EU Moving to Ban Online Hate Speech 452
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.'"
Yeah, and... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Yeah, and... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Yeah, and... (Score:5, Informative)
For example, consider the Alien and Sedition acts, passed by the Fifth congress (1798) under the direction of John Adams. The Federalists at that time were trying to consolidate their hold on the government. The Alien and Sedition Acts were passed, as part of a Federalist blitz to prepare to defend the United States from French attack. Never mind the fact that France currently busy invading Europe, making an attack on the US unlikely. The Federalists were fearful of foreign subversion by French and Irish immigrants, especially since both groups were active in the Jeffersonian party, the Federalists opposition. To counter this threat, the Federalists passed the Alien and Sedition Acts.
Part of the A&S acts, the Sedition Act, "made it a crime to publish 'false, scandalous, and malicious writing' against the government or its officials." (Wikipedia: Alien and Sedition Acts). Publishing such offensive information against the government would lead to fines and imprisonment. This act was used to stifle the Jeffersonian opposition, and lead to the imprisonment of several key Jeffersonian printers, such as David Brown.
Fortunately, all of the A&S acts, except the Alien Enemies Act, were repealed. However, the fact is that the constitution was blatantly violated for the reason of protecting the nation from the dangerous French subversives.
The scary part is, our congress and president are now casting similar laws (*cough*Patriot Act*cough), to protect us from dangerous Islamic terrorists.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
But our new step daddy is out to take care of that.
Re:Yeah, and... (Score:4, Informative)
Europe has similar protections. They're enacted differently, but the end efect is the same. If a State or the Federal Government tried to enact similar legislation in the USA, my understanding is the constitutionality could be challenged in court; if it's enacted in Europe its compliance with human rights treaties can be challenged in court.
As the saying goes, "There's more than one way to do it".
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
In most countries in the EU, people can say just about anything they want, like in the US. Inciting others to commit crimes is a crime, like in the US.
There are some exceptions, like in France where there are special laws to protect the Jews. You will be arrested in France if you deny that the Holocaust existed.
In some countries, there are even extremist right-wing parties. In my particular country, the fascist ideology is forbidden, because we had a fascist dictatorship for 48 years that ended in '7
Slipperly slope? This is a pit of misery. (Score:3, Funny)
I'd just like to say that I HATE the EU for doing this.
Re:Yeah, and... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Yeah, and... (Score:4, Insightful)
Or expressions of religious belief?
This is little more than a thinly veiled attempt by the EU to outlaw religion (both Muslim and Christian religions believe homosexuality to be immoral; the reasoning goes that even condeming immoral behavior (as opposed to people)is sufficient to trigger the statute.
IIRC, a similar law has been passed in the Netherlands, with pastors being warned that there are certain sins they are no longer allowed to mention in public.
Even if you are an atheist, the premise is troubling. I would be likewise disturbed if questioning the existence of God was made illegal - certainly this development is not going to expand and enlighten public discourse on sensitive subjects.
Truly a troubling development.
Re:Yeah, and... (Score:5, Informative)
Or expressions of religious belief?
This is little more than a thinly veiled attempt by the EU to outlaw religion (both Muslim and Christian religions believe homosexuality to be immoral; the reasoning goes that even condeming immoral behavior (as opposed to people)is sufficient to trigger the statute.
Not that the Socialists would be above it, as a matter of fact any political or other group, left or right, has enemies it would sometimes like to silence.
IIRC, a similar law has been passed in the Netherlands, with pastors being warned that there are certain sins they are no longer allowed to mention in public.
Even if you are an atheist, the premise is troubling. I would be likewise disturbed if questioning the existence of God was made illegal - certainly this development is not going to expand and enlighten public discourse on sensitive subjects.
Truly a troubling development.
Europe is a continent with many very different cultures that have fought bitterly in a not so distant past, just take the troubles in the Balkan.
It does not take much imagination to see new flare ups of extremely damaging violence in parts of Europe when certain scrupulous groups and individuals would not be constrained.
It is regrettable this type of legislation is needed but in countries that have had this legislation for many years the advantages have generally outweighed the worries.
I LOL'ed (Score:5, Insightful)
How many years has the US *not* been at war? 10-20, in it's entire history, maybe?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If by religion you mean "a personal relationship with one's creator", I don't think any law against hate speech is going to have a negative effect on people of faith. Most of the faithful Christians, Jews and Muslims I have encountered seem to be able
we need REAL tolerance (Score:5, Insightful)
This law will become the equivelent of the UnAmerican Activites Committee. Welcome to the Witch Hunt.
Re:we need REAL tolerance (Score:4, Interesting)
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 (Score:4, Interesting)
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...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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:Yeah, and... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Yeah, and... (Score:5, Insightful)
Many political parties in europe are banned, which I think is a travesty.
I can't talk for all those parties and all members of the EU, but here in Germany a party is going to get banned when it doesn't accept the democratic basis of the country's society.
Why should a democracy allow and even support a group with the declared aim to destroy that democracy?
You shouldn't assume that parties get banned lightly.
A lot of people call for banning two right-winged (and I mean _right-winged_, not just 'very conservative') parties here in Germany. But because they don't openly talk against democracy and because their actions stay within the limits of the law, they are free to do their political work.
Every freedom hast limits and has to have limits.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I'd still argue they should be able to run. If the majority of people believe that a dictatorship is the way to go, then, in a real democracy, that's the way it's gotta go. My guess is that the chances of that happening are nil anyway.
The exact same spirit applies to free speech. Anyone should be able to deny the holocaust openly. It's up to society at large to consider and then dismiss such claims with
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, that is a very blurry line. I can understand the desire to ban a party after the experience of the Nazis when that party seeks to exclude some group on the basis of ethnicity or religion from the process.
However, I cannot agree with it. First, the Nazi party itself was banned and that didn't stop them from takin
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you actually *that* brainwashed?
Because maybe there is possibly a better form of government than a democracy? Or, more clearer, a more pure, direct form of democracy than the present government?
I'm a minority. Sort of. Rather, I'm perceived as a minority. I'm half "Asian." I live in the US, where hate speech is generally not prohibited. The best thing about free speech, in my view, is that it he
Re:it's "speech," dammit! (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Marie_Le_Pen [wikipedia.org]
"Jean-Marie Le Pen (born June 20, 1928, La Trinité-sur-Mer, France) is a French far-right nationalist politician, founder and president of the Front National (National Front) party."
"He has been charged with Holocaust denial several times, and has unsuccessfully sued some who had accused him of this."
right wing i would think gwb et al, This guys more reminiscent of the KKK I guess by your
Re: (Score:2)
How about religious fanatics? Criticizing a religion is controversial enough (as if superstition deserved protection) but these laws will obviously be used to stifle religious debate. Religion IS politics, but the debate will be manipulated (first, by cartoon-hating Muslims since they are the last active religion in the EU) and these laws will be part of that.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How long? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"Hate speech" is just a label placed on a subset of what some politicians don't like. Since politics differ from country to country, the meaning changes along with the politicians. In Canada, publicly disparaging Muslims or homosexuals without a list of references is "hate speech". In some European countries, claiming the number of Jews killed in the Holocaust is less than six million is "hate speech". The US has a some
Re: (Score:2)
Too late.
Re: (Score:2)
And other 'sense' speech... (Score:2)
I'm sure that its just a matter of time before speech/writing involving other sorts of emotion are similarly banned...
The UK is already effectively banning speech critical of the government...
They have a thing called an "Antisocial behavior order" or "ASBO" with which they can slap a restraining order on someone, restraining them from pretty well anything the judge feels like, eg raising your right hand above your waist. V
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
(rant coming) That's what this is. And it's ridiculous -- I have friends, lots of them, that belong to various groups that are maligned by other groups for ridiculous reasons. Everything from sexual preference, to religion, to skin color (and in one special case, all three, the poor bastard, he's go
Finally (Score:5, Funny)
garn! (Score:2)
What is Hate Speech? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Let the government and its minions take a flying leap at the nearest alimentary orifice.
Governments vs the Internet (Score:4, Interesting)
This is a bad thing. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's the beginning of a slippery slope that ends up where web pages, emails, documents, or speech that is anti-establishment becomes illegal as well. It's important to set precident with the less-obvious things early on so this slope is avoided altogether.
Re: (Score:2)
You can be 'islamaphobic' because you belive that they should not be able to hide behind a veil in identification photos and a person needing to identify you can require you to remove said covering to confirm the identity.
You get told you need to respect their religion and force the 'non-believer' into doing things like forming special queues for them, special rooms for them, all because their guys need the
Hate speech banned eh? how much do you bet... (Score:5, Insightful)
But here's the proof, imho : in the US, where you can pretty much say any old darn thing short of direct calls to violence, neo-nazi, KKKs and other white supremacist groups exist, express themselves (much to the dismay of the local populace around them) and... they look like a small group of retards. On the other hand, in Europe, where you can't say something even remotely critical of the jews, and where naziism has become taboo to the point where it's not even possible to discuss the official head count of the holocaust without landing in the pokey, antisemitism, racism and extreme-right groups are growing at an alarming rate. Why? because these people stay hidden, embedded in the general population, by force of law, instead of coming out and showing themselves as the numbskulls they are like in the US.
So in short, banning hate speech will do nothing but promote hate. Well done EEC, some insight...
Re:Hate speech banned eh? how much do you bet... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think it is about what is forbidden though. Basically banning hate (or any other) speech prevents the public debate about certain forms of ideas. Just as a vaccine may make you a little sick but trigger your immune system to prevent a more dangerous illness, so too d
Re: (Score:2)
In the case of Europe it's not difficult to see why: in most countries there is a growing antagonism towards immigration - especially extra-european immigration, and this laws are a result of that. From wht I've heard the final law covers j
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
In the case of Europe it's not difficult to see why: in most countries there is a growing antagonism towards immigration - especially extra-european immigration, and this laws are a result of that.
No, hate laws in Europe are the results of a fascist government exterminating six million people and ruining a continent.
Believing or not that banning hate speech is the right solution to stop fascism attaining state power is one thing, but please remember what Europe has gone through and why these laws were created in the first place.
At some point europeans had to say "never again", and that's why most countries in europe have some form of "hate speech" law.
Euope vs. US Hate Comparisons unfair (Score:4, Insightful)
With Napoleon's conquests, the idea of people as citizens took hold, but it was culturally foreign, and integration never happened. Combine this with relatively small areas with different languages and religions, and you have homogenous countries that have been reared to hate the other because one was often at war with them.
Indeed, the initial efforts of the Nazi's were not the extermination of the Jews (although that was the end goal, they took stages), the first effort was to separate the assimilated Jews out of German culture, restoring their status as "others" to be distrusted by the people. Before they rounded my ancestors up into camps, they prohibited inter-marriage, and forced them to be separated from the culture. This was an important first step, because in Germany, the Jews were highly assimilated into the local culture, indeed the Reform movement was born in Germany setting the goal to assimilate, which is why so much of Reform cantorials and other German Jewish customs are borrowed from Lutheran protestant Curches through the assimilation there. In order to rile the people of Germany up against them, they needed to draw a line between Germans and Jews, which naturally made Jews the enemies and ripe for being attacked.
Europe's problems of racism and xenophobia stem from a culture of being at was with other groups and having them nearby. In contrast, in the United States, the former Slave and Jim Crow states, which have had a much shorter history of integration, suffer from more severe attitudes towards different races. It's not that racism and persecution doesn't exist in former Union States (it does, and may often be more severe), but the portion of the populace that would support race based laws is more minor.
I don't think that one can simply point to the US's First Amendment and Europe's post-War speech regulations and attempt to show that the latter causes growth of neo-nazism and the former stops it. I think that we have yet to see Europe get 3 generations from killing people for being "other" and Americans outside of the deep south haven't fought over the matter in 150 years and even in the deep south the civil rights movement was accomplished with relatively minor violence. Sure their were showdowns over integration of schools, but no pogroms. Even the worst abuses of people by the KKK pale in comparison to the European's behaviors, including wars over churches, kidnapping Jewish children if someone claimed the child was baptized, prohibitions of land ownership, etc.
There is a massive cultural gap between the US and Europe in these regards, the Europe's cultural elites are so removed from it they don't understand it. While the gulf is smaller in the US, our elites understand it enough to make fun of those that hate others, which is probably better than ignoring it... call someone an idiot or wrong, they fight back, just mock them, and they get embarrassed...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So Fred Phelps thinks that God hates fags? Fuck him. Let him say what he wants. Let more enlightened Christians point out his doctrinal shortcomings, and let the general public ridicule him.
So David Irving wants to sue against claims that
Anything that removes the liberties of thought... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Anything that removes the liberties of thought. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Come on, man. That is probably the lamest thing I've heard all day. Just because someone used the power of speech and propaganda for the purposes of evil certainly doesn't mean speech was to blame.
That line of reasoning will get people into way more trouble than whatever these laws are supposed to prevent.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually - and we should NEVER forget, it was 5.7 million Jews, and about 13.5 million Europeans in Total. The holocaust was truly awful, but it is still only a part of the true evil that Germany protracted in the 1930's and 1940's. (you can add in another 10 million if you want to include the American, and Pacific related deaths which Germany is either directly or indirectly responsible for)
Having spent some time li
Re: (Score:2)
I dont like what they say, but i'll be damned if im going to step on their right to speak, because once its gone for them it could be gone for me too.
Prohibition doesn't work. (Score:3, Insightful)
Alcohol
Drugs
Guns
Bad speech/thoughts
All attempts to enforce prohibition result in oppressive government, reduced civil liberties for all, and greater dissemination of the originally prohibited contraband.
Re: (Score:2)
- Theft
- Murder
- Rape
All attempts to outlaw these things have failed to erradicate them. Shall we just give up and legalise them in the interests of freedom?Re:Prohibition doesn't work. (Score:5, Insightful)
If someone actually does you harm, by all means call them a criminal.
If the actions of someone hurt your feelings, gross you out, strike you as immoral, or irrationally frighten you: get over it, ignore them, and mind your own business.
Re: (Score:2)
You say that, but, I don't think that 'hate speech' refers to somehting that 'hurts your feelings, grosses you out, strikes you as immoral, or irrationally frightens you." They're probably thinking of things that are likely to lead to violence against vulnerable groups. Someone farther up the page says that this is an example of Europe not l
Re: (Score:2)
Prosecuting someone like Fred Phelps would only make him a martyr.
Heinlein Quote (Score:2)
I think you can pretty clearly define hate speech (Score:4, Insightful)
To me hate speech is a severe form of slander and libel which is pushed upon one entire ethnic group or race. I think laws for hate speech are possible as long as you put strict requirements on it. Should I be able to walk down the street and call you a N*****? Legally, yes I should be able to. Should I be able to create a book detailing with no real scientific proof, that african americans are an inferior race of stupid people who should be shot an hanged on site for merely existing? Absolutely not. To me it's an extention of the same slander and libel laws. I could walk down the street and call you an asshole if you cut me off, but if I cook up some lies and speak about them publically or write an article on the web about you just to damage your reputation and make it harder for you to keep or find a job, then that should be illegal.
No society is absolute. Americans hold up the constitution as the ultimate black and white definition of what should and should not happen, but as time marches on, people evolve and grow ever more savvy about how to game the system.
And to those who think that the hate speech would evolve into squashing all free speech are offering up a red herring. Libel and slander as they are now are laws that limit your freedom to speak your mind, because in those cases you are hurting someone else. Same with yelling fire in a crowded theater. Freedom of political and social speech can been preserved just fine. Free speech is not a simple black or white philosophy and we forget exceptions and how we frame them when look at the freedom of speech.
The EU countries already have bans on hate speech, as does Canada and probably others. Different countries deal with different problems differently, and the US, while it has a strong protection of freedom of speech, also has problems with evil reactionary groups who are allowed to exist and spread what I consider the most evil of lies under the banner of free speech. I don't see the EU collapsing now because they crack down on hatemongers and I don't see it happening any time soon either.
Re:I think you can pretty clearly define hate spee (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes. Absolutely. End of story.
Re:I think you can pretty clearly define hate spee (Score:5, Informative)
We already have laws for the things you are talking about, involving things like inciting violence.
How often have you heard about a case where someone caused actual harm to anyone, that went unprosecuted, that would have been a violation of your vision of a hate speech law?
Re:I think you can pretty clearly define hate spee (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can't erase hatred, intolerance, and bigotry by forcing it into the shadows; you can only combat it with enlightenment.
Re:I think you can pretty clearly define hate spee (Score:5, Insightful)
So you can define hate speech.
And we could probably agree on what is acceptable and not.
But, the effect of an a priori prohibition speech based on its content damages society as a whole.
The battle over free speech isn't merely about public statements. It is also a battle over how best to address the problem of troubled individuals, who, while not criminal (yet), exhibit pathological tendencies. Without freedom of speech, we would have to wonder if everyone was out to get us. With freedom of speech, I have a reasonable assurance that I'm on good terms with others because they are free to let me know if they hate me or love me, or are merely indifferent. Hence, our collective sense of security and civil stability is very much tied to our freedom of speech.
Re:I think you can pretty clearly define hate spee (Score:2)
The boisterous sea of liberty is never without a wave. - Thomas Jefferson
You don't see EU collapsing because they crack down on hate mongers but you do see them putting up cameras and proposing DNA databases. Little steps at a time. Hitler didn't come to power either in one day, he took gradual progress steps till it was too late.
If you want to write a book about how Asians
Re:I think you can pretty clearly define hate spee (Score:2)
Yes. And the rest of us will make fun of you for being an idiot. You will be mocked, your friends will leave you, your family will alienate you, and your ideas will be shot down as coming from a complete retard. You will be fired from your job for being a hateful bastard. Kids will point at you. You will die alone and scorned. Your ideas WILL GO NOWHERE.
Re:I think you can pretty clearly define hate spee (Score:2)
Classifying speech is inherently hard to do. The problem comes because brightline definitions in these cases are inherently overinclusive or underinclusive in speech they cover. Lets take you definition for example:
Using your definition, "severe f
Re: (Score:2)
Yes you can.
Hate speech (Score:4, Funny)
Rights disappear whenever people stop using them. So I suggest we let go on the hate speech in this specific thread and have a hateful conversation (you fucking nerdy retards)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Hey Slashdotters, which is better, Linux or BSD? How's about emacs vs. vi? PS3 vs. Wii? Gnome vs. KDE? Best distro out there? Gun control: good or bad? What's hands down the very best language out there?
There, that should do it.
Why this is a problem ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Remember, freedom to choose is the freedom to make bad decisions; there is no controversy in making good decisions.
They shouldn't. They should promote hate speech. (Score:2)
Show people the worst malformed logic and ranting and hatred of that world, so they know better to check themselves of its beginnings.
Try starting with this man's output: (Score:2)
The man's style is great - just let them say all kinds of crazy, no need to be aggressive back, they'll do all the work.
Not a simple matter (Score:2)
In places where the concerned population is largely homogeneous in their beliefs, interests..etc, the public voicing of sentiment that is aggressive towards the said populace/causes them considerable disturbance is not always easy to defend. This is because the "hate speech" is seen as an affront
Does this mean that Slashdot is out? (Score:2)
here's a thought (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Stupid idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyway one mans hate speech is another's fight for freedom.
Thoughtcrime and Speechcrime (Score:3, Insightful)
Given crime == 5 years in jail
Given crime + hateful thoughts == 8 years in jail.
Then following through...
hateful thoughts == 3 years in jail
The fact that you have quantified a pattern of thought as being punishable by 3 more years in jail is far FAR too Orwellian for my tastes. It's the legal equivalent of venial sins, not bad enough to be a sin on it's own, but definitely bad enough to increase your penance for a mortal sin.
Something which is free , by definition, is something which has no restrictions placed on it. Freedom of speech means freedom to say things which aren't popular opinions. The EU is futher taking away free speech with this. (It was already not really free with the current laws in place)
Here's a question, since the Quran tells Muslims to kill the disbelievers wherever they find them (Q. 2:191), to murder them and treat them harshly (Q. 9:123), slay them (Q. 9:5), fight with them, (Q. 8: 65 ) even if they are Christians and Jews, humiliate them and impose on them a penalty tax (Q. 9: 29). (quick and dirty google for that.. http://www.sullivan-county.com/x/sina.htm ) Does this mean the Quran is a "hate text"? Would reading those passages be "Hate Speech"?
Whereas I don't agree with those things, I respect the right of someone else to think and believe them. Now, if they act on those beliefs then they are transgressing against the rights of others to things such as life and liberty. At that point it's punishment time. But not punishment for believing it, punishment for the act expressing it.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
He wasn't fired because he wasn't bringing money in. On the contrary, the case actually boosted the amount of coverage he was getting. I'd never even heard of the fella until that all blew up. He was fired because he exercised his 'freedom of speech' and society determined that doing so in the way he did was unacceptable. Ma
Re:Godwinning this Topic (Score:5, Insightful)
Societal disapproval is not the same as illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
It' just that aspect what has thought the Europeans a historic lesson, there are limits to what a democratic society can bear before it falls victim to it's own liberties.
Many of us Europeans prefer some legal tools to stop the idiots.
Re: (Score:2)
Being able to be fired or made fun of because of public outcry over something you've said or done is FINE. He has free speech just as the rest of society can shun him or his employer can fire him for saying something dumb. Personally, I don't think he should have apologized one bit. He shoulda called all the offended people nappy headed hoe
Re: (Score:2)
Freedom of expression means that you can say whatever you want, and I can't enlist the government to sop you from saying what you want. However, it doesn't mean
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
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 ?
Re:Godwinning this Topic (Score:5, Insightful)
No contest. The one where you can actually end up in jail for something you've said.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Freedom of speech is not promis
Re: (Score:2)
if by "society" you mean a few, shrill extremists who feign oversensitivity to attack people they dont like than sure, "society" determined that doing so was unacceptable.
Imus's rights were not violated (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sound familiar?
Re: (Score:2)
If the US is still acting like this in 2400, you might have a point.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, looking again, you did mention "fags"