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

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.

For what it's worth, I almost never see it. The majority of things that I have noticed blocking Europeans are things that are super-localised and not really relevant to the average Dane or Pole, for example (e.g., Baltimore Sun drives me nuts by blocking anyone who is not from the United States).

Overwhelmingly, GDPR has been beneficial so far to the average EU citizen with almost no downsides for the consumer ;)
 
For what it's worth, I almost never see it. The majority of things that I have noticed blocking Europeans are things that are super-localised and not really relevant to the average Dane or Pole, for example (e.g., Baltimore Sun drives me nuts by blocking anyone who is not from the United States).
You will find that some businesses have interests in the EU and won't block... but I've got a sneaking suspicion that you will find more and more blocking, especially after the first attempt of the EU to enforce a fine on a US site.
 
You will find that some businesses have interests in the EU and won't block... but I've got a sneaking suspicion that you will find more and more blocking, especially after the first attempt of the EU to enforce a fine on a US site.

We'll see, I guess. So far, 6 months so good :) I do miss being able to read about East Coast crime and drill music without a proxy, though!
 
There are regulations, which all countries in the EU must follow and directives, which all must be installed but how they are applied are up to each country.

The EU tries to create a place for EU citizens, where their rights in their home countries are more or less the same as in other EU countries.

In the US, each state has his own regulations. In some states you have no taxes, in some you do. It is confusing for a citizen to have different laws in different states, although you are in the same country. The EU is a union of many countries, but it tries to create a place which acts like a big one country for the benefit of its population.
 
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.

The point is that a bunch of countries come together and negotiate terms that would potentially allow individual countries to implement laws as similar as possible on certain topics without having to bother about the EU completely outruling existing laws and basically rendering them useless to a certain extent. If the EU deems it absolutely necessary, they can pass the regulations that someone previously linked, that superseed national law, but they're and should be implemented as rarely as possible. The EU is not built as an organ that is meant to overrule, but to bring it's members to similar terms, to make it easier for governments and economy to operate within it's borders.
 
Simple, move your website and company to the United States.

And, if you're big enough to face repercussions in the first place, enjoy whatever future retribution gets applied to you (e.g., possibly being cutoff from processing EU payments and or whatever comes of refusing to pay your EU fines).

Alternatively: just comply with the laws because the majority of them are good for people regardless of where they live.
 
And, if you're big enough to face repercussions in the first place, enjoy whatever future retribution gets applied to you (e.g., possibly being cutoff from processing EU payments and or whatever comes of refusing to pay your EU fines).

Alternatively: just comply with the laws because the majority of them are good for people regardless of where they live.

Actually, laws prohibiting speech (hate or not) are against the Constitution of the United States. Sure EU can do whatever they want in the EU but they don't have authority to fine an American website. Currently they only way they have got by with stealing money from American companies is by going after them for breaking EU laws in the EU. If you host your website in the EU you obviously fall under those laws. A user accessing my website from the EU does not subject me to their laws.
 
The US has various laws that apply beyond its borders. As does the EU. I disagree with that. A country should not impose its laws beyond its borders. Though technically the EU is not a country but a union of countries, which the UN is as well.
 
Actually, laws prohibiting speech (hate or not) are against the Constitution of the United States. Sure EU can do whatever they want in the EU but they don't have authority to fine an American website.

Yes, they do... The US constitution isn't relevant to that. Their law absolutely allows them to fine you. It's just not something the United States is going to enforce.

What I am saying, though, is that if you choose to ignore EU law, get fined, and then refuse to pay, then the EU is totally within their rights to do things like demand ISPs to block your site or halt all EU transactions.

A user accessing my website from the EU does not subject me to their laws.

It does; that's what their law says. The internet is a globally connected network. You can choose to ignore their laws and ignore their fines, but don't be surprised when you get cut off from the rest of the world.
 
Last edited:
The US has various laws that apply beyond its borders. As does the EU. I disagree with that. A country should not impose its laws beyond its borders. Though technically the EU is not a country but a union of countries, which the UN is as well.

The US does not impose its laws beyond its border, but those in its border from being charged in other countries where the laws would not be constitutional in the United States. One example of this is Amanda Knox who after being found innocent during a retrial. In the United States, you can not be tried again. (5th Amendment)
Yes, they do... The US constitution isn't relevant to that. Their law absolutely allows them to fine you. It's just not something the United States is going to enforce.

What I am saying, though, is that if you choose to ignore EU law, get fined, and then refuse to pay, then the EU is totally within their rights to do things like demand ISPs to block your site or halt all EU transactions.



It does; that's what their law says. The internet is a globally connected network. You can choose to ignore their laws and ignore their fines, but don't be surprised when you get cut off from the rest of the world.

You can debate all you want but the US Constitution governs anyone in the US (it does not protect us abroad) and it does not allow for foreign laws to be imposed on US citizens acting lawfully in the United States. In short, it does not recognize the ability of any foreign entity to restrict rights granted in the US Constitution. Foreign governments can block whatever websites they want. In fact, both the flags in your signature block traffic that they do not want their people to access. The point is each country can regulate datacenters in their country and they can choose to block access to websites they do not want their people to access. I am thankful I live in a country that does not prevent the freedom of speech online.

Laws preventing free speech online is bad for everyone. Hate speech in some countries is practicing a different religion or wanting a change in government. Think about what countries block access to websites and ask yourself is that a country you want to live in.
 
It does; that's what their law says.
I think what you are missing is that we are not subject to their laws since we have no active presence there. Our controlling law is the country of our origin, not the country that has visitors that come to the site.
Just because they wish their being in control to be so doesn't make it so.

Like an old saying in this neck of the woods goes... wish in one hand and poop in the other and see which carries more weight.

but don't be surprised when you get cut off from the rest of the world.
Most of those that are ignoring the EU "laws" don't really care if they "get cut off" as their clients are not there anyway.
That's like what use is a RTKBA forum for most of the EU, in which the ownership of firearms are strictly controlled. The world does not revolve around the EU, even though they wish it did. They are just another leech in the political world.
If I was doing business with/in the EU, then yes, I'd be subject to their laws - but most forums do not actively pursue/target users from specific geographical areas.
 
The US does not impose its laws beyond its border

Now, that is just objectively not true. See: FATCA and loads of other instances of the US being the international police.

Laws preventing free speech online is bad for everyone. Hate speech in some countries is practicing a different religion or wanting a change in government.

And, if we're being hyperbolic, regime change in other countries is sometimes things like ISIL (Also, for what it's worth, I can't think of any EU member state that defines hate speech as "practicing a different religion, by the way).

I think what you are missing is that we are not subject to their laws since we have no active presence there. Our controlling law is the country of our origin, not the country that has visitors that come to the site.
Just because they wish their being in control to be so doesn't make it so.
...
If I was doing business with/in the EU, then yes, I'd be subject to their laws - but most forums do not actively pursue/target users from specific geographical areas.

You're still subject to whatever laws they would like to subject you to. Pragmatically having them enforced against you is another issue entirely.


Most of those that are ignoring the EU "laws" don't really care if they "get cut off" as their clients are not there anyway.

I am not sure what's up with the quotes; laws are still super definitely laws, even if you don't like them ;)

Realistically, though, for people that "really don't care" about what the EU says, y'all sure seem to love ranting endlessly about it and how it's the end of free speech and the internet abroad.


Think about what countries block access to websites and ask yourself is that a country you want to live in.

Germany, the United Kingdom, Russia, France, and pretty much every other country in the world.

The majority of the websites blocked here in Russia are things related to piracy, credit card/identity sales or drug trafficking. On the other hand, taxes are low, I have four walls and a roof, clean water, and free healthcare. Personally, it's not the top of my concern list as to whether or not I can access rutracker without a proxy.

For what it's worth, though, the US actually does a lot of its own censorship and abusive international legal practices when it comes to the internet. An example would be your 'Trading with the Enemy Act'; non-American companies targeting Europeans exclusively have had their domains seized from them based on the fact that they were advertising vacations to Cuba.
 
You're still subject to whatever laws they would like to subject you to. Pragmatically having them enforced against you is another issue entirely.
Lack of ability to enforce means one is not subject to them. No different than them trying to prosecute me for something that is against their other local laws. Not presence, no validity.
I am not sure what's up with the quotes; laws are still super definitely laws, even if you don't like them ;)
Only if applicable, otherwise they are just paper tigers unless an enforcement agreement exists.... Our superseding laws that control us are country of origin, not country of destination.

non-American companies targeting Europeans exclusively have had their domains seized from them based on the fact that they were advertising vacations to Cuba.
cite please.
If you are referring to Steve Marshall, you left out a few little relevant tidbits.
According to the Department of the Treasury, however, Marshall and his business helped Americans evade the US embargo against Cuba.
The PR goes on to assert that Tour and Marketing International Ltd. (Marshall's company) advertised itself as the number one agency for American travelers, claimed it could serve any traveler, and insisted that Americans interested in traveling to Cuba use the company's online payment system.
Looks like he targeted US persons directly. In the case of what some of us are saying, we do NOT target EU members.... they would have to come to us voluntarily. Kind of like when you come to a country you are then responsible for following the laws under that countries rules and the rules of your home country no longer apply.

Marshall's domain name registrar, eNom, is based in the US. It apparently didn't learn that his company had been blacklisted for two and a half years.
Oh look.. it's that pesky little fact domain registration was done via a US based entity.
Pretty sure that once he got an EU based registrar he didn't have that issue any longer unless he continued to target US citizens... and even then what the US could do would be very limited.
 
Last edited:
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.
It is pretty consistent. And generally better than nothing.

Some regulations and directives are enforced by the EU itself (often in cases where the member state may be hesitant to enforce). Others are enforced by member states. The GDPR is enforced by member state DPAs. Usually you'd complain to your local supervisory authority. They may interpret the GDPR slightly differently, and I don't know how disputes and differences there are resolved, but usually there is an aim for consistency in enforcement and implementation.

I think it's EU directives that need implementation in national member state law, EU regulations take effect without any national law being required. The GDPR is a regulation, for example, and required no member state implementation.

Kinda silly for sites to block non-US users because of things like the GDPR. I think it stems from a pretty big misunderstanding of the actions required to comply with the GDPR.
 
It is pretty consistent. And generally better than nothing.

Some regulations and directives are enforced by the EU itself (often in cases where the member state may be hesitant to enforce). Others are enforced by member states.

Like the pirate code, more guidelines rather than rules maybe?

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
Like the pirate code, more guidelines rather than rules maybe?
Maybe in certain contexts, best to talk to a lawyer if there's a certain context you're saying that in. As a webmaster, I'd probably want to stick to the wording and any guidance from the relevant authorities for the GDPR or any other applicable EU legislation, rather than take some kind of gamble.
 
Top Bottom