EU pushes forward on law against hate speech, illegal content. Hosting companies required to take websites offline

Yes, they could be very easily. But, I don't see how that is a bad thing?

An ethnostater or nazi's position on government policy would be to violently expel people from a country based on race, religion, etc. I would define advocating for such political positions hate speech just as I would define extremist views held by certain religious minorities, like those held by ISIS.

Speech is not automatically good for society simply because it is part of your faith or position on policy.

The same policy swings both ways. Under that very same policy, an autocratic, tyrannical, dictatorial regimes can enact that very same policy to suppress or persecute opposing views under that very same premise that it is hate speech. Moreover, they can execute pro-ethnostate policies and suppress those who do not agree.

The same policy intended to suppress an ethnostater's position on government policy now becomes the very same policy that amplifies an enthostater's position on government policy.
 
@ManagerJosh Not really. You would have to be able to demonstrate that whatever speech you are trying to crush is something that threatens violence towards others. Hate speech is not simply "bad speech".

And, regardless, if you actually have an autocratic dictator, freedom of speech laws often don't help you because they are the kind of people that typically go above the law. These laws only help protect people when laws are respected.
 
@ManagerJosh Not really. You would have to be able to demonstrate that whatever speech you are trying to crush is something that threatens violence towards others. Hate speech is not simply "bad speech".

And, regardless, if you actually have an autocratic dictator, freedom of speech laws often don't help you because they are the kind of people that typically go above the law. These laws only help protect people when laws are respected.

A dictatorship or a government can define speech as whatever it deems it as - including classifying any speech as bad speech or as hate speech.

For example, let's say I am a citizen of the hypothetical country of Bialya. I disagree with the policies on how it treats a class of citizens - whom they allege are criminals.

I protest peacefully on the streets of Bialya, just holding up a sign saying "Protect All Citizens". I am branded a heretic. I continue to protest and gain momentum. Now the Bialya police have concern because I have followers. Eventually, the government grows tired and they crack down because they allege I'm inciting violence, am behaving in a treacherous and treasonous manner, and propagating propaganda. All I've been doing this entire time is standing on a street corner, holding the very same sign because I don't agree with the Bialyaian government's policies on how it treats a class of citizens.

Governments can topple and fall. One day a country can have a democracy. The next day, a coup d'etat brings in a dictatorship. Governments are not absolute.

We should never make laws or policies that has the potential to come back to harm us.
 
Governments can topple and fall. One day a country can have a democracy. The next day, a coup d'etat brings in a dictatorship. Governments are not absolute.

Yes... And, in these cases of total government collapse, a law on the books claiming you have freedom of speech is not very useful. Tyrannical governments simply break the law and deny your rights. These laws only matter if you can trust the government in the first place, if you can't, you'll be punished either way.

So, personally, I deem the rise of extremist violence to be far more concerning than a potential, fictional dictator in the Western world abusing a law that he would simply ignore in the first place.
 
We are betraying the principles upon which the internet was founded.

Are you able to cite a source for these principles? Does it include allowing a free platform for criminal activity?

I find it an intriguing concept that existing "laws of the land" or international laws would not extend to the internet or the www.
 
Last edited:
Please define hate speech.
And no, if it hurts one's pretty little feelers, it's not hate speech.
Well, thanks @Assadi who delivered a pretty good definition.

The thing is, like everything else, like every other rule/law, there are thin lines what falls under the law and what not.

Let's give a basic example. A speed limit on highways. It can be measured, right. So you can clearly say who is too fast and who not. But who defines the limit? What is the limit over in USA? Funny enough, you don't have the same speed limit in all states. So even a thing which is totally measurable can't be grounded in 1 same rule.

Now, how to measure "free" in speech? What is free speech? Give me a definition of that. Something which can't be measured will always have a definition which can't be exact. So you will always find "loopholes". If I delivered you what "hate speech" is, you would find a way to twist and turn it against me, because the thin line between "free" and "hate" can't be seen or measured.

I fundamentally disagree with anyone who thinks hate speech doesn't exist or when they triviliaze it to "hurting one's pretty little feelers".

This is exactly how the 3rd Reich was created. After the Germans lost WW1, they were upset and economically in decline (pretty harsh times). And somehow they started believing that the Jews were the fault for all of that (they seemed to be not effected much). It started pretty harmless. "Don't buy from the Jews" they said. Then they marked the housedoors of people who were Jews. And so on and so forth, we all know how that escalated.

So hate speech can look harmless, but emphasis lies on "hate". If your motives or words or intentions are hateful, then yes, you should be punished for that. Or in other words, the targeted group should be protected from you. Because, specially minorities, who can't overrule you, who are much lower in numbers than you, they can't look at you from eye to eye on the same level. Because you have the highground, it is not fair. You can always out-vote the minority by sheer numbers.

Let's say we sit together at a table with 8 other people who all are friends of yours (total 10). Now you insult me with the nastiest, darkest, hateful words you can ever think of. Your friends will vouch for you of course. What are my chances here? Now if I say something back to you on the same level, what are my odds that I don't get beaten by you? You have the highground, you have all the help you can need because of the friends. Where is my protection from that? You could insult me the whole night, and I wouldn't be able to do anything against you. Because as a hypothetical hateful person, you just wait for one wrong word from me. You wait for the trigger. This can escalate so quickly. Words are powerful because of human psychology. You can control and influence one's psychology with words. And psychology controls people's actions.
What if I take out my knife and ram it into you because I can't stand your insults and hate anymore? So for better protection and de-escalation, we need laws to keep everyone civilized. On the internet that 9-1 can be a millions-to-thousands ratio. The internet is so powerful these days, you can't underestimate it.

Also on the internet there is no physical intimacy, so no barrier. Most people who would be afraid to say nasty things on the street, somehow get confidence boosts on the internet and start saying things they wouldn't be able to say eye to eye...


We are betraying the principles upon which the internet was founded. It's an attack upon its very soul.
That is so funny and so wrong.
The internet was founded for the US military to have better communication on the battlefield or when at war.
What soul are you talking about?
 
Last edited:
The internet was founded for the US military to have better communication on the battlefield or when at war.
Possibly confusion between the internet and the world wide web? [EDIT: ie confusion by Manager Josh]

Or the dark web?

What soul are you talking about?

S
aol-logo-black-v.0.0.2.png
:)
 
Last edited:
Possibly confusion between the internet and the world wide web?
WWW was founded much later.
I was talking about the ARPANET.
The Advanced Research Projects Agency Network (ARPANET) was an early packet-switching network and the first network to implement the TCP/IP protocol suite. Both technologies became the technical foundation of the Internet. The ARPANET was initially founded by the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) of the United States Department of Defense.
 
Last edited:
I know, sorry I didn't mean to imply it was your confusion, but Manger Josh when they said this
Ahh, right, I see now. Sorry, I thought it was directed at me but you were asking me, if he is mixing things up. Well :). He definitely is.
His quote "It's an attack upon its very soul" is very ironic considering the internet was created to be better at attacking or to be better against attacks. So solely made for war.
 
encourages violence against a group of people on the basis of their race, gender, sexual orientation or religion (e.g., blatant KKK-style rhetoric).
That is not "hate" but threatening speech, which most (here in the US) states have laws against, so it already is a criminal offense.

those people infinitely more than I actually hear those people do what you act like they do — and I even intentionally associate more with the kind of people that would stereotypically be your 'SJW' crowd.
Guess it has to do with coming from a country that the very FIRST protection listed is speech. That should tell you where our founding fathers thought processes were.
 
Are you able to cite a source for these principles? Does it include allowing a free platform for criminal activity?

I find it an intriguing concept that existing "laws of the land" or international laws would not extend to the internet or the www.

The internet was founded for the US military to have better communication on the battlefield or when at war.
What soul are you talking about?

If memory serves me correct, ARPANET, while a military project sponsored by ARPA (eventually became DARPA), was developed "to communicate with and share computer resources among mainly scientific users at the connected institutions." - including Universities and Military. Reference: TechTarget.

DARPA, previously ARPA, is a collaboration academic, industry, and government partners, DARPA formulates and executes research and development projects to expand the frontiers of technology and science, often beyond immediate U.S. military requirements.

Sir Tim Berners-Lee created the web with "to meet the demand for automated information-sharing between scientists in universities and institutes around the world." Reference: CERN

More recently, Sir Tim Berners-Lee has advocated a set of global principles for the web: https://contractfortheweb.org


Remember, technology is a tool. It is neither good nor evil.
 
Last edited:
That is not "hate" but threatening speech, which most (here in the US) states have laws against, so it already is a criminal offense.

It is both hate and threatening. This is what people are discussing here, hate speech ie speech which is threatening and/or incites violence towards groups of people due toi their race, ability, sexual orientation etc.

People seem to be confusing this with offensiveness, which (although not pleasant) is not not the same as hate speech. And I think most people might agree that there are people who seem to get unduly offended by things what we wouldn't be offended by. But then there is also quite offensive stuff that does actually make people feel bad and possibly bullied. Maybe we should often give people the benefit of the doubt and know what hurts them.

One forum I moderate has very few female members, something I regret, but I can see part of the reason being the virtual leering, locker room banter and the stereotypical defence of "oh, it was only a joke, harmless banter, haven't you got a sense of humour?"
 
If memory serves me correct, ARPANET, while a military project sponsored by ARPA (eventually became DARPA), was developed "to communicate with and share computer resources among mainly scientific users at the connected institutions." - including Universities and Military. Reference: TechTarget

Sir Tim Berners-Lee created the web with "to meet the demand for automated information-sharing between scientists in universities and institutes around the world." Reference: CERN

More recently, Sir Tim Berners-Lee has advocated a set of global principles for the web: https://contractfortheweb.org


Remember, technology is a tool. It is neither good nor evil.

That's all fine but none of those principles are threaded by ruling against hate speech or illegal content, ie nothing to do with what you said before, ie:

We are betraying the principles upon which the internet was founded. It's an attack upon its very soul.
 
This is what people are discussing here,
But that is no different than calling a horse a cow. If they mean threatening, define it as such. Just because I say I don't like a certain race/sex does not make it "hate speech" that is actionable by an agency...
 
Last edited:
Just because I say I don't like a certain race/sex does not make it "hate" that is actionable by an agency...

Nobody would argue with that.

As far as I can tell the kind of thing this law is trying to stop is incitement to violence, e.g. from radical islamists, white supremacists etc. No doubt it will (sadly) stop short of some of the camouflaged incitement, ie "dog whistling" we've seen lately which, when the source is very influential, has the potential to be as damaging as any jihadist. I'll stop before getting moderated over being too political.
 
That's all fine but none of those principles are threaded by ruling against hate speech or illegal content, ie nothing to do with what you said before, ie:

People create definitions of what hate speech and illegal content is. Whether it be by political correctness, society, laws, etc. If we fail to understand those consequences, I fear we have entered a very dark age.

Nobody would argue with that.

As far as I can tell the kind of thing this law is trying to stop is incitement to violence, e.g. from radical islamists, white supremacists etc. No doubt it will (sadly) stop short of some of the camouflaged incitement, ie "dog whistling" we've seen lately which, when the source is very influential, has the potential to be as damaging as any jihadist. I'll stop before getting moderated over being too political.


That's the intent and goal today - which is quite admirable. However, it will go off the rails very quickly because a majority or minority feel oppressed and will challenge it as such and invoke such laws to have conforming views.
 
Last edited:
That is not "hate" but threatening speech, which most (here in the US) states have laws against, so it already is a criminal offense.

No, that is actually the definition of hate speech in many countries. The big difference is that it is explicitly about dangerous speech directed towards groups based on bigotry, racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.

Another big thing is that the US law makes it incredibly difficult to prosecute for threats of violence and it needs to be an explicit, direct threat of violence. This allows you to effectively incite violence provided you never explicitly say something like "We need to go out into the streets and start executing the Muslims". You're absolutely totally allowed to build dangerous narratives that inevitably lead to violence.

That is not "hate" but threatening speech, which most (here in the US) states have laws against, so it already is a criminal offense.


Guess it has to do with coming from a country that the very FIRST protection listed is speech. That should tell you where our founding fathers thought processes were.

Your founding fathers were also slave owners... Just because they did or believed in something does not automatically make it just, good, and sane government policy 230 years later, lol.

The first amendment was written in an era prior to quick, easy, and mass communication—even the damn telegraph was not invented yet. While words have obviously had tremendous power since the dawn of time, things are very different now that you have the ability to mass spread violent propaganda in a matter of seconds.
 
Top Bottom