The US understands free speech; the EU doesn't - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Classical liberalism. The individual before the state, non-interventionist, free-market based society.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14819586
Last week the US Supreme Court twice ruled in favour of free speech whereas the EU continue their war on 'hate speech'.

Monday the 19th of June 2017 marked a big day for the First Amendment of the US Constitution as two cases were ruled in favour of free speech absolutism.

In the first case, Matal vs Tam, the judge determined that it was unlawful for the government to refuse registering businesses with names that may be construed as offensive to some groups. The case became notorious for the repercussions surrounding football team the Washington Redskins, which some native Americans consider offensively named. However, the example in question concerned an Asian-American man called Simon Shiao Tam who was unable to register his ironic band name ‘The Slants’ with the US Trademark Office.

In the second case, Packingham v. North Carolina, concerned a State Law which barred registered sex offenders from using any social media that children are permitted to use. The Supreme Court unanimously agreed that the law violated the free-speech rights of sex offenders.

Both cases will serve as important precedents in future cases surrounding free speech on social media platforms such as Twitter.

In Matal vs Tam, Justice Samuel Alito advocated the ‘right to offend’ as an important legal framework in the public sphere. He stressed, however, that workplaces, university campuses, social media companies etc. are free to set their own legal standards.

In Packingham v. North Carolina, Justice Anthony Kennedy espoused the idea that blocking sex offenders from social media was akin to blocking them from full range of free speech options available in public spaces like parks and street corners.

The two rulings underscore the US Supreme Court’s commitment to the notion of free speech absolutism. America was always unlikely to fall into the same ethical quagmire as the European Union’s all powerful and unelected branch, the European Commission, and their war on ‘online hate speech’.

Working with social media giants Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Microsoft, the European Commission last year unveiled a code of conduct that will ensure ‘online platforms do not offer opportunities for illegal online hate speech to spread virally’. Upon receiving a ‘valid removal notification’, IT companies will have to remove or disable access to the content in less than 24 hours.

The ‘code of conduct’ in question was drafted without any public consultation.

Speech that ‘incites violence’ is illegal across the board – US, EU or anywhere else. Few would argue with this.

But the EU’s initiative goes one further and aims to actively prosecute those whose speech is deemed to ‘incite hate’. This loose wording has allowed proponents of this ‘code of conduct’ to use state power to remove people from Twitter who simply disagree with current EU migration policies.

To be clear, many of the views expressed by those indicted under this initiative are deeply unsavoury, and companies such as Twitter have every right to remove polemical material at their own discretion. However, the state has crossed a line that should never be crossed when they coerce companies who operate in the European Union to sign a statement declaring that they will commit to ‘promoting independent counter-narratives’ to contentious viewpoints.
#14819593
I think the title is fair. The EU has embarked down a path of censorship for some time now. The US has too but we do it through economic consequences.

It is also fair to criticize the Commission when it legislates for member countries. That is unacceptable.

Of course so is the concept of open borders. I mean lets face it. The EU sorta sucks on a variety of levels.
#14819596
But the first sentence juxtaposes free speech and hate speech. But those two are fundamentally different in my mind. Free speech should be positive but hate speech is just...hateful and should be illegal.

The EU is waging a war on "hate speech" but is the US just allowing "hate speech"?

As someone from a diverse background, I am totally against hate speech. I stand against the haters, the ones who said I wouldn't make it because they thought I was dumb, hated the whole "me chinese me so dumb" rhyme.

I don't see much being done about hate speech in the US.
#14819599
The US has hate crime laws so it's not above prosecuting thought crimes. It just requires an actual crime to occur before adding extra penalties because someone's motives were offensive.

The UK promoted PC and criminalised promoting racial hatred years ago so we can't claim a moral high ground over Brussels on this but I agree that the way this law was introduced left a lot to be desired just like every trade deal and major economic policy of the past few eons.

MistyTiger wrote:Ummm are you a troll? Because your user name made me think of a penis. :lol:
You have a dirty mind :p . It's a comedy sketch.
#14819630
@AFAIK Well I have a gay friend who used the term "wang holder" the other day and I just remembered. He has the dirtier mind. :lol:

And I cannot recall a time when a hate speech case resulted in a newsworthy article and included a considerable amount of prison time. Feel free to remind me of any. My memory is not as good as it was or maybe it's getting jammed up with Accounting stuff. LOL.
#14819638
You mean in Britain? I don't know what your standards of newsworthiness are but Stephen Fry was recently investigated for hate speech for criticising the catholic church. There's also been a lot of criticism of social media platforms for failing to censor their users strongly enough and May is pursuing a 'digital charter' to punish the platforms that allow too much free speech.

Google news offers the latest headlines.
#14819784
But the first sentence juxtaposes free speech and hate speech. But those two are fundamentally different in my mind. Free speech should be positive but hate speech is just...hateful and should be illegal.


I am not much for slippery-slope arguments but this calls for one. The problem is to define "hate speech". Further. Sometimes what is called "hate speech" also happens to be the truth. Please don't make me insult anyone by citing examples.

The EU is waging a war on "hate speech" but is the US just allowing "hate speech"?


Define hate speech. That is the problem.

As someone from a diverse background, I am totally against hate speech. I stand against the haters, the ones who said I wouldn't make it because they thought I was dumb, hated the whole "me chinese me so dumb" rhyme.


OK. Down the rabbit hole we go. Tell me when I cross into hate speech. The following are true statements. (Based upon IQ)

Chinese people are smarter than white people.

Chinese people are not as smart as Jews.

Whites are way smarter than Mexicans.

All US ethnic groups are smarter than Blacks.

Over half of Sub-Saharan Africans would be considered mentally retarded in the US and most of them at least borderline intellectual functioning

Sub-Saharan Africans are dumb.

Most American blacks are comparatively dumb.

Did I hit hate speech yet?

NOW PAY ATTENTION. I DO NOT BUY THE ABOVE OR SUPPORT IT but I can present statistical data to support it.

I don't see much being done about hate speech in the US.


Actually quite a lot is done to about hate speech in the US. I could name a couple of stars who had their career's ruined by indulgence into racist speech. I can name company CEOs who have been fired for far less that actual hate speech.

But there is the problem Misty. The US in founded on the notion of the sanctity of speech. Clearly some speech is offensive.

Let me paint a picture for you.

Suppose a new outlet banned speech that is offensive or hateful. They kept it off of the air. How would we know that this was said my a candidate for president?

“I just start kissing them. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. (whatever you want.) Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything.”


So what could be more hateful than advocating sexual assault? For that is what this is.

I think we need to know that rather than have the fact it was said banned as hate speech.

Think about this.

Banning hate speech harms minorities? How can you say that Lee? Consider.

How are we lily white people to know how what the black experience of racism is if we do not see and hear it. The KKK does far more to hurt their cause than to help it with what many would call hate speech.

We, in America, assert no right not to be offended. Indeed we cling to the right to offend others. Just this morning our President tweeted that a news woman had a "low IQ". Is this hate speech or just boorish? But she has a remedy. She can take a test, go to court and sue his ass for millions. She probable won't. But the take-away is that we (the people) learned from that tweet. And that is the whole point of free speech.
#14819789
Um. Interesting. Everyone has free speech in the West. But people also have rights to not be discriminated against. So when does free speech invade other peoples freedoms? When it's hate speech. Hate speech isn't a crime to censor people. It is a crime because it riles up tensions and encroaches other peoples freedoms of expression or religion (human rights). So anyone can say or write what they like. But if it invades other peoples rights you then have commited a crime. Not because you said it. But because of the consequence of saying it (like it's ok to buy a gun in America due to its constitution but you still can't kill someone with it without committing a crime). So the way I see it, the EU has free speech (which respects human rights) and the US have free speech (that doesn't).
#14819811
By signing the Code of Conduct, the IT companies committed in particular to reviewing the majority of valid notifications of illegal hate speech in less than 24 hours and to removing or disabling access to such content, if necessary, on the basis of national laws transposing European law. The Code also underlined the need to further discuss how to promote transparency and encourage counter and alternative narratives.
One year after its adoption, the Code of Conduct on countering illegal hate speech online has delivered some important progress, while some challenges remain:
On average, in 59% of the cases, the IT companies responded to notifications concerning illegal hate speech by removing the content. This is more than twice the level of 28% that was recorded six months earlier.
The amount of notifications reviewed within 24 hours improved from 40% to 51% in the same six months period. Facebook is however the only company that fully achieves the target of reviewing the majority of notifications within the day.
As compared with the situation six months ago the IT companies have become better at treating notifications coming from citizens in the same way as those coming from organisations which use trusted reporters channels. Still, some differences persist and the overall removal rates remain lower when a notification originates from the public.
Finally, the monitoring showed that while Facebook sends systematic feedback to users on how their notifications have been assessed, practices differed considerably among the IT companies. Quality of feedback motivating the decision is an area where further progress can be made.
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-17-1471_en.htm




After signing the Code of Conduct, Facebook still hosts the largest anti-refugee group in Germany with 50,000 fans. Earlier in 2015, Angela Merkel asked Zuckerberg to censor speech critical of immigrants and Zuckerberg agreed to do so. The problem is not random posters who disseminate hateful messages and it's the Pegida page that needs to be removed.

But if it invades other peoples rights you then have commited a crime.


Edwin Wagensveld, a Dutch national who heads his country’s branch of the Islamophobic movement Pegida, was held at Birmingham airport in June. Lutz Bachmann, a convicted German criminal, owns the main Facebook page. Bachmann has a criminal record for sixteen burglaries, dealing cocaine and assault. These Facebook pages are responsible for aiding and abetting arson attacks against migrants and Merkel is trying to reduce racist incidents.
Last edited by ThirdTerm on 01 Jul 2017 02:09, edited 1 time in total.
#14819832
I
t is a crime because it riles up tensions and encroaches other peoples freedoms of expression or religion (human rights).


Nope. Just look at the atheists on this forum. I have been called stupid, I have had them say Christians should be killed. I have had them profoundly insult my deepest beliefs. That is and should be their right to do that. I, in turn, have the right to attack their beliefs. That is free speech. You tell me what constitutes "hate speech". And if you use the word "harm" define "harm". Is simply having one's sensibilities offended harm?

So the way I see it, the EU has free speech (which respects human rights) and the US have free speech (that doesn't).


Nonsense. The EU does not respect human rights if you include among those rights the right to free speech. What the EU has is censorship based upon rules set by unelected officials based upon what they feel they can get away with. In the US, as onerous as it is, we have free speech. Period. It is up to the prosecutor to prove that speech harmed someone else. And that is very hard to do. Having ones feelings hurt is not "harm".

I see everyone ran as fast as they could from my examples. I am surprised that the mods did not take them down under the EU rule. If they do, they will prove my point admirably. They will have banned demonstrable facts for no reason that to not offend others. And that is NOT free speech.
#14819840
@Drlee

I haven't run away just trying my hardest not to complete my 8 week class with a C. I am aiming for a B- at least.

You make many good points and I am speechless, probably due to all the finance formulas that are buzzing in my head.

However, isn't it hate speech to say you want to bomb the WH as Madonna said before? She got backlash over it. But hey, the US embraces free speech, no? Or why can't we say, "Let's kill the President!" You threaten his life and the Secret Service or CIA will get you, not sure which will come after you and steal your computer.

Free speech is only free if there is the foil of restrictions in speech. If we could say anything, would it still be free speech? It is like how you cannot have light without darkness, the 2 need each other as contrasting forces.
#14819889
If hate speech were made illegal would it be illegal to report that the leader of Iran made a speech calling for Israel to be, "wiped off the map"? Would that be exempt due to newsworthiness and if so why are world leaders allowed to inflame religious hatred but not Jane Nobody with 6 followers on Twitter?

If I was running a social media company and was obligated to remove illegal comments within 24hrs I'd just ban discussion of certain news topics because it is too much work to read every comment, delete half of them, justify those deletions to users, get criticised for leaving x,y and z up, get fined for missing something, etc, etc, etc.
#14819905
Drlee wrote:Nope. Just look at the atheists on this forum. I have been called stupid, I have had them say Christians should be killed. I have had them profoundly insult my deepest beliefs. That is and should be their right to do that. I, in turn, have the right to attack their beliefs. That is free speech. You tell me what constitutes "hate speech". And if you use the word "harm" define "harm". Is simply having one's sensibilities offended harm?


Hate speech is something that incites violence or prejudicial action against individuals. None of your previous comments are hate speech. Whether I agree with them or not, they are opinions and you have a right to say them in free speech. You also said you had stats to back up you claims. However if you said that a 'specific ethnic group was stupid and they should be killed in a gas chamber for their stupidity and let's organise a group so we can kidnap and kill these people' then you would have commited a hate crime. Because that is inciting violents. If you said we should begin an 'advertisement campaign to put pressure on the government to rid an ethnic group from our shores' then you have taken prejudicial action against individuals and have also commited a hate crime. As I said, the West has free speech. It is the consequences of speech that is the crime. Libel and hate speech fall into the same law bracket. You can say it. You can write it. But if it breaks other legal barriers then you have broken the law and have to pay a penalty. As for you comments about being given death threats for being a Christian. Without reading them, I cannot determine whether it is hate speech or not. But what I can say, is like any crime, you need to report it before any legal action can take place.

Nonsense. The EU does not respect human rights if you include among those rights the right to free speech. What the EU has is censorship based upon rules set by unelected officials based upon what they feel they can get away with. In the US, as onerous as it is, we have free speech. Period. It is up to the prosecutor to prove that speech harmed someone else. And that is very hard to do. Having ones feelings hurt is not "harm".


I am a great admirer of the EU, for reasons that are the very opposite to what you write here. The EU is key to human rights, workers right, living standards, food standards, environment policies etc. and it has set a very high bar for the rest of the world to follow. The US give lip service to many of these things because they are self governing to themselves. So while the EU have a court to make sure member nations uphold European values, the US will only uphold values that are in their self interest. Like rejecting Paris. Fine now, but in fifty years time when Florida is underwater let's see whose values are robust and whose are worthless.
#14819960
However, isn't it hate speech to say you want to bomb the WH as Madonna said before? She got backlash over it. But hey, the US embraces free speech, no? Or why can't we say, "Let's kill the President!" You threaten his life and the Secret Service or CIA will get you, not sure which will come after you and steal your computer.


It is not protected speech because it seeks to bring harm to others. The first statement is probably ok because she does not actually encourage other or threaten herself to do it. She just says she wants to. The second is definitely prohibited.

Free speech is only free if there is the foil of restrictions in speech. If we could say anything, would it still be free speech? It is like how you cannot have light without darkness, the 2 need each other as contrasting forces.


Interesting point. In a completely free speech environment there would be no need for a distinction. Yet I do not maintain that the US has completely unrestricted speech.

Where I am concerned, and where I believe the EU goes too far is when they ban speech because it offends others or "European Values". This is too broad a brush. For example. Surely the Roma values regarding women often "offend European Values". Obviously a Burka offends European values.

I am conflicted on this subject to some extent. I am the proud son of a very accomplished early feminist. I find Burkas to be anathema to all I was raised to believe. I am profoundly offended by the racist, violent and sexist language of many rappers and believe that a double standard is at work here. I do not deny the gangster rappers right to say these things but I find potentially great harm in piping that garbage into the ears of a 12 year old.

That said.

Horror movies are morality plays. Right? I mean every time a teenage girl takes her clothes off she is either raped, gets a hung from a meat hook, or (usually) both. But in the end the "good girl" gets away. The message is "don't make out with your boyfriend or you will be killed". Then there are the simple slaughter fests. But as offensive as the rape and murder of women and murder of men is they are not only protected speech but a very considerable "art form". They are considered entertainment.

Well. Not when they are really happening to Yazidi women surely? But what if I made a movie graphically illustrating the everyday torture and systematized rape of women under the Islamic State. It would certainly be allowed under US free speech laws. But the studios would never allow it or they would change it to some fictional terrorist group lest they insult Islam. Should such a movie be made? How would the EU see it? As the reporting of the truth or as an offense against Islam and prohibited? Which side to you come down on? A bland news report that simply says, "ISIS is raping Yazidi women" or a graphic film driving the actual horror home? And if such a film were made would the audience go to be edified by the horror of it all or would they go to revel in the sexual violence? Clearly the only answer is, 'depends on the viewer'.

Anyway. Free speech is a very complicated thing. In this day of electronic switches it is also extremely fragile. With the end of net neutrality in the US how easy will it be to get some anti-business messages air time on social media? We'll see.

In the end I am going to come down on the side of freedom of speech even when I find many things I am offered to hear/see profoundly offensive. I will always sign up for the old "the truth is an absolute defense" line of reasoning. As I said before, I do not like slippery slope arguments but in this case I am using one. As YOU said, "It is like how you cannot have light without darkness, the 2 need each other as contrasting forces." I would ask you to see that slightly differently. This juxtaposition you honor is not illustrated by what you are not allowed to say but rather what you or others with whom you profoundly disagree, are.
#14820185
@Drlee
I understand what you are saying. I agree that the distinction between free speech and hate speech is a difficult concept.

Why can't someone say they want to kill the president? It could have been said as a joke. Unless there is criminal intent, they should be allowed to say it, right?

I do not like censorship either. But in this world we live in, if we did not allow censorship, there would probably be more religious and sexual conflict than there already is. So for me it comes down to trying to keep the peace. If some regions/agencies/governments want to censor, then it is their decision. We in the US can hold ourselves to a higher standard opposing censorship, but we can only really understand our side and sympathize with our side based on our beliefs and values. Unless we are in their shoes, we do not have a real say in the decisions of international players.

Good point about the rape and murder in horror movies. I think that is one reason why I rarely watch modern horror movies, especially the teen ones. It is meant to be a cautionary tale against promiscuity but at this point in time, promiscuity is a long-standing fad that will not change. My sister used to say, "Everybody does it." It is just hard to get people to let go of that in-crowd mentality. People want to fit in and be included with the "cool kids".

But if a congressman were to say that promiscuous people should be killed, that would not be allowed. In the entertainment world, directors and comedians can get away with putting risque or awful things into their work because it is not considered to be serious, just for artistic purposes.
#14820210
Why can't someone say they want to kill the president? It could have been said as a joke. Unless there is criminal intent, they should be allowed to say it, right?


If there is no intention or threat, I believe they could say it. They might get a visit from the Secret Service to see if they are harmless or not but they cannot threaten or attempt to get others to do it.


If some regions/agencies/governments want to censor, then it is their decision. We in the US can hold ourselves to a higher standard opposing censorship, but we can only really understand our side and sympathize with our side based on our beliefs and values.


Give yourself for credit. We can understand the opinions of others. You and I are doing it right now. I understand the beliefs of Islam with regards to (for example) women. I understand why many of them want women covered from head to toe. I simply reject it. I do not do that because it is UN-American. I do that because I believe it violates what I believe to be a universal human right that ALL women ought to have.

Unless we are in their shoes, we do not have a real say in the decisions of international players.


I understand this too. But when it comes to oppression I believe we not only have the right but also the responsibility to speak out against it. Do we have real power to change things? I think we do. The West's most important power is economic. For example. If the US banned Saudi people and money from our markets unless they stopped mistreating gays I am pretty sure that would change. Look at the very subject of this thread. The US is being forced to give up some of its deeply held beliefs in exchange for access to EU markets. I am offended by that but then I do not own an internet company contemplating loosing a market of 510,000,00 people. So we play by the rules.


But if a congressman were to say that promiscuous people should be killed, that would not be allowed.



On the contrary. We just saw a candidate for the presidency tell people at his events that if they were to beat up people who opposed him he would pay for their defense. And what did it get him? Elected. Elected by the very same unthinkably unintelligent people who failed to see the danger in this way of acting.
In the entertainment world, directors and comedians can get away with putting risque or awful things into their work because it is not considered to be serious, just for artistic purposes.


Well. Sort of. Often movies and programs have a very serious intent behind them. They are quite serious. "Philadelphia" and "And the Band Played On" took on the AIDS crisis and changed the way a great many people saw a disease that they considered to be the result of sinful behavior.

The internet is a unique event in human history. At one time it is the largest billboard in the world. It is the world's most public place. But on another level it is the most intimate thing ever invented. Its corners are so dark and specific that they can be like whispered words between friends. We have yet to cope with the vastness of this (it would be a mistake to refer to it as data) mind. To explain.

When I was, oh say 20, there was pornography. It ran the gamut from magazines to 8mm films. It was gay and straight though the gay ones were likely to bring arrest in some states. But mostly it was straight and pretty mainstream. In some countries (notably Sweden and Denmark) the dark edges of kink were available. But for the vast majority of people born and raised in the developed world these dark corners were not even knowable except in the abstract. The existence of "donkey shows" in Tijuana was titillating but mostly legendary for all practical purposes. But along came the internet and all of its dark recesses. Now we have a population that can explore every possible kink in all of its variety. Things that were at one time mostly urban legends are now just categories on a porn site. And they are available to 10 year old children. We have yet to come to grips with that. Will censorship be the answer? It will have to be part of the answer. Indeed it already is. But where to draw the line is an enormous question. So far we in the west have only drawn the bright lines. We absolutely can't decide where to draw the gray ones so we do the "right" thing and default to free speech.

We just saw an election where deliberately false reports were a technique. This is not new. Politicians have planted false stories and accusations for hundreds of years. But today there is an unregulated venue for this kind of thing that not only allows access but puts it up for sale. During the election, on this very site, advertising popped up that was this exact thing. Deliberate falsehood in service of a political goal.

We do not know how to handle this. The only defense against falsehood is the truth. If you put the space in which one might lie or tell the truth up for sale then the player with the most money decides which the people can know.

Censorship has become vastly more difficult and complicated that could ever have been imagined when I was a kid. As dangerous as free speech is, I believe that now, more than ever, we should be trying to preserve it.
#14820213
@Hong Wu That which is asserted without evidence; shall be dismissed without evidence- Christopher Hitchens

@Drlee Is it safe to assume you support bans on sexual harassment in the workplace? What about street harassment?

Should blackmail be illegal and if so where should we draw the line between an ultimatum and blackmail? Say if someone hires a PI to follow their spouse around and confirms their suspicions of infidelity with photographic evidence to support it. It seems reasonable to threaten divorce if your spouse doesn't shape up. Is it acceptable to threaten to share the photos with your parents, your parents-in-law, siblings, siblings-in-law, grandparents, 3rd cousins, work colleagues, clients...
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

Again: nope. Putin in Feb 2022 only decided ... […]

Helping Ukraine to defeat the Russian invasion an[…]

https://twitter.com/huwaidaarraf/status/1773389663[…]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

What wat0n is trying to distract from: https://tw[…]