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?"
Why is this shocking? (Score:1, Insightful)
Socialism and stifling free speech go hand in hand.
Free Speech (Score:4, Insightful)
Freedom is worth it (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is once you ban racist speech in public, you immediately open the door for more laws that do nothing to actually curtail the problem, but rather limit the rights and freedoms of everyone. Once you do that, it just opens the door for large powerful bodies of people (governments, corporations, SIG's) to pass more laws to limit more rights and freedoms.
Freedom is expensive, but it's something worth fighting and dying for.
Racists should have free speech as well. (Score:5, Insightful)
Free speech applies to everybody, and that includes neo-Nazis and racists. I am in no way supporting neo-Nazis and racists, but they still have the right to disseminate things and the right to free speech no matter how stupid their thinking is.
Censorship of any kind is just the start of a slippery slope.
I hate you, Mr. EU minister (Score:2, Insightful)
Will you now censor me?
To be sure...'hate speech' sucks. Sucks big, raw, donkey balls. But in the search for freedom of speech, you gotta take the bad with the good.
Effect? (Score:5, Insightful)
Online hate? (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps the online expression of it. The hate itself was always there and will only be minimized/eradicated with gradual cultural shifts on a global scale that will take centuries, if not millennia.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah because we all know... (Score:5, Insightful)
That simply not letting some one say something racist in a public forum will make racism magically go away.
I for one do NOT welcome our thought police overlords
It amazes me how we can revolt against something so much, we push ourselves away from it so strongly, that that we end up meeting it on the other side.
Congress shall make no law... (Score:5, Insightful)
The internet by its very nature is not, and cannot be, under any government's jurisdiction to control content. Period. Let folks say what they want to say, and you always retain the freedom to read it or ignore it.
No more "hate"? (Score:2, Insightful)
Start limiting speech now and light your cigar from the flame of the United States Constitution.
Just the thought of censorship makes me cringe. Now you know why I dislike the FCC.
Re:Freedom is worth it (Score:3, Insightful)
That sounds extremely noble in writing, but I doubt many people including yourself would actually be willing to die in order to prevent a law such as this one from being passed.
There is a delicate balance between complete apathy and out-of-control fanaticism.
Re: From many laws and legal decisions ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Who decides? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not that these guys have any authority anyway...
US Government not trustworthy (Score:2, Insightful)
Man (Score:4, Insightful)
censorship, again? (Score:5, Insightful)
1, Where does the censorship end,
2. who decides what should be censored?
3. What should be the punishment?
We should learn by example, as the article states, that we cannot even regulate shared music online without filing nonsensical lawsuits again John-Does.What are we going to do, file lawsuits against constant violators in other countries?
Re:Freedom is worth it (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not sure if the world has that strong of a stomach sometimes...
Yet again... (Score:1, Insightful)
Bill of Rights
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
It will never happen in my life time.
Or it might be time to change governments
Re:Racists should have free speech as well. (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyone know who said this first?
Re:Racists should have free speech as well. (Score:2, Insightful)
I agree to a point. As long as they don't infringe on other peoples rights their rights should be upheld. What would you recommend be done with this guy [amazon.com]?
there should be a line somewhere should there not? Go read the reviews of this book. It's scary shit.
Re:Freedom is worth it (Score:3, Insightful)
I do not think that corporations are interested in this kind of laws because they will not help them make money (unlike copyright laws).
Great idea! (Score:5, Insightful)
Like maybe those "hateful" communists. Or was it the "hateful" capitalists? Let's not forget those "hate-filled" Christians. And, gee, how often do I hear Rush Limbaugh referred to as "hate radio"?
Face it, as much as we might like to think that there is an objective assessment as to what qualifies as hate speech; the truth is that any hate speech laws will eventually be used to protect ideas and prosecute dissenters. These laws are not designed to protect people--the laws on the book already do that. These laws are designed to regulate thought, and it positively ignorant to believe that someday someone will not think that they can "help" society be eliminating that harmful capitalist/communist/whatever branch of thought.
Re:Why is this shocking? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is what is starting to be pushed for in the US by some groups. They label things "hate speech" and seek to have them outlawed. Also look at 'hate crimes'. Where you aren't punished based on the crime you did but what you were thinking while you did it.
Re:Free Speech (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a double-edged sword. Sometimes we're damned if we do and damned if we don't.
Re:What Did You Expect? (Score:5, Insightful)
Land of the free? Where large organizations can buy laws such as the DMCA. Where people are arrested for lecturing on cryptography? Where distributing a 7-line perl code can land you in jail?
Re:Effect? (Score:4, Insightful)
And, yes, IAAE (I Actually Am European).
Re:Racists should have free speech as well. (Score:2, Insightful)
Free speech includes speech i don't like. It is up to the speaker to find an audience at whatever cost he may assume, but the speech itself must be free, whether it's hate speech, political, or even religious.
I don't have to like racism to understand that censoring it is wrong.
Re:No more "hate"? (Score:2, Insightful)
)It's a governmental agency created by congress.
)The FCC censors what we say.
)The FCC is above the law.
)The first amendment says "Congress shall make no laws..." (you know!)
Why hasn't called Shenanigans on the FCC and congress?!?!?!?!?
Re:Why is this shocking? (Score:5, Insightful)
like, at least in europe you don't get the whole nation in panic if you show a NIPPLE accidentally in the middle of a very sexually oriented dance act.
can you say that scientologists are total fuckheads in the states then now? because they at least they ARE fuckheads.
Fucking stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
This kind of shit just amazes me.
The whole point of freedom of speech is so that one isn't persecuted for UNPOPULAR ideas.
This stuff just makes me sick. It's never going to be illegal to say "I like pretty flowers." The whole reason we have freedom of speech it to protect ideas that others disagree with.
The government has no business regulating people's thoughts.
This type of law is a great example of the "harm principle" not being applied. I should be able to hate you. That's my right. What I shouldn't be able to do is gas a bunch of jews. That's infringing on the rights of others.
Laws like this are the first step towards yet another totalitarian, nazi-like regieme. First you put the goverment in charge of what is and is not acceptible public discourse. Next, the government abuses that power in ways you never imagined.
Re:Racists should have free speech as well. (Score:5, Insightful)
TALKING about it is protected under the First Amendment and you have the right to ignore it. There's a lot of creepy shit out there but once you start censoring, where do you stop? How does one begin to define what is offensive? What is horribly offensive to you may be perfectly normal to me and vice versa. Don't start down that slippery slope, my friend.
Re:Freedom is worth it (Score:1, Insightful)
Don't bank on it. But, of course, seeing as how most Europeans have no access to guns, no training, and no inclination, what you said is probably valid in that part of the world.
Re:US Government not trustworthy (Score:4, Insightful)
No goverment anywhere should censor any private citizen. Unfortunately this seems to be exactly what the EU is proposing.
Its all about protecting the minority from the majority. Racists are the minority, just cause the majority of the people dont like what they have to say does not mean they should use the goverment to censor them.
What if racists became the majority? I would hope the laws in place would prevent them from having the government censor ME. And that _can_ happen. See WW2 for more information.
but I cant agree with "Too bad the US government can't be trusted to censor hate groups.." _NO_ government anywhere ever should be 'trusted' with that.
Freedom of Speech has limits... (Score:3, Insightful)
You can't call for killing somebody.
You can't state knowingly wrong "fact" about a presidential candidate without being sued.
You can'd say everything you want on product review pages without risking being sued by the producer (for the negative review).
In Germany you can't say "The Holocaust did not happen".
It's absolutely justified banning public statements like "All jews should be gased" or "All blacks should be hung" or "Our race should be cleansed".
It would, however, be harmful to ban statements like "Based on emperical evidence, *** tend to *** and are more likely to ***".
And you see, I had to leave blanks, because the obsession with political correctness in this country, to the point to of just denying/ignoring fact.
Re:Balance between conflicting rights... (Score:2, Insightful)
"Your right to swing your arm stops at the end of my nose" -- I don't know who said that, other than my father, but I think it applies.
Re:Why is this shocking? (Score:5, Insightful)
Thanks mate, you just made my day. You may not be aware of this, but there are plenty of conservative news outlets and even *gasp* political parties in Europe. At least those outlets and politicians have the balls to let other people know they are conservative. Unlike the conservative outlets in the US which try to pretend they are "fair and balanced"
Oh, and in Europe people actually understand the difference between reporting and editorial. Most US news outlets have forgotten the distinction.
But yeah, the US is has a far better track record when it comes to freedom of speech, unless it involves nudity, or strong language, or unpopular opinions, or bad comments about the president during a time of "war," or graphic images of destruction, or....
Why pick on the internet. (Score:4, Insightful)
A was using this as an argument against censoring the internet, but I guess it's only a matter of time before it becomes a reality on voice lines too.
Re:Websense and SurfControl stock soars (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Effect? (Score:3, Insightful)
If you want to eliminate racist speech on the internet, start at home. Don't go to the UN. Educate your people. Racism comes from fear and the fear comes from ignorance.
Educated people are less likely to indoctrinate their kids right back into the cycle of hatred.
Re:Why is this shocking? (Score:5, Insightful)
North Korea also has free speech, as long as you don't make a website filled with capitalist propaganda.
Excuse my french, but I think you are missing the whole fucking point of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech protects your right to say contraversial things. The right to say things that the government approves of is NOT freedom of speech.
Re:US Government not trustworthy (Score:2, Insightful)
I would argure it's the other way around.
Ignorance breeds hate.
Re:Join with me now in saying.. (Score:5, Insightful)
I doubt you'll see a U-turn on this issue, primarily because of the fundamentally different outlook on government and rights between the two continents. For Americans, rights really are important, even though everyone who says "I'm defending the Bill of Rights!" tends to defend only their favorite few (i.e., the 1st for the lefties, the 2nd and 4th for the righties). Europeans still have an essentially monarchistic view of government's relations to its citizens: citizens are subjects of the government, and all rights they enjoy, they do so at the government's pleasure. Thus stopping people from saying bad things doesn't get people as uppity there as it does here. It's the same reason gun control is not as much of a hot topic as in the US.
Re:Why is this shocking? (Score:5, Insightful)
You missed the point. The entire dance act was extremely sexual. Nobody would have complained if that's all it was. But a NIPPLE pops out and OH, LORDY!
Grow the hell up. Being offended by a nipple is about equivalent to kids on the playground freaking out about "cooties." It's okay for young children to suck on the goddamned things, but not to see them?
I mean CRIPES. You turn on a news channel these days and what do you hear? "Young black man shot by police. Girl kidnapped, raped, and decapitated. 10 soldiers die in Iraq. Man beheads niece with samurai sword. Meth lab discovered in science closet at the high school."
It's okay to expose your children to that shit, but a brief show of flesh is a catastrophic event?
Have you ever considered that our "offense" at seeing a nipple is merely a neurosis our parents have transferred to us, down through the Puritanical generations? For Christ's sake, there are more important things in this world!
Re:Why is this shocking? (Score:5, Insightful)
What's that good 'ol Voltaire quote, something along the lines of "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it"?
The problem, when you think about restricting free speech on any specific grounds, that in general it sets a precedent for removing other forms. Specifically, consider your statement above: "If free speech means nazi propaganda, I don't need it."
On the counter to that, just because there's nazi propaganda out there on the web, doesn't mean it has to bother you. If you're not gay, does it bother you that there is gay porn on the internet (or vice versa)? No, at least it should not. You can't make a case for censorship in any form based on one particular thing you don't like. There is no one size fits all solution, and any attempt will probably cause more annoyance and innocent censorship :)
Re:In Related News... (Score:2, Insightful)
If Chirac had no strong connections to Mr Reagan it would have been inappropriate for him to attend the funeral and act like he was the man's bestest buddy.
I personally feel that beaming the images of a wife grieving for her late husband into living rooms around the world was far more tasteless than Chirac not attending the funeral... but thats me.
Re:Why is this shocking? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm an upper middle class white male. Given that, which of these is true:
Since you've offered a simple explanation for the supposed continued existence of racism, I really want to know whether I'm the source or target. If you can't pick one of those four and defend it, then shut up and admit that society is a lot more complex than you're making it out to be.
I would like to know... (Score:2, Insightful)
The EU is going to have a very tough time enfocing this since most people on the internet now use Google, and Google is a US based company. And since the first ammendment still exists in the US, and is not going to go away in the forseeable future, this kind of censoring will never happen. For your convience:
Amendment I (1791) Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Re:Free Speech (Score:4, Insightful)
Not that adults couldn't benefit from this as well. One of the best moments from Politically Incorrect (which used to be one of my favorite shows) was when David Duke (former head of the KKK) was on, talking about the supposed supremacy of European culture, values, knowledge, etc, and some unknown day time tv star ended up arguing him extremely effectively. Think of what a big blow it would be to racist organizations if their chief spokesman regularly lost a debate to a friggin soap star.
The more we know about their arguments, the better equipped we are to defeat them.
Re:Why is this shocking? (Score:2, Insightful)
Now, all of you, get some fucking perspective. This isn't some left vs. right or Capitalist Pig vs Pinko Commie thing. This is basic human nature.
The people in power will attempt to stifle the ideas they disagree with. Period. The USA has a good track record for allowing 'disagreeable' speech but you don't have to go far to find censorship there.
Re:Racists should have free speech as well. (Score:3, Insightful)
Hate speech is repugnant, but banning it is even worse.
But the EU doesn't consider antisemitism hatespeak (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:saying this for years myself (Score:4, Insightful)
For christ's sake, people, get over it, leave your neighbours alone, and get on with living your life in your own little community and you'll be happier for it.
^ That's the fucking truth.
Re:Why is this shocking? (Score:5, Insightful)
That proves there's no freedom of expression at all in France today. Yes, you can say anything at all, as long as you don't criticize [Hitler | Stalin | Fidel | Mao | The Pope | Elvis | Jay Leno], but who would do that anyway? Freedom of speech means being allowed to say anything, no matter how controversial or disgusting it may be.
Re:Why is this shocking? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Why is this shocking? (Score:3, Insightful)
That's why I, as a parent, don't let the kids see news channels until I see what's playing. I didn't get the choice of screening Ms. Janet's chest. That is why people were upset.
Re:Why is this shocking? (Score:2, Insightful)
Learn some history (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:In Related News... (Score:2, Insightful)
To begin with, that wasn't just any old man's funeral. That was a funeral for the former President of a country whom you are (suppossed) to be allied with. Attending a funeral is not going to improve anyone's political position, certainly not if they aren't invited to speak.
Imagine how the French or Germans would feel if President Bush was invited to attend a funeral for one of their great leaders, when he was already on European soil, and had no great matters to attend to. Hell, we're at war and President Bush attended the funeral. It took him away from things for pretty much the entire day I'm sure. I doubt it would have seriously inconveinced any of them to stay.
I guess the point I am trying to make is that paying respect for the dead, particularly of a man who had a great and positive effect on the entire world, may be seen by some cynics as a way to improve your social or political standing, but that the feelings of such cynics should not stop you from doing what is simply the right thing.
Re:Why is this shocking? (Score:1, Insightful)
Spoken like a stereotypical brainwashed eurotrash.
Re:Why is this shocking? (Score:5, Insightful)
Advertising for a four hour erection... Absolutely!
Three hours of men beating each other to a bloody pulp over a ball... You Betcha!
Flash a little boobie... WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!11!!oneone
[yawn]
Anti-Israel speech needs to be legal (Score:5, Insightful)
-
"We were very disturbed by Scott Simon's question to interviewee Richard Ben Cramer (June 12, 2004 "Weekend Edition"): "is there still a need for Israel to exist?" "
-
They're unhappy about Mel Gibson's "Passion of the Christ [thejewishweek.com].
-
They're unhappy about The Financial Times publishing a letter by the Ambassador from one of the Arab League countries. [adl.org]
-
They're unhappy about the United Nations Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People. [adl.org] They think it's too one-sided.
None of this stuff is hate speech. These are political statements.This issue tends to be framed in terms of "Nazis", but the Nazis died out a long time ago. Today's issues revolve around Israel vs. its Arab neighbors, Israel vs. its Palestinian population, and US support of Israel. The ADL has a major cow whenever the anti-Israel side of those issues gets major press in the US. (Interestingly, the domestic Israeli press criticizes the government of Israel over these issues frequently, but the ADL doesn't get mad at the Jerusalem Post.)
There's a real political question as to whether continued support of Israel is in the interest of the United States. It's important to Israel's survival to divert serious poliical debate on that issue. That's the real meaning of this "anti-hate-speech" push. It's not about Nazis.
Re:Why pick on the internet. (Score:1, Insightful)
Your analogy isn't acurate, however. A telephone conversation can reasonably be assumed to be a point to point communication. The Internet and especially www pages are more akin to broadcast media, which is regulated for content in every country I know of.
Re:Learn some history (Score:4, Insightful)
The least we could do? There is, IMO, no reason that we SHOULD do or are obligated to do anything for anyone. I mean, people have been murdering others for the entirety of human history. How is forcing people to remember the Holocoust gonna change that? It won't. People will still murder others like crazy.. sometimes it will amount to mass genocide.
What if I truly want to disbelieve that the whole thing ever happened? Government agencies can pass all the laws they want, but making it illegal to say something didn't happen isn't going to convince me or anyone else that it did, in fact, happen.
The point is that government is not and should not be there to limit the freedoms of anyone. Me saying that the Holocoust didn't happen doesn't affect anyone else's freedoms. It may offend some people, but that is their problem. They choose to be offended at what I say. Therefore, it's their problem.
Here comes the -1: Troll!
Re:In Related News... (Score:3, Insightful)
Yet you assume that Chirac not attending the funeral was him "Sending message that he didnt like the united states". In any case, perhaps he doesnt, and would be within his rights not to. His descion to attend a man's funeral should be based on his relationship with the man not the state.
Hell, we're at war and President Bush attended the funeral.
I do hope you are kidding! You are at war and your president takes time off to play golf and go on holiday.
Re:Free Speech (Score:3, Insightful)
Seems to be resisting? (Score:3, Insightful)
Far fetched? Not a bit. It's been done. A kid in a school said, "I think homosexuals are going to hell," during a classroom discussion. He was expelled for hate speech. While I disagree with his beliefs, I wouldn't call it hate speech, but the school did.
The U.S. government can NOT ban hate speech. They can arrest people for "inciting to riot" or a host of other criminal offenses related to speech, but they they can't impose a blanket ban.
Europe needs to realize that, unlike them, we take our Constitution dead serious and don't allow compromise.
Re:Why is this shocking? (Score:3, Insightful)
What are you talking about? YOU GET FREE TELEVISION. This isn't a Movie you rent that says, "Brief Nudity, Mature Language..."
Be thankful you get Television in the first place and through Marketing/Advertising dollars you get to be entertained without costing you beyond the cost of a television set. When HDTV arrives and you become forced to either choose Satellite or Cable, then bitch about not having the right to descriminate. You'll still have no foundation since changing the channel still resides in your hands.
You are a prude when you can't fathom the natural phenomenon of human nudity as a normal part of human existence.
The top parent poster is right. People who bitch about the breast being exposed have deep seeded neuroses that go to the core of America's extreme Moral Minority who feel they know what is best and how to define the terms Liberty and Justice for All, Freedom for All.
Try being a German... (Score:5, Insightful)
I happen to think they're wrong, but when it comes to the danger of racist demagoguery, they have a very direct and painful perspective on the matter that you don't appreciate.
Re:Freedom is worth it (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why is this shocking? (Score:5, Insightful)
"involves nudity, or strong language, or unpopular opinions, or bad comments about the president during a time of "war," or graphic images of destruction, or....""
Well, let's try this one out:
1: Nudity. Pornography is legal in the United States, so long as it is not child pornography, and so long as it is not displayed in public (e.g. broadcast TV).
2: Strong language. Again, legal unless it's in public, and even there, it's rarely an issue. There are 14 words that can't be said on broadcast TV or radio. You can say whatever you want on cable.
3: Bad comments. No problem there. Many prominent figures, including John Kerry, are saying "bad things" about the president. Remember, there is a difference between something being "legal" and it being "acceptable". Kerry can't say but so much or he would alienate the public. Note also that you may have liability with libel/slander, but this is extremely difficult to prove in the US (you must prove that the comments were untrue, intended to be damaging, and that they actually did damage).
4: Graphic images. The media has made a choice not to broadcast such images. It is not illegal to broadcast such images. Many websites in the US do just this.
Now, on the "US media sucks" point, I agree 100%. Fortunately, newspapers and public radio are far better than cable news. There are plenty of high-quality, objective news sources in the US. But most of them aren't on cable TV.
Patriot act? Anyone? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Why is this shocking? (Score:3, Insightful)
I love how anti-Americans always bring up US racism. I talked to a bunch of Indian expats in France, and they had plenty of complaints about similar or worse problems over there compared to the US. France also recently banned its Muslim citizens from wearing headscarves and making a living at the same time, not to mention Germany's insanely restrictive citizenship policy.
Re:America is the King of Free Speech (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's not complacent, we still have a long way to go.
Re:In Related News... (Score:3, Insightful)
I guess the point I am trying to make is that paying respect for the dead, particularly of a man who had a great and positive effect on the entire world...
First of all, that's a load of crap for any number of reasons. Here's a quick bulleted list to get the fact that Reagan was a raving psychopath and a flat out asshole out of the way:
Whether or not Reagan actually played any heavy role in the downfall of communism - an already failing system in many places - is extremely debateable.
That said, maybe Chirac wouldn't have snubbed us if Bush hadn't thumbed his nose at the entire world, turned his back, and marched off beating his own drum. Funny how that works, isn't it? People don't take real kindly to being insulted like that - especially when they're on the soil of a nation that has, for the last 50 years, made cruel sport of the person's nationality for no particularly good reason. It's called international diplomacy, and our current president has failed miserably at it. Now, you people are surprised that the rest of the world bites its thumb at us? Cripes.. pull your heads out of your own asses before you suffocate... you only get respect if you earn it.
Eliminating ENVY and GREED (Score:1, Insightful)
1. Everyone gets the same thing. The entire human race is then achored by its dumbest and laziest members. "To each according to his needs" has failed miserably everywhere it's been tried, though.
2. Change human nature. Good luck there.
Unfortunately, people will always envy those that have more money, fuck prettier women, live in bigger houses, and so on. And people will always want more money, bigger houses, or prettier girlfriends/better-looking boyfriends. If that weren't the case, we'd still be living in caves drawing pictures of antelopes and three-fingered hands on the walls.
Rights and responsibilities (Score:3, Insightful)
The Nazis gave us a warning from history about the potentially lethal power of the spoken word. one of the most technically advanced and civilised nations on Earth was whipped into a frenzy of mass hysteria by the power of words. The holocaust should never have happened, it should never be forgotten, and it must never happen again.
The right to free speech is not absolute, nor should it be. There are more pressing rights such as the right to life. Where one conflicts with the other, it is the right to life that must prevail.
Re:Why is this shocking? (Score:3, Insightful)
Two hundred years, huh? And when was it that you repealed the laws on slavery exactly?
No one else except perhaps Britain can match that
Nah, we learned everything we need to know about freedom from the USA. Really. We'd still be in mud huts if it wasn't for the American people bringing us freedom and civilization.
Re:Why is this shocking? (Score:5, Insightful)
As for Janet's little stunt, yes it was sort of retarded of her/them, but seriously, what damage did it do? Was a picture of Janet's tit permanently etched to your kid's retina? Yes, your kid saw someones tit... Not to be a troll, but why the fuck is that a problem? It was pretty innocent, and you sort of go over the top when you express your moral indignation about something that trivial... On the other hand, I live on the other side of the pond, so... I might not have the right mindset... ?
Our news stations were asking how you americans managed to procreate when you were so upset at seeing a *gasp* breast... With the lights off maybe? With gloves on? hmm....
Yes, I know, it's not that simple, and not every one of you shares the same opinion on this etc, but for chrissake, those of you that are capable of rational thought, slap a little sense into your poor rationaly challenged countrymen...
I'll probable be modded down... Oh well...
Re:Why is this shocking? (Score:5, Insightful)
the whole act was a display of acting 'sexy', the showing of the nipple just bummed it less sexy if anything.
if you didn't want your kids to see a nipple(or anything sexual) you shouldn't have been letting them watch the show anyways. booty ass shaking was more than expected from the show, even more expected than what any breaking news murder at 7th street newsblurb would ever be.
-
Re:Anti-Israel speech needs to be legal (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why is this shocking? (Score:2, Insightful)
Allowing the government to determine what is or isn't harmful is a "bad thing" because once you give the government an inch (or centimeter for you Europeans) they'll run with it and take much more than a mile. Good intentions notwithstanding, people should be allowed to say what they want - although I agree with punishment for abuse like you said.
Thanks
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why is this shocking? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes You DID ! What did you think you were watching? A previously recorded, edited broadcast? No! It was LIVE. That means anything can happen, including "wardrobe malfunctions", and it won't be edited. Either accept your choices, or choose differently (ie, watch a later edited version).
The cold, hard, sad reality. (Score:1, Insightful)
Case in point: This semester, in my English class, my teacher presented, as a case in point, the story of a professor at a university in the southern US. My teacher presented this man's story as the basis of an expsoitroy essay I was to write, either supporting or denying the right to free speech. This professor wrote an article advocating child pornagraphy. As you can imagine, there was a public outcry, with the end result being that the state's legislature withheld the value of the professor's salary from the university's bugetary allocation for that year. The state legislature was sending the university a message. In my essay, I advocated the right of the professor to speek freely, without fear of pursecution, on whatever ideas he wished.
I received 99% for that essay. My English teacher also teaches my Ancient Civilization class. Somehow, in that class, we came to the topic of free speech (I think it was in relation to the limits the Romans put on their citizenry in terms of criticizing the state). I, again, advocated the right of free speech for all the obvious reasons. My teacher proceded, in front of the entire class, to proclaim that I "was that guy that advocated pedophilia". So, by advocating people's right to free speech, I became a pedophile advocate.
For the record and in no uncertain terms, I only ever advocated the right to free speech. My teacher, this lousy, disingenuous, malicious son of a bitch, a man who belives himself to be a "liberal", labelled me a pedophile advocate in front of the whole class. You know what? It stuck. People now think I believe in pedophilia. The question I have for those of you advocating limits to free speech is, are you like my teacher? My experience is, you probably are. I have found that, generally, those that would like to limit speech are usually the first ones to use it to control, abuse or malign others. Just so you know, you are a known quantity. People like you are known in this world. Your terrible, destructive mechanations are well undertood. IMHO, you are a scourge of the planet; indeed, it's people like *you* whose actions should be limited, not the other way around. That you are allowed to operate as you do, indeed, that you feel entitled to your behavior, is disturbing and troubling.
Re:Freedom is worth it (Score:3, Insightful)
That sounds extremely noble in writing, but I doubt many people including yourself would actually be willing to die in order to prevent a law such as this one from being passed.
First of all, it ain't about one law, it's about living in a country that believes in freedom and democracy. In order for people to be truly free and for democracy to work, people must be able to express their opinions, no matter how vile they may seem.
And second of all, I was commenting on freedom being something worth fighting and dying for. If you doubt that people are willing to give their lives to live free, then I have a couple of elderly veterans who would beg to differ with you.
The greatest threat to democracy is not Al Qaeda. It's not terrorism. It's not fascism, socialism, communism, or any other 'ism you can conjure. the greatest threat to democracy is apathy.
Re:Why is this shocking? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Free Speech (Score:4, Insightful)
I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.
And I don't care what anyone says, my liberty trumps your sense of security (not necessarily your *safety*, but rather your misguided *sense* of safety).
Re:Why is this shocking? (Score:3, Insightful)
Whats a matter did someone get modded down?
"The fact is that anyone in power will stifle whatever they please. Or was Janet Jackson permitted her nipple exposure?"
No that is what the constitution is there for. Get it now?
"Jesus, you Americans and your so-called Free Speech and your worthless Constitution."
Well no bigotry there....You don't like it or us fuck off. See that is the down side of free speech. It mean anyone can express their opinion and not get arrested.
"Haven't you noticed that the Constitution is worth its weight in paper and nothing else?"
Want to bet? I am with my life. I have with my life and if I have to I will again.
"Haven't you noticed all the crap that's being done in the "land of the free" to remove those so-called freedoms?"
Not beyond the basics life liberty and the pursuing of happiness the right to peaceably assemble
"The US is no less censored nor restricted than France or Germany, it's merely done in different ways and in different spheres."
Actually it is. The neo nazis even have marches and web sites here. Because no matter how asinine the thought they are allowed to express it.
Define Hate? (Score:2, Insightful)
For example:
Many Liberals call what conservatives say is hate speech. Would this then be banned on the internet? Or Radio? Or even from being mentioned in public?
If so, welcome to Germany 1939.
Re:Seems to be resisting? (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm sorry, but when was the right to a fair trial removed from the Constitution? Me thinks locking someone up without charge would technically be unconstitutional.
Re:Why is this shocking? (Score:5, Insightful)
It is illegal in the US to kill a black. It is also illegal to tell someone to kill a black. It becomes a gray area to say that blacks should be killed. It's OK to say that you don't like blacks.
France for instance, partly because of its past, equates the statement "I love Hitler" with the intent to commit a crime. The US doesn't. But you have to see that it's all the same continuum of actions, with each country drawing the line at a slightly different place.
Re:Freedom is worth it (Score:5, Insightful)
The Constitution is worth fighting and dying for. The moment it becomes just another piece of paper we use to wipe our ass with - an end some seem to be working for - then freedom in the United States is truly dead.
To say that either France or Germany, or any country which uses the government to muzzle it's citizenry (no matter how offensive the views suppressed might be to the majority) is just as free as America is fucking ludicrous. Free speech is the basis of all other freedoms, a point which seem rather self-evident not only to my American founding fathers, but many of their French counterparts as well.
The French seem to have forgotten that. With any luck, others like myself and the previous poster - who take our oaths seriously - will make sure that America doesn't go the same way. Violently, if necessary. We owe it to ourselves, our children, and all the others who've died before us defending those very freedoms.
Max
Re:Why is this shocking? (Score:2, Insightful)
Sometimes rights conflict. The right of free speech and public safety as in the case of yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. However, most of the time when the right to free speech is challenged there is a clear conflict between exercising that right and the public good.
In the case of child porn there is a victim. The child must be protected and therefore you don't have a right to express yourself by taking pictures of under aged children engaged in sex acts.
In the case of hate messages it is less clear that there is a victim. Yes, it is possible that hateful posts could incite an unstable person into doing violence but so could a Rambo movie.
Re:Effect? (Score:3, Insightful)
"It was intended that when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all and Oldspeak forgotten, a heretical thought ... should be literally unthinkable, at least so far as thought is dependent on words."
Where "heretical" is meant to apply to anything that "certain people" don't agree with
Re:Why is this shocking? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:No Universal Freedom Of Religion (Score:4, Insightful)
Show me where it says that in the Koran and I'll stand corrected. But it's not in the Koran, so I don't think there's any danger of me having to do that.
Re:Why is this shocking? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why is this shocking? (Score:1, Insightful)
Imagine if you wrote a book or a song with "Fire!" over and over. Would this have the same effect on your audience as shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre? One of these forms is protected, while the other is a false alarm, and is harrassment (I think).
If I walk around on the street telling people to kill (a) black(s), I am being harrassing, because it is generally accepted that what I am saying is highly offensive... especially if these people are complete strangers and I have no other reason to speak to them. But, if I decide to publish a book with a list of blacks that I believe should be killed, I'm much less likely to be considered troublesome for that (although definitely I would be considered an idiot and a racist either way).
If saying something one way gets you in trouble, and you can't say it in another way either, you don't have freedom of speech. Society is one of those tricky fuzzy things with a whole assload of really really complicated rules. Books are usually safe to say whatever. Webpages, I think, also ought to be, and even more-so, since the Internet is not regulated by any one group/country (or at least shouldn't be).
Also, just for the records, I like blacks. I like swing and classical jazz but I don't like new age or hip-hop. I don't like white people who have money, because most of them really get on my nerves.
Re:Why is this shocking? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why pick on the internet. (Score:2, Insightful)
No, they are akin to print media. One might even argue they share identity. Some courts certainly have.
KFG
Socialism and free speech (Score:4, Insightful)
You seem to have missed out the part where you attempt to justify this sentence. Socialism and free speech are two completely different concepts that have no bearing on one another.
Free speech has been stifled by left-leaning governments, and right-leaning governments.
A more valid statement would be:
"Governments and stifling free speech go hand in hand."
Re:Why is this shocking? (Score:3, Insightful)
(ABC could even use Maniacal Wood-Sprouting Al Michaels' wardrobe malfunction as a message from their sponsor, Levitra. "Do you believe in miracles!?! YES!!!")
Re:Why pick on the internet. (Score:4, Insightful)
As such, it is not just logical, but natural and desirable that the government would assume a role of active regulation of electromagnetic spectrum resources in order to ensure that these resources are used in a manner that maximizes the efficiency of the resource and the public good.
No such rationale of any sort exists with the internet, the data on which, despite in certain ways seeming to be conceptually broadcast-like in nature, is transferred on consensual request in a point-to-point fashion over privately held communication lines with bandwidth rations for each individual party that are managed in a natural and orderly fashion.
Can you name one single country in the world, not counting I guess China, where the content of cable television is regulated? There aren't any, are there? I would say this is an even better analogy, and even cable is more reasonable as a target for regulation than the internet because cable television networks are often granted special privileges from the government (i.e. use of public property and imminent domain rights). The internet is private parties communicating by medium of signals transferred by way of other private parties. The government has no place in overseeing this communication.
Re:Why is this shocking? (Score:3, Insightful)
IANAL, but impossible necessary things don't stop being necessary, just because they are impossible. They're just impossible, and because they are necessary to the definition of a "Free" state, just like Microsoft produces non-Free software, they define western governments in general as non-Free. That in this particular case, it's quite legitimate for a French or a German not to be reminded every day of a lost loved one, or that a lost loved one may have been a war criminal, because that would border on harassment in many jurisdictions, means we have a hard(NP-Hard) problem.
How do we prevent an ideology who has been found guilty in court of crimes against humanity, from being hate and race-based, from promoting itself as hate and race-based? How many radical groups attract converts, not for their ideology or their ideas, but "who they are against"? When "who they are against" are a group of people that cannot be "discriminated against"(circa laws against discrimination in your own jurisdiction), you have two people who are arguing the position of a comma in a law. You have one person's face, and one person's fist, and the law becomes just how hard the fist has to hit before it's a crime...
As I said this is a hard problem, how do you determine the difference between the meaning of two relatively innocuous terms: National and Socialist, who basically mean "Us" and "Together", and their use as the label of a party who was identified as the perpetrator of (the numbers aren't all agreed on in all particulars) anywhere between 6 and 26 million dead. How do you tell the difference between "they had good words"(defensible, at least in the abstract, humans have defined "Us" vs "Them" since time immemorial) and "they had the right idea in killing those people"(which cannot be entertained lightly by a consciencious, sane human being even in numbers in single digits: I am trying to clarify the process in which law enforcement can express its reasoning here, because I believe that such a law enforcement process has to be transparent and understandable to someone without a law degree, not presenting my views). How do ideologies of damage and destruction can be defended, or find new converts, when the damage and the destruction itself are "not guaranteed rights" even when their espression in their abstract are inalienable rights? In this case, I'd redirect our readers to look a little closer to home, perhaps to Criminal Biker Gangs, who commit crimes, and where law enforcement officials demand methods to deal with such organised groups, and who are often denied, because "the right of association" is paramount; indeed it is paramount, yet its application, aka the details can certainly be argued for a more contextual interpretation: while the right to join into a group may certainly be a right, when this right is used to cover evidence of one or more crimes, we have to pick our poison... In light of the Enron and Worldcom scandal, we can also wonder just how many "legal associations" have been turned into a sham for using "rights" to hide evidence of crimes, or to protect those who think such schemes up from prosecution. How many people are hurt by such crimes? How many lives broken? What about the purchasing of political power through less-than-legal methods? Is a country where millions are affected by such crimes less or more free?
How can we tell? We usually can't, usually because the small, yet emotional cases can certainly be used as cover, for the large, unemotional cases that really affect our daily lives in a significant manner. How many policemen checking for "illegal content" do European governments in general have to task to finding paraphernalia vs locating child porn traders?
Europe is not more or less free than America or Canada, no, we're all non-free, to the last of us.
Re:Learn some history (Score:3, Insightful)
Ah, so you're "merely" forbidding lies. In that case, why stop there? How about we start up a big honking LIST of lies to forbid? We can set up a Ministry of Information to decide which lies deserve to go on the forbidden list.
(Note: "forbid" here is a euphemism of IMPRISONING PEOPLE)
furthermore, it is the least we can do for survivors and the families of victims
Families of victims? That would be me.
It's the least you can do you me? Thanx but no thanx.
Let the schmucks run off at the mouth all they like.
It is nothing to look down upon, in particular not for Americans.
Well this American, this family member of several victims, *is* looking down on it.
You don't imprison people at gunpoint just because you don't like what they say. You don't imprison people at gunpoint simply because they are idiots. The world is full of all sorts of idiots. If we are going to run around imprisoning the various flavors of idiots then I suggest we put the censorship-advocates first on the list.
-
Re:Another example of classic American reasoning (Score:3, Insightful)
Funny thing is, what you wrote could be considered hate speech, and therefore not allowed.
Re:Why is this shocking? (Score:5, Insightful)
OK, then how about premeditated versus non-premeditated murder versus murder in self defense.
There's no such think as murder in self defense - if it's legitimate self defense, then it's just killing.
come down to earth (Score:3, Insightful)
That door has already been opened in the US: you may be able to defame minority groups, but you can't defame beef, milk, or trademarks. Likewise, you face restrictions on other kinds of speech: there are limits on the copyrighted content you can include in your speech, and as the Scientologists show, those can be made to stick. There are limits on how you can use trademarks in US speech. Etc.
No, what rankles people like you about these kinds of laws is that they are foreign restrictions on US speech. But every nation has restrictions on speech, every nation tries to export their restrictions, and every nation is successful to some degree at that.
Freedom is expensive, but it's something worth fighting and dying for.
Terrorists believe they are dying for freedom, and you can see what US attitudes towards terrorists are--people who blow things up and fight the US government. Face it: fighting and dying for freedoms is neither acceptable nor effective anymore, and it is becoming less so.
Re:Why is this shocking? (Score:3, Insightful)
How bout you do yourself, and your kids, some justice and take your TV out into the middle of a forest, shoot it a few times, then go back to the store and pick up a computer for each kid, a family computer, and a fast internet connection (DSL or cable). Put it in their rooms, let em' go crazy, and make sure you tell them "if you've got any question, ANY question, ask me" and when they come up to you with the enivitablly crazy questions, don't get pissed, talk with em'.
"But we love the TV, the TV is our friend"
All the god box ever brought anyone is a cheap way for you to zone out for a few hours and do nothing. What about your dreams? Where are those every night you come home? Do you want to wake up one day, suddenly 60, and realize "I'v done nothing with my life, accept sit on this couch, and watch this TV".
Here's a challenge; go one week without TV. Find something else to do.
Re:your liberty to defame is already limited (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't give a rats ass about being the "victim of speech" from some schmuck. However if I am a victim of an actual non-speech crime then throw the fscker in prison.
But by your likely economic status alone, chances are that you aren't, even if you are Jewish or homosexual or a member of another minority that is the target of hate speech.
I dunno about the original poster, but I qualify.
When you add up jews and homosexuals and blacks and muslims and asians and latinos and native americans and whoever else, it's damn near 50% of the US population. Several US states are substantially over 50% "minority".
I'll stick with the Stormfront.org assholes who get thrown in prison if/when they pull out a gun. They are much prefferable to government assholes pulling out guns and throwing people in prison because they don't like what someone says.
-
Re:Balance between conflicting rights... (Score:4, Insightful)
This is kinda like yelling 'weapons of mass destruction' when they dont exist.
and we could count the 9/11 attacks as the largest hate crime of all time.
On the grand scale, 9/11 was a small isolated incident. If you want to see large hate crimes, go read the history books regarding events of world war 2. Even recent history contains many examples of much greater magnitude than 9/11. Go read up on Bosnia and Somalia for just a couple recent examples. As much as americans want to believe 9/11 changed the world, and is justification for wars and invasions, it was truely a small isolated incident on the overall scale of this world.
The hypocracy of americans trying rationalize the slanted views never ceases to amaze me. If China throws a few 'inusurgents' in jail for political reasons, it's a 'violation of human rights'. If america throws a few into a jail in cuba with no trials, and no rights to defend against accusations, thats 'for the good of the people'. The amazing part is, americans cant see the hypocracy of it, and they actually believe the drivel from the politicians about 'well, this is different, human rights dont apply when its us doing the afflicting'.
Americans talking about 'rights and freedoms' these days is just a laff for the rest of the world. Go take a look at any newscast from the last couple of months. America has demonstrated clearly how they view human rights. USA doesn't have to take second place to any third world dictatorship when it comes to invading another country, setting up jails for political prisoners, or establishing systematic torture treatment for political prisoners. GW wanted to show the world that he's as good as the best of them at running the show, and he's proved it. He doesn't have to take a second seat to Saddam for anything, quite capable of matching all the deeds. Now the rest of the world just isn't paying attention to any of the 'rights and freedoms' drivel coming forth from america anymore. It's cheap talk for the press, not something to actually practise.
I'm sure I'll get modded troll into oblivion for this, but wtf, I've got karma to burn, and if it opens the eyes of a single american voter, it's worth it. To be taken seriously on the world stage, you have to practise what you preach. Until a couple years ago, usa was given credit for doing just that, but not anymore. Anybody willing to step back and look at facts, ignoring the political spin, can see it pretty plainly. If americans truely believe in 'rights and freedoms', regime change is in order. Luckily, they have the mechanism to do it legally. Time will tell, we will find out in November if they truely believe in rights and freedoms, or if they they approve of the new role of oppressive invader with total disregard for even the most basic of human rights.
Much US BS : Kaplan would be in Guantanamo already (Score:4, Insightful)
While I agree on that it's not an easy issue, it should be taken into account that speech is just about as free in germany and other western countries as it is in the US. Somebody like Kaplan for instance - a large type islam-fundamentalistic asshole - who has cause serious trouble in germany with so-called 'hate speech' and simular things can still walk around rather unhindred in germany, where as in the o-so-free-speech US they would've locked him away already for some dubious one-size-fits-all terrorist threat possibility charges or whatnot. Try to say 'f*ck' 'sh*t' and 'motherf*cker' on TV or even on slashdot and see how far you can get. How's that for free-speech? It's all got quite some US bias, this discussion.
This whole free speech issue is just a problem because some people in the US insist on officially threatening and insulting other people and call 'constitution!' whenever someone wants to get them for it. And even judges limit free speech in the US when it comes so far as what the germans call 'Volksverhetzung'. If I were to stand up and officially ask for the public to storm the white house and take down the goverment or fly some planes into public buildings the US authorities would take me in, free speech or not. Just like they would in germany. And for good reasons to.
As you see, the differences aren't that big as one may think.
So to those bias-ridden comentators here: Just quit the rubbish your blowing out of your behind about the 'rest of the world' as opposed to the o-so-free US. It's not all that differenta situation alltogether.
The Bible is hate speech (Score:3, Insightful)
This Armenian Genocide (Score:3, Insightful)
Contrary to popular belief.. (Score:3, Insightful)
There are a lot of good reasons to stop "some" speech.
Consider:
- "Hi, Im William H. Vanderbilt, could I get a free ride on this here staten ilse ferry?" (I am not William H. Vanderbilt)
- "Fuck you cop"
- "Ill shoot you dead"
Three easy examples of were speech is limited.
Is it a good thing to ban "hate" speech? Hell, I dont know, define "hate"
"/Dread"
Re:Balance between conflicting rights... (Score:3, Insightful)
Insightful? More like Redundant. (Score:1, Insightful)
I hate America. I hate Reagan. I hate Bush.
Europe good, America bad.
*sigh* You're a walking, talking cliche and you don't even know it. Programmed to spew out someone else's thoughts.
I'm no Republican conservative, so save your ad hominems, but here's a suggestion...go study what Reagan actually did for the economy and for the destruction of communism. Study a mixture of the left wing rantings that you like so much, and some right wing glorification, and some *gasp* independent analysis. Factor in the good with the bad. If you do this honestly and dilligently, you will see what a true patriot, skilled statesman, and great overall president Reagan actually was.
p.s. Isn't it amusing that Reagan's hate-filled detractors stopped calling it "Reaganomics" when it began to turn the sour economy around?
Parent much? (Score:2, Insightful)
Your job is to explain this world to them, not to shelter them from it. Nipples are unavoidable. Why not take the five minutes to explain what a nipple is, why it's been demonized, and that it will make a lot more sense when she's older. Wait a year, repeat.
It should be a wake up call that so many people are willing to have the government automate their parenting.
Parenting is a responsibility. Own up to it or your child will pass on the same dysfunctions
There should be a 'Stupid' Mod option