EU bans hate video in next step against online platforms

Alpha1

Administrator
Joined
May 28, 2007
Messages
4,032
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:

http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/PE-33-2018-INIT/en/pdf

This will affect sites that allow upload of media. (images, video, audio)

Mind that this Directive is just one part of a comprehensive by the EU effort to counter hate speech. Much more is coming.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Admin
  • #4

Alpha1

Administrator
Joined
May 28, 2007
Messages
4,032
I wonder:
What is hate speech or harmful content?
How fast do we need to remove such content?
What will be the penalties?
 

we_are_borg

Administrator
Joined
Jan 25, 2011
Messages
5,604
I wonder:
What is hate speech or harmful content?
How fast do we need to remove such content?
What will be the penalties?

Thats simple everything the government says, so no more opposition.
 

Tracy Perry

Opinionated asshat
Joined
May 25, 2013
Messages
5,010
Why would you want hate speech on your platform anyway?
Because it's still free speech?
One man's hate speech is another mans tonic & gin.
Even though one may not agree with what they are saying, they should still have the right to show their ass in saying it. Once you start regulating speech, the next step is regulating thought, then it devolves into regulating ones every day activities.
As long as it does not cause physical injury to another where is the "harm" in it. And no, I don't consider someone getting their itty-bitty feelings hurt harm.
If I'm physically threatening violence then that is another matter - but if I'm saying "Race X is sub-human because Y, Z, and P" then that's an opinion - no matter how vile it is, they still have the right to their opinion and the voicing of said opinion.
 
Last edited:

PoetJC

⚧ Jacquii: Kween of Hearts ⚧
Joined
Jul 9, 2006
Messages
21,031
One man's hate speech is another mans tonic & gin.
Gin and tonic ... preferably with an extra squeeze of lemon :p
But anyway ... Wow... I don't know if I necessarily like this approach. Sure the goal of minimizing the vast amount of hate-filled speech out there in videoland is admirable, but at what cost to site owners who will be tasked and taxed with monitoring/moderating all video content...? At what cost to the concept of free thought and free speech? I mean - there has to be a concise line drawn as far as even defining what 'hate speech' is... I think the better approach would be to simply allow existing regulation to work through enforcing regulations. For instance - if a video post is filled with asshats spewing THREATS OF BODILY HARM or INCITING RIOT or ENCOURAGING MUTINY etc... This would be a different story because making online threats and the like IS a punishable offense as far as I know. There's a distinction when a person threatens another as opposed to simply hurling insults and ridiculous nicknames as our President currently does. And I wonder how the line is drawn... Hmmm... Probably should glance at the directive's pdf file LOL

J.
 

zappaDPJ

Administrator
Joined
Aug 26, 2010
Messages
7,507
There are three things that worry me about this kind of legislation...

1) The definition of 'hate speech'.
2) Sanitising the problem rather than confronting it with education and discussion.
3) Pushing hate speech that has a real payload out of the main stream and into places the authorities can't reach. There are many terrorists doing time because they have used main stream Internet communication to spread their hate.
 

we_are_borg

Administrator
Joined
Jan 25, 2011
Messages
5,604
There are three things that worry me about this kind of legislation...

1) The definition of 'hate speech'.
2) Sanitising the problem rather than confronting it with education and discussion.
3) Pushing hate speech that has a real payload out of the main stream and into places the authorities can't reach. There are many terrorists doing time because they have used main stream Internet communication to spread their hate.

1. Like i said everything the government can shutdown the opposition, this is the most dangerous in any legislation.
2. I am all for education and discussion, its the only way that you can combat this effectively.
3. Luckily we have dumb people and if there planning stuff in the open its the best you can have.
 

User37935

Neophyte
Joined
May 4, 2011
Messages
0
Very polarised views on this subject usually, free speech vs. hate speech. Both sides have very compelling arguments.
 

R0binHood

Habitué
Joined
Nov 23, 2011
Messages
1,490
Here's a few takes on hate speech from British politicians and Jordan Peterson on the topic from the UK TV Show BBC Question Time this week, they also touch on the Count Dankula case.

Relevant bit starts at 6:54 until the end.

It's a shame they were so time contrained and didn't get into deeper discussions

For context at the beginning, Grenfell Tower was a high rise block of flats in London that caught fire last year and quite a few people lost their lives.

The comment Jordan made about police in Scotland running ads encouraging people to report others online surprised me, I had no idea they were doing that. Seems mad.

 

Nev_Dull

Anachronism
Joined
Apr 27, 2010
Messages
2,167
This is a complex problem that many countries are struggling with. What is hate speech? How is it different than opinion? Who gets to say? How can we measure it?

I think something needs to be done. To just say it's "free speech" is simplistic and naive. It isn't a case of "if you are offended, don't watch it". There have been too many examples of people and groups using written and video content to promote hatred and incite people to act in violent and tragic incidents.

There are, as the video above explains, clearly defined laws in place to deal with inciting others to violence. A better course would be to strengthen those (and perhaps include the site that hosts it as culpable), rather than try to come up with a whole new system of "acceptable" language.
 

mysiteguy

Migration Expert
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
3,172
To entrust to a government define what speech is allowed is naive. Incitement to violence is not the same as "hate" speech. Hateful speech may say "I believe all XYZ are a bunch of ABC, the scum of the earth and are undermining LMN." Incitement to violent would include "beat the crap of them when we see them."

"Nice" speech, doesn't need protection, and free speech rights were not put in place to protect things people find agreeable. The very essence of freedom of speech is the freedom to say disagreeable things.

In US Matal v. Tam, the justices said it pretty well:
Matal v. Tam
Justice Samuel Alito, writing on behalf four justices:
The idea that the government may restrict] speech expressing ideas that offend … strikes at the heart of the First Amendment. Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express “the thought that we hate.”

Anthony Kennedy, writing on behalf four justices:
A law found to discriminate based on viewpoint is an “egregious form of content discrimination,” which is “presumptively unconstitutional.” … A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all. The First Amendment does not entrust that power to the government’s benevolence. Instead, our reliance must be on the substantial safeguards of free and open discussion in a democratic society.

All justices on the bench that day for the ruling were represented, and basically agreed there isn't an exception for hate speech when it comes to free speech.
This court had Jewish, Protestant Christians, Roman Catholic Christians, men, women, and more than one racial/ethnic minority, and all of them saw the wisdom of not letting the government get in the "hate speech" arena.
 

Nev_Dull

Anachronism
Joined
Apr 27, 2010
Messages
2,167
To entrust to a government define what speech is allowed is naive. Incitement to violence is not the same as "hate" speech. Hateful speech may say "I believe all XYZ are a bunch of ABC, the scum of the earth and are undermining LMN." Incitement to violent would include "beat the crap of them when we see them."

"Nice" speech, doesn't need protection, and free speech rights were not put in place to protect things people find agreeable. The very essence of freedom of speech is the freedom to say disagreeable things.

I'm pretty sure most governments did not enact free speech laws so that some idiot on the internet could say "I love Hitler" or "Jesus is gay". In recent years, however, it has indeed become the shield for people who want to say hateful things about others online. And I'm okay with that. Anyone who is easily offended and triggered by what some nobody online says about them should probably cut the cord and stay off the internet.

There is a world of difference between that sort of in-your-face slur by idiots and the systematic, carefully crafted messages that real hate groups use to turn weak-willed people to their cause, and eventually to committing violent actions for those causes. The problem, of course, is that those groups can carry out their indoctrination without ever saying anything overtly hateful.

How does a government deal with that kind of hate speech? Do we legislate against intention? Should some ideas become illegal? How would that make a better society? There is no right answer, which is why governments are all trying to make laws to protect people's feelings instead of dealing with the real problem.
 

mysiteguy

Migration Expert
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
3,172
People, not governments, resist hate speech with their own free speech. You call people out. Outlawing something doesn't stop it, because you cannot legislate morality. Outlawing something drives it underground, where it can fester rather than being called out. The Nazi's didn't accomplish what they did because they were allowed to say it, they accomplished it because people didn't speak out, and later, and far more importantly... because they weren't allowed to speak out.

The problem with well-intentioned laws restricting speech is they assume those in power will have the same attitudes. Once you allow the government to legislate free speech, then at a later time someone else will be in power with those laws available to them... to make what YOU say hate speech. For my fellow US citizens, imagine if in the civil rights era the KKK was no longer allowed to speak. Sounds like a good idea to some, but consider that many of Malcolm-X's words would have been banned too. Stifle free speech and history has shown, over and over again, it will be used against one minority or another.

Perhaps I see thing differently from those in the UK where speech is not a positive guaranteed right like it is in the USA, but rather it's a negative right: freedom only in absence of what is restricted. And for that, I am thankful.
 

Zero Numbers

Adherent
Joined
Sep 20, 2013
Messages
327
Very polarised views on this subject usually, free speech vs. hate speech. Both sides have very compelling arguments.

Yeah well, unfortunately the enforcement of these laws are being enforced inconsistently and hypocritically. All of these laws are just an excuse for internet censorship. The Globalists are plotting things hidden from the public.

 

Nev_Dull

Anachronism
Joined
Apr 27, 2010
Messages
2,167
The problem with well-intentioned laws restricting speech is they assume those in power will have the same attitudes.
I agree completely. We should never agree to allow laws that curtail our right to voice ideas and opinions. That said, I disagree with the notion that all you need to fight hateful free speech is more free speech. That hasn't proven effective, which is why governments are looking at such laws as this.

The answer, in my opinion, isn't easy or cheap. The only real weapon that will successfully combat the type of content hate groups and terrorist groups are using is education. Well educated populations are far less susceptible to that kind of influence and manipulation. Rather than making the stupid, hateful things people say to each other online illegal, countries should spend resources ensuring people have the knowledge to think critically and rationally. They can start by improving the quality of the public school curriculum. They can take away barriers to post-secondary education by reducing or eliminating fees. There's little point in defending free speech when the population is increasingly unable to comprehend what is being said.
 

Tracy Perry

Opinionated asshat
Joined
May 25, 2013
Messages
5,010
promote hatred and incite people to act in violent and tragic incidents.
Sorry, but the promotion of hatred is still a part of free speech. Incitement to violence is usually covered under criminal law in most US jurisdictions already, and I'm pretty sure it is elsewhere in the world also.
 
Top