EU Moving to Ban Online Hate Speech

WED Fan writes "Several members of the EU Parliament are moving to ban online hate speech. 'The draft of the declaration, which heise online has seen, calls on providers in somewhat vague language to make provisions against "hate pages" part of their standard terms and conditions.'"

Governments vs the Internet

[CrazyJim1]

Gotta love how some governments think they have power over the internet.

Re:Yeah, and...

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

...How long before the definition of "hate" is expanded to speech politicians don't like?

This is already the case. French right-wing politician Jean-Marie Lepen once publicly declared that the Nazi gas chambers were a detail of history (which, however horrible, they technically are, since history concerns much more than 3 years in some spots of Germany and Poland). Mr. Lepen was sued in court and condemned for having said that.

Re:Godwinning this Topic

[fiannaFailMan]

Hitler also hated free speech. Except for the "correct" thoughts of his side. Europe, grow up.

Where do you stand on the Don Imus case and his freedom of speech?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Godwinning this Topic

[anti-pop-frustration]

The Imus case is a perfect illustration:
Europe: Hate speech is banned by law (state censorship)
US of A: Hate speech is curtailed through auto-censorship (commercial censorship)

The question is, in the end, which model is the more restrictive one ?

here's a thought

[Class Act Dynamo]

If I may paraphrase Dennis Miller from his pre-conservative-ideologue days on this subject:

Suppression of speech produces people like Hitler; free speech produces people like David Duke.

Not allowing speech that is hateful just drives it underground where such ideology can fester. I would much prefer to let people blow off their steam in freely and in a controlled manner where everyone can see who they are. I have never understood this presumed right to not be offended. I know that hearing hearing a racial slur can be quite painful (having endured a couple in the last few years) but do these people really think they are going to stop racism by banning some expression of that racism. All it will do is lull the target race into thinking everything is okay when in reality the hate is still there, just hidden. This is a bad idea, it is.

Anecdote

[el_munkie]

The reason you don't ban hate speech, at least, the reason beyond the fact that it leads to the suppression of all speech, can be illustrated by something that happened in my town about a year back.

I live in Austin, Texas. Texas is a conservative state, and Austin is a liberal city that also happens to be the capitol of our state. The means that groups from across the state congregate here to protest, rally, and so on. Well, about a year ago, the Ku Klux Klan of Texas decided to hold a rally in front of our city hall. For weeks beforehand, there was debate over whether the city was right to grant a permit for the rally to the KKK. They decided to in the end. And what happened?

Maybe ten Klan members showed up. Maybe. They were greeted by something close to a thousand protesters as cops watched on in riot gear. There was no altercation, it was just made clear for the crowd, the media, and the people at home that the Klan was exactly how they perceived it: a group of ugly, not-so-bright rednecks that is very few in number.

The lesson? Let these people expose themselves for who they are, the population's mean attitude towards such things has shifted to the point where even ultraconservatives find groups like the Klan repugnant, and they'll only diminish the popularity of their cause. If the rally had been suppressed, it would have only served to reinforce the perception that Klan members [and whites in general] are being persecuted, and groups like this operate by convincing economically disadvantaged people that they are being persecuted.

The solution to hate speech is to not listen. An even better solution is to listen and laugh.

Re:we need REAL tolerance

[myowntrueself]

BTW my christian church does not consider homosexuality immoral

So what? Your church doesn't hold with Leviticus 20:13 then?

Or maybe your church just throws out the entire old testament?

If so then can I join? I always felt that the old testament was contrary to the christian spirit... (Kings 2:24 for example, the bit about the bears slaughtering children, the list just goes on and on).

Re:we need REAL tolerance

[einhverfr]

So what? Your church doesn't hold with Leviticus 20:13 then?

I am not a Christian, nor am I the poster of the GP.

However.... Christian tradition and even the writings of Paul are horribly conflicted over the place of Leviticus in Christianity. On one hand, you have Paul condemning homosexuals by inventing words based on Leviticus 20:13 (and thus inherently citing Leviticus as moral authority). A certain portion of Christians side with Paul on this matter. On the other hand, you have Paul suggesting that the Law (presumably including Leviticus) is not the judge of things and a certain portion of Chistians side with Paul on this issue. Those of us who while not ignorant of Christian doctrine are not Christians ourselves look on with amusement.

The problem is not only that those ideas are mutually exclusive, but also that Leviticus equally condemns wearing clothing made from two different kinds of material, plowing the corners of a field, trimming the corners of one's beard, and breeding mules. While one can cite Christian tradition to get out of eating kosher, the only way out of these other prohibitions is to side with the idea that the Law (including Leviticus) does not bind Christians. In doing so, you reject Leviticus 20:13.

I suppsose that Christians reading this who believe in Leviticus will find that Cotton/Acrylic shirt feeling slightly uncomfortable now..... But most of these CHristians are beard-shavers anyway...

you DO realise....

[Anonymous Coward]

...that there's a US "hate speech" bill in congress right now, and it has a good chance of passing? H.R. 1592 is the number. Out of committee already. Has gotten zip to nothing US press. It's so blatantly sucky, casual flaming on the intartubes can (and most likely will) be construed as "intimidation" and fall under the tenets of the bill. Like most of their bogus sneak attacks onrights, it has feel good sounding crap in the title, then you look at the details and think about it for a second, it's broad, vague, scary, gives them even more excuses to crack down on the internet and make criminals out of people just for viewpoints. It's designed on purpose to make a new broad wide ranging class of criminals. there's no other reason for it near as I can see.

The government is completely out of control, there isn't a single born with right they haven't screwed with extensively now.

Re:wait a minute

[Chrisje]

I know it's a flamebait/troll, but you, sir, are a blithering idiot. Let me take the time to reply anyhow.

> proclaimed that all people are equal, have equal rights, should have equal lives

No, Yes, No. The EU-countries tend to declare all citizens have equal rights, and thus the right to an equal opportunity for education, future, etc etc. Nothing in there says we're all equal.

> They have inspired fear of capitalism

No they didn't. For crying out loud, companies like HP see more than 43% of their total revenue coming from the EU nowadays. Plus, the Dutch invented bloody capitalism together with the Jews. First stock-exchange, first publicly traded company in the world. Hell, the EU has forgotten more about capitalism than the US ever knew.

> leads the same place: Communism.

I don't see how a capitalist system with huge tax breaks for corporations and still a Social policy equals Marxism. To give you an example, in Holland the Dutch Communist party *went bankrupt* at the end of the eighties, and the word communism hasn't been heard since then.

> America/Israel/The Jews/Christians vs. Islam, the Middle East, Europe, Russia, China, the UN.

I find this particularly interesting. Are there no Christians in the Middle East, Europe, Russia and the UN? Again, Christianity in its current form (including the trinity and the divinity of Jezus) was decided upon by papal edict somewhere around 380 AC.

Protestantism, Calvinism, Lutheran and all that were established during the 15th Century. The Middle East and Europe already had large Christian populations before Columbus ever thought he reached India. Hell, we've forgotten more about Christianity than the US will ever learn.

Israel, by the way, is also in the Middle East. It shares the same food, music and general culture of hospitality with the Arab nations in the vicinity. Then again, you wouldn't know that since you seem to be a bit of a redneck retard.

> WWIII was US against the USSR

Heh. Nobody outside of the USSR and the US actually cared much about this. There hasn't been a WWIII. It was all a scam to relieve you of your 19-year old sons and your tax money.

> WWV will be America vs. Communism

Way you folks are handling yourself, by the time WWV rolls around the smoldering ruins of what once was the US won't be participating in it, I assure you. The way things are going, China, India and the EU will get bigger and bigger financial clubs to swing, and the US will diminish.

China is even proving today that hard-line communism will also long vanish by that time. I don't know what you're smoking in your shack in Ohio, but neither the US nor Communism will be factors of importance in the future.

> because the US stood united

No they didn't. Ever seen Vietnam war demonstrations? Ever see Iraq war demonstrations? Ever saw the debate about abortion, euthanasia or further wars going on? There is no such thing as the United States standing United. The constitution calls for that. Which is one of the few saving graces of the US, for that matter.

Hell, if the Japs hadn't bombed pearl-harbor the US wouldn't have gotten involved in WWII. Then their role in WWI was minimal at best. Lastly, WWIII was a figment of your own (McCarthy, anyone?) feverish imagination. So just quit talking bollocks, OK?