The EU on its way to shut mouths

[The Avon Lady]

You've most likely heard about the recent suggestion of the EU to criminalize "hate speech".

Continuing in that direction, is this attempt to stifle blogs (http://www.heise.de/english/newsticker/news/88577).

Note on of the people involved is Britain's Labour MEP Glyn Ford. Seen his N. Korea page (http://www.glynford.com/index.php?doc=39) lately? Note the nice poster on the wall.

Good luck, Europe!

[P_Funk]

calls on providers in somewhat vague language to make provisions against "hate pages" part of their standard terms and conditions. When it comes to laws about freedoms or the restriction thereof, vague language is very dangerous.

I don't want to see them enforce laws over the internet. Its one of the last truly free domains. Between the American push to appropriate it for the private sector, and this, I really worry for its future.

[STEED]

to banish racism and hate propaganda from the Internet altogether

Do they know how big the Internet is?

[tycho102]

to banish racism and hate propaganda from the Internet altogether
Do they know how big the Internet is?

Do you know how badly the Illumaniti want to be able to regulate it?

[Smaragdadler]

"They" (whoever) would have to set up a completly new Net (Web) not compatible with the old. All global electronic comercial traffic (banking, online shopping, internet tv etc) would have to switch to the "new+better+safer+goverment approved" Internet v2.0...
Everybody will get a RFID-"login"-chip under his skin with all his biometrical and other personal data, which also functions as pass, driving license etc.

...ALL in ONE...

:sunny:Brave New World :sunny:

[SUBMAN1]

to banish racism and hate propaganda from the Internet altogether
Do they know how big the Internet is?
Do you know how badly the Illumaniti want to be able to regulate it?
AH oh! Now ya did it! Conspriracy theories to follow... :p

They will have to fight with the Free Masons over it.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

...Note on of the people involved is Britain's Labour MEP Glyn Ford. Seen his N. Korea page (http://www.glynford.com/index.php?doc=39) lately? Note the nice poster on the wall.

Good luck, Europe!

Ahh - hello? That poster has a DPRK missile hitting the US. Umm, is this guy really in charge?

-S

[STEED]

to banish racism and hate propaganda from the Internet altogether
Do they know how big the Internet is?
Do you know how badly the Illumaniti want to be able to regulate it?
AH oh! Now ya did it! Conspriracy theories to follow... :p

They will have to fight with the Free Masons over it.

-S

More like Trilateral Commission or if you want to be very strange the secret organisation that licks Tony Blair's..................?

[JSLTIGER]

to banish racism and hate propaganda from the Internet altogether
Do they know how big the Internet is?
Do you know how badly the Illumaniti want to be able to regulate it?
AH oh! Now ya did it! Conspriracy theories to follow... :p

They will have to fight with the Free Masons over it.

-S
More like Trilateral Commission or if you want to be very strange the secret organisation that licks Tony Blair's..................?

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

[U-533]

hate speech?

ha...

hate speech...

according to some of these fine folks hate speech is anyone who doesn't believe they are right

I don't think or believe they are right!

COME GET SOME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

BRING A LUNCH CUZ IT'LL BE AN ALL DAY JOB...

:sunny:

[waste gate]

My question is who/whom decides what speach is hate speach? I certainly don't agree with the current 'hate crime laws' here in the US. Hate speach is even more problematic. Speach is nothing more than ideas openly expressed. The idea is tyrannical, and the outcome of such laws are enslaving.

[Tchocky]

There's the question of intent, waste gate. Most laws about words are counter-productive at best, but inciting violence is not on.

It's a tough one to legislate, though. Judicial leeway seems to be the way to go

[SUBMAN1]

My question is who/whom decides what speach is hate speach? I certainly don't agree with the current 'hate crime laws' here in the US. Hate speach is even more problematic. Speach is nothing more than ideas openly expressed. The idea is tyrannical, and the outcome of such laws are enslaving.

Thats the point. You could theoretically outlaw any negative speech, over reasons such as politcal speech simply by calling it hate speech. It is a dangeroud precendent this man is trying to set.

-S

[Tchocky]

This is a push by five MEP's, doesnt quite merit the thread title

[waste gate]

There's the question of intent, waste gate. Most laws about words are counter-productive at best, but inciting violence is not on.

It's a tough one to legislate, though. Judicial leeway seems to be the way to go

Still following me I see.

That is the point if it cannot be legislated by hundreds how can a court, one or three or five persons ruling be any more legitimate. This is the road to dictatorship or oligarcy nothing more.

Many dictatorships have started by limiting what can be said.

[waste gate]

There's the question of intent, waste gate. Most laws about words are counter-productive at best, but inciting violence is not on.

It's a tough one to legislate, though. Judicial leeway seems to be the way to go

Still following me I see.

That is the point if it cannot be legislated by hundreds how can a court, one or three or five persons ruling be any more legitimate. This is the road to dictatorship or oligarcy nothing more.

Many dictatorships have started by limiting what can be said. G. Orwell's book is all about this issue.

[P_Funk]

There's the question of intent, waste gate. Most laws about words are counter-productive at best, but inciting violence is not on.

It's a tough one to legislate, though. Judicial leeway seems to be the way to go
Still following me I see.

That is the point if it cannot be legislated by hundreds how can a court, one or three or five persons ruling be any more legitimate. This is the road to dictatorship or oligarcy nothing more.

Many dictatorships have started by limiting what can be said. G. Orwell's book is all about this issue.
Again I find myself agreeing with you.:yep:

[U-533]

There's the question of intent, waste gate. Most laws about words are counter-productive at best, but inciting violence is not on.

It's a tough one to legislate, though. Judicial leeway seems to be the way to go
Still following me I see.

That is the point if it cannot be legislated by hundreds how can a court, one or three or five persons ruling be any more legitimate. This is the road to dictatorship or oligarcy nothing more.

Many dictatorships have started by limiting what can be said. G. Orwell's book is all about this issue.
Again I find myself agreeing with you.:yep:

It's "Common Sense"... Good ol fashioned "Common Sense"

This is why waste gate should be president...

or MAYBE...:hmm: maybe "Galactic Ruler"

:sunny: :sunny:

[GlobalExplorer]

I am absolutely against that ****. It is a bit like in the inquisition when you weren't allowed to say the earth was round.

Or like in "Life of Brian" when the Jews would lapidate anyone who said "Jehova".