EU may force FB to censor content that makes fun of Austrian mayors

[dead0man]

worldwide, not just in Austria or the EU, or at least that's what the Advocate General of the E.U. Court of Justice(**PDF**) recommends should happen.  What horrible things was this soft human called?  A "lousy traitor of the people," a "corrupt oaf," and a member of a "fascist party."  Oh my.

[Former President tack50]

RIP Tender

[dead0man]

RIP Tender

maybe it means he will be protected from the silly jokes?  Apparently people in Europe are babies and need the authorities to protect their delicate emotions.


Like I've said before, I hope the big internet companies just stop doing business with sh**tty govts like the EU and the PRC.  They won't because they think staying will make them more money and money is more important than doing what's right.  Plus, they want the govt censors because it keeps new players out of their game.

[Omega21]

RIP Tender

maybe it means he will be protected from the silly jokes?  Apparently people in Europe are babies and need the authorities to protect their delicate emotions.


Like I've said before, I hope the big internet companies just stop doing business with sh**tty govts like the EU and the PRC.  They won't because they think staying will make them more money and money is more important than doing what's right.  Plus, they want the govt censors because it keeps new players out of their game.

Parts of the EU are, ermmmm, rotten (and that's putting it lightly).

Unfortunately, calls for things like this happen worldwide (not sure if you are familiar with the stunt the Vox dude tried to pull on Crowder).

At least in the US, no sane court would issue such a recommendation.
 

[Sestak]

Goddammit EU.

[Citizen (The) Doctor]

It's that the directive doesn't preclude an order. It sounds more like the AG is pointing out a gap in the legislation if anything.

[OSR stands with Israel]

This is outrageous and shows exactly why the EU is a joke in everyway. Besides FB is headquartered here in the US, the EU cant force anything on FB unless they wanna get in a dispute with the US government as well.


At this point the only reason I find for keeping the EU is economic reasons, if there was a way to do Brexit without hurting the UK in the long run economically I would support that wholeheartedly . I have nothing but contempt left for the EU.

[America Needs R'hllor]

This is outrageous and shows exactly why the EU is a joke in everyway. Besides FB is headquartered here in the US, the EU cant force anything on FB unless they wanna get in a dispute with the US government as well.


At this point the only reason I find for keeping the EU is economic reasons, if there was a way to do Brexit without hurting the UK in the long run economically I would support that wholeheartedly . I have nothing but contempt left for the EU.

Lol, a few generally minor and (especially in this case) inflated mistakes of some beaurocrat or other is just not worth all the peace and prosperity! But it doesn't matter what you think. You don't feel all the positive effects of the EU, and don't care to understand them. It's a good thing you're not a European and your contempt doesn't matter.

[OSR stands with Israel]

This is outrageous and shows exactly why the EU is a joke in everyway. Besides FB is headquartered here in the US, the EU cant force anything on FB unless they wanna get in a dispute with the US government as well.


At this point the only reason I find for keeping the EU is economic reasons, if there was a way to do Brexit without hurting the UK in the long run economically I would support that wholeheartedly . I have nothing but contempt left for the EU.

Lol, a few generally minor and (especially in this case) inflated mistakes of some beaurocrat or other is just not worth all the peace and prosperity! But it doesn't matter what you think. You don't feel all the positive effects of the EU, and don't care to understand them. It's a good thing you're not a European and your contempt doesn't matter.

I have family who live in the UK , they voted for remain like I would have but for economic reasons only. They believe the EU is a disaster as well and dislike it a lot as well, and have very similar criticism as I do. It is possible to be opposed to Brexit while opposing the EU as well because the Brexit leaders werent detailed at all.

This is not minor, freedom of speech is an extremely important issue and forcing a company to censor views the government doesnt like is oppressive and totally out of line. Also FB is an American Corporation, not an EU one and the actions the EU would take here would impact American citizens as well which is 100% not ok. If it only impacted people living in Europe thats one thing , but its a far other to impact American citizens as well.

[America Needs R'hllor]

This is outrageous and shows exactly why the EU is a joke in everyway. Besides FB is headquartered here in the US, the EU cant force anything on FB unless they wanna get in a dispute with the US government as well.


At this point the only reason I find for keeping the EU is economic reasons, if there was a way to do Brexit without hurting the UK in the long run economically I would support that wholeheartedly . I have nothing but contempt left for the EU.

Lol, a few generally minor and (especially in this case) inflated mistakes of some beaurocrat or other is just not worth all the peace and prosperity! But it doesn't matter what you think. You don't feel all the positive effects of the EU, and don't care to understand them. It's a good thing you're not a European and your contempt doesn't matter.

While i tend to agree with you, Israeliguy, you arent european either and dont feel any of the negative effects of the E.U.. I hate to admit it, but the american posters do have one point: the EU wants to do too much, to the point of excessively burdening our lives with regulation. When i went to the eye doctor yesterday, for instance i had to sign a long form that i allow the doctor to use my medical information-due to a EU data protection regulation. Completely stupid obviously. And there are many more examples like this (Article 13....).

Overall the positive benefits of the E.U. outweigh, as you said, and the american posters who think its becoming a eurofascist dictatorship are crazy obviously.

Very fair. I do feel like the mindset of Americans is very different from Europeans and Israelis both and makes them much more likely to view the EU as what you said. It's a country where freedom of speech is valued above all else so much that nazis can freely march in the streets and practically incite genocide without any disturbance. A legitimate view, but a more restrictive view is sometimes (though not to the extent the EU is often going) legitimate too, and some Americans can't seem to comprehend this. Same for their view on sovereignity.

[OSR stands with Israel]

This is outrageous and shows exactly why the EU is a joke in everyway. Besides FB is headquartered here in the US, the EU cant force anything on FB unless they wanna get in a dispute with the US government as well.


At this point the only reason I find for keeping the EU is economic reasons, if there was a way to do Brexit without hurting the UK in the long run economically I would support that wholeheartedly . I have nothing but contempt left for the EU.

Lol, a few generally minor and (especially in this case) inflated mistakes of some beaurocrat or other is just not worth all the peace and prosperity! But it doesn't matter what you think. You don't feel all the positive effects of the EU, and don't care to understand them. It's a good thing you're not a European and your contempt doesn't matter.

While i tend to agree with you, Israeliguy, you arent european either and dont feel any of the negative effects of the E.U.. I hate to admit it, but the american posters do have one point: the EU wants to do too much, to the point of excessively burdening our lives with regulation. When i went to the eye doctor yesterday, for instance i had to sign a long form that i allow the doctor to use my medical information-due to a EU data protection regulation. Completely stupid obviously. And there are many more examples like this (Article 13....).

Overall the positive benefits of the E.U. outweigh, as you said, and the american posters who think its becoming a eurofascist dictatorship are crazy obviously.

Very fair. I do feel like the mindset of Americans is very different from Europeans and Israelis both and makes them much more likely to view the EU as what you said. It's a country where freedom of speech is valued above all else so much that nazis can freely march in the streets and practically incite genocide without any disturbance. A legitimate view, but a more restrictive view is sometimes (though not to the extent the EU is often going) legitimate too, and some Americans can't seem to comprehend this. Same for their view on sovereignity.

Well they have the right to say all the evil things they say but if their speech is directly inciting violence then that can be punished:

The Court held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio

And here in the US , we have one of the strict laws in the world against violent criminals so if any Nazi protestor decides to use violence then that protestor will be locked up for quite some time.



Lastly I 100% believe EU Hate Speech laws are totally counterproductive and yes a violation of free speech rights as well. Restricting speech only makes that viewpoint more popular not more unpopular.

It also misunderstands why the Nazis rose in the first place, they didnt rise becuase the government allowed them to spew their evil speech, they rose:  because of the way WW1 ended, the instability of the Weimer Republic, disastrous economic times and were only were able to become strong enough to start WW2 was because of appeasement. If the British or French stopped Germany when Hitler rearmed the Rhineland then at the very least they would have been stopped from committing all the atrocities they committed. It is even possible that Hitler and the Nazis could have been removed from power by 1937 if these actions were taken.  

The answer to stop far-right extremism is not to restrict speech but to implement policies that keep their view points in the fringes.

[Velasco]

Lastly I 100% believe EU Hate Speech laws are totally counterproductive and yes a violation of free speech rights as well. Restricting speech only makes that viewpoint more popular not more unpopular.

The answer to stop far-right extremism is not to restrict speech but to implement policies that keep their view points in the fringes.

While I concur freedom of speech is sacred and restrictions may be counterproductive,  freedom is not limitless. I don't know if there's an equivalent sentence in English, but there's one in my country that comes to say my personal freedom ends where your freedom begins. I think hate speech legislation follows this principle. Regardless the specific elements of this case and the debatable aspects of this piece of legislation, I think it's necessary some regulation. The question, of course, is where to draw the line between freedom of speech and hate speech. That's always a matter of endless controversy. However, I think there are clear limits such as incitement to violence. Racial, religious or ideological hatred may be interptrered as incitement to violence. Such things are not easy to determine and I tend to think in case of doubt freedom of speech must prevail.

I could agree with you that good policies are the best remedy that keeps extremists at bay, slthough I suspect we could disagree on which ones are good.

Also, as a citizen of the EU I have many criticism to make. The EU has many defects (bureaucracy, lack of internal democracy, complex decision making, etcetera), but its positive aspects in terms of peace and prosperity are undeniable. Despite its many problems and perennial crises, it's necessary and I hope it survives to be reformed in s positive direction. I am tired of certain Euroskeptic garbage (I'm referring to people like Trump and Farage). Never forget that World Wars broke out and Hitler came to power when Europe was a continent of rival nations.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Lastly I 100% believe EU Hate Speech laws are totally counterproductive and yes a violation of free speech rights as well. Restricting speech only makes that viewpoint more popular not more unpopular.

The answer to stop far-right extremism is not to restrict speech but to implement policies that keep their view points in the fringes.

While I concur freedom of speech is sacred and restrictions may be counterproductive,  freedom is not limitless. I don't know if there's an equivalent sentence in English, but there's one in my country that comes to say my personal freedom ends where your freedom begins. I think hate speech legislation follows this principle. Regardless the specific elements of this case and the debatable aspects of this piece of legislation, I think it's necessary some regulation. The question, of course, is where to draw the line between freedom of speech and hate speech. That's always a matter of endless controversy. However, I think there are clear limits such as incitement to violence. Racial, religious or ideological hatred may be interptrered as incitement to violence. Such things are not easy to determine and I tend to think in case of doubt freedom of speech must prevail.

This is what our courts said about this issue:

he Court held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio


This is 100% the correct decision, the government should have no right to stop someone from speaking no matter how hideous they are unless they can prove they are directly inciting imminent lawless actions.

This is not an issue where I believe there is a middle ground at all , it should be as close to absolute as possible , and a nation that tries to limit this freedom even the way they do in Europe is more of a fascist type of action(not saying the nation itself , just the action) than a nation that allows it like the US.

[Velasco]

This is what our courts said about this issue:

he Court held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio


This is 100% the correct decision, the government should have no right to stop someone from speaking no matter how hideous they are unless they can prove they are directly inciting imminent lawless actions.

This is not an issue where I believe there is a middle ground at all , it should be as close to absolute as possible , and a nation that tries to limit this freedom even the way they do in Europe is more of a fascist type of action(not saying the nation itself , just the action) than a nation that allows it like the US.

Personally I think it's not a bad ruling, although  I have more doubts than you on the question. The Court ruled the KKK leader was not going to perprtrate imminent violence or lawless action. Still, there exists hate speech and the incitement of "abstract violence" may inspire others to commit violent or lawless actions. The Court has set the limit on "imminent lawless actions" and has set a precedent in the US. However European countries have their own legal systems and there are European courts where anyone affected by hate speech legislation can appeal, even invoking that interesting Brandenburg Vs Ohio precedent. I think the fact that hate speech is more limited in Europe does not entitle anyone to say there exists a fascist type of control implemented by our democratic institutions. You should consider the historical precedent of fascist authotitarianism and the Nazi horror make Europeans more sensible to hate speech.

[parochial boy]

This is the thing right? When an EU body makes a bad decision or passes a bad law you get all these frankly disingenuous screaming about how terrible the EU is. Whereas no-onw ever takes bad legislation or laws passed by individual nations as a reason that, say, the USA or UK are terrible. If your argument is that the recriminations of bad EU decisions are too widespread - well that is the point of having a supranational organisation.

[dead0man]

Never forget that World Wars broke out and Hitler came to power when Europe was a continent of rival nations.

I suppose you're right, Europe's only options are world wars or united under a garbage bureaucracy.  What's wrong with them?

[DavidB.]

This is the thing right? When an EU body makes a bad decision or passes a bad law you get all these frankly disingenuous screaming about how terrible the EU is. Whereas no-onw ever takes bad legislation or laws passed by individual nations as a reason that, say, the USA or UK are terrible. If your argument is that the recriminations of bad EU decisions are too widespread - well that is the point of having a supranational organisation.

In an individual nation, it is easier to pressure politicians and achieve political change to withdraw bad laws. EU bodies tend to come up with these ridiculous things partly because they're so detached from the usual democratic checks and their officials live in a bubble. The democratic deficit really plays a role here.

[Former President tack50]

This is outrageous and shows exactly why the EU is a joke in everyway. Besides FB is headquartered here in the US, the EU cant force anything on FB unless they wanna get in a dispute with the US government as well.


At this point the only reason I find for keeping the EU is economic reasons, if there was a way to do Brexit without hurting the UK in the long run economically I would support that wholeheartedly . I have nothing but contempt left for the EU.

I think the EU has fined US corporations in the past and they've paid the fines. Microsoft and Apple come to mind. I imagine Facebook will pay a fine as well if necessary, though this decision is indeed terrible, I agree with you.

Regarding Brexit, while all options (minus EFTA/EEA membership, which is pretty much the same as EU membership except you don't get a vote) would do economic harm, some (no deal brexit) are more harmful than others (say, May's deal).

This is outrageous and shows exactly why the EU is a joke in everyway. Besides FB is headquartered here in the US, the EU cant force anything on FB unless they wanna get in a dispute with the US government as well.


At this point the only reason I find for keeping the EU is economic reasons, if there was a way to do Brexit without hurting the UK in the long run economically I would support that wholeheartedly . I have nothing but contempt left for the EU.

Lol, a few generally minor and (especially in this case) inflated mistakes of some beaurocrat or other is just not worth all the peace and prosperity! But it doesn't matter what you think. You don't feel all the positive effects of the EU, and don't care to understand them. It's a good thing you're not a European and your contempt doesn't matter.

While i tend to agree with you, Israeliguy, you arent european either and dont feel any of the negative effects of the E.U.. I hate to admit it, but the american posters do have one point: the EU wants to do too much, to the point of excessively burdening our lives with regulation. When i went to the eye doctor yesterday, for instance i had to sign a long form that i allow the doctor to use my medical information-due to a EU data protection regulation. Completely stupid obviously. And there are many more examples like this (Article 13....).

Overall the positive benefits of the E.U. outweigh, as you said, and the american posters who think its becoming a eurofascist dictatorship are crazy obviously.

Still, how many of those regulations would have a national equivalent anyways?

Speaking of data protection for example, the EU's regulation was apparently passed in 2016 and effective 2018. However at least here we've had a nationl data protection regulation as far back as 1999! (which also requires you to sign on medical information). In fact I didn't even know the law was an EU law now (most still just mention the Spanish data protection law)

As funny as "EU regulations on the curvature of bananas" sound, that isn't really the real truth.

Article 11 (Article 13's lesser known brother) also had equivalent regulations in Germany (with a loophole) and Spain (no loophole so Google News and the like closed).

[Velasco]

Never forget that World Wars broke out and Hitler came to power when Europe was a continent of rival nations.

I suppose you're right, Europe's only options are world wars or united under a garbage bureaucracy.  What's wrong with them?

It's not that the US are lacking of problems, either institutional or as a society. Europe is arguably the best place in the world to stay, with high living standards and a reasonable welfare state, as well reasonably free of violence if compared with the USA. These conditions are variable and depend on the country, but they are reasonably widespread despite EU bureaucrats... or should I say we enjoy relatively high standards partially thanks to the existence of the EU?

[Sozialliberal]

You can criticize a mayor or anyone else in the EU, but you have to show a minimum level of decency while doing so. I understand that's not a very popular opinion in the country that elected Donald Trump president.

Something to think about:
Imagine a mayor makes a decision with which a small, but very vocal minority of the town's residents strongly disagrees. Some of those people hurl personal insults at the mayor on a regular basis. After some time, the mayor can't put up with the constant abuse any more and resigns from office.

[parochial boy]

This is the thing right? When an EU body makes a bad decision or passes a bad law you get all these frankly disingenuous screaming about how terrible the EU is. Whereas no-onw ever takes bad legislation or laws passed by individual nations as a reason that, say, the USA or UK are terrible. If your argument is that the recriminations of bad EU decisions are too widespread - well that is the point of having a supranational organisation.

In an individual nation, it is easier to pressure politicians and achieve political change to withdraw bad laws. EU bodies tend to come up with these ridiculous things partly because they're so detached from the usual democratic checks and their officials live in a bubble. The democratic deficit really plays a role here.

I won rehash my overall position on the EU as I've only got my phone (15 francs for a 1gb data package - one of those little disadvantages of not being in the EU which affects me but you guys can take for granted) and it's nothing you won't have read before. But yes, while there is a democratic deficit in the EU, I don't think it is inherent to it; or that it is inevitably worse than what would exist at the nation state level. And while the EU has been slow on that front, at least it seems like they have realised that there is a problem and there does seem to be a genuine enthusiasm about reforming it.

[OSR stands with Israel]

This is what our courts said about this issue:

he Court held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio


This is 100% the correct decision, the government should have no right to stop someone from speaking no matter how hideous they are unless they can prove they are directly inciting imminent lawless actions.

This is not an issue where I believe there is a middle ground at all , it should be as close to absolute as possible , and a nation that tries to limit this freedom even the way they do in Europe is more of a fascist type of action(not saying the nation itself , just the action) than a nation that allows it like the US.

Personally I think it's not a bad ruling, although  I have more doubts than you on the question. The Court ruled the KKK leader was not going to perprtrate imminent violence or lawless action. Still, there exists hate speech and the incitement of "abstract violence" may inspire others to commit violent or lawless actions. The Court has set the limit on "imminent lawless actions" and has set a precedent in the US. However European countries have their own legal systems and there are European courts where anyone affected by hate speech legislation can appeal, even invoking that interesting Brandenburg Vs Ohio precedent. I think the fact that hate speech is more limited in Europe does not entitle anyone to say there exists a fascist type of control implemented by our democratic institutions. You should consider the historical precedent of fascist authotitarianism and the Nazi horror make Europeans more sensible to hate speech.

I’m not saying the EU is  fascist though I view those censorship to be fascist or authoritarian actions but I don’t consider the EU to be fascist at all .


What I consider them to have completely gone over the line in violating member states sovereignty , being utterly incompetent and in this case going way over the line as well 

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

To be fair, these kind of posts borders on libel and probably are against some of FB's own rules. The problem is, dealing with this shouldn't be done this way.

[parochial boy]

(15 francs for a 1gb data package - one of those little disadvantages of not being in the EU which affects me but you guys can take for granted)

I pay almost the same price? Is there some EU regulation to get free data that i never heard about?

https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/faq/question-and-answers-roaming

Reading that as far as I'm aware...? We just had a debate on whether to join the no data roaming charges zone and decided not to (...). And friends living on France and UK don't habe to pay abroad

[dead0man]

Never forget that World Wars broke out and Hitler came to power when Europe was a continent of rival nations.

I suppose you're right, Europe's only options are world wars or united under a garbage bureaucracy.  What's wrong with them?

It's not that the US are lacking of problems, either institutional or as a society. Europe is arguably the best place in the world to stay, with high living standards and a reasonable welfare state, as well reasonably free of violence if compared with the USA. These conditions are variable and depend on the country, but they are reasonably widespread despite EU bureaucrats... or should I say we enjoy relatively high standards partially thanks to the existence of the EU?

I'll ignore the whataboutery....look man, I agree with you, it's better to have a sh**tty bureaucracy if that's the only thing that keeps you racists from fighting each other like you've been doing for most of the last 2000 years.