Facebook, Twitter and YouTube under fire over hate speech

[annoyingmoments]

8 minutes ago, Notional said:

Hat = hate = hass.

But I was wrong, it's Hets mot folkgrupp = witch hunt against group og people.

 

What you are describing is more like personal threats towards people or groups of people. Saying things like "kill all n words" is of course illegal, but that has nothing to do with free speech. Free speech is the right to criticize those in power (primarily politicians) and of course to discuss ideas and problems in society, as well as solutions to those problems. That is quintessential to any democracy. Without that a democracy cannot exist.

 

Scepticism or being against mass immigration has nothing to do with any wings. Calling that right wing is something the left wing thought up to demonize and alienate anyone with those opinions. The most anti immigration party in Denmark is left wing by Danish standards (and our political scale goes from extreme left wing to middle; we have no right wing). Look up the political compass for the best definition of politics.

How have i misinterpreted §266b? When people can be convicted based on it, from criticising Islam, an ideology, then there really isn't much free speech left.

 

 

---

 

 

Thats exactly my point! And nice Orwell quote btw , it is somehow philosophical, we need to question it.

 

To question things is part of democracy. To put an end to those comments you find on FB, YT and Twitter is the thing, the laws currently France is trying to get through their justice system points at those hate speech comments, which have increased since all this "refugee crisis" came up. People are today more likely to threaten people and take violent actions in real life. That is the overall problem.

 

Years before that, there were attempts of regulation concerning the hate speech many refer to: Comments like "U R Ugly" and so on. But it just became part of the internet and many just deal with it. The "real" hate speech is the aim of those actual regulations, and courts will still have to decide whether it is or its not illegal to say/write such things

[InsanelySecretD]

2 minutes ago, Notional said:

Hat = hate = hass.

But I was wrong, it's Hets mot folkgrupp = witch hunt against group og people.

 

What you are describing is more like personal threats towards people or groups of people. Saying things like "kill all n words" is of course illegal, but that has nothing to do with free speech. Free speech is the right to criticize those in power (primarily politicians) and of course to discuss ideas and problems in society, as well as solutions to those problems. That is quintessential to any democracy. Without that a democracy cannot exist.

 

Scepticism or being against mass immigration has nothing to do with any wings. Calling that right wing is something the left wing thought up to demonize and alienate anyone with those opinions. The most anti immigration party in Denmark is left wing by Danish standards (and our political scale goes from extreme left wing to middle; we have no right wing). Look up the political compass for the best definition of politics.

How have i misinterpreted §266b? When people can be convicted based on it, from criticising Islam, an ideology, then there really isn't much free speech left.

 

 

---

I will just quote George Orwell, author of 1984:

 

Yyup, I agree with all you said - the problem is all encapsulated by the quote from Curious Goerge Orwell.

 

The problem here is, though, as many of you said, people do not want to hear criticism.

 

For example, @annoyingmoments is incorrect by saying 'many countries' because it was only one country which stated the crisis in Europe.

 

But, going back to what we were talking about, we cannot grant immunity to a certain group of people just because they do not want to be addressed in any shape or form. Liberal sensibilities have to die out - you are responsible for yourself and the community you represent.

 

If all people would be open to hear what other's have to say about them, maybe instead of protecting old bad, we would be all trying to achieve new good?

 

 

[InsanelySecretD]

I guess, we have as big of a problem with forming criticism as we have of accepting it.

[GeekJump]

11 minutes ago, annoyingmoments said:

 

My comment still applies. Social media company's shouldn't be criticized or held responsible for what people do on their platforms. For example if FB started policing comments and deleting accounts, users would slowly stop using FB. If governments have a problem with what their citizens are using FB for, they can just pull a North Korea and block access to the site. 

[Notional]

1 minute ago, annoyingmoments said:

Thats exactly my point! And nice Orwell quote btw , it is somehow philosophical, we need to question it.

 

To question things is part of democracy. To put an end to those comments you find on FB, YT and Twitter is the thing, the laws currently France is trying to get through their justice system points at those hate speech comments, which have increased since all this "refugee crisis" came up. People are today more likely to threaten people and take violent actions. That is the overall problem.

 

Years before that, there were attempts of regulation concerning the hate speech many refer to: Comments like "U R Ugly" and so on. But it just became part of the internet and many just deal with it. The "real" hate speech is the aim of those actual regulations, and courts will still have to decide whether it is or its not illegal to say/write such things

I think you miss the point about hate speech: You cannot safely define it. It will always end up stifling discussion and the flow of ideas. Even if the law is made of good intentions, the road to hell is paved with those exact intentions. The result is always abuse of such a law with extreme court rulings to follow.

 

The §266b called the racism paragraf in Denmark is such a thing. There was a man who said Islam wanted to use democracy to abolish democracy (basically the same thing hitler and a lot of communists did too: Used the democratic majority vote to gain power, then abolish the democratic vote). That is exactly what salafists in Denmark wants to do, so he was factually correct, but alas also a "racist" in the eyes of the law for saying that.

Imagine the little boy saying the emperor isn't wearing any clothes was outed as a racist, shamed and punished for not being politically correct.

 

Is that hate speech? Is it hate speech towards the migrants (I like you put "refugee" in quotation as most of them are not from life threatened areas and thus don't qualify as refugees by the UN definition) to quote crime stats from them? The Swedish law hets mot folkgrupp is used as a political weapon to silence all the opponents of the pro immigration line that are being run in Sweden. Everyone who dares to question it or cite crime stats or basically the truth, will be accused of breaking that law. It's gone so far that the police cannot legally report the colour, nationality or anything else of criminals. In fact they even have to use a specific code when it has to do with immigration crime. Sweden is going over the cliff at 200km/h at the moment.

 

Any law can be used as a political weapon, so when it comes to censorship and restricting free speech that isn't outright slander or threats, then it becomes a huge problem.

 

Do remember that political correctness is a power tool invented by the communists to silence everyone who disagreed with them. It's not a coincidence that all these third wave feminists, sjw's, etc. who are cultural marxists are so fixated on political correctness. This is why they cannot tell a 5 foot white man, that he's not a 6 foot chinese woman. It's just absurd:

 

[grayperview]

Rule of thumb, if you wouldn't say it to someones face, don't say it on the internet....

[Sakkura]

50 minutes ago, InsanelySecretD said:

He didn't quote the ruling  from 1927, he quoted one of the Judstice's from that case in 1927 - Louis Brandeis. He was defending the freedom of speech initially, but then concurred. It was, basically, his opinion about the topic - not the ruling itself.

Also, the strawman you pulled off was very good - we can quote cases from the past as long as we want. Most of them are dumb and not applicable to 2016 anyway. 

 

The feasibility of any Justice System is within its ability to adopt to changing social landscape - DMCA is one example. Another one would be any Justice System in Europe that has to be changed through legislation as propsed by the goverment.

 

He quoted the opinion of one of the Justices, which is part of that case.

 

I didn't pull off a strawman, I was being sarcastic. You are yourself using a strawman argument by claiming I was being serious.

 

But yeah, quotes from 1927 are probably pretty stupid in this context. Might be why I made fun of it.

[Sakkura]

54 minutes ago, GeekJump said:

Just to make things easier, FB, Twitter, YT, etc. should just add "hate speech" to their terms of service. 

 

"By agreeing to use our service, you must be prepared to see comments and content they some may deem 'offensive'. If you are easily butt hurt, please don't sign up"

 

it will make those sites better for all of us.

They already have. They just don't always enforce their rules. That applies in many other areas too though, as the whole "make youtube great again" thing should illustrate.

[Sakkura]

49 minutes ago, Notional said:

How have i misinterpreted §266b? When people can be convicted based on it, from criticising Islam, an ideology, then there really isn't much free speech left.

By claiming it bans things like the n word.

 

And you are factually wrong there. Nobody has been convicted for criticizing Islam, which would never be covered by §266b anyway, since it explicitly only protects groups of people. The convictions have been based on statements such as "Muslims rape their own children" or that Muslims breed like rats. And Islamists have been convicted too, like a Hizb-ut-Tahrir spokesman who was convicted for quoting the Quran about killing Jews, and adding his own comments about Jews being treacherous, murderous etc.

[annoyingmoments]

41 minutes ago, InsanelySecretD said:

For example, @annoyingmoments is incorrect by saying 'many countries' because it was only one country which stated the crisis in Europe.

I do not really understand what you mean with this, can you explain?

 

32 minutes ago, GeekJump said:

My comment still applies. Social media company's shouldn't be criticized or held responsible for what people do on their platforms. For example if FB started policing comments and deleting accounts, users would slowly stop using FB. If governments have a problem with what their citizens are using FB for, they can just pull a North Korea and block access to the site. 

Well, those platforms still need to follow the local law, if this means that real hate speech is only possible because FB/YT exists, than FB/YT is the one to blame, that they allow people to create a greyish part of the internet. That is the problem here, thoise companies are not of European legislation and neither German or Swedish or whatever. They only have to comply to US law. This could lead to a larger discussion about the main aspects of the internet. Just because you can sell something in one country doesnt mean, you can in another.

 

Free speech =/= say whatever you want, and use violence to hurt people. Free speech = say something and cause a public discussion to gain attention for a problem that has to be solved and then take actions.

 

37 minutes ago, Notional said:

I like you put "refugee" in quotation as most of them are not from life threatened areas and thus don't qualify as refugees by the UN definition)

STOP RIGHT HERE. First I did not use the quotation marks like this: "refugee", but like this "refugee crisis". Secondly what I mean with "refugee crisis" is, do we call it like this? Or is "refugee problem", "refugee situation" more suitable? What I mean is that, it is just a word used by the media. So something like this was my intention "RefugeeCrisis (c) by your local media". It is not a crisis yet, states are still working and public life did not stop at all. We still have jobs, housing, water and other public services.

 

As for your other points: Those who are not refugees in the sense of the UN charta, will be send back. As seen with the Maghreb states, just this week Germany declared them as safe countries, therefore there will be deportations. (Is this word even okay? I do have a problem using this) 

[Notional]

4 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

By claiming it bans things like the n word.

 

And you are factually wrong there. Nobody has been convicted for criticizing Islam, which would never be covered by §266b anyway, since it explicitly only protects groups of people. The convictions have been based on statements such as "Muslims rape their own children" or that Muslims breed like rats. And Islamists have been convicted too, like a Hizb-ut-Tahrir spokesman who was convicted for quoting the Quran about killing Jews, and adding his own comments about Jews being treacherous, murderous etc.

That is not correct. Read more here:

http://jyllands-posten.dk/indland/ECE8449144/et-politisk-flertal-vil-have-kulegravet-racismeparagraffen/

And here (different conviction):

http://ekstrabladet.dk/112/flemming-raser-blev-doemt-for-racisme-for-at-skrive-dette-paa-facebook/5948826

 

There's a reason why even the left wing in Denmark wants to change the paragraf.

[Master Disaster]

4 hours ago, Sakkura said:

Freedom of speech is not absolute, there are things it is illegal to say. If you want to adjust those limits, that's one thing, but pretending that you can remove them altogether is absurd.

Freedom of speech doesn't exist on the internet, your not speaking.

 

On the internet its freedom of expression, only problem is the site owners can be held liable for content on their sites if it happens to break any legislation so almost all sites state they reserve the right to moderate any content posted by users at their discretion.

 

The fact is these sites give themselves the power to remove this behavior and they largely choose to ignore it unless it gets uber serious. Now I'm not saying they're wrong to ignore it, far from it but its neive to believe these websites couldn't stop this if they wanted to because theoretically they could, I just doubt the man power to do so actually exists and they mostly don't seem to care about it anyway.

[annoyingmoments]

8 minutes ago, Notional said:

That is not correct. Read more here:

http://jyllands-posten.dk/indland/ECE8449144/et-politisk-flertal-vil-have-kulegravet-racismeparagraffen/

And here (different conviction):

http://ekstrabladet.dk/112/flemming-raser-blev-doemt-for-racisme-for-at-skrive-dette-paa-facebook/5948826

 

There's a reason why even the left wing in Denmark wants to change the paragraf.

The problem with jyllands posten is, that they are more right wings, so therefore naturally will cover such things with an intention.

 

The ekstrabladet is like "The Sun" or "BILD Zeitung" they try to get you with big fat catchy headlines and make scandals out of everything, so if you go for the news sources you want, it will naturally fit your opionon or life circumstances. No one is safe from this behaviour. No liberal, no conservative, no socialist, no [INSERT WING HERE]

 

And i think I am out of this discussion now, everything that had to be said was said and now it goes off-topic. Just wanted to clarify in my first post, what the difference between insults and hate speech on the internet is.

[Sakkura]

36 minutes ago, Notional said:

That is not correct. Read more here:

http://jyllands-posten.dk/indland/ECE8449144/et-politisk-flertal-vil-have-kulegravet-racismeparagraffen/

And here (different conviction):

http://ekstrabladet.dk/112/flemming-raser-blev-doemt-for-racisme-for-at-skrive-dette-paa-facebook/5948826

 

There's a reason why even the left wing in Denmark wants to change the paragraf.

 

Your own sources disagree with you. Even the right-wing JP, which is not the most reliable source on this issue, explains that the left does not want to change 266b, but just want a discussion about what it applies to. And it's also clear that the conviction was not based on criticism of Islam. I mean, come on:

 

Quote

"Den massive indvandring af Islamister her til Danmark, er det mest ødelæggende det danske samfund har været udsat for i nyere historisk tid"

=

"The massive immigration of Islamists [not Muslims] to Denmark is the most destructive thing the Danish society has been subjected to in recent history."

 

[Sakkura]

36 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

Freedom of speech doesn't exist on the internet, your not speaking.

 

On the internet its freedom of expression, only problem is the site owners can be held liable for content on their sites if it happens to break any legislation so almost all sites state they reserve the right to moderate any content posted by users at their discretion.

 

The fact is these sites give themselves the power to remove this behavior and they largely choose to ignore it unless it gets uber serious. Now I'm not saying they're wrong to ignore it, far from it but its neive to believe these websites couldn't stop this if they wanted to because theoretically they could, I just doubt the man power to do so actually exists and they mostly don't seem to care about it anyway.

Freedom of speech doesn't apply to just speech, it actually covers any kind of expression. The US Supreme Court even decided that spending money is free speech.

[Notional]

33 minutes ago, annoyingmoments said:

The problem with jyllands posten is, that they are more right wings, so therefore naturally will cover such things with an intention.

 

The ekstrabladet is like "The Sun" or "BILD Zeitung" they try to get you with big fat catchy headlines and make scandals out of everything, so if you go for the news sources you want, it will naturally fit your opionon or life circumstances. No one is safe from this behaviour. No liberal, no conservative, no socialist, no [INSERT WING HERE]

 

And i think I am out of this discussion now, everything that had to be said was said and now it goes off-topic. Just wanted to clarify in my first post, what the difference between insults and hate speech on the internet is.

Like I said, pro or anti immigration views does not belong to any wing. Claiming anti immigration is a right wing view, is a fallacy.

Also there are no right wing in Denmark, Jyllands posten certainly isn't. Besides headlines were not the point. The convictions based on the quotes was the point. The political aversion or leaning is irrelevant. Only the facts are.

 

4 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

Your own sources disagree with you. Even the right-wing JP, which is not the most reliable source on this issue, explains that the left does not want to change 266b, but just want a discussion about what it applies to. And it's also clear that the conviction was not based on criticism of Islam. I mean, come on:

That makes no sense. What is the point of politicians discussing what a law applies to? It doesn't matter what a politician says to a judge, but only what the law says. I'm not saying the "left wing" wants to abolish the law, but they do want to define it better.

 

You can read the conviction here: http://www.domstol.dk/Helsingoer/nyheder/domsresumeer/Documents/Dom%20848-2015.pdf

 

Conclusion is that it is practically illegal to criticize the ideology and/or religion of Islam in Denmark. That is a disaster.

[minibois]

"sToP HUrtINg mY FrAiL FEeLingS!11!!1"

- someone with a skin too thin for the internet.

 

Seriously, you shouldn't use your freedom of speech to talk shit on people, but you shouldn't use the internet too if you don't know how to ignore and block people.

[GeekJump]

41 minutes ago, annoyingmoments said:

Well, those platforms still need to follow the local law, if this means that real hate speech is only possible because FB/YT exists, than FB/YT is the one to blame, that they allow people to create a greyish part of the internet. That is the problem here, thoise companies are not of European legislation and neither German or Swedish or whatever. They only have to comply to US law. This could lead to a larger discussion about the main aspects of the internet. Just because you can sell something in one country doesnt mean, you can in another.

 

Free speech =/= say whatever you want, and use violence to hurt people. Free speech = say something and cause a public discussion to gain attention for a problem that has to be solved and then take actions.

Exactly. If a government is trying to police a company based outside there own they can either ask for the company to help out nicely or just block access to the site. Ex. France shouldn't blame or point fingers at FB for French citizens making hate speech about Muslims. If they don't want to have that happen just block facebook in France. Their citizens will love them for it lol

 

[Sakkura]

7 minutes ago, Notional said:

That makes no sense. What is the point of politicians discussing what a law applies to? It doesn't matter what a politician says to a judge, but only what the law says. I'm not saying the "left wing" wants to abolish the law, but they do want to define it better.

 

You can read the conviction here: http://www.domstol.dk/Helsingoer/nyheder/domsresumeer/Documents/Dom%20848-2015.pdf

 

Conclusion is that it is practically illegal to criticize the ideology and/or religion of Islam in Denmark. That is a disaster.

Ask Lisbeth Bech Poulsen, she's the left winger who said it. She didn't say anything about changing the law.

 

No, that's not the conclusion. It specifically says he is convicted because his statements are "forhånende og nedværdigende overfor tilhængere af islam" ie. not because it's a criticism of Islam (which in itself is perfectly permissible).

 

It's a strict requirement of §266b that the statements are threatening or degrading a group of people based on their religion, ethnicity etc. and thus it cannot ever protect a religion the way you claim.

[jaggysnake57]

5 hours ago, Jobbe03 said:

That's fucking retarded. It's the internet and all three allow you to block and mute people. 

 

If France succeeds in this lawsuit it's gonna be the beginning of the end for the internet. 

 

 

 

5 hours ago, Arty said:

aww people are afraid of some words on a computer screen made by pussies behind a monitor.

 

 

 

5 hours ago, Raytsou said:

Yes, you are right. There's certain limit as to what you can say without being held responsible. But the problem is that people are becoming too sensitive and many times I've seen people get their panties in a twist over simple criticism that was presented too bluntly.

 

3 hours ago, MMKing said:

Let me re-phrase that.

Speech simply cannot be punishable in a free and open society

 

So you tell me. What is hate speech? And more importantly, who decides?

 

 

you guys need a history lesson. go look at the second world war and nazi germany for all things hate speech. in recent years, isis and the muslim hate preachers who have convinced young people to fight the west. this isnt some name calling or bullying thing this is much worse than that

[Notional]

14 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

Ask Lisbeth Bech Poulsen, she's the left winger who said it. She didn't say anything about changing the law.

 

No, that's not the conclusion. It specifically says he is convicted because his statements are "forhånende og nedværdigende overfor tilhængere af islam" ie. not because it's a criticism of Islam (which in itself is perfectly permissible).

 

It's a strict requirement of §266b that the statements are threatening or degrading a group of people based on their religion, ethnicity etc. and thus it cannot ever protect a religion the way you claim.

So what is it you think that the left wing wants to do? Just talk about it? For what purporse and to what point?

Quote

Både Liberal Alliance, SF, Alternativet, De Konservative og Socialdemokraterne bakker op om at lade Straffelovrådet kulegrave paragraffen.

Point is that they want to know how the law is being used, because they all condemn the courts decision. They want to know that so they can further define it. Lisbeth says herself that this is more of a blasphemy thing than a racism thing.

 

But this is going a bit off topic, although this is a great proof that these "hate speech" laws always ends up going way beyond their bounds and punishes ordinary people for voicing their legitimate political opinion or factual empirics.

[Stadin6]

1 hour ago, Notional said:

http://ekstrabladet.dk/112/flemming-raser-blev-doemt-for-racisme-for-at-skrive-dette-paa-facebook/5948826

dafuq?

You cant be racist against an ideology. Would you call me a racist if i said that capitalism is evil? 

 "Den massive indvandring af Islamister her til Danmark, er det mest ødelæggende det danske samfund har været udsat for i nyere historisk tid"

What if that is true? What if islamists are the most destructive thing to Denmark? I don`t know if it is true, and i am not interested in finding out. But if it actually is true, i think he should be able to say it.

 

Note that he was against Islamic ideology, not the religion or muslims

[Notional]

1 minute ago, Stadin6 said:

dafuq?

You cant be racist against an ideology. Would you call me a racist if i said that capitalism is evil? 

 "Den massive indvandring af Islamister her til Danmark, er det mest ødelæggende det danske samfund har været udsat for i nyere historisk tid"

What if that is true? What if islamists are the most destructive thing to Denmark? I don`t know if it is true, and i am not interested in finding out. But if it actually is true, i think he should be able to say it.

 

Note that he was against Islamic ideology, not the religion or muslims

Exactly it's insane. §266b is an atrocity. Luckily most political parties in Denmark wants to look into the law and see how they can define it better. This is the insanity that France will end up with as well. Silence of the inconvenient truth. And this is nothing compared to swedish law about hets mot folkgrupp. It's much much worse.

[MrRavens]

2 hours ago, GeekJump said:

Just to make things easier, FB, Twitter, YT, etc. should just add "hate speech" to their terms of service. 

 

"By agreeing to use our service, you must be prepared to see comments and content they some may deem 'offensive'. If you are easily butt hurt, please don't sign up"

 

it will make those sites better for all of us.

Kinda like how some games are rated T but the say the online is not rated because you just never know.

[Misanthrope]

6 hours ago, Sakkura said:

You don't seem to know what hate speech is. It's not about insulting someone, it's about denigrating a group - like saying "all n-words should f-ing burn" or the Hitler version of "glass of juice."

That's not really happening much however,  it actually IS just sjws upset people don't blindly follow their arbitrary cult rules,  case and point: gamergate.