Submitted by Soren Kern via The Gatestone Institute,
-
Opponents counter that the initiative amounts to an assault on free speech in Europe. They say that
the European Union's definition of "hate speech" and "incitement to
violence" is so vague that it could include virtually anything deemed
politically incorrect by European authorities, including criticism of mass migration, Islam or even the EU itself.
-
Some Members of the European Parliament have characterized the EU's
code of online conduct -- which requires "offensive" material to be
removed from the Internet within 24 hours -- as "Orwellian."
-
"By deciding that 'xenophobic' comment in reaction to the crisis is
also 'racist,' Facebook has made the view of the majority of the
European people... into 'racist' views, and so is condemning the majority of Europeans as 'racist.'" — Douglas Murray.
-
In January 2013, Facebook suspended the account of Khaled Abu Toameh
after he wrote about corruption in the Palestinian Authority. The
account was reopened 24 hours later, but with the two posts deleted and
no explanation.
Proponents of the initiative argue that in the aftermath of the recent terrorist attacks in Paris and Brussels, a crackdown on "hate speech" is necessary to counter jihadist propaganda online.
Opponents counter that the initiative amounts to an assault on free speech in Europe. They say that the EU's definition of "hate speech" and "incitement to violence" is so vague that it could include virtually anything deemed politically incorrect by European authorities, including criticism of mass migration, Islam or even the European Union itself.
Some Members of the European
Parliament have characterized the EU's code of online conduct — which
requires "offensive" material to be removed from the Internet within 24
hours, and replaced with "counter-narratives" — as "Orwellian."...Continue reading...
No comments:
Post a Comment