It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

EU: Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Microsoft to remove hate speech

page: 1
12
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 02:18 PM
link   
Vera Jourová, the EU commissioner for justice, consumers and gender equality has unveiled a new EU code to tackle illegal ‘hate speech’ on the internet. Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Microsoft have all lined up with the EU to remove hate speech from the web, with a particular focus on racism and xenophobia. Jourová claims that hate speech doesn’t qualify as free speech.

There are some interesting views by various people on Spiked today. Here are a few snippets from some of these people.

Greg Lukianoff is president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education:

The EU’s push to ban ‘hate speech’ on the internet is premised on the idea that we can fix social ills simply by preventing people from saying things that those in power disapprove of. The value of free expression is in the information it conveys, the thoughts it provokes, and the greater clarity about the world it provides.


Nadine Strossen is a professor at the New York Law School and former president of the American Civil Liberties Union.

Hate speech’ is not a legal term of art, but rather an epithet invoked by advocates of censoring a wide range of speech whose ideas they hate. We should certainly punish some speech that could be labelled ‘hateful’, but only if it directly causes certain concrete harms – for example, threats aimed at specific targets, which instil reasonable fear of violence. In contrast, we must not punish speech whose only harm is offending sensibilities of audience members.


Cathy Young is a journalist and author.

As private corporations, Facebook, Twitter and Microsoft certainly have the right to establish rules for speech on their platforms, including restrictions on ‘hate speech’. But the fact that they are signing on to a speech code created by a government bureaucracy should be worrisome to anyone who cares about freedom.


Matthew Lesh is a research fellow at the Institute of Public Affairs in Australia:

Nevertheless, hate-speech codes amount to creating thoughtcrimes; their arbitrariness inevitably restricts legitimate speech; and they assume stupidity: that people are not smart enough to hear hateful ideas and not be indoctrinated by them


Nick Gillespie is Editor-in-Chief of Reason:

hate — like envy — is the planet’s greatest renewable energy source, motivating humans to live better, richer, freer lives.


Ira Glasser is a former executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, now president of the board of directors of the Drug Policy Alliance.

How is ‘hate speech’ defined, and who decides which speech comes within the definition? Mostly, it’s not us.


Frank Furedi is a sociologist and author.

Hate speech is the secular equivalent of blasphemy. Blasphemy targeted ‘evil speaking’, but in a non-religious world, censors don’t do morality. So hate speech is defined as prejudice directed at individuals or groups on the basis of their identity — be it racial, cultural or lifestyle.

The focus on bias is important. Since all human beings are biased at some level, hate speech must discriminate between sanctioned bias and prohibited bias; effectively between acceptable hate and unacceptable hate. This is why it is okay to mock Christians but not to ridicule Islam.


Sarah Haider is a director of outreach at Ex-Muslims of North America.

Progress depends on our freedom to express dangerous ideas – a freedom which relies on a strict differentiation between speech and physical acts. Hate-speech policies blur this line; they categorise speech that offends as in itself a form of violence, thereby unwittingly justifying violence as a response to offensive speech


Wendy Kaminer is a lawyer and writer, and a former national board member of the American Civil Liberties Union.

Sometimes it’s good to be an American. Here mandatory civility crusaders are constrained by the First Amendment. Here a corporate media ban on ‘illegal hate speech’ would be meaningless since allegedly hateful speech is not illegal. Corporations, not bound by the Constitution, have the power to ban legal speech, but in an American court, hate speech is free speech. How could it not be? Hate speech is an imprecise, subjective concept.


So what do both EU and Non-EU ATS members think about the implementation of this new code of conformity within the EU? I see numerous issues: the main ones being the infantilisation of the the general public and the notion of thought crime.


Hate speech is free speech

We must have the freedom to hate


edit on 10-6-2016 by Morrad because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 02:23 PM
link   
Ahh good.. No more garbage rap videos on youtube............ Oh wait.. Hate can come from one side and all is fine.


iTruthSeeker
edit on 10-6-2016 by iTruthSeeker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 02:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Morrad



So what do both EU and Non-EU ATS members think about the implementation of this new code of conformity within the EU?

Non EU, American Butcherguy type here.
I am not familiar with all of the EU definitions of hate speech, so I am not sure what to think.

Let's say that I post on Facebook that 'I hate cats'. Is that hate speech in the EU/

If so, and I post it on the page of a friend that lives in France.... will they edit it out?



posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 02:31 PM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

Yep, therein lies the rub. Who is defining what is hateful for the purposes of banning speech?

When government gets involved in this, it gets to be dangerous. See Venezuela banning reports of the actual lynchings they currently have taking place down there because it is seen as underminging public feelings of security or something.

But think about it, here in the US, anything that comes close to being perceived as alluding to lynching could be banned under such a hate speech provision given the reactions the SJWs have to mere nooses or "nooselike things."



posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 02:43 PM
link   
Well then, thank God my country is not in the European Union...yet.

I'd like to see how will they censorship my freedom of speech? I will say what ever the f&@ i want to say, could not care less if overly sensitive people get offended by it.

I will insult my government for making idiotic moves. I will insult every single leader of the EU for making idiotic decisions, such as accepting too many potential terrorists into our countries.

And all they can do is kiss my ass and delete my comments
edit on 544k2016Fridaypm014 by Nikola014 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 02:44 PM
link   
The scary thing is that a lot of people agree with this limitation on free speech.

How long will it take for humanity to wake up to these psychopaths in charge?



posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 02:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Morrad

Free speech doesn't exist when you're speaking online in the realms of a company who solely owns the platform someone is speaking on. They get to make the rules.



posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 02:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Morrad

It's same retardation the left has imbued all way to their bones.

It racist to oppose affirmative action, but not racist to assume the entire black race is so infantile and skilless that they need the government to help them.

The left, killing hundreds of millions to silence all decent against their rhetoric since 1935.



posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 02:48 PM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

I don't think there is an EU definition of hate speech. We have the the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) in which article 10 grants freedom of thought and expression with Article 14 prohibiting discrimination on the grounds of skin color, sex, language, political or religious beliefs or origins.

The cat issue you mention does highlight an important point. For the purposes of criminal prosecution, delineating the line between speech that is rude and speech which is insulting is a subjective undertaking, something the EU bureaucrats are ill-suited to determine in my opinion.



posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 02:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Atsbhct
a reply to: Morrad

Free speech doesn't exist when you're speaking online in the realms of a company who solely owns the platform someone is speaking on. They get to make the rules.


No the EU gov made these rules not a private company.



posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 02:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Morrad

So they are restricting free speech.

Well, they aren't the government, so they have that ability.

They should just be honest about pushing social agendas.



posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 02:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Morrad

Only on the Internet? Have they been to a soccer game lately?

Speech is speech, and unless it invites violence let them say it!



posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 02:53 PM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

Well, I think the recent arrest of a Scot over his YouTube video about his girlfriends dog being a Nazi will show you how bad of an idea this is. I found the video quite funny but apparently it will get you arrested.



posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 03:07 PM
link   
Basically any groups posting about the truth of whats going on in the world needs to be shut up and closed down because pointing out the truth is racist and against the wannabe roman empire the EU!

Its a last ditch attempt to shut certain groups spreading the truth and getting people to vote out the EU in this referendum.



posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 03:09 PM
link   
Funny thing about freedom.

At any time, people in a free society have the freedom to vote for authoritarian dictatorships and remove those freedoms.



posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 03:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Swills

I don't know what soccer is, but I agree with you.

Let them come for my freedom of speech. I'll politely send them to hell.


edit on 511k2016Fridaypm014 by Nikola014 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 03:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Nikola014



I don't know what soccer is

Interesting.
What do they call it in Yugoslavia?
Americans call it soccer.
Most Europeans call it football as far as I know.



posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 03:17 PM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

You are right, it's called football everywhere but in the US. I was just making a funny joke about american ignorance



posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 03:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Nikola014

Yeah, I dunno why we turned football into soccer and took a Canadian born sport and called it football.

'Murica!
edit on 10-6-2016 by Swills because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 03:44 PM
link   
Paging george orwell, paging george orwell.....

Is the LGTBQ+ attempt to kick out gay white men, being censored?

How about calling some a bigot, homophobe, tranphobic, and all the other political correct names that are supposed to hurt people's feelings?



new topics

top topics



 
12
<<   2 >>

log in

join