EU Pushes to Limit Internet Speech 1256
minamar writes "CNN is reporting that at an international conference, the EU is urging the US and other nations to ban racist and 'hate' messages from the internet. The US seems to be resisting, but is this another step away from free speech and how could an international group possibly regulate message on the internet anyway?"
What ever happened to... (Score:1, Informative)
1 st Ammendment (Score:4, Informative)
Re:1 st Ammendment (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Why is this shocking? (Score:3, Informative)
Take 2 clearly defined words that are used to describe a clearly defined and well understood concept and some retard still manages to totally miss the point. Free speech has nothing to do with Nazi propaganda or racial hatred, you either acknowledge people have a right to freedom of speech in whatever form or you don't.
Re:Racists should have free speech as well. (Score:1, Informative)
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it. -- Voltaire.
Re:1 st Ammendment (Score:3, Informative)
"Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers."
Seems pretty simple and straightforward to me.
Re:In Related News... (Score:3, Informative)
Nor would he necessarily have to act as if "he was the man's bestest buddy"
Re:People don't get it (Score:2, Informative)
Voltaire...
Also well known for: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Re:Why is this shocking? (Score:5, Informative)
The fact that all that is shown on TV, and people are also allowed to complain about seeing a part of anatomy that everyone, men and women, have, is a proof that there is freedom of expression in the USA. Remember this, freedom is *not* a question of the quality of the ideas expressed. Freedom is being allowed to express *any* idea, even if some people may feel shocked by it. No, I'm not a gringo. But I do envy the freedom o speech people have in the USA. In my own country (Brazil), saying anything the Roman Catholic Church or its followers don't like will put you in jail.
Re:1 st Ammendment (Score:5, Informative)
This a fact that most people (even most Americans, sadly) do not seem to understand, and why much of the various "human rights" laws and such by various other "governing" bodies, like the EU and UN, are fundamentally flawed:
The United State's Constitutional Bill of Rights does not grant rights to the people, instead it seekes to limit our government from violating rights we intrinsically have because we are (supposedly, though eroding every day, it seems) "free men" - the rights we were "born with". That isn't to say our Constitution is "etched in stone" - it can and does change with time.
Back when our Constitution was written, for example, most, if not all, of the limitations in the Bill of Rights did not apply to black people or women. At the time, these groups of people were not seen as "free men", but rather as chattel, or property - thus members of these groups were unfairly prosecuted and worse. Over time, though, our Constitution was changed, via the ammendment process, to include these groups as people became more "enlightened" as to who was a person (sad, but true).
I could see such a process occurring again for hate speech - that is, an ammendment banning it. It would run counter the the first ammendment - but that hasn't, unfortunately, stopped things in the past (see the 18th Ammendment, for example).
What is more likely to occur is a similar "end-run" around our Constitution, much like both the DMCA and PATRIOT were rammed through - but first, they need to come up with a "boogyman" to allow for it (what that will be, is unknown)...
Re:Why is this shocking? (Score:5, Informative)
According to the story, the people who are proposing this are delegates at a conference organized by France and an organization called the Organization for The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. [osce.org]
According to their website, this organization is "the largest regional security organization in the world, with 55 participating states from Europe, Asia, Central and North America."
Seems to me therefore, that it would be just as accurate for this story to have been written 'US Federal Government pushes to limit internet speech'.
MOD PARENT UP! (Score:5, Informative)
In Europe there are really many international organisations. There is European Union, European Economic Area, Council of Europe and referenced in the CNN article Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE). All of them are important and in fact are making some kind of supranational governemnts. But they are different!
OSCE which is said to be an involved in the conference has NOTHING to do with the European Union beside that all EU members are OSCE members as well!
Re:Balance between conflicting rights... (Score:3, Informative)
We should be particularly alarmed about about the spread of anti-American hate speech going on in the world... it's perfectly fine to be critcal of what we do here, but there comes a point where "dislike" crosses the line into "hatred", and it's those who have been brainwashed into thinking that free governments need to be banished from the world that we are fighting against as terrorists.
From most of what I've read/heard, terrorists don't hate us because we are "free" or we have a "free government" (although that is what the Adiministration would like you to believe, as that way they can argue "If you do not support the War On Terror, then you must not support Freedom!") -- most terrorists hate the policies of the US. This short essay [religioustolerance.org] gives one perspective, and actually provides references instead of the Administration repeating ad nauseum "They Hate Freedom" -- when there is little evidence that is the primary 'cause' of 9/11.
Europe is not a country, and OSCE is not EU. (Score:3, Informative)
First off, this conference has nothing to do with the EU. It was an initiative of the OSCE, which is not even funded by the EU, and is comprised of 55 nations all over the world, U.S. included (They contribute 9% of the budget)
Furthermore, there was absolutely NO consensus regarding cencorship, and it was suggested not by an EU politician, but by Michel Barnier, who is the french minister of foreign affairs, speaking on behalf of the autonomous french government. And i specifically say autonomous because people seem to forget that europe is not a country. There are many different countries, cultures and opinions on the european continent and within the european union, very much like Africa, or the Americas. Besides, regarding Europe as one big country is going to be rather confusing anyway, because if you listen closely to ANY european (be it EU or other) debate, like the one mentioned, you will find that individual states never fail to disagree about...well...pretty much everything. Even the Euro, or Iraq, or software patents, etc etc...
In this case, some european countries supported the french position, and others didnt. Some european countries, along with the US, favored stimulating the ISPs to include clauses in their TOS, thereby avoiding government intervention.
And, if all else fails, there is a european court of human rights, which recognises the right to freedom of speech. Not to mention the freedom of speech laws of individual countries.
Mr Michel Barnier is full of shit. I know it, you know it, and in all probability he knows it too. But don't blame all of europe, or the EU, for this french politician's ignorance.
9/11 the "largest hate crime?" (Score:5, Informative)
Worse than the Nazi "final solution"?
Worse than the "Rape of Nanking"?
Worse than the Turkish genocide against the Armenians?
Worse than the genocide in Ruanda?
You get the idea (and I've not even gone earlier than the 20th century)
Google is the target (Score:3, Informative)
This can be done with lots and lots of harassing lawsuits, and it very probably will.
Google is a big point of failure for the Internet.
Re:Anti-Israel speech needs to be legal (Score:1, Informative)
As a Jew, I think you're full of shit. Have you ever actually been to Israel? I lived there for 3 years. Ever since coming back to the states I hear American Jews freaking out whenever someone makes legitimate criticisms of Israeli political policy.
Obviously, Israelis are rather adamant about Israel's right to exist, but you'd be surprised at how critical of their own government they are. Much of Israel's policies are dictated by non-Israeli jews. I've been to the settlements everyone is always complaining about. Many of these are American jews. It's really weird.
Now, Israel is under constant terrorist threat. The IDF is admittedly not saintly either, but life in Israel is scary sometimes, because of terrorism. As we can see with the tacit acceptance of laws such as the Patriot Act in the US, fear does funny things to people.
The truth is, Zionism was a fringe movement, considered radical and not widly accepted among the European Jewry, until the Holocaust. Then everyone saw the need for a Jewish state, and the Zionists used this groundswell of support to get the holy land from the British. This was a mistake, I believe. Israel should probably never have come into existence... it was not a land without people for people without a land, because it most certainly did have people, people that might I add had been extremely neighborly in sheltering Jewish refugees from Europe.
However, and this is the important point, Israel did come into existance, even if it maybe shouldn't have. Now, generations of kids have been born and raised there, and these people are Israeli. They have as much right to that land as the Palestinans do, even if their forefathers went there under less than ideal circumstances. To suggest otherwise is logically equivalent to suggesting that any mass migration of people from one place to another already-populated place (to the possible detriment of said population) can somehow be reversed (see America, Australia, Europe if you go back far enough, etc).
Israel does have a right to exist. However, the US's unwillingness to stand up and critisize its policies is akin to giving its government carte blanche in all its less that perfect endeavors.
Contrary to the view of many sensitive Jews, I do not believe dislike of Isreal in Europe is due to anti-semitism. It has to do with interest groups. Since the Holocaust, there aren't many Jews in Europe. But there are many Muslims, and they bring their views (which are not necessarily incorrect) to light. In the US, the reverse is true. Both sides are unquestionably responsible for a great deal of bad shit. But the middle eastern situation is a problem that needs to be resolved, and support of expansionist policies by the US or any other country is wrong, regardless of what country it is or how strongly you may feel about it.
While it may not be evident from this post, I strongly support Israel. But I believe to criticize is to be patriotic... perhaps that's the American in me. Palestinian terrorism must not be tolerated; but they aren't just terrorists, they're freedom fighters too. I respect them, in a way... I hope I'd have the guts to oppose them if our roles were reversed. It takes guts to throw rocks at a tank. They need their own State. I hope Sharon manages to abandon the settlements. It will be the only good thing he's ever really done.
Re:Why is this shocking? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Self Defense should be absolute. (Score:3, Informative)
Somewhere along the line, you and countless other Americans (and if you're not American, I apologise for making that assumption) seem to have got it into your collective heads that if someone is being attacked in Britain that they aren't allowed to fight back. On the contrary, if their is reasonable expectation that you're going to be attacked, such as someone threatening you in a menacing manner, the law allows you to pre-emptively strike first in self-defence.
Now, tell me, how does that fit in with this image that you've painted of having to capitulate whenever threatened?
Re:No Universal Freedom Of Religion (Score:5, Informative)
Here's an article you should read: http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/egypt/?
I'll pull the relevant section out for you here:
(Bold emphasis added by me.)
So, tell me again about my "scewed" (sic) misconceptions?
wrong. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Why is this shocking? (Score:3, Informative)
I hate to burst your bubble but that's reality, not racism, and to label every kid in the ghetto as envious is a total misconception. I live in a town that is basically divided into two sections. One section is a white, upperclass, society, and the other, where I live, is lowerclass and has many more minorities than whites. I am white but I learned a lot from living here. The cops practically live on my street. When I go to the center of town, where all the little shops are and where all the rich people live, I never see a single cop. They don't really ever leave my part of town unless called. Their presence puts a lot of pressure and stress on the people who live here. It feels like you are always being watched, and that feeling causes a lot of friction.