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.
if we learned anything in the past (Score:3)
Re:if we learned anything in the past (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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
Re:if we learned anything in the past (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
By Nazis I assume you mean liberals. They are very similar in beliefs. You aren't specific but it makes sense.
You are incorrect. I am hating on honest-to-god swastika toting, jew-hating, white nationalist Nazis that are growing in power in America. Hate on 'liberals' all you want, but you'll have to come up with another name for whatever they are up to since Nazi-ism is already defined and not really applicable here.
Re:if we learned anything in the past (Score:4, Insightful)
the company is operating in Austria
Time for that to end.
Re:if we learned anything in the past (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:if we learned anything in the past (Score:5, Insightful)
There's no "seems like"; that is explicitly what the Austrian court ruled. "We don't like this, therefore it is illegal around the world."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:2)
In before the Austrian government sees this and demands Slashdot remove it across the world.
Re:if we learned anything in the past (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
I suppose all content can be blocked as NSFA (not safe for Austria), by default, unless the user certifies it Austria friendly?
Re:if we learned anything in the past (Score:5, Interesting)
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:if we learned anything in the past (Score:5, Funny)
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?
Oh My Godwin!
Re:if we learned anything in the past (Score:5, Funny)
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?
Oh My Godwin!
I did nazi that coming, did jew?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
What, or who, defines "hate" speech? I found the above two posts to be funny... but if some hyper-"sensitive" person complained about similar postings (on facebook), would it then be considered hateful? If I posted "Jesus loves you" and 10,000 people reported it as being hateful, would it be removed? Is there an internet vote on each potential post before removal?
"hate" speech... (Score:2, Insightful)
...is a political definition, moves with the times. For example, in USA, it doesn't take much for criticism of Israel (the country, as opposed to the religion Judaism) to be painted anti-semitic, yet anti-Islam rhetoric is currently regarded more tolerantly.
How USA defines hate speech, for example (Score:3)
I know little about Austrian law because I live in the United States. But here, "hate speech" consists of incitement to imminent crime with victims chosen based on race, color, religion, national origin, age over 40, sex, gender identity, pregnancy, citizenship, familial status, disability, veteran status, or genetic information. This combines these definitions:
Protected class [wikipedia.org]
Bias incident [wikipedia.org]: hostility based on protected class membership
Hate crime [wikipedia.org]: a bias incident violating criminal law
Imminent lawless action [wikipedia.org]
Re: if we learned anything in the past (Score:5, Funny)
Arnold was pretty moderate for a Californian Democrat.
Re: (Score:3)
Not to worry, I doubt that they will be forced to delete any posts calling someone nazis.
I just read a news article about some "extreme right" nazis. (Sorry, in Danish http://jyllands-posten.dk/inte... [jyllands-posten.dk] )
And they might be nazis, but who knows, it's a word that gets thrown around a lot these days so it has lost all meaning.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
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.
You Cannot Give Offense (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:You Cannot Give Offense (Score:5, Funny)
You can only take it.
Fuck you
Re: (Score:2)
You CAN take offense, you don't HAVE to.
Re:You Cannot Give Offense (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Give me liberty or give me something of equal or lesser value.
Re:Farenheight 451 (Score:5, Insightful)
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:3)
Surely one can find exceptions to the rule. Afterall the whole US is under a constitution. THe larger the community one calls a community the less restrictive the regulation or the more egregious the behaviour needs to be to warrant regulation.
I call those exceptions "rights" (Score:5, Insightful)
> Surely one can find exceptions to the rule.
I believe those exceptions are called rights, or human rights. An individual or group may do as they please, but should not infringe on anyone's rights.
If you only have the "right" to say things everyone agrees with, that's no right at all; that's just agreement.
Note that the US Constitution and others modeled on it do not by their terms create rights, they bar the government from *infringing* on the rights. It also says "the right of free speech", not "a right of free speech" - the framers recognized that human rights *already* existed and said shall not infringe rights.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:I call those exceptions "rights" (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, we used to have an amazing country!
Re: (Score:2)
Fun fact: the First Amendment to the United States Constitution carries the following original text:
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.
A few years ago, I was introduced to the codified version of the First Amendment. That version is the legal definition of the current law, and is nearly three pages long. It details that the original amendment intended a limited category of speech to exclude speech harmful to society, such as libel, slander, and lying under oath. Case law has refined this particular law to explicitly express its limita
Re: (Score:2)
Free speech is free. Liable, slander, and such are Civil, not Criminal law. Lying under oath is a criminal violation of that oath, one you took freely of your own will ("I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth"). You are free to lie, outside of courts and even inside courts while not under oath you have taken.
So, the Free Speech bits of the First Amendment is really really broad. Hell, I've even argued against people making the "Yelling Fire in a crowded theater" bit, by saying
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I call those exceptions "rights" (Score:5, Interesting)
They're not "rights"; they're laws. It's a privilege. The concept of "rights" is a philosophical one which, essentially, suggests that some laws are somehow different from other laws in a metaphysical way. It's sort of like religion or some other belief system.
It's certainly convenient for us to have certain things codified as law, so long as enforcement operates in our benefit. From an economic standpoint, certain things which people might think should be rights aren't always possible. Food, medical care, shelter, and communication have all been cited as things which should be human rights; these things are possible to supply to everyone if your economy is sufficiently-developed, and they're cheap to supply to everyone if your economy is developed beyond that point, and yet you can't supply them in poorer economies because it simply won't work. An economy is poor because it doesn't have the means to produce; we think too much about the means to represent exchange (money), and not enough about where what we exchange comes from.
Freedom of expression is extending to the point that obscene speech isn't considered criminal, and nudity in public isn't illegal. A Federal court recently ruled that women's breasts are legally allowed exposure in public; and a guy at MIT used to go to class in only sandals, having won a court case that said nudity without lewdness isn't illegal. That's fine for most of us who either don't care, would like more boob flashes from cute girls, or are cute girls giving the boob flashes. However, it also means that parents will have their kids exposed to such a culture, which removes their control over their childrens's values. Girls will grow up in a world where it's okay to go topless. 15-year-olds will be flashing college students 10 years their senior, and this is totally okay now.
There are multiple groups of people here with conflicting so-called rights. Of primary importance, there's a group who believe certain behavior is impropriety, and want to instill "good family values" into their kids; and another group who believe Victorian ideals are outdated and a little playfulness and eye-candy is a good thing--including the ones who don't like being told they can't show themselves off a bat as the eye candy. These groups cannot cohabitate the same space without one oppressing the other, either by force of law or by sheer influence of presence.
So yeah. Things like rights, responsibilities, and imposition are relative based on your viewpoint. A lot of words we use to describe rights have no meaning; things like "freedom", "democracy", and "justice" are contextual to the speaker's and listener's minds, and have conflicting definitions depending on who you ask. "Patriotism" is often about doing what you're told without questioning if it's right, although the revolutionaries will tell you you're not a true patriot unless you love your country enough to remove villains from power and set it back on the path of righteousness; and in America, we talk about patriotism in a context with the Constitution and the rights it lays forth to subtly suggest that not supporting whatever the American government says right now is not supporting human rights.
I don't have warm, fuzzy feelings.
You've come up with words and statements and justifications to frame things that make you personally comfortable as some kind of spiritual mandate from a higher power, and to frame laws as holy scripture. I only see that certain things make the world more convenient (for me and others), and that power hasn't stripped those things yet. I understand that someone else pays for those so-called rights as well, in the form of things they can't do because it would violate my more-important rights.
Delusion became dangerous to me at some point. This is how I responded. I was raised being taught that the governments of the world secretly trade with the half-fish people of sunken Atlantis and that carrying certain metals will cause spiritual energi
Re:I call those exceptions "rights" (Score:4, Interesting)
the framers recognized that human rights *already* existed and said shall not infringe rights.
That's nice and all, but it's bullshit. It's a nice idea and I applaud anyone who actually believes it for their surplus of imagination, which I hope they continue to share with the world so that we can be exposed to new ideas. But in practice the only "rights" you've got are those which others will fight to defend, and this one other: to do as you will. And I don't mean this in some kind of religious sense, but in the sense that all living organisms have certain things in common based on physical reality. We all have to consume, digest, and excrete. We all reproduce, at least as species. We all attempt to survive.
The idea of "natural rights" is a lovely one, and the idea that the constitution should not exhaustively enumerate our rights as people or as citizens equally laudable, but in the really real world of people with conflicting opinions and desires, it's only those rights which are explicitly protected which you can even pretend you've got. And even then, there's practically innumerable examples of their infringement.
link (Score:2)
http://www.upi.com/Archives/19... [upi.com]
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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:3)
Antifa would disagree.
Free market libertarian types don't give a f**k about those examples - and except for a limited few no one on the right wants to make laws regarding blasphemy. Sexually explicit material is fine for most except for being front and center to children - that limitation is not on the item but the presentation. Remember we're talking about the "Right" in 2017, not 1957.
Remember "Right" doesn't mean anything. It just m
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:3)
Show some respect for this Internet you've got: you could lose it.
Stop being so dramatic. That ship has sailed, long ago. We have pervasive TCP/IP support in every device, literally from toasters and refrigerators on up to big-iron servers. Internetworked communications aren't going anywhere. We might have to route around assholes like you who want censorship-disguised-as-couth, but the network will be fine.
That being said, I don't disagree that keyboard muscles seem to grow a lot faster these days, but singling out "The_Donald" for example is disingenuous and you know it
Re: (Score:2)
The network is worthless if you can't use it for what you want to use it. What good is a set of teeth if you have no food?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm an average fucker at best.
Re: (Score:2)
You think that's bad? You can get into trouble for making a PC joke. Like, say,
"I think it's a good sign on our way to more political correctness that the only recent US president that wasn't compared to a monkey is the black one"
Real simple solution... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
UGH - some *other* member of the EU. One word makes all the difference ... sigh.
The Anschluss is coming! (Score:2)
Herr Zeller:
Perhaps those who would warn you that the Anschluss is coming - and it is coming, Captain - perhaps they would get further with you by setting their words to music.
Captain von Trapp:
If the Nazis take over Austria, I have no doubt, Herr Zeller, that you will be the entire trumpet section.
Herr Zeller:
You flatter me, Captain.
Captain von Trapp:
Oh, how clumsy of me - I meant to accuse you.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Austria doesn't have a navy and they are in the southern hemisphere. How would they even get over to North America or Europe?
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong Austria, it's the one between Switz
Re: (Score:2)
Only if you find enough people who can use light sabers.
I'm going to get Slashdot in trouble (Score:4, Funny)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Really?
Wow, that bland idiot is more interesting than I gave him credit.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
I am Down with this sort of thing
FTFY.
I did not know! (Score:2)
... 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)
Re: (Score:2)
I guess they would be fine if the content was blocked in Austria but it's probably easier to block it worldwide (for Facebook)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I guess another alternative is for Facebook to stop doing business, selling advertisement and registering users in Austria.
Re:Jurisdiction? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
"hate speech" is it's defined by idiots (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
And that's ok because it doesn't directly affect you? Then you're probably also ok with the treatment of women in the more insane cults because, hey, doesn't affect you, right?
Re: (Score:2)
As a person, I don't give a fuck.
Not happening, Austria (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
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)
A Saudi court has ordered Facebook to cover up ankles and hair of women, worldwide.
Sic transit gloria mundi.
Re: (Score:2)
Excellent. Much better irony than my post.
Re: (Score:2)
Where are my mod points when I need them ...
Re: (Score:2)
Sic transit gloria mundi.
I didn't know Gloria was sick!
Re: (Score:2)
Hm (Score:2)
"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.
Barbra Barbra Barbra (Score:5, Funny)
Will Facebook just have the balls to cut Austria? (Score:2)
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?
Jurisdiction issues (Score:3)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 so happy (Score:2)
Fortunately (Score:3)
Isn't it odd? (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Surely Austria can't be that stupid? (Score:2)
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?
It needs to be said... (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
And what happens when technology achieves.... (Score:2)
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....
Re: (Score:2)
Zis is werry razist!
Re: (Score:2)
You're by no means the only one.
That such a silly demand is made is a given. That it's by the Greens is, well, we got used to it.
That they actually found a judge that knows so little about the internet in general and the effect his verdict has on it in particular, that's the actually surprising part of the whole blunder.
Re: (Score:2)
They do!
But I can't talk about the details.
Re: (Score:2)
When's the bus arriving with the people who still care about gamergate?