Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government News

Europe Continues Work on Cybercrime Treaty 333

Posted by michael from the one-treaty-to-bind-them-all dept.
Tosta Dojen writes: "I haven't seen this posted yet, but the Council of Europe is proposing a ban on Internet 'Hate Speech'. Fortunately it looks like some intelligent comments are already being made." This is a continuation of the Cybercrime treaty, which we've mentioned before. Wired had a story about this a few days ago.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Europe Continues Work on Cybercrime Treaty More

Europe Continues Work on Cybercrime Treaty

Comments Filter:
  • Though I'd like to take a bat to the head of every nazi.
    I don't think it should be legal. Were's the fun in that.

    • Re:This is bad. (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Ya i agree with you.

      I'd love to take a bat to every muslim and christian .

      But i don't think it should be legal...

      oh what's this, you just advocated killing people over their idealogy?

      you hate criminal.
      • I am proud to say that I AM a National Socialist. It's hard to find us these days because we're underground and organizing. We're not skinheads or other white trash nobodies like so many who claim to be neo-Nazis. They would be one of the first to go. We're ordinary respectable people who want to live in a respectable world. We are fiercely nationalist and proud of our country and our race. As a consequence we are anti-globalization, anti-world governement and anti-captialist. We are coming back.

  • This is not right (Score:2, Informative)

    by G-funk ( 22712 )
    This is not right at all. I know that (especially in America) people are afraid of being called a racist more than death itself, but that's beside the point. Every racist should be able to have his opinion, and he should be able to share it with his fellow racists.

    The world is headed down a scary path, and this is just one of the early steps...
    • Personally, I don't think someone should be allowed to share his opinion when this opinion is that killing people because of some arbitrary criteria is the way to go. Especially scince they tend to act after their opinion.

      • Re:This is not right (Score:5, Insightful)

        by leviramsey ( 248057 ) on Saturday February 23, 2002 @06:53AM (#3056629) Journal
        Personally, I don't think someone should be allowed to share his opinion when this opinion is that killing people because of some arbitrary criteria is the way to go. Especially scince they tend to act after their opinion.

        I dispute that contention. While (p(x) = "x commits hate crimes") implies (q(x) = "x is racist/whatever"), the converse does not hold. Judging by the amount of racist material that gets posted here on Slashdot and Usenet, especially if you browse at -1, I would expect there to be a lot more racist crime in this world than there is.

        • Alot of the 'racists' posting on slashdot like Ralph Nader Jew Hater, are joking. I personally find some of his posts humorous and refreshing.

        • Re:This is not right (Score:3, Insightful)

          by root_42 ( 103434 )
          The problem is, that people will actually listen to what those racists say. We had that here in Germany, remember? The people who post racist stuff on the internet may not be the ones committing the crime, but they will make others do it!
          And consider this: You might be into free speech, so are we all! But racists, facists and the like don't give shit about it. You might want to fight with fair weapons and defend everyone's rights! But they don't!
          So how should we solve this mess?

        • Re:This is not right (Score:1, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward
          Judging by the amount of racist material that gets posted here on Slashdot and Usenet, especially if you browse at -1, I would expect there to be a lot more racist crime in this world than there is.

          Why do you think judges are completly stupid? There is a huge difference between the occasionnal racist, and the one holding a whole library of nazi books, involved in fights against foreigners, in burning asylum seeker houses, shouting publically "you <...censored...>" etc... and even more so, neo-nazi political parties in Europe willing to publish officially there nazi propaganda and revisionnism on the WWW. It's seems that some Americans have absolutly no sense of subtleties, nuances or shades. You're comparing Slashdot material to actual neonazi stuff makes me wonder if you have even the slightest remote idea of what is said in some places. As for it not being dangerous, remember Nazi/Hitler were democratically elected, such is the power of *propaganda*.

      • Personally, I don't think someone should be allowed to share his opinion when this opinion is that killing people because of some arbitrary criteria is the way to go. Especially scince they tend to act after their opinion
        Let me start by saying I am not a rasist.
        Now most rasisum is not vilant in nature.
        Rasisum simply means that you think your suprior to other races.
        And most rasists are all talk.
        Now if they passed a law agant making threats on peoples lives in genral that would be a good idea (oh wait that already illegal).
      • While one might not agree with views of radicals and such that would post such hatful material on the net, a person must still look at the general principles of freedom. A person has the right to say or post what he wants. Just imagine Nazi germany, if radicals are in control of the government and what your saying goes against the majority (no matter how hateful their message might be), they could make the same argument for locking you up. Those who would stifle other peoples opinion just cause it goes against a persons sense of "right or wrong" are hypocrite's.
    • I think the book "The new thought police" says some stuff about this.
      Don't know haven't read it yet. Sounds cool though (the book I mean, I think the law is wrong).
    • "I know that (especially in America) people are afraid of being called a racist more than death itself"

      This argument makes little sense. Why would someone who think other races are inferior, be scared of someone calling them a racist? Racists do not care about that, or else they would probably not be racists. I think you mean that non-racists are scared of mistakenly being called racists for their positions on race-senstitive issues(immigration, to name one), which completely invalidates that part of your argument.

      The world will be heading down a scary path when we are tolerant of racism and when there are more racists at KKK, and Neo-nazi marches and public gatherings than there are non-racists. Right now, wherever these groups assemble their numbers are drowned in the sea of non-rascists assembling in opposition to their assembelage and their preaching of hate.

      • The world will be heading down a scary path when we are tolerant of racism and when there are more racists at KKK, and Neo-nazi marches and public gatherings than there are non-racists. Right now, wherever these groups assemble their numbers are drowned in the sea of non-rascists assembling in opposition to their assembelage and their preaching of hate.

        Wheres the problem here?
        People are rasists. This is a social problem.
        People are protesting the rasists. This is a social solution.
        Why get the government involved?
      • This argument makes little sense. Why would someone who think other races are inferior, be scared of someone calling them a racist? Racists do not care about that, or else they would probably not be racists. I think you mean that non-racists are scared of mistakenly being called racists for their positions on race-senstitive issues(immigration, to name one), which completely invalidates that part of your argument.

        I suppose you didn't get it:

        The problem is that these people are just being wiped out of (political) competition by other people who'll publicly call them racists, even though they are not.

        This also applies with a few jews who'll call nazis, intolerant people whoever might not agree with them. Luckily, these only consist of a minority.

        France had some big political issues because some politicians just got elected thanks to some extreme-right (us people would call them "moderate") votes. These politicians got called racists, or nazi and they can't even hope to be a part of the forthcomign campaign.
      • It's a huge problem. People who are not racists, are forced to do things against their better judgment, and when those people are in power, it costs the country that put them in power.

        Take for example the Australian government. They detain people who enter the country illegally until it can be determined wether they are refugees or simply illegal aliens. Unfortunately this means that some refugees are detained.

        Somebody yells "racist" in order to get their point across, and half the people around start yelling too, because they see that as the best way to avoid looking like a racist themselves. It's like homophobic name-calling. It's usually done by insecure males who are afraid of being labelled homosexual themselves. The fact is, that these people are allowed to have the opinion that all boat people are refugees and should be assimilated. I have the right to believe otherwise. And just because somebody labels my opinion as racist doesn't mean I should not be entitled to voice it.

        Just because (almost) everybody in set A possesses attribute B, it doesn't mean everybody who possesses B falls within A.

        The short of the matter is Xenophobia is a natural part of us. It's rational thought that allows us as a society to look past it.

        • Re:This is not right (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Duckie01 ( 10586 )
          The short of the matter is Xenophobia is a natural part of us. It's rational thought that allows us as a society to look past it.

          I can't disagree with you more. Xenophobia is not natural. People learn it. In speech. In behavior. It's a cultural thing.

          I know a kid, 5 years old. His parents are white, so so is he. They just moved to a new neighbourhood. The old neighbourhood was mostly white, so at school, his class was also mostly white. The new neighbourhood is multicultural, so at school, the class is also multicultural. With multicultural I mean people from all continents. It simply works that way when you're 6 years old and your parents are looking for a school nearby.

          Now if xenophobia is a natural part of us, please explain to me why this 5 year old kid had new friends both at school in his new neighbourhood almost instantly. His parents were still moving in, while he already played with his new friends.

          Xenophobia has been part of our culture for a long long time. Imagine you're one of our ancient forefathers, long ago. Those were rough times. If you messed up, you could be thrown out of the tribe. You were either friend or enemy.

          Black and white thinking like that leads to all kinds of strange behavior. Xenophobia is one of them. There's a lot of grey between the black and white, folks! In today's society, it's okay to be friendly to people you don't know! You have the best chance of getting a friendly reaction when *you* act friendly. By being friendly, you *make* people friendly.

          If you say that xenophobia is a natural part of us, you deny that you are responsible for your thinking, your opinion, your behavior *and* your mood!
          • Now if xenophobia is a natural part of us, please explain to me why this 5 year old kid had new friends both at school in his new neighbourhood almost instantly. His parents were still moving in, while he already played with his new friends.

            Are my blue eyes not natural, because not everybody has them? Is it natural to be short, since I'm 6'2"? Xenophobia is a natural thing. Just not to everybody. It's to those different to us be it the colour of our skin, or if we met somebody with 3 arms. It has to do with evolution, it's a natural reaction to those different - in order to preserve our genes we only wish to mix with (read mate with) those that exhibit similar qualities to our own.
            • Are my blue eyes not natural, because not everybody has them? Is it natural to be short, since I'm 6'2"?

              Those are physical aspects of a human body, while xenophobia is something you do. If you're xenophobic, it's the product of behavior and opinions you learned.

              Humans are kinda intelligent. They learn how to behave.

              Xenophobia is a natural thing.

              It's not. It's a behavior, hence it's learned. We learn behavior from people around us. We teach people around us how to treat us. That's part of our culture. I taught myself to be friendly to all people. Just by doing so. You learn what you do. What are you teaching yourself?

              Doesn't mean it's not part of the evolution, btw. We are part of the evolution, so our behavior is too. Our behavior determines the face of our planet nowadays.
              • Xenophobia is a natural thing.

                It's not. It's a behavior, hence it's learned.

                Fear of the unknown (different races, species, tribes...) is a hereditary, evolutional behaviour. Nobody taught us to fear snakes, heights, growling large animals with big pointy teeth, nor did anybody teach us to be attracted to rounded shapes with big eyes (children, puppies...) or the opposite sex. Don't fear biology, learn about it!
                Since the psychological term "phobia" relates to irrational or excessive fears, we need to be careful of what we label as xenophobia.
                • Nobody taught us to fear snakes, heights, growling large animals with big pointy teeth, nor did anybody teach us to be attracted to rounded shapes with big eyes (children, puppies...) or the opposite sex.

                  Well indeed people taught you that. Your parents taught you to be careful. In dark alleys. On a 'high' ladder. Standing on the couch. Talking to strangers. For weird looking dogs. Etcetera, careful careful careful. At first you're not allowed farther than the street you live at and they sometimes even get mad at you when you show more exploration drift than you're 'allowed', instead of guiding you into the new area. It's the message when you grow up, when you learn those things.

                  In the middle ages the 'ideal' woman didn't have big boobs and a flat tummy. Big boobs are 'in' now because they used to be forbidden to look at and it's no longer a sin. Well, depending where you live of course. You fall in love with whom you want to. People just don't know what they know hence they just 'feel' something.

                  What do you think happens if a multicultural family adopts a kid whose mother and father are convinced KKK members? Or a switch at birth time? How will the kid grow up and hence, behave?

                  You can put fears in people's minds and you can take them away. The whole difference is what the people know about the subject. People can overcome fear for dogs by seeing someone playing with a dog, then playing with a dog themselves, and so on. What's the difference? They no longer think it's something to fear.

                  I'm not afraid when someone points a pencil in my direction, but I start to worry deeply when someone points a gun in my direction. What's the difference? I *know* I can't be shot with a pencil... My knowledge makes the difference, not my genes.

                  Don't fear psychology, learn about it.

                  Hand,
                  A.
                  • I never enter arguments where people contend something is a natural law, in this case, xenophobia. You will pass water through solid objects before you can convince most of them. Valiant effort, though.
    • I know that (especially in America) people are afraid of being called a racist more than death itself, but that's beside the point. Every racist should be able to have his opinion, and he should be able to share it with his fellow racists.

      Especially in America? If you didn't notice, we aren't the ones passing anti-free-speech laws like this.
      • Three Words:

        Communications Decency Act [cdt.org].

        Passed (but struck down by the US Supreme Court (wooo! score one for Checks and Balances!)) overwhelmingly by the Senate in 1996. It's later version, dubbed The Son of CDA [cdt.org] arrived in 1998 and was passed, but that was struck down


        Don't think it doesn't happen.

      • Er... yes we are. Certain communities have made it illegal to wear certain types of clothing (i.e. the hoods worn by the Klan)

        Alright by me, really. Let them burn as many crosses as they want, as long as I get to snap pictures of their face with my Digicam to ship to the FBI.

    • Every racist should be able to have his opinion, and he should be able to share it with his fellow racists.

      G-funk is right. First, if an opinion is dumb or unfounded, then its propponents should be encouraged to voice it, especially in writing on the Internet, where cold, methodical analysis and refutation is practical.

      Granted, some opinions might make you cringe. You read that group/religion/race XYZ is slapped with attribute ABC and you don't like it. But if you shut the guy up, two interesting things happen:

      • The guy's opinion doesn't change. Actually, it's even reinforced. "Those stinkin' XYZ , they managed to shut me up 'cuz I blew the whistle on them for being ABC."
      • Politicians start figuring ways to use that new silencing weapon to smother criticism and opponents.

      It is very easy to depict a political opponents as a thought criminal. Especially when media concentration makes information control easier and easier. When you start censoring in the name of fighting hatred, you actually end up as a pawn of political censors who drape themselves in the robe of the guardians of morality. The Romans were already aware of this problem: "Who guards the guardians?"

      Don't get me wrong, I don't like to read racist/hateful sites or post on the Net. But who knows what opinion will turn out to be hateful?

      Example: you say Windows sucks. This means you believe a large population of engineers in Redmond have created a deficient contraption. Surely it cannot be voluntary. So these people are dumb. So you imply most Redmondians are dumbs. So this is racism against the state of Washington. Censor, please jail the man. Thanks.

      So to avoid that, I think I'll let people say and write that race X stinks, religion Y is mad, country Z is revolting. I'm so opposed to censorship I'll even let them write that the Earth is flat, that Windows is stable and that English food is good [stratsplace.com]!

      OK, scratch the latter. Pretending English food is good is too hideous a crime. :-)

      -- SysKoll
  • Even assuming it passes, how is such a thing enforcable.
    With the advent of p2p, and programs like Peek a Booty [theregister.co.uk] and freenet. How could someone even attemt to enforce it?
    I think all this would do is to force the large internet isp, and content providers eg: yahoo, excite, google, to either filter their content etc. Or, or what? How the heck would this be enforcable? Do you charge the isp with a crime if someone posts a hate crime on a news server?
    We have gone way overboard since post 9-11.
    Perhaps we can try to give each other just a little slack, I don't care what you call me, what did my mom used to say? "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words..."
    Enjoy your freedom to post while you can, pretty soon you might not have it.

  • Europe and (the absence of) free speech (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Banning hate speech from the internet won't be anything new. In many European countries (at the very least Sweden and Germany) hate speech is already forbidden in ordinary media.

    In Sweden people have been prosecuted for hosting nazi homepages so i guess this applies to the internet too in Swedish law.

    This, btw, has broad support among the people.

    The whole problem is that people are too pragmatic. They are prepared to throw the principles of democracy out the door to try to fix the neo-nazi problem.
  • I don't know how people might take this idea, but here goes.

    Personally I'm all for free speech, I think its great and think that's what the Internet should be filled with. However, it is the speech of which is practised that denounces the freedom of speech granted to others that should be banned. This includes and is not limited to:
    • Racism
    • Sites which encourage suicide
    • Site which encourage or teach Terrorism

    Sites which include this (and all its variations and others you can think of) would be the real life equivilant of holding a car rally against driving. You're using the very medium which you are against to deliver the message. In this case individuals utilize freedom of speech to produce hate sites, essentially these sites are attempting to rebuke the freedom of speech from others whom they deem 'unworthy'.

    The world is just a big ball of irony, ain't it?

    • I have one question: how does encouraging suicide qualify as denouncing freedom of speech? Yeah, I suppose that since dead people can't talk, suicide has reduced their freedom of speech, but it's suicide. It's not even Dr. Kevorkian strapping you to his death machine. It's something that's done of your accord, by definition.

      Also, is not suicide, in some if not many cases, itself an act of expression equivalent to speech?

    • Racism, n [dictionary.com]

      2. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
      3. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.


      Clearly, the belief that one class of person, based on their race, is superior to another and that this justifies discrimination in favour and against such persons is a political view. I disagree with that view strongly, but so what?

      It is extremely important that all political views can be raised and rebutted. There are many reasons for this, but two are particularly topical.

      1. Credibility. Some racists, especially those who deny the Holocaust, maintain that the only reasons their claimed "proofs" aren't given common currency is because of a global conspiracy of silence. Censorship of their views would make this paraniod claim true, and so give credibility where it is quite undeserved.

      2. Terrorism. In liberal democracies we believe that disputes should be settled by open debate and democratic choice. Those who disagree with the outcome - however much they believe they are in the right - are nonetheless expected to accept it anyway. Their only legitimate choice is to persuade through open democractic debate.

        If you take the option of attempted persuasion away from people, then those who believe passionately in something have no way to work within the system, and so are compelled to work outside it. This is what happened in the American War of Independence, and most such Wars of Independence. The word people who live within a peaceful system have for people who use violence outside it is "terrorist". Censorship creates terrorism.

        The law against incitement to violence is the appropriate limit of censorship. If you can show that a particular statement actually brought people into danger, then that is an abuse of free speech. Saying "immigrants should be whipped back through the Channel Tunnel" is obnoxious, but not dangerous. Saying "Let's meet up on Saturday at the Channel Tunnel entrance to give some immigrants a whipping" is dangerous. This is a clear and simple distinction.

        In conclusion, I don't support racism. But censoring it is wrong, both morally and on pragmatic grounds.

        Malcolm Hutty
        Campaign Against Censorship of the Internet in Britain.

      • Saying "immigrants should be whipped back through the Channel Tunnel" is obnoxious, but not dangerous. Saying "Let's meet up on Saturday at the Channel Tunnel entrance to give some immigrants a whipping" is dangerous. This is a clear and simple distinction.

        No, that's not dangerous. Meeting at the Channel Tunnel entrance is not dangerous. Only when you actually start to give some immigrants a whipping are you dangerous. Why can't we simply punish people for their actions....not try to regulate what led them to those actions?

    • Sites which include this (and all its variations and others you can think of) would be the real life equivilant of holding a car rally against driving

      I think your car analogy might go more along the lines of a Chevrolet rally against every other car manufacturer. It seems, of course, that what you propose is to exclude Chevrolet from the next open rally. Then again, since freedom of speech isn't that abstract of a concept, I don't think we need to go into these kinds of analogies.

      The issue I take with your post is that you are advocating censorship. Granted, that vast majority of racists are incompitent assholes. Of course, I've known some very intelligent and erudite racists. Now this is not to say I agree at all with what they are saying, quite the contrary, but I firmly believe that they have every right to say it.

      Let us imagine this circumstance. This assumes that you agree that the pro-life pro-choice dialog is a healthy one, and that both sides are equally entiteled to their argument. Now imagine that Roe v. Wade is overturned and that abortion is summarily outlawed in all 50 states. At that point, the discussion heats up and a conservative U.S. legislature outlaws pro-choice speech on the basis that it advocates murder.

      Would you now argue that pro-choic speech should be outlawed because it promotes murder?

      You see, for any controversial topic, there will always be strong arguments for banning all, if not part, of its discussion. Racism, communism, abortion, the list goes on. The important thing is to never let either side be muted. If that happens we have opted not for freedom of speech, but for uniformity of speech.
    • Dude. Firstly, you would have no way of setting boundaries to this. (I guess the suicide one would be easiest to pick) but because you don't necessarily have a context, you don't necessarily know what a site is saying (ie. you know it's a joke because you are in a comedy bar...).

      Why limit it to those? Murder is missing from the list - pretty important I would have thought. In fact, let's just narrow it down to sites that encourage sin. Oh, so you have a different opinion? hmm. so do a billion other people...
    • Why not include, say, anti-Americanism (or perhaps "encouraging treason"), or anti-capitalism, etc.

      Once you start making lists of things which are unacceptable, it's not too hard to find things sort of similar that might also be included. Quite the slippery slope.
    • what's wrong with suicide?

      it's hardly illegal or anything...
    • However, it is the speech of which is practised that denounces the freedom of speech granted to others that should be banned.

      Hmm. Your speech denounces the freedom of speech granted to racists, so, by that exact logic, your statement should be banned.

      Yep, the world is just a big ball of irony.

  • Perhaps (Score:5, Interesting)

    by fluxrad ( 125130 ) on Saturday February 23, 2002 @06:54AM (#3056632)
    Perhaps this whole argument is best summed up by one of my favorite quotes (from none other than George Orwell):

    "If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear."
  • Let's see, cross border politics and free speech limitation jumping borders? I think another case of Yahoo vs. France will be in order except this time on a scale so much larger than before. Unfortunately this is another case of European moralism being trancendent across borders and the Internet pushing for their stance. How many times will the list of banned items/or free speech be changed to accommodate their subjective restriction lists? Absurd isn't a word that does justice to this kind of narrow visioned policy.
    • Did you think of that ? "European moralism being trancendent across borders and the Internet pushing for their stance" And maybe this free speech stuff is "another case of US moralism pushing its stance on the rest of the world" ? Nazism under any form is banned since a long time in many country of Europa, and yes this include expressing your own agreement with it. US centrism perhaps bring you to say "harck ! free speech violation ! Bad !" but we here (and I speak for a majority of people I know of) DO NOT want *total* freedom of speech. You have here in Europa freedom of speech as long as you do not call for murder, hates, racism and so on. I hope that one day the US will understand that some because of their history, culture, and/or any other factor do not want the same system as you have in US (constitutionnal, commercial or political). Long live the difference.
      • I wouldn't trust Europeans with totally free speech, anyway; they're incapable of acting responsibly when given a shiny idea to latch on to. I mean, after the Crusades, the Thirty Years' War, the French Revolution, Marxism, Fascism, Naziism, and Soviet Communism, it's kinda obvious that European brains can't handle uncontrolled ideas without soaking the earth in blood.

        The only problem here is that it's the Europeans themselves who are doing the censoring, and we've already established that Europeans are incapable of fulfilling that role. What we really need is a consortium of people from sane, responsible, adult countries to appoint the censors instead.

        Accordingly, I propose a committee of a mexican, two Canadians, two Tanzanians, and two Brazilians to serve as High Censors overseeing a bureaucracy over all speech, press, broacasts, and other media of expression in all of Europe, lest a new and dangerous philosophy again overtake the continent and result in the deaths of tens of millions.

  • Europhiles, take a look at this.... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by leviramsey ( 248057 ) on Saturday February 23, 2002 @07:10AM (#3056654) Journal

    I was going to post anonymously, but I said, fuck it, the most karma i can lose is 2 points. So here goes:

    Prevalent on Slashdot is the notion that Europe is somehow superior to the US. I hate to make such a generalization, but it's not true, and things like this lend some creedence to this.

    I am a citizen of the United States, so perhaps this post is a manifestation of a major difference between the European point-of-view/thought process and the American, but I cannot see how this is can posibly be a good thing.

    1. The language is going to be broad. Face it. Jus about anything will qualify because as soon as the precedent is set, everybody will be clamoring to have their pet peeve branded as hate speech. Someone makes a joke like: "How do you make a dog go meow? You run it quickly over a circular saw," and it will be branded as hateful to animals and animal lovers.
    2. As a direct consequence, since everyone is guilty of this in one way or another, the law will only be selectively applied. It will only be used against minority viewpoints. Anti-globalization protesters (which I am not a part of and to some extent find some disquieting parallels with Naziis m in their beliefs) will be branded hatemongers and barred from internet use. These laws will turn into icing on the cake and cheap means to punish people when nothing else can be pinned on them.
    3. Has anyone stopped to think what the response of the hatemongers will be? They'll PGP encrypt everything. They'll use steganography. You know what this means? After these laws fail, the governments will blame it on the availability of encryption. So watch it become a crime to possess any encryption technology in Europe, because only terrorists and hatemongers use PGP, SSH, and FreeNet. Watch Linux be branded an accomplice to hate because hate groups use Apache on Linux to run their web sites.
    • As an European citizen, I might have an explanation for this:

      Most European politicians do not understand the internet and its structure.
      For them, the internet is something completely new, which requires new laws. In my opinion, the mistake they are making is not applying the exitsing laws on the internet but defining new laws on something they do not understand yet.

      Most country on earth have laws in order to prohibit discrimination (which is meant by "hate speech"). The strange thing about Europe is that European politicians seem to believe that we need new laws to enforce civil rights on the internet.

      The points You mentioned will become true, if those new laws
      • redefine the term "hate speech". (Your point 1)
      • limit other civil rights, e.g. the right of free speech (Your point 2)
      • are applied without knowledge about the internet.
        A PGP-Mail is definitely not something which can be compared to a statement said in public - a not encrypted web page is something public
        (Your point 3)
      • I fully agree that existing laws should and can be applied, the Net is a new medium, just a tool, but it's the message that counts.

        But regardless what new regulations (not laws) come out of Brussels it'll still be the national laws and courts that make the final decision.
        And interpretations differ a lot between the nations!
        If a EU member state is able to show the European directive is covered in existing law I see little reason for them to change anything.

        Yet I'm afraid that's my wishful thinking, Law as a profession is in Europe rapidly becoming as smelly as in the US of A and it's lawyers writing laws (for lawyers to make money).

    • If Europe is superior to US then they would be leading not following the US. Sure the US have it's share of dumb laws, corrupt politicians, crazy people, etc. but the shocking truth is that all other countries are even worst.
    • You miss a couple of vital points:

      1. Most European countries have some form of hate speech laws already on the books. With the exception of France and Germany they are mostly very strict, only targetting clear incitements to racial hatred, and in many cases they are strict enough that they are practically never used. In France and Germany, they are somewhat more wide ranging, but only with regards to nazi/fascist propaganda.

      Many people in Europe find the French and German laws that restrict the sale and distribution of nazi literature and products excessive, so they are unlikely to make it into any Europe wide treaties, even though they deal with an ideology which glorifies genocide.

      2. Most European countries only restrict incitement of racial hatred in the form of distributing such material to the general public, and would not stop anyone from discussing whatever they please in private communications, or set up organizations where they can discuss what they please in private meetings.

      This is an issue of protecting minority groups freedoms.

      Someone may claim that the KKK has a free speech right to march publicly in support of discriminating non-white in various ways, but the moment the actions of groups like that take on a character that instill fear in the groups they demonstrate against that it effectively have a chilling effect on speech or the feeling of safety for those groups, most Europeans would agree that freedom is no excuse to intimidate other people.

      Freedom is not absolute. You are not allowed to kill other people, because it abridge their freedoms. Similarly, in Europe it is considered abridging other peoples freedoms to take actions intended to intimidate them or encouraging restrictions of their freedoms based on their race.

      To sum it up: This is codifying what is already the law in most European countries into a treaty, and is unlikely to be much stricter than what is already in there. Secondly, there is no need for the "hatemongers" to start using PGP etc. if they don't already do it - private communication isn't the issue, public communication is.

      That said, it is something to follow closely, because there are always groups trying to broaden such legislation, and while I believe some basic protections against hate speech can be good, it should be just that: Basic protection against speech that have real effects on other peoples freedoms and safety, not blanket restrictions on anything that offend anyone.

  • hmm. (Score:1)

    by Nevrar ( 65761 )
    it's just another attempt to gain some control/power...

    who's gonna decide if it's hate speech or not... really... the EC has daft enough rules as it is (Cheddar cheese has to come from Cheddar and Devonshire teas from Devonshire...)... Soon you'll probably get arrested for having a website saying Pepsi sux.
    • You may dislike the food marking regulations all you want, but from someone that have bought what was sold as "crispy bacon" only to find (after realizing that something was wrong upon tasting it) a tiny mark saying "vegetarian" and on reading what it actually contained finding that it was some horrible soy based thing with spices, I must say I'd welcome even more stringent rules in this area...

      The regulations you refer to are there to give similar protections to regions with a traditional ownership of a product name that what a company would get from a trademark.

      Do you also complain that Pepsi isn't allowed to call it's product Coca Cola?

      Note that nothing is stopping anyone from making a cheese that taste the same as Cheddar cheese, but only from marketing it as such in cases where the designation traditionally has meant that it came from the region, and letting anyone use the brand would imply to the consumer that they are buying something they are not.

      Food marking regulations are strict in most countries, and typically does include the name of the product, even in the US.

  • What's hate speech? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Combuchan ( 123208 ) <sean@em[ ].net ['vis' in gap]> on Saturday February 23, 2002 @07:16AM (#3056667) Homepage
    There are multiple issues I take with this law:

    1. Who decides what is hate speech? An argument made by a Palestinian against Jewish occupation, etc. could be easily mis-construed as being anti-semetic. Where's the council, the ruling body? What is defined as "hate speech?" Where's the rubric?

    2: Who are you to decide what I can and can't view and decide upon for myself? What if I want to be offended? What if I'm a researcher for the NAACP [naacp.org] trying to tear down the argument made by the KKK or some other racist organisation?

    3. Shouldn't I be the one to ultimately decide what is hate speech? Laws like this don't just stifle free speech, they stifle my ability to be informed and my ability to make my own decision.

    4. Laws like this also stifle personal responsibility. It's like the liberal argument to gun control. If somebody shoots somebody, go after the gun manufacturer. If people cannot control their violent nature and attack/kill somebody after they read something on a website, there's a far greater problem than the proliferation of "hate speech."
    5. Allowing laws like this to come into play open's Pandora's box of similar regulations. What's next? Subversive/anti-government speech will be made illegal?

    Voltaire said it best: "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

    • Who decides what is hate speech? An argument made by a Palestinian against Jewish occupation, etc. could be easily mis-construed as being anti-semetic.

      And it is. To criticize in any way shape or form the State of Israel is to be declared just this side of a Nazi. Once again, America's social conscience (guilt over the Holocaust mainly) does the world a huge disfavor.

      What's next? Subversive/anti-government speech will be made illegal?

      These laws don't need to be extended. Since every human is guilty of hate (it is an inate emotion), the glut of offenders will make this very selectively enforced. So anti-status quo speech will be branded hateful and banned.

      • These laws don't need to be extended.

        I concede that this may be the weakest point to my argument, but if you look at the last fifty years or so, government control of freedom has really gotten out of hand, thanks to an apathetic populace and the seemingly perpetual increase in the size of government. This seems to me another step in that direction. Look at the DMCA, SSSCA, this proposition, and the like. Who would've thought in 1947 that the greatest enemy to freedom worldwide would change from the Communists to ourselves?

        <plug type=shameless>This is why I'm a Libertarian. [lp.org] I may not agree with everything they say, but I believe that when I'm actually fighting with them on those points on some larger more relevant scale, society will be far better off indeed.</plug>

        My $0.02.

  • This from the continent that gave us Voltaire? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Martin Blank ( 154261 ) on Saturday February 23, 2002 @07:21AM (#3056678) Homepage Journal
    Wasn't it Voltaire who said, "I may not believe in what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to do so?" (Or something along those lines)
    • Actually, no it wasn't :-) It was Evelyn Beatrice Hall, writing under the pseudonym of Stephen G Tallentyre who said this, stating that she was trying to paraphrase Voltaire's views. But I see (see, not agree with) your point.
    • This is from the continent that ruins a fantastic idea like the European Union with socialistic, conformistic bureaucracy of hitherto unseen proportions. And yes, I'm a "Yurpeen", a Swede to be moderately precise.

      The European Union is a wonderful concept - as long as it's about trade, currency and business. Not when it's about powermongering, detailed control of the citizens' everyday lives and political centralization, dominated by socialistic nepotism.

      When someone calls for censorship, they should imagine what it would be like if it was the ones they want to censor who did the censoring! Who defines the crime?
      • > The European Union is a wonderful concept - as
        > long as it's about trade, currency and business.
        > Not when it's about powermongering, detailed
        > control of the citizens' everyday lives and
        > political centralization, dominated by
        > socialistic nepotism

        The British, the Romans, like my mamma always used to say, when the empire keeps the trade routes open (all roads lead to Rome) they prosper. When they turn to lording over their people, they fall apart.

        That's why the people who go to the stars will be Indian and Chinese. Once they get their act together they'll have a good few hundred years before they start down the monster path of detailed control of everyday life. Europe's been out of it since WWII, and America is staring into the abyss.

  • Any attempt at silencing freedom of speech is a BAD idea!

  • Why Europeans ban 'hate speech' (Score:5, Insightful)

    by san ( 6716 ) on Saturday February 23, 2002 @07:39AM (#3056718)

    Although almost all of Western Europe has now been a democracy for at least 60 years, with constitutional provisions for the freedom of speech in all democracies (except the UK where the European Treaty on Human Rights serves this purpose), there are strict laws against 'inciting race hatred', which limit free speech w.r.t. open racism etc.

    Although the European countries and their laws and practices are quite diverse, there seem to be two main arguments which have lead to the introduction of these laws. The first is practical: Europeans have experience with regimes based on bringing this kind of speech in practice; World War II is still very much a defining moment in the collective history of Europeans. Most democracies were either founded just after the war, or have been re-established with new constitutions after 1945. In this way, anti-nazism and anti-fascism has been one of the primary foundations by which the democratic ideals were established and affirmed. The idea was: never again should a democracy change into a racist totalitarian state, and it's worthwhile to give up that bit of freedom to prevent this from happening again.

    The other argument is more philosophical: there seems to be a difference in the basis for the fundamental freedoms and rights between the US and Europe. In the US, these freedoms and rights are seen as 'god-given' (or 'self-evident'), and are seen primarily as a way to protect the citizen against the state. In Europe, the basis for the democratic system with its freedoms is the notion of the right to live in 'human dignity'. This implies that the citizen should not just be protected from the state, but also from people and corporations who try to infringe on 'human dignity'. In this sense, 'inciting race hatred' is seen as more threatening to minorities' right to dignity than the person uttering those 'threats' (remember that Europe has witnessed 'incitement' changing to actual genocide).

    You may or may not agree with these laws, but in Europe there seems to be a broad majority in favor of these laws, mainly because of WWII.

    I hope my point is still clear in this long rant :-)

    Sander

    • You may or may not agree with these laws, but in Europe there seems to be a broad majority in favor of these laws, mainly because of WWII.

      Yes, they favor them because Germany lost the war and the winners decided to go beyond mere reparations ala the Versailles Treaty [byu.edu] and pursue a Romanesque "salted earth" policy by attacking anything that might contribute to another resurgence of Naziism -- like racism, antisemitism, xenophobia, sexism, homophobia, nationalism, isolationism and economic independence. I suppose they'd make sure food, water and air were all under the control of central banking authorities if they could since that, too, would decrease the chance of a resurgence of Naziism. In fact, why don't we just get rid of humans [geocities.com]? Seems they're nothing but trouble anyway.

    • The idea was: never again should a democracy change into a racist totalitarian state, and it's worthwhile to give up that bit of freedom to prevent this from happening again.

      Which is to say "we must give up our liberty in order to save it."

      "Thanks for throwing out the bath water, hon. Where's the baby?"

      My real point is that you don't seem to understand the implication of what you are saying. If you give up the right/power/control to decide what you say it doesn't just dissapear . . . that control goes to the government

      History clearly indicates that giving a government power is not a way to ensure that your freedom is protected.

      -Peter
  • to frist posters and klerck
  • Here in Canada, we have laws preventing discrimination against people based on things such as race and gender, and it does apply to things such as hate-inciting websites - but as recent events have shown, if anything we're MORE likely to protect freedom than in the US. You don't see CSIS (our equivalent to the CIA) or the RCMP tripping over themselves to use a Carnivore-like system, for example, and I do believe that we recently protected someone AGAINST improper use of the DMCA.

    Free speech is undoubtedly important, but should we allow speech made with the intent to deny that right to others? If many racists and other hate groups had their way, all people of other ethnic groups, religions, and sexual orientations would be forbidden from any participation in society (such as speech or voting). Some of these hate groups would even go so far as to deny others the satisfaction of living.

    Again, I think that free speech is critical to a happy and liberated society, but I also don't want to see a friend silenced (or worse) simply because they're Asian, or Jewish, or anything else that doesn't fit someone's too-narrow interpretation of "human."
  • Legislation can, should, and traditionally has regulated the actions of people. This is how we send murderers to prison.

    Well thought out legislation should also regulate intent where it is blatantly obvious that this will lead to action. This is how people get sentenced for conspiracy to commit murder.

    Regulation, however, cannot and should not regulate the mental process leading up to either intent or action; this is the thought police straight out of 1984. The notion that thinking certain things can be dangerous to either you or your society.

    Regulate this and you've violated every man and woman's right to see all the facts and make the right choice.

    Since when did legislation become involved in the average citizen's ability to distinguish between good and bad?
  • did anyone else read it as "Council of Elrond"?
  • If you don't like the content of a website you can simply not go there. No case can be made for imminent harm when the act of browsing is a selective one based entirely on personal choice.

    But banning hate speech is never about preventing harm; it's about enforcing your own morals on others, to the point where they no longer have the right to voice an opinion that you disapprove of. The goal is not to make a better society but to wield power to such a degree that you can effectively silence your opponents. This makes the 'ban hate speech folks' just as malicious and evil as the people engaged in the hate speech itself.

    Of coure, Europe can engage in any silliness it wants. If it decides to restrict its own folks in this manner, then that's something that I, as a U.S. citizen, am really not concerned about. However, Europe will have a difficult time with U.S. web sites that lie within the purview of the First Amendment and are not bound by European laws - or morality - in any way, shape, or form. Unless Europe decides to wall itself off from the U.S. in much the same way that China has, this attempt at banning speech on the internet is nothing more than pissing into the wind.

    Which is as it should be. It's incumbent on Europe to 'protect' its citizens from the dangers of free speech, not upon American web site owners to conform to foreign laws. The French aside, Europe has no business trying to regulate internet activity outside of its own borders.

    Max
    • What you are saying will never happen.

      Europe is not a country. It does not have citizens in the same way as the USA.

      It will be up to the individual countries whether or not they cut themselves off from the rest of the world. But that won't happen.

      If this law was passed, then the european court of human rights would no longer protect free speech. And like I said it just will never, ever happen, there would be far too much opposition...

    • I don't find it odd that the trend to globalization would produce a backlash calling for nationalistic protection, but isn't it strange that both ideas are being sold to us with equal enthusiasm (pressure?) by the same people?

  • I have extreme hatred for the EU and all that it stands for. Does that make me a criminal if I havent actualy done anything except state it here?

    Its just another way to keep unhappy members of the population silent.
  • Is this really a big issue that deserves a set of Draconian laws? People can already be kicked off their ISP if there are a lot of complaints anyway. My guess is that this law will get on the books, it will be enforced a couple of times behind the scenes, and for the most part everyone will forget about it.

    Then years down the line, when there is a "crisis," this obscure old internet law will be used to squash some political dissenters... at a time when political dissent becomes truly necessary.
  • If you don't like what someone is saying, then don't listen or argue against their ideas in a constructive manner. Some idea with Violent "Whatever"; if you don't like it, then change the channel/turn it off.

    To outright outlaw ALL "HATE" speech is a threat to free speech, if he wishes to kill all those niggers . If he does not act, then it is NOT a crime. The idea of Hate Crime is just a leftist attempt to demonize people. I would rather know someone's opinion on something, then to censor it and allow them to quitely plan to act on their ideas with no heads up.

    The EC bastards are a bunch of socialist idiots that wish to control mankind their way, so let them dicate the internet is a dangerous thing.
  • Does that mean trolls and flamers can be prosecuted? :-)
  • These socialist Euros want to drag us kicking and screaming into their New World Order utopia at the expense of the First Amendment and our national sovereignty! The U.S., along with Canada and Japan, is a nonvoting member of the Council of Europe--unfortunately. I wish we weren't even poart of it. Yet another undemocratic socialist organization meeting in secret to scheme plans to impose on the plebians of the world.

  • An appropriate Karl Marx quote... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by SEE ( 7681 ) on Saturday February 23, 2002 @03:59PM (#3058118) Homepage
    "History repeats itself, the first time as tragedy,
    the second time as farce."

    Or, the first time as the Soviet Union, the second time as the European Union.
  • As the world moves towards one global currency and instantaneous transactions, it is only natural that the world should move towards one global government. An unfortunate development for those who cherish freedom and for those who favor peace. In the end, the globalization of the worlds economy may led to a series of unresolvable conflicts, betwixt social engineers, patriots of all persuasions, and those who just want to live without having to fear the law.

    When a man fears the law, either he is evil or the law is unjust.
  • Chomsky's point about free speech during the whole "holocoust never happenned" fiasco (Chomsky flat out disagreed with the guy's findings, but supported his right to publish them) was basicaly,
    • (paraphrase) Supporting free speech means supporting exactly the ideas that you hate. Supporting someone's right to free speech only if you agree with them is meaningless. Of course you support their right to say what you already believe.
  • The more you persecute racists and try to hide their speech, the faster they grow. They're like pasty white grubs, they always multiply under rocks. Outlawing their speech only makes them feel vindicated and martyred, makes them justify their paranoia and their belief that (insert racial/ethnic group) is out to get them.

    The same thing happens with any other sort of evil, intolerance, and hate in the world. The more you try to ignore it, whistling past graveyards, the more it grows in silence and creeps into the hearts of people secretly. Communication is the way to get rid of ALL these hateful ideas and unite humanity in brotherhood, and the internet stands a good chance of doing so, if not for the interfering meddling of these idiot busybodies.

    So let the racists say their piece, as LOUD as they can! That way we can just laugh them to scorn. That way we can talk to them, communicate with them, show them their error. But don't hide their ignorance; it will only worsen.

    Of course, [/preachingtothechoir] and all. This is slashdot, after all. Anyone know of a comment board that the treaty writers read?...

    -Kasreyn

    P.S. I don't have much hope for preventing this, though. Anyone idiot enough to believe in a term like "hate crime" is probably incapable of grasping my argument in the first place.

Slashdot Top Deals

Saliva causes cancer, but only if swallowed in small amounts over a long period of time. -- George Carlin

Close