Top Internet Companies Agree To Vague Notice & Takedown Rules For 'Hate Speech' In The EU
from the who-defines-what-hate-speech-is dept
It's easy to say that "hate speech" is bad and that we, as a society, shouldn't tolerate it. But, reality is a lot more complicated than that, which is why we're concerned about various attempts to ban or stifle "hate speech." In the US, contrary to what many believe to be true, "hate" speech is still protected speech under the First Amendment. In Europe, that's often not the case, and hate speech bans are more common. But, as we've noted, while it seems like a no brainer to be against hate speech, the vagueness in what counts as "hate speech" allows that term to be expanded over and over again, such that laws against hate speech are now regularly used for government censorship over the public saying things the government doesn't like.So consider me quite concerned about the news out of the EU that the EU Commission has convinced all the big internet platform companies -- Google, Facebook, Twitter and Microsoft -- to agree to remove "hate speech" within 24 hours.
Upon receipt of a valid removal notification, the IT Companies to review such requests against their rules and community guidelines and where necessary national laws transposing the Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA, with dedicated teams reviewing requests.In other words, it sounds a lot like these companies have agreed to a DMCA-like notice-and-takedown regime for handling "hate speech." Let's be clear here: this will be abused and it will be abused widely. That's what happens when you give individuals the ability to remove content from platforms. Obviously, these companies are private companies and can set whatever policies they want on keeping up or removing content, but when they come to an agreement with the EU Commission about what they'll remove and how quickly, reasonable concerns should be raised about how this will work in practice, what definitions will be used to determine "hate speech," what kinds of appeals processes there will be and more. And none of that is particularly clear.
The IT Companies to review the majority of valid notifications for removal of illegal hate speech in less than 24 hours and remove or disable access to such content, if necessary.
In addition to the above, the IT Companies to educate and raise awareness with their users about the types of content not permitted under their rules and community guidelines. The use of the notification system could be used as a tool to do this.
And, of course, very few people will raise these issues upfront because no one wants to be seen as being in favor of hate speech. And that's the real problem. It's easy to create rules for censorship by saying it's just about "hate speech," since almost no one will stand up and complain about that. But that opens up the door to all sorts of abuse -- whether in how "hate speech" is defined, as well as in how the companies will actually handle the implementation. Two major human rights groups -- EDRi and Access Now have already withdrawn from the EU Commission forum discussing all of this in protest of how these rules were put together:
Today, on 31 May, European Digital Rights (EDRi) and Access Now delivered a joint statement on the EU Commission’s “EU Internet Forum”, announcing our decision not to take part in future discussions and confirming that we do not have confidence in the ill considered “code of conduct” that was agreed.Their main concern was that the whole thing was set up directly between the EU Commission and the internet companies behind closed doors -- and when you're talking about issues that impact human rights and freedom of expression, that needs to be done openly and transparently.
In short, the “code of conduct” downgrades the law to a second-class status, behind the “leading role” of private companies that are being asked to arbitrarily implement their terms of service. This process, established outside an accountable democratic framework, exploits unclear liability rules for companies. It also creates serious risks for freedom of expression as legal but controversial content may well be deleted as a result of this voluntary and unaccountable take down mechanism.I recognize why many people may cheer on this move, thinking that it's a way to stop "bad stuff" from happening online, but beware the actual consequences of setting up an opaque process with a vague standard for pressuring platforms to censor content based on notices from angry people. If you don't think this will be abused in dangerous ways, you haven't been paying attention to the last two decades on the internet.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: censorship, eu, eu commission, hate speech, internet, notice and takedown, platforms
Companies: facebook, google, microsoft, twitter, youtube
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Criticizing police could be hate speech
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/05/26/louisianas-blue-lives-matter-bi ll-just-became-law/
So how long will it be until criticizing police becomes labeled hate speech and removed?
Granted, Louisiana is in the US and we're talking about EU law, but still.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Great news for Unemployment Rate
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The main danger in outlawing hate speech is...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The main danger in outlawing hate speech is...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Criticizing police could be hate speech
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Great news for Unemployment Rate
You have found the solution to unemployment. Somebody get a Nobel for this guy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Is this how it starts...?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Yep... it's OK for you to be yourself--as long as you agree with me.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Is this how it starts...?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Remember folks...
If you are okay with your country doing this, then I hope you burn because you are literally asking to be burned! And who would deny such a request? We all know the government won't... in fact no request necessary, they will burn you just because thy need a good laugh from time to time.
Enjoy your tyranny... it's going to be real ride!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Some people cannot apply the same logic with roles reversed.
I imagine that officials, law enforcement agents and judges may find themselves similarly challenged.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Is this how it starts...?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Is this how it starts...?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I say good on them, let them hide their heads in the sand, cover their ears, yell I can't hear you, and force all the hate speech underground where they can never monitor it.
This reminds me of something ... oh yeah, now I remember ... it's kind of like attention seeking attorney generals and police departments forcing Craig's list to de-list prostitution, and now that we have zero prostitution in the United States, I feel so much safer. /sarc
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This is why...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Example: "Broccoli ice cream" could mean "This sucks hard". Could use a simple userscript or extension to automatically encode and decode (if you have the key).
Guess it's time to update my bot to send lots of complaints that politicians are actively using hate speech on their social media. Mark randomly or everything as hate speech. Lets see how they like it to be censored.
The people responsible, I want to see them burn alive. That's how pissed off I am. Could see myself smile while they scream in agony from the flames.
Would infecting them with a deadly virus be more painful? We could use them to find out.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Is this how it starts...?
No, of course not. Historians won't exist. Revisionists will.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The main danger in outlawing hate speech is...
'That's a feature, not a bug.' -Politicians
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Is this how it starts...?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
'It is legal to be critical of the following, and ONLY the following groups/beliefs:'
2 - "Just a pack of bigoted assholes."
3 - "They're revolting, absolutely disgusting."
4 - "Their ideas are reprehensible, and will lead only to suffering."
5 - "They're nothing but a cult, and a dangerous one at that."
Which of the above are 'hate speech', and which are statements of opinion? Does your opinion change if I told you the above statements were made...
1A - Against someone who prefers to live with as little tech as possible.
1B - Against someone living in a trailer-park.
2A - By the KKK against people intolerant of their stance on race.
2B - Against the KKK for their stance on race.
3A - By a same-sex couple against someone protesting equal rights.
3B - Against a same-sex couple for, well... existing.
4A - By a religious individual against an atheist.
4B - Against a religious individual by an atheist.
5A - By a Scientologist against someone who believes different.
5B - Against a scientologist for what they believe.
One person's 'hate speech' is another person's 'statement of opinion', so the idea that you can trim out 'hate speech' without impacting free speech fails from the start. You want to deal with 'hate speech', you counter it with more speech and social responses like refusing to have anything to do with someone so long as they hold a belief that you find reprehensible.
Doing it the 'legal' way will just end up making criticism of certain groups, claims or topics 'illegal'; it doesn't actually do anything to address them, it just brushes them under the rug to fester.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Criticizing police could be hate speech
George Orwell 1984.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Criticizing police could be hate speech
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Because the Syrian refugee crisis and related issues, such as the resulting epidemic of sexual assaults perpetrated by the young male immigrants, is undoubtedly the chief driving force behind this measure.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
EU is only merely holding facebook to its own rules.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Some people cannot apply the same logic with roles reversed.
In her case, it was more her actions than her speech that brought that criticism. Nobody would have minded so much if the hateful bigot had either done her job or allowed someone else to do it for her. It was the refusal to grant a federally approved status to a group she hated that was the sticking point.
But, I generally agree with what you're saying.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
There sure is a lot of hate speech in this thread.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bear also in mind that Green Party MPs are being surveilled over here. How long till their tweets, etc., get removed for advocating against fracking? Whether you agree with them or not that ought to be protected speech.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/28/police-anti-extremism-unit-monitoring-green-p arty-caroline-lucas-sian-berry
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: 'It is legal to be critical of the following, and ONLY the following groups/beliefs:'
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: The main danger in outlawing hate speech is...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Don't tread on me unless you want a black eye.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Don't tread on me unless you want a black eye.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: 'It is legal to be critical of the following, and ONLY the following groups/beliefs:'
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Don't tread on me unless you want a black eye.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
EU
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]