EU pushes forward on law against hate speech, illegal content. Hosting companies required to take websites offline
- Thread starter Alpha1
- Start date
Robust
Well-known member
The EU represents a large market, so any legislation by them is always going to be implemented by US providers. EU directives, especially those relating to the single digital market, tend to have broad effect and require compliance by any organisation serving EU citizens (same as the GDPR and VAT laws).
Regardless, EU directives and legislation tends to be in good faith and worthwhile complying with in some shape or form especially if required, even if you feel like you're exempt. The GDPR, for example, to comply with means mostly doing things you should've been doing anyway.
AndrewSimm
Well-known member
American companies implement European directives when it makes sense. In other cases such as GPDR they only enforce it for users in that country. GPDR is supposed to protect Europeans even if they are in the United States, though a vast majority of American websites do not give a cookie notice to pages accessed in the United States. Now service providers have free speech as well and if they decide something violates their TOS they can of course react. That being said, they are under no obligation to follow EU guidance, even on sites served in the EU. For example, the EU could believe that Donald Trump engages in hate speech, but that term is viewed differently in the United States.
Here is an interesting article that may help you understand why American's think about EU laws
https://www.wearethemighty.com/us-can-invade-the-hague
KSA
Well-known member
The EU is being selective when it comes to hate vs free speech. Whenever suits them they call it free speech and when it is not then its called hate speech. No body takes this legislation seriously after all. Who is going to sue site owners residing outside Europe? The least they can do is censorship.
Alpha1
Well-known member
A new EU Directive has been signed into 'EU law'. PE-CONS 33/18 It amends the Audiovisual Media Services Directive to limit hate speech, incitement, hatred, violence and harmful content, protection of minors.
Countries have 21 months to implement it into national law and are allowed to create more stringent laws. The Directive is here:
This will affect sites that allow upload of media.
Mind that this Directive is just one part of a comprehensive effort to counter hate speech. Much more is coming.
Countries have 21 months to implement it into national law and are allowed to create more stringent laws. The Directive is here:
This will affect sites that allow upload of media.
Mind that this Directive is just one part of a comprehensive effort to counter hate speech. Much more is coming.
AndrewSimm
Well-known member
I am not from Europe so I don't understand exactly how things work there. That being said, what gives the EU right to determine laws in a country? What country in their right mind would allow that to happen?
TPerry
Well-known member
In a nutshell, a country that has surrendered most of it's sovereignty to a central power that the people had no hand in electing directly. I know it seems nuts, but apparently the folks over there love getting it shoved to them.
Mouth
Well-known member
Not being in a EU country, I've never understood why some people argue Brexit is bad. I would have thought it was good, if only for this reason.
Lukas W.
Well-known member
While Brexit gives them sovereignty over their own laws, it also means they will lose it on all trade benefits within the EU, unless negotiated otherwise, to only name one drawback.
Besides, the EU does not provide laws, but guidelines. Membership states are asked to turn the majority of these guidelines into laws, and there are those countries that will gladly do so, but you're not forced by any means to adhere reach and revert single one of them only because you're a membership state.
It might also be worth noting that we directly vote for our Representatives in the European Parliament, which in my opinion doesn't make it that much different from America as a whole, but that's just my point of view.
Besides, the EU does not provide laws, but guidelines. Membership states are asked to turn the majority of these guidelines into laws, and there are those countries that will gladly do so, but you're not forced by any means to adhere reach and revert single one of them only because you're a membership state.
It might also be worth noting that we directly vote for our Representatives in the European Parliament, which in my opinion doesn't make it that much different from America as a whole, but that's just my point of view.
Mouth
Well-known member
I don't believe that's true, all EU regulations are mandatorily and automatically enacted by member states. And the EU regulation takes precedent over any conflicting member state laws.
Regulation (European Union) - Wikipedia
Lukas W.
Well-known member
You're partially right, but so am I. A regulation is indeed an international law, but the enforcer will be the country in the end, and rarely the EU itself. Either way, regulations are not only one means of passing laws, there's also directives, and recommendations. Our all feared article 13 for example is merely a directive and actual implementation, if any, is up to each individual member state.
Assadi
Well-known member
I mean... A lot of those people are unironically racist and/or bigoted
There are a lot of reasons. One is that, in addition to dope trade agreements and movement of labor, having a unified set of standards for consumer and environmental protection makes trade significantly easier. For example, Russia has had very strong data protection laws compared to the rest of the world (minus the dumb amendment in 2013), which makes it really hard to convince companies "Let's trust Slack with everything we do and say", whereas a Polish company trusting a German company or vice-versa would be almost a non-issue thanks to GDPR.
It's just very, very difficult to find a credible source that could possibly argue that leaving the EU will be beneficial for the British economy compared to what they gain from universal trade agreements and less overhead when it comes to not needing to reimplement variations of the same laws that the EU will force them to have anyway.
There are other things, too, like, you're crazy if you don't think the Irish are going to be PISSED if there is a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland; it was only 20 years ago that people were being blown up all over England and Northern Ireland due to border restrictions and independence. I guarantee we're going to see some of the worst violence and terrorism Europe has seen in decades if this doesn't go smoothly.
Side note: Brits who complain about the EU representatives being "not-elected" are funny; the House of Lords is literally not elected and is partly filled with the exact kind of bourgeoisie who only have power because of the dynasty their fathers built that people complain about.
Is it, lol? How many major tech companies are going to run away from Europe because they can no longer legally host hate speech?
RobinHood
Well-known member
The annoying this about all these new laws is that many sites are simply starting to block other countries, rather than adapt their site to comply.
The past few months I've begun to encounter more and more US sites that are flat out blocked for me in the UK.
I can't even access the rivals.com forum without using a VPN:
The past few months I've begun to encounter more and more US sites that are flat out blocked for me in the UK.
I can't even access the rivals.com forum without using a VPN:
TPerry
Well-known member
And how many of the EU representatives have been directly voted into position by the people?
When I see stuff that (to paraphrase) states "it will be up to the individual countries to implement these requirements and they can implement more draconian ones" then that's a pretty good indicator that it's not an elective option if one desires to maintain EU membership.
TPerry
Well-known member
Hmmmm... do believe that I had commented that more and more sites would start doing that... funny to see that my prognostication is coming true.
Just call me Carnak the Magnificent II.
Lukas W.
Well-known member
That entirely depends on how each country and political party chooses to handle it. Most German parties have lists, which will be worked through top to bottom depending on the number of seats they get. Considering there's only so many seats in that room, I think that's an entirely valid approach to handle the situation. If I don't like the list of people that is expected to make it into the seats, I don't vote for the party. If a political party decides not to tell you who goes into the seats if you vote for them, that's a problem of the respective party in my opinion, not the Parliament itself.
There's a wonderful difference between what is worded and what is actually enforced. It is also up to the individual country to decide whether they already comply with the given directive, which every so often ends up in a "yes, because we don't bother caring". The EU generally overlooks those, as long as roughly 70% is at least somewhat implemented. It's still up to the individual country to decide what implemented means, so it's an entirely subjective thing.
TPerry
Well-known member
Then what is the point of having a centralized authority that the EU is?
Basically you are saying it's a toothless tiger then. Funny how they sure have some mighty big fines for folks that don't follow their "guidelines".
Lukas W.
Well-known member
That's basically what I am saying, yes. Directives are nothing more than smoke in the wind if individual countries decide not to bother about them. As it's ultimately also the individual countries that prosecute these laws (as they are asked to make it their own laws to begin with), it's entirely up to them.
TPerry
Well-known member
Then what is the point of them? That's what I'm getting at. Was pretty sure that one of the tenets of the EU was to have consistency across all countries, but what you are saying is that there is not any consistency in the implementation/enforcement.
Similar threads
- Suggestion
