18 ms·

This is sad and disgusting, our speech is being limited completely unfairly and without our consent and we're being told that it's a good thing. The fact that

This is sad and disgusting, our speech is being limited completely unfairly and without our consent and we're being told that it's a good thing. The fact that they're trying to package it as some sort of well-deserved revenge against silicon valley big tech is just tasteless. The EU's big gripe against these companies is their tax situation, if they really wanted to change that then they'd be looking into a unified approach to taxing companies within the EU borders, not hitting the final nail into the coffin of fair use in Europe. I really envy the US for its constitution sometimes.

mvanga 8y ago
I wanted to add that, in the US, it isn't primarily the constitution that protects its freedoms, but rather the structure of their government and how it's been setup for gridlock among all the parties involved (not that that property has been preserved too well of late). Antonin Scalia explained it really well in one of his appearances in front of a Senate Judiciary Committee: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ggz_gd--UO0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ggz_gd--UO0 I admit to not fully understanding the intricacies of the EU system but, on the surface, it does appear to be setup for much lower friction when attempting to pass sweeping legislation like this one.
- HannibalBaka 8y ago
  Believe me, there is way more friction in the EU system, especially due to the principle of subsidiarity. This copyright directive enjoys the benefit of only requiring a qualified majority in the Council (legislative chamber representing the national governments). Most sensitive issues require unanimity, meaning that every member state has the power to veto legislation.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > I wanted to add that, in the US, it isn't primarily the constitution that protects its freedoms, but rather the structure of their government and how it's been setup for gridlock among all the parties involved That protects established injustices as much as it protects established freedoms. Perhaps more, since the fundamental structure incorporates a number of injustices.
  - microcolonel 8y ago
    > That protects established injustices as much as it protects established freedoms. Perhaps more, since the fundamental structure incorporates a number of injustices. Such as?
  - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
    > That protects established injustices as much as it protects established freedoms. Perhaps more, since the fundamental structure incorporates a number of injustices. Not really. The legislature had to pass a law creating slavery, the executive had to sign it, the courts had to uphold it. Any of them could have said no. The same was true of laws prohibiting women from working, or Jim Crow laws, or laws excluding same sex marriage, etc. To enforce any of these things required broad assent, as designed, and they mostly fell to individual branches having enough. Lincoln unilaterally ended slavery, the courts struck down laws against same sex marriage, etc. There is only a very thin range of things checks and balances actually prevent. First it has to be something the government has to act to prevent rather than merely cease to prop up, which as injustices go is pretty rare in its own right. Then you need at the same time enough support to prohibit it in a simple majority system but not enough support to prohibit it in a system of checks and balances, which crosses off all the most egregious ones -- there is >80% support for laws requiring schools to accept black students, so checks and balances don't prevent those laws from existing, and they do. What you're left with is the things with 50%+1 support but not e.g. 67% support. But that's what checks and balances are supposed to do -- prevent you from passing laws against things nearly half the country doesn't support having a law against. If you want that law then you need to convince more people first. Is that really so bad?
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      > Not really. The legislature had to pass a law creating slavery, the executive had to sign it, the courts had to uphold it Um, no. They didn't have to do that under the system established by the US Constitution. Because slavery predated that system, and was protected by it. What would have taken positive action under the Constitution was abolishing slavery. But not only were there explicit protections for slavery in the Constitution (the first clause of Article I, Section 9; the next to last clause of Article V), but indirect protection against abolition was also provided by the mechanism the apportionment of seats in the House of Representatives (where having slaves gave extra representation), by the allocation of seats in the Senate (equal per State representation gave disproportionate power to the enfranchised citizens of slave states (who chose the government that chose the Senators, prior to direct election of Senators), and the electoral college (which as well enfranchised citizens in any state that disenfranchised any people through indirect election, blended the apportionment systems of the Senate and House, both of which favored slave states.) > Lincoln unilaterally ended slavery No, he didn't; slavery was ended (as a matter of law, and aside from penal slavery) by the 13th Amendment, which not only wasn't a unilateral Presidential act, but it wasn't even an act in which the President has a formal role. And the abolition of slavery didn't abolish all of the structural injustices put in place to protect it. > What you're left with is the things with 50%+1 support but not e.g. 67% support. But that's what checks and balances are supposed to do -- prevent you from passing laws against things nearly half the country doesn't support having a law against. If The system the US has allows control of both houses of Congress and the Presidency without majority support of the voting population, especially easily if the geographic distribution of your support favors small states. So not only does it not require supermajority and not prevent laws which have a mere majority support, it actually facilitates laws with minority support as long as it is the structurally favored minority. And it creates a very high bar which requires broad active support by the strucurally favored minority to reverse that arrangements, as it requires a Constitutional Amendment, a process in which the disapprobation of citizens of smaller states is even stronger than their disproportionate power in choosing the political branches of the federal government, and thus setting federal legislation.
phicoh 8y ago
Europe has a long history of shooting itself in the foot with respect to copyright. No need to blame the EU in this case. Relatively short copyrights are good for culture. You need a common understanding to build upon to produce new works. A long time ago, Europe moved to have lifetime-plus copyright terms. Its not all bad though. For a long time, the reproduction and distribution of copyrighted material was expensive. Digital media and the internet mostly solved those issues. Long copyright terms remain a problem, but there are plenty of opportunities for smaller parties to distribute content.
flexie 8y ago
Don't frame this as a free speech issue. Freedom of speech is as protected in the EU as it is in the US, possibly more. Freedom of speech in Europe is not just an EU question, but also - and mainly - up to constitutions and legislation of the member states. So of course it varies. But there is less surveillance in Europe on what citizens say online, European media is less centralized than American, there are more parties with opposing views in parliaments, much less political correctness in both politics, business life, and social life. Most importantly, European courts is most member states uphold the protection of the individuals' freedom of speech. This is legislation aimed at Google and Facebook, and other large companies, yes. Go back 15-20 years, and nobody would have thought that Google would get away with using the creations of content providers without paying a fair share. I don't see anything wrong in Google or Facebook being forced to apply filters. We have gotten used to what is truly an disgusting situation where creators of music, journalism etc. don't get paid and their works are put out on Youtube, Facebook etc. I would have liked to see a higher threshold so that only truly large companies had to worry about filters, but again; these filters will likely be easy to find in 10 different versions for free on GitHub in a couple of years, and better ones you can license for a small fee. But I agree, Europe should finally start to tax Facebook, Google, Amazon etc.
- anonymou2 8y ago
  Try making jokes about Catholic church or Catholicism in Spain.
- cabaalis 8y ago
  > Freedom of speech is as protected in the EU as it is in the US, possibly more. As an American, this example tells me very differently. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-43478925 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-43478925
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- wbxrs 8y ago
  >Don't frame this as a free speech issue. Freedom of speech is as protected in the EU as it is in the US, possibly more. Yeah, no. This (blasphemy laws) would be unthinkable in the US: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/its-not-free-speech-criticize-muhammad-echr-ruled/574174/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/its-not-fr...
poilcn 8y ago
Well, it isn't surprising if you consider that the European Union was build based on an organization called « European Coal and Steel Community ». Basically Coal-Steel syndicate controlled by European Oligarchs. That's the nature of the EU.
microcolonel 8y ago
> ...completely unfairly and without our consent and we're being told that it's a good thing. This is, more or less, the present and future of the EU on all matters. They are now trying to raise a supranational army (try to imagine what legitimate purpose that could have). They encourage member states to suppress political dissent, and wield power spitefully against those who oppose them (see all of the various cruel and malicious acts and positions EU leaders take against Britain for deigning to resist the expansion of EU powers). The goal is quite clearly a Germanic empire ruling Europe, just a bit late because they had to pivot from their first approach.
- ben_w 8y ago
  > see all of the various cruel and malicious acts and positions EU leaders take against Britain for deigning to resist the expansion of EU powers I have yet to see even one example of that, given how many opt-outs the UK was granted and how much the UK actively encouraged the expansion of the EU. Heck, the mere existence of Article 50 as an option puts it ahead of the behaviour of the federal government of the USA in the American Civil War. It’s not the fault of Brussels or Berlin that the single largest party in Westminster: * Invoked article 50, a 2-year process, a few months after it’s own Permanent Representative to the EU wrote that it would take ten years * Followed this with a surprise general election, which unnecessarily lost them seats * Set a bunch of “red lines” which were incompatible with their own goals * Made no attempt to win over any skeptics in their own party, or in their opposition, after losing seats * Spent 18 months trying to negotiate a withdrawal agreement, where the “Irish backstop” was their own solution to the RoI/NI border, because of their own red lines and the red lines of their supply and confidence partner, the DUP, who they only needed the support of because of losing seats in an election they didn’t need to call * Chosen as Foreign Secretary a man who later said “fuck business” because they didn’t like his plan * Were then surprised by the Westminster MPs, who had fairly consistently been ignored and lied to by the UK government, voting down the agreement by the largest margin on record * Was unable to agree with itself if it did or didn’t need to plan for no deal because the conversations typically went “they need us more than we need them” “no” “that’s just project fear” * Only seriously considered “no deal” in December 2018, describing it as “unforeseeable” despite having been warned of it for about two years continuously; and as a result contracted a ferry company with no money and no ferries who copied their terms and conditions from a fast food delivery company, to run services between a mothballed UK port that needed dredging and an already-at-capacity EU port * Just had 3 (plus 8 opposition, total 11) MPs resign, including one Tory from a Tory safe seat, whose goal is now the destruction of the Tory party What the EU has done is, apparently, start planning to send food parcels to the UK. The Express newspaper apparently calls that plan “blackmail”. I don’t even understand how anyone can say that without breaking into laughter.
isostatic 8y ago
6 of the 8 MEPs representing me have consented to it. Are you in favour of direct democracy on every single vote of every single law at every single level of government?
- allendoerfer 8y ago
  If you do that, you get stuff like Brexit.
- AnthonyMouse 8y ago
  The place where direct democracy works is as a veto. If the legislature passes a law and you collect X number of signatures against it, it goes up for popular vote. If the people don't approve, it doesn't pass. Then you mitigate populism creating ill-conceived laws, because the legislature has to introduce and pass them first, but then the legislature can't as easily pass corrupt laws because they can be challenged and shot down by the people. It would also be pretty great if you could challenge existing laws in this way, e.g. for any that hasn't been challenged this way in five years and you get the signatures again, it can be used for repeal.
  - isostatic 8y ago
    We have unpopular laws that populism would like to see repealed - in the UK, the human rights act for example.
    - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
      That is what constitutions are for. You can have things that require a supermajority to enact and therefore a supermajority to repeal.

mvanga 8y ago

I wanted to add that, in the US, it isn't primarily the constitution that protects its freedoms, but rather the structure of their government and how it's been setup for gridlock among all the parties involved (not that that property has been preserved too well of late). Antonin Scalia explained it really well in one of his appearances in front of a Senate Judiciary Committee: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ggz_gd--UO0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ggz_gd--UO0 I admit to not fully understanding the intricacies of the EU system but, on the surface, it does appear to be setup for much lower friction when attempting to pass sweeping legislation like this one.

HannibalBaka 8y ago
Believe me, there is way more friction in the EU system, especially due to the principle of subsidiarity. This copyright directive enjoys the benefit of only requiring a qualified majority in the Council (legislative chamber representing the national governments). Most sensitive issues require unanimity, meaning that every member state has the power to veto legislation.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> I wanted to add that, in the US, it isn't primarily the constitution that protects its freedoms, but rather the structure of their government and how it's been setup for gridlock among all the parties involved That protects established injustices as much as it protects established freedoms. Perhaps more, since the fundamental structure incorporates a number of injustices.
- microcolonel 8y ago
  > That protects established injustices as much as it protects established freedoms. Perhaps more, since the fundamental structure incorporates a number of injustices. Such as?
- AnthonyMouse 8y ago
  > That protects established injustices as much as it protects established freedoms. Perhaps more, since the fundamental structure incorporates a number of injustices. Not really. The legislature had to pass a law creating slavery, the executive had to sign it, the courts had to uphold it. Any of them could have said no. The same was true of laws prohibiting women from working, or Jim Crow laws, or laws excluding same sex marriage, etc. To enforce any of these things required broad assent, as designed, and they mostly fell to individual branches having enough. Lincoln unilaterally ended slavery, the courts struck down laws against same sex marriage, etc. There is only a very thin range of things checks and balances actually prevent. First it has to be something the government has to act to prevent rather than merely cease to prop up, which as injustices go is pretty rare in its own right. Then you need at the same time enough support to prohibit it in a simple majority system but not enough support to prohibit it in a system of checks and balances, which crosses off all the most egregious ones -- there is >80% support for laws requiring schools to accept black students, so checks and balances don't prevent those laws from existing, and they do. What you're left with is the things with 50%+1 support but not e.g. 67% support. But that's what checks and balances are supposed to do -- prevent you from passing laws against things nearly half the country doesn't support having a law against. If you want that law then you need to convince more people first. Is that really so bad?
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > Not really. The legislature had to pass a law creating slavery, the executive had to sign it, the courts had to uphold it Um, no. They didn't have to do that under the system established by the US Constitution. Because slavery predated that system, and was protected by it. What would have taken positive action under the Constitution was abolishing slavery. But not only were there explicit protections for slavery in the Constitution (the first clause of Article I, Section 9; the next to last clause of Article V), but indirect protection against abolition was also provided by the mechanism the apportionment of seats in the House of Representatives (where having slaves gave extra representation), by the allocation of seats in the Senate (equal per State representation gave disproportionate power to the enfranchised citizens of slave states (who chose the government that chose the Senators, prior to direct election of Senators), and the electoral college (which as well enfranchised citizens in any state that disenfranchised any people through indirect election, blended the apportionment systems of the Senate and House, both of which favored slave states.) > Lincoln unilaterally ended slavery No, he didn't; slavery was ended (as a matter of law, and aside from penal slavery) by the 13th Amendment, which not only wasn't a unilateral Presidential act, but it wasn't even an act in which the President has a formal role. And the abolition of slavery didn't abolish all of the structural injustices put in place to protect it. > What you're left with is the things with 50%+1 support but not e.g. 67% support. But that's what checks and balances are supposed to do -- prevent you from passing laws against things nearly half the country doesn't support having a law against. If The system the US has allows control of both houses of Congress and the Presidency without majority support of the voting population, especially easily if the geographic distribution of your support favors small states. So not only does it not require supermajority and not prevent laws which have a mere majority support, it actually facilitates laws with minority support as long as it is the structurally favored minority. And it creates a very high bar which requires broad active support by the strucurally favored minority to reverse that arrangements, as it requires a Constitutional Amendment, a process in which the disapprobation of citizens of smaller states is even stronger than their disproportionate power in choosing the political branches of the federal government, and thus setting federal legislation.

phicoh 8y ago

Europe has a long history of shooting itself in the foot with respect to copyright. No need to blame the EU in this case. Relatively short copyrights are good for culture. You need a common understanding to build upon to produce new works. A long time ago, Europe moved to have lifetime-plus copyright terms. Its not all bad though. For a long time, the reproduction and distribution of copyrighted material was expensive. Digital media and the internet mostly solved those issues. Long copyright terms remain a problem, but there are plenty of opportunities for smaller parties to distribute content.

flexie 8y ago

Don't frame this as a free speech issue. Freedom of speech is as protected in the EU as it is in the US, possibly more. Freedom of speech in Europe is not just an EU question, but also - and mainly - up to constitutions and legislation of the member states. So of course it varies. But there is less surveillance in Europe on what citizens say online, European media is less centralized than American, there are more parties with opposing views in parliaments, much less political correctness in both politics, business life, and social life. Most importantly, European courts is most member states uphold the protection of the individuals' freedom of speech. This is legislation aimed at Google and Facebook, and other large companies, yes. Go back 15-20 years, and nobody would have thought that Google would get away with using the creations of content providers without paying a fair share. I don't see anything wrong in Google or Facebook being forced to apply filters. We have gotten used to what is truly an disgusting situation where creators of music, journalism etc. don't get paid and their works are put out on Youtube, Facebook etc. I would have liked to see a higher threshold so that only truly large companies had to worry about filters, but again; these filters will likely be easy to find in 10 different versions for free on GitHub in a couple of years, and better ones you can license for a small fee. But I agree, Europe should finally start to tax Facebook, Google, Amazon etc.

anonymou2 8y ago
Try making jokes about Catholic church or Catholicism in Spain.
cabaalis 8y ago
> Freedom of speech is as protected in the EU as it is in the US, possibly more. As an American, this example tells me very differently. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-43478925 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-43478925
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
wbxrs 8y ago
>Don't frame this as a free speech issue. Freedom of speech is as protected in the EU as it is in the US, possibly more. Yeah, no. This (blasphemy laws) would be unthinkable in the US: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/its-not-free-speech-criticize-muhammad-echr-ruled/574174/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/its-not-fr...

poilcn 8y ago

Well, it isn't surprising if you consider that the European Union was build based on an organization called « European Coal and Steel Community ». Basically Coal-Steel syndicate controlled by European Oligarchs. That's the nature of the EU.

microcolonel 8y ago

> ...completely unfairly and without our consent and we're being told that it's a good thing. This is, more or less, the present and future of the EU on all matters. They are now trying to raise a supranational army (try to imagine what legitimate purpose that could have). They encourage member states to suppress political dissent, and wield power spitefully against those who oppose them (see all of the various cruel and malicious acts and positions EU leaders take against Britain for deigning to resist the expansion of EU powers). The goal is quite clearly a Germanic empire ruling Europe, just a bit late because they had to pivot from their first approach.

ben_w 8y ago
> see all of the various cruel and malicious acts and positions EU leaders take against Britain for deigning to resist the expansion of EU powers I have yet to see even one example of that, given how many opt-outs the UK was granted and how much the UK actively encouraged the expansion of the EU. Heck, the mere existence of Article 50 as an option puts it ahead of the behaviour of the federal government of the USA in the American Civil War. It’s not the fault of Brussels or Berlin that the single largest party in Westminster: * Invoked article 50, a 2-year process, a few months after it’s own Permanent Representative to the EU wrote that it would take ten years * Followed this with a surprise general election, which unnecessarily lost them seats * Set a bunch of “red lines” which were incompatible with their own goals * Made no attempt to win over any skeptics in their own party, or in their opposition, after losing seats * Spent 18 months trying to negotiate a withdrawal agreement, where the “Irish backstop” was their own solution to the RoI/NI border, because of their own red lines and the red lines of their supply and confidence partner, the DUP, who they only needed the support of because of losing seats in an election they didn’t need to call * Chosen as Foreign Secretary a man who later said “fuck business” because they didn’t like his plan * Were then surprised by the Westminster MPs, who had fairly consistently been ignored and lied to by the UK government, voting down the agreement by the largest margin on record * Was unable to agree with itself if it did or didn’t need to plan for no deal because the conversations typically went “they need us more than we need them” “no” “that’s just project fear” * Only seriously considered “no deal” in December 2018, describing it as “unforeseeable” despite having been warned of it for about two years continuously; and as a result contracted a ferry company with no money and no ferries who copied their terms and conditions from a fast food delivery company, to run services between a mothballed UK port that needed dredging and an already-at-capacity EU port * Just had 3 (plus 8 opposition, total 11) MPs resign, including one Tory from a Tory safe seat, whose goal is now the destruction of the Tory party What the EU has done is, apparently, start planning to send food parcels to the UK. The Express newspaper apparently calls that plan “blackmail”. I don’t even understand how anyone can say that without breaking into laughter.

isostatic 8y ago

6 of the 8 MEPs representing me have consented to it. Are you in favour of direct democracy on every single vote of every single law at every single level of government?

allendoerfer 8y ago
If you do that, you get stuff like Brexit.
AnthonyMouse 8y ago
The place where direct democracy works is as a veto. If the legislature passes a law and you collect X number of signatures against it, it goes up for popular vote. If the people don't approve, it doesn't pass. Then you mitigate populism creating ill-conceived laws, because the legislature has to introduce and pass them first, but then the legislature can't as easily pass corrupt laws because they can be challenged and shot down by the people. It would also be pretty great if you could challenge existing laws in this way, e.g. for any that hasn't been challenged this way in five years and you get the signatures again, it can be used for repeal.
- isostatic 8y ago
  We have unpopular laws that populism would like to see repealed - in the UK, the human rights act for example.
  - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
    That is what constitutions are for. You can have things that require a supermajority to enact and therefore a supermajority to repeal.