EU Threatens Twitter And Facebook With Possible 'Hate Speech' Laws (gizmodo.com) 373
An anonymous reader quotes Gizmodo:
On Sunday, the European Commission warned Facebook, Twitter, Google, YouTube and Microsoft that if the companies do not address their hate speech problems, the EU will enact legislation that will force them to do so. In May, those five companies voluntarily signed a code of conduct to fight illegal hate speech on their platforms within 24 hours... But on Sunday, the European Commission revealed that the companies were not complying with this code in a satisfactory manner.
"In practice the companies take longer and do not yet achieve this goal. They only reviewed 40 percent of the recorded cases in less than 24 hours," a Commission official told Reuters. The Commission's report found that YouTube responded to reports of harassment the fastest, and unsurprisingly, Twitter found itself in last place. "If Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and Microsoft want to convince me and the ministers that the non-legislative approach can work, they will have to act quickly and make a strong effort in the coming months," Jourova told the Financial Times on Sunday.
"In practice the companies take longer and do not yet achieve this goal. They only reviewed 40 percent of the recorded cases in less than 24 hours," a Commission official told Reuters. The Commission's report found that YouTube responded to reports of harassment the fastest, and unsurprisingly, Twitter found itself in last place. "If Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and Microsoft want to convince me and the ministers that the non-legislative approach can work, they will have to act quickly and make a strong effort in the coming months," Jourova told the Financial Times on Sunday.
Will this apply to slashdot as well? (Score:5, Funny)
Will this apply to slashdot as well?
Re: (Score:2)
Why would it?
Re:Will this apply to slashdot as well? (Score:4, Insightful)
Not unless they or whoever owns them now has a presence in an EU territory.
Re: Will this apply to slashdot as well? (Score:2)
Re: Will this apply to slashdot as well? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why, does "Fuck off, fucktard. You're such a stupid fuck" qualify as a hate speech?
It doesn't. But there IS stuff on Slashdot that qualifies, although IMHO there's not a lot. But if you browse at -1 as I always do, you'll see it.
Arguably, the moderation system here already takes care of the problem. Users who aren't logged in won't see much if any hate speech; it almost never makes it higher than +3, and if it does then it drops below that threshold pretty quickly. So they actually have to drill down to find it - it's not immediately obvious. Users who ARE logged in are unlikely to see it if they browse at +1 or higher, (again, unless they drill down), because most of it is posted by AC's whose comments start at 0. People who browse at lower than +1 soon know what to expect and can determine if they want to see that stuff or not.
Godwin time: Mein Kampf is still available for anyone to read, but it isn't unexpectedly waved in front of anyone's face - people have to seek it out. Hate speech on Slashdot is similar to that. And this kind of speech SHOULDN'T be banned; we need to maintain an ongoing awareness that those attitudes exist and are actively shaping our world. People should be able to easily avoid most of it if they so desire, but hiding it entirely and driving it totally underground is dangerous.
Re: (Score:3)
I think the EU is afraid that its own citizens can't resist hate speech.
Anyways, I'm curious why they are being so aggressive about this, yet they don't raise a "great firewall of europe" to block ALL hate speech sites, sites that ignore right to be forgotten, etc. Presumably they'd need to block VPNs and tor as well.
Re: Will this apply to slashdot as well? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the EU is afraid that its own citizens can't resist hate speech.
I can't imagine why. I mean it's not like there's ever been a problem with it before in Eurpope...
Inside every "Liberal" is an "Authoritarian" (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, various Authoritarians — from Franco in the West to Stalin in the East — made elimination of the freedom of speech their top priorities:
The proper reaction to "bad" speech is good speech.
But if you are willing to justify other nations' not having an equivalent of
Re:Inside every "Liberal" is an "Authoritarian" (Score:5, Informative)
The proper reaction to "bad" speech is good speech.
Which didn't work in literally Hitler's case. The arguments about him then banning speech don't really apply: he got to that level of power using speech when opposing speech wasn't banned.
Re:Inside every "Liberal" is an "Authoritarian" (Score:4, Insightful)
Do you really think it desirable?
No, of course not.
Nonetheless your argument is deeply flawed. Your method has already been tried and it resulted in a massive disaster, so you can't really claim your method actually works.
I'm actually a trong proponent of free speech. One thing I strongly dislike however is ill thoughtout or obviously false arguments in its favour, because I feel like those arguments actually make the case for free speech weaker not stronger.
Re: (Score:3)
Then your argument is invalid â" by your own admission and on its own merit.
Reading fail #1. My argument is you're a terrible advocate for free speech because your agruments depend on absurdities or things demonstrably not true.
Yeah, except in Europe, right?
Reading fail #2. I'm actually in favour of free speech. I think you're so bad at advocating it that you actually do the opposite in effect.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I swear that many of the self-identified free speech warriors are it's worst advocates. The reason is you all seem to try to downplay how damn important free speech is by claiming speech is more or less consequence free. It's important precisely because it has consequences, not because it has none.
The "Hitler Problem" wasn't that the guy said mean things. The problem with Hitler is that he also had an army of uniformed thugs beating people up.
And how exactly did he get his army of thugs to beat people up? B
Re:Inside every "Liberal" is an "Authoritarian" (Score:4, Insightful)
Trump, for example, aims to delegitimise the speech of his opponents. His free speech is an attempted denial of others'.
Trump was simply more persuasive in the marketplace of ideas, this he won. Many people seem not to like democracy in action, and would prefer an aristocracy of the right kind of people, with approved views, instead. Fuck those people.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
No one said all Mexicans are racists.
That's why I talked about "casting aspersions" and "suggesting". His words we're "When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people." The implication is that the drug mules, criminals and rapists are prove
Re: (Score:3)
The recent election in the US shows that disturbing xenophobia* is alive and well in the US also
The recent election in the US show that the left's tactic of calling the opposition disturbing xenophobes (also: racist sexist isalamophobic transphobic and whatever else) doesn't work. But keep trying that same approach, so that Trump gets re-elected.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed, I view this as a risky path to the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four. The problem with censorship is that it is often manipulated for political agendas.
Re: Will this apply to slashdot as well? (Score:4, Insightful)
Anyways, I'm curious why they are being so aggressive about this
Because Brexit, Trump, and the rise of a true conservative backlash in Europe has the liberal establishment there scared as fuck. Turns out that the common people are sick of open-door immigration policies and decades of sucking EU dick. And the left-wing establishment desperately wants to do everything they can to silence this growing popular backlash, by force if necessary.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You just aren't following this closely. Let me bring you up to speed.
You are right that income inequality happens during GOP presidencies, but it happens a LOT more during democrat presidencies. The reason why the GOP doesn't flaunt this is they aren't trying to get everyone the same salary.
Income inequality in the US INCREASED under Obama -even though he retired tax cuts for the rich. Which place in the US has the highest concentration of millionaires? Washington DC.
Re: (Score:3)
Hatred fills your whole body. You’re sick and tired of humanity’s worthless existence. The only thing that matters is your gun and the pure Armageddon that you want to unleash.
You will go out for a hunt, and you will clear the New York outskirts of all humans with cold blood. You will shoot, you will hurt, you will kill, and you will die. There are no rules, there is no compassion, no mercy, no point in going back. You are the lord of life and death now - and you have full control over the lives of worthless human scum.
You will also run, you will need to think, you will need to hide and fight back when armed forces come to take you down. You will have no mercy for them, because they dare to stand in your way.
Only brutality and destruction can cleanse this land. Only a killing spree will make you die spectacularly and go to hell.
Of course, shit like that is ok. Shit like that coming from Europeans - just fine. Fucking Hypocrites - don't say something bad on twitter though.
Re: Will this apply to slashdot as well? (Score:5, Insightful)
The EU clearly needs a ministry to decide what is true.
Re: (Score:3)
They are always used to suppress politicallt incorrect opinions.
That's a shame. They should really be used to ban preaching violence and intolerance. Oh wait, they are.
Re: (Score:2)
0. ALL posts on /. are created with moderation no lower than 0. That's the logic. So anyone seeing offensive posts before they are moderated down is triggered, and harmed, and has a grievance to be addressed. It can never be undone.
1. The overwhelming majority of extensive, deliberate hateful speech is, in fact, merely trolling, a joke that is only lost on the extremes. The overwhelming majority or /.ers recognize these for what they are and a) ignore them, as they are insincere and deliberately provocative
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Hate speech is merely politically incorrect speech which makes value judgements and seeks to change anything.
Point out the over-representation of Islam in terrorism, the inbreeding, lack of education and over-representation in crime in refugee populations. That's politically incorrect.
Say "We should no longer accept Muslim refugees as permanent citizens within our nation, because they make our nation worse." ... hey presto, hate speech.
Re: (Score:2)
Citation? I'm aware there's a problem with blacks being overrepresented in prison populations for numerous reasons, among them possession of cannabis. Is there overlap? I'm asking as an SJW looking for another crusade!
Re: (Score:2)
"the EU is hurtling down the path of censorship"
There's censorship and then there's censorship, what some call the start of a slippery slope down that path, others simply call cleaning up the yard so the kids can play safely
Re: (Score:3)
"World proofing the child is much much better and leads to a better world."
Sometimes it's better to put some things out of reach.
Re: (Score:2)
... and forge ahead not on a new course but on the course that set America apart and above.
The "course that set America apart and above" is not the course that America is currently following. Arguably, America's path has been quite different from that set by the Founding Fathers for at least several decades, and perhaps for a couple of centuries or thereabouts.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually Slashdot is worse than what the EU is proposing because it has an active filter. If you try to write "n*gger" it won't let you post. Presumably other words are also blocked.
The EU is saying that if someone complains that the complaint should be investigated within 24 hours, and if the comment is illegal in the territory it was posted from it should be removed. So no active filtering, only reactive removal of illegal material.
Spot on. (Score:3)
It doesn't. But there IS stuff on Slashdot that qualifies, although IMHO there's not a lot. But if you browse at -1 as I always do, you'll see it.
Arguably, the moderation system here already takes care of the problem. Users who aren't logged in won't see much if any hate speech; it almost never makes it higher than +3, and if it does then it drops below that threshold pretty quickly. So they actually have to drill down to find it - it's not immediately obvious. Users who ARE logged in are unlikely to see it if they browse at +1 or higher, (again, unless they drill down), because most of it is posted by AC's whose comments start at 0. People who browse at lower than +1 soon know what to expect and can determine if they want to see that stuff or not.
Godwin time: Mein Kampf is still available for anyone to read, but it isn't unexpectedly waved in front of anyone's face - people have to seek it out. Hate speech on Slashdot is similar to that. And this kind of speech SHOULDN'T be banned; we need to maintain an ongoing awareness that those attitudes exist and are actively shaping our world. People should be able to easily avoid most of it if they so desire, but hiding it entirely and driving it totally underground is dangerous.
Spot on, in all respects.
There's sometimes a hate-speech reply at the very front of every article here, you can sometimes see it when you view an article right after it gets posted. When there are very few replies. There haven't been any recently, but there was a time (recently) when every article had one at the very beginning.
It's usually a single-line message "gay faggots" or "gay n*ggers" or about cows. "You are all cows. Cows go moo". That sort of thing.
(There hasn't been any recently, so perhaps it was
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Blazing Saddles, but no Irish.
Strong effort (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Curious what you're implying here. Are you saying that the companies mentioned are able to influence EU politics with political donations? Do you have any info on how?
Re: (Score:2)
If you hadn't noticed, the EU is fairly well shielded from that kind of influence. Look at EU consumer and data protection laws. They were clearly not written by corporations.
"Kill all white people" are ok! (Score:5, Insightful)
"Kill all white people" are ok, because fuck white people. That is perfectly acceptable statements on Twitter and are not considered racist, but everyone else demands that you bow down to their bullshit.
also:
Twitter User Replaces Word 'White' With 'Black,' Gets Banned
https://www.informationliberat... [informatio...ration.com]
Re: (Score:2)
What is considered "hate" speech is what gets the most outrage. I'm not saying it is right or wrong- but you won't find as many people "outraged" by racism against whites so it doesn't get the same motivation to censor.
Call a white person a "honky" or a "cracker" and they're more likely to be amused than outraged. Same thing happens if you post a thread saying "kill the whitey". The sentiment is probably just as bad but the outrage is less (and probably justifiably less since white people DON'T have a hi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We would have to look at the past post history of both accounts to determine what went on here on Twitter.
The thing is that historically black people have been oppressed over the past several hundred years by white people through the process of colonisation, slavery, lack of human rights, and sadly this archaic attitude s
Re: (Score:2)
Look more carefully at your link.
The original comment is in English, probably posted in the US since it's about Trump. Such comments are allowed for US accounts.
The account that was banned is... German? Anyway, it's not English. So different local rules. In some European countries racially motivated hate speech is illegal.
It could also just be a mistake on Twitter's part, or simply photoshopped. In any case, it clearly needs a bit more investigation (which is difficult to do because, as usual, all we have a
Re: (Score:2)
What I want to know is whether or not the focus is on racist commentary or the EU focus itself is racist, against white people?
How long did the plethora of #BlackLivesMatters posts inspiring the literal death of white people s
Translation (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Translation: "If you do not censor anti-government statement, we will censor you".
The best way to make people ignore a good point (e.g. about censorship) is to engage in hysterical lunacy.
Various European countries have had hate speech laws on the books for ages. I'll bet you can't point to a single incident ever where it's been used to censor anti-government statements.
The thing is, if you open with clearly false fantasies, people will quite rightly dismiss you as an idiot (as opposed to here where your us
Re: (Score:2)
No, the Treaty of Versailles and the failures of the Weimar Republic brought about the rise of the third reich. Stay in school, kids.
Actually, don't, the schools are crap these days and teach kids garbage like if you say mean things Hitler will appear.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, freedom of expression and association helped bring about the rise of the third Reich. Undeniably.
As did Communism and Multiculturalism.
Fighting nebulous "hate speech" will kill them (Score:4, Interesting)
If these companies even tried to end "hate speech" or whatever nebulous crime where a specific group of pigs are more equal than another group of pigs, we will see the end of these platforms and companies full sail.
I personally feel that Twitter will be first. They will probably ban Donald Trump's twitter account for some pointless reason. After a day or two of silence, he'll re-emerge on a platform like Gab and not be encumbered by these stupid rules. The second Twitter fractures like this will be their death.
Looking forward to see what the future holds.
Re: (Score:2)
If these companies even tried to end "hate speech" or whatever nebulous crime where a specific group of pigs are more equal than another group of pigs, we will see the end of these platforms and companies full sail.
Banning trolls will hurt their business, how? As an employer, I'm MORE likely to advertise on a platform that wasn't full of screaming, stupid Trump people. Those are not people that I want to advertise to, anyway.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yet for someone in marketing a nazi euro is as good as an euro from a card carrying "better rapist than racist" suicidal maniac.
Re: (Score:2)
If you think internet trolls and the 'alt-right' are 'half their customers' you've got an awfully inflated ego.
Re: (Score:2)
What are you talking about? Right now, it appears that close to half the nation at least sympathizes with the alt-right: they just elected the President. I don't think it's completely unreasonable to assume that the Americans on Facebook roughly represent America's population overall, in fact I think the alt-right is probably over-represented on FB because younger people (under 30, and esp. under 20) use the platform a lot less than older people.
Also, in my own personal experience with some, um, family me
Re: (Score:3)
Approximately 30% (about half the actual turnout) of the voting population voted for Trump, for starters. So we're already at less than half.
The idea that all of that 30% are 'nationalist nutters' and internet trolls if why the left has such a problem. Keep labeling everybody who disagrees with you as a 'deplorable' and see how far that gets ya.
Re: (Score:2)
Note that the requirement is not for the company to actively fight hate speech, it is for the company to investigate potentially illegal material within 24 hours.
Right on time (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Good one, I actually snorted.
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing about that post should inspire laughter. Unless you find assault humorous.
Re: (Score:2)
He doesn't find assault humorous. He's using what's called "black humor"; you might want to look it up.
He probably does find it humorous, In a dark way, how many want to cover up those assaults because it makes certain ethnic groups look bad.
in order to save free speech... (Score:2)
we must destroy it!
Freedom of Speech matters more. (Score:5, Insightful)
Freedom of Speech matters more. It also is the key to fighting racism with anti-racism. The door swings both ways. Someone can post horrible racist shit to people, and then ten people can post about what a douchebag the racist is, and make him look like a shithead.
Censoring racist speech helps racism, it really does, because it hides racist attitudes in a place where it can fester and become worse. Don't confuse racism with White Supremacy, or Christian Supremacy. There are many non-white racist out there. ISIS, Al-Queda, and other terrorists are racists. They are not racists in the same way that the KKK is racist, but they are racist.
It is a little known fact that ISIS and Al-Queda have executed African Blacks and Indians, and untold numbers of Persians because they were not of the same Ethnicity as Saudi Arabs. These groups are as racist, if not worse than the KKK, or the various racist Neo-Nazi militia groups in the USA.
The hate speech laws in Germany and other parts of the EU, are empowering groups like the Golden Dawn, because people on the Secular left have been conditioned to see Racism in the Prism of White Supremacy only, and while yes that still exists, the secular left is seen as a defender of the Right wing Saudi-Arab supremacist ideology these hate groups present. I still don't think the answer to fighting hate is more hate. I don't think the White Supremacist right wing Demagogues is a way to save western civilization from destruction.
I think that the way to stop this cycle of madness we are trapped in is to expose the lunatics on both sides for the sick madmen they are. If an individual person is trying to make everyone's life miserable, that person should become the object of everyone's ire.
Re: (Score:2)
> Don't confuse racism with White Supremacy, or Christian Supremacy. There are many non-white racist out there
Hell, this election on national TV they would say "Donald Trump isn't racist, but only racists vote for Donald Trump", re-enforcing the problem.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
They voluntarily signed the code of conduct.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
"freedom of speech" is not the only freedom in the world. It has to be balanced against all other freedoms. These freedoms may be weighted differently in different regions of the globe, but even in the US "freedom of speech" ist not universal above everything else. Just try crying "FIRE" in a crowded theatre and then claiming freedom of speech.
In these cases the problem is *really* hate. Hate in "you f*cking b*tch! I hate everything you say and if we ever meet i will rape you and hang you on your own intest
Re: EU is not Democracy (Score:2)
In the US, something like that would probably be considered a "true threat", and that's one of the well-known and uncontroversial exceptions to the First Amendment's protections for freedom of speech.
But maybe the EU protects making statements that are meant as physical threats, and perceived as such by an objective person?
Re: (Score:2)
In the US, something like that would probably be considered a "true threat", and that's one of the well-known and uncontroversial exceptions to the First Amendment's protections for freedom of speech.
Sorry, but no. It has to be a "credible threat", naming a specific action, a subjective and objective intent, as well as some indication that the person actually has the means and opportunity to carry it out. The "if we ever meet" part of the statement is a clear indication that the threat is not actually a credible one. There's a good discussion of the issues over at the PopeHat [popehat.com].
Re: EU is not Democracy (Score:2)
What's your authority to say that the threat has to be "credible"? I can't find it either in Supreme Court precedent or in the post by Ken White that you linked to.
Re: (Score:2)
What's your authority to say that the threat has to be "credible"? I can't find it either in Supreme Court precedent or in the post by Ken White that you linked to.
Yea, I'm probably using the wrong term, or wrong context. The prevailing idea is that the threat has to be somehow believable, is the way I read it.
Typically harassment and stalking statutes use that kind of term, to distinguish between other types of emotional outbursts of hyperbole rather than actual threats in a domestic dispute. a.k.a. the California statute defining stalking: "(a) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows or harasses another person and who makes a credible threat w
Re: EU is not Democracy (Score:2)
Sure, but exaggerating a threat doesn't inherently make it less credible as a threat -- only as a literal statement of intended harm. You need additional context to establish that the statement was meant mostly as hyperbole. A statement that is intended as a threat is not protected by the First Amendment (see, e.g., Elonis v. United States).
Re: (Score:2)
Well, right. Proving intent is required. And the statement "you f*cking b*tch! I hate everything you say and if we ever meet i will rape you and hang you on your own intestines" would probably not pass that test. It's clearly hyperbole. See for instance, USA v. Bagdasarian, which established tow tests: (1) would the statement be understood by people hearing or reading it in context as a serious expression of an intent to kill or injure? and (2) did the defendant intend that the statement be understood as
Re: EU is not Democracy (Score:2)
Do you distinguish between "hate crime" laws and "hate speech" laws? The discussion had been about the latter, but you talked only about the former.
In typical US usage, a hate crime would be something that is a crime regardless of motivation, but exacerbated by there motivation being animus against the victim based on racial, ethnic, national origin, sex, sexualized orientation, or similar factors. Hate speech usually means little more than harsh criticism than can, in some person's mind, somehow be tied
Re:EU is not Democracy (Score:4, Insightful)
Freedom of speech is the essential civil right, second only to freedom of thought, which when lost describes total oppression.
Without free speech you cannot:
- Say what is true.
- Say what others are thinking and do not realize they are not alone in that.
- Say what true and so expose lies and fabrications, thereby rejecting falsehoods and those who publish them.
- Expand the debate beyond what the majority say.
- Offer alternatives to the accepted and protected norm.
- Choose, for yourself, your direction and intentions.
- Ask others to join with you and oppose.
Speech is critical.
And next, after that, nearly (pr perhaps) equal, is self-defense, which is necessary to your right to life. First, to claim your right to live, then to reject in speech (ideas for you who struggle with some plain talk) those who would deny you life, and then to defend that life.
From there, to be left alone to do as you wish, insofar as you deny no one else that, is the beginning of liberty. To defend others ensures their rights and collaterally yours, preventing oppressors from merely outnumbering you.
Speech. Without this freedom, you would not be able to present your demands for this and the others. You would know it, in your heart, you would just not be able to exercise it and others, and defend any.
And balancing rights against each other is a lie. Balancing your exercise of rights is necessary, sometimes, in current civilized society, but such accommodations are properly limited and focused.
Re:EU is not Democracy (Score:4, Insightful)
"freedom of speech" is not the only freedom in the world. It has to be balanced against all other freedoms.
Nope. No, it doesn't. It needs to be absolute, or it's useless. There are no freedoms that speech impinges upon. At all, ever, in any way.
but even in the US "freedom of speech" ist not universal above everything else. Just try crying "FIRE" in a crowded theatre and then claiming freedom of speech.
You're simply wrong. It is universal. It doesn't need to be "above" anything, because it's not possible to impinge on other rights with it. It is perfectly legal and acceptable to yell "FIRE" in a crowded theatre. It's free speech. You, like everyone else, misquote the SCOTUS opinion that stated it, in an dissent from the majority opinion. The full quote is "Falsely yelling 'fire' in a crowded theatre and causing a riot." The operative parts are NOT that someone said there was a fire - it was that they (1) Lied about there being a fire, and (2) caused a riot. We have laws against fraud and inciting a riot for reasons, and those things can cause harm to others. Even the "falsely" part is not enough to take someone's free right to speech away, because they may be performing satire, protesting the lack of adequate fire exits available in a theatre, or simply making a joke for the crowd. All protected speech. Even if it caused a panic the intent must be proven.
In these cases the problem is *really* hate. Hate in "you f*cking b*tch! I hate everything you say and if we ever meet i will rape you and hang you on your own intestines" (withouth the * of course). Should posts like these *really* be protected with nothing the person attacked can do? EU law says otherwise, but twitter&co rather do nothing - some say because a good hate-filled "discussion" gives more page views and therefore more ad revenue.
You can always come up with extreme, indefensible statements bordering on credible threats to point to and say "this should be banned" and lots of people will agree with you. But where is the line? It's very subjective, and the line can be moved this way and that on a subjective basis without anyone really noticing. Until it affects them. And that's why the right to free speech must be absolute. Because as that line gets moved, and the censors' conscious and unconscious biases creep into the censorship decisions, soon there are simply ideas and voices and opinions that are important and relevant that will never get heard. That way leads inevitably to tyranny.
Re: (Score:2)
If you've caused a panic yelling "FIRE" without an intent, it might still be gross negligence or criminal negligence. A crowd in panic might be extremely deadly causing at worst dozens or hundreds of deaths, so perhaps it's about similar to telling your children to go play on rail tracks.
Re: (Score:2)
as hitchens pointed out
'who is "good" enough to decide what is acceptable and what isn't?' who would you have decide for you what you can and cannot see?
Re: (Score:3)
as christopher hitches was wont to point out. the case in which oliver wendall holmes made the "fire" analogy, was decided against the person, who in this case, was distributing pamplets, which encouraged young men to resist the draft for world war 1.
by our present standard, the pampleteers were convicted and imprisoned for political speech.
no calls to violence. no calls for violent acts. no mass panic.
Resist entanglement in foreign wars, that's all they were saying.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you think the opposite of tyranny is democracy?
Re: (Score:2)
Do you always answer a question with another question?
Re:good (Score:5, Insightful)
Define hate.
Re:good (Score:5, Insightful)
Opinions I disagree with.
Re: (Score:2)
an extremely negative and not rationally justified attitude towards something or someone?
Re:good (Score:4, Funny)
Good, good. Let the hate flow through you. Strike those companies down and complete your journey to the dark side.
Re:good (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
hate is not an opinion.
Hate Lives Matter!
Re: (Score:3)
Hate is an emotion. That everyone feels about some things or another.
Hate is even good and useful. Psalms 97:10 says "Let those who love the Lord hate evil, for he guards the lives of his faithful ones and delivers them from the hand of the wicked." Hating slavery, poverty, injustice, are all good things.
This hate speech nonsense is just political control and has nothing to do with "hate." They'll only ban the types of "hate speech" that come from the opponents of those in power while letting their allies r
Re: (Score:2)
Metaphors are hard.
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty sure slavery is only bad in Christianity when it's the Israelites who are the slaves. Genesis 9:20-27 MSG:
I forget where it's established that Ham and the Canaanites were black, but there you go. If you don't enslave blacks, you're against god. Don't tell me that's not what modern Christians believe because I know better. I've seen it myself.
Actually if you're serious about using Genesis as a justification for slavery (of Blacks), you should also be advised it would be equally applicable to all of the Abrahamic religions including Judaism and Islam, not just Christianity; other than just being wrong [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
New testament.
1st Timothy 2:12 {para (as they all are, unless in Greek/Aramaic/Hebrew)}
Also:
Too lazy to look up that chapter and verse. Both would get a SJW's panties into a bunch.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm, thousands. I think that the Moooooooooooslims would be out then. They've only got 1.5 thousands so far. Christianity has 2 thousands, so technically we should tell them. I think we've going to have to go back to both of those religions' roots, though. Abraham's religion has been ethnic cleansing for at least 3 thousands, not to mention that weird little merger with Baal worship MikeeUSA likes. If we can consider Mooooooooslims and Christianity to be forks, then we might be in business.
Every now a
Re: (Score:3)
what is an opinion though, is what classifies as "hate"
And my opinion is that "all Xs are terrorists/drug-dealers/criminals/rapists/inferior" is hate.
Re: (Score:2)
They also have the most hate speech in the first place, which is probably why they've been resorting to most extreme measures to try and keep customers.
Re: (Score:2)
Saying "You are privileged because you are white and male" isn't hate speech, no matter what you pretend.
Saying, "Cripples like you shouldn't be allo
Re: (Score:2)
Um, sure it is. You are attributing something to him simply based on the color of his skin and his gender. Unless you are claiming that ALL white males are privileged. But that would be racist and incorrect. Are you a racist, Pope Ratzo?
Re:Unclear (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Privilege is not an attribute of an individual. It is a status that society proffers based upon an attribute or set of attributes.
I do not blame you for being elevated beyond your abilities or innate qualities. I blame society. You're just the lucky beneficiary who otherwise wouldn't be able to cut the mustard. And yes, I mean you as an individual. Now I might blame you for lacking the awareness to recognize the benefits
Re: (Score:3)
In the case of this particular person, I do not assume status or success and I certainly don't assume ability and effort.
Re: (Score:3)
Provable, eh? So, tell me how a middle class white guy is more privileged than Obama. How is a white family in a trailer park more privileged than Jonathan Butler [foxnews.com]?
If there is privilege, wouldn't Asians be the top of the list of privileged? [pewresearch.org] They make more money and are better educated than any other demographic in the USA. Where is the Asian privilege?
You know why 'race/gender/orientation' privilege is bullshit? It takes complex socioeconomic circumstances an individual may experience and reduce them down to
Re: (Score:2)
And the Internet Archive is afraid of the USA?
Because they are currently in the USA and under the USA's jurisdiction. It would have been worse if they were in Europe with the "right to be forgotten", etc.
Re:As a European... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Do you think the crazy people who deny the Holocaust will stop believing it just because you have a law against it? That is the problem with Europe in general: they pretend everything is fine but don't solve the root problems. It is better to identify the problem and come up with solutions.
You misunderstand. We're not banning the hate speech and pretend everything is fine, we actively educate our young so they know what happened and why, we show them, we make them understand that such a thing must never happen again. Everyone knows there's some nutcases that will still deny the Holocaust, but they are quite uniformly seen as misguided or sick, when not outright criminal. Unfortunately, young people also tend to be susceptible to "brainwashing" (e.g. political or religious), so education about
Re:As a European... (Score:4)
>To those of us whose parents or grandparents had to live and suffer through WW2
>That is very much what the rules on hate speech are about, preventing those very things to happen again.
I see you didn't learn from WW2. Hate speech didn't cause it. Hate speech caused the jews to be targeted in particular, yes, but the war itself was caused by terrible economic conditions as a result of WW1. Censorship will not prevent WW3.
Re:As a European... (Score:5, Insightful)
... I have a hard time with the typical US notion of free speech and no censorship.
To those of us whose parents or grandparents had to live and suffer through WW2, I is pretty much unthinkable to allow someone to deny the horrors of the concentration camps and all things associated.
We didn't sacrifice a million casualties and $4 trillion in treasure for your political ideals and way of life, we sacrificed them for our political ideals and way of life, and that includes unfettered freedom of speech.