[Unthinking Majority]

Amid the recent riots/unrest in the UK, today the EU commissioner has sent this letter to Elon Musk, which is an order demanding Musk's Twitter abide by EU speech laws (ie. publishing hateful content, misinformation etc). The letter is here:

https://x.com/ThierryBreton/status/1823033048109367549

This is Elon Musk's response:

https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1823076043017630114

I support free speech. However, i'm also a little confused since Musk stated when he bought twitter that it would also abide by local speech laws in every country/jurisdiction. Is he going back on this? Has Twitter censored content in other countries/jurisdiction? Thoughts on this letter from the EU?

[Fasces]

It is difficult for US passport holders to open bank accounts in some countries because of how expensive it is for these banks to comply with US financial regulations on citizens abroad.

Meng, a Chinese Huawei executive that did business in Iran, was arrested for violating US sanctions on Iran. Huawei was entirely banned from operating within US borders.

A lot of Americans are angry at the EU for attempting to 'police US speech' but have no qualms about their own extra territorial claims of jurisdiction. They unironically think that while US law may have global reach, the same should not apply to the laws of other countries, or specifically, that their laws shouldn't affect US citizens or companies. It is absurd.

Ecery year one American or another gets arrested for attempting to violate EU gun laws bexause of this feeling.

The EU has a right to police content hosted within its borders. Twitter can block content that violates EU law from appearing on EU systems, it can pull out of the EU market entirely like Google did in China, or it can face the consequences of violating EU law.

[JohnRawls]

It is difficult for US passport holders to open bank accounts in some countries because of how expensive it is for these banks to comply with US financial regulations on citizens abroad.

Meng, a Chinese Huawei executive that did business in Iran, was arrested for violating US sanctions on Iran. Huawei was entirely banned from operating within US borders.

A lot of Americans are angry at the EU for attempting to 'police US speech' but have no qualms about their own extra territorial claims of jurisdiction. They unironically think that while US law may have global reach, the same should not apply to the laws of other countries, or specifically, that their laws shouldn't affect US citizens or companies. It is absurd.

Ecery year one American or another gets arrested for attempting to violate EU gun laws bexause of this feeling.

The EU has a right to police content hosted within its borders. Twitter can block content that violates EU law from appearing on EU systems, it can pull out of the EU market entirely like Google did in China, or it can face the consequences of violating EU law.

I would say both US and EU laws have global reach so its not a problem. Of course it is not wrong to complain about it and is a perfectly expected to happen and welcome. Europe is way more heavy handed on things though which is not necessarily a good thing and this stems from the fact that we have way more younger people in politics and in higher positions compared to US.

[wat0n]

It's not just the EU, the UK too. And these speech laws are not new either, Twitter I think understands this perfectly.

What I do find interesting though is that the EU seems to be broadening them to include barring interviewing some politicians and not just barring racially-motivated incitement to violence and other lawless action.

[Istanbuller]

Amid the recent riots/unrest in the UK, today the EU commissioner has sent this letter to Elon Musk, which is an order demanding Musk's Twitter abide by EU speech laws (ie. publishing hateful content, misinformation etc). The letter is here:

https://x.com/ThierryBreton/status/1823033048109367549

This is Elon Musk's response:

https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1823076043017630114

I support free speech. However, i'm also a little confused since Musk stated when he bought twitter that it would also abide by local speech laws in every country/jurisdiction. Is he going back on this? Has Twitter censored content in other countries/jurisdiction? Thoughts on this letter from the EU?

Do not trust social media giants that much. Local police can go after you.

X, Youtube, Instagram and many others have censored many contents in Turkey. They did everything that Turkish government has asked them.

[Istanbuller]

It is difficult for US passport holders to open bank accounts in some countries because of how expensive it is for these banks to comply with US financial regulations on citizens abroad.

Meng, a Chinese Huawei executive that did business in Iran, was arrested for violating US sanctions on Iran. Huawei was entirely banned from operating within US borders.

I worked in sanctions compliance area in a bank for 4 years.

All banks have to comply with US& EU sanctions. Otherwise, they can't operate with USD and EUR. Even Chinese banks can't fight against US and EU sanctions.

[Negotiator]

The thread title makes no sense.

Censorship is illegal under human rights, and for that matter also US law (first amendment) and EU law and the laws of the individual EU states.

Thus there is no such thing as "legally censor", nothing less than an interview with a former and possibly future US president, no less.


Either way this is against the law and yet nothing will happen, because it was against Trump and people cant think straight anymore.

This is classic meddling in US elections. The very thing some people claim that Russia would have done 2016 and will very likely claim again if Trump wins in 2024.

But very likely the EU is doing this because the USA told them to, for they themselves cant do it, due to the first amendment.

So, again, there will be no reaction from the elites, unless public opinion forces them to.


Pretty much like they run Guantanamo Bay because it would be improssible to keep people imprisoned for 20+ years without any actual prosecution, so a prison like that would be illegal on US soil.

[Potemkin]

The thread title makes no sense.

Censorship is illegal under human rights, and for that matter also US law (first amendment) and EU law and the laws of the individual EU states.

Thus there is no such thing as "legally censor", nothing less than an interview with a former and possibly future US president, no less.


Either way this is against the law and yet nothing will happen, because it was against Trump and people cant think straight anymore.

This is classic meddling in US elections. The very thing some people claim that Russia would have done 2016 and will very likely claim again if Trump wins in 2024.

But very likely the EU is doing this because the USA told them to, for they themselves cant do it, due to the first amendment.

So, again, there will be no reaction from the elites, unless public opinion forces them to.


Pretty much like they run Guantanamo Bay because it would be improssible to keep people imprisoned for 20+ years without any actual prosecution, so a prison like that would be illegal on US soil.

Gotta find a way around that pesky Constitution, eh?

[Unthinking Majority]

It is difficult for US passport holders to open bank accounts in some countries because of how expensive it is for these banks to comply with US financial regulations on citizens abroad.

Meng, a Chinese Huawei executive that did business in Iran, was arrested for violating US sanctions on Iran. Huawei was entirely banned from operating within US borders.

A lot of Americans are angry at the EU for attempting to 'police US speech' but have no qualms about their own extra territorial claims of jurisdiction. They unironically think that while US law may have global reach, the same should not apply to the laws of other countries, or specifically, that their laws shouldn't affect US citizens or companies. It is absurd.

Ecery year one American or another gets arrested for attempting to violate EU gun laws bexause of this feeling.

The EU has a right to police content hosted within its borders. Twitter can block content that violates EU law from appearing on EU systems, it can pull out of the EU market entirely like Google did in China, or it can face the consequences of violating EU law.

The EU is free to make whichever speech laws it wants. If Twitter won't agree to abide then the EU is free to ban the site or apply fines etc.

The EU has the right, but the question is whether the EU should be doing this? What do our European posters feel about this?

What do they consider "incitement" and "hateful content" etc. That seems pretty vague and subjective, open to interpretation where what is considered unlawful can change by those enforcing the law unless it's carefully specified.
We have hate speech laws in Canada, but they carry a high bar usually, but sometimes the legal process is a punishment itself.

[Pants-of-dog]

Note that this is not happening in some classroom hypothetical setting.

There are race riots happening right now targeting brown skinned people.

If there were non-whites rioting and attacking white people, there would be no discussion about whether or not we should restrict the use of social media by the rioters.

[wat0n]

That at least did not happen during the BLM riots.

[Pants-of-dog]

Yes, the BLM protesters were far less violent and racist than the current rioters.

But BLM social media was censored. And I do not recall anyone having any public discussion about that.

[wat0n]

BLM social media wasn't censored, at least not in the US. The only social media crackdowns I recall were against those who were inciting lootings, particularly in Latino neighborhoods in cities like Chicago.

Unless of course you mean that looting was incited by BLM, and that it is somehow covered by free speech to incite imminent lawless action, I don't really see much of a comparison here.