EU proposing new AV rules: More European streaming content, stricter Anti-Hate rules

[Grinners]

11 hours ago, mr moose said:

 

Don't get me wrong, I am very much in favor of laws that prevent certain types of hate speech, incite hatred/discrimination or basically have the real potential to harm another person (I.E anti-vaxxer rhetoric in documentaries like vaxxed should be illegal). I just think it is a very dangerous area to tread and should be done a lot more carefully than most governments are. 

 

 

Exactly why they have to be very well defined to allow people freedom of speech, but not freedom to be cunts. 

Just be honest; you are whole heartedly against free speech. You might like a little place called North Korea where the opinions of anti vaxxers won't hurt you. 

[mr moose]

Just now, Grinners said:

Just be honest; you are whole heartedly against free speech. You might like a little place called North Korea where the opinions of anti vaxxers won't hurt you. 

 

grow up.

[Warboy]

23 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

grow up.

I see your opinion as hateful and a thought crime.

[Lewellyn]

So to be clear, the EU does not have a codified 'free speech' protection? Who is determining what is "hate speech"?

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, Warboy said:

I see your opinion as hateful and a thought crime.

As opposed to the comment I was responding to? 

 

We don't have to look hard to see that anti-vaxxer speech is not about hurt feelings.  I actually enjoy reading their comments (it's funny how stupid they are). 

[Grinners]

30 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

grow up.

Er... excuse me sir. 'Age' is a protected attribute and as such cannot be vilified. Please retract this hate speech immediately or I'll be forced to alert the police for our own protection. 

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, Grinners said:

Er... excuse me sir. 'Age' is a protected attribute and as such cannot be vilified. Please retract this hate speech immediately or I'll be forced to alter the police for our own protection. 

you have clearly missed the point of my posts.  Trying to goad me into some sort of free speech irony or example is not going to change anything.

[cj09beira]

11 hours ago, suicidalfranco said:

so where do i sign up for Italexit?

Isnt italy on the eurozone? If it is you are stuck as the cost of making a new currency would make it unfeasible 

[Dabombinable]

2 hours ago, mr moose said:

Not really.  we already have laws about inciting a riot.  I am simply in favor of extendeding those laws to people whose speech has a
real and damaging effect on peoples health.

You don't like that someone else has a different opinion so you try to insinuate there is a problem with their view.  Maybe you should talk to the kids with measles becasue Andrew wakefield's freedom to preach means that their vulnerable mothers avoided the vaccine fearing their kids would become autistic.

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/05/08/health/measles-minnesota-somali-anti-vaccine-bn/

 

So...you'd also be in favour for the banning of what some people call "micro aggresions". Something that according to them causes harm...when the speech or actions described as micro aggresions are never deliberate and are well, extremely small.

[mr moose]

Just now, Dabombinable said:

So...you'd also be in favour for the banning of what some people call "micro aggresions". Something that according to them causes harm...when the speech or actions described as micro aggresions are never deliberate and are well, extremely small.

I'm only in favor banning speech that has a provable physical outcome of harm.  I.E vaxxed and people claiming to be health professionals that market demonstrably false health advice like Pete evans telling Australians not to use sunscreen. 

[Teddy07]

37 minutes ago, ThatGuyWhoTwirlsHisPen said:

So to be clear, the EU does not have a codified 'free speech' protection? Who is determining what is "hate speech"?

Our media. It basically comes down to this:

Criticize refugees, Islam here in Germany --> You must be a right winger, racist, Nazi....

 

And no this is no exaggeration. I keep my mouth shut and think my part about this topic and politics in general, especially at my university. I want to leave the country anyway after my degree so why try to make Germany better.

[Grinners]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

I'm only in favor banning speech that has a provable physical outcome of harm.  I.E vaxxed and people claiming to be health professionals that market demonstrably false health advice like Pete evans telling Australians not to use sunscreen. 

Except from your very own post that's not the case;

 

You wrote "Don't get me wrong, I am very much in favor of laws that prevent certain types of hate speech, incite hatred/discrimination or basically have the real potential to harm another person..."

 

You say it right there in black and white.

 

Anyway, I'll stop posting on this now as the point is made and politics is against the rules. 

[mr moose]

10 minutes ago, Grinners said:

Except from your very own post that's not the case;

 

"Don't get me wrong, I am very much in favor of laws that prevent certain types of hate speech,..."

 

You say it right there in black and white.

 

Anyway, I'll stop posting on this now as the point is made and politics is against the rules. 

 

What?    I clearly said "certain types" that means not all, but specific. And you should probably include the rest of my sentence as it contains some pretty big qualifiers. 

 

EDIT: not to mention the rest of that post which actually says:

Quote

Exactly why they have to be very well defined to allow people freedom of speech.

 

But hey, just ignore the bits that are important to the conversation.

[suicidalfranco]

2 hours ago, cj09beira said:

Isnt italy on the eurozone? If it is you are stuck as the cost of making a new currency would make it unfeasible 

Damn.

Wish my job would send me back in Angola for another 5 years, better than staying in this shithole at this point.

[Dabombinable]

2 hours ago, mr moose said:

I'm only in favor banning speech that has a provable physical outcome of harm.  I.E vaxxed and people claiming to be health professionals that market demonstrably false health advice like Pete evans telling Australians not to use sunscreen. 

Its uite simple. If any speech is banned, then you no longer have free speech.

[cj09beira]

6 minutes ago, suicidalfranco said:

Damn.

Wish my job would send me back in Angola for another 5 years, better than staying in this shithole at this point.

are you sure, angola is in deep shit too :-|

btw add mozambique and south africa to that list also

[suicidalfranco]

54 minutes ago, cj09beira said:

are you sure, angola is in deep shit too :-|

btw add mozambique and south africa to that list also

economically: yeah, but then again i lived in a private residence that even it's own grocery store and even took euros, so i'd be fine either way

[cj09beira]

Just now, suicidalfranco said:

economically: yeah, but then again i lived in a private residence that even it's own grocery store and even took euros, so i'd be fine either way

the problem is that if you receive money in quanzas you will have a really bad time converting it to dollars or euros 

[Centurius]

4 hours ago, ThatGuyWhoTwirlsHisPen said:

So to be clear, the EU does not have a codified 'free speech' protection? Who is determining what is "hate speech"?

It does, via the European Convention on Human Rights which was made into EU Law as the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union which all laws have to comply with. The exact phrasing being the following.
 

Quote

 

Article 10 – Freedom of expression
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

 

 

It also automatically outlines those situations where hate speech laws may be applied via the second part.

[Spenser1337]

first it's Alex jones, then its fox, then its any deviating opinion

 

this is the beginning

[SCHISCHKA]

this is like last century's anti-blasphemy laws.

anti-hate speech is censorship and it will be abused.

[Trixanity]

16 hours ago, Centurius said:

For the Commission to pass a new directive more than 55% of the member states need to agree. The larger member states make up significantly less than 55% so small states having no influence is blatantly false.

Yes, it needs 55% to pass but like in all politics it's very possible to get the smaller fish to jump onboard whether through promises of returning the favor or through bullying. Considering how consistently EU laws get approved that the citizens of member states disagree on but their so-called representatives voted yes on, I find it naive to believe influence is evenly distributed. Vote for someone else? Sure. That representative will do the same because that's how the institution works. No amount of idealism can circumvent that. There are a few politicians who would truly stand against it but they'll be left powerless. 

Having one vote each is meaningless if some of the voters have aces on their hands and you've got 2s and 7s: you'll fold.

 

This is only one instance of an organisation that appears to be kept in check and/or is democratic in nature but in reality isn't.

[Centurius]

16 minutes ago, Trixanity said:

Yes, it needs 55% to pass but like in all politics it's very possible to get the smaller fish to jump onboard whether through promises of returning the favor or through bullying. Considering how consistently EU laws get approved that the citizens of member states disagree on but their so-called representatives voted yes on, I find it naive to believe influence is evenly distributed. Vote for someone else? Sure. That representative will do the same because that's how the institution works. No amount of idealism can circumvent that. There are a few politicians who would truly stand against it but they'll be left powerless. 

Having one vote each is meaningless if some of the voters have aces on their hands and you've got 2s and 7s: you'll fold.

 

This is only one instance of an organisation that appears to be kept in check and/or is democratic in nature but in reality isn't.

That simply doesn't correspond with reality, when you look at the actual list of directives and other measures passed and implemented by the EU (not just the ones the media likes to rage about) there is a much more significant pattern of measures being passed that are inherently pro-consumer and pro-small member states.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

5 hours ago, Teddy07 said:

I want to leave the country anyway after my degree so why try to make Germany better.

The good news is that by doing one you will achieve the other.

[suicidalfranco]

2 hours ago, cj09beira said:

the problem is that if you receive money in quanzas you will have a really bad time converting it to dollars or euros 

i get paid in euros, then i convert them to kwanzas. It's not like gov can also block bank transactions between my italian account and angolan one