Free Speech or Racial Hatred?

[Conf1rm3d_K1ll]

This may be old news but I've just stumbled across it........................................



Authors of emails containing racist material are facing criminal charges in Europe.




"This proposal could potentially outlaw free speech," said Malcolm Hutty, general director for Campaign Against Censorship on the Internet in Britain, or CACIB. "That would be a great infringement of civil rights."


It raises a few questions...


1. When do we draw the line on being told what we can and can't email....

2. What is considered racist? If someone sends a few Irish (sorry Ennis) jokes to a friend is that considered racist material?


3. How will it be policed?




Anyway, you can read the full story here (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20020222/wr_nm/tech_internet_hatespeech_dc_1).........

[KorpDeath]

That's pathetic. It goes to show you that the bledding hearts everywhere are uniting against common sense.

I don't think a personal email should be watched for this sort of thing.

Here's my problem: With all this privacy crap going on, it pisses me off that I'm gonna have to teach a bunch of people how to use PGP. It's a damn shame.

[gold eagle]

Too much censorship already. good post

[ac1dsp3ctrum]

With freedom comes censorship, its inevitable... But this is going too far! They already censor TV, the internet, and other forms of media.... Its too much, there gonna start to use Carnivore/DCS1000 to censor email, its pathetic :mad:

[Remote_Access_]

Freedom always has a price, it comes with alot of things.. death, war, controversy, etc..
I agree that this is going over the line. Good post conf1rm3d_k1ll..

Remote_Access_

[Tedob1]

guess that means if your not expressing the popular opinion, you go to 'rehabilitation'.

this is all getting too real. maybe its time to memorize a book.

[Focmaester]

There is no freedom of speech in Europe and especially not in Holland.
A candidate for the next elections indicated that he wanted to change the law so people wil have freedom of speech. You can't say things like Holland is full/crowded or the islam is retarded or they wil drage your ass in court and even win the case.
We don't have freedom of speech as a result ot WW II.
people are affraid of Nationalists.
Let the people say what's on their mind why make it taboo?

[BrainStop]

There's always two sides to things ...

Back when I lived in the US, there was one man's freedom to carry a gun, but where did my freedom to live end ....

When you heard stories about people getting shot on the DC beltway because they honked at someone ... that was scary ....

The question is where does one person's freedom end and the other person's freedom start.

Cheers,

BrainStop

[Negative]

Focmaester, there IS freedom of speech in Europe (more than there will ever be in the States...). There's only one taboo: ignorant xenophobia... (and The King in some countries).

And nationalism and racism are two completely different things... If you'd sue every nationalist, you'd have to sue every American ;)

This discussion is not about 'free speech on the internet', it's about free speech period. Racist talk is not allowed in some European countries, and therefor it's not allowed in those countries emails...

BTW: the mails mentioned in the article are not just some 'personal emails'... They were mass-mailed (got a few examples if someone's interested), and they weren't just some racist mails... We're talking big-time xenophobia here.

Here's (http://www.tourolaw.edu/publications/internationallawrev/vol6/part1.html) an interesting transcript of an (American) hate-speech symposium... it's not just a European problem, as you can see...

And here's a quote from The Speech that kills (http://www.oneworld.org/index_oc/issue198/hate-speech.html) :

Article l9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights says that `everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference' and `everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression', though this is subject to restrictions necessary `for respect of the rights or reputations of others' or `for the protection of public order, or of public health or morals'. But Article 20 of the same Covenant states that `any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence must be prohibited'.

[s0nIc]

i dunno.. all i can say is that its all about having common sense really.. and being sensitive to others.. i mean, two friends of mine got in a fight in the train station coz normally when they meet somewhere they normally greet eachother like "hey sup nigga?!" and da otha goes.. "nuffin much white boy" and its all cool to both of them.. but the people in the train station got offended by it.. and started a fight with them...

[Mankan]

There is a difference between expressing an opinion and attacking a person or a group of people. The latter is rightly unlawful in europe.

If I didn't like black people I have every right to express my feelin in ways like "I don't like black people", "I think black people are stupid ****s." The key word here is "I don't". I'm expressing an opinion, thus my freedom of speech.
If I were to say "Black people are stupid ****s" I wouldn't express an opinion, but I would attack every black person on the world. That is unlawful and that is what is legally regulated in europe.

I'm liberal, but first and foremost I'm a democrate in the word's true sence. I belive in democracy what ever happens. I will never tolerate nazi bastards that try to take the power. But if they were to win an election I wouldn't say shit. I would back up and get out of the country.
Because of this I think that some laws against racial hatred could be stronger than they are today because it hasn't got anything to do with freedom of speech.

In a democracy one can't tolerate un-democratic methods.

Remember Voltaire kids,
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Cheers,

[Faqt]

:brickwall
Bottom line is this (as sad as it may be) There will always be racism, there will always be prejudices against this group or that group, this sex or that sex...etc, etc, etc... It's not a question of legal or illegal it's a question of human nature. No law imposed by any government will ever be able to control human nature.
Sensoring personal communications for racism is ludicrous at best. If anything, such an action would generate more contempt towards whichever group the person has decided not to like. If you take someone who makes an off hand, insensitive comment and make a big deal out of it, you are validating that statement. (saying hey....you must be right, but don't tell anyone else)
Not only would such censorship be adding to the problem, it would be nearly impossible to draw the lines of what is racist and what is not...take, for example...two African American teens saying to each other "wusup nigga" they aren't being racist, aren't trying to insult or offend. They consider it acceptable between them as friends. The exact same statement taken in a different context though would be an extremely rude and racist comment. My point is that if you don't know the source, target, and setting of a statement...then it is impossible in many cases to determine if a statement was meant as a racial slur.
I wish that people would forget about racism completely....honestly, if you hadn't already been given definitions of white, black, indian, etc...would it even cross your mind to label them, or (without the definitions that have already been attached) whould race simply be another genetic trait like hair color or height?

[KorpDeath]

Originally posted here (http://www.AntiOnline.com/showthread.php?threadid=220378#post468789) by Faqt
:brickwall
Bottom line is this (as sad as it may be) There will always be racism, there will always be prejudices against this group or that group, this sex or that sex...etc, etc, etc... It's not a question of legal or illegal it's a question of human nature. No law imposed by any government will ever be able to control human nature.
Sensoring personal communications for racism is ludicrous at best. If anything, such an action would generate more contempt towards whichever group the person has decided not to like. If you take someone who makes an off hand, insensitive comment and make a big deal out of it, you are validating that statement. (saying hey....you must be right, but don't tell anyone else)
Not only would such censorship be adding to the problem, it would be nearly impossible to draw the lines of what is racist and what is not...take, for example...two African American teens saying to each other "wusup nigga" they aren't being racist, aren't trying to insult or offend. They consider it acceptable between them as friends. The exact same statement taken in a different context though would be an extremely rude and racist comment. My point is that if you don't know the source, target, and setting of a statement...then it is impossible in many cases to determine if a statement was meant as a racial slur.
I wish that people would forget about racism completely....honestly, if you hadn't already been given definitions of white, black, indian, etc...would it even cross your mind to label them, or (without the definitions that have already been attached) whould race simply be another genetic trait like hair color or height?

There will not always be racism. Not to totally disagree , cause I'm the agreeable type.(yeah, right) But, there will come a time when the populous of the world is not definable by color. In other words integration will take on a literal meaning, you won't be able to tell if someone is black or white or yellow or red.

Hopefully sooner than later.

[3ntropy]

Personally,
I do not have a problem with racism, sexism, etc. BECAUSE it is people's opinions that they have the rite to uphold. To me it is a crime of the greatest magnitude to NOT speak out your opinion. To do so would be to fall under power of the government. That is the ultimate form of censorship. There should ALWAYS be a place to speak freely without fear of retaliation or imprisonment.

[Faqt]

There will not always be racism. Not to totally disagree , cause I'm the agreeable type.(yeah, right) But, there will come a time when the populous of the world is not definable by color. In other words integration will take on a literal meaning, you won't be able to tell if someone is black or white or yellow or red.

Okay, I'll give you that one, eventually there may come a day when race is not an issue...my point is that there will be something that IS an issue. Maybe it'll be a prejudice against fat people, short people, people with dimples....who knows what or why, it is simply human nature to find something that will categorize people, and then pick at it, judge it, and ultimately (in their minds) define it as wrong, ugly, or sick....then loudly share their conclusions with those that do and don't agree with them.

[jcmcb]

This seems to me to be yet another overeaction on the part of government to a real threat to the population of this world...

Censoring Email and Jailing racists is not going to solve this issue....only education and time will. If these people get violent (verbally or physically) than the Gov't needs to step in, but not before...

This is a terrible answer, but its better than the others (with all respect to Winston!)

[VanEck]

whenever a freedom, or anything for that matter becomes forbidden, it only makes people want it more. if they start censoring and charging people for their email, all it will do is make these typs of people do it more. i hate racism, but i hate censorship as well. when i was young, i used to have a shaved head, but so many people took it as a sign of something else. people would always ask me "are you a skinhead, or, are you a racist." my answer was always the same. i am only racist against racist people. like jcmcb said, only education and time will be able to "cure" racism. it is a disease that has plagued humanity since the begginng of time. there has always been prejudices in the past. our entire hisotry is based upon hatreds of nationality, skin color, religious believes, gender, financial status, and pretty much anything else that can be used to segregate people from other people. but no matter what, we are all humans. we are all individuals. we are all different and unique. this should be appreciated and respected. not hated.
people try to use technology to spread hatred, but it can also be used to spread awareness. to open the closed minds of these types of people.

[lkennedy.guru]

This isn't going to be technical, but F-that. While your at it why don't you start burning books. All I am trying to say is that people have a right to thier opinion. And so what if you don't agree with it.

NH liscense plate "LIVE FREE OR DIE" I like the sound of it.

[Shangrila]

Well I totally agree with freedom of speach and I hate censorship. I hate racism, sexism and other forms of bigotry ,but you have to learn to deal with it as it will always be present (at least in our lifetimes). Opinions should not be censored. I have dealt with shit in the past and still deal with it. I used to get beat up all time because I was white in the hood. I still get shit for it but I hope to move soon. As was posted earlier if you censor it people will want to do it even more. The internet should not be censored as it is a global community. Censorship is good in theory but it angers alot of people in practice. You cannot stop people from hearing these kinds of things. To sum it all up I think that it's crossing the line.

[Keisha]

If I had to draw a line between what is appropriate and what is not, I would fall back onto something my mother drilled into my head as a child. She always said, "You can think whatever you want. You can mutter whatever you darn well please under your breath. That's your right. But the minute it comes out of your mouth loud enough for anyone else to hear, or the minute you act on it, yer gittin a whoopin." It's the difference between an opinion and an action.

John Doe has the right to believe that African-Americans are lazy, the Jewish people are communists and the government is out to get the white man. However the minute he refuses to hire someone because of it, commits a crime based on it, or advocates/encourages active discrimination against them, then, in my opinion, it's wrong.

If I send an email to a friend, dicussing a belief that Christianity is a cult, that's my belief and my right to do so. However if I send a mass email, particuarly to people who have not chosen to recieve it or argueably even those who have, advocating that in some form Christians be discriminated against, then it crosses the line.

I quite firmly believe that there will indeed be a day that noone will be judge on color, lifestyles, sex, religion, etc. That day will also coincide with the extinction of the human race, -because- we could not quit fighting over color, lifestyles, sex, and religion.

Hopefully when that day comes I will already be long dead and buried, though sometimes I wonder.

-Keisha

[Aryoche]

What an interesting discussion.

I must say, I agree with a large portion of the opinions stated here, but not all.

I've never been one to stand for Racism, or discriminations of any sort. I firmly believe in equal opprotunity, Freedom of Speech, and take a firm stand against censorship.

With reading the article posted, and the posts here, there is one small point that I may be overlooking. Was the offensive emails in question mass mailed, or were they targeting individuals with their messages of hate? If it was the former, shouldn't the ISP's involved be doing some sort of filtering against mass mailings? I recall reading there are many proposed plans against fighting spam, and this would appear to be far worse than the countless "viagra" ads that fill our mailboxes. And if they were targeted to specific individuals, then I feel the answer lies is prosecution.

It's one thing to be stating your views to a receptive listener, it's another to force those views on another. If I want to discuss conspiracy theories with a friend,(or religious, political, etc.) that's one thing, assuming they want to listen to me, or partake in the conversation, great, then we can have an interesting conversation. But if I keep bombarding them with my ideas, thoughts, and opinions, and they -don't- want to hear it, then I'm violating their rights by imposing my beliefs on them.

One person's rights end where another's begin.

The same things apply with propaganda,such as these hate mails. If I want to learn about your ideas, beliefs, whatever, I can easily seek your organization out. I don't want to be force fed messages of hate, whether online, in person, whatever. And I don't want to see it subtly fed to the youth, as is being done here:
Racist Gaming (http://www.techtv.com/news/culture/story/0,24195,3374172,00.html)

Personally, I would love to see this kind of activity end, there's norhyme or reason for it. To attack someone based on sex, race, creed, religion, sexual preference, is ignorance, plain and simple. We're all in this together. What people don't understand, they fear, and obviously, what they fear, they hate.

In this day and age, it's difficult to believe that such ignorance still runs rampant throughout our societies, but yet, take a look around, and I'm sure it can be found, sometimes in the most unsuspected places. And that is really a shame.

[PhenZen]

I believe what someone said earlier "private e-mail should not be monitored." If you are just sending someone e-mail then i believe you can say whatever you want, although some people will disagree. If you make threats and then they want to use your e-mail then their is nothing you can do. But since it seems like there was no "direct" threat i do not believe they should be using that e-mail

[lkennedy.guru]

I don't agree with racism, but I do agree with freedom. If you start restricting peoples point of view then soon you start restricting what people can do. why is it that nobody see that the thing thought of as unethical or not moral are the first things that people try to restrict. Next will be the things that are not in the best intrest of a goverment or corporations. And finally it will be that you cant post thread to the net without some "big brother" affiliate kicking your door open and bringing you to jail.

All I am saying is be carfull how much power you give orginizations and how little power you allow the general public. People are threatened by power, but more so by not having it.

knoledge is power, know all that you can.

[Aryoche]

Next will be the things that are not in the best intrest of a goverment or corporations. And finally it will be that you cant post thread to the net without some "big brother" affiliate kicking your door open and bringing you to jail.

Actually, this has already happened in Sweden, or at least something similiar. I read it on another board I'm a member of, and the gist of it states that the webmaster is responsible for the material posted on the boards hosted on their servers. They closed down the site on top of possible criminal charges. The site in question is a newspaper of all things, and from what I read, it's one of the largest in the country. Anyhow, the Stockholm court found the publisher guilty of "ethnic group bashing", based upon posts in a forum. I'm not sure of all the details, but that's the summary of what happened.

Here's the link:

Swedish Site shut down (http://www.aftonbladet.se/)

I don't read Swedish, but here's the link for those who do. (And if someone could post a translation of the article it would be appreciated.)

[Pooh-Bear]

I´ll translate but post a link to the article..

[11001001]

With freedom comes responsibility, and the world is full of naivete...

[Mankan]

Actually, this has already happened in Sweden, or at least something similiar. I read it on another board I'm a member of, and the gist of it states that the webmaster is responsible for the material posted on the boards hosted on their servers. They closed down the site on top of possible criminal charges. The site in question is a newspaper of all things, and from what I read, it's one of the largest in the country. Anyhow, the Stockholm court found the publisher guilty of "ethnic group bashing", based upon posts in a forum. I'm not sure of all the details, but that's the summary of what happened.

Uhm. I don't really see your point. What does censorship have to do with crappy internet-related swedish laws? For all mass media, wether it be movies, audio cd's or news papers you have to have a publisher. The publisher is responsible for what gets published.
If a news paper decides for example, to publish an article on how stupid black people are, they are commiting a crime and someone has to pay for it. Espesially since you can't put a news paper in jail. Media in large has a tremendous oppertunity to control peoples opinions which is why you have a publisher.

In the case you speak of, the paper in question - Aftonbladet (www.aftonbladet.se) had some racist shit published on their discussion board. The thing is that acoording to swedish law, this discussion board is counted as part of the news paper and thus, can't publish illegal stuff without commiting a crime.

I'm not sure I think this is bad either, mostly because people in large are morons and I'll bet you my next salary that some people actually thought the discussion forum to be journalistic content published by the paper.

If the stuff published was kiddie porn instead of a racist remark, published as a fact, both of which are illegal whould you still have said the same thing?

Bottom line is that you can think whatever you want, you can say it to whoever you please, but once you state it as a fact, you are commiting a crime and you should get punished.

There is a big difference between "Black people are morons" and "I think black people are morons".

Just my two cents/pennies/ipaqs/whatever.

Cheers,

[guss]

no one is perf. dudes freedom is hurting.it will change soon.nothing is forever.

[{P²P}Apocalypse]

I hate all of you <censored>. Thats how I see it. Then you don't know what the general view of whatever the topic is. I diplore racism and hate. In a free society though it has it's place. An exaple would be. All of a sudden you have a barage of mass mailings in an area. It may be anit-semite or racialy motivated material. Well, that may lead one to figure out that somethin troublesum may be brewing in that area. I believe in a persons right to express ones opinion. At some point it must have a line drawn in the sand. If someone says to me. I hate so and so (insert whatever ethnic group), well thats an opinion. I may disagree with them. But, they should have the right to express that. If they say, I hate all whatever lets go and kill them or burn their homes. Well thats wrong. In other words. It should be a right to express ones opinion as long as it doesn't infringe on anothers right to equaly do so. What if during WWII the governments of the allies decided to supress and censor the discovery of the concentration camps after the invasion and defeat of Germany to keep the public from viewing the horiffic images of death. Even though they had the opinion that it was horrible. Then the world may have never known. Sometimes free speech right or wrong, leads to an improvment of a problem. Like in the former USSR when the Chrynobil reactor melted down. The USSR censored it and it caused many needless deaths from radioactive poisoning. It was not until radiological sensors in the free countries of Europe discovered it, that the USSR had to come clean and start cleaning up the mess. What if those countries had sensored it as well? It would have been even more devistating. So as long as one express's an opinion it should be allowed as long as it does'nt infringe on the rights of someone to counter with their own opinion. Thats the difference between democracy and totaltarianism.

Just my $.02 worth.

[Aryoche]

Well, simply put, my reply was involving the "big brother" concept that was mentioned earlier in the thread, that I quoted in my reply.

I don't support racism, and I strongly believe in freedom of speech, as well as thought. I thought I was pretty clear in my post on my stance in my previous posts. But however, I am slightly confused on something that was asked. I'm not sure what you think I was saying...

If the stuff published was kiddie porn instead of a racist remark, published as a fact, both of which are illegal whould you still have said the same thing?


Well, if some sick bastard was posting kiddie porn, they should be punished, plain and simple. No arguements from me on that one. Regardless of being illegal, I'd say it's immoral as well. Just my opinion...


Media in large has a tremendous oppertunity to control peoples opinions which is why you have a publisher.

Very true.

As I had earlier stated, I didn't read the article from the source, I read about it on another messageboard. I thought it was appropriate given the concept of Big Brother kicking in the door and arresting people for what they say, post, etc.

-Aryoche