Facebook, Twitter and YouTube under fire over hate speech

[Sakkura]

3 hours ago, Notional said:

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

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.

She explained that. She wanted a political debate about how it should be interpreted and understood.

 

The law didn't go beyond its bounds, it was applied in the relevant circumstance as judged by the court. He was not expressing a legitimate political opinion or factual empirics, he was inciting hatred against a minority.

3 hours ago, Notional said:

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.

It's not insane, it's a just and necessary limitation on freedom of speech. It was enacted in the 1930s when the Nazi propaganda effort was gearing up. Guess what, the Nazis never got any significant popularity in Denmark (even though Jyllands-Posten did its best to hype up Hitler).

[PlayStation 2]

mfw

holy shit you wouldn't believe how many mfw/mrw pics I could pull from The Toy That Saved Christmas alone

[Razarza]

11 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. 

 

Just for France, this shit won't fly everywhere.

[InsanelySecretD]

I think the problem we are facing with censorship is well examplified in the posts most of us write, anyway - we are investing too much time replying to other people instead of tryin to understand what they have to say.

[Existing User]

Literally I am just waiting for dislike button. Censor all you want, bring all the shit you want just gimme the power to say "this is shitty"

[Doobeedoo]

Pft, really...

[PurpleDido]

While I don't agree with censorship, sometimes it's in a government's best interest to do so. What if these posts were encouraging violence? Drug use? Anything else illegal in said country. Those things could be rightfully taken down. Governments shut down websites all the time, the only difference being here is that these are widely used media platforms and taking down the whole cite is unnecessary. What if we didn't have any censorship? The dark web would be the whole internet. 

You need to step back and look at these things before jumping on the government for being too radical. What if these were ISIS posts? We don't know as of yet, and we shouldn't start criticism until we have more information.

[Coaxialgamer]

According to the article , only three organisations are attacking facebook . Not the French government.

[Danger Warning]

Some things should be censored, and websites aren't still as judged by the contents they provide as much as newspapers or other sorts of media. A simple example is revenge porn; I don't know the specifics, but I think it's wrong that it's easier to post someone else's naked body without permission than the own person deleting it on his/her own will.

 

Hate speech isn't sharing an opinion, it's insulting someone or saying things in a way that grows the potential of violence and discrimination against a person or a group of people. I don't see wrong in writing "Hitler was right about racial profiling and living space, because so and so...", but I see wrong when a page continually tries to purposefully harm someone. I also think online threats aren't something we should simply accept as a reality of life; they're wrong and harmful. People should learn how to properly share their ideas and how to accept differing points of view.

[Mihle]

On 17.5.2016 at 1:15 AM, PurpleDido said:

While I don't agree with censorship, sometimes it's in a government's best interest to do so. What if these posts were encouraging violence? Drug use? Anything else illegal in said country. Those things could be rightfully taken down. Governments shut down websites all the time, the only difference being here is that these are widely used media platforms and taking down the whole cite is unnecessary. What if we didn't have any censorship? The dark web would be the whole internet. 

You need to step back and look at these things before jumping on the government for being too radical. What if these were ISIS posts? We don't know as of yet, and we shouldn't start criticism until we have more information.

Just saying, encouraging violence or other illegal things is is illegal, even if its on the internet or out of your mouth. At least in Norway.

 

You can get a fine in Norway buy asking someone to drive over the speed limit, and the person you ask does it. Because thats encouraging people to do things that is illegal.

[BHS4K]

I didn't really read the article, but wtf happened to freedom of speech