France Passes Law Forcing Online Platforms To Delete Hate-Speech Content Within 24 Hours (techcrunch.com) 242
France's lower chamber has passed a controversial law that will require social networks and online platforms remove flagged hate speech within 24 hours. If companies do not comply, they will have to pay hefty fines every time they infringe the law. Other more extreme content, such as terrorist content and child pornography, will require online platforms react within an hour. TechCrunch reports: While online hate speech has been getting out of control, many fear that online platforms will censor content a bit too quickly. Companies don't want to risk a fine so they might delete content that doesn't infringe the law just because they're not sure. Essentially, online platforms have to regulate themselves. The government then checks whether they're doing a good job or not. "It's just like banking regulators. They check that banks have implemented systems that are efficient, and they audit those systems. I think that's how we should think about it," France's digital minister Cedric O told me in an interview last year.
There are multiple levels of fines. It starts at hundreds of thousand of euros but it can reach up to 4% of the global annual revenue of the company with severe cases. The Superior Council of the Audiovisual (CSA) is the regulator in charge of those cases. Germany has already passed similar regulation and there are ongoing discussions at the European Union level.
There are multiple levels of fines. It starts at hundreds of thousand of euros but it can reach up to 4% of the global annual revenue of the company with severe cases. The Superior Council of the Audiovisual (CSA) is the regulator in charge of those cases. Germany has already passed similar regulation and there are ongoing discussions at the European Union level.
What happens on a weekend or holiday? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: What happens on a weekend or holiday? (Score:3, Interesting)
Personally I wanna see what happens when I start flagging all comments from official French government accounts as hate speech.
Re: What happens on a weekend or holiday? (Score:4, Insightful)
They'll look at the first couple, then effectively mute your account as a pointless time waster? That'd be my guess.
Re: What happens on a weekend or holiday? (Score:5, Insightful)
Geez, there is NO hate speech, there is just SPEECH.
If you are inciting violence, etc, that's a completely different thing.
Libel and Slander are different things.
You may not like it...you don't have to listen to or read it.
But it is a dangerous game to have someone in charge (who would this be?) saying this speech is banned and this is ok?
Talk about the slippery slope.
Re: (Score:2)
I routinely see speech suppressed online under the guise of things such as hate speech and most of the time it's not. It's political censorship.
The irony is the thing that incited feelings of genocidal rage, angry, disgust and unrelenting hate in me is when exposed to heavy handed p
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Define Hate.
I don't believe in gay marriage. Hate speech or not?
There are only 2 genders. Hate speech or not?
WuFlu. Hate speech or not?
Obama was the worst president. Hate speech or not?
"Let's make sure we show up wherever we have to show up. And if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them. And you tell them they're not welcome anymore, anywhere. We've got to get the children connected to
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
I won't contest the argument that "hate speech" is difficult to precisely define. In fact, it may be impossible without resorting to the "I know it when I see it" [wikipedia.org] argument. I'll let the lawyers/philosophers figure that one out.
It may make the "hate speech" label a poor yardstick for determining whether content should be removed, but doesn't mean that hate speech doesn't exist.
Re: What happens on a weekend or holiday? (Score:3)
That's true as far as it goes, but if you want to legislate beauty you're going to need a much better yardstick than "well we all agree that it exists". Ditto for hate speech. There are two problems with this law:
1. It unnecessarily infringes freedom of speech.
2. It criminalizes an action for which it provides no clear definition.
The first is bad enough on its own, but some intelligent arguments can be made for it even if I think they're wrong. The second, though, is inexcusable. You may as well put i
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: What happens on a weekend or holiday? (Score:5, Interesting)
How addicted are French politicians to Twitter? I seem to recall that Macron came out of nowhere in a couple of years in no small part because of his online campaign.
Just block reported content in France immediately with a note stating that French law requires it, and then add it to a queue for review. Have one part time person reviewing the queue in between their other jobs. See how long tweet addicted politicians last.
Re: (Score:2)
Because the last thing we need is a voting public the knows what politicians actually think? Because we want to keep a system where all you know about both sides is what the gatekeeper media tells you?
Twitter, censored and biased as it is, has been a blessing for democracy because thus far it's been less censored and biased than the news. Whatever you think of Trump, you can base that on what he actually says instead of basing in on what he's reported to say.
Re: (Score:2)
"a system where all you know about both sides"
Um, are French and German politics dominated by two parties? I really didn't look to see, but I recall at least some past activity by third parties in Germany, and France is, well, France.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: What happens on a weekend or holiday? (Score:2)
Not many can discern this. And in the US it's not clear that one party had taken sides.
Re: (Score:2)
Please do.
Re: (Score:2)
Same thing that happens when Facebook goes down at 5:01 PM on Friday, everyone gets the weekend off.
So, China was right all along, then (Score:3)
The state must maintain order at all costs?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Define 'order', in this context. I'm betting your definition is not universally accepted. Not even by the State.
Dear France (Score:2, Interesting)
We are sorry to inform you that you cannot access our social media platform anymore from IP addresses that reside under French jurisdiction.
In completely unrelated news, we have created a VPN provider. It's free to use, though it only allows access to our social media platform...
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe that's the plan. Lots of people would like to see Facebook gone, either because it's awful or because they could do without the competition.
Re: (Score:2)
Losing Facebook would be akin to losing a kidney stone.
Re: Dear France (Score:3)
Why do that? Instead, just don't have offices, employees, or assets there. It's easier to remain out of reach than to actually block everyone, and the latter is too censorious to be tolerated (no one does this on behalf of Iran or China; they at least make the local regime handle its own attempts at censorship).
Re:Dear France (Score:4, Insightful)
you cannot access our social media platform anymore from IP addresses that reside under French jurisdiction
...and nothing of value was lost? Come to think of it, couldn't they expand it beyond France?
Has anyone read the draft? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Curious which article on this got published on /. (Score:5, Informative)
There were several better articles with more information on the firehose for some time. The one that gets posted completely glosses over the criticism of yet another censorship law.
The other articles from the firehose:
https://www.dw.com/en/france-passes-disputed-law-on-online-hate-speech/a-53429587
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-52664609
Whose opinion wins (Score:2)
Define "hate" speech (Score:2)
The biggest problem with laws like this is the definition of "hate" speech. There is a huge range of speech, from unpalatable truths through incitement of violence. Exactly where do you draw the line? And who gets to draw it?
If the censorship is implemented by the government, for example, by approving or disallowing specific demonstrations, then at least voters have indirect control. However, requiring private corporations to implement censorship, based solely on vague guidelines? Those corporations are not
The solution is (Score:2)
Costs less than they'll lose attempting to comply with this stupidity, not to mention it's unamerican to comply with such fascism.
De-list France from BGP routing (Score:2)
Sounds good will be bad (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
She? Oh no surely you don't mean Marine Le Pen.
I HATE FRANCE!!!!!! (Score:2)
Oh how I HATE FRANCE! Every person from France is EVIL!!!! ...
so,, now what? This post must be deleted?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds Like it will Probably just be Cheaper... (Score:2)
4% of the global annual revenue of the company
This is the sort of thing that might actually be cheaper to pay the fine or disallow French IPs than to actually follow the law.
Good thing we all agree on what "hate speech" is! (Score:2)
France, the land of liberty and truth! (Score:3)
I could come up with a reasonable definition of hate speech. I could come up with a reasonable definition of most things.
In practice broadly across the internet, many other places and sometimes even in law I've seen it applied to shut down political dissent.
It is also often very unevenly applied. For example, hate speech against a majority ethnicity will be tolerate but not the other way around. Often truth is considered hate speech if it's on the wrong side.
Traditionally, while hate speech was a tool for oppression by authoritarian regimes, in the west it was often considered that if implemented the bar should be high. There are areas where people can combine lies, defamation or misrepresentation with influence and a call to action that can be problematic though these are very rare. These are cases that would be a bit like shouting fire in a theatre.
Some descriptions of the law are very dangerous because they apparently not only refer to hate speech but also racism or religious bigotry. If this is true then it's very problematic because the label racism gets slapped on anything these days including being against certain political policies such as mass immigration.
I'm not a fan of religion but religious people should have the right to express themselves and based on how other terms are abused all I see here is a communist decree.
Everything is hate speech in France (Score:3)
Not only the concept of regulating speech ridiculous (but very European, censorship is a popular concept there. Not only in France) but the French definition of hate speech is VERY wide
A (bad) humorist was condemned in France for making a satirical song against a far right party. And the judge knew it was a parody.
A French politician was condemned by joking "one is okay, it's when there are lots of them you have problems".
So, if you say there are too many Mexicans in the U.S. Bam ! Hate speech according to French law ! You don't need to actually hate anyone.
In the same spirit rejoicing over terrorist murders can land you in jail in France. While it's assholey, it's opinion stuff. And the French CSA are the guys paid to track penises on TV, not exactly intellectuals.
And worry not, such measures are quite popular there.
Let's all support hate speech (Score:2)
Although what I do find amusing is that many of the
OK. Criticism of Trump is hate speech. (Score:3, Insightful)
What qualifies as "hate speech"? (Score:2)
And who gets to define it?
Could a future government (perhaps for political or foreign policy reasons) declare that the sort of content that lead to the attack on that french newspaper a few years back is now "hate speech" and not allowed?
Also, what happens if Google and Facebook and others decide to not have any offices, staff or business in France in order to not be subject to French laws (including this one and the one about paying publishers for content). Would France really block all of YouTube if it do
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: Limits to free speech (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A direct threat cross the line I agree.
Define direct threat.
Don't you people get it ? If we choose to define two categories of what's acceptable and what's not, inevitably, the limit between those two categories will have to be defined subjectively. There is no way around this.
So, either we decide that free speech is absolute, and yelling "Fire !" in a crowded theater becomes acceptable, or we decide that there are limits to free speech, and wherever this limit is set, someone, somewhere, will be unhappy about it, will mumble something about "de
Nobody dies when you say "Go Fuck yourself" (Score:2)
The problem is with things like "Won't someone rid of me of this meddlesome priest!"
And we know that neo-nazis (real ones, not "people I disagree with" but folks who chant "Jews will not replace us!" with tiki torches) are growing in the real world because online recruitment is effective.
Do I know the answer? No. But it's too dangerous to just ignore that. Go read up on the history of the Nazis. They used those freedoms and the political sys
Re: Limits to free speech (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
freedoms are not granted by the government. Thatâ(TM)s your problem.
No, but govenrments can decide on what to do after someone speaks. Free speech does not mean freedom from consequences; it merely means no prior restraint.
Re: (Score:2)
freedoms are not granted by the government. Thatâ(TM)s your problem.
No, but govenrments can decide on what to do after someone speaks. Free speech does not mean freedom from consequences; it merely means no prior restraint.
Sorry, Frenchy, you didn't comprehend hard enough.
Freedom of speech means freedom from government consequences.
The "Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consquences" idea is talking about private consequences. That means other people might not like you anymore, and might not want to do business with you. It isn't a shield to regulate speech and then pretend you also supported free speech. That's just you being an idiot.
Re:Limits to free speech (Score:5, Insightful)
What you're proposing is unregulated speech, not free speech. All of our government-granted freedoms are subject to restrictions and protections from abuse. I'd actually argue the opposite - if the government does not take steps to properly regulate its subjects freedom to express themselves, it is not doing a good job of granting them the freedom of expression, because it remains prone to abuse.
This is Europe, we don't accept the american misinterpretation that anarchy is freedom. Order and stability are a lot more valuable.
Government does not grant you rights. You have them inherent to being human.
Then, The People create a government and tell it to protect their rights.
There is no "granting" from powerful people anywhere in this. If you start your political philosophy as being inherently under the thumb of the powerful, you get what much of humanity currently, and almost all of history exemplified.
Re: (Score:2)
This is Europe, we don't accept the american misinterpretation that anarchy is freedom
I'm from Europe (European Union, to be precise). Who's this "we" you're making claims about? It certainly doesn't include me, my family, my friends, and a lot of people I read about in the EU media I may be reading. What you claim is true about the legal framework in Germany, but not in Romania.
So let's slow down with this uncritical embracing of the government as "we", of Germany as the whole EU, and of EU as the whole Europe.
Re: (Score:2)
Surprisingly, the concept of human dignity predates white races.
Change my mind on this. Go ahead. Please.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Your post offended my right to human dignity by you demanding that I be denied basic human right of free speech.
I think it's off to gulag for you, by your own creed.
Re: (Score:2)
that I be denied basic human right of free speech.
Oh? I didn't realise you have a basic human right of free speech. I mean some countries grant you those rights in a piece of paper limiting what others can do to you, but that's about it.
You see "basic human rights" are to do what we please unless we're told we can't. If that means me censoring you, well who are you to say otherwise. How dare you infringe my right to infringe your rights!
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry, I can't hear you because I just took the silencer off my legal representative :D
Re: (Score:2)
I recall an Australian judge telling a midget he could not be midget-tossed at bars, because it wasn't giving him "dignity", thus preserving his "dignity" by removing his right as a person capable of making decisions and making him a ward of a local lord.
Re:Limits to free speech (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure that sounds nice doesn't it? That's the problem with all the well-meaning censorship and activism: it sounds nice but it doesn't reflect reality.
People are going to get censored for stuff that is not illegal. That's what happens in Germany for example. We got a similar law a couple of years ago. The result was that Facebook got some left-wing NGOs on board to consult with them what should be censored and of course they don't hold back on banning what they consider politically incorrect. Germany already had some of the strictest "hate speech" laws yet this new law causes completely legal expressions of free speech to get removed. One ironic example was that the post of a minister who was behind the law had a post of his removed.
The point of these laws is not to fight the evils you've listed. It's to outsource censorship to private companies so the censored have no recourse because it's being done by a private company and not the government whose actions can be challenged in court.
Re: (Score:2)
That's what happens in Germany for example.
Yeah and look at that country. Absolutely descended into a decrepit chaos. Oh wait, no that didn't happen at all. It's a great country to live in and in many ways far more desirable than the USA.
At least collateral damage there is just infringing on someone's rights. That's not on in the USA. The only collateral damage acceptable there is killing civilians during a war. But at least they won't be censored while dying right!
Re: (Score:2)
Your temerity would carry a lot more weight if your country, lacking freedom of speech, and treating all freedoms as something government "grants", hadn't rolled tens of millions of lives under its iron tracks in living memory.
Do not mod this down, as this isn't a cheap dig. This is the lesson from history, to learn from it and not toy with giving government dictatorial powers under the thought you're safe from full abuse because of democracy.
Ancient Greece. Ancient Rome. Venezuela 10 years ago. Turkey
Re: (Score:2)
Germany wasn't Democratic during that period, that is a persistent and pernicious lie that does not survive even a casual reading of history.
Re: (Score:2)
One ironic example was that the post of a minister who was behind the law had a post of his removed.
Reminds me of Canada passing anti-porn laws at the behest of feminists, back pre-Internet, and one of the first seizures at the border was lesbian porn, "by lesbians, for lesbians", stabbing its control-of-others' dagger deep into the heart of its own support.
A wise woman and feminist icon once said, "Sad is the man whose pleasures depend on the permission of another."
pleasures depends permission of others?rape much?? (Score:2)
A wise woman and feminist icon once said, "Sad is the man whose pleasures depend on the permission of another."
I really dig having sex with my wife...it depends on her permission, though because I am not a rapist. Anything that gives us "pleasure" and requires another person requires permission, unless you're a criminal.
That's a stupid and vague quote which you misquoted.
I even agree with your statement, but you gotta get a new quote, dude.
Re: (Score:2)
A wise woman and feminist icon once said, "Sad is the man whose pleasures depend on the permission of another."
What a strange saying, last I checked it was a crime to have sex with someone without their permission.
Re: (Score:3)
Sad we think a man has only sexual pleasure to pursue.
Re: (Score:2)
What a strange saying
A wiser man would identify this feeling as meaning you didn't understand it, rather than presuming that there is some problem with the saying.
Sayings often have a few meanings, and if you're so ready to grab the first one, it means that even sayings you hear every day of your life, you might never understand. Because you never listened past the first layer of potential meaning that you noticed.
Re: (Score:2)
True this.Watching the current 'lockdown' in the US, and how it is being enforced and managed, you see that businesses that challenge the State on this are faced with the prospect of losing business licenses. Enforcement by the State. Right or wrong, this is one way the State will compel obedience.
Remember that next time you go to the hair or nail salon, restaurant, etc, that they do business at the pleasure and with the forbearance of the State. And ask why. there are good reasons, and not so good reason
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Limits to free speech (Score:5, Insightful)
The only self-consistent approach to free speech is if all speech is free. If someone says something you don't like, you can cover your ears, you can walk away, you can call them an idiot, you don't have to repeat what they're saying, you can limit where certain types of speech are allowed (can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater, or no religious or political discussions in certain forums), and the ever popular you can make a rebuttal. But you cannot prohibit them from saying it just because you happen to dislike or disagree with it. That's what leads to logical contradictions with the concept of free speech. The moment you prohibit free speech of any kind, you have disavowed the notion of free speech, and championed only approved speech being allowed.
Incompleteness rears its head in lots of other systems. e.g. it's impossible to make a fair voting system [wikipedia.org]. Or it's impossible to make a stable flexible economic system [wikipedia.org]. As much as we want these things to be possible, logically they cannot be. And you will end up needlessly ruining people's lives if you pursue a path assuming that they're possible.
Re: (Score:2)
The question of who is right hinges on the subjective definition of what constitutes bullying, and so allows this contradictory situation to develop.
It's not contradictory, it's solved perfectly fine by democracy, otherwise known as tyranny of the majority. The definition of bullying is defined by those who are in power, like the definition of *all* laws.
I know the USA loves to hold up it's free speech on high as the only pillar to support civilisation, but the reality is you're actually in the minority as having free speech protected. Most of the west doesn't fundamentally protect speech above all else, and well frankly... the rest of the west is doing
Re: (Score:2)
We are teaching you why you need it, as your nations war on a level killing tens of millions generation after generation: stop giving those in power the powers dictators love. The powers the people you cheerfully put up there love.
Fight for your freedom, instead of feeling proud your leaders hold dictator powers.
Re: (Score:2)
I know the USA loves to hold up it's free speech on high as the only pillar to support civilisation, but the reality is you're actually in the minority as having free speech protected. Most of the west doesn't fundamentally protect speech above all else, and well frankly... the rest of the west is doing just fine.
Huh? The USA doesn't protect speech above all else, and pretty much the entirety of Europe [wikipedia.org] recognizes free speech as a fundamental human right guaranteed by law.
Re: (Score:2)
May I remind people that the reason to forbid government censorship has nothing to do with high value of every last word barfed out the mouth of some caveman.
It is to stop government from having one of the primary tools of tyrrany. If you don't build it, they won't come.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Limits to free speech (Score:4, Insightful)
Free speech isn't free if there are *any* restrictions (yes, any at all).
Man the fuck up
Re: (Score:3)
Sounds like you support the blasphemy laws already on the books.
Re: (Score:2)
>"There are limits to free speech. "
Well, no, there really isn't. It isn't "free speech" if you have to constantly worry about being fined for not saying what is politically correct or might "offend" someone. The only limits should be liable/slander, and those are civil, not criminal, and should have a very high bar (objectively provable/disprovable, public, with specific intent, and actual damages).
>" Bullying is certainly not ok, and antisemitic and racist speech also. This also applies to other t
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Limits to free speech (Score:4, Insightful)
The logic presented is truly terrifying. Who defines the limits? Who defines bullying vs a disagreement? Once the definition was clear cut, however I have seen words redefined too many times. How about that racist speech? I have actually seen people justify racist speech against whites as being okay under the premise that is not possible to be racist to whites.
The answer when you get rid of rights inevitably becomes unelected bureaucrats. What you are really proposing is eliminating the right to free speech. You effectively propose that we instead give control of language to unelected bureaucrats. Suppression of politically incorrect speech with criminal sanctions is already being done in Europe to suppress speech that isn't liberal in ideology. Control the bureaucrats and you control the language and effectively control the nations politics. That is tyrannical in nature and inherently anti-democracy as it prevents the free exchange and debate of ideas.
When you claim typical group who gets attacks you cite women, POC and children, yet this who is doing defining typical? Why protect these particular groups in particular instead of everyone? You are playing identity politics with speech, claiming that some people are more acceptable to harass than others. I say that the identity of the person should not matter. If someone is being attacked personally the attacker should get their account suspended by the platform for being an ass.
Re: (Score:2)
"unelected bureaucrats."
Um, unelected legislators . Worse.
Re: (Score:3)
Who decides what is acceptable or not?
Where is the line between someone offering their opinion vs bullying?
Only children censor; Adults analyse, discuss and even laugh at taboo subjects -- that way everyone can (potentially) learn.
Shooting the messenger so they can't talk doesn't stop the problem.
Ignoring the problem doesn't make it go away.
"I may disagree with you but I will defend your right to say it." -- Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
There are limits to free speech. These limits lie in all the other human rights. Bullying is certainly not ok, and antisemitic and racist speech also. This also applies to other typical group who get attacks, e.g., women, POC, children, etc. The human dignity must be protected.
But the trolls who want to censor your comment don't think so, eh? Of course they think they are immune from hypocrisy. Don't you just hate hypocrites? (My jokes never work.)
Tough topic, but speech is a kind of action, too. Hate speech is a kind of hate, and if the objective isn't to increase the hate, then why bother?
Having said that, I certainly have to admit that it's hard to define "hate speech". But linkage to historical violence is often a good indicator, or at least a starting point. In my experience
Re: (Score:2)
"I support punching white Nazis. Ummm attacking hate speech.."
Um you support physical violence. Not speech. At least in that example, which I would prefer to take as your making an argument, and not actually expressing your support for causing physical harm to those you disagree with. Though of course speech may cause harm also.
Re: Whats the big deal? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: Whats the big deal? (Score:5, Insightful)
The big deal is this is a /law/ and therefore hosting your content on a private website would be irrelevant. If the government decided you were guilty of a thought crime, then it'd be shut up or pay up.
So, yeah. Big deal. Glad I don't live in France. Otherwise, you might never live to see this comment.
Re: (Score:3)
Not what I said - I said the private platforms need to take responsibility for their platforms, much as newspapers and other media has had to for years. The internet is not the target, and will always contain unpalatable views. However agency is given by the platform. I can post hate speech on my own web page. That seems acceptable - the server it resides on it mine, and its connected to a wire that takes it out of the building. If however I pay someone for a server to host this information, they are culpable in my wording. In a complaint they can decide do they want to fight it or bin it. Internet giants are in fact no different - e.g. child porn, but are trying to keep up the illusion they aren't in the debate because of advertising revenue. They are.
I disagree with your server example. Hosting someone else's information is different than providing a platform designed to enable people to post their opinions. To carry your server argument to extreme, if you give someone a notebook you are culpable for what the write. I company can stop hosting if they find someone's content to be something they do not want to host; but responsibility for the content lies with it's owner. Obviously, they are situations where the host knows something illegal is occurring
Re: (Score:2)
While I understand what France wants to do; where does their authority stop?
I don't get nearly that far; I only get as far as, "Where does authority begin?"
As long as this only applies to content created in France, or on servers hosted in France, I can understand what they want to do. If they want to apply it to my posts, which I make in the US on the US server, then I don't understand that at all; what is their authority to regulate my speech?
I predict there will be a time in the fairly near future where diplomacy will break down, and OTOH the US and the EU will still have lots of
Re: (Score:2)
Not what I said
It is what you said.
Why are you so opposed to the meaning of your words? If you insist on it being phrased in a particular misleading way, then nobody actually understands it, and you didn't achieve anything.
Re:Whats the big deal? (Score:4, Insightful)
You claim that a law that fines speech based on what government says is not acceptable "does not hurt free speech"?
You really have no concept of what free speech is do you?
If the platform wanted to censor its users on its own accord, without the government forcing its hand, that's one thing... But that is not this.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, fining the platform comes only if the platform doesn't censor the speech. SO if the platform does censor, it is not harmed. But the author is.
It isn't fining speech, correct. It is intended to suppress speech. Harming the 'individual', the author. Harming the platform is merely the enforcement provision, not the intent.
Re: (Score:2)
News flash "free speech" != "free platform". Private platforms have a responsibility to curate their messages. This does not hurt free speech.
...the fuuu? Did you read that after you wrote it? Did the contradiction sink in at all?
Alright, here's a little thought experiment. What if the *employees* of Facebook all really dislike the people in MoDem. (That's a French political party I just looked up on Wikipedia!) Like, *really* dislike them, and think they should all be deported. Assuming you agree with what you understand as the law being proposed here, do you think they should be allowed to post their views on their website? If so, then why shou
Re: (Score:2)
France doesn't have free speech; the contradiction didn't sink in at all because he did not comprehend that Americans do not have this "responsibility to curate." Of course he can't comprehend that the "responsibility" is based on the existence of speech restrictions.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I hate french fries.
Re: (Score:3)
I wonder if that -1 Flamebait mod could be considered to be hate speech.
Re: (Score:2)
God don't hate shrimp. He don't even hate us eating shrimp. He was just making some of us listen. And keeping them busy.
And he knew that wouldn't work. Like your mom let you touch the hot stove anyways, except you learn that lesson the first time. Mostly.