4 ms·

The system is not exactly DCMA-style as you don't have to first take down the content and the provider can actually fight the decision on his own - which actual

The system is not exactly DCMA-style as you don't have to first take down the content and the provider can actually fight the decision on his own - which actually happens from time to time. Small providers and private persons obviously still suffer since they have a hard time defending but I seriously can't think of a better alternative. There are morons on the internet and there need to be ways to enforce a takedown for hate speech IMHO.

maxlybbert 11y ago
> There are morons on the internet and there need to be ways to enforce a takedown for hate speech Why? I understand that if I run a blog I may not want to be associated with some comments people leave, so I have an incentive to police the comment section. But why should I be required to remove comments that other people may find offensive? Even comments that can only be taken as offensive? First, if people feel a need to advertise ignorance, intolerance, immaturity, etc. I see no reason to keep them from doing so. It makes life a lot easier for the rest of us when we need to determine who to associate with. Second, in the US, the accepted solution for speech you disagree with is more speech, not less. Don't silence your enemies; destroy their arguments. Show how they're immature, intolerant, ignorant, etc. I prefer to win the debate by having the better argument instead of by silencing critics.
- marak830 11y ago
  This, im tired of having to worry if some speech will upset someone. HN has a fairly decent system of hiding oncw downvotes, arstechnica does as well. Maybe its time some people began acting like adults, and engaging in debate, or even just ignoring it completly. Someone called your company shit? So freaking what. Your a company, not a holy relic, suck it up and keep going, it wont matter in 3 minutes.
  - icebraining 11y ago
    The discussion was about hate speech; calling some company shit is not hate speech under any legislation I know of. Let's not fall into arguing against strawmen.
    - marak830 11y ago
      Sorry i should have specified, i mean in a more generalised manner. But even then, do words really effect people that much? If the community has the power to downvote/hide idiotic comments, and to argue through rationalised speech, theres no need to get your panties in a bunch.
      - icebraining 11y ago
        Yes, words really affect people that much, but not in the way you're thinking. The problem that these laws are trying to address isn't (only) that some people might get their "panties in a bunch", but that those comments are often posted with the intention of promoting underground political movements with roots in the hateful ideologies that have provoked much of the violence in the past century. This isn't dead history, it's very much alive and growing, particularly since the crisis. Now, I personally think free speech is a crucial value, and besides I don't think these laws will help much with the real problem, but I don't think it's helpful to characterize this is just some easily offended people trying to avoid reading bad words.
        autokad 11y ago
        hateful ideologies is subjective. nor should it be illegal in any country that claims to have free speech. furthermore, forcing them underground really doesn't help anyone. personally, i think its in companies best interests to promote the best arena for users to interact, they don't need the governments sticky fingers in the mess, nobody does. it can also be used as a way of taking out competitors, just keep posting things with fake accounts and keep requesting the government to ask them to remove the comments or get shut down.
        icebraining 11y ago
        I completely agree; that's exactly what I meant in my last paragraph. I just dislike the trivialization of the problem.
        mikerichards 11y ago
- learnstats2 11y ago
  > in the US, the accepted solution for speech you disagree with is more speech, not less. Although, I respect the argument you have made here, you may find that this is a cultural difference between the US and the EU. In the US, you have Fox News. Whatever you might think about the message Fox News is sending out, they control the message that people hear. In general, the media controls the narrative. A small number of media outlets are the real beneficiaries of free speech. In what way are their opponents able to speak? A small number of powerful elites have unrestricted control over what speech people actually get to hear. This happens on scales large and small - it's notable that cults are protected by the First Amendment. And, this is the public's loss. It's not too much better than that in the EU but at least we can prevent a television station or media baron or cult leader from broadcasting hate speech.
  - stvswn 11y ago
    Are you suggesting that Fox News should be censored? And how do you decide what is a cult vs. what is a religion? "Hate speech," btw, has no legal definition in the US judicial system. The term doesn't exist in First Amendment jurisprudence. How does the EU define it? I'm quite happy to be thus reminded of our freedoms in the U.S.; Lord help us if we go down this route.
  - autokad 11y ago
    "powerful elites have unrestricted control over what speech people actually get to hear" they are called college professors.
  - mikerichards 11y ago
    Whatever you might think about the message Fox News is sending out, they control the message that people hear Like I control the message that my co-worker or anybody else hears when I'm speaking to them? In what way are their opponents able to speak? As in opponents, you mean MSNBC, CNN, all the networks, all the major newspapers, all the cultural HBO shows, and tens of thousands of websites?
  - maxlybbert 11y ago
    I recognize it's a cultural difference. Which, to be honest, was the reason I qualified the statement as "in the US, ..." > In the US, you have Fox News. Whatever you might think > about the message Fox News is sending out, they control > the message that people hear. In general, the media > controls the narrative. A small number of media outlets > are the real beneficiaries of free speech. In what way > are their opponents able to speak? I would consider that more a question of Freedom of the Press, although it's certainly intertwined with Freedom of Speech. And there's an old quote that "Freedom of the Press only applies to people who have one [a press]." Luckily, it's been getting cheaper to get a message out to, potentially, millions of people. Occasionally, bloggers embarrass professional reporters. > A small number of powerful elites have unrestricted > control over what speech people actually get to hear. ... > > It's not too much better than that in the EU but at least > we can prevent a television station or media baron or > cult leader from broadcasting hate speech. I don't think the "at least" is something to be happy with. I realize that the governments currently running France, Germany, Britain, Switzerland, Spain, Portugal, Greece, etc. are more trustworthy than, say, the Russian government. But you have something of a guarantee that -- no matter how much you trust your current government -- eventually politicians you don't trust will take control. If a government has the authority to punish media owners or reporters, then eventually that authority will be abused.
fweespeech 11y ago
> Small providers and private persons obviously still suffer since they have a hard time defending but I seriously can't think of a better alternative. There are morons on the internet and there need to be ways to enforce a takedown for hate speech IMHO. 1) That already exists in the Estonia case and they complied with it. They still were sued under other legalities in Estonia. 2) The fact you are perfectly happy to trample the rights of people to weak to defend themselves legally is exactly why I have a problem with you. 3) If they are morons, and you are unable to sway people without resorting to force with your superior intellect and speech....maybe your belief in your inherent superiority is illusory. 4) For the most part the solution is more speech, not less. Really the only time "more speech" isn't the solution is the publishing of private facts about private individuals as the ability to do so could be construed as a form of force.
michaelmrose 11y ago
Why does there need to be a way to takedown hate speech? Moderation provides a way for communities to decide what they will and wont accept and you can choose what communities you would like to be a part of. If a person spews hateful garbage all over the forum report or comments look to the people that run the community to take out the trash. If they wont find a different community. There is no reason you ought to be able to shut down speech because YOU find it offensive. It sounds great when its happening to a lunatic spewing hate but its a perfect tool to squelch free thought and discussion and it can and will be used for less benign uses if you put that tool in the hands of government.
- Xylakant 11y ago
  Because (hate) speech and (cyber)bullying can hurt and even kill people by pushing them into suicide. It's easy to ignore for you and me, presumable both straight white male in a secured position with a good solid job and enough free time at our hands for idle discussions on HN, but much harder so for people from minorities, with prior (mental) issues or other hardships to deal with. Relying on a community works only where such a community exists, but twitter is not HN where moderators can and do take out the trash, it's a commercial enterprise with limited incentive to spend money on curbing even the most extreme cases and I think that's where some external entity needs to step in and remind them - and that's the law. And while such tools may be in the hand of the government, in germany for example the government does not have standing to sue. It's only the arbiter.
  - fineman 11y ago
    Bullets kill, which is unfair if you think about it. Why don't we organize a circle and come to a consensus that they really shouldn't because it's often used to silence valid discourse? ... That's also why we shouldn't waste a lot of time on why we should block hate speech. We cannot. If you care to confront reality you must defeat it in other ways.
    - Xylakant 11y ago
      I differ. I'm well aware that it's impossible to really block anything on the internet, just as it's impossible to really block any kind of speech in the real world. But we can try and curb the worst excesses - threats of death and violence - in the "public" spaces of the internet, that is twitter, facebook and so on. It's not only a way to make those spaces feel safer for those who are less privileged than us, it's also a statement from us, as the society that certain behavior is not accepted - because in the end, that's all a law is: A statement that we don't accept or condone murder, theft or other behavior and we, as the society will hand out punishment. And if you think about it - we punish putting bullets into people until they're maimed or dead - why should we not punish putting words into people until they're maimed or dead.
tsotha 11y ago
>There are morons on the internet and there need to be ways to enforce a takedown for hate speech IMHO. No. God no. This is functionally no different from every justification for censorship since the invention of the written word. How can the expansion and flexibility of the term "hate speech" not tip you off to the foolishness of this position?
- icebraining 11y ago
  Playing Devil's advocate, just because the term "hate speech" is vague, doesn't mean the laws must be.
  - tsotha 11y ago
    Speech is too complicated to spell out things explicitly. There are too many ways to imply things ambiguously, particularly when you take context into account. In practice what you do with hate speech laws is give the government tools to arrest people it doesn't like and ignore the sorts of speech you thought you were banning.
  - Retra 11y ago
    I take it you don't know what an idiom is?
    - icebraining 11y ago
      I thought I used one right in the beginning of my post. Care to be more specific, please?
      - Retra 11y ago
        If you try to create laws prohibiting hate speech, you can get around them by creating idioms. So your laws have to account for context, and that's not something laws are able to do effectively. In fact, the less vague your laws are, the less able they are to account for context.
fineman 11y ago
> there need to be ways to [...] You may want ways the way people want a second coming, or the universe to be flat instead of open, but those are wishes. Every properly implemented HTTPS site is a TOR gateway, every ethereum (or other CC2.0+) script a HTTPS-TOR gatway, and so forth. To the degree you stop it, you also crush also general purpose computing. Curse gravity and take 1d6 damage per meter fallen, or grab the rope and suffer modest friction-burns. Ultimately you combat violence with prosperity, and ignorance with education. There aren't a lot of short-cuts.
Tiksi 11y ago
I find your comment offensive and see it as hate speech. I demand it be taken down.

maxlybbert 11y ago

> There are morons on the internet and there need to be ways to enforce a takedown for hate speech Why? I understand that if I run a blog I may not want to be associated with some comments people leave, so I have an incentive to police the comment section. But why should I be required to remove comments that other people may find offensive? Even comments that can only be taken as offensive? First, if people feel a need to advertise ignorance, intolerance, immaturity, etc. I see no reason to keep them from doing so. It makes life a lot easier for the rest of us when we need to determine who to associate with. Second, in the US, the accepted solution for speech you disagree with is more speech, not less. Don't silence your enemies; destroy their arguments. Show how they're immature, intolerant, ignorant, etc. I prefer to win the debate by having the better argument instead of by silencing critics.

marak830 11y ago
This, im tired of having to worry if some speech will upset someone. HN has a fairly decent system of hiding oncw downvotes, arstechnica does as well. Maybe its time some people began acting like adults, and engaging in debate, or even just ignoring it completly. Someone called your company shit? So freaking what. Your a company, not a holy relic, suck it up and keep going, it wont matter in 3 minutes.
- icebraining 11y ago
  The discussion was about hate speech; calling some company shit is not hate speech under any legislation I know of. Let's not fall into arguing against strawmen.
  - marak830 11y ago
    Sorry i should have specified, i mean in a more generalised manner. But even then, do words really effect people that much? If the community has the power to downvote/hide idiotic comments, and to argue through rationalised speech, theres no need to get your panties in a bunch.
    - icebraining 11y ago
      Yes, words really affect people that much, but not in the way you're thinking. The problem that these laws are trying to address isn't (only) that some people might get their "panties in a bunch", but that those comments are often posted with the intention of promoting underground political movements with roots in the hateful ideologies that have provoked much of the violence in the past century. This isn't dead history, it's very much alive and growing, particularly since the crisis. Now, I personally think free speech is a crucial value, and besides I don't think these laws will help much with the real problem, but I don't think it's helpful to characterize this is just some easily offended people trying to avoid reading bad words.
      - autokad 11y ago
        hateful ideologies is subjective. nor should it be illegal in any country that claims to have free speech. furthermore, forcing them underground really doesn't help anyone. personally, i think its in companies best interests to promote the best arena for users to interact, they don't need the governments sticky fingers in the mess, nobody does. it can also be used as a way of taking out competitors, just keep posting things with fake accounts and keep requesting the government to ask them to remove the comments or get shut down.
        icebraining 11y ago
        I completely agree; that's exactly what I meant in my last paragraph. I just dislike the trivialization of the problem.
      - mikerichards 11y ago
learnstats2 11y ago
> in the US, the accepted solution for speech you disagree with is more speech, not less. Although, I respect the argument you have made here, you may find that this is a cultural difference between the US and the EU. In the US, you have Fox News. Whatever you might think about the message Fox News is sending out, they control the message that people hear. In general, the media controls the narrative. A small number of media outlets are the real beneficiaries of free speech. In what way are their opponents able to speak? A small number of powerful elites have unrestricted control over what speech people actually get to hear. This happens on scales large and small - it's notable that cults are protected by the First Amendment. And, this is the public's loss. It's not too much better than that in the EU but at least we can prevent a television station or media baron or cult leader from broadcasting hate speech.
- stvswn 11y ago
  Are you suggesting that Fox News should be censored? And how do you decide what is a cult vs. what is a religion? "Hate speech," btw, has no legal definition in the US judicial system. The term doesn't exist in First Amendment jurisprudence. How does the EU define it? I'm quite happy to be thus reminded of our freedoms in the U.S.; Lord help us if we go down this route.
- autokad 11y ago
  "powerful elites have unrestricted control over what speech people actually get to hear" they are called college professors.
- mikerichards 11y ago
  Whatever you might think about the message Fox News is sending out, they control the message that people hear Like I control the message that my co-worker or anybody else hears when I'm speaking to them? In what way are their opponents able to speak? As in opponents, you mean MSNBC, CNN, all the networks, all the major newspapers, all the cultural HBO shows, and tens of thousands of websites?
- maxlybbert 11y ago
  I recognize it's a cultural difference. Which, to be honest, was the reason I qualified the statement as "in the US, ..." > In the US, you have Fox News. Whatever you might think > about the message Fox News is sending out, they control > the message that people hear. In general, the media > controls the narrative. A small number of media outlets > are the real beneficiaries of free speech. In what way > are their opponents able to speak? I would consider that more a question of Freedom of the Press, although it's certainly intertwined with Freedom of Speech. And there's an old quote that "Freedom of the Press only applies to people who have one [a press]." Luckily, it's been getting cheaper to get a message out to, potentially, millions of people. Occasionally, bloggers embarrass professional reporters. > A small number of powerful elites have unrestricted > control over what speech people actually get to hear. ... > > It's not too much better than that in the EU but at least > we can prevent a television station or media baron or > cult leader from broadcasting hate speech. I don't think the "at least" is something to be happy with. I realize that the governments currently running France, Germany, Britain, Switzerland, Spain, Portugal, Greece, etc. are more trustworthy than, say, the Russian government. But you have something of a guarantee that -- no matter how much you trust your current government -- eventually politicians you don't trust will take control. If a government has the authority to punish media owners or reporters, then eventually that authority will be abused.

fweespeech 11y ago

> Small providers and private persons obviously still suffer since they have a hard time defending but I seriously can't think of a better alternative. There are morons on the internet and there need to be ways to enforce a takedown for hate speech IMHO. 1) That already exists in the Estonia case and they complied with it. They still were sued under other legalities in Estonia. 2) The fact you are perfectly happy to trample the rights of people to weak to defend themselves legally is exactly why I have a problem with you. 3) If they are morons, and you are unable to sway people without resorting to force with your superior intellect and speech....maybe your belief in your inherent superiority is illusory. 4) For the most part the solution is more speech, not less. Really the only time "more speech" isn't the solution is the publishing of private facts about private individuals as the ability to do so could be construed as a form of force.

michaelmrose 11y ago

Why does there need to be a way to takedown hate speech? Moderation provides a way for communities to decide what they will and wont accept and you can choose what communities you would like to be a part of. If a person spews hateful garbage all over the forum report or comments look to the people that run the community to take out the trash. If they wont find a different community. There is no reason you ought to be able to shut down speech because YOU find it offensive. It sounds great when its happening to a lunatic spewing hate but its a perfect tool to squelch free thought and discussion and it can and will be used for less benign uses if you put that tool in the hands of government.

Xylakant 11y ago
Because (hate) speech and (cyber)bullying can hurt and even kill people by pushing them into suicide. It's easy to ignore for you and me, presumable both straight white male in a secured position with a good solid job and enough free time at our hands for idle discussions on HN, but much harder so for people from minorities, with prior (mental) issues or other hardships to deal with. Relying on a community works only where such a community exists, but twitter is not HN where moderators can and do take out the trash, it's a commercial enterprise with limited incentive to spend money on curbing even the most extreme cases and I think that's where some external entity needs to step in and remind them - and that's the law. And while such tools may be in the hand of the government, in germany for example the government does not have standing to sue. It's only the arbiter.
- fineman 11y ago
  Bullets kill, which is unfair if you think about it. Why don't we organize a circle and come to a consensus that they really shouldn't because it's often used to silence valid discourse? ... That's also why we shouldn't waste a lot of time on why we should block hate speech. We cannot. If you care to confront reality you must defeat it in other ways.
  - Xylakant 11y ago
    I differ. I'm well aware that it's impossible to really block anything on the internet, just as it's impossible to really block any kind of speech in the real world. But we can try and curb the worst excesses - threats of death and violence - in the "public" spaces of the internet, that is twitter, facebook and so on. It's not only a way to make those spaces feel safer for those who are less privileged than us, it's also a statement from us, as the society that certain behavior is not accepted - because in the end, that's all a law is: A statement that we don't accept or condone murder, theft or other behavior and we, as the society will hand out punishment. And if you think about it - we punish putting bullets into people until they're maimed or dead - why should we not punish putting words into people until they're maimed or dead.

tsotha 11y ago

>There are morons on the internet and there need to be ways to enforce a takedown for hate speech IMHO. No. God no. This is functionally no different from every justification for censorship since the invention of the written word. How can the expansion and flexibility of the term "hate speech" not tip you off to the foolishness of this position?

icebraining 11y ago
Playing Devil's advocate, just because the term "hate speech" is vague, doesn't mean the laws must be.
- tsotha 11y ago
  Speech is too complicated to spell out things explicitly. There are too many ways to imply things ambiguously, particularly when you take context into account. In practice what you do with hate speech laws is give the government tools to arrest people it doesn't like and ignore the sorts of speech you thought you were banning.
- Retra 11y ago
  I take it you don't know what an idiom is?
  - icebraining 11y ago
    I thought I used one right in the beginning of my post. Care to be more specific, please?
    - Retra 11y ago
      If you try to create laws prohibiting hate speech, you can get around them by creating idioms. So your laws have to account for context, and that's not something laws are able to do effectively. In fact, the less vague your laws are, the less able they are to account for context.

fineman 11y ago

> there need to be ways to [...] You may want ways the way people want a second coming, or the universe to be flat instead of open, but those are wishes. Every properly implemented HTTPS site is a TOR gateway, every ethereum (or other CC2.0+) script a HTTPS-TOR gatway, and so forth. To the degree you stop it, you also crush also general purpose computing. Curse gravity and take 1d6 damage per meter fallen, or grab the rope and suffer modest friction-burns. Ultimately you combat violence with prosperity, and ignorance with education. There aren't a lot of short-cuts.

Tiksi 11y ago

I find your comment offensive and see it as hate speech. I demand it be taken down.