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 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.