The article does eventually get around to being a little more levelheaded than its headline:
"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."
Interestingly, US law is basically the exact opposite in this area and is very protective of website operators and service providers, in a way that it's not in other areas like copyright. The article notes there is (or can be) a DMCA-style notice-and-takedown system for defamation in Europe, but the surviving parts of the Communications Decency Act in the US really insulate websites from having to do much of anything at all about information their users provide.
The system is not exactly DCMA-style as you don't have to first take down the content and the provider can actually fight the decision on his own - which actually happens from time to time. Small providers and private persons obviously still suffer since they have a hard time defending but I seriously can't think of a better alternative. There are morons on the internet and there need to be ways to enforce a takedown for hate speech IMHO.
Why does there need to be a way to takedown hate speech?
Moderation provides a way for communities to decide what they will and wont accept and you can choose what communities you would like to be a part of.
If a person spews hateful garbage all over the forum report or comments look to the people that run the community to take out the trash. If they wont find a different community.
There is no reason you ought to be able to shut down speech because YOU find it offensive. It sounds great when its happening to a lunatic spewing hate but its a perfect tool to squelch free thought and discussion and it can and will be used for less benign uses if you put that tool in the hands of government.
Because (hate) speech and (cyber)bullying can hurt and even kill people by pushing them into suicide. It's easy to ignore for you and me, presumable both straight white male in a secured position with a good solid job and enough free time at our hands for idle discussions on HN, but much harder so for people from minorities, with prior (mental) issues or other hardships to deal with.
Relying on a community works only where such a community exists, but twitter is not HN where moderators can and do take out the trash, it's a commercial enterprise with limited incentive to spend money on curbing even the most extreme cases and I think that's where some external entity needs to step in and remind them - and that's the law. And while such tools may be in the hand of the government, in germany for example the government does not have standing to sue. It's only the arbiter.
Bullets kill, which is unfair if you think about it. Why don't we organize a circle and come to a consensus that they really shouldn't because it's often used to silence valid discourse?
...
That's also why we shouldn't waste a lot of time on why we should block hate speech. We cannot. If you care to confront reality you must defeat it in other ways.
I differ. I'm well aware that it's impossible to really block anything on the internet, just as it's impossible to really block any kind of speech in the real world. But we can try and curb the worst excesses - threats of death and violence - in the "public" spaces of the internet, that is twitter, facebook and so on. It's not only a way to make those spaces feel safer for those who are less privileged than us, it's also a statement from us, as the society that certain behavior is not accepted - because in the end, that's all a law is: A statement that we don't accept or condone murder, theft or other behavior and we, as the society will hand out punishment. And if you think about it - we punish putting bullets into people until they're maimed or dead - why should we not punish putting words into people until they're maimed or dead.
And ultimately even if you come up with a compellingly eloquent reason why it shouldn't, gravity still sucks.
Even though I know we're saying the same ultimate thing, it's not a should/shouldn't issue. It's a does/doesn't issue.
We wish (maybe) we should block hate speech, but we can not effectively. So we need to counter it with ... love speech ... or something. But something we can do instead of wishes and nonsense.
> There are morons on the internet and there need to be ways to enforce a takedown for hate speech
Why?
I understand that if I run a blog I may not want to be associated with some comments people leave, so I have an incentive to police the comment section. But why should I be required to remove comments that other people may find offensive? Even comments that can only be taken as offensive?
First, if people feel a need to advertise ignorance, intolerance, immaturity, etc. I see no reason to keep them from doing so. It makes life a lot easier for the rest of us when we need to determine who to associate with.
Second, in the US, the accepted solution for speech you disagree with is more speech, not less. Don't silence your enemies; destroy their arguments. Show how they're immature, intolerant, ignorant, etc. I prefer to win the debate by having the better argument instead of by silencing critics.
The discussion was about hate speech; calling some company shit is not hate speech under any legislation I know of. Let's not fall into arguing against strawmen.
Sorry i should have specified, i mean in a more generalised manner. But even then, do words really effect people that much? If the community has the power to downvote/hide idiotic comments, and to argue through rationalised speech, theres no need to get your panties in a bunch.
Yes, words really affect people that much, but not in the way you're thinking.
The problem that these laws are trying to address isn't (only) that some people might get their "panties in a bunch", but that those comments are often posted with the intention of promoting underground political movements with roots in the hateful ideologies that have provoked much of the violence in the past century. This isn't dead history, it's very much alive and growing, particularly since the crisis.
Now, I personally think free speech is a crucial value, and besides I don't think these laws will help much with the real problem, but I don't think it's helpful to characterize this is just some easily offended people trying to avoid reading bad words.
but that those comments are often posted with the intention of promoting underground political movements with roots in the hateful ideologies
Ouch...do you see where you might want to re-think that. Hint..."underground political movements".
Any regime can call something "intention of promoting underground political movements with roots in the hateful ideologies that have provoked much of the violence" in order to quell dissent.
I see a lot of hate speech that "could" promote violence from the Social Justice Warriors, but just because I disagree with their ideology doesn't mean I want to shut down their forums.
Neither do I want to shut down any forums; I apologize for not making it clear, but that was what I meant in my last paragraph. I don't support hate speech laws.
That said, I don't want to rethink anything. Just because the regime can call something an hateful political movement unjustly, doesn't mean none exist. The movements I'm talking about aren't boogymen, they were the dominant not that long ago in many European countries.
hateful ideologies is subjective. nor should it be illegal in any country that claims to have free speech. furthermore, forcing them underground really doesn't help anyone.
personally, i think its in companies best interests to promote the best arena for users to interact, they don't need the governments sticky fingers in the mess, nobody does. it can also be used as a way of taking out competitors, just keep posting things with fake accounts and keep requesting the government to ask them to remove the comments or get shut down.
> in the US, the accepted solution for speech you disagree with is more speech, not less.
Although, I respect the argument you have made here, you may find that this is a cultural difference between the US and the EU.
In the US, you have Fox News. Whatever you might think about the message Fox News is sending out, they control the message that people hear. In general, the media controls the narrative. A small number of media outlets are the real beneficiaries of free speech. In what way are their opponents able to speak?
A small number of powerful elites have unrestricted control over what speech people actually get to hear. This happens on scales large and small - it's notable that cults are protected by the First Amendment. And, this is the public's loss.
It's not too much better than that in the EU but at least we can prevent a television station or media baron or cult leader from broadcasting hate speech.
Are you suggesting that Fox News should be censored? And how do you decide what is a cult vs. what is a religion?
"Hate speech," btw, has no legal definition in the US judicial system. The term doesn't exist in First Amendment jurisprudence. How does the EU define it?
I'm quite happy to be thus reminded of our freedoms in the U.S.; Lord help us if we go down this route.
I recognize it's a cultural difference. Which, to be honest, was the reason I qualified the statement as "in the US, ..."
> In the US, you have Fox News. Whatever you might think
> about the message Fox News is sending out, they control
> the message that people hear. In general, the media
> controls the narrative. A small number of media outlets
> are the real beneficiaries of free speech. In what way
> are their opponents able to speak?
I would consider that more a question of Freedom of the Press, although it's certainly intertwined with Freedom of Speech. And there's an old quote that "Freedom of the Press only applies to people who have one [a press]." Luckily, it's been getting cheaper to get a message out to, potentially, millions of people. Occasionally, bloggers embarrass professional reporters.
> A small number of powerful elites have unrestricted
> control over what speech people actually get to hear. ...
>
> It's not too much better than that in the EU but at least
> we can prevent a television station or media baron or
> cult leader from broadcasting hate speech.
I don't think the "at least" is something to be happy with. I realize that the governments currently running France, Germany, Britain, Switzerland, Spain, Portugal, Greece, etc. are more trustworthy than, say, the Russian government. But you have something of a guarantee that -- no matter how much you trust your current government -- eventually politicians you don't trust will take control. If a government has the authority to punish media owners or reporters, then eventually that authority will be abused.
> Small providers and private persons obviously still suffer since they have a hard time defending but I seriously can't think of a better alternative. There are morons on the internet and there need to be ways to enforce a takedown for hate speech IMHO.
1) That already exists in the Estonia case and they complied with it. They still were sued under other legalities in Estonia.
2) The fact you are perfectly happy to trample the rights of people to weak to defend themselves legally is exactly why I have a problem with you.
3) If they are morons, and you are unable to sway people without resorting to force with your superior intellect and speech....maybe your belief in your inherent superiority is illusory.
4) For the most part the solution is more speech, not less. Really the only time "more speech" isn't the solution is the publishing of private facts about private individuals as the ability to do so could be construed as a form of force.
>There are morons on the internet and there need to be ways to enforce a takedown for hate speech IMHO.
No. God no. This is functionally no different from every justification for censorship since the invention of the written word. How can the expansion and flexibility of the term "hate speech" not tip you off to the foolishness of this position?
Ok, how about libelous speech that can ruin careers, creditworthiness etc?
I guess we can just all hope EVERYONE who matters will ignore anonymous libelous speech. But then, what if someone writes under a false name? In short, can some speech be harmful enough to warrant forced removal from the public record?
How about a leader inciting his followers to violence? Where are the limits of free speech?
Sure, there are limits of acceptable speech and those are even far below what you and I would call hate speech.
But wasting too much (any) time of the issue of what we should ban misses the issue that ultimately we can't really ban much. If we want to block something, maybe we need to do the social-media equivalent of hands-across-american or something.
But regardless if it's a "good" idea, blocking anything effectively is just hopes and prayers. Your pony is in the mail. Next!
If I were running things free speech would be absolute, including incitement. We already have laws against incitement, and they're only enforced against the people the government doesn't like.
Libel can be resolved through the courts. If you can demonstrate that you have been harmed by someone's untrue speech, then you can be granted restitution.
Speech is too complicated to spell out things explicitly. There are too many ways to imply things ambiguously, particularly when you take context into account.
In practice what you do with hate speech laws is give the government tools to arrest people it doesn't like and ignore the sorts of speech you thought you were banning.
So sure, where someone puts their name on it go to their house, haul them to court, and threaten them with jail/compensation unless they remove/repent certain things.
But when there is no identity and you could never find one do you get stuck in an infinite loop of righteousness or do you move on?
If you try to create laws prohibiting hate speech, you can get around them by creating idioms. So your laws have to account for context, and that's not something laws are able to do effectively. In fact, the less vague your laws are, the less able they are to account for context.
But, the "reasonable person" referenced in so many laws does recognize idiom.
If I say "I'm going to fuck your shit up", literally that sentence is either a homosexual come-on or means nothing - but idiomatically it means "I will hurt and/or kill you", and at that point a (credible?) threat has been uttered...
So if your "specific" law said "insult X is fighting-words but insult Y isn't", yes that's retarded. But if it says "if a reasonable person would feel the comments were more threat and libel designed to raise hatred against them than criticism..." it might at least be on the right track.
You may want ways the way people want a second coming, or the universe to be flat instead of open, but those are wishes.
Every properly implemented HTTPS site is a TOR gateway, every ethereum (or other CC2.0+) script a HTTPS-TOR gatway, and so forth. To the degree you stop it, you also crush also general purpose computing.
Curse gravity and take 1d6 damage per meter fallen, or grab the rope and suffer modest friction-burns.
Ultimately you combat violence with prosperity, and ignorance with education. There aren't a lot of short-cuts.
"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."
Interestingly, US law is basically the exact opposite in this area and is very protective of website operators and service providers, in a way that it's not in other areas like copyright. The article notes there is (or can be) a DMCA-style notice-and-takedown system for defamation in Europe, but the surviving parts of the Communications Decency Act in the US really insulate websites from having to do much of anything at all about information their users provide.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communicati...