Alpha 
Post by fretslider on Jun 1, 2016 15:43:35 GMT -5
The EU has concluded a deal with Youtube, Twitter, Facebook and Microsoft. These digital corporations have “signed up” to a new European Union (EU) “Code of Conduct”, pledging to censor and “criminalise” perceived “illegal online hate speech” as well as “promoting independent counter-narratives” that the EU favours.
Members of the European Parliament were swift to say that it was “Orwellian,” digital freedom groups pulled out of discussions with the EU, and by the end of the day Index on Censorship, the National Secular Society, the Open Rights Group, and the U.S.-based Free Press all slammed the “Code of Conduct”. Now, everyday users of the platform Twitter are having their say under the trending hashtag #IStandWithHateSpeech.
BREXIT 23.06.2016 @offencepolice
Because "hatespeech" will be whatever the EU doesn't want you to say #IStandWithHateSpeech
Spinosaurus Kin @spinosauruskin
"Hate speech" is simply a different term for "wrongthink"#IStandWithHateSpeech
The definition of “hate speech” given in the EU document is: “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”. The arguments against it given on Twitter can be roughly divided between those who did not trust the EU to not politicise their definition of “hate speech”, and those who believe that in a free society even the most ugly, offensive speech should be protected – free speech fundamentalism.
“Freedom of speech is not just a special and distinctive emblem of Western culture that might be generously abridged or qualified as a measure of respect for other cultures that reject it, the way a crescent or menorah might be added to a Christian religious display.
“Free speech is a condition of legitimate government. Laws and policies are not legitimate unless they have been adopted through a democratic process, and a process is not democratic if government has prevented anyone from expressing his convictions about what those laws and policies should be.
“Ridicule is a distinct kind of expression; its substance cannot be repackaged in a less offensive rhetorical form without expressing something very different from what was intended. That is why cartoons and other forms of ridicule have for centuries, even when illegal, been among the most important weapons of both noble and wicked political movements.
“… If we expect bigots to accept the verdict of the majority once the majority has spoken, then we must permit them to express their bigotry in the process whose verdict we ask them to respect.
Ronald Dworkin
www.breitbart.com/london/2016/06/01/istandwithhatespeech-twitter-users-revolt-orwellian-eu-censorship-deal-facebook/
He was bang on the money when he said [our freedoms have been] .."generously abridged or qualified as a measure of respect for other cultures that reject it"
How many times have the Islamists told us they hate our culture, our democracy and man-made law (that has developed over the long centuries, since long before cartoonhead was a glint in the goatherd's eye)? And yet it's nothing to do with what is after all a religion of peace, right? They reject our ways and with each new demand they make they diminish our freedoms. All this and much much more is being driven by the agendas of the United Nations (unelected bureaucrats) and the EU Commission (unelected bureaucrats).
Why would the UN or the EU be that keen on democracy, anyway.
Members of the European Parliament were swift to say that it was “Orwellian,” digital freedom groups pulled out of discussions with the EU, and by the end of the day Index on Censorship, the National Secular Society, the Open Rights Group, and the U.S.-based Free Press all slammed the “Code of Conduct”. Now, everyday users of the platform Twitter are having their say under the trending hashtag #IStandWithHateSpeech.
BREXIT 23.06.2016 @offencepolice
Because "hatespeech" will be whatever the EU doesn't want you to say #IStandWithHateSpeech
Spinosaurus Kin @spinosauruskin
"Hate speech" is simply a different term for "wrongthink"#IStandWithHateSpeech
The definition of “hate speech” given in the EU document is: “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”. The arguments against it given on Twitter can be roughly divided between those who did not trust the EU to not politicise their definition of “hate speech”, and those who believe that in a free society even the most ugly, offensive speech should be protected – free speech fundamentalism.
“Freedom of speech is not just a special and distinctive emblem of Western culture that might be generously abridged or qualified as a measure of respect for other cultures that reject it, the way a crescent or menorah might be added to a Christian religious display.
“Free speech is a condition of legitimate government. Laws and policies are not legitimate unless they have been adopted through a democratic process, and a process is not democratic if government has prevented anyone from expressing his convictions about what those laws and policies should be.
“Ridicule is a distinct kind of expression; its substance cannot be repackaged in a less offensive rhetorical form without expressing something very different from what was intended. That is why cartoons and other forms of ridicule have for centuries, even when illegal, been among the most important weapons of both noble and wicked political movements.
“… If we expect bigots to accept the verdict of the majority once the majority has spoken, then we must permit them to express their bigotry in the process whose verdict we ask them to respect.
Ronald Dworkin
www.breitbart.com/london/2016/06/01/istandwithhatespeech-twitter-users-revolt-orwellian-eu-censorship-deal-facebook/
He was bang on the money when he said [our freedoms have been] .."generously abridged or qualified as a measure of respect for other cultures that reject it"
How many times have the Islamists told us they hate our culture, our democracy and man-made law (that has developed over the long centuries, since long before cartoonhead was a glint in the goatherd's eye)? And yet it's nothing to do with what is after all a religion of peace, right? They reject our ways and with each new demand they make they diminish our freedoms. All this and much much more is being driven by the agendas of the United Nations (unelected bureaucrats) and the EU Commission (unelected bureaucrats).
Why would the UN or the EU be that keen on democracy, anyway.
?? my betting it is just another ploy against Europeans to make them submit to their masters and follow the line the masters have dictated... threatening and intimidation is what every dictatorship does to try to ensure its control...