgar speech on television. You cannot put sexually explicit materials in the front window of your video store. You can however record pornographic videos and sell them (as should be obvious; this is a very large industry in the US). You can curse as much as you want on record albums, and then sell them to the public (this is also a quite large industry).
Don't confuse restrictions where you can do something with banning it entirely. Both are bad, but the second is far worse.
Re:Yeah whatever ! (Score:2)
This act, however, steps much further and into an unacceptable realm. Many of Europes "anti-hate" laws ban reading "unacceptable" books, watching "unacceptable" movies, listening to "unacceptable" music, or playing "unacceptable" video games in your own home, where only you are audience to it. Sure, we in the U.S. don't see XXX videos broadcast on ABC primetime, but there's nothing stopping us from taking a trip to the local adult video store and picking up a few copies...or from calling my cable or satellite company and asking them to turn on the Playboy channel. The types of laws Europe is passing restrict not just public, but private behavior. THAT is unnacceptable!
Oh well, so much for Voltaire. (Score:5, Interesting)
I mean, c'mon. You'd think Europeans would learn after a few centuries or so that trying to make bad people shut up doesn't really work.
No, I'm not an American.
Re:Oh well, so much for Voltaire. (Score:2)
What about making good people shut up?
Does that "work"?
Re:Oh well, so much for Voltaire. (Score:2)
What about all the good people who died in Jesus's name no one ever heard from again?
Did it work for them, or weren't they special enough? Oh, excuse me -- they're in heaven with the 77 virgins or something.
Wait...
That's Islam....
OK, well anyway what was it we get when we die so that evil people may nurish themselves and their children on our blood and equity? It is, after all, _very important_ to give evil power. Resist not evil, give also you cloak, etc.
Right?
Or did I just do something bad with the interpretation of That Which Is Written?
PS: Move out of white-bread Canada to West LA. Oh, there I go again, not remembering you're so special that you don't have to do what you would preach -- only others do (well actually only others who are gullible and have enough integrity to not be hypocrites -- and you need them out of the gene pool ASAP, right retrovirus?)
Re:Oh well, so much for Voltaire. (Score:2)
*sigh*
Why? (Score:2, Interesting)
For example, I hate MSCE's, and we all know that they're inferior to the rest of us.
What's wrong with stating that? Are MSCE's going to get offended? Then let them be offended! And let them learn how to patch IIS so it isn't assaulted by countless virii!
On a more serious note, this is indeed stupid. Perhaps racist and hate speech is wrong, however, everyone's entitled to their opinion. What's next? Book burning?
Harry Potter, burn 'em all, they promote witchcraft. Get rid of those copies of The Charge of the Light Brigade. Man, if that doesn't promote violence, I don't know what does. Don't get me started on Tolkien..
Sounds ridiculous, eh? Not so much. If someone wants to believe something they read, whether that be that a certain race is inferior, or that the Nazgul are chasing them down.. Well, shouldn't it be their choice whether or not to believe it?
Banning hate speech from the internet isn't going to make the problem go away. Nor will banning it from being written anywhere else. You could always make it illegal to even speak hate, but in the end, if someone wishes to hate something, be it a person, place, thing, or an entire race, they will.
And there's not a damned thing you can do about it.
Fight now, Europeans, or become slaves to tyranny.
BAN hate speech? (Score:2)
It helps so much more to have these morons right there, where everyone can see, laugh, cry or whatever it is they do when they see such silly sites.
Why support a government that doesn't want its people to feel strong emotions?
Scope, political beliefs, ideologies, etc (Score:3, Informative)
One of the reasons that things like this concern civil libertarians is that its really not a very big step from hate speech to politically unpopular speech. In the United States, jurisprudence is such that many forms of speech and expression, including things both hateful or vulgar, can quite easily also be considered statments of political content, and therefor protected on general principle.
C//
Re:Scope, political beliefs, ideologies, etc (Score:2)
Then what happens in a very religious country when you decide that atheists are wrong, and their beliefs harmful to society? Ban them too.
And so on.
Free speech? There's a difference. (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Alex T-B
St Andrews
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: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: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:Free speech? There's a difference. (Score:2)
... sort of like the way you want to take away everybody's rights.
You claim to see the irony but you clearly do not: The techniques you advocate are the ones absolutely vital to the overthrow of a democratic system. Artificially choking off the flow of information among citizens is a recipe for fascism and totalitarianism. The fact of the matter is, in a free society, pweople have the right to belive "wrong" -- even vile -- things. They even have the right to advocate their "wrong" vile opinions. That's what makes it a free society.
People call for censorship to "defend" the public. Such people have no faith in the public and, usually, no real historical perspective. They need to feel important and they cannot believe that, amazingly, the public can defend itself.... given the tools. What are the tools? Not repressive laws that smother debate, but open regimes that permit and encourage it.
Neo-Nazis are indeed a disturbing and worrisome strain in the body politic. You know what, though? They are also pretty laughable. Given a forum they almost invariably come off as awkward, ignorant, and just plain silly. Exposed to the harsh light of publicity they wither and die. But locked away, hidden from our view for our own "safety", banned and persecuted, they flourish like a noisome fungus. Then the uninformed can't make a rational evaluation or a balanced judgement. And of course, the very act of banning them feeds their sene of persecution and gives it an air of legitimacy.
Freedom is hard. We have to put up with disagreeable, even vile, people and opinions. But history shows that free speech -- far from being a threat to a democratic system -- is the best inoculation against virulent hate and violent overthrow. Show a little faith in the people you purport to protect. Elsewise you are displaying an anti-democratic streak, yourself.
Re:Free speech? There's a difference. (Score:3, Interesting)
You keep saying that. Have AOL, Microsoft, and Apple taught you nothing? People don't want hard. They want easy! They don't want freedom, self-sufficiency, and responsibility for one's own actions. They want a benevolent government grandfather who will take care of them and put their kids through school and keep the thugs off their streets. But woe to the person who raises the ire of this government. It's spare the rod and spoil the child. That's the price you pay for an advanced, "progressive" society, I guess.
Frickin' EUian elitists. Oh wait, that's hate speech! Lock me up!
Re:Free speech? There's a difference. (Score:2)
I've always found it interesting that a country that saw first hand what Nazism can do still has a problem with it, but a country that has never had a problem with Nazis doesn't. Maybe it's because America doesn't try and censor it; it lets the Nazis make asses of themselves in public. They don't get the glory of being an oppressed group that society reacts panically to; they're seen as the idiots they are.
Re:Free speech? There's a difference. (Score:2)
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.
If people are not permitted to advocate rebellion against a democratic system, exactly how democratic is that system? There is a line, however fine it may be, between democracy and majority totalitarianism. Part of what draws that line is that in a democracy, the minority are allowed to speak and are protected from the majority, however distasteful that may occasionally be.
Where I'm from, one of the primary reasons we protect the right of the minority to speak is so that change can be effected in the government. Advocacy of revolution is permitted because that permission allows it to become part of the national debate, and thereby neutralizes the violent impulse to rebellion while allowing the ideas to change in the government, should they so warrant.
You speak of a fear that a new Hitler might arise, but seem to forget that Hitler came to power in the first place in large part because the majority allowed him to do so. The fact that the majority now wants to institute a ban on hate speech should indicate that their supporting another Hitler is extremely unlikely in a post-1940s European democracy.
The intention may be noble, but it's worth considering that the very existence and popularity of the intention indicates that its primary goal has been achieved. Its secondary goal of stamping out these minority hate groups should be weighed against the implications of the action under consideration... I cannot believe that it is worth the cost.
The road to hell...
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:2, Interesting)
First, you can buy and study "Mein Kampf" in Germany, if you would like to do so. There is no ban and burning of that book.
Second, it is known that most Nazis, who willingly accepted any of Hitler and Goebbel's propaganda hate speech to be reasonable, never even bothered to read the book. They hated the Jews before Hitler even told them to do so. All they got in Hitler was someone, who allowed them to act upon their hidden hate thoughts legally.
What you don't see is that people have hate feelings and hate thoughts no matter what. How well you let those thoughts out in the open via hate speech is dependent how much freedom you give people to act upon their hate thoughts. And that freedom to act upon one's hate thoughts is dependent on how much public hate propaganda you are going to tolerate.
There are two sayings:
First saying: "Deine Gedanken sind frei" (Your thoughts are free) -
note: the freedom of thought is absolute, but it doesn't equate automatically that your freedom of speech is absolute as well.)
Second saying:"If it can't be abused, it's not freedom".
Guess what, if you can use your freedom to destroy freedom, then there is unfortunately no freedom left, rather sooner than later. There is no proof or guarantee that the ones, who use freedom to destroy freedom, are always counterbalanced by those, who use freedom to protect freedom. Usually it has been a struggle of epic proportions since existence of mankin. What the majority of people end up doing is deliberately limit their freedom to destroy freedom, and consciously using their freedom to maximize freedom to the extent that it can't be used to destroy it. I guess that's why we have laws.
So, bottom line, saying number one is absolutely true and saying two is a logic fallacy.
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)
Banning important primary documents in history is opening the way for a 1984-style scenario where the "official history" is all there is, because everything that disagrees with it is banned.
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:3, Interesting)
Criminalizing is not the answer. As pointed out by others, it's a short step from "hate speech" to "politically unpopular speech". And it's a short step to the Ministry of Information, making sure no one is thinking bad thoughts.
Information and speech must remain free. There is a price, but the price is worth it. Killing people, defacing cemetaries, threatening people, and the like are all already illegal. We must be vigilant in their enforcement, and make sure they know that their behavior is not acceptable. But the next step after banning their speech is banning speech you don't find offensive (but someone else does), and the next thing you know, it's your speech that is censored.
Information and propeganda have been used as a political tool for millennia. We must not fall into the same trap again. We must keep this tool out of the hands of those who would use it to control us. Though you may agree with them now, governments are not looking out for your best interest. Their power must be kept in check, and one major way this is done is with freedom of information, and freedom of speech.
--Bob
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:Free speech? There's a difference. (Score:2)
Re:Free speech? There's a difference. (Score:2)
Any time you supress any form of speech, you legitimize it. Most loonies (like those easily seduced by hate-speech) will latch on to the notion that if the government is trying to silence a particular group, then that group must be "on to something".
The great thing about free speech is that there are so many idiots and lunatics exercising it that it forces you to become jaded to people usually spouting off such tripe anyway. All the stupid people who latch on to some fascist notion happily bray it out to the world and do us all a favor by disreputing everyone who espouses that idea, so by the time some charismatic sort comes along that might've fooled the world and tries to sway everyone they are simply looked at as a slightly smarter idiot than that last kook rather than a "revolutionary bearer of new ideas".
Re:Free speech? There's a difference. (Score:2)
Re:Free speech? There's a difference. (Score:2)
People like you are what's wrong with the world today, your holier-than-thou attitudes are the beginning of the oppressive dictatorships whos opinions and histories you're trying to suppress.
I have every right to dislike you.
I have every right to like you.
I have every right to dislike you because you are tall.
I have every right to like you because you are tall.
I have every right to dislike you because you are white.
I have every right to like you because you are white.
I have every right to dislike you because you are black.
I have every right to like you because you are black.
I have every right to dislike you because you have blond hair....
You know where I'm going with this. I also have every right to tell anybody who cares to listen that I dislike you, and why I dislike you.
I'm have no right to punch you in the face, wether it's because you called me a name, or because you've got brown eyes.
That is the difference, and it's what's important.
Re:Free speech? There's a difference. (Score:2)
"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. " [Boldface mine]
What is "false"?
What is "propaganda" and what are facts?
What is intended to "cause harm"?
If society could define thse concepts universally, your solution might work. Unfortunately, to take some examples from the U.S., those who support the right of a woman to have an abortion could be assailed by the Christian Right for putting out "false propaganda that's only intended to harm people and cause harm." They could say the same thing about evolution. Conversely, humanists could lay these same charges against religious thinking.
One person's "falsehood" is another person's "truth." As long as we cannot agree on standards such as these, it will always be dangerous to make certain types of statements illegal.
No, there isn't a difference. (Score:2)
Proponents of free speech often draw a line in the sand. However, a favorite quote of mine comes from the movie "The American President". Check it out, because most of this next statement comes directly from the movie, and from history itself.
You say you value free speech, and want it protected? Lets see you protect someone's right to speak, whose very ideas conflict so greatly with your own, as to make your blood boil in rage. THATS free speech. THAT's an inherant freedom, as adopted the United States founding fathers.
The simple fact is that banning "free speech" on issues that the majority is against is only going to strengthen yougnsters resolve to be a part of that group. Look at child psychology, especially during the impressionable years of 12-18.
Children, by nature, become rebellious against THINGS. This rebellion is a deep seated psychological desire for that child to separate themselves from their parents, AKA, strike out on their own. Seeing as most parents are law abiding, non-critical people, their children will undoubtedly side with the side of ANARCHY for a time. If said anarchy takes the form of a socially unacceptable behaviour, then so much the better, in their eyes. If, however, society embraces someone's freedom to have such views, then having them will not be as much of a rebellion in their eyes.
I'm not advocating the acceptance of hate crimes, I'm only stating that making speech, or views a crime, makes those ideas more desirable to the very children you are trying to "protect."
Punish the crimes severely. Award zero quarter for participation in such crimes, regardless of how small. That way, you preserve the idea of free speech, while driving the crimes themselves underground.
In the end, you will never prevent anyone from having one idea or another. However, you can regulate a societies actions based on negative re-inforcement for certain acts. How Europe chooses to deal with this issue is really not of my concern. But, trying to make a claim that it's "For the Children" is laughable, because the Children will undoubtedly flock towards that which the parents dislike the most, in an effort to "rebel".
krystal_blade
Re:Free speech? There's a difference. (Score:2)
It also makes it easier for them to recruit "rebellious teens".
In short, the worst thing you can do to them is let them publicly show themselves for the dribbling idiots they are, and that isn't different in Europe than it is here.
This applies to all such groups. Including politically correct ones who might well otherwise be busy lobbying politicans.
euro network (Score:2)
serriously folks, the most logical reason this amendment is being slipped in is because the USA court rulled that Frenchy anti-hate laws do not apply to USA based companies. I would not doubt it to find that a french person sponsored this addition into being. IT is too ironic that this slips in not even a week after the USA court rullings.
"I HATE YOU"
OOOO.. oh no... I said it.... now I'm going to be banned in Europe.... and slahsdot is going to be sued in a French court....... its a damn shame.
Go ahead... balkanize the internet.... the folks in the USA wiull simply go on with what we have always done... freely express ourselves. And the folks in Europ will still do what they always do... read USA internet sites.
As if anything is going to change by this.... it might lift the ego of some politician for a year or two. If Europe folks are so advanced, and enlightend then it would seem that they would be mature enough to simply not look at the hatefull items on the net....
Milk and Cheese Where is the Hate? (Score:2)
If they can not keep up with just monitoring these sites how is anyone going to cut down on them?
Also, in the grand
Laws that only hurt the innocent (Score:2, Informative)
This is really like gun laws in the US. Real criminals can get any gun that they want through the black market, but law-abiding citizens have to jump through hoops just to get a gun so that they can protect their own home.
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.
FacistNet(tm) (Score:2)
Then maybe the rest of us can use the internet to send information to each other.
Geeze...
I believe in Tommy J (Score:2)
-- Thomas Jefferson
Everyone of you stop Posting (Score:2, Funny)
Since the days of freedom and free speech are counted, I guess I better grab the few occasions I have and say what's on my mind. All those pro-censorship laws are crap.
Single Combat (Score:2)
Here's something that comes a lot closer to a sovereign individual than those pussies:
One sovereign individual says to the other: "You filthy son of a geezleforp! Your kind fratzlebgratz their sisters and fail to properly potty train their boys which is why they grow up to become triffsings!" This, being said in a prominent weblog can result in only one rational response: "'Sir' and I use the term lightly, I hereby formally and publically challenge you to a formal combat to the death. My purpose is to end your tyranny of hate speech against my people. If I cannot end your tyranny of hate speech against my people, then perhaps others, more expert, cunning and/or lucky, will see my example, and put an end to yours!"
After a mandatory 3 days of waiting, typically counseling with community leaders who attempt to find less extreme measures and avert bloodshed, the fateful day arives. Each individual sovereign gets 15 meters of strong cordage, a 10 inch blade, a wilderness area large enough to allow strategy chosen by a panel of community leaders, and a mandate that only one shall return. They enter from opposite sides and no observers are permitted in the wilderness area.
If one entering into a community bound by such rules of such individual sovereignty refuses combat or attempts to leave during the 3 day waiting and counseling period -- anyone may lawfully take any action whatsover against him at any time. See Valoric Fire: A Working Plan for Individual Sovereignty [wonderclick.com].
so in essence... (Score:2)
Fucking awesome.
Australian perspective on US vs rest of world (Score:2)
In any event, it didn't turn out to be a "we must ban it" whitewash. It was particularly good having the Australian Broadcasting Authority give a speech about how wonderful filtering software was and having David Goldman blow everything they said away completely.
Danny.
*sniff* (Score:2, Funny)
What's that smell?
Oh, yeah. It's the rancid stench of A Stupid Idea That Will Never Work.
Information should be free, (Score:2)
Meaning speech, meaning source code, meaning all digital information, and not free as in you dont pay for it, but free as in anyone can write anything they want, and own any file, and trade any file.
This is freedom of expression, freedom of thought, etc
Now about the hate sites, you cannot Ban them from the internet, what they should do is treat hate sites like they treat kiddie porn sites
Meaning they should be monitored, the people should have a right to launch these sites but there should be rules. No one can have a hate site which threatens anyone for example,
people can host a kiddie porn site in europe, doesnt mean people wont arrest them for doing it.
People can host a hate site too, but if they choose to host this, they better be careful.
I'm totally against censorship, but i dont like hate sites, or kiddie porn sites, and i'm sure alot of other technically gifted people dont like them either
So anyone hosting a site like that wont have to worry about the government censoring them they should worry about the hackers who constantly hack them, the carnivore like tools constantly monitoring them.
Think of it like this, if Usama bin laden had a site, theres no rule saying he cant host a site, but if he hosts one you better believe people would be monitoring every thing he does.
No one has total freedom (Score:2)
This is the one used by the 1st ammendment, 'say whatever you want to say'.
In the US, the 'do whatever you want to do' is certainly not applied always, you are not allowed to kill people, for instance, substantially reducing your freedom. The reason is that killing others, harms.
In Europe, the same limit is applied. If it harms others, then it is not allowed. And this is also used for speech.
I agree that saying 'All the (your_choice_here) should be killed because they are the root of the problems in our country' is not as bad as effectively killing them, but hate speech, I believe, helps very much in creating the situation that leads to killing. That's why in some countries, it is not allowed.
Now I'll give you an example: do you think that Osama Bin Laden's hate speech, broadcasted all over the muslim countries has an influence on the latest terrorists attacks?
My opinion is that it has a lot of influence. To me, that man should not have the freedom to say what it says because using his speech (only words!) can convince a lot of confused people that yes, the US is the devil. He is not _literally_ pulling the trigger but his speech does.
Scientology will put this to good use (Score:2)
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...
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
Re:Reflections of Hate Speech and Legislation (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Reflections of Hate Speech and Legislation (Score:2, Interesting)
Wrongheaded. (Score:3, Interesting)
The perfect example of this is the march that Klansmen and Aryan Nation type white supremacists were supposed to have in Washington, D.C. a couple years ago. A white supremacist leader called for a public protest and march in D.C., to show the country that they could do the same thing black people did in the Million Man March and such. It got a lot of newspaper and newscast coverage for weeks before the event; he got on TV, calling for all white people to come join him in a show of strength against the "niggers" and Jews who have "taken over" the government. He got so much publicity, that he expected thousands of people to show up from all over the country. The D.C. police even hired extra workers from nearby police departments to come in that day to help keep the peace between these thousands of white supremacists and the people who would show up againts them.
Guess what? Less than 20 people came to this "demonstration," most of whom were this guy's friends. Nobody came. Despite coverage for weeks ahead of time of this white supremacist leader calling for all white people with his ideas to show up that day, nobody came. In contrast, there were far more peple who showed up to protest *against* the white supremacist march, than the under 20 who showed up for it. In the end, the guys who showed up left very soon after they got there, realizing that they just looked stupid and made people realize that so few people have these racist views.
The lesson there is that giving these morons enough rope to hang themselves publicly does more to discourage their racism than banning it ever would. Things grow in the underground. Things are given a mystiue and aura which draws people to them, when they are verboten. Pick up any rock and you'll find all sorts of nasty little creatures congregating in the darkness. Yet expose the same patch of ground to the penetrating sunlight, and nothing dares linger there, knowing it will be exposed and vulnerable.
This is how the white supremacist groups were driven out of public view in the U.S.--not by censorship, but by letting them make fools of themselves in public. In the 1980s and early 1990s, we had some very boisterous and exploitive talk shows in this country--Geraldo, Sally Jessy, Donahue, etc. Some of the shows still exist, but they have toned themselves down over the years and become more "respectble," not trying to shock as much as they used to. But back then, white supremacists, Klansmen and Aryan Nations skinheads would be on these shows about every week. Some of the shows would have them "confronted" by strong blacks or jews--and some broke out in violence on the stage, like the famous show where Geraldo Rivera got his nose broken.
Now, the upshot of all this open coverage is that people saw these white supremacists for what they truly were--ignorant, inbred, uneducated fools. They were laughed at and scorned, and used for entertainment as we mocked them in public on these talk shows. None of them ever had a good reason for their beliefs, and almost all of them were buffoons. After that, who would want to join them? Who would want to be mocked and scorned as they were? No one. And so, all the coverage they got worked against them. Klan membership fell. Aryan Nations membership fell. And except for occasional rallies in very uneducated redneck backwaters, and very occasional people who come on talk shows and get ridiculed in public, none of these groups ever shows itself in public any more.
There are still racially motivated killings here, like the black man who was dragge behind a truck in Texas a couple years ago. But they are much more rare then they were in the 1970s and 1980s, before we started ridiculing racists in public with their own words. And we can never completely eliminate hate and the crimes that come from it--it is as impossible as eliminating murder, rape, or any crime. But we have a much smaller problem with it than people in Germany do, where such ideas and speech is hidden away and given a mystique it does not deserve.
You see, in the U.S. I can go into any bookstore and buy a copy of *Mein Kampf*. I own a copy myself, not because I am a racist, but because I wantd to know how evil and foolish Hitler really was, from his own words. And yet, we have no great swell of neo-Nazism--because we expose neo-Nazis publicly for the fools they are. In the late 80s there was an upswing in neo-Nazi organizations in the U.S. The cure was letting them make fools of themselves in public on those talk shows I mentioned, and ever since they have no longer been growing in percentage. They are seen by almost everyone as uneducated idiots.
Germany has done the opposite, which is why they have a real danger today from neo-Nazis. You drive them underground instead of exposing them, which gives them power. It has an allure for some German young people, like a secret fraternity would. Some are interested only because of this mystique, this forbiddenness, and that draws them in. As you know, many teenagers will do something only because they're told not to. These groups also provide friendships and togetherness that is attractive to young people. But if you exposed them in public like we did and do in the U.S., they would not be attractive. Who would want friendship and togetherness with people who are made fun of and ridiculed and thought stupid and laughed at? Instead of mocking them, you fear them. That is why they have strength in Germany and France, but not in the U.S. The Klan used to be in the U.S. just like the Nazis in Germany--but while Germany faces increasing neo-Nazism, the U.S. does not face increasing Klan membership. The difference, once again, is that we expose it to the light of truth, while Germany hides it under a dark rock and allows it to grow.
Also, Germany is foolish for allowing so many immigrants to work there while there's so much unemployment. It is a recipe for disaster when you have so many Turks and other non-citizens (some are citizens, but most are not) working while so many citizens go unemployed. This immigration is allowed in Germany to please the rich, who would rather import skilled foreigners than invest in teaching skills to German youth. That is deplorable, and that feeds the fascism which seems to be the only faction truly devoted to keeping German jobs and German money for Germans. If Germany were to stop allowing so much immigration, and force employers to train young Germans to be skilled workers at a living wage instead of importing foreigners to work at a lesser wage, then that would take much of the force out of neo-Nazism. In a way, I can't blame many of the young people who are seduced by neo-Nazism in Germany and to some extent France--their own governments do not care enough about them to protect their jobs from lower-waged foreigners, so naturally they come to resent those foreigners. The U.S. allows even more immigration, but the difference is that even now in our recession, we don't have such high unemployment rates as you do in Germany and some other countries in the area. If your governments do not wake up and take care of your citizens and giving them the opportunity to work instead of importing cheaper foreign labor, you deserve the backlash you're getting. The foreigners don't deserve the hate crimes, but your governments do deserve the threat to their survival, since they are catering to the wealthy business owners and the foreign immigrants instead of to the average citizens.
Food for thought.
Re:Its about time. (Score:2)
If such viewpoints are censored who is going to help them dig their own hole by saying "explain more" or by rebutting their point.
It's a bit like the idea of banning journalists from interviewing people connected with terrorists. Sounds good in theory but it dosn't do much for any terrorist cause to be asked something like "You claim to be a moslem but your organisation just killed 5,000 people, how can you reconcile that?"
Re:Its about time. (Score:2)
Excuse me? The best way to avoid a totalitarian state is to seize control of public discourse? The irony would be delicious if I weren't choking from laughing so hard.
Free speech is not the tool the "extreme right" (whoever they are) will use to "take over" the US. Free speech is the political defense mechanism by which they will never be able to do so. Only if we ever allow a restriction on speech will we run the risk that a small group could seize power and inflict its will on us. In a society that truly values free and open debate, the "extreme right wing" is easily seen as "extreme" and not in accord with popular thought.
Or should my post be censored now, since it "supports" the extreme right wing and therefore, by implication, hate crimes? Who gets to decide? Who gets to appoint the thought gods? And how do you ever keep such a system balanced, when the people making the decision can choke off any criticism of their decision?
I know that slashdot posts are far from a scientific sampling of modern thought
One reads a lot about the American arrogance, and goodness knows, it's true. But it seems to me far more arrogant to appropriate to oneself the power to choose between "correct and proper" beliefs and "bad and vile" ones. How paternalistic, condescending, and in the end, simply obnoxious is such an attitude. Let all people speak their minds fully in a free and open marketplace of ideas. Let all people say and read what they will. I have faith that ordinary citizens, in such a climate, can be trusted to make the right decisions.
Re:Its about time. (Score:2)
Free speach is also something these people will oppose.
However if they are smart (as some of them are) they will propose restrictions using such politically correct language as "protecting minorities" (any any group can be a "minority" with the right definition), curbing "extremists" (to an extremist anyone who might disagree with them is an "extremist"), protecting children (after all who could possibly be against that), etc, etc.
Re:Its about time. (Score:2)
Except that this can be interpreted as agreeing with the idea that these people are some kind of intrinsically superior "master race". Thus they must be gagged, since no-one else could possibly "win" a debate with them...
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.
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:Why? (Score:2)
Also some of the time these people will be both popular and in positions of power.
But history also shows that the best incoluation against these virulent strains of political bile is free and open debate on them.
Whoever they might be, including those powerful enough to get laws passed labeling any critique of their position as "hate speach".
Indeed we already see this happening when an incompetant (or even criminal) AA hired individual will not be fired whatever they do. Or rules against "sexual harrasment" are themselves used to sexually harrass people.
Four hundred years of colonialism? (Score:2)
I wonder if you'd find agreement with that statement in, say, India. Or Egypt. Or Mexico. Or Peru. Or anywhere in Africa (except South Africa). Or the Pacific Rim. Or...
To drag this back on topic, at least in the US, you're allowed to point out our hypocricies, our fallacies, and our failings. You're allowed to rail against the government and/or anyone you feel responsible. You're allowed to think and speak what you will. Our greatest danger is the growing acceptance by some of the sort of restrictions on speech common in Europe.
We aren't perfect and we aren't saints. But as far I can see, free speech is one thing we got right.
Re:Reminds me of a saying I've always liked... (Score:2)
Re:is everyone going batshit? (Score:2)
You missed a few, 10th and 14th amendment also the IP clause.
Hey Europe, take a look at the U.S. and see what you have in store for you! First they weaken one freedom, and then another, and another, a little at a time until some day your rights are nothing more than a hollow shell of what they once were. That's happening right here in my country as we speak - you want the same thing done to you?
It has to be a little at a time, revolutions don't do much to help politicans careers...