Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

France passes law forcing online platforms to delete hate-speech within 24 hours

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 97 posts

Re: France passes law forcing online platforms to delete hate-speech within 24 hours

#71

Post by smoe »

filoleg wrote: post #61
smoe wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess it is "weird" in a sense that in various places in Europe online platforms are (and have been for long time) liable for user generated content. E.g. if a Swiss news site has a comment section where users violate anti racism laws, the site owner can be sued since they published and didn't remove it. Regarding free society. I think each one has its own quirks and difference where they consider someone's freedom…

>the US's handling of nudity and swear words is absolutely bizarre to me as a European and as someone from the US you might think the restriction on speech and use of symbols many places in Europe have go too far. Does the law in the US actually regulate that? I was under the assumption that the nudity prohibition on TV and such was simply a voluntary measure. Facebook is welcome to allow it at any moment, they just…

Yes I realized after posting, that most of it is probably self-censorship of Google, Facebook and co.

But as I understand it public access television is quite heavily regulated in terms of profanity and nudity and you will get fined for violations

https://www.fcc.gov/general/obscenity-indecency-and-profanit...

E.g. The 2004 Superbowl where Janet Jackson flashed her nipples. Viacom paid out US$3.5 million to settle indecency complaints and got fined 500k which got later overruled because it was only "fleeting" indecency. It sounds to me that ruling could have gone either way.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Bowl_XXXVIII_halftime_sh...

But don't know how much of that extends to others forms of media than tv.

Re: France passes law forcing online platforms to delete hate-speech within 24 hours

#72

Post by superflit »

henearkr wrote: post #55
superflit wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a very broad term on this law. "prejudice against a particular group." So if I call Trump supporters "ignorant red necks and backward people," Will it be considered Hate speech? Or when people say: "White people are " Will that be considered hate speech too? Disclaimer: I am a "protected" minority, but I am in favor of free speech. Even if what you say is ugly or garbage. PS. I consider downvotes here as offe…

From what you can see in France or more broadly in Europe, the hate speech is only characterized when you really offend the minorities (or some persons belonging), and more specifically when you do so by yielding a kind of wanting-to-sound-objective argumentation to harm them. This is worse when you call to harm them. In your examples, which are clearly mere slurs, you do not try to sound objective in your bad depict…

Yes,

But this broad "yielding a kind of wanting-to-sound-objective argumentation to harm them" is where the devil is.

I can consider the downvotes "hate speech" because they were targeted at me as a "protected minority," and it does not consider my emotions. I felt very depressed about it, and HN did not make accommodations to make me feel safe expressing it without any prejudice.

And I demand it to be removed.

How about when people use master and slave names on Tech? -> http://antirez.com/news/122 I feel sick because of my past as a slave descendent.

We can find offense and hate in anything if we care to look deep enough.

It is more about "WHO" will be censored than about the message. Will it be used to repress science? News? What if News become "hate speech"? Or science?

Re: France passes law forcing online platforms to delete hate-speech within 24 hours

#73

Post by dogma1138 »

trianglem wrote: post #13
VWWHFSfQ wrote: post #2

france is such a weird place. In some ways it's a very free society. In other ways it's not free at all. Don't most of the euro countries have weird laws about hate speech like this?

It’s simple. You’re not free to be intolerant. What is intolerant? Anything that involves biological differences that people are unable to change.

So by that definition it’s ok to make fun of fat people because they can go on a diet and hit the gym?

Re: France passes law forcing online platforms to delete hate-speech within 24 hours

#74

Post by henearkr »

superflit wrote: post #72
henearkr wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From what you can see in France or more broadly in Europe, the hate speech is only characterized when you really offend the minorities (or some persons belonging), and more specifically when you do so by yielding a kind of wanting-to-sound-objective argumentation to harm them. This is worse when you call to harm them. In your examples, which are clearly mere slurs, you do not try to sound objective in your bad depict…

Yes, But this broad "yielding a kind of wanting-to-sound-objective argumentation to harm them" is where the devil is. I can consider the downvotes "hate speech" because they were targeted at me as a "protected minority," and it does not consider my emotions. I felt very depressed about it, and HN did not make accommodations to make me feel safe expressing it without any prejudice. And I demand it to be removed. How a…

But the first example is just unspecific, and attributing the downvotes to some reason is difficult without real replies.

And the example of master/slave is at most insensitivity, not at all hate speech.

Hate speech is really more characterized than that. Besides true insults and slurs, those are for example the theories that make some minorities the cause of societal problems by blunt reasoning, often using abusive generalisations at each of their sentences...

I understand your point though, and I agree, the law itself should be a lot more specific, explicitly.

Re: France passes law forcing online platforms to delete hate-speech within 24 hours

#75

Post by mydongle »

superflit wrote: post #38
olivermarks wrote: post #31

Hate speech definition: 'abusive or threatening speech or writing that expresses prejudice against a particular group, especially on the basis of race, religion, or sexual orientation'. How can this possibly be enforced? This is Bowdlerization of online debate. (removing material that is considered improper or offensive from (a text or account), especially with the result that the text becomes weaker or less effectiv…

This is a very broad term on this law. "prejudice against a particular group." So if I call Trump supporters "ignorant red necks and backward people," Will it be considered Hate speech? Or when people say: "White people are " Will that be considered hate speech too? Disclaimer: I am a "protected" minority, but I am in favor of free speech. Even if what you say is ugly or garbage. PS. I consider downvotes here as offe…

How can HN downvote such a man? I knew we were racist fascists all along...

Re: France passes law forcing online platforms to delete hate-speech within 24 hours

#76

Post by VWWHFSfQ »

trianglem wrote: post #17
VWWHFSfQ wrote: post #2

france is such a weird place. In some ways it's a very free society. In other ways it's not free at all. Don't most of the euro countries have weird laws about hate speech like this?

“Weird” I would use the word fantastic instead.

not really

Re: France passes law forcing online platforms to delete hate-speech within 24 hours

#77

Post by jshevek »

trianglem wrote: post #13
VWWHFSfQ wrote: post #2

france is such a weird place. In some ways it's a very free society. In other ways it's not free at all. Don't most of the euro countries have weird laws about hate speech like this?

It’s simple. You’re not free to be intolerant. What is intolerant? Anything that involves biological differences that people are unable to change.

>What is intolerant? Anything that involves biological differences that people are unable to change.

You haven't provided a meaningful answer to your question. For example, praising someone's eyes would be intolerant. Providing a factual description would be intolerance.

Re: France passes law forcing online platforms to delete hate-speech within 24 hours

#78

Post by jshevek »

kansface wrote: post #35
Joeri wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It can be argued the U.S. is the “weird” country for not restricting hate speech. It’s not just the EU, most countries regulate hate speech. This is not perceived as restricting freedom, because it protects the freedoms of the group the hate speech targets (one person’s freedom ends where another’s begins).

> it protects the freedoms of the group the hate speech targets Which freedoms would that be?

I can think of no freedoms that I lose if I am simply mocked, insulted, or criticized. To lose freedom, we have to mix in something else, like for example a targeted harrassment campaign.

Re: France passes law forcing online platforms to delete hate-speech within 24 hours

#79

Post by Barrin92 »

kansface wrote: post #35
Joeri wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It can be argued the U.S. is the “weird” country for not restricting hate speech. It’s not just the EU, most countries regulate hate speech. This is not perceived as restricting freedom, because it protects the freedoms of the group the hate speech targets (one person’s freedom ends where another’s begins).

> it protects the freedoms of the group the hate speech targets Which freedoms would that be?

for one their physical safety. Hate speech has real consequences. Hate speech against homosexuals in countries like Russia motivates violent crimes against gay people. The keywords here being stochastic violence and propaganda.

Hate speech is used as an intimidation to restrict both the expression and physical safety of the groups it seeks to intimidate.

Re: France passes law forcing online platforms to delete hate-speech within 24 hours

#80

Post by qball »

akersten wrote: post #57
qball wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>there are ongoing discussions at the European Union level I suspect that if the EU really does implement this, the US will likely make it against US law to obey media censorship requests from other countries against speech that the First Amendment protects. They probably should have done that a little while ago (curating content under the request of a foreign government should be one of those things that revoke your…

It is not constitutional for the US to make it illegal to remove content. Regardless of why you would remove it. The 1st Amendment cuts both ways there - you can't be punished for removing something from your billboard. That's your freedom as a US entity to decide what you express. The reasoning behind why you removed content (a violation of your website's terms, a request from a foreign government, contractual oblig…

They can certainly make it illegal to pay any fines, though.

Also, >you can't be punished for removing something from your billboard.

Sure you can, you can just be treated as a "curator" rather than a "publisher" and thus liable for your curated collection. That's the whole point of S. 230, after all.

Post reply on HN