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 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.