Hate Speech

Facebook, Twitter, Google, and Microsoft Agree to Hate-Speech Code of Conduct

The tech companies agree to review hate-speech notifications within 24 hours and report on their efforts to the E.U.'s "High Level Group on Combating Racism, Xenophobia and all forms of intolerance by the end of 2016."

|

roberthuffstutter/Flickr

Facebook, Twitter, Google, and Microsoft have agreed to the European Union's Code of Conduct on "illegal hate speech," designed to ensure "that online platforms do not offer opportunities for illegal online hate speech to spread virally." The code, while legally non-binding, commits these tech companies to extensive review and remove requirements for any online content reported as hate speech. It stems from the March 24 terrorist attacks in Brussels, after which the E.U. Justice and Home Affairs Council declared that it would work with tech companies "to counter terrorist propaganda" and develop a "code of conduct against hate speech online" by June. 

The document defines hate speech broadly: "all conduct publicly inciting to violence or hatred directed against a group of persons or a member of such a group defined by reference to race, colour, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin." Under the code, "online intermediaries and social media platforms" must have in place "clear and effective processes to review notifications regarding illegal hate speech on their services," review "the majority" of notifications within 24 hours, and remove or disable access to any content determined to be illegal hate speech.

The companies also agree to post community rules or guidelines "clarifying that they prohibit the promotion of incitement to violence and hateful conduct," have regular powwows with officials and law enforcement in E.U. member states, and report on the impact of their efforts "to the High Level Group on Combating Racism, Xenophobia and all forms of intolerance by the end of 2016."

Google's Public Policy and Government Relations Director, Lie Junius, said the company is "pleased to work with the [European Commission] to develop co- and self-regulatory approaches to fighting hate speech online."

And that is the silver lining here, from a libertarian perspective: at least Facebook, Google, et al. entered into this regulatory scheme semi-voluntarily, although voluntary is always a blurry concept when it comes to agreements with governing bodies. Maybe the whole code is just good PR for these companies, maybe it's a step toward a social-media-to-police pipeline for all manner of unpopular speech. We'll see. 

In addition to simply agreeing to remove threatening or violence-inciting speech, the code stipulates that tech companies, "recognizing the value of independent counter speech against hateful rhetoric and prejudice," will also "aim to continue their work in identifying and promoting independent counter-narratives, new ideas and initiatives and supporting educational programs that encourage critical thinking." 

NEXT: "I'm That Libertarian": Presidential Candidate Marc Allan Feldman's Rap at the L.P. Convention

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I’m sure this will end well.

    1. Europe’s remaining Jews can come here or to Israel. I am also OK with Europe’s remaining Christians coming here.

      1. The article isn’t about immigration. I sense an obsession.

        1. Yokels gonna yokel.

          1. You’re right. Sigh.

        2. If you don’t think the subject of this new policy is about immigration then you haven’t been paying attention.

          1. Obsessed bigots gonna obsessively bigot.

            1. “all conduct publicly inciting to violence or hatred directed against a group of persons or a member of such a group defined by reference to race, colour, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin.”

              They ticked all the boxes and all you can do is call names as opposed to actually making any arguments.

              1. Show me on the doll where that Jew touched you.

                1. Dude, right upthread. If the most hatespeech inducing issue in Europe right now isn’t immigration I will smother myself in syrup and eat my right leg.

                  1. It’s immaterial- this is a question of freedom of expression, not of the particular issues animating current passions. The latter are transitory and not necessarily as monolithic as your obsession would lead you to believe (one can argue that, for example, there is a huge amount of hate speech directed at contemporary European Jews, who are very much NOT immigrants).

                    The fact that you immediately jump from severe and possibly global restrictions on expression to immigrant paranoia is telling.

                    1. So you’re obsessed with Jews or just upset that others aren’t as obsessed with Jews? I don’t follow. I’m just aware that the issue of the day is immigration from the Middle East. The Jewish thing is so 20th century.

                    2. RJ is right. Muslims can hate anyone with impunity, and anyone can hate Jews with impunity. One is at the top of favored social groups, the other at the bottom.

                    3. So you’re obsessed with Jews or just upset that others aren’t as obsessed with Jews?

                      Neither, it’s a convenient way of pointing out the obsessive focus of the yokeltariat with Muslims.

                      The issue here is freedom of expression.

                    4. one can argue that, for example, there is a huge amount of hate speech directed at contemporary European Jews, who are very much NOT immigrants)

                      No kidding, but that recent rise in hate speech is hugely fueled by… wait for it… Muslim immigration.

                      Here I am defending Jews (and Christians) from people who hate and attack them, and that makes me an “obsessed yokel”…?

                2. Thanks for making my point.

          2. Muslims attack French and Belgians, so they pass laws making it a crime to incite “hatred” towards Muslims. Do we really think they’ll take down speech by Muslims?

            1. Do we really think they’ll take down speech by Muslims?

              Absolutely, yes. Authoritarians gotta.. authoritate?

            2. France has already been arresting Muslims under the guise of their hate speech laws so… yeah, why wouldn’t they??

              1. Although I believe in free speech, I’m glad to hear that whatever restrictions they have might be handed out fairly. I still believe it will fall disproportionately on those criticize immigration and Muslims.

                1. Pretty much any time a sentence continues after “Although I believe in free speech”, whatever comes next will directly refute any belief in free speech.

                  1. But not in this case, so why bring it up?

        3. Well, implicitly it is about immigration. Why would people stay somewhere that claimed everything they said was “hate speech”.

      2. Fuck no. Europeans are crazy, anti-speech assholes. If we’re gonna keep certain people out, we should block all of Europe.

    2. This headline is confusing. Are they agreeing to hate the speech code of conduct or are they agreeing to the hate speech code of conduct?

      1. Ha, you’re right. A hyphen is definitely warranted there; thanks

  2. We all know what this means: all opposition to mass immigration and/or Islam will be censored.

    Goodbye Europe. I’m glad I got to see you a few times before you turned into the Northern Provinces of the Caliphate.

    1. Since I got out of college and starting working, I’ve assumed I’d build up enough bank (with my wife) to take a nice long vacation to Europe at retirement. The way the USG is running things into the ground, we probably won’t have the money. But the way Europe is running itself into the ground, I don’t want to go.

      It’s a lose/lose.

      I guess everything works out for the best.

      1. Go to Europe. It’s fun and the people are just people, like everywhere else. Don’t let hysterical weirdos convince you otherwise.

        1. Europe is great. But visiting there as a tourist is not the same as living there. I wouldn’t want to live in the UK right now. Sure, I would rather live there than Saudi Arabia or a lot of other oppressive shit holes. But I wouldn’t rather live there than the US or even Canada or Australia. Same goes for the rest of Western Europe.

        2. Go to Europe. It’s fun and the people are just people, like everywhere else. Don’t let hysterical weirdos convince you otherwise.

          People are people. Very good observation. But people are not the same everywhere. You should go on vacation in Waziristan and tell me how people are just people everywhere. That is if you, as an infidel, manage to live long enough to make your flight home.

          1. But people are not the same everywhere.

            Exactly. Libertarians are often blind to culture and religion, and so they refuse to see that importing masses of people from sucky cultures has negative effects on the superior cultures importing them.

            1. Too much autism among Libertarians.

              1. That’s part of it, but part is the ideology: it’s focused on the individual, and so it’s easy to discount various “collective” aspects of human culture.

                1. Somewhat ironic that this particular individualist episteme habitually leads one to conceive other individuals in such shallowly abstracted forms.

                  I tend to see it as individualism mixed with typical naive Western universalism that doesn’t take cultural relativism seriously.

        3. I lived in Luxembourg, Holland, Austria, and Czech Republic for varying lengths of time. I highly recommend the experience. It’s enlightening to find out that the average European is just as provincial and ignorant of the US while being happy to expound their opinions as the average American is regarding Europe.

          1. I hope you’re not suggesting that Americans who rely on sensationalist news and overheated insular media channels for their information are somehow ignorant when they suggest that funny-talking foreigners are coming to rape our women and cut off our heads en masse.

            1. Never change Hugh. never change. We should all be happy that we live in a country where someone as sheltered and stupid as you are can not only live but thrive.

              1. Hugh can’t refute the facts, so he just sneers.

                1. High is an idiot. He has to do something and sneering is about the limits of his capability.

                2. And here’s today’s news: 26 women are sexually assaulted at German concert, with victims surrounded by mobs of migrant men and groped in copycat attacks like those in Cologne

                  But maybe Cytotoxic or Hugh have a Cato study that “proves” this sort of thing is nothing to be concerned about.

          2. My experience with Europeans has been that they care way more about the imperfections of Americans than vice versa, no doubt due to the dominating influence of American media everywhere.

            1. Bra Ket, I’m sure that’s your expectation.

              /bad qm pun, sorry

            2. My experience when we traveled in Europe was different. The typical person-on-the-street response was friendly/envious.

              Of course, we weren’t “from America,” we were “from Texas.” Huge difference.

              1. Ian Fleming. Casino Royale quote. Bond was a lousy spy.

          3. I didn’t have to live in Europe to know Europeans are pretty provincial where American culture is concerned. I just had to visit a few times and talk to a few of them to realize it.

    2. it’s funny how “all forms of intolerance” doesn’t really mean all, but these people persist in the charade.

    3. We all know what this means: all opposition to mass immigration and/or Islam will be censored.

      Goodbye Europe. I’m glad I got to see you a few times before you turned into the Northern Provinces of the Caliphate.

      I’m still struggling to understand why the Eurocrats seem to actively want this to happen.

      1. the conceit of the progressive is quite a force for derp. It wasn’t just Chamberlain who thought he could appease Hitler, there was an actual sitting US Senator quoted as saying “if only I had been able to speak with him” then none of what followed would have happened. These people live in their own bubble, convinced that everyone else is just like them. They firmly believe that if they make nice with the Muslims, the Muslims will reciprocate.

        1. “the conceit of the progressive is quite a force for derp. It wasn’t just Chamberlain…”

          Chamberlain was a Conservative. You want a progressive who tried to appease Hitler, try Stalin.

          1. Chamberlain also didn’t hold any delusions about the threat of Nazi Germany once he saw that Hitler was simply not going to be appeased.

            Contemporary Progressives’ delusions never change. Rape them, stab them, mutilate them, blow up their families. They still go on believing the same fucking things.

            1. “Contemporary Progressives’ delusions never change. ”

              I too prefer the progressives of yesteryear whose delusions were constantly changing.

          2. Stalin progressive??

            1. For a Bolshevik he was pretty conservative in his tastes. One action of his that will warm the hearts of readers here is that he reversed Lenin’s ban on the publication of Dostoevsky.

              1. And I suppose you could say “Socialism in one country” was conservative compared to Trotsky’s views.

      2. “I’m still struggling to understand why the Eurocrats seem to actively want this to happen.”

        White people are happy with small families. Brown people like larger families.

      3. One theory:

        Ms. Merkel seemed to hope in 2015 that an extravagant act of virtue signaling by taking in refugees would disarm London’s traditional anti-hegemon immune systems, allowing Germany to rule Europe under the guise of being pro-diversity […]

        1. If your point of view is correct, Germany will once again be the root cause of war; this time for being excessively accommodating but hard ass with their central banks demanding payments from countries like Greece.

          What I find intriguing is when countries were demanding payments from Germany they couldn’t afford, it led (in part) to a second world war. You would think the Germans would know this and chill a little.

          1. It’s not my view, just a theory. It sort of makes sense, though.

            I don’t see Germany causing a war this way, though. Well, other than the religious/civil war that will happen sometime later in this century, when Muslims become a large minority or a majority in some countries there.

            1. It was somewhat tongue in cheek but we’ve seen how wars *can* start, eh?

            2. Interesting theory re: Germany’s Diversity Reich, could make sense.

              It just seems odd, because surely they realize that once Muslims attain a democratic majority there, they absolutely will dismantle the Western fundaments of the German govt and transform it into a Sharia Law state.

              Then again I did pose this extrapolation to a German friend of mine recently, and he swore up and down that this is impossible “because the Constitution forbids it.” So I guess if that’s a prevailing mentality among Germans, they’re truly in for a rude awakening about how laws actually work in practical society.

              1. “because surely they realize that once Muslims attain a democratic majority”

                It won’t matter. By the time that happens, elections, democracy etc will be a thing of the past.

                1. One man, one vote – one time.

                  1. You forgot one army. There are far more Muslims in Egypt than there will ever be in Europe.

                    1. If what you mean by “far more” is about twice as many– and that figure assumes that every single Egyptian is also a Muslim…

                    2. “every single Egyptian is also a Muslim…”

                      We certainly wouldn’t want these few “Christians” contaminating Europe.

  3. It’s a blackmail day.

  4. If the companies want to do that of their own free will, that’s their business. However, I have no doubt that this is compelled and the details of what will be considered hate speech will be determined by political expedience.

    Just one more step towards a corporatist utopia.

    1. However, I have no doubt that this is compelled

      I’m a little from column A and a little from column B. I’m certain (noting the distinct lack of Apple, Amazon) that there are people involved with these corporations way too smart to see where this is headed and still think it’s a good idea. I imagine them drowning in a sea of useful idiots.

    2. “However, I have no doubt that this is compelled ”

      Do you have any evidence that it was compelled? Has anyone resigned from these companies in protest? I am not at all certain that these companies were compelled. They are all at the forefront of Political Correctness, so why should restricting hate speech be any different?

      1. Given that these companies are constantly being investigated for anti-competitive behavior in the EU and are being chased for tax evasion, compulsion is a relative term.

        Did the EU say do this or we will give you more hell? Who knows? Did the corporate management look at their options and decide discretion is the better part of valor? My guess is probably so.

        Keep in mind that this will not be free to the companies in question. And when political correctness starts costing them money, the equation changes drastically.

        1. “Did the EU say do this or we will give you more hell? Who knows?”

          These companies must know. And as far as I am aware, nobody has resigned in protest, as one would expect when rights are trampled on.

          “Keep in mind that this will not be free to the companies in question. And when political correctness starts costing them money, the equation changes drastically.”

          I’m not sure about that. Some weeks ago it was revealed that Target was doing something about their policy on toilets and transgenders. The naive consensus here was that unspecified powers (they) were behind Target’s decision. I alone argued that corporate America needs no goading to implement politically correct reforms, they do so willingly and with enthusiasm.

          1. Right.

            Reality now is that many corporations are headed by Prog-tards who are more than happy to wage kulturkampf on the masses.

            There may be a cost-benefit analysis involved, in that the correct virtue signaling gets them cozier with the state for lucrative contracts/legislation/etc. But I’m doubting most of them bother rationalizing it that far.

            Also they tend to be very out of touch with how regular people actually think/react, and so tacitly assume that such policies are conforming to prevailing social norms.

            1. “in that the correct virtue signaling gets them cozier with the state for lucrative contracts/legislation/etc.”

              I’m not familiar with the practice of ‘virtue signalling.’ I see no reason to doubt the sincerity of corporate policy on these matters. Virtue signalling seems to imply that it is all some show for government’s benefit.

              “Also they tend to be very out of touch with how regular people actually think/react,”

              That’s not much of a problem. Corporate America has ways of persuading regular people to think, react and even spend money in ways that benefit it.

              1. I’m not familiar with the practice of ‘virtue signalling.’ I see no reason to doubt the sincerity of corporate policy on these matters. Virtue signalling seems to imply that it is all some show for government’s benefit.

                I suspect it’s both sincere, and seen to their benefit.

                That’s not much of a problem. Corporate America has ways of persuading regular people to think, react and even spend money in ways that benefit it.

                There are limits to this, and it looks like those are starting to be reached.

      2. All that matters is the cost-benefit analysis. If the cost of hiring an army of snitches to report badthinkers to the EU becomes greater than the profit made there, *poof* they go away.

        1. *poof* they go away.”

          What makes you so certain? All these companies have massive human resource departments (don’t dream of calling them bureaucracies) that police employees for transgressions against any number of offences against political correctness. They are far more restrictive than any of the colleges that we read about here on a daily basis.

    3. My guess is that it was a “mutually desired compulsion”. I suspect a lot of these companies would be more than happy to put rules like this in place. It’s just doing so unilaterally would be bad for business. Competitors could step in and position themselves as the non-censoring player. Bringing the government to enforce the collusion makes the collusion less risky.

      1. Sure Bill. these companies have done so much to earn the benefit of the doubt here.

        1. John, do you have a reading comprehension problem? Seriously. I didn’t give the companies the “benefit of the doubt”. I specifically said they wanted the restrictions. Having the government step in is a way to prevent other companies from using the participants’ censorship to their competitive advantage.

      2. I suspect a lot of these companies would be more than happy to put rules like this in place.

        Why? It costs them money and opens them up to bullshit lawsuits.

        1. Actually, I’d suggest quite the opposite. It protects them from bullshit lawsuits in Europe. They can now go to court in Europe and say that their standards were good enough for the government.

  5. I don’t remember who said this: “Wherever liberty arises its enemies rise to meet it”.

    The internet has been the freest place on earth in the entire history of mankind. This development was inevitable.

  6. Notes from the code:

    It should be ensured that investigations and prosecutions
    of offences involving racism and xenophobia are not
    dependent on reports or accusations made by victims,
    who are often particularly vulnerable and reluctant to
    initiate legal proceedings.

    1. 1. Each Member State shall take the measures necessary to
      ensure that the following intentional conduct is punishable:

      1. (a) publicly inciting to violence or hatred directed against a
        group of persons or a member of such a group defined
        by reference to race, colour, religion, descent or national
        or ethnic origin;

        (b) the commission of an act referred to in point (a) by public
        dissemination or distribution of tracts, pictures or other
        material;

        (c) publicly condoning, denying or grossly trivialising crimes of
        genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes as
        defined in Articles 6, 7 and 8 of the Statute of the International
        Criminal Court, directed against a group of persons
        or a member of such a group defined by reference to race,
        colour, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin when
        the conduct is carried out in a manner likely to incite to
        violence or hatred against such a group or a member of
        such a group;

        (d) publicly condoning, denying or grossly trivialising the
        crimes defined in Article 6 of the Charter of the International
        Military Tribunal appended to the London
        Agreement of 8 August 1945, directed against a group of
        persons or a member of such a group defined by reference
        to race, colour, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin
        when the conduct is carried out in a manner likely to incite
        to violence or hatred against such a group or a member of
        such a group.

        1. Does this mean Mel Brooks’s “Inquisition” song from History of the World is now verboten?

    2. Nope, we only want the social-signaling types to be reporting. ‘Cause only they know how best to help the disadvantaged groups that they don’t belong to!

  7. This is pretty horrible. It will only incite radicals and jihadis – who use restrictions on their speech as an excuse for violence. It will only ratchet up the cycle – encouraging further ‘protections’. Furthermore, ‘hate speech’ and ‘bullying’ laws inevitably end up getting used against the ‘vulnerable’ groups they are originally intended to protect. Remember, top Nazi propagandists were radicalized by Weimar blasphemy laws (supposedly to protect Jews). And the Western Secular Caliphate prosecuted people who spoke out against the Muslim influx – allowing them to enter by the millions and now leaving them as a vulnerable minority to be abused and exploited. The CIA extorts compliance by getting their friends in ISIS to draw a picture of Marky in flames and say, “Do what we tell you or they’re gonna getcha!”

    1. Let us turn the whole country into a socialist fairyland by the joint operation of the army and people!

  8. So I’m guessing that they’ll be happy to enforce this on people that talk about killing/banning conservative users and public figures?

    1. Aw, come on. Conservatives are intolerant. So taking about killing/banning them is an expression of tolerance, inclusivity, and equality.

  9. As mentioned elsewhere, support of the Brexit has been considered racism and/or hate speech. This will be totally awesome. Who are these arbiters of what is goodspeech and what is badspeech?

    1. Yeah, they’re like totally “prejudiced”.

    2. Your helpful women’s studies majors of course…

    3. ‘Hatred’ should be understood as referring to hatred
      based on race, colour, religion, descent or national or
      ethnic origin.

      Totally clear to me.

      1. You sound like a fucking white male.

        1. I meet the criteria for all three descriptors, yes.

          1. But also a white fucking male? Your lack of diversity will be noted.

    4. They should stop fucking around and just call it badspeech and approved speech.

    5. Is it not racism and hate speech? Leaving the EU means leaving the E.U. Justice and Home Affairs Council and its Code of Conduct, which exist to battle racism and hate speech. Who would want to do that other than racists and hate speakers?

  10. Anyone want to give some examples of “hate speech” under this policy? Lets see,

    Anything the offends any Muslim anywhere on earth for any reason
    Referring to anyone by a gender specific pronoun
    Saying anything derogatory about gays without also possessing a valid Muslim oppressed person card
    Expressing anything positive about western European culture
    Any skepticism towards the EU
    Voicing any objection to immigration of any kind
    Mentioning a crime committed by a designated oppressed person.

    I think that covers most of the “hate speech” that will be censored under this policy. Anything I missed?

    1. Actually, according to the text gays aren’t covered.

      1. That doesn’t surprise me. Gays have outlived their usefulness to the cause in Europe. The Progs are throwing them over the side in favor or Muslims. Their US counterparts are likely to do the same in the coming years.

        1. I think it’s interesting that this all apparently descended from making Holocaust denial illegal in Europe as opposed to the American version which is based on the 60’s civil rights movement. The European version is more about preserving the public order whereas the American version is more about positive rights.

          At least that’s how I’m reading the text of the code.

          For the purpose of paragraph 1, Member States may
          choose to punish only conduct which is either carried out in
          a manner likely to disturb public order or which is threatening,
          abusive or insulting.

          1. “Insulting” is a rather wide net….

      2. well, there is a pecking order. In Europe, it seems Muslims are the current leaders in the victimhood sweepstakes, followed by unspecified immigrants. If gays make the list, then the inference is that Muslims are wrong and that, of course, would be hate speech.

        1. In Holland, at least, one of the major leaders of the anti-immigrant group (Geert Wilders) IS gay, and that’s why he’s leading the fight–he fears for his safety if Holland becomes more Islamized.

          1. In Sweden the far right was trying to have a gay pride march through Muslim neighborhoods. That is first class trolling there.

          2. and his apparent lack of success makes my point. As Europe stands right now, Muslim gay on the SJW list.

  11. the code stipulates that tech companies, “recognizing the value of independent counter speech against hateful rhetoric and prejudice,” will also “aim to continue their work in identifying and promoting independent counter-narratives, new ideas and initiatives and supporting educational programs that encourage critical thinking.”

    You know who else had “programs that encourage critical thinking” “Prejudice”, very funny.

  12. Glad I don’t use Facebook, Twitter, Microsoft, or Google for any communications.

  13. Anyone living in Europe should start using VPNs based outside Europe.

  14. Someday, “The Net Delusion: The Dark Side of Internet Freedom” by Evgeny Morozov will be a libertarian classic.

    Back when everyone was hyping the power of Facebook and Twitter to overthrow tyrants, he was giving us all a dose of reality.

    The fact is that social media has given the government the ability to monitor speech and identify people like they’ve never had before. Even while dissidents during the Arab Spring were using social media to communicate and collaborate like never before, the vicious dictators were using social media to track dissidents and trace their fellow collaborators like they never could before.

    This is C.S. Lewis territory, too, but before there was radio and film, the Nazis couldn’t use those mediums to propagandize people. Before there were phones, there were no phone taps. It’s important to remember that there are no good or evil technologies. ‘Guns don’t kill people; people kill people’ applies to all sorts of technologies. Computers can be used to facilitate communication like never before, but they can also be used to track every one of our emails and phone calls.

    The moral I draw from this is not that technology is bad. It’s that technology will never serve as a substitute for people who are genuinely committed to freedom.

    1. Yes, absolutely agree. That’s why Bitcoon fanboys piss me off so much. Technology is ideologically neutral and will not save us. People’s hearts and brains need to open up.

      1. People’s hearts and brains need to open up.

        Check out Hannibal Lecter over here.

        1. We will win their hearts and minds with fava beans.

          1. And a nice chianti.

      2. The bitcoin people are a special breed of stupid. They can’t seem to grasp how easy it would be for governments to control bitcoin. Electronic money replacing paper money is what is going to take our privacy and kill our freedom. Governments are obsessed with getting rid of cash and don’t give a shit about bitcoin for good reason. Bit coin is nothing but a honey trap.

        1. They can’t really control it, but they can ban vendors in the mainstream economy from accepting it as tender.

  15. Lie Junius […] said the company is “pleased to work with the [European Commission] to develop co- and self-regulatory approaches to fighting hate speech online.”

    Translation: as long as we’re still making money in Europe, we don’t care how hard they stamp their boot on your necks.

    1. In all honesty, its not really their responsibility. The citizens of each nation should be fighting back about this, but they aren’t because they probably don’t care. Maybe they even support such policies…

      1. The citizens don’t “care” because – for now – they live in one of the richest, most comfortable societies in history.

        1. They have become complacent indeed…

  16. The whole idea that ‘hate speech’ spreads throughout a society is a huge fallacy. What happens is that a few haters go around and bully people into compliance and no one stands up to them. Laws like this will not reduce ‘hate speech’ they will only radicalize the warmongers. The same thinking was used against drugs: “If we limit the access to drugs this will reduce violence, drug use, crime, overdose and death.” The reverse is true, as Portugal and Colorado demonstrate. Same for hate speech: government should make no law to restrict it. The founding fathers of this country got that. Both Trump and Hillary get it too – all too well.

  17. “Illegal” hate speech. Criticizing the government is illegal hate speech in some places, is it illegal hate speech world-wide now? I don’t have a problem with censoring illegal hate speech as long as we use the US standard of there is no such thing, but the guidelines seem to allow “illegal” to mean whatever anybody certified by the PTB deems illegal. So they’re saying it’s illegal to do illegal things. Well, no kidding – but what’s illegal? Anything you say is illegal is ipso facto illegal? Sounds similar to was it Boxer? who wanted to pass legislation to keep the NSA from doing anything illegal by making everything the NSA does by definition legal.

    1. Feinstein

    2. Since something can be made illegal using some quick, last minute legislation, the possibilities are endless.

  18. i, For one, applaUd bold, neCessary measures such as this. i thinK iT’s about time tHat people fInally Share with otherS tHat Ignorance will noT be tolerated. I thinK calm, ratIonal diScuSions are Most worthY of ASSpirations for us all.

    1. Come you nigh, Kay shuns.

  19. And this is why Flemming Rose is not a hero but a pansy for the Danish Caliphate, which would just as soon jail him as they do many others who run afoul of their ‘hate speech’ shariah.

  20. Facebook, Twitter, Google, and Microsoft Agree to Hate Speech Code of Conduct Wipe Their Asses With the First Amendment

    FTFY.

    1. I think this only applies in the EU – no pesky free speech issues there.

    2. Just like Chazz did with his record contract.

      “He wipes his ass with his record contract; I like this guy!”

  21. all forms of intolerance by the end of 2016

    This seems like suicide for Twitter.

    When a fruit cart vendor lights himself on fire rather than continuing to tolerate oppression, Twitter is gonna stand up and say, “We refuse to talk about this!” When workers in Bangladesh say they will no longer tolerate sub-standard working conditions, Twitter is going to send the clear message, “Shut up and go back to work peasants!”

    FB and Google at least have a social/cultural aspect and/or ‘ecosystem’ and MS is so prolific on so many levels… but Twitter is notoriously up-to-the-minute and ‘unfiltered’. Saying “There are stories you will never hear about on Twitter, because Twitter.” sounds like they’re shooting themselves in the face.

    1. Twitter has never made a profit and has burned through hundreds of millions of dollars in investor capital and share holder value. At this point, suicide is really the only honorable option left for Twitter.

      1. Hashtag about damn time.

        1. it can’t die fast enough. The company has never made a profit or done anything to justify its existence. It needs to die.

            1. The future is a bum shitting in a park while reducing every argument to 145 characters or less.

                1. Nothing deals with a bunch of armed murderous lunatics like a sharply worded hashtag campaign. If only we had had twitter back in the 1930s, those Nazis would have never gotten anywhere.

                    1. Crusty that is the most tasteless thing I have heard or read since the guy who told me he had a relative who died in the Holocaust; by falling out of a guard tower.

                      You are the worst.

    2. “This seems like suicide for Twitter.”

      Twitter censored lots of accounts of Jihadists, a couple of years back showing the work of the head-choppers and it doesn’t seem to have hurt them. There wasn’t a peep of protest in these pages over Twitter’s actions.

      1. Then they started censoring Gamergaters and conservatives, and there was an outcry.

  22. “a group defined by reference to race, colour, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin.”

    So, bashing some group’s philosophy, belief system, traditions, speech, or action is still OK, right? RIGHT?!

  23. ensure “that online platforms do not offer opportunities for illegal online hate speech to spread virally.”

    Emphasis added. These self-censoring clowns can’t “ensure” a fucking thing.

  24. The way to deal with hate speech is not to ban it, not to pile on the bullying, and not to sit back and watch who can hurl the most hurtful insults. The way to combat hate speech is to confront it and call it out for what it is – people looking for an excuse for violence. The irony about hate speech laws is that they serve exactly the same purpose. The founding fathers of our nation got that. Maybe some people forgot, but if so this is your reminder. 🙂

    1. The way to deal with hate speech is not to ban it

      Now, *that* is HATE SPEECH!

    2. Unless it is slander or libel or an actual threat of violence, why is there any reason to deal with speech of any kind? Everyone should be entitled to say what they want. If what they say is so bad, then that will be self evident and the speech won’t matter. And if the speech does matter, maybe the problem is with you and not the speech.

      1. I sometimes wonder how people who are easily offended deal with their *own* errant thoughts.

        Self-flagellation, or what?

        1. They deal with them by punishing other people for their thoughts. You must be made to suffer for my sins Rich.

          1. “I never had these problems until I was aware of other people. Therefore, ….”

      2. ” Everyone should be entitled to say what they want. ”

        Facebook et al has every right to do as they wish with the content users provide. Facebook users evidently agree, having given their assent on signing up.

        1. Sure they can. But that doesn’t make them any less assholes for doing so.

  25. Fashion can be a crime in the UK:

    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-eng…..r-36412814

    Love how they blanked out text.

    1. “displaying abusive writing… likely to cause distress”

      Not vague at all.

      1. “Oh, very well. ‘Displaying abusive writing… likely to cause distress to a reasonable person’.”

    2. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new…..o-perform/

      Converting your girlfriend’s pug into a Nazi will also get you arrested. I hate Nazi pugs. .

      1. No more screenings of “The Producers” in the UK I guess.

      2. WARNING: THIS VIDEO FEATURES MATERIAL THAT MAY CAUSE OFFENCE

        Oh man, I wouldn’t have guessed that from the article title and the name of the video, which is written clearly at the top of the viewing pane.

        1. I thought the video was hilarious, its the reaction that’s truly sinister.

      3. I couldn’t help myself. That is hilarious because it is offensive. Also I don’t see how anyone could be harmed by the pug or the wanker. I’m either a horribly awful waffle or some people have paper thin skin.

        1. At first I thought he was saying to the dog “glass of juice”.

          1. He said the sheriff is near.

  26. This.

    This is not good.

  27. OT: were these Star Trek: TNG Trekinis brought up in the AM lynx?

    1. Set phasers to ROWR.

  28. Facebook, Twitter and Microsoft can burn in hell for all I care. Fucking petry dishes of assholes.

    Google is the most disappointing though. They desperately need a competitor.

  29. Fucking pathetic. Will we still be able to get to Reason through Google or will we need to use DuckDuckGo?

  30. “all conduct publicly inciting to violence or hatred directed against a group of persons or a member of such a group defined by reference to race, colour, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin.”

    Special pleading questions: Will grumpy, impatient atheists be tolerated?

    Is inciting contempt for superstition and religious stooges inciting hate directed against a group of persons or a member of such a group defined by religion?

    Would the tweet, “all believers in divine revelation are dupes and idiots,” be considered hate speech?

    How about, “more likely than not, the prophet mohammed never existed”? “The jesus story is almost certainly a complete myth”?

    Linking to http://www.jesusandmo.net/ ?

    One man’s hate speech is another man’s irritated, dismissive put-down.

  31. News bimbo: “The president said something so nasty today that we won’t repeat it.”

    [camera pans down for glorious upskirt shot]

  32. Note the sneaky way they keep saying “violence or hatred.”

    That way, you sound like you’re against violence, but you actually never have to show any connection between speech and violence.

    1. And they stuck “insults” in there, as if they are the same thing.

  33. Anyone checked whether this even falls under the EU’s jurisdiction? This appears to be another Commerce Clause drama, though this time it’s not even a federal entity, but a “supra-national” one..

  34. Cynical theory: why now? Because better weather means more refugees and Europe and more illegals in the US. Plus, US elections are coming up. Better start cracking down on nationalist sentiments “hate speech.”

  35. Thinking someone’s race is their defining characteristic seems like a reasonable definition of racism to me. “Oh, Moses Matzohwicz is Jewish? I don’t need to see his resume’…

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.