Internet gag order

Remove all ads!

http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,56294,00.html

Apparently some lovely lads over at the Council of Europe have decided to outlaw "hate speech" on the Internet.

That includes hyperlinks to sites that are considered hate sites. Begin the "Big Brother" and "1984" references.

[ November 11, 2002, 17:43: Message edited by: Shralp ]

 

I know a great hate URL, but it contains swearing so I guess I can't post it...

 

Isn't there some sort of free speech law o'er in the EU? Surely there's some group that's our equivalent of the ACLU.

Man, I'm just waiting for my site to be blacklisted.

 

Basically this is already covered by existing legislation in most if not all European countries anyway, just not specifically the internet.

Imagine that we're not allowed to slate people because of race, creed, religion or sexuality! What a bummer, eh?

Free speach does not include the right to promote hatred of minorities. At lesat not in Europe....

 

Actually, it does include that. Hence the term "free."

I hate the "slippery slope" argument because it's so often misused, but once you outlaw one kind of hate speech it's really easy to use that precedent to start outlawing more. Pretty soon the only kind of state-approved speech is the kind that supports the state's viewpoints.

Are you going to deny religious groups the right to say that homosexuality is wrong? Are you going to deny liberal groups the right to say that religious groups are wackos? Are you going to ban nigger jokes? What about redneck jokes? Blonde jokes?

I also challenge your assertion that most European countries already have this kind of legislation. Germany and France have laws against racist groups and cults like Scientology. But to say that they all deny the right to criticize "race, creed, religion or sexuality" is silly.

[Edit:] P.S., if what you say is true then I'm suing you for hate speech based on my religion in several different threads.

[ November 11, 2002, 18:57: Message edited by: Shralp ]

 

First I know that atleast in Sweden we already have that kind of legislation secondly I am afraid that I more or less agree with Shralp here. As long as no criminal act is being commited, free speech must overtriumph the annoyance and disturbance you get by the existance of nazi and other extremist groups publications, where is the line drawn? That is the great problem and I dont want it to be a crime to have an opinion, no matter how crazed it is, as long as you dont act on your opinion in a way that breaks the law ie neo-nazis and fundamental christians thinking that gay people should be stoned can think that as much as they want as long as they dont go out and stone people (and I dont mean giving them a bong). That is when the state should intervene. Exceptions in my mind exist though, childpornography comes mind as they are clearly depicting a crime in progress and are thus in my mind accomplices.

 

In the U.S. child pornography had been illegal under the theory that it took advantage of a child who was underage and therefore could not legally consent to the pornography. So, it was the harm done to the individual child being photographed etc that justified the laws and it was that harm which was sufficiently compelling to outweigh any first amendment interest.

I was away this summer, but these laws may have taken a twist. If it is the harm to the child being photographed that outweighs first amendment interests, as the courts had said, what happens when there is no child? What happens when everything is computer generated? Then the argument that child pornography harms children is changed because there is no child being photographed. The argument will then be that child pornography harms children in some more abstract way, but this is the same argument that has been rejected as justifying laws which make adult pornography illegal. This may have been decided, but I was out on a boat in the middle of the Bering Sea so I'm not sure.

 

Oh my God!
Shralp, are you a card carrying member of the ACLU????
(just ribbing ya a bit )

Nice to know we can agree on something

 

Whoa. This is serious, folks.

 

and for your reading (dis)pleasure, he's a similar thing happening right now in the good ol' US of A

http://siliconvalley.internet.com/news/article.php/1494931

on topic: that's a rather poor decision on the EU's part. The line should be drawn at inciting violence; you know, the difference between "I hate gays" and "let's go shoot some gays"

Laches: if the porn IS computer generated, then it is legal; no harm is coming to the children. I believe that was put to the test in court, but I'm not certain. IMHO, computer generated child porn SHOULD be legal. While I find it totally offensive, inappropriate, and just plain disgusting, if the pornographers aren't using actual children, then it doesn't hurt anyone.

Of course, determining whether or not it is, in fact, computer generated can be very difficult-which is a major problem.

[ November 12, 2002, 08:48: Message edited by: AMaster ]

 

Oh well, no more websites dedicated to Eminem and Dr Dre lyrics eh??

 

Scampy, I would be -- if they could get their philosophy on separation of church and state to make some sense.

The card could fit right there next to my NRA card.

 

I am in total agreement with Shralp when he says:

Laches brings up another subject:

IMO this was caused by a media-fueled public mass hysteria which resulted in rushed amendments of free speech rights in several european countries.

Any law against free speech increases the chance that what you say can be ruled unlawful and thus it puts shackles on the evolution of new ideas.

We can't be sure that the currently prevalent ideas/morals/ethics are the "right" ones, but learning from history we can be sure that in the future many of our ideas/morals/ethics will not be embraced by the majority.
They always change.

Perhaps this is what is happening:
1 Media wants to make profits. What sells? Sex sells, hate and violence sells.
2 Media reports about sex, violence and hate.
3 The easily persuaded masses are whipped into a frenzy over an issue by what is reported in the media.
4 Elected politicians are pressured by the newly created opinions.
5 Legislators are pressured by politicians
6 Legislators make hasty decisions

[ November 12, 2002, 14:57: Message edited by: Earl Grey ]

 

I do like shaking the tree and watching you fall out Shralp

I agree in the principles of free speech as such, however, there are things that effectively promote criminal activity. Expressing a personal opinion may do just that if extreme enough, and expressed in the public domain.

Such criminal acts may be encouraging persecution and violence against certain racial or religious groups as an example.

Freedom of speech and expression are 'qualified' rights. They carry responsibilities as well as rights. Why? Because your expression or speech may infringe on someone else's human rights.

Hence there are in the UK laws restricting freedom of speech and expression in the following areas: Blasphemy, obscenity, racial hatred and official (state) secrets.

Here is a link to a site which summarises the UK legislation in these matters.

Provided this proposed legislation is tested on the same principles, I don't see too much of a problem. Should it become a matter of curtailing personal opinion and debate then I might think seriously about skipping Europe for the New World.

 

And I do so love forcing you to reveal your true colors. Your Utopia sounds a lot like most fascist countries.

Why exactly should one not be allowed to encourage criminal activity? Do you confine that to felonies, or should it also be illegal to encourage someone to -- say -- speed?

Considering that most governments consider it a crime to overthrow them, laws like what you and the Council of Europe are proposing have the effect of stifling dissent. No revolutionaries allowed. Good-bye, Nelson Mandela.

The limit to free speech should be that it causes immediate harm (e.g., the oft-cited falsely yelling "Fire!" in a crowded place which could lead to trampling deaths).

 

Blasphemy as defined by Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary:
1 a : the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God b : the act of claiming the attributes of deity
2 : irreverence toward something considered sacred or inviolable

IMO any law against blasphemy is archaic and can't be taken seriously in a non-fundamentalist state.

 

@Earl Gray. You're absolutely right in my opinion. Follow the link and it does illustrate the last high publicity case to be tried. Bollox in my opnion, but such is life. Unlikely to be many cases tried under this legislation in this day and age.

@Shralp.....

Firstly - I did not say that this in any way shape or form defined my utopia. My utopia has free speech and even cheaper women. Preferably with large busts.

Secondly - Fascist? I've been called a lot of things, but I haven't been anywhere near far enough to the right to be a fascist since I was about 12.

Thirdly - Encouraging criminal activity. Speeding. Please. You're not that daft, and nor am I. Strangely, nor is any government in Europe or the European Commission.

Finally -

How exactly does it make a blind bit of difference if the effect is immediate or say 5 minutes later? If cause and effect are the same, they are the same?

I suppose you're against laws that prohibit discrimination on the grounds of sex, religion, race and sexuality as well. I mean it infringes on your right to make your free choices doesn't it?

I've gotta love you and leave you there for the day got a footy match to go and see.

Tomorrow is another day.

 

Perhaps you need a more sophisticated political model if you think that only right-wing people can be fascist.

Immediate effect, puppy. You cause the panic that leads to the trampling deaths. But are you really going to say that someone who urged him to yell "Fire!" is a criminal too? Don't people have free will?

Do you have any response to my question other than calling it daft?

Actually, yes. People should be able to discriminate for whatever reason they want. If a racist landlord doesn't want to rent to black people and he's the only landlord in the area, then I'm going to build a business that caters to the housing needs of blacks. The market can and will take care of economic discrimination, given equal protection under the law.

As far as verbal discrimination, all we have to do is attached a social stigma to being racist, sexist, etc. And we've done a pretty good job of that in America without resorting to fascist hate-speech laws (although lamentably we do have some).

[ November 12, 2002, 20:03: Message edited by: Shralp ]

 

Shralp,

Can I ask you a couple of questions? Yes or no will suffice.

1) Do you believe that we all should have complete freedom of speech and expression?

2) Do you believe in complete freedom of choice for all?

3) Do you believe that a completely free market economy will provide all we need in a modern society?

4) Do you believe it's right for men to be paid more than women given all other factors being the same?

5) Do you believe that the right of free speech gives you the right to incite criminal actions?

6) Do you believe that any of us actually have any social responsibilties?

7) Or perhaps you believe that might is right and damn the rest down the river?

I'll look forward to your response, oh sophisticated one.

 

Viking, are you always a sarcastic bastard, or is this just your internet persona?

The answers to your questions are all obvious, even if you operate solely on previous responses to you. I'm not here to play 20 Questions with you. I'm asking you a direct question that you have not answered before: Where should the line be drawn for encouraging criminal behavior?

1) No, as I clearly stated above.

2) If you're talking about the choice of where to send your kids for education, yes. This has nothing to do with the topic. Again.

3) No, as should be obvious from my previous response alone.

4) No, but what does that have to do with the topic?

5) Yes, as I've stated many times already.

6) Yes, as should be clear from my previous response alone.

7) If I believed that I'd be kicking your ass right now.

Basically, you've proven yourself to be more interested (once again) in attacking me than in getting to the truth at the bottom of any issues. It seems that when someone starts to ask you questions and demand that you be logically consistent, you overheat and lash out blindly with sarcasm and cheap comments like most of your list of questions. This is right out of Ann Coulter's book Slander: Liberal Lies about the American Right: When you can't win the argument, just pretend that the conservative is sexist or something.

Try to stay on topic, and try to answer the question. Do you want me to repeat it again? (Hint: It's in this post once already.)

[ November 13, 2002, 15:07: Message edited by: Shralp ]