Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Facebook The Courts Communications Networking Social Networks The Internet

Facebook Must Delete Hate Postings Worldwide, Rules Austrian Court (reuters.com) 364

An Austrian court has ruled that Facebook must delete hate speech postings worldwide. "The case -- brought by Austria's Green party over insults to its leader -- has international ramifications as the court ruled the postings must be deleted across the platform and not just in Austria, a point that had been left open in an initial ruling," reports Reuters. From the report: The case comes as legislators around Europe are considering ways of forcing Facebook, Google, Twitter and others to rapidly remove hate speech or incitement to violence. Facebook's lawyers in Vienna declined to comment on the ruling, which was distributed by the Greens and confirmed by a court spokesman, and Facebook did not immediately reply to a request for comment. Strengthening the earlier ruling, the Viennese appeals court ruled on Friday that Facebook must remove the postings against Greens leader Eva Glawischnig as well as any verbatim repostings, and said merely blocking them in Austria without deleting them for users abroad was not sufficient. The court added it was easy for Facebook to automate this process. It said, however, that Facebook could not be expected to trawl through content to find posts that are similar, rather than identical, to ones already identified as hate speech. The Greens hope to get the ruling strengthened further at Austria's highest court. They want the court to demand Facebook remove similar - not only identical - postings, and to make it identify holders of fake accounts. The Greens also want Facebook to pay damages, which would make it easier for individuals in similar cases to take the financial risk of taking legal action.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Facebook Must Delete Hate Postings Worldwide, Rules Austrian Court

Comments Filter:
  • by ganjadude ( 952775 ) on Tuesday May 09, 2017 @08:05AM (#54383551) Homepage
    this will end well *grabs popcorn*
    • by Big Hairy Ian ( 1155547 ) on Tuesday May 09, 2017 @08:16AM (#54383637)
      Doesn't the Austrian appeals court know the limitations of it's own jurisdiction?
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by i_ate_god ( 899684 )

        the company is operating in Austria and probably has an Austrian-registered company, meaning it is well with in the jurisdiction of austrian courts to make that order

        • by stealth_finger ( 1809752 ) on Tuesday May 09, 2017 @08:57AM (#54383889)
          Right lads, we can compromise our world wide business or we can pull out of Austria. Hmmmmmm decisions.
          • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

            by Sperbels ( 1008585 )
            No reason to pull out. Just have to let the Austrian government block facebook. No effort required.
        • by Kernel Kurtz ( 182424 ) on Tuesday May 09, 2017 @08:58AM (#54383893)

          the company is operating in Austria

          Time for that to end.

        • by bluefoxlucid ( 723572 ) on Tuesday May 09, 2017 @09:17AM (#54384001) Homepage Journal

          They are essentially suggesting Facebook is not allowed to possess certain samples of published speech in any form anywhere in the world, and not allowed to publish certain such samples anywhere in the world. That means if someone in France publishes something that Austria says to remove, and it's stored on a US server, Facebook isn't allowed to just remove it from Austria; they have to remove it from everywhere.

          Seems like they're trying to play games to control speech worldwide.

        • Yep, the Austrian court can order Facebook's subsidiary in Austria to do things. It cannot order Facebook Germany, Italy, Canada, etc. to do anything.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward

          the company is operating in Austria and probably has an Austrian-registered company, meaning it is well with in the jurisdiction of austrian courts to make that order

          If you have a child move to Austria, does that subject you to Austrian law too?

          If it were me... I'd tell Austria that it should shut the fuck up, laugh at their "ruling" and not only NOT delete it everywhere, I'd not even delete it THERE. In response instead, I'd tell the country that gave the world Adolf HITLER, that they're being a little fascist, and even if they're now trying to atone for the murder of millions upon millions of innocent people, and untold human suffering, doing so by MORE fascistic beh

        • by Anubis IV ( 1279820 ) on Tuesday May 09, 2017 @09:59AM (#54384241)

          You've conflated jurisdiction with authority. They have the jurisdiction. They lack the authority.

          While the subsidiary is within the court's jurisdiction, the court's authority does not extend beyond their jurisdiction to cover what the parent organization does outside of Austria's borders. The court can order them to remove the content from servers in Austria, order them to hide it from display to Austrians, and may even be able to do the same across the EU*, but they most certainly do NOT have the authority to enforce those rules against Facebook globally.

          Rulings like these effectively trample on the sovereignty of other nations where one country's laws may not be the ones they've chosen to follow. This sort of issue has been a constant struggle in recent years with the US, as it's been attempting to overstep its bounds in similar ways. It's something we need to push back on regardless of where it occurs if we want to have any hope of encouraging the US and others to be good neighbors by confining their rulings to their borders.

          * I know there are some country-level courts that can make rulings that are binding across country borders within the EU, but, as an American, I don't really have an awareness of which courts those are or if this is one of them.

        • I suppose all content can be blocked as NSFA (not safe for Austria), by default, unless the user certifies it Austria friendly?

      • by nucrash ( 549705 ) on Tuesday May 09, 2017 @08:44AM (#54383813)

        I think this would be a demonstration that they are not aware of the limitations of their jurisdiction.

        Remember the last time an Austrian tried to dictate policy globally?

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by mrbester ( 200927 )

        That's exactly what everybody in ROW thinks when a US court decides something must happen outside US borders.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        The danger isn't Austria per se. The bigger problem is the Greens. They're a global outfit. If they can win there, they can win anywhere. It's important to vote them out of the seats they have until they learn what freedom means. The freedom to 'offend' is essential.

  • Farenheight 451 (Score:5, Interesting)

    by goombah99 ( 560566 ) on Tuesday May 09, 2017 @08:08AM (#54383565)

    ANyone ever read Ray Bradburys forward on why he wrote F451? He wrote it years later and it was included in some editions. He described something akin to creeping political correctness arguments put forth by narrow interest groups were going to strangle all expression because everything offends somebody. The solution the politicians favor is to ban things that offend. So soon books would be not only banned but people would go out of their way to try to make sure nobody could have access to offensive books. It would all be bread and circuses.

    At the time I read that, San Francisco was going through a phase where the public libraries were Bolwderizing Mary Poppins so that the slang spoken by the Black maid was converted to a more respectable kings english. Original copies were pulled from the libraries.

    I felt he had a point. It doesn't really matter if the book is offensive. Protecting people from offense is worse.

    • by RobotRunAmok ( 595286 ) on Tuesday May 09, 2017 @08:10AM (#54383589)
      You can only take it.
      • by goombah99 ( 560566 ) on Tuesday May 09, 2017 @08:12AM (#54383613)

        You can only take it.

        Fuck you

      • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 09, 2017 @08:32AM (#54383747)

        If someone offends you, you should apologize to them because...

        1: You took offense at something not intended to be offensive.
        2: You took offense purely to start a fight.
        3: You did something in the past to warrant being subject to offensive matter.

        If none of the above apply, you should ignore the person and not feed the troll. Otherwise, apologize for your loss of control.

        • If someone offends you, you should apologize to them because...

          1: You took offense at something not intended to be offensive.
          2: You took offense purely to start a fight.
          3: You did something in the past to warrant being subject to offensive matter.

          If none of the above apply, you should ignore the person and not feed the troll. Otherwise, apologize for your loss of control.

          I look at this differently. In my mind, there is a huge difference between feeling offended and actions triggered by feelings of offense. There's nothing wrong with feeling offended. Those are simply feelings and internal thoughts. However, the targeting of feelings and thoughts as immoral or impermissible is an attempt at mind control and freedom of conscience and should be challenged.

          This is what I try to teach my kids, that there's nothing wrong with feeling mad, frustrated, or offended. They are re

      • I would only take offense if it is free or at a sufficiently low enough price.

        Give me liberty or give me something of equal or lesser value.
    • Re:Farenheight 451 (Score:5, Insightful)

      by goombah99 ( 560566 ) on Tuesday May 09, 2017 @08:11AM (#54383599)

      Adding to my own post. I'm all in favor of community standards and even community laws that ban behaviours. Even libertarians should be in favor of not interferring with communities that want to regulate themselves. It's a free country. But banning something in someone elses community because you don't like it is something to fear.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      ANyone ever read Ray Bradburys forward on why he wrote F451? .

      The thing I remember about the forward was Bradbury's explanation of the book's title - and how he had a dickens of a time finding the temperature at which book paper caught fire. After striking out with reference librarians and researchers, in desperation he called up his local fire station... which provided the answer to him within seconds.

    • Amen.

      This is something that both the Left and Right should get together on. Free Speech means just that. The government should not censor thought and its expression,. And, Yes there can be very limited limitations such as the incitement to IMMEDIATE violence.

      "Kill X now." x={blacks,whites, jews, christians, muslims, Trump, Obama, Bush ...}

      or creating a panic situation such as FALSELY crying fire in a crowded theater.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      In a world where even basic scientific facts like "boys and girls are different" are considered hate speech, everyone should be concerned. And I'm talking about this world. Today. Not something from fiction.

    • He described something akin to creeping political correctness arguments put forth by narrow interest groups were going to strangle all expression because everything offends somebody.

      He had a point, of course, but the arguments can also be turned the other way - anti-PC has already become the new PC, where anyone who dares to criticise hate speech, anti-science stories or similar, is shouted down and bullied, and where every sober presentation of facts is met with a mindless repetition of falsehoods that have long since been disproved. Ironically, the self-same people who are anti-PC and anti-science, are also talking the loudest about 'freedom of speech' as if they knew or cared, compl

  • by r_naked ( 150044 ) on Tuesday May 09, 2017 @08:08AM (#54383571) Homepage

    Tell them to piss off and block Austria from Facebook. I hate Facebook, but I can't stand it when some country (be it the USA, some member of the EU, or Austria) tries to enforce their laws on another country. Someone is going to have to eventually show them the middle finger.

    • by r_naked ( 150044 )

      UGH - some *other* member of the EU. One word makes all the difference ... sigh.

  • by MightyYar ( 622222 ) on Tuesday May 09, 2017 @08:09AM (#54383577)

    Austria's leader is a giant douche. He rapes babies. Once I saw him watching hardcore bestiality porn in his car, stealing WiFi from a nearby cafe. I hate him. This is hate speech.

    • Austria's leader is a giant douche. He rapes babies. Once I saw him watching hardcore bestiality porn in his car, stealing WiFi from a nearby cafe. I hate him. This is hate speech.

      No, I think this could be technically described as libel: "the communication of a false statement that harms the reputation of someone".

      Calling Frau Eva Glawischnig "lousy traitor" and "corrupt bumpkin" certainly doesn't qualify as hate speech either, or at least it shouldn't, but once the proper legislation is in place it doesn't take long to abuse it, and in fact this sound more like censorship to me. A more sensible course of action would have been to have Facebook reveal the identity of the poster and

    • Really?

      Wow, that bland idiot is more interesting than I gave him credit.

  • ... That Austria was the ruler of the world.

    Seriously though, when countries do this they are just showing that they are still growing up, they have politicians that haven't been exposed to the real world where people can and will call you names, and the internet is just a larger more accessible world.

  • Jurisdiction? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by sinij ( 911942 ) on Tuesday May 09, 2017 @08:10AM (#54383583)
    Austrian court can pass any law they want, however how do they expect to enforce this outside of their jurisdiction? Under what legal authority?
    • I guess they would be fine if the content was blocked in Austria but it's probably easier to block it worldwide (for Facebook)

      • No, they said specifically that blocking it in Austria doesn't remove it from the world, and it needs to be removed from the whole world.
        • I guess another alternative is for Facebook to stop doing business, selling advertisement and registering users in Austria.

    • Re:Jurisdiction? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by spikenerd ( 642677 ) on Tuesday May 09, 2017 @08:41AM (#54383805)
      I would guess that they intend to enforce it the same way every country enforces laws that reach outside of their jurisdiction. They levy unreasonable penalties against the portion of the company within their jurisdiction until they get what they want from the company as a whole. The companies almost always comply in the long run out of fear of losing business in that country to some other company that will comply. Very few large companies have the chutzpah to sacrifice a portion of their market just to take a moral stand. Governments everywhere know that, and that knowledge is what gives them "authority".
      • Well, an election is coming in Austria. Not officially yet, but all signs point to early elections in 2018.

        Do you want to be the party that gets to explain that FB pulled out of the country because of you?

    • by AHuxley ( 892839 )
      If its too hard to create a block list just for Austria, just block the world.
      Wait for every theocracy, monarchy and kingdom try this over cartoon issues.
      China has issues with terms like Tiananmen Square, protests,1989.
      Oother nations communist parties want to protect their leadership and history too.
  • by Chrisq ( 894406 ) on Tuesday May 09, 2017 @08:14AM (#54383623)
    The problem is that "hate speech" is it's defined by idiots. A muslim saying that atheists should be killed [independent.co.uk] is seen as an expression of faith. Someone saying that Islam is backwards and violent for sentencing atheists to death is hate speech
    • Pretty much any expression of faith is hate speech. I don't know a single faith that is really cool with someone not drinking their particular brand of cool-aid.

  • by Headw1nd ( 829599 ) on Tuesday May 09, 2017 @08:15AM (#54383631)
    So looking it up, apparently the Greens were upset that their leader, Eva Glawischnig, was being called a "lousy traitor" and a "corrupt bumpkin". I would say it's relatively important for people to know, so we can tell this lousy traitor and the corrupt bumpkins on the courts in Austria what we think.
    • But, let's be honest here, calling Eva Glawischnig a "corrupt bumpkin" is uncalled for. Bumpkin, ok, but corrupt... how would you know?
        Who the fuck would consider her important enough to bribe her?

  • In other news (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nospam007 ( 722110 ) * on Tuesday May 09, 2017 @08:18AM (#54383653)

    A Saudi court has ordered Facebook to cover up ankles and hair of women, worldwide.

    Sic transit gloria mundi.

  • "The court added it was easy for Facebook to automate this process."
    Speaking as an American who's freedom of speech is pretty important, I rather expect that human ingenuity can outwit whatever automated system is out there.

    If I didn't work for an Austrian company that might suffer unwarranted blowback for it, I'd be tempted to test how well their filters would work...even though I couldn't give a damn about the person or her political leanings.

    Maybe 4chan will take this one up as a hobby.

  • by ArhcAngel ( 247594 ) on Tuesday May 09, 2017 @08:27AM (#54383715)
    I hear that Barbra Streisand is a special advisor to the court on this case.
  • Sure they make some money from their users there, but is it worth entertaining Austrians while opening up to these sorts of demands?

    Just shut down Austria, right now! And see if a) you miss the revenue vs overhead problems and/or b) they come to their senses?

  • Suppose Facebook seek a court order in the US, say, that the Austrian court has no jurisdiction with regards to Facebook posts outside of Austria. What then?

    • Then the Austrian court would say that the US has no jurisdiction over Facebook's Austrian servers and subsidiaries. They can fine Facebook Austria all they want anyway. The only (good) solution here is for Facebook to pull out. The other end-game, which is more likely, is that Facebook complies.

    • That doesnt remove the ability of the Austrian court to do anything - the Austrian court still has as much jurisdiction as it can encircle with its ability to enforce its judgements.

  • I'm glad that the court took the time to define "hate speech" in a clear and concise manner. Right? Or is "hate speech" just defined as "they said something I don't like"?
  • by computational super ( 740265 ) on Tuesday May 09, 2017 @09:23AM (#54384029)
    Fortunately for Facebook, there's a well-defined, broadly accepted, unambiguous, non-contentious definition of what constitutes "hate speech" which remains constant from one culture to the next.
  • Uttering or posting "hate speech" - whatever that may be - is illegal; but calmly, unemotionally dropping bombs on civilians or launching missiles to kill them is just fine.

    Priorities just a little off-kilter, I think.

    • by judoguy ( 534886 )

      Uttering or posting "hate speech" - whatever that may be - is illegal; but calmly, unemotionally dropping bombs on civilians or launching missiles to kill them is just fine.

      Priorities just a little off-kilter, I think.

      Them what has the bombs and missiles make the rules.

  • Facebook has two choices.

    1. Ban the posts and wait for China or UAE or some such country to sue for similar censorship without having the defense.
    2. Don't ban the posts and dump the Austrian market.

    Austria can't be stupid enough to assume the first and they can't be stupid enough to want the latter, so what are they trying to do?

  • The leader of Austria's Green Party is an idiot. A moron. Etc.

    There, he's been insulted on slashdot, too.

    These people take themselves way too seriously, which is one reason the first amendment in the US is so important.

    • The leader of Austria's Green Party is an idiot. A moron. Etc.

      There, he's been insulted on slashdot, too.

      These people take themselves way too seriously, which is one reason the first amendment in the US is so important.

      Wait, what am I doing? They're Austrians.

      Eva Glawischnig-Piesczek ist Scheisskopf! Ja, die ganze Partei sind Scheisskoepfen. Und Arschlochen.

      Okay, now they're properly insulted.

  • human thought interfaces?
    Maybe we should create non-jails for those having all good thought, for the rest of us the world is our jail and it may become not big enough.

    So with this in mind, I welcome our new expression police overlords....

Truly simple systems... require infinite testing. -- Norman Augustine

Working...