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: 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.