EU to Social Media: Ban "FREE SPEECH" incl. the Dalai Lama

Post Reply New Topic

The EU starts its campaign to end democracy and freedom of thought and speech. As if one's opinion of the Left couldn't get any lower, they are surprising silent when threats to liberty come from their own side. War is coming. This new liberal utopia obsessed with gorillas getting shot and transgender bathroom rights may well turn out to be another Weimar Republic. Enjoy the show, fellow humans.

Hate speech laws in the UK have been around since 1986, extending it to social media isn't cause for alarm. It doesn't mean the EU is banning free speech, thats a bit of an irrational exaggeration, don't you think? The EU are simply enforcing a code of conduct on online hate speech.

"The new European Union 'code of conduct on illegal online hate speech' states that the four internet companies will review reports of hate speech in less than 24 hours and remove the content or disable access if necessary." - ITV article used by the video.

"A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—

(a) he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
(b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby." - UK Public Order Act 1986


The Dalai Lama claimed that taking in too many migrants would be "Arab domination", which perhaps could constitute inciting hatred and racism, especially in his position where his words reach millions of people.

It's all well and good getting hyped up by some video, thinking that impending doom is right around the corner, but you have to consider how rational you are thinking in that moment, and whether you are in fact in an emotional mind.

If anyone wants to read the articles used by the video, and form their own opinions, they are here.

Those who campaigned against it have turned out to be absolutely correct on how it would be used. People are being visited by the thought police for complaining on twitter about their towns being swamped by migrants, there have been coordinated attempts to censor news about migrant rape gangs in Europe. Simply reporting the news now is hate speech.

Hate speech itself is a very vague notion, the term brings to mind angry Judophobic speeches made to a baying audience but in practice it means hurting someone's feelings (usually the delusional radical left) by pointing out the race, religion or culture of someone and suggesting (often correctly) that there might be a link between it and their actions.

The new buzzword and forthcoming thoughtcrime is "extremism" a meaningless term than can and will (unless it is stopped) come to mean "anyone who disagrees with the status quo"

Don't you see how that comment alone is similar to hate speech? You're inciting negative feelings towards what you call "immigrants" or "migrants". I'll piece it apart and show how it can be interpreted:

- Complaining on twitter about local immigrants will have the "thought police" knocking on your door.
--> To some, this will encourage fear of police and speaking badly of local immigration. This encourages hostile anxiety, the blame of which is pointed at local immigrants.

- Towns are being swamped by immigrants.
--> This makes it sound like immigrants are pouring into towns. You use the term town to sound small, but the term pouring to exaggerate the influx of immigrants. This creates an illusion of uncontrolled immigration, where significantly more immigrants are coming in than there is room for. Again, encouraging fear about an issue which might not be the case. Fear is a negative emotion, which people don't like feeling. The cause of this is, of course, the immigrants.

- Censoring migrant rape gangs in Europe
--> Here you are saying that that there are rape gangs going around raping people. These gangs are immigrants. So anyone who doesn't want to be raped (everyone) should watch out for immigrants. Not only that, but they exist and higher powers are stopping anyone from talking about. So those who you trust your safety to can no longer be trusted, as they are allowing immigrants to go around raping everyone but noone is allowed to talk about, including the news and local authorities. Also, they exist in Europe, which is where you live, so watch out.

- Reporting the "news" is now hate speech
--> There is more news and events going on, bad stuff about immigrants, but it isn't being published anymore (was it published before? I missed it) because the EU (the bad guys?) won't allow it. So its game over guys. Feel like a victim, immigrants and EU are bad, you're not being told the whole story, so be afraid and feel uncomfortable. The immigrants are to blame for any negative emotions (fear, anxiety, etc.) you have.

EUSSR

get out while they still let you

it's an undemocratic institution that strips your country completely of its soveirgnty, they will interfere in your elections if they do not like who you are voting for

Although there is little I agree with Mikah on, I have to agree with regard to free speech. There is a difference between being provocative, and incitement.

The legal definition of incitement, isn't the broader use of the word. It is literally a call or encouragement to do violence.

However, I do find it amusing when regressive groups critisise other regressive groups with no apparent sense of irony.

As if social conservatism and ultra-nationalism isn't as regressive and controlling as the crazy s**t you get on the other side. I mean there is a enough trouble dealing with regressive and draconian ideas, without them lot attempting to capatalise and pretend they are the solution.

This isn't the context of public order offenses.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/comm ... media/#a11



I'm not saying I agree with the Dalai Lama but him being wrong doesn't mean he or anyone expressing those views should be censored.

There are offenses related to hate crimes and incitement, but that doesn't mean the threshold is met.

Regarding your other spiel, just becuase something could be interpreted a certain way, doesn't mean that was the intent or even meets the legal threshold. That is a very important distinction to make.

It isn't relevant the position of the person, if the person wasn't calling for violence or harm as far as culpability. This isn't relevant to public order offenses. He is not even in the jurisdiction where an offense could take place.

The way you are talking is as if you can't anticipate any negative consequences, to having such lose definition of what should be considered legally harmful.

The best course of action is to make the counter argument. Locking people up of censoring them If anything will vindicate them in the eyes of some who feel disenfranchised.

We all have fundamental rights. These are atomic (and naturally few in number), they cannot superseded another person's right or cancel each other out. This is precisely why there can't be freedom from offense, as executing such a right would violate other's rights to expression. It is only when violating the other's rights, would it be right to deprive that person of rights to stop this. Offense is subjective and so the accused's own offense cannot be taken into consideration, it must favour some side or other, which is against the principle of rights.

Last edited by 0_equals_true on 04 Jun 2016, 1:56 pm, edited 2 times in total.

I agree with the point on doomsayers though.

These people really aught to open an history book and learn some history, if they think we are in some great moral decline, or everything is falling apart and we are all much worse off.

If we are talking the long term, any historian worth their salt would be able tell us just how sh***y in comparison it was in the past. Especially with regards to violence, casualties, health, etc.

The message of the video: the authorities are clamping down on free speech by labelling any speech they don’t like as hate speech.

Helloarchy’s response: There’s nothing to worry about because the authorities have been clamping down on hate speech for years

Talk about missing the point.


Haha, still it continues. Criticise the concept of hate speech and all people like helloarchy can respond with is “but that’s hate speech”.
Hate speech is any speech the authorities and their faithful drones like helloarchy don’t like.
You can imagine people like helloarchy in the old Soviet Union whining “but that’s anti-Soviet” and “but you’re an enemy of the people if you say that”.

So what? It’s obvious that for people like you there isn’t even anything non-European immigrants could hypothetically actually do to native Europeans that would justify native Europeans having “negative feelings” about them. That’s because you value non-Europeans over Europeans (or, to put it another way, you plainly have negative feelings towards Europeans) so why should I give a stuff about your moralising?

Gee, thanks for explaining that, helloarchy, haha. Us aspies do find emotions so confusing after all.

You've just proved my point with your post, while supposed to prevent pogroms, hate speech is so vague a notion it can be used to outlaw almost all criticism, especially criticism of politicians who are creating real threats to the integrity, stability and peace of their nations. Now it's extremism, which may well see me and anyone who criticises the liberal lefty anti-Christian anti-conservative status quo being sent to the proverbial Gulag.

These comments of the Dalai Lama don't come close to either hate speech or incitement, however unwise. I personally think he just joining the bandwagon like most of the religious leaders. However it is important to listen to the the full context of what he said. Chances are he has a more balanced position.

I have also pointed out that it unlikely that public order offenses would be used in a case like this, given that this isn't the context of public order offenses.

Often the police and even CPS get confused by the interpretation of the law, and the law is poorly written in this case I have to say. It takes going to court for it to be thrown out. More tests case are needed, yet these cases aren't exactly a fun time for those involved.

Last edited by 0_equals_true on 05 Jun 2016, 4:24 am, edited 2 times in total.

In Security Service Act 1989, "counter-subversion" activity was abolished, which was a previous role of Mi5 at the height of the cold war.

Yet a special covert branch of Scotland Yard, continued to do exactly that, through the 90s and into the 2000s. It was a sleeper in terms of checks and balances, very few people knew about it and even less knew the full extent of its activities. These deep cover officers, some of whom have subsequent been exposed, had infatuated groups not becuase of intelligence related to criminal activity, but becuase they were considered a good target of information related to alternative communities and activism, and a credibility platform for further surveillance of groups.

These officers stole identities of children that had died, they actively participated in activism whilst leading double lives, having relationships with members of these communities, and even in some cases children. All while leading a double life.

The police are supposed to follow Peelian Principles, yet this is about as far away from the "policing by consent" as you can get. It doesn't even come under law enforcement, so it has nothing to do with policing at all.

Apart from the whole concept being illegal, there is some evidence to suggest these officers were encouraging criminal activity and possibly engaging in it, as far as going to court under an assumed identity (which is a crime).

Given that policing expression is wrong when it is done covertly, why is it acceptable to overtly police expression?

Someone like Anjem Choudary has said thing a lot worse than what the Dalai Lama has said. Much of what he does say tips the balance of incitement IMO. However being legally trained, he is quite clever with how he does it. I also think the is some incentive to keep him as a lightning rod, and through legal surveillance see if anything sticks. Or there is a small possibility he is already cooperating with the security services as a honey trap. Unlikely but possible.

Incitement itself is wrong and illegal becuase it is no longer about just offending a group or stating an opinion, it is actively targeting people and hence their rights. That is the legal definition I'm talkign about of course. The threshold has to be high and specific for good reason.

Hate speech laws are just a way to silence opinions people don't like. The whole point of free speech is to protect unpopular speech, including hate speech. Popular speech doesn't need protection.

Aren't certain verses from the Bible and Quran considered hate speech over there?

I don't know about that, I have heard some atheists saying they contain hate speech, but I think they have ulterior motives in this instance, rather than making a point about free speech. There was however, a would-be politician who got exactly the headline he wanted when he publicly read a section of Winston Churchill's book The River War. He read aloud:



He was arrested for racial harassment.

This is not the first time I thought Britain was extremely smart for NOT joining the EU.

We did, unfortunately. We managed to avoid the Euro currency and the Schengen Agreement, but not the rest of the federalised EU project.