EU ministers approve anti-hate speech video rules European Union ministers have approved new rules for video that will oblige Facebook, Google, Twitter and others to remove hate speech and sexually explicit videos online or face stiff fines. "We need to take into account new ways of watching videos, and find the right balance to encourage innovative services, promote European …
... did not need the gubbmint to protect her, online or off. That's because I'm one half of her parents, and we take our parental responsibility seriously. Including teaching her how to verify that damn near everything that any politician ever utters is a lie, with the singular goal of advancing their own career.
Guess you always did what your parents told you... <G>
Also, it's not only your daughter, but her "friends". One day she could be the target of bullies or revenge porn even if you have taught her well.
And parents who believe to be the perfect parents with the perfect children are usually the last to know...
@LDS, I have friends with four kids, and the second child, a daughter, a young teenager, was brutally assaulted on socials after being filmed bullied and 'kissed' by a gang of boys. For some reason this is her shame on line, not theirs. What do the parents do? How could they have protected her from that?
In my household, we're both very busy parents with important jobs working long hours (and for those of you reading who don't actually work - remember that most business is done through evening networking, thank God for Uber!), our nanny Jizzia can barely speak English, and her boyfriend Klod who's doing our third guest bathroom is just as bad, (having a chalet on Lake Geneva, I'm totally anti-brexit of course, but no-one appreciates that's what happens when you allow open borders) and our two beautiful, strong, independent children, Lingus and Connie, need to be protected in life every step of the way, whilst still being allowed to express themselves, come what may. It's not a popular view, but it's children like ours who are the future, and they need the best from everyone. And everyone in my WhatsApp group agrees.
So I completely support any law that clamps down on the sort of thing I don't want to see in my life. They should ban the Daily Mail too, except Femail Fashion Finder of course, where I got fab LaClitora jumpsuit so at a price that would make you scream.
thing is, this kind of shows the danger involved in Government "Protection" from "hate speech".
you downvote something, if not the irony, but whatever, and that's what gets blocked.
We don't get to choose for ourselves whether it's irony or not. Nanny Protects Us from such exposure.
And that is NOT a good thing. Think of it like pesticide. Sure you kill most of the bugs you don't want, but you kill the honeybees you do want as well.
I think there's a middle ground between Nanny Protects Us and Facebook being a law unto itself, and effectively allowing their platform to be used as part of the bullying because a child is under 7 (I mean, WTF) or because a video is posted without a comment attached when the comments are underneath anyway.
And the same goes for a whole list of other things like revenge porn, racism, drug gangs, extremism, and so on and so forth.
In my household,
Touche. Applause.
I have a suggestion - el reg should still allow the joke icon even for anonymous posts because quite clearly there are people amidst us who are so narrow minded that they cannot notice irony even if it hits them in the face like a battering ram.
The Internet is part of the real world. The examples of horrible abuse are already illegal. What is being asked for is to make the real world safe for children. There are a lot of things adults do that you don't expose children to. It's up to parents to control their children's Internet use not the governments to make it a safe space for children.
The motive is clear; Problem, Reaction, Solution. They want a solution which takes away our freedoms online so the problem is that it's not safe for children.
This post has been deleted by its author
"@LDS, I have friends with four kids, and the second child, a daughter, a young teenager, was brutally assaulted on socials after being filmed bullied and 'kissed' by a gang of boys. For some reason this is her shame on line, not theirs. What do the parents do? How could they have protected her from that?"
Once something is done, it cannot be undone. Society operates on the principle of deterrence. So it is believed that a person won't steal your vehicle if as a result of a previous theft, he received a custodial sentence. I don't think this necessarily works, and some other sanctions could be classified as "Science Fiction". Anyway, if there are sanctions against the bulliers, the poster of the video, and against the subsequent verbal assaulters, which might include suspension from school, community service, detention, fines, ..., [public whipping would be SF these days] even custodial sentences, then the theory is that the miscreants and their parents will be motivated to not allow or commit these acts again. And make it easier to get civil money compensation. Those would fall under the heading of "anti-bullying laws". Faint, but real, consolation to your daughter.
Not only would they come under the heading of "anti-bullying" law but they have squat to do with the kind of attempts at censorship that characterize any attempt to address "hate crimes".
Things like assault, battery, sexual assault are all real crimes that have their roots in ancient common law. You don't need a special new class of laws to address those things.
You don't need to define something new like "double plus murder".
Exactly what I meant. Parents can do a lot to teach and protect their children, but there are still issues outside their reach - and then society - the State - must step in, and help to stop criminal behaviours and protect the innocent.
Good laws are created for this very reason. Sure, a State must not overreach, but because we have demanded our protection and law enforcement to it - to avoid things like revenges - it has also to fulfill that role. Thinking everything is "gummint overreach" will just bring us back in time when people had to seek justice - or revenge, it the worst case - themselves - when they could and just not risk to underwent more humiliations.
Sure, it's a thin line between protecting the innocent and censorship, and we need to be watchful and careful it is not crossed. Yet, we can't let the worst part of the society makes the rules.
I know because my sister was bullied when she was young (there was no Internet there, but it was very painful anyway) - and often those more at risk to be bullied are exactly those well groomed by their parents, and well behaved towards others.
"Exactly what I meant. Parents can do a lot to teach and protect their children, but there are still issues outside their reach - and then society - the State - must step in, and help to stop criminal behaviours and protect the innocent."
The problem though is that they already have. There are already laws which can be used to stop all this. All the examples which are described above can be proven to be online harassment, and that is already a felony.
We don't need new laws, we need better law enforcement. Yet that's the part where things go horribly wrong. And because it's a whole lot easier to apply new laws (and thus also create a kind of 'status' because some politicians can now claim that they were behind that good law)...
My problem though is that new isn't always better. Take the description of this one: hate speech? What exactly accounts as 'hate speech'? Keep well in mind that to some people any comment which rebuttals their opinion or showcases just how impossible their fundraiser campaign is. Think about solar roadways (roads build out of glass which collect solar power and use leds to display indications), waterseer (one huge "condenser" which should be able to extract water from the air, according to the people behind it an easily 40l per day) and the hyperloop (a huge vacuum tunnel stretching out hundreds of kilometers to improve quick travel). All of those projects got quite a bit of criticism because of their impossibility. And all those critics were openly considered to be spreading hatespeech. Even though, in the case of waterseer & solar roadways some critics only used simple physics to clearly explain what the project would never work.
So how is this new law going to deal about that?
"Hate speech" is a too easy description. Because some people will imagine someone actually attacking another, whereas others will see someone merely criticizing another.
But most of all: we already have laws to fight online harassment, why don't we use those instead?
Hollerithevo, what you said does not make sense. You can't be brutally assaulted on 'socials' (social networks). You can be verbally abused (in writing and video). You can be physically assaulted in the physical world which is a crime with laws already in place.
It does not make sense to say that what is done to your avatar in the way of sexual assault is the same as if it were done to you physically. However that does sound like Terry May is saying that. "The laws online should match those in the real world" or words to that effect.
Dear LDS, one day you could be shot and killed, but this has nothing to do with "regulations". You just do your best to avoid that, the same does police and anti-terror forces, hopefully, but it's more likely to happen if the police and FBI try to pass the ball to Internet or content providers and go for vacation instead.
Go off to the Grauniad and read Facebook's moderating guidelines just to see what they wriggle out of doing. Now come back here and say you don't need it.
Another document describes what is allowed around physical bullying. It says “sharing footage of physical bullying where no further commentary” is made is allowed. Moderators should also ignore images of physical bullying of a child under seven even if they include unkind commentary – such as laughter and name-calling.
In reality, it will likely mean Netflix being legally obliged to carry millions of hours of pretentious nonsense.
Not really - it can easily satisfy this requirement by carrying old classics in the local language without buying a single bit of new content.
By the way, I would not call Death of a Corrupt Man, the original Belmondo The Professional", pretentious nonsense. In fact, both of them are very good and educational pre-election material.
Similarly, if we take another country like, let's say Czech republic, their old comedies and sitcoms will happily load up to 40% of the quota and they are definitely worth watching if you understand the language. In fact, I have educated my English and American colleagues to some of the immortal quotes from "Hospital at the end of the city". You can now hear: "If stupidity had wings, you my dear, would have flown out of the window like a dove" on both sides of the Atlantic.
And so on. The 30% is NOT difficult. Even 30%+20% (30 local, 20 rest of Eu) is not difficult - it is simply a matter of digitizing the old tapes. It is also good as it preserves existing heritage for posterity and introduces the new generation to what made us laugh :)
The only place which where the pretentious nonsense description may hold true is Scandinavia, but hey, this is what we call ART cinema, right? Everyone should LOVE Bergman, right?
I would say the English language contents are now kitchen-sink quality today... gosh, the new big show is "TWIN PEAKS"!!!!!! And Sky just aired another remake of "The magnificent seven"!!! And should we speak about "King Arthur"???
Maybe Hollywood needs a compulsory percentage of *original* contents (and a limit on CGI effects).
So what exactly counts as a hate speech then? Because someone shouting about how Mexicans are rapists, or that a group of countries are a threat to the stability of one country just because of free movement of people, well I'd class that as hate speech material but I see that on the news all the time.
And what counts as sexually explicit? Last night while watching 5Star I saw adverts, one after the other, of very young girls dressed up in tights and lycra with an inch thick of make up on their face blowing kisses at people and dancing around like they're 20 years old in a hip hop video. I saw that on TV, as a trailer to a show that will be shown at 9pm in the UK. That's sexualising children - and that's just one example.
So, really, it's a bullshit rule of "do as we say, not as we do" and it's only applicable to the internet as it "deals" with "fake news" outlets. Because a media you pay money to can be trusted so much more than someone in their bedroom.
What a load of old bullshit.
"Easy: Anything The Blob doesn't approve of being said, in particular anything referring to consequences of still allowing a moronic failing-upward "elite" to rule over us - and tell us what to say or not, how to say it and when too."
Bingo! Sadly, they still impose upon us what they wish, as they are the legal system. Someday, even the pens that is mightier than the swords will run out of ink. Someone ruling another's speech isn't a new concept or even absolutely wrong, but today's methods are so obviously greedy. The thing that seems so odd to me is that with all that money, the methods are so unimaginative. If I show you the action of take, take, take, is there any other action I could be doing? It's just strange.
to where these ambiguous rules will be applied to people giving their honest opinion of the EU (due to the growing anti-sentiments) and not the "terrorist propaganda, and material that promotes child sexual abuse" it claims its for.
Still, need some excuse to stop you from criticize gubbamint, especially when they do their usual bang up job!
The same EU who has already interfered in the elections of member countries and publicly stated they will not work with certain parties at all. I expect the supporters of the EU will brush this under the carpet, claim it isnt real or say its for our own good as usual but I do wonder how far the EU can go before even the stiffest supporter starts to see serious flaws.
@codejunky
Sounds like your drinking the same libertarian cool aid I am.
I seriously dont know why, but I still get surprised by some of the things these guys do.
Its like they want to believe that if they not only deny any sort of conversation, but ignore the fact the *insert subject* exists at all, that it will suddenly go away?!
Sorry but life isnt like that, you stop people from being able to use words to address and discuss, shout & rave then they only options they have left is to use actions, and no I dont think that actions are necessarily always a good thing, especially if it is the result of anger that tptb didnt even acknowledged.
So far after the Dutch & French elections the EU patted itself on the back declaring that the spread of the Nationalists had been halted (other people used words like fascist and nazis, white Supremacist etc 'sic', you know because of 'tolerance' towards anybody who doesnt agree with them)
Yet looking at the numbers it is anything but, the amount of Nationalist growth in most EU continue to grow and yeah I want to see how long this goes before it bites them in the arse.
And the Tories can go screw themselves if they want to introduce this crap, but on the plus side even if they do, at least we will have the ability to overturn it in the future..
...assuming we can find a suitable slimeball er.. sorry politician to pick up the cause - Sorry EU
Prezactly.
the "terrorist propaganda, and material that promotes child sexual abuse" would mean an instant ban of the Q'ran, closure of all mosques and banning of Islam as a violent fascist far right organisation .
But with Saudi owning most of Barclays, it aint gonna happen is it?
Just include footage from local traffic cameras - boring as hell - but so what it is local content!!!
(If traffic camera footage is not available for some reason - use videos of cattle or sheep grazing.)
If they want to include "artistic" performances then see if any churches would like any of their services videoed. Also see if local TV news services would like their programs copied onto Netflix etc.
T' Internet used to be an interesting place where you could say what you want, watch what you want and pirate what you want.
It's now dull as Songs Of Praise*, the Politicians and Big Media got what they wanted which is the kind of viewer who watches Songs Of Praise.
*For non-UK readers Songs Of Praise is a tediously dull God Squadder programme broadcast on the BBC and one would rather cut a stately home's lawn with a pair of nail scissors than be forced to watch it.
No commercial enterprise has to support free speech, and free speech is regulated by governments and always has been. Have any of you watched hate videos? Neo-Nazi anti-Semitic videos? Videos taken of young women and (and young men) by vicious bullies whose aim is to destroy these young people's lives? There is a difference between being an obnoxious loudmouth and going in for the kill. We know that someone's life can be ruined because he or she is crippled from being beat up. A social beating is just as severe. 'Assault and battery' -- 'assault' is not the fist in the face, it is the attack on one's person that is assault; 'battery' is the actual physical blow. Both are crimes.
An assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm. It is both a crime and a tort and, therefore, may result in either criminal or civil liability. Generally, the common law definition is the same in criminal and Tort Law. There is, however, an additional Criminal Law category of assault consisting of an attempted but unsuccessful Battery.
- http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Assault
Saying mean stuff is not assault, whatever you may feel.
I would be the last one to defend hateful speech, but the scope for abuse of such legislation is massive. We can't always safely legislate away everything bad.
How do we decide what is "fake news"? Who is going to do the research to determine the truth? How long will it take to sort out the arguments? Who foots the bill?
With net neutrality creeping away, continually increasing governmental and corporate surveillance (including directly from this fine government), and this ongoing culling of free speech (as melodramatic as it sounds), I do wonder how the internet is going to look like in 2020, the year that feels like when the new cycle is going to start.
There is an entire generation x of us that remember perfectly well what it is like to live without the Internet, and absolutely no real reason not to choose to go back to it, should the shit/fan interface be activated.
We certainly have the power to unplug and "They" definitely won't like that.
Thee was also a time when communicating with someone meant writing pages full of letters, then waiting weeks to hopefully get a few paragraphs back. There is absolutely nothing that can happen in the world that would make me want to go back to that, and the same applies to the internet. And no, it's not Facebook or Farmville that I refuse to give up - I don't use that kind of thing...
What is hate speech? Are we going to define as when someone feels you said something hateful towards them or even when someone else feels that you were hateful to someone?
Some are clear, neo-nazi for example but that's not a good way of putting across the argument because you are using the obvious group that appeals to no one but itself.
It's just going to end up in a mess where you can't say anything about anyone without offending them or someone else being offended for them.
European Union ministers have approved new rules for video that will oblige Facebook, Google, Twitter and others to remove hate speech and sexually explicit videos online or face stiff fines.
Because of course, American companies, in America, are going to care about what some bunch of other countries want to do. How do the EU propose to enforce these fines?
if you can't be offensive and politically incorrect. "Hate" if you will.
I *HATE*
1. Win-10-nic
2. 2D FLATSO interfaces
3. People who robo-call my phone [ignoring the 'do not call list'
4. Whiny b.i.itchy women who divorce husbands in order to take them to the cleaners
5. Meal-ticket mommies
6. fascist political correctness 'SJW's
7. those who want to clamp down on FREEDOM
There seems to be some confusion about what "hate speech" is.
Some here seem to think it's some variant of "you are a bad person and I hate you". This is not hate speech. Everybody can express themselves in this way, and everyone has to be big enough to tolerate the fact that not everybody likes them.
Hate speech is normally a variant of "You are angry and you're right to be angry. You deserve a much better life than you have. It's not your fault. It's the fault of those people over there. They're not like you. They hate you. Everything they do is aimed at making your life worse. And they're winning. Anybody who tells you this is not true is a traitor, and they also hate you. The only way to save yourself and your loved ones is to take action against these people."
That's hate speech.
Hate speech is normally a variant of "You are angry and you're right to be angry. You deserve a much better life than you have. It's not your fault. It's the fault of those people over there. ......the only way to save yourself and your loved ones is to take action against these people."
You've just summed up an election campaign.
so in other words, the basis of every single political party statement?
"We'd be much better off except those evil Republicans/Democrats obstructing us!"
even your definition of "hate speech" can and will be perverted.
We've already seen local *politicians* attempt to use "hate speech" to silence critics even when the criticism was based on his voting and arrest record. But as an accepted "minority" there was a bit of noise supporting his claim for a short time. Had this politician been more popular, I bet that the volume of defense would have been much louder, and possibly even actually effective.
Chilling effects indeed.
That's not "hate speech", it's basically an opinion you dislike.
Therein is the problem with "hate speech", you and I have a different opinion than what it is.
Except you believe your opinion is more equal to mine.
Real "hate speech" is saying "Stop them saying things that I don't like"
No,. I truly hate it. My wife is embarrassed because of the fits I throw when I receive it. I've smeared it on the table leaving messes of disgusting burger and mayo for the restaurant to clean up. I've thrown it at the buildings on their windows after going through the drive through. I've yelled at staff. It's quite embarrassing to be with me. I'm a bigger baby than Trump when it comes to mayo. My whole body boils with anger. People hide. I've almost been arrested. I'm pretty sure it's pure unadulterated hate. There is really nothing I hate more than mayo.
We've had Canadian content ("cancon") laws on the books for decades. In general, cancon has been a Good Thing. See also the more ancient term "canlit".
More pressing is, I don't know where to post the video in which I tell Euro residents how much I hate them, regardless of their skin shade, ethnicity, religion (or absence thereof), gender, sexual orientation, education, job, profession, standing, criminal record (or lack thereof), nationality (or lack thereof), eye colour, hair colour (natural or kitted), hair shape (natural or knitted), blood type, football affiliation, ....
We're told that our representatives in the EU and Westmister want this, but they never consulted the electorate. The rules are decided by the crooked money power who control our puppet politicians, and are codified to criminalise anyone who doesn't agree with their globalist agenda.
You're an extremist if you oppose what benefits them, or support what opposes them.
Eventually becomes speech the government/dictator does not like.
North Korea, or the King of Thailand.
No doubt "hate speech" will eventually be any "speech about leaving the glorious EU"
After all, the Guardian and it's readers (who flock on here for some reason) believe that anyone voting to leave the EU are racist, xenophobes that eats kittens whilst laughing.
The fascists of the future will call themselves the anti fascists.
"In theory, this will create new opportunities for European filmmakers in non-English languages. In reality, it will likely mean Netflix being legally obliged to carry millions of hours of pretentious nonsense."
So more Scandinavian and British detectives, and less of that pretentious and boring nonsense from the US? I like it already!
"As well as covering hate speech, the rules will impose local-content laws on video services such as Netflix and Amazon Prime Video. The original 20 per cent local content requirement will reportedly be raised to 30 per cent in the new rules."
I don't get what does it mean in practice? Are they enforcing use of "local" language? For, eh, private businesses in their daily operations (not in official documents like tax decl but in daily use)? Or are they requiring the goods to be of "local" origin? Say, if you like to sell bananas in EU, 30% of your bananas must be european? What the fuck? In the former case it's clearly a totalitarian norm (because it's a free market: you don't like what they show, you don't watch it; you can't make them show what you like by force, only by your wallet), in the latter - just nonsense.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
