16 ms·

The EU Terrorist Content Regulation – a threat to the ecosystem and user rights

116 points by Vinnl 8y ago

DyslexicAtheist 8y ago
I'm pro Europe and thought I'd always would be. If this takes off I'm gonna jump ship and join every anti EU camp and would even cheer for fascists just so that the empire gets struck back. That's the level of pissed I am at this empire building shit on all sides.
- dbmyh 8y ago
  How did you think the EU would end? I mean, really. It always ends the same way, no exceptions.
- lawlessone 8y ago
  >and would even cheer for fascists I'm lost for words to describe the stupidity of this
  - DyslexicAtheist 8y ago
    you possibly misunderstood the difference between anger and intelligence? a system that uses technology to increase surveillance and a fear mongering language (seriously "terrorism"??) needs to be stopped with every means possible. Especially if they're sneaking it in so that you can't legally fight it. How else are you going to fight them? Buttons and a leaflet campaign? Come on!
    - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
      > needs to be stopped with every means possible Nothing needs to be done by every means possible. This isn’t worth vaporising cities over, for one example. Or fascism, for another.
      - starbeast 8y ago
        When people start thinking that the ends justify the means, they forget that outside of maybe death, and people still argue about that, ends are just narrative conveniences and there is only means. And you can't very well have means justifying means, can you?
        JumpCrisscross 8y ago
        > you can't very well have means justifying means Yes you can. They’re called instrumental values and goals.
      - Nasrudith 8y ago
        Things like this are clear steps on a road. Article 13 was the camel nose through the tent. One could call it drastic at the time but shooting every loser involved in the Beer Hall Putsch for treason would have saved the world a lot of trouble. A lot of them were purged anyway.
        Vinnl 8y ago
        Sure, but "every means possible" is a very clear shortcut directly to the end of that road.
    - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
      > needs to be stopped with every means possible ... such as groups that want to increase surveillance and use fear mongering language, and will make it so you can't legally fight it. Yeah, that makes total sense. No better way to deal with authoritarians reaching for power than to elect authoritarians into power so they can deal with the wannabe authoritarians in their authoritarian ways.
      - DyslexicAtheist 8y ago
        as I said elsewhere, I'm not talking about electing anyone into power. I'm talking about not condemning the action when somebody will come along and start strategically taking people in power out (this happened before and will happen again as long as the world stays on this trajectory it's only a question of time). I tend to cheer for the Stauffenberg personalities - even it's illegal. Sorry if that offends so many of you that you have to downvote the fuck out of me.
        zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
        > would even cheer for fascists That is what you said.
        icebraining 8y ago
        No, what you actually wrote in the other posts - such as "I would cheer for fascists" - is what got them downvoted, not what you now claim to have meant, because the voters are not clairvoyant.
  - bilbo0s 8y ago
    This. If you'd cheer on guys committing nation scale genocide because you can't post your dick pic to facebook or whatever... then you are WAYYY too addicted to facebook. Get outside. Get a new hobby. Get a girlfriend. But whatever you do, get your priorities straight. I can't even respect the manhood of any guy who would trade the freedoms of others to safeguard his own. It's tantamount to that guy who says: "Please Mr. Terrorist!?!?! I'll let you have all these kids as hostages as long as you let ME go!" Shoot that kind of guy first.
    - Vinnl 8y ago
      While I agree with your general point, I think it's wrong to characterise this as "not being able to post your dick pic to Facebook or whatever". This isn't about posting memes; it's about freedom of expression. It's about preventing, say, the Hungarian government labelling George Soros as a terrorist, and subsequently prevent you from making statements online that agree with him. Sure, suppressing freedom of expression is not a good way to suppress freedom of expression - but this is a serious issue. (Though, as mentioned elsewhere, it's still early in the process, and hopefully the regulation can be altered before it is passed.)
  - bitL 8y ago
    (S)he is probably touching the problem when all parties that are supposed to be normal would vote for this extreme legislation, and only extremist ones would oppose it; i.e. the problem will be the lack of choice in that matter, caused by parties themselves; a situation similar leading to the election of current US president where many people just voted "in jest" due to not being heard and not having any means to voice their concerns. I am frankly not sure how to address this beside starting an own party and gaining required % support to get into parliament.
  - BeniBoy 8y ago
    A charitable reading of this would be that the grandfather is sharing Voltaire's view: "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it."
- viraptor 8y ago
  Would you really cheer for people happy to physically assault minorities just because there's an ineffective limit put in place on what you can post on the internet? Do you want to take a moment to look in the mirror and think about the difference in scale between those two things?
  - DyslexicAtheist 8y ago
    of course not. I would morally support any group that comes up and starts assassinating key people who commit crimes against social justice. The RAF had a lot of supporters from all parts of society. I'd never condemn anyone who does that which is my personal way of "cheering" I think politicians ought to be scared of their populace, and they are the ones that need to be under constant surveillance. And not vice versa.
  - contravariant 8y ago
    I don't fully accept your premise, but if granting some leeway to people with less than scrupulous ideals is what it takes to get rid of legislation that could have severe consequences for the freedom of speech then I'd be in favour. I don't accept that this means condoning any action those people might take.
    - PavlovsCat 8y ago
      > I don't accept that this means condoning any action those people might take. That's because you turned "cheer for fascists" into "granting some leeway to people with less than scrupulous ideals". Even just playing such word games is lending support, and that's even more than condoning something.
      - contravariant 8y ago
        I'd consider mere wordplay closer to granting leeway than actual support. Either way I don't see how either would force me to condone actions taken in their name. I have to admit I'd have difficulty to decide between voting for them (which I'd consider actual support) or accepting laws as described in this post. Thankfully I haven't had to make such a choice, yet.
- dexen 8y ago
  Please, let's not get hyperbolic here. No fascists are coming, and let's not support any such for any reason. Having said that, the most pressing problem with authoritasianism and empire building is the EU itself. For the sake of an example, consider this (2011) rant by Guy Verhofstadt, on how member states must give up their sovereignty: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swDpscmiXwY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swDpscmiXwY Apologies for the meme format; can't seem to find the original while on the go.
- lumberjack 8y ago
  The rise of outspoken fascists and racists is precisely what makes me question whether "free speech at all costs" is a wise political stance, especially when it is patently obvious that the creators of that content are not everyday people, but an entity intent on inciting hatred and violence. None the less I do recognize the danger of limiting free speech.
  - Nasrudith 8y ago
    That is even more of a reason to oppose it in my opinion as an American. The last thing you want to give fascists is a preboxed mechanism for control to say label those who call death camps unconsciousable "hate speech against native citizens". Since they /will/ twist laws every way they can and ignore them against themselves.
    - DyslexicAtheist 8y ago
      thank you. this is exactly my point. the only reason this is implemented is to shield those in power further and allow them to hunt down anyone who they deem in violation of what constitutes their version of free speech.
      - Vinnl 8y ago
        Note that this is not yet implemented. However, the main point is that "would even cheer for fascists" includes "would even cheer for people hunting down anyone who they deem in violation of what constitutes their version of free speech", which doesn't seem like a very effective way to fight exactly that.
        DyslexicAtheist 8y ago
        if you have a radical group on the left that would remove these people from power then these would automatically be labeled fascists. fascists are automatically terrorists if their ambition is to overthrow the status-quo. So if I had instead originally written "I would cheer for terrorists", would have made it more sense? I wrote fascist because it seemed to capture our times better. I could have also written "criminals". It would not made any difference. A good example of where this may impact us is the Catalan government wanting to split from Spain. Will blogs from these people be deemed of terrorist nature then? So even it is not yet implemented, putting this forward as a proposal is pretty outrageous.
- prolikewh0a 8y ago
  Are you sure EU already isn't being run by fascists? Sure seems like most of the world is slipping into Fascism right now, and I wouldn't doubt for a second that the internet censorship proposal in OP is to censor left wing ideaologies that would bring prosperous conditions to the working class and poor of the EU. Keep in mind that during the rise of Hitler, the USA never did the things to Fascists and Nazi's that they did to leftists during the Red Scare & McCarthyism. Having workers rights and socialized health care is a big threat to the ruling class. The bourgeois elite are very very scared of people like Jeremy Corbyn, but fascists will certainly keep those borgeois safe, rich, and profiting off of war against brown people and homeless people. >A person who believes that there is a hierarchy of personhood — that some people are more human than others, and some fall below the threshold of being people entirely — and furthermore, that that hierarchy should be institutionalized, is a fascist. A movement composed of such people is a fascist movement. A government managing such a project is a fascist government. (The natural moral logic of such a hierarchy is that violence must be done to the weak by the strong, since they are not human beings at all, but parasites and predators.) Is this not what the world elite are doing right now? UN Special Rapporteur this week came out with new reports of rampant poverty in USA and UK. What the US & EU allies did to the middle east? Does none of this qualify as fascism? I think by the time the world wakes up to the fact that they're currently living in at least some form of fascism or close to it, it will be too late. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/nov/05/un-rapporteur-philip-alston-uk-austerity https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/nov/05/un-rapporte... Edit: Care to comment with reasons why you're downvoting and even flagging? I'm always open to changing my mind.
  - sctb 8y ago
    You're probably being downvoted for posting handwavey flamebait without much to learn from, and you've been doing this a lot. It's not substantive enough and doesn't lead to the kinds of intellectually gratifying discussions that readers come here for. > Please don't use Hacker News primarily for political or ideological battle. This destroys intellectual curiosity, so we ban accounts that do it. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- DanBC 8y ago
  Please can you post the link to the proposal that you've read?
sbhn 8y ago
Everything I know about isis, I got from the bbc and politicians.
- gaius 8y ago
  They used to publish their own newsletter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dabiq_(magazine) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dabiq_(magazine)
dbmyh 8y ago
The EU has never had freedom of expression, so these regulations are anything but surprising. They just extend what already existed to the digital era.
- deugtniet 8y ago
  Source? I am a EU citizen, My freedom of speech is only inhibited when I incite to violence or discriminate. That is because it is illegal to do, seems fair.
  - dbmyh 8y ago
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6316567/Woman-correctly-convicted-Austria-calling-Prophet-Mohammed-paedophile-ECHR-rules.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6316567/Woman-corre... (I would like an explanation to my GP's comment being flagged other than "I would like this to not be true")
    - deugtniet 8y ago
      She was not convicted after appeal right? She retained her right to free speech, and the Austrian courts should not convict somebody on these counts. Weird that you link that. EDIT: It's the total opposite, I apologize. She was convicted for her speech, but the courts found her speech to disrupt the religious peace, and not freedom of opinion. Turns out disrupting religious peace is illegal in Austria, which is a stupid law.
      - XCabbage 8y ago
        No, everything you say here is incorrect. The case being described in that article IS the appeal to the ECHR, which upheld her conviction.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
      - cyphar 8y ago
afroboy 8y ago
No more Israel criticism then or we labelled antisemitism, On what basis they trying to define terrorism? because where i live what USA is doing with their drones is considered terrorism.
- dao- 8y ago
  Where do you live and why are US drones a reason to criticize Israel? You're right that the term is a bit nebulous, but this isn't a new problem. E.g. criminal law already treats terrorism differently in many countries. As is often the case in law, courts would have to figure what should be considered terrorism. Courts in your country could decide differently than in mine, which can be a good thing or a bad thing depending on your point of view.
  - afroboy 8y ago
    > Where do you live and why are US drones a reason to criticize Israel? Sorry, those were intended as two different examples.
deugtniet 8y ago
This proposal is very bad. But luckily it is only a proposal. The council and parliament will still vote for this, before it becomes European law. Both bodies will likely oppose, and the proposal will be significantly amended. I honestly don't see the commissions reasoning on why this is a good proposal. But I don't see how the EU as an institution is bashed for this. This is a similar process as occurs in any other member state and other democracies. Not to mention the US, with it's secret laws and national security letters. My personal opinion is that illegal content (CP, inciting violence) should be moderated quickly, where failure to act has big consequences. What I don't like about the proposal is that it is enforced by governments, and not some judiciary body. I hope the council and parliament will amend the proposal in such a way this is reflected in a final law.
- dogma1138 8y ago
  Many countries in the EU have already passed or are in the passing of local similar legislation including Germany: https://www.bmjv.de/SharedDocs/Gesetzgebungsverfahren/Dokumente/NetzDG_engl.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=2 https://www.bmjv.de/SharedDocs/Gesetzgebungsverfahren/Dokume...
- raxxorrax 8y ago
  It is normal political procedure to have an aweful initial proposal so that amendments seem like a lesser evil, while still being bad. I doubt we really have a need to act on these issues in the first place and that was explicitly not the goal of those who initiated this proposal. You just need to take a look at who proposed it. So the question about illegal content is completely misplaced.
  - doombolt 8y ago
    That's why we need tools to permanently ban politicians from law making if their proposal is awful enough. Kind of "[X] No and don't ask again", democracy version. Having thought of it, the main problem here it's no longer "Political party versus political party" when speaking about law making, but "Parliament versus public". For some reason they have shared agenda instead of competing on it. They all unanimously want to sell us to copyright holders and secret services so bad, it's only our stupid resistance is what's holding them. Hence, proposal adjustments tricks.
ElBarto 8y ago
Most EU countries already have similar legislation.
lbj 8y ago
The time for the EU has passed. Its too decoupled from the real world, too draconian in its approach. It was created for the sole purpose of making cross-border dealings easy within the EU but on it's own initiative its grown into a monster that regulates everything from the amount of cinnamon on buns to blogposts written online.
- ahartmetz 8y ago
  The EU was created to prevent further wars in Europe. Nowadays it is also seen as necessary for European countries to represent their interests in the world.
  - timrichard 8y ago
    That's the popular quote, but presumably something was preventing war in Europe prior to the creation of the EU in 1993. The European Coal and Steel Community (grandfather of the EU) was created in 1952 to regulate production of these materials, and address the risk of massive re-armament. I'm not convinced how relevant that is after the US detonated the first atomic weapon in 1945. IMHO, NATO has been the factor in preventing war in Europe during the last 70 years.
    - throwaway488212 8y ago
      > NATO has been the factor in preventing war in Europe during the last 70 years. NATO was significantly involved in the most recent European wars (the Yugoslav Wars). Now you could argue they were "peacekeeping" (and of course there were many atrocities that occurred during the Yugoslav Wars) but that's what a certain country claimed about "Operation Iraqi Freedom". I would contest that NATO prevented any wars in Europe, they definitely were involved in at least one.
    - doktrin 8y ago
      You were downvoted but you're obviously correct. This idea that the EU is responsible for preventing wars on the continent just doesn't stand up to any reasonable examination.
buboard 8y ago
who cares, as long as it hurts the US companies it will pass. Europe needs to protect its borders from americans CEOs who are taking our jobs. We need to build a Wall , and they are going to pay for it

116 points by Vinnl 8y ago

I'm pro Europe and thought I'd always would be. If this takes off I'm gonna jump ship and join every anti EU camp and would even cheer for fascists just so that the empire gets struck back. That's the level of pissed I am at this empire building shit on all sides.

dbmyh 8y ago
How did you think the EU would end? I mean, really. It always ends the same way, no exceptions.
lawlessone 8y ago
>and would even cheer for fascists I'm lost for words to describe the stupidity of this
- DyslexicAtheist 8y ago
  you possibly misunderstood the difference between anger and intelligence? a system that uses technology to increase surveillance and a fear mongering language (seriously "terrorism"??) needs to be stopped with every means possible. Especially if they're sneaking it in so that you can't legally fight it. How else are you going to fight them? Buttons and a leaflet campaign? Come on!
  - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
    > needs to be stopped with every means possible Nothing needs to be done by every means possible. This isn’t worth vaporising cities over, for one example. Or fascism, for another.
    - starbeast 8y ago
      When people start thinking that the ends justify the means, they forget that outside of maybe death, and people still argue about that, ends are just narrative conveniences and there is only means. And you can't very well have means justifying means, can you?
      - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
        > you can't very well have means justifying means Yes you can. They’re called instrumental values and goals.
    - Nasrudith 8y ago
      Things like this are clear steps on a road. Article 13 was the camel nose through the tent. One could call it drastic at the time but shooting every loser involved in the Beer Hall Putsch for treason would have saved the world a lot of trouble. A lot of them were purged anyway.
      - Vinnl 8y ago
        Sure, but "every means possible" is a very clear shortcut directly to the end of that road.
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
    > needs to be stopped with every means possible ... such as groups that want to increase surveillance and use fear mongering language, and will make it so you can't legally fight it. Yeah, that makes total sense. No better way to deal with authoritarians reaching for power than to elect authoritarians into power so they can deal with the wannabe authoritarians in their authoritarian ways.
    - DyslexicAtheist 8y ago
      as I said elsewhere, I'm not talking about electing anyone into power. I'm talking about not condemning the action when somebody will come along and start strategically taking people in power out (this happened before and will happen again as long as the world stays on this trajectory it's only a question of time). I tend to cheer for the Stauffenberg personalities - even it's illegal. Sorry if that offends so many of you that you have to downvote the fuck out of me.
      - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
        > would even cheer for fascists That is what you said.
      - icebraining 8y ago
        No, what you actually wrote in the other posts - such as "I would cheer for fascists" - is what got them downvoted, not what you now claim to have meant, because the voters are not clairvoyant.
- bilbo0s 8y ago
  This. If you'd cheer on guys committing nation scale genocide because you can't post your dick pic to facebook or whatever... then you are WAYYY too addicted to facebook. Get outside. Get a new hobby. Get a girlfriend. But whatever you do, get your priorities straight. I can't even respect the manhood of any guy who would trade the freedoms of others to safeguard his own. It's tantamount to that guy who says: "Please Mr. Terrorist!?!?! I'll let you have all these kids as hostages as long as you let ME go!" Shoot that kind of guy first.
  - Vinnl 8y ago
    While I agree with your general point, I think it's wrong to characterise this as "not being able to post your dick pic to Facebook or whatever". This isn't about posting memes; it's about freedom of expression. It's about preventing, say, the Hungarian government labelling George Soros as a terrorist, and subsequently prevent you from making statements online that agree with him. Sure, suppressing freedom of expression is not a good way to suppress freedom of expression - but this is a serious issue. (Though, as mentioned elsewhere, it's still early in the process, and hopefully the regulation can be altered before it is passed.)
- bitL 8y ago
  (S)he is probably touching the problem when all parties that are supposed to be normal would vote for this extreme legislation, and only extremist ones would oppose it; i.e. the problem will be the lack of choice in that matter, caused by parties themselves; a situation similar leading to the election of current US president where many people just voted "in jest" due to not being heard and not having any means to voice their concerns. I am frankly not sure how to address this beside starting an own party and gaining required % support to get into parliament.
- BeniBoy 8y ago
  A charitable reading of this would be that the grandfather is sharing Voltaire's view: "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it."
viraptor 8y ago
Would you really cheer for people happy to physically assault minorities just because there's an ineffective limit put in place on what you can post on the internet? Do you want to take a moment to look in the mirror and think about the difference in scale between those two things?
- DyslexicAtheist 8y ago
  of course not. I would morally support any group that comes up and starts assassinating key people who commit crimes against social justice. The RAF had a lot of supporters from all parts of society. I'd never condemn anyone who does that which is my personal way of "cheering" I think politicians ought to be scared of their populace, and they are the ones that need to be under constant surveillance. And not vice versa.
- contravariant 8y ago
  I don't fully accept your premise, but if granting some leeway to people with less than scrupulous ideals is what it takes to get rid of legislation that could have severe consequences for the freedom of speech then I'd be in favour. I don't accept that this means condoning any action those people might take.
  - PavlovsCat 8y ago
    > I don't accept that this means condoning any action those people might take. That's because you turned "cheer for fascists" into "granting some leeway to people with less than scrupulous ideals". Even just playing such word games is lending support, and that's even more than condoning something.
    - contravariant 8y ago
      I'd consider mere wordplay closer to granting leeway than actual support. Either way I don't see how either would force me to condone actions taken in their name. I have to admit I'd have difficulty to decide between voting for them (which I'd consider actual support) or accepting laws as described in this post. Thankfully I haven't had to make such a choice, yet.
dexen 8y ago
Please, let's not get hyperbolic here. No fascists are coming, and let's not support any such for any reason. Having said that, the most pressing problem with authoritasianism and empire building is the EU itself. For the sake of an example, consider this (2011) rant by Guy Verhofstadt, on how member states must give up their sovereignty: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swDpscmiXwY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swDpscmiXwY Apologies for the meme format; can't seem to find the original while on the go.
lumberjack 8y ago
The rise of outspoken fascists and racists is precisely what makes me question whether "free speech at all costs" is a wise political stance, especially when it is patently obvious that the creators of that content are not everyday people, but an entity intent on inciting hatred and violence. None the less I do recognize the danger of limiting free speech.
- Nasrudith 8y ago
  That is even more of a reason to oppose it in my opinion as an American. The last thing you want to give fascists is a preboxed mechanism for control to say label those who call death camps unconsciousable "hate speech against native citizens". Since they /will/ twist laws every way they can and ignore them against themselves.
  - DyslexicAtheist 8y ago
    thank you. this is exactly my point. the only reason this is implemented is to shield those in power further and allow them to hunt down anyone who they deem in violation of what constitutes their version of free speech.
    - Vinnl 8y ago
      Note that this is not yet implemented. However, the main point is that "would even cheer for fascists" includes "would even cheer for people hunting down anyone who they deem in violation of what constitutes their version of free speech", which doesn't seem like a very effective way to fight exactly that.
      - DyslexicAtheist 8y ago
        if you have a radical group on the left that would remove these people from power then these would automatically be labeled fascists. fascists are automatically terrorists if their ambition is to overthrow the status-quo. So if I had instead originally written "I would cheer for terrorists", would have made it more sense? I wrote fascist because it seemed to capture our times better. I could have also written "criminals". It would not made any difference. A good example of where this may impact us is the Catalan government wanting to split from Spain. Will blogs from these people be deemed of terrorist nature then? So even it is not yet implemented, putting this forward as a proposal is pretty outrageous.
prolikewh0a 8y ago
Are you sure EU already isn't being run by fascists? Sure seems like most of the world is slipping into Fascism right now, and I wouldn't doubt for a second that the internet censorship proposal in OP is to censor left wing ideaologies that would bring prosperous conditions to the working class and poor of the EU. Keep in mind that during the rise of Hitler, the USA never did the things to Fascists and Nazi's that they did to leftists during the Red Scare & McCarthyism. Having workers rights and socialized health care is a big threat to the ruling class. The bourgeois elite are very very scared of people like Jeremy Corbyn, but fascists will certainly keep those borgeois safe, rich, and profiting off of war against brown people and homeless people. >A person who believes that there is a hierarchy of personhood — that some people are more human than others, and some fall below the threshold of being people entirely — and furthermore, that that hierarchy should be institutionalized, is a fascist. A movement composed of such people is a fascist movement. A government managing such a project is a fascist government. (The natural moral logic of such a hierarchy is that violence must be done to the weak by the strong, since they are not human beings at all, but parasites and predators.) Is this not what the world elite are doing right now? UN Special Rapporteur this week came out with new reports of rampant poverty in USA and UK. What the US & EU allies did to the middle east? Does none of this qualify as fascism? I think by the time the world wakes up to the fact that they're currently living in at least some form of fascism or close to it, it will be too late. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/nov/05/un-rapporteur-philip-alston-uk-austerity https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/nov/05/un-rapporte... Edit: Care to comment with reasons why you're downvoting and even flagging? I'm always open to changing my mind.
- sctb 8y ago
  You're probably being downvoted for posting handwavey flamebait without much to learn from, and you've been doing this a lot. It's not substantive enough and doesn't lead to the kinds of intellectually gratifying discussions that readers come here for. > Please don't use Hacker News primarily for political or ideological battle. This destroys intellectual curiosity, so we ban accounts that do it. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
DanBC 8y ago
Please can you post the link to the proposal that you've read?

sbhn 8y ago

Everything I know about isis, I got from the bbc and politicians.

gaius 8y ago
They used to publish their own newsletter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dabiq_(magazine) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dabiq_(magazine)

dbmyh 8y ago

The EU has never had freedom of expression, so these regulations are anything but surprising. They just extend what already existed to the digital era.

deugtniet 8y ago
Source? I am a EU citizen, My freedom of speech is only inhibited when I incite to violence or discriminate. That is because it is illegal to do, seems fair.
- dbmyh 8y ago
  https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6316567/Woman-correctly-convicted-Austria-calling-Prophet-Mohammed-paedophile-ECHR-rules.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6316567/Woman-corre... (I would like an explanation to my GP's comment being flagged other than "I would like this to not be true")
  - deugtniet 8y ago
    She was not convicted after appeal right? She retained her right to free speech, and the Austrian courts should not convict somebody on these counts. Weird that you link that. EDIT: It's the total opposite, I apologize. She was convicted for her speech, but the courts found her speech to disrupt the religious peace, and not freedom of opinion. Turns out disrupting religious peace is illegal in Austria, which is a stupid law.
    - XCabbage 8y ago
      No, everything you say here is incorrect. The case being described in that article IS the appeal to the ECHR, which upheld her conviction.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - cyphar 8y ago

afroboy 8y ago

No more Israel criticism then or we labelled antisemitism, On what basis they trying to define terrorism? because where i live what USA is doing with their drones is considered terrorism.

dao- 8y ago
Where do you live and why are US drones a reason to criticize Israel? You're right that the term is a bit nebulous, but this isn't a new problem. E.g. criminal law already treats terrorism differently in many countries. As is often the case in law, courts would have to figure what should be considered terrorism. Courts in your country could decide differently than in mine, which can be a good thing or a bad thing depending on your point of view.
- afroboy 8y ago
  > Where do you live and why are US drones a reason to criticize Israel? Sorry, those were intended as two different examples.

deugtniet 8y ago

This proposal is very bad. But luckily it is only a proposal. The council and parliament will still vote for this, before it becomes European law. Both bodies will likely oppose, and the proposal will be significantly amended. I honestly don't see the commissions reasoning on why this is a good proposal. But I don't see how the EU as an institution is bashed for this. This is a similar process as occurs in any other member state and other democracies. Not to mention the US, with it's secret laws and national security letters. My personal opinion is that illegal content (CP, inciting violence) should be moderated quickly, where failure to act has big consequences. What I don't like about the proposal is that it is enforced by governments, and not some judiciary body. I hope the council and parliament will amend the proposal in such a way this is reflected in a final law.

dogma1138 8y ago
Many countries in the EU have already passed or are in the passing of local similar legislation including Germany: https://www.bmjv.de/SharedDocs/Gesetzgebungsverfahren/Dokumente/NetzDG_engl.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=2 https://www.bmjv.de/SharedDocs/Gesetzgebungsverfahren/Dokume...
raxxorrax 8y ago
It is normal political procedure to have an aweful initial proposal so that amendments seem like a lesser evil, while still being bad. I doubt we really have a need to act on these issues in the first place and that was explicitly not the goal of those who initiated this proposal. You just need to take a look at who proposed it. So the question about illegal content is completely misplaced.
- doombolt 8y ago
  That's why we need tools to permanently ban politicians from law making if their proposal is awful enough. Kind of "[X] No and don't ask again", democracy version. Having thought of it, the main problem here it's no longer "Political party versus political party" when speaking about law making, but "Parliament versus public". For some reason they have shared agenda instead of competing on it. They all unanimously want to sell us to copyright holders and secret services so bad, it's only our stupid resistance is what's holding them. Hence, proposal adjustments tricks.

ElBarto 8y ago

Most EU countries already have similar legislation.

lbj 8y ago

The time for the EU has passed. Its too decoupled from the real world, too draconian in its approach. It was created for the sole purpose of making cross-border dealings easy within the EU but on it's own initiative its grown into a monster that regulates everything from the amount of cinnamon on buns to blogposts written online.

ahartmetz 8y ago
The EU was created to prevent further wars in Europe. Nowadays it is also seen as necessary for European countries to represent their interests in the world.
- timrichard 8y ago
  That's the popular quote, but presumably something was preventing war in Europe prior to the creation of the EU in 1993. The European Coal and Steel Community (grandfather of the EU) was created in 1952 to regulate production of these materials, and address the risk of massive re-armament. I'm not convinced how relevant that is after the US detonated the first atomic weapon in 1945. IMHO, NATO has been the factor in preventing war in Europe during the last 70 years.
  - throwaway488212 8y ago
    > NATO has been the factor in preventing war in Europe during the last 70 years. NATO was significantly involved in the most recent European wars (the Yugoslav Wars). Now you could argue they were "peacekeeping" (and of course there were many atrocities that occurred during the Yugoslav Wars) but that's what a certain country claimed about "Operation Iraqi Freedom". I would contest that NATO prevented any wars in Europe, they definitely were involved in at least one.
  - doktrin 8y ago
    You were downvoted but you're obviously correct. This idea that the EU is responsible for preventing wars on the continent just doesn't stand up to any reasonable examination.

buboard 8y ago

who cares, as long as it hurts the US companies it will pass. Europe needs to protect its borders from americans CEOs who are taking our jobs. We need to build a Wall , and they are going to pay for it