I agree, the Eu is probably going to manipulate this to serve it's pc agenda. I think the first step is to define hate speech as words or actions that directly affect the rights of other humans such as right of respect for human dignity. If speech violates other fundamental laws, then it should be considered hate speech and consequentially censured. All other speech should be free as long as it isn't against basic human rights. Of course it is doubtful that the Eu will define hate speech the way it should be defined, but doing nothing will achieve nothing. People who dislike multiculturalism or refugees can say so freely, when they explain how foreign culture is polluting Europe. They shouldn't expect complete freedom when they call all refugees cattle and filth, harbringers of the rape of Europe. Words may not hurt, but they are just precursors to violence. A difference is very easy to see. It still isn't very difficult for Europe to avert disaster and laws like this can help to prevent a catastrophe as long as they aren't tampered with. If only the Eu was more competent. Extreme right-wing politics is just as bad as the extreme left-wing, if not worse. Center politics is what is needed for balance and stability. |
| yeah, like i said, this is solely done because of the refugee plague, no one wants to deal with those shitskins in their countries, and since europeans are so docile and dumb.... |
| The article above constitutes mostly of an interview to a politican: Janice Atkinson. Isn't she that former UKIP member who got expelled for fraud? Now let's try to have some fun and analyze her personal assumptions, falsities, and delusions: “The Commission has been itching to shut down free speech in the Parliament and now they’re attacking social media. We have already seen Facebook ‘policing’ so-called right-wing postings. Shutting down free speech in our society? Yeah good luck with that, EU. But she takes it even further, claiming the commission wants to do it "in the parliament" nonetheless! Wow, again now, good luck with THAT! “If an MEP, such as the centre-right Hungarians, the Danish People’s Party, the Finns, the Swedish Democrats, the Austrian FPO, say no to migration quotas because they cannot cope with the cultural and religious requirements of Muslims across the Middle East who are seeking refugee status, is that a hate crime? And what is their punishment? It’s a frightening path to totalitarianism.” False, there a huge difference between expressing disconsent (although I'd prefer constructive criticism) and hate speech. But she likes to take leaps like some of our fellow forumers, and she knows it very, very well since she used to embarrass her former chief Nigel Farage when she called the wife of a constituent "a ting-tong from somewhere". Poor Nigel had to swallow his pride and go to their house himself, since the lady didn't, begging for forgiveness. “This legislation is so vague that it is the thin end of the wedge not just curb hate speech but free speech as well. Ofc it seems vague to her, who never studied law and only made it to secondary education. Here, you can beat her if you understand it, enjoy yourselves, it even has links to the judgements behind the law itself. EDIT: since most won't read it anyway here are the cases: Ethnic hate; Negationism and revisionism; Racial hate; Religious hate; Threat to the democratic order; Apology of violence and incitement to hostility; Circulating homophobic leaflets; Condoning terrorism; Condoning war crimes; Denigrating national identity; Display of a flag with controversial historical connotations; Incitement to ethnic hatred; Incitement to national hatred; Incitement to racial discrimination or hatred; Incitement to religious intolerance; Insult of State officials; Hate speech and the Internet. Now, the link I provided you states a very distubing "This factsheet does not bind the Court and is not exhaustive" it goes back to march, so actually it is outdated, a newer version should come up soon. You can get the picture though, and it's CLEARLY not what you were all about. “Different people and cultures across Europe have different ways of communicating. The Liberal tradition in Britain for instance is more open and very different from that of dictatorial former Communist countries in the East. Yes, we are so different. It's hard to understand each other, with all those weird languages and dialects. I hear that some of the east european countries still use the telegraph. Naah, communication in this day and age doesn't work anymore. We are so different! Oh, about totalitarism, there is a case about it in the law itself! How ironic is that? "Threat to the democratic order" As a rule, the Court will declare inadmissible, on grounds of incompatibility with the values of the Convention, applications which are inspired by totalitarian doctrine or which express ideas that represent a threat to the democratic order and are liable to lead to the restoration of a totalitarian regime. “The EU was sold to people as a Common Market, it became a political union and now wishes to decide and compromise our civil liberties as a people. This is unacceptable to a free people who have a right to know where all this legislation is leading to. Yes ma'am, they want to strip them rightS (funny how she plays with singulars and plurals). You want the right know? Keep watch instead of giving interviews. “In my opinion, if the EU still allows to me have an opinion, I believe this matter should be decided by national parliaments rather than the unelected European Commission.“ Dear, you ARE MEP! Have you forgotten that too like you forgot you aren't UKIP member anymore? Don't worry, those juicy paychecks will remind you every month. I'll give some hate speech for you guys: FUCK THIS BITCH. I have to say though, I'm glad to see that my country isn't the only one sending complete MORONS to the EU parliament. Now you wonder... how are governments ever going to change for the better if we keep putting our hopes in these people? We are doomed! |
RollTheJointJun 2, 2016 6:00 PM
| Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines. |
| [THIS POST UNAVAILABLE IN EU MEMBER STATES DUE TO THE HATEFUL AND/OR VIOLENT NATURE OF ITS CONTENT. ANY DELIBERATE ATTEMPT TO ACCESS CENSURED CONTENT WILL RESULT IN PROSECUTION TO THE FULLEST EXTENT OF THE LAW UNDER CONSPIRACY AND ACCESSORY GUIDELINES FOUND IN EU RESOLUTION #3648.] |
| Twitter and it's consequences had been a disaster for the human race |
| Ignoring that most of your post was an ad homin against the person quoted in the article with irrelevant stories not connected to this story or whats being said. Lets look at what you consider ok rules on banning free speech: Edorapiangi said: Ethnic hate; Negationism and revisionism; Racial hate; Religious hate; Threat to the democratic order; Apology of violence and incitement to hostility; Circulating homophobic leaflets; Condoning terrorism; Condoning war crimes; Denigrating national identity; Display of a flag with controversial historical connotations; Incitement to ethnic hatred; Incitement to national hatred; Incitement to racial discrimination or hatred; Incitement to religious intolerance; Insult of State officials; Hate speech and the Internet. If you can't understand that all those points create an umbrella of hate speech definitions of which any dissidence or speech could fall under. Racial, ethical, insulting state officials, incitement of hate can be anything. national hatred so no more negative talking about other nations such as Iran. Incitement of religious intollerance there goes anyone saying anything bad about Islam. *Threat to the democratic order* ffs. If you can't see the blatant violation of the rights of free speech as you also ignored the last part of my quote I see about how it circumvents the rights of citizens the EU laid out itself and how its open to abuse they're you're either blind or stupid. Your opinion that the rules laid out are fair have no more weight behind them than a twitter post. Quoting the legislation as if that backs up that your views that its fair doesn't work because what you've quoted and what you think backs you up "hur dur idiots heres what actually counts as bannable hate speech educate yourselves!" is exactly the umbrella definitions we already all knew and what everyone's disagreeing with. Theres no "You idiots are just uneducated on what they're actually doing." theres only two sides supporting it or against it. You support it, the people not supporting it don't lack the information or are less informed on it, they simply don't side with you or it. Perhaps you're unfamiliar by what constitutes hate speech in European eyes and law. Or how umbrella terms as described above practically allow coverage of all speech with only the companies decision on if it actually counts as real hate speech. circumnavigating EU law and definitions of free speech, giving private companies the ability to work around legal rights was obviously part of the reason they did it. "but its in the hands of private companiesss" yes who have made a deal with the EU board and have EU elected members as part of the board deciding over hate speech. If you can't see the obvious no no of having private companies given legal rights to go around the EU laws protecting peoples free speech and those same companies supporting and working with the EU board to censor and choose where and when to delete free speech then you're blind. The EU are using external companies most based in America to circumnavigate their own binding laws that they can't get around themselves. In the United Kingdom, for example, a politician was arrested for quoting former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill's views on Islam. In Germany, critics of Islamic immigration recently had their apartments raided by police for expressing their views on social media. In multiple European countries, Christian pastors have been thrown in jail and even convicted of “hate speech” for arguing that homosexuality is a sin. These were classed as hate speech under those same terms you laid out as fair and not in breach of free speech. The free people disagree. The internet was free from this being a free open platform and protect by laws of free speech. They have now found a way around this. You may think you sound smart but most of your posts are sarcastic one liners and calling people stupid. Take away your sarcastic quips and you have nothing. Edorapiangi said: "Threat to the democratic order" As a rule, the Court will declare inadmissible, on grounds of incompatibility with the values of the Convention In short, the “code of conduct” downgrades the law to a second-class status, behind the “leading role” of private companies that are being asked to arbitrarily implement their terms of service. This process, established outside an accountable democratic framework, exploits unclear liability rules for companies. It also creates serious risks for freedom of expression as legal but controversial content may well be deleted as a result of this voluntary and unaccountable take down mechanism. This means that this “agreement” between only a handful of companies and the European Commission is likely in breach of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, under which restrictions on fundamental rights should be provided for by law. It will, in practical terms, overturn case law of the European Court of Human Rights on the defense of legal speech. What a shame they don't have to answer to the court of law being "independent private companies" there is no court system, there is no legal rulings, these decisions come no where near courts. The EU gave power to these companies to censor as they see fit without having to deal with European laws of free speech. They did this once again because they're both on the same side. Its a fucking dirty deal and you know it. The EU are using these companies who have sided with the EU boards already to go around the legal system and censor freely any anti EU posts they like, or anything thats against their political system. They've created a work around using external parties to express their will whilst their own hands are tied by European laws of free speech and human rights. Lets explain as simple as possible the basic premise. I want to threaten someone opposing my views but im a public figure and there are rules preventing me from doing this as well as negative press and the rights of the other person. what do I do? I hire my friend a street thug to do it for me, thus I get my results, my hands are still bound by the rules but I get away with having my way without having to do it myself because my thug friend doesn't have the same restrictions I do. I literally can't say "DUH" anymore. The reasoning is as obvious as a woman with her legs spread saying "do me."  |
SpooksJun 3, 2016 1:29 AM
 |
| It's not really a new thing. I guess this would help define what they might mean (a) "Group" means: a number of people joined by racial or cultural roots, ethnic origin or descent , religious affiliation or linguistic links, gender identity or sexual orientation, or any other characteristic s of a similar nature (b) "Group libel" means: defamatory comments made in public and aimed against a group as defined in paragraph (a) – or members thereof – with a view to inciting to violence, slandering the group, holding it to ridicule or subjecting it to false charges (c) "Hate crimes" means: any criminal act however defined, whether committed against persons or property, where the victims or targets are selected because of their real or perceived connection with - or support or membership of - a group as defined in paragraph ( a ). (d) "Tolerance" means: respect for and acceptance of the expression, preservation and development of the distinct identity of a group as defined in paragraph ( a ). This definition is without prejudice to the principle of coexistence of diverse groups within a single society . (a) The following acts will be regarded as criminal offences punishable as aggravated crimes : (i) Hate crimes as defined in Section 1(c). (ii) Incitement to violence against a group as defined in Section 1(a). (iii) Group libel as defined in Section 1(b). (iv) Overt approval of a totalitarian ideology , xenophobia or anti - Semitism . (v) Public approval or denial of the Holocaust . (vi) Public approval or denial of any other act of genocide the existence of which has been determined by an international criminal court or tribunal So making a joke is illegal as a hate crime no different than trying to get someone killed. Which is retarded. It's not all bad though Tolerance must not be used as a means for the condoning terrorism or as a cover for those seeking to subvert domestic or international peace and security. tolerance does not denote acceptance of such practices as female circumcision, forced marriage , polygamy or any form of exploitation or domination of women . (a) Tolerance (as defined in Section 1(d)) must be guaranteed to any group (as defined in Section 1(a)), whether it has long - standing societal roots or it is recently formed, especially as a result of migration from abroad . (b) Foreign migrants , for their part, must adhere to the principle of coexistence of diverse groups within a single society. (c) If a foreign migrant - who ha s been admitted into the territory of the State but has not acquired citizenship – is clearly unwilling to comply with the principle of coexistence of diverse groups within a single national society, he or she may be obliged to leave the State (subject to applicable international legal standards) Which they still dont do anything about though http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/libe/dv/11_revframework_statute_/11_revframework_statute_en.pdf |
traed said: Overt approval of a totalitarian ideology The irony is reaching absurd levels |
| That's a stupid tweet. Private companies have ALWAYS (okay, not literally "always") had the right to define what speech was and was not allowed in their own domain. And why shouldn't companies do it? If it gives them more revenue - which for most social media sites, given their user base, I am sure that traffic increases with SJW policies - then why on earth would they not? The fact that the public is outraged over the rights of companies to market themselves and define their product how they wish is stupid. As for the government, asking them to get in line is just a means to publicize their own desires, by making a spectacle of it it generates more buzz for the social media sites, and everybody wins. Sorry for jumping in, that Tweet just really bothered me. I mean you don't see me here starting a tweet along the lines of: "#FuckJackInTheBox! They have no right to serve breakfast 24/7! #MuhFreedomsAreBeingOppressedByThePoliciesOfAPrivateCompany" |
 |
| Another element, besides race mixing by inviting countless rapefugees, propaganda campaign to indoctrinate local europeans, sistematic destruction of old values by promoting variuos sexual perversions. All to create united states of europe |
Sukebe14Jun 3, 2016 2:41 AM
Pirating_Ninja said: Sorry for jumping in, that Tweet just really bothered me. I mean you don't see me here starting a tweet along the lines of: "#FuckJackInTheBox! They have no right to serve breakfast 24/7! #MuhFreedomsAreBeingOppressedByThePoliciesOfAPrivateCompany" Seems pretty clear to me that with the word limit restrictions of twitter it just means the reason the EU made the new rules set and pushed for it, to work with the social media giants was because of the upcoming leave EU vote, their efforts with Russia, their bid to make the EU global and united armed forces under their control, the migrant crisis. Who better to decide and support the layout of new rules and push for immediate and swift deletion and replacement of views on social media than the EU. Social media may always have pushed to censor certain posts but they always had to stick to more strictly defined rules they couldn't delete political dissidence for example. Now the new guidelines read like a totalitarian check list of things you need to remove to keep your views on top under the guise of "hate speech" yeah much the same way being anti government in China is "hate speech". You think they're not in bed together it benefits both of them as they both share the same ideology and views. Facebook has been censor happy for some time with conservative views. Now the EU leadership gets to bypass their free speech rules holding them back and work through the media giants to remove all anti EU speech, anti immigration, anti anything they don't like. A government working through big business to censor and sway the internet that might be against them is bad for everyone. Its not different that North Korea in control of their social media. They've pushed for this for some time, now its just actually happening. Weeding out free speech from society, and social media control almost all voices in our society. How many bad things and personal freedoms have being oppressed throughout history in the name of "A safe and secure society" |
SpooksJun 3, 2016 4:16 AM
|
| I looked further into the matter. It's incredibly hard to find expert's advice under the sea of shallow, biased and unqualified views. I've found 2 very interesting articles of indipendent (more of a hope than a certainty) and extremely competent US institutions. Plethora of links help the reader in step by step anylisis to have a omnicomprensive, deep explanation and understanding of their articles. I'm disappointed I couldn't find anything coming from Europe or other parts of the world in my superficial surfing of the web, but I hey research is tedious and time consuming. I'm more than happy to share the articles with those of you who are going to read them for the sake of a neutral analysis: - Cato Institute on "hate speech" and comparison between EU and US systems and approaches: This one's lenght is daunting, but it is neutral (we have to rely on academic's awareness on the difficulty of free-biased conclusions and abstention from value judgement), they are US citizens after all. At some point it clearly explains how wrong I was when I claimed the EU's law to be clear and defined. Oh my me! - The Legal Project on european "hate speech" laws: This is a very honorable, action taking, non-profit organisation that provides a variety of free and low cost legal services to the working poor, victims of domestic violence and other underserved individuals in the Capital District of New York State. They have a sided view, but it doesn't mean they are not to be taken seriously. This is helpful for those of you who fear the implications of Eu's laws, it provides you with facts, expert's knowledge and an educated approach on the matter, in case you'll find yourselves discussing it in the future with other people. Having read both, I have to admit the laws we are discussing are extremely controversial and delicate, leaving way too much space to legit and worrisome thoughts, even for someone like me. The urge to have the upper hand in the discussion led me to an obstinate, superificial and ultimately mistaken defense of my point of view. Keep in mind though that english isn't my mothertongue, henceforth I have to spend quite a lot time adjusting my post in a proper way, but even with all the time in the world I am very limitied on expressing myself in an eloquent and pleasurable manner. I do still firmly believe that we don't need to express ourselves through hate and insult to make a point. I deem it as a very stupid and ignorant way of utilizing our potential. It's the ultimate disgrace to our intellective faculties. Calm, objective, constructive criticism and disagreement is a virtue we all should strive to achieve. We are not apes anymore, we are Humans. I believe this to be also the major aim of the EU's laws, but the twisting and bending of it is lurking behind the corner. So let's all be alert, keep watch, try to inform ourselves as best as we can without giving in to prejudice, pride, hate, fear and anger that will definitely cloud the "potentially" bright future ahead of mankind. |
RollTheJointJun 3, 2016 4:24 AM
| Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines. |
| I don't see the problem? Hate speech & threats are real problems on the internet and I welcome more action against them. |
| I'm down for it. Freedom of speech is overrated. |
| ゴロゴロゴロ ゴロゴロゴロ ゴロゴロゴロ ゴロゴロゴロ ゴゴゴゴゴゴ ゴゴゴゴゴゴ ゴゴゴゴゴゴ |
More topics from this board
Sticky: » The Current Events Board Will Be Closed on Friday JST ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )Luna - Aug 2, 2021 |
272 |
by traed
»»
Aug 5, 2021 5:56 PM |
|
» Third shot of Sinovac COVID-19 vaccine offers big increase in antibody levels: study ( 1 2 )Desolated - Jul 30, 2021 |
50 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:24 PM |
|
» Western vaccine producers engage in shameless profiteering while poorer countries are supplied mainly by China.Desolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
1 |
by Bourmegar
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:23 PM |
|
» NLRB officer says Amazon violated US labor lawDesolated - Aug 3, 2021 |
17 |
by kitsune0
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:41 PM |
|
» China Backs Cuba in Saying US Should Apply Sanctions To ItselfDesolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
10 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:36 PM |