1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

My God Do European Web Laws just plain SUCK!

Discussion in 'Issues Around the World' started by ethics, Nov 9, 2002.

  1. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    Sorry for a flaming title of this thread but I am getting more and more pissed not at what is occurring in Europe and their so called "hate-speech laws" but the lack of response to it.

    We have 500,000 march against the war in Iraq (read: anti-American bandwagonees and out of ideals Communists) and yet nothing on these gag laws?

    Folks, I've said this before and I will say it again, you take extreme right and you take the extreme left and the result is the same!

    It appears that EU wants to expand on their hate-speech laws.

    The Council of Europe has adopted a measure that would criminalize Internet hate speech, including hyperlinks to pages that contain offensive content.

    The provision, which was passed by the council's decision-making body (the Committee of Ministers), updates the European Convention on Cybercrime.

    Specifically, the amendment bans "any written material, any image or any other representation of <u>ideas or theories</u> (can you believe how general that doozy is?), which advocates, promotes or incites hatred, discrimination or violence, against any individual or group of individuals, based on race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin, as well as religion if used as pretext for any of these factors."

    I love this final statement: "If European countries adopt the (anti-racism) amendment of the European Council in their legislatures, they'll also be able to block websites from the U.S.A., despite the First Amendment."

    The Chinese, the Persians, Saudis, etc... want to OPEN up the net, while the Europeans want to close it down.

    Edit: In my passion, I forgot the link to the story.
  2. immortal one

    immortal one 501st Geronimo

    Agreed. It's quite shameful that more citizens in Europe are not making their voices loudly heard regarding this.
    How long until we see the same thing happening here in the states? Five years? Two years? Sooner?
  3. jamming

    jamming Banned

    Actually we have the historical commitment to Our First Amendment Rights that does not exist in Europe, there is an easy way to get around this, just link to a neutral page outside thier jurisdiction without any hate speech which then links to the hate speech pages. They are fooling themselves with this kind of thing, the page can be encryted so that only insiders have it.

    The Internet was designed by DARPA to continue to function after a Nuclear War, how do these idiots think that they have more power than that. Portals will get people to where they want, just like they can still get to Nazi Sites in France. Even though France has imposed censorship on Yahoo. The people on the internet will just go to VPN through Proxies. Then as I said have a key to decrypt the files, at the end on their own computer.

    You cannot keep people from having their say, you only drive the believers underground and they become more faithful because obviously if these ideas are oppressed then there must be something to them. Only through showing these ideas up to the light can they truely be dispelled, this is what I was trying to say to Ken. Our founders had the right idea, but we are becoming to weak to stomach the hateful words so that we might oppose them openly, by shining the light of truth. (John 8:32) Occassionally We Christians get it right.
  4. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    Jim (and IO) I agree that it probably will not do anything technically.

    I am more pissed off that they:

    1. Thought about doing this.

    2. Did it.

    3. Thought about MORE measures (above).

    AND, my biggest gripe...

    4. Letting it happen.
  5. jamming

    jamming Banned

    Why should we get all the idiots who do things like this. "Spread it around," I Say. Not all those troubled masses yearning to be free came from third world countries. Many came from Europe.
  6. -Ken

    -Ken Guest

    <small>Jim said,</small>
    I do understand what you are trying to convey. I am also for unfettered
    Free Speech, with the following noted exceptions.

    We do not allow a person the right to scream "FIRE" in a movie theater
    unless there is a fire.

    To that end, we do place limits on free speech.

    If someone motivates a group of people to lynch someone, shouldn't they
    also be guilty of a crime? How can we demand these Muslim Clerics tone
    down their hate filled message if we expect to be able to keep our right
    to say the same?

    I agree Jim, censorship is not the correct way to deal with the issue.
    It is the duty of everyone to deal with it. I believe when the White
    Supremacists hold a rally, a show of numbers is demanded. If 300
    KKK members hold a rally, they need to see 300,000 people united
    against them to get the point across to them. They are in the vast
    minority. They are not accepted and their views cannot be tolerated
    by most of us. This does not mean they are not free to express their
    views, it means they need to know they have NO support for their views.
    No longer is it acceptable to "let the other guy go to the rally and protest."
    We all need to have an opinion and we all need to express it.

    While I realize a lot of the time they want attention and publicity there is
    a need to drive the point home, we do not all agree. By turning out 500
    protestors to chant against 300 KKK members, we allow them to think
    they represent a sizable minority. Have them opposed at a thousand
    to one, they might get the point.

    More to the issue, should the EU make these changes? No. This is absurd.
    Could they really be so naive as to think people won't get the information?
    We can't even prohibit porn (not that I'm suggesting we should).

    Jim, you are right. Everybody's ideas need to be able to be expressed. They
    need to be able to see the light of day and withstand the criticism. In a way,
    it is what we do here.
  7. pupowski

    pupowski Banned

    Our founders did have the right idea, but it seems recent administrations and their supporters only pay attention when it suits their purpose. Your line about historic committments to constitutional values is laughable considering the Bush-Ashcroft assault upon the most fundamental of constitutional rights, and the administration's contempt for democratic principles.
  8. fritzmp

    fritzmp Fire Fire For Effect

    Your chanting is getting Old Pup. We know how you feel. I think I can find examples of worse attacks on democratic principles in past administrations.
  9. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    I disagree on this point, Ken.

    Let me make something clear to everyone what and why demonstrations are over-rated these days.

    Back in, as recent as, the eighties and prior, the demonstrations caused people who were ignorant or naive about issues to take heed and notice the issues that people demonstrated for/against.

    With the rise and explosion of the internet, people are much more aware. Even in oppressive countries like China and Middle East, Africa and Cuba, the internet has been a venue for awareness. So when people march in 500's or 500,000's the demonstrations are not what gets people to notice.

    There are many reasons why people demonstrate, I will try to nail some of them here:

    1. Discontent with national or foreign policy.

    2. Freedoms of expression.

    3. Ideology reasons like "isms".

    4. Religious.

    5. Awareness.

    6. Show strength in numbers.

    The last demonstration I can remmember that actually showed this country and its government number 6 (which to me is the highest and strongest point to demonstrate on an issue) is right before Roe vs. Wade, the issue of abortion. And even that was before the net.
  10. jamming

    jamming Banned

    Sorry Pup, the "extremist cabal" made me do it. ;) I have to agree with fritzmp, suspension of Habeus Corpus by Lincoln would be one of them and others which we have survived. Also, the recent court hearings which have struck down the few areas where Ashcroft over-reached. People don't realize the Attorney General is the one who pushes the envelope as to what the law allows historically, as example RFK with his battle with organized crime. Many similar objections were made about his use of criminal statues and new laws he asked Congress for to battle organized crime.
  11. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    Et tu, Aussies?

    The Australian government is planning to block websites used to organize violent protests, as part of a larger effort to prevent crime from being planned on the 'net."

    Read more here

    I don't understand this. If the net will not do, emails will, pamphlets will, posters, word of mouth, etc...

    All this does is fuel people to a new challenge.
  12. Omar

    Omar Registered User

    Like you, Leon, I believe that we need to see the good with the bad. Open society creates freedom, not a closed one that wants to shut its eyes and pretend hatred has been conquered.

Share This Page