SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the you-can-do-anything,-but-you-can't-do-that dept.
Ars Technica reports that the European Court of Humans Rights has ruled Estonian news site Delfi is liable for hate speech posted in comments by users:
As the digital rights organisation Access notes, this goes against the European Union's e-commerce directive, which "guarantees liability protection for intermediaries that implement notice-and-takedown mechanisms on third-party comments." As such, Peter Micek, Senior Policy Counsel at Access, says the ECHR judgment has "dramatically shifted the internet away from the free expression and privacy protections that created the internet as we know it."
A post from the Media Legal Defence Initiative summarises the reasons why the court came to this unexpected decision. The ECHR cited "the 'extreme' nature of the comments which the court considered to amount to hate speech, the fact that they were published on a professionally-run and commercial news website," as well as the "insufficient measures taken by Delfi to weed out the comments in question and the low likelihood of a prosecution of the users who posted the comments," and the moderate sanction imposed on Delfi.
In the wake of this judgment, the legal situation is complicated. In an email to Ars, T J McIntyre, who is a lecturer in law and Chairman of Digital Rights Ireland, the lead organisation that won an important victory against EU data retention in the Court of Justice of the European Union last year, explained where things now stand. "Today's decision doesn't have any direct legal effect. It simply finds that Estonia's laws on site liability aren't incompatible with the ECHR. It doesn't directly require any change in national or EU law. Indirectly, however, it may be influential in further development of the law in a way which undermines freedom of expression. As a decision of the Grand Chamber of the ECHR it will be given weight by other courts and by legislative bodies."
[...]
As Access's Micek told Ars: "The website argued that its 'freedom to impart information created and published by third parties'—the commenters—was at stake. Delfi invoked its Article 10 rights to freedom of expression under the European Convention on Human Rights and the [ECHR] accepted the case."
Wiggin gives details that the claimant was a shipping company, an article concerning the operations of which attracted a large number of venomous comments. Despite the EUR30,000 claim for damages, the ECHR awarded non-pecuniary damages of EUR320.
Editor's Note: The ruling is not saying that all websites are accountable for all comments. In this case, the news site published an article which was intended to stir up public sentiment, and subsequently took no action when the user comments became so extreme as to fall under the 'Hate Speech' law. The publication of hate speech is an offence in Europe. Secondly, this occurred in Europe - claims that this has contravened the rights of people based upon the laws of other countries elsewhere are irrelevant. The Court accepted the news site's 'rights of freedom of expression' as covered by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.]
Original Submission
(Score: 3, Interesting) by janrinok on Wednesday June 17 2015, @06:11PM
I can understand your views regarding 'hate speech', but I suspect that you have constraints on what you can say. I don't know, but is it legal in where you live to incite a riot? To encourage someone to commit a crime? Is it legal to stand in a cinema and shout 'fire' knowing that what you are saying is untrue? Do all these things come without any personal responsibility whatsoever? In Europe, we believe that some things that are said with intention to provoke the breaking of the law should not be permitted. You can say whatever you wish - but you are also responsible for having said it. If the purpose of what you say is to incite an illegal act against, in this instance, a shipping company then you can expect to be held to account for what you have said.
Have you tried standing in public and threatening to kill your president/monarch/dictator recently? How do you think it would turn out? I bet that you would be arrested - simply for speaking.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday June 17 2015, @06:57PM
I don't know, but is it legal in where you live to incite a riot? To encourage someone to commit a crime? Is it legal to stand in a cinema and shout 'fire' knowing that what you are saying is untrue?
Legal according to what or who? According to the US constitution, those things are fine. According to the government that ignores said constitution, those things are not fine.
Do all these things come without any personal responsibility whatsoever?
Sure they do. But personal responsibility is not the same as having the government interfere with speech. Your reputation will likely be damaged. Furthermore, if you're on private property, you may be kicked off.
You can say whatever you wish - but you are also responsible for having said it.
Oh, please. Using that logic, people in North Korea can say whatever they want; they just might be murdered or imprisoned for doing so, if they happen to say something the government doesn't like. But you know, they still technically have the *ability* to speak, which is what really counts, right?
Have you tried standing in public and threatening to kill your president/monarch/dictator recently? How do you think it would turn out? I bet that you would be arrested - simply for speaking.
Which is unethical.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Thursday June 18 2015, @07:43AM
This is a pointless argument. Not all US laws have to have been stated in the Constitution. Laws are created all the time. It has nothing to do with the Government 'ignoring' the constitution (although the fact that they do in other matters is a cause for great concern). The laws regarding lots of things that were undreamed of when the Constitution was being written are all equally binding over US citizens.
NO you are wrong. The people of North Korea do not have the right of freedom of expression, which is itself wrong. Furthermore, the government of North Korea is also responsible for its actions against its people - it is the responsibility of 'free' governments elsewhere to ensure that NK changes the way it treats people. That doesn't mean that we should be invading NK, but that we should use the maximum political and diplomatic effort to bring about the desired change.
In the last line of your comment you seem to be suggesting that being arrested for threatening to kill someone is 'unethical'. Is that it? Is preventing a murder unethical? Fortunately I live in a place that doesn't have its laws decided by you. I'm not suggesting that all laws in Europe are good or that all laws in America are bad, but in this matter I prefer the European solution even though you will think it 'unethical'. An arrest doesn't imply subsequent incarceration - but if a Court decides that it is an appropriate action then it shouldn't be ruled out either. I suspect most courts would seek medical or psychological help for the person concerned.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday June 18 2015, @04:05PM
This is a pointless argument. Not all US laws have to have been stated in the Constitution.
The government derives all of its powers from the constitution, and it only has powers that the constitution explicitly grants it. Furthermore, the first amendment explicitly guarantees that congress (later applied to other levels of government via the 14th amendment) will not violate people's freedom of speech, and lists no exceptions. The government ignores the fact that it lists no exceptions and doesn't even imply that there are exceptions, however.
NO you are wrong. The people of North Korea do not have the right of freedom of expression, which is itself wrong.
According to your own logic, they certainly do. Your logic was that you are free to speak, but you must accept the consequences of your speech (i.e. the government might punish you depending on what you said). Using that logic, there is no country in the world without freedom of speech or expression, as while you might be punished for speaking, you're simply accepting the consequences of your speech.
In the last line of your comment you seem to be suggesting that being arrested for threatening to kill someone is 'unethical'. Is that it?
Correct.
Is preventing a murder unethical?
That depends. Have they taken any actual actions besides just speaking? If so, then no. If they haven't, then it is unethical to arrest them.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Thursday June 18 2015, @06:32PM
Now you're either being an idiot or your education is lacking. North Korea is NOT in Europe. In Europe - we do have the right of freedom of expression, but we are responsible for what we say. The North Koreans do not have freedom of expression. You introduced NK a comment or two back because, presumably, you thought it helped your argument. Now I see that you were just being argumentative for no obvious reason or logic.
Obviously, our views differ. If someone incites a riot then, I believe, it is actually an offence in both of our countries. You may wish it were not so where you live - but that is in your own hands to change, providing you can find enough people who agree with your viewpoint. In Europe, the law is quite clear that we are responsible for all of our actions be they spoken, physical or written.
You are welcome to keep your own personal version of 'ethics'. In your ethical world, a President or military officer who orders people killed bears no responsibility for their deaths, after all, they didn't kill them, did they? The person who threatens others into being fearful of their lives has not committed any crime. He has only 'spoken' the words, and your interpretation of your Constitution means that he must go unpunished. Is that really what the Founding Fathers meant when they wrote it, or is that simply the interpretation they gives you the maximum of freedom of responsibility while living your life while giving no consideration to others? I think that you will find plenty of your countrymen who will disagree with you.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday June 18 2015, @11:42PM
Now you're either being an idiot or your education is lacking. North Korea is NOT in Europe. In Europe - we do have the right of freedom of expression, but we are responsible for what we say.
You just don't understand the concept of applying your own logic to other situations. If the government punishes you for your speech or expression, then you do not have free speech or free expression in those instances. Saying that you're "responsible" for what you say, and intending it to mean that the government may punish you, while still saying you have freedom of expression in those instances, is complete nonsense. By that logic, every country fully respects freedom of speech, even North Korea.
I can't make this any more clear. If you don't get it, I don't know what to say.
I think that you will find plenty of your countrymen who will disagree with you.
Then they don't care about the constitution. They're free to try to amend it, but not free to just ignore it.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Friday June 19 2015, @09:29AM
Of course one has free speech. But you cannot hide behind the claim of 'free speech' when the intention is to commit, or to incite someone else to commit, a crime - either by intimidation, reckless endangerment or by damaging someone's reputation or business to the extent that it causes them genuine personal or financial harm. To interpret the law to mean that you can say anything with no responsibility for the consequences is a childish interpretation more suited to the playground than in a serious discussion. You need to accept that you are responsible for your actions, and that you do not have a personal get-out-of-jail card for anything that you do. Man up, take some responsibility for yourself. If, as you seem to suggest, one can say anything at any time without fear of the consequences, then how do you explain the offence of perjury - or is that something else that you believe is unethical?
Then they don't care about your personal interpretation of the constitution - FTFY. It doesn't need amending - just looking at in a mature way.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Friday June 19 2015, @02:06PM
Of course one has free speech. But you cannot hide behind the claim of 'free speech' when the intention is to commit, or to incite someone else to commit
Sure you can, as long as you simply spoke.
To interpret the law to mean that you can say anything with no responsibility for the consequences is a childish interpretation more suited to the playground than in a serious discussion.
I'm simply interpreting the US constitution as it is written, whereas you would perhaps prefer to simply make things up.
You need to accept that you are responsible for your actions
When have I said otherwise? If you speak, you're responsible for your speech. The problem comes when government thugs get involved. How difficult is this to understand?
And here we go again with the "responsibility" nonsense. Again, using that logic, North Korea is simply making its citizens take responsibility for their intentions (which they may say is to disrupt the government and therefore disrupt order) and actions (which are actually speech). You like to pretend you're pro-free speech, but using cowardly language to avoid admitting you actually are limiting speech won't mask your true intentions. The entire point of "free speech" is that the government won't punish you for your speech; otherwise, it's a completely useless concept.
then how do you explain the offence of perjury - or is that something else that you believe is unethical?
Indeed, that is also a violation of freedom of speech.
Then they don't care about your personal interpretation of the constitution - FTFY. It doesn't need amending - just looking at in a mature way.
No, they don't care about what the constitution actually says. Have you read it? Probably not. Either that or you have an overactive imagination. You seem to think that the government should just be able to ignore what the constitution actually says so you can read it in some subjective "mature" manner and come to the 'correct' conclusion without having to do any of the work amending it. You advocate for lawlessness and thuggery.
It's very troubling to see people advocate for a lawless government, since violating the constitution means the government is acting merely as a group of powerful thugs. And look what your mentality has led to: mass surveillance that so many politicians claim is constitutional, government thugs molesting people at airports with judges claiming this is somehow constitutional, and all other manners of things where the government simply ignores the constitution and 'imagines' things which are convenient to it into it. You and people with your mentality are to thank for that.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Friday June 19 2015, @02:12PM
Don't use the concept of "responsibility" to advocate government thugs getting involved; those are completely separate concepts. You can take responsibility for your speech (as in, you know you yourself was the one who spoke) without government thugs ever being involved. This "responsibility" claptrap is 100% offtopic.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Friday June 19 2015, @03:11PM
Funny how almost every civilised country that I can think of, including your own, doesn't accept that viewpoint. They all have laws against inciting others to commit a crime.
Now you are contradicting yourself. The entire TFA is about an article that stirred up a strong sentiment, which in turn resulted in comments that broke the law. The people making those comments are responsible for their actions - as you have just stated - but, in your view, they should not be held responsible for them. Are you really suggesting that those who break the law shouldn't be held responsible for their actions? People are free to express their opinions, even if those opinions break the law, but they must expect that they will be held to account for their actions. They have freedom of expression - they do NOT have freedom to commit offences without penalty.
As US courts have agreed, 'freedom of speech' includes the written word. But your weasely interpretation means that there should not be laws against slander, libel, perjury, reckless endangerment (e.g. shouting 'fire' in a crowded public place), forgery and many other offences. After all, they were just people exercising their First Amendment rights.
Ah, now we are getting to it. You could have simply said 'when the government gets involved', but you didn't. You don't like being held responsible for what you say or do - and anyone who disagrees by passing laws that make you accept responsibility is a 'thug'. You are allowing your emotions and personal bias to show through. You are aguing from a weak position and I suspect that you know it.
Firstly, as I pointed out in TFA - this is NOT about US law. However, yes I have read it. Have you read the relevant European law covering this case? No - I am fairly certain that you have not.
You ARE responsible for your actions (including speech) and, if they are contrary to the law, you can be punished for them - exactly the same as in Europe. If your assembly is not peaceful, then an offence is being committed. If your religion is based on the sacrificing of virgins then you are guilty of murder. If you say things that are forbidden by law (and in Europe that includes 'hate speech'), then you have committed an offence. The fact that you don't like this interpretation will not help you should you find yourself at sometime in the future facing a judge and a court of your peers. It doesn't matter how eloquently you try to argue your case, you will still be wrong.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Friday June 19 2015, @06:12PM
Funny how almost every civilised country that I can think of, including your own, doesn't accept that viewpoint.
Funny how so many countries used to accept slavery. Funny how so many countries accept mass surveillance. Funny how so many countries used to and still do accept various forms of oppression. Your bandwagon fallacies aren't going to persuade me.
Now you are contradicting yourself.
That you don't understand the concept of responsibility ("Who is responsible for this?") is apparent. Responsibility only means that you admit that you're responsible for the speech, not that the government needs to be involved.
Are you really suggesting that those who break the law shouldn't be held responsible for their actions?
I'm suggesting that these laws should not exist.
People are free to express their opinions, even if those opinions break the law, but they must expect that they will be held to account for their actions.
If there is a law against it, then people are not free to do so. You don't understand why freedom of speech or expression are even meaningful concepts, and the North Korea analogy repeatedly flies over your head as you continue using this nonsensical logic.
As US courts have agreed, 'freedom of speech' includes the written word. But your weasely interpretation means that there should not be laws against slander, libel, perjury, reckless endangerment (e.g. shouting 'fire' in a crowded public place), forgery and many other offences. After all, they were just people exercising their First Amendment rights.
Yes.
You don't like being held responsible for what you say or do
False. You seem to think that the only time responsibility comes into play is when the government gets involved, which is just a sad way to view the world. Have you never heard of social consequences which don't involve the government or even necessarily violence?
If I speak, I can say that I am "responsible" for my speech, meaning I admit I am the one who spoke it and the one who chose to do so. You are equivocating with your use of the word "responsibility" to mean "government involvement". There are many uses of the term.
Firstly, as I pointed out in TFA - this is NOT about US law.
The discussion has evolved and some amount of the discussion is about the US. Read previous comments to find out how this happened.
For the US, I say this: These anti-free speech laws are unconstitutional and unethical. For other countries, I say this: Anti-free speech laws may be constitutional and legal, but they are still unethical.
You ARE responsible for your actions (including speech)
Agreed.
and, if they are contrary to the law, you can be punished for them
Since I disagree with laws prohibiting speech, I find these laws intolerable.
The fact that you don't like this interpretation will not help you should you find yourself at sometime in the future facing a judge and a court of your peers. It doesn't matter how eloquently you try to argue your case, you will still be wrong.
You're using the "might makes right" fallacy. You need to work on your logic. There are ways to disagree with me without using logical fallacies. Plenty of people have done so before.
My suggestion: Learn more about the many meanings of the word "responsibility" and how it needn't always involve the government.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Friday June 19 2015, @07:10PM
AP, I think that this discussion has run its course - we will have to agree to disagree again. Thanks for the exchange of idea.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Thursday June 18 2015, @08:55PM
i guess its time to challenge the constitutionality of the laws against libel and slander, criminal threats, assault, and many others. there are absolutely no exceptions to the freedom of speech, right?
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday June 18 2015, @11:44PM
i guess its time to challenge the constitutionality of the laws against libel and slander, criminal threats, assault, and many others.
It is always time to do that, but don't expect that the government will actually obey the constitution.
(Score: 3, Funny) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday June 17 2015, @07:47PM
I can understand your views regarding 'hate speech', but I suspect that you have constraints on what you can say.
Oh yeah, over here in the Land of the Free we can totally incite violence against whole swaths of humans with no problem.
Tell someone how to decrypt a DVD, though, and you're fucked.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Wednesday June 17 2015, @07:50PM
The speech itself is legal but inciting a riot is not. That is, the same penalties apply if you use fake smoke and light effects to convince people the theater is on fire as you would for yelling "FIRE!".
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday June 17 2015, @08:18PM
The speech itself is legal but inciting a riot is not.
That distinction is simply comical, and a cowardly way to limit speech while still pretending you're not limiting speech.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Wednesday June 17 2015, @08:43PM
I could equally claim that outlawing murder is a restriction on my free-speech rights to express my dislike of someone through performance art, but that would be stupid.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday June 17 2015, @08:51PM
That's action, not speech. Actions can be expressions, but they can also be directly harmful, unlike speech.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Wednesday June 17 2015, @09:16PM
Performance art is speech, except when it isn't?
Speaking is an action.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday June 17 2015, @10:06PM
Performance art is speech, except when it isn't?
I don't understand your question. An action can be expression. Most actions can also bring direct harm.
Speaking is an action.
But an action that cannot bring about actual physical harm. That's the difference you failed to consider when you brought up your murder example. Such examples will never convince me because of this.
If we're going to talk about speech, then keep the discussion about speech.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday June 17 2015, @11:23PM
Speaking is an action.
But an action that cannot bring about actual physical harm. That's the difference you failed to consider when you brought up your murder example.
British philosopher A.J. Ayers had an interesting theory about what he called "speech acts", outlined in a book called How To Do Things with Words. If saying things can do things (for example, saying "I do"), it is perfectly possible that the act of speaking can do harm, as in "Guilty! Hang him by the neck until he is dead!" You may say that the words themselves do not actually hurt you, but it is more than likely that you would not be harmed if these particular words were not spoken. "Git'em, boys!" can have the same harmful effect, as well as calling someone a SJW right here on SoylentNews! It is not just that hate speech hurts someone's feefees, it is that it can produce a reasonable fear of actual harm, and that act is not free speech, it is assault. Now shut up, or we' have to deal with your kind! (See! It's true!)
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday June 18 2015, @02:17AM
If saying things can do things
Well, it can't, and saying "I do" isn't an example of an action being performed in reality.
You may say that the words themselves do not actually hurt you, but it is more than likely that you would not be harmed if these particular words were not spoken.
Irrelevant. The words themselves do no harm, as you suggested.
It is not just that hate speech hurts someone's feefees, it is that it can produce a reasonable fear of actual harm
Fear is just another emotion, and it's inconsequential. Whether speech makes you fearful, sad, or angry doesn't matter; the speech itself has not harmed you. How others or yourself react to the speech may cause harm, but that is your/their own doing.
that act is not free speech, it is assault.
It's not an act; it's speech.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Thursday June 18 2015, @03:50AM
Anal, once again are you being purposely obtuse? A simple yes or no will suffice.
Well, it can't, and saying "I do" isn't an example of an action being performed in reality.
Really, you smarmy bastard! When I said "I Do", it was "until death do us part", so if you were not serious about doing this in reality, you're dead, bro! Or at least you are seriously liable for alimony, palimony, and all sorts of mony! Not real? Just wait until you have to go Bruce Jenner to pay the consequences of a non-real act!
Fear is just another emotion, and it's inconsequential. Whether speech makes you fearful, sad, or angry doesn't matter; the speech itself has not harmed you. How others or yourself react to the speech may cause harm, but that is your/their own doing.
Come closer, Anal, just a little closer. That's it! Do you feel safe? Good! You know that I would never slip a blade between your ribs, right? And I would never cut your head off your torso, and [Ethanol-Fueled levels of perversion here]. But just saying that I would never do these things should make you a tad bit suspicious, no? Can you start to feel the fear? OK, imagine you are, oh, lets say, trans. If I was saying such things, with the background of actual crimes against what I have identified you (correctly or not!) as being, you should be in fear of your life. And if I were to dox you, you would leave your house and find lodgings at the Holiday Inn on South 42nd Avenue in Bently Oklahoma (god, I sincerely wish that there is no such town or motel, since I am making them up for purposes of illustration. Maybe I should have used Belgium), would this cause you an emotion? Yes, it is just your emotion, and just because you are paranoid does not mean we are out to get you, but it does not mean the contrary, and since we have said, sub rosa, that we are after you, which is the more reasonable inference? That's it, hate speech is judged on the "reasonable person" standard. Which means, if a reasonable person were to take a death threat seriously, that threat is no longer "free speech", it is assault, infringing upon the freedom of another. Any fucktard libertarian ought to realize this. If the cannot, they obviously are not real libertarians, and the rest of us libertarians will have to hire Dawg the Bounty Hunter to find them and bring them in to face charges of damages against the rest of us.
So, Anal, get it now? Or must we "taunt you a second tyme?".
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday June 18 2015, @04:13PM
Really, you smarmy bastard! When I said "I Do", it was "until death do us part", so if you were not serious about doing this in reality, you're dead, bro! Or at least you are seriously liable for alimony, palimony, and all sorts of mony! Not real? Just wait until you have to go Bruce Jenner to pay the consequences of a non-real act!
"I do." is speech, not an actual action like the ones I'm talking about.
That's it, hate speech is judged on the "reasonable person" standard.
The "reasonable person" standard for speech is pure nonsense, and the 'reasonable people' are expected to be authoritarians and anti-free speech. If I were on a jury, I would refuse to convict anyone based solely on their speech.
Which means, if a reasonable person were to take a death threat seriously, that threat is no longer "free speech", it is assault
Incorrect. Any actions someone else takes may be assault, but the speech itself is merely a threat (i.e. free speech).
Any fucktard libertarian ought to realize this. If the cannot, they obviously are not real libertarians, and the rest of us libertarians will have to hire Dawg the Bounty Hunter to find them and bring them in to face charges of damages against the rest of us.
For one thing, I never claimed to be a libertarian. Simply believing in absolute freedom of speech does not make one a libertarian by itself, I would think. Second of all, that's just a No True Scotsman fallacy.
So, Anal, get it now? Or must we "taunt you a second tyme?".
To determine whether or not an example you're thinking of putting forth will likely be effective on me, simply think about the logic I've been using this entire time and apply it to your example; that would make things quicker.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Thursday June 18 2015, @12:45AM
But an action that cannot bring about actual physical harm
In the courtroom: "We the jury find the defendant guilty!"
To the firing squad: "FIRE!"
Crime boss to enforcer: "Whack him!"
Said in front of many police officers: "He's got a gun!"
Need I go on?
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday June 18 2015, @02:19AM
Need I go on?
In every single example you gave, without exception, the people causing the harm were the people who took harmful actions, and not the actual speaker. You can go on all day and it won't do you any good.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 18 2015, @07:13AM
So you should not blame congress for bad laws. After all, the laws are just text, that is speech. The harm is not done by the laws but by the people following the laws, right?
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday June 18 2015, @04:16PM
So you should not blame congress for bad laws.
False. People are responsible for their own speech, and congress is responsible for voting for bad laws. This issue has *nothing* to do with blame, but it does have to do with whether speech can cause direct harm or not, and it can't.
The harm is not done by the laws but by the people following the laws, right?
Correct. Bad laws have no power and shouldn't be followed or enforced.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday June 18 2015, @12:03PM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday June 18 2015, @04:18PM
Great.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 18 2015, @07:09AM
Speaking is also an action.
If I type a comment on SN, it's clearly speech, right? But what if I type a launch command at a nuclear missile control computer? It's the exact same type of action, pressing keys on the keyboard. Therefore it should also be speech, and therefore protected, right?
What if the missile control computer has voice recognition, and I literally speak that command?
What if I don't myself interact with the computer, but am in command and order someone below me to do it?
What if I'm not in command, but know that the one in control of the missile launch computer trusts me so much that if I tell him to do it, he'll do it without thinking? When I'm telling him to launch the missile, is it free speech?
What if there's no such trust, but by continuously talking to him, I finally convince him to launch the missile, is that free speech?
Now what if I'm not talking to him personally, but giving a talk for all missile control staff, where I try to convince them that it is necessary to launch a nuclear missile, and one of them gets convinced and launches the missile?
What if it is not a talk directed specifically to the missile staff, but a public talk, but I know there's missile control staff in the room?
What if I don't know that missile staff is in the room, but I suspect there might be?
What if I put it on YouTube in the hope that some missile control person watches it, gets convinced and decides to launch the missile?
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday June 18 2015, @04:20PM
Speaking is also an action.
I've been through this, and I've replied to so many examples like the ones you've put forth already that it should be perfectly clear what my position is. Just read the other comments.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 18 2015, @03:04AM
It's a sensible distinction. Firing a gun is not illegal, but firing it at other people is. Lighting a fire is not illegal, but setting your neighbor's house on fire is.
What matters is intent and outcome, ideological extremism is for fools.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday June 18 2015, @03:14AM
It's a sensible distinction. Firing a gun is not illegal, but firing it at other people is. Lighting a fire is not illegal, but setting your neighbor's house on fire is.
None of which relates to speech even slightly. Try again.
What matters is intent and outcome, ideological extremism is for fools.
I consider your position extreme, whereas I do not consider mine extreme. What is "extreme" is subjective. Furthermore, the notion that an 'extreme' position is automatically wrong is a non sequitur.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 18 2015, @03:08PM
Imagine a gun with voice control.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 18 2015, @09:02PM
Because there's no such thing as bullying or psychological abuse, right? Those pussies just need to man up and grow thicker skin right?
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday June 18 2015, @09:09PM
Bullying and psychological abuse exist, but if it's speech-related, then neither causes direct harm. What is and is not offensive/hurtful is completely subjective.
Regardless, I'm a bit puzzled about how you responded to that particular part of my post as if you disagreed with it. Do you believe that the quoted examples relate to speech?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 18 2015, @05:13AM
In America, we have the doctrine of "punishing assholes." You can be a member of the KKK and scream "The niggers are raping America" at the top of your lungs, and you won't get into trouble for it with the law, but you also won't have any friends. You'll be fucked over by society, because you are an asshole. On the other hand, if you scream, "Kill all the niggers," and someone starts killing black people, you will get punished by the law and by society both, because you are an asshole.
Sure, we say lots about "free speech" and "freedom of religion" and "freedom of the press," and we mean it, until you're an asshole. For reference, see US vs. Reynolds [wikipedia.org].
Wait, you say, who defines who an asshole is? Well, basically everyone around you. And they're all armed, and they're all Americans who hate assholes, and they invented the concept of lynching. So you learn not to be an asshole, or the Evolution Fairy comes and bonks you on the head with her Wand of Natural Selection. And that is why David Cameron is British and not American.
The end.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 18 2015, @05:16AM
Oh, wait, I meant Reynolds v. United States [wikipedia.org]. US v. Reyonlds is *totally* different.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday June 18 2015, @04:23PM
The only thing I'm concerned about here is government intervention, not reputations being ruined.
On the other hand, if you scream, "Kill all the niggers," and someone starts killing black people, you will get punished by the law and by society both, because you are an asshole.
Sure, we say lots about "free speech" and "freedom of religion" and "freedom of the press," and we mean it, until you're an asshole. For reference, see US vs. Reynolds.
As soon as government interferes with speech, a great injustice has been done, as I've been saying the entire time. The government has inserted imaginary text into the constitution to get around this obvious prohibition of the government interfering with speech, but they have no legitimate authority to do so, and are therefore acting like a mere group of thugs.
And that is why David Cameron is British and not American.
That doesn't really explain the current crop of politicians in the US.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Thursday June 18 2015, @07:22AM
Which is precisely the case being discussed in TFA. Some of the comments were inciting attacks against individuals and property, both of which, under certain circumstances, are illegal under European Law. So the judge ruled that, although the news site has the right of freedom of expression, they are responsible for having published the comments, or for not having removed the comments once they had been identified. The problem here though is that it leaves the onus on identifying what is 'hate speech' to the owner of the website. Subsequently this might have a chilling effect on all sites as site owners become over-zealous in their removal of comments rather than risk committing an offence.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Thursday June 18 2015, @05:40PM
That is the part I have to disagree with. They are trying to turn every website owner into some sort of arbiter of bad speech under penalty of law if they get it wrong when even the courts can't decide exactly what is and is not unacceptable speech.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Thursday June 18 2015, @06:10PM
Yes, so do I. And that is also the view of the various organisations and bodies objecting to the ruling. It is not the ruling itself but the possible long term effects of it.