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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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