Twitter users are expressing their support for people’s right to use so-called “hate speech” on social media, after the European Union (EU) announced they are working with Facebook and others to censor unwanted online speech within 24 hours.
Yesterday, it was reported that Facebook, Twitter and YouTube 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.
Now, everyday users of the platform Twitter are having their say under the trending hashtag #IStandWithHateSpeech.
http://archive.is/62dac
>>47795
God I fucking hate the EU.
Why is kikebart pushing this so much?
>>47830
Because mass censorship of the internet for 800 million people is a pretty major thing.
>>47838
It isn't censorship if you're using the service of a private corporation. twitter and facebook aren't public utilities like a telephone line is.
Anonymous was created to stop shit like this from happening.
>>47846
It's censorship if the state requests it.
[THIS POST IS UNAVAILABLE IN EU MEMBER STATES DUE TO THE HATEFUL AND/OR VIOLENT NATURE OF ITS CONTENT. ANY DELIBERATE ATTEMPT TO ACCESS CENSORED CONTENT WILL RESULT IN PROSECUTION TO THE FULLEST EXTENT OF THE LAW UNDER CONSPIRACY AND ACCESSORY GUIDELINES FOUND IN EU RESOLUTION #3648.]
>>47850
Anonymous is a leftist mouthpiece, they get hard over this sort of censorship of "hate".
They are a bunch of 12 year old script kiddies anyway.
>>47869
That's a good point but the people need to be accountable for the things they say
>>47881
People aren't already?
>>47795
God I fucking hate the EU. Nice thing I live in a 3rd world country
>>47846
Censorship can come from anywhere, it isn't just the government
>>47795
>witter users are expressing their support
[CITATIONS NEEDED]
Are European feeds separate from North American feed or something, because I'm getting nothing in Twitter's searches.
>>47933
it's a breitbart story, it probably didn't happen the way they describe.
>>47933
Update in the story: this guy has dubs
>>47932
They own the servers then they decide how much free speech you have.
>>47935
>Criticizing the source,not the content
Why are leftists anti-intellectual?
>>47881
Held accountable?? Dude you're a fucking moron. Instead of promoting critical thinking and logic it's safer if nobody thinks at all right? Fuck you.
>>47965
Cause if they started to think they'd realize their ideology doesn't work.
>>47795
Its not like anything productive happens on Twitter or Facebook. I don't use either so this doesn't affect me in the slightest.
>>47846
Unless a supranational organisation mandates it, which is where it does cross over into government censorship territory.
God I hope the UK votes leave.
>>47795
why dont they use filters?
>>47985
Because dissenting opinion can't be allowed.
>>47983
Cameron has already done a great job of filtering the British Internet.
inb4 nothing happens except kikebart earning more adsense shekels
>>47878
Anonymous is a broken clock. They've been saying a lot of stupid shit lately, but this is pretty self-evident.
Hate speech is free speech, and everyone who gets offended by that fact should go to a single giant "safe space" so that it can be nuked beautifully
>>48030
Where does this boundary of freedom end? Hate speech ok and gays holding hands in a conservative bakery is ok as well. Or just hate speech ok? Are we willing to stand up for freedom when it's shit we don't agree with?
>>48039
>Where does this boundary of freedom end
Actual threats, or incitements to violence or crime. This can be a very thin line, allow me to demonstrate.
Illegal: I'll pay 100 bucks to anyone who murders this anon
Legal: Should I pay 100 bucks to anyone who murders this anon?
This entire post is legal under free speech law because of the context in which it is posted.
>gays holding hands in a conservative bakery
That's not speech, it's expression.
>Are we willing to stand up for freedom when it's shit we don't agree with?
Yes, that's the idea. To quote Evelyn Beatrice Hall, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
>>48060
>gays holding hands in a conservative bakery
>That's not speech, it's expression.
>To quote Evelyn Beatrice Hall, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
so are you saying you would or would not defend the right for two gay guys to hold hands in conservative bakery just the same as the average /news/ poster's right to scream about women, Muslims, blacks, Hispanics, etc. being scum on Facebook?
>>47881
People should be accountable for what they do, not what they say.
If you want free speech go stand on a box in your local public square.
If you want free speech on the internet, don't expect to get it on someone else's corporate servers. They control the rules of the virtual public square and decide who can get on boxes and speak there.
Aren't there alternatives to facebook, twitter, and YouTube? Why not use those?
>>48063
Not him but I have defended the muslim hate preachers calling for my country to be bombed purely because it is their right to freedom of speech.
I'm a lot of things but I try not to be a hypocrite.
>>48060
Your illegal would never be removed if you phrase it like this:
"If Trump wins, I'm creating a Kickstarter for him to be assassinated. Who's with me?"
And then everyone who retweets and approves also won't be reprimanded.
Or just post a "kill whitey" ad on Craigslist and post it. No one will care.
>>48063
Yes
>>47881
if I google Will Cuckington and see that he posted "I hate niggers LOL" on his twitter would I want to hire him?
>>47830
/pol/ is mad they can't yell at people anymore.
>>48095
You are talking to an anon. Of course he would.
>>47881
Specious response. Yes, people should be accountable for what they say. That does not mean they should be imprisoned for what they say.
>>48073
>They control the rules of the virtual public square
It's an EU mandate to enforce their CoC and hate speech law. This is not a matter of a private company or individual deciding what content to allow on their service.
>>48144
>It's an EU mandate
You've fallen for the false premise of the clickbait version of the story, Anon. If you actually read what the EU is doing, it's only a loose agreement by all of the companies involved to continue doing all of what they were already doing to combat "hate, racism, and xenophobia", including following the relevant EU covenants.
You do understand this is mostly a PR move, right? There is no actual enforcement of anything going on here beyond strongly worded letters being sent to ISPs, which as long as the customer isn't breaking any laws the ISPs are free to ignore or be punitive with their customers as they wish for whatever EU hate speech violations they accrue.
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-1937_en.htm
>>48151
>You do understand this is mostly a PR move, right?
No, I really don't.
>which as long as the customer isn't breaking any laws the ISPs are free to ignore or be punitive with their customers as they wish for whatever EU hate speech violations they accrue.
You're saying the ISP is free to ignore the notice of some content violation if it is not illegal according to the law of their member state? If this is the case, then I have misunderstood.
>>47795
Corporations + State = Fascism
This is basic fucking history and political reality,we were taught this in school.
Whoever is retarded enough to applaud having his rights and freedoms stiffled by authoritarian ideologues,drink bleach.
>hurr durr its a private bla bla laws don't apply
This huge supply of brain dead cretins should entitle us to enact slavery and use them instead of ethnic migrants for unwanted jobs.
>but muh rights
But fuck you slave,nowhere does it say a corporation can't sell your mouth as a condom for truck drivers.
>>48095
>"I discriminate people based on facebook posts,not based on skill,merit,qualifications"
>>48155
Never mind that. It's pretty much what I thought it was to begin with.
>>48156
This anon knows
>>47982
But a lot of people do and if they can mold them to their "narrative" then you will be affected, like second hand smoke.
>>48157
If your job involves talking to people, it's generally a good idea to get someone who isn't a blatant racist. Bad PR.
>>47948
Is ought
>>47795
The EU is shit and you should support the Brexit.
>>48175
There seems to be an issue with complacency in these times. Facebook could turn around and say "we need DNA samples in order for people to maintain an account" and people would queue up to hand over their DNA. All people need to do is stop using the service causing it to either die out or change their policy. Stop being fucking idiots and moaning about social networks when you are the muppets keeping it alive.
>>47846
Actually, while this is not the case in the EU, The US Supreme Court has ruled in several cases that private companies do provide a sort of public forum and that abridging speech due to content is a violation of first amendment rights.
>>48030
"Hate speech" in my country is legally defined as incitement of crimminal acts targetting ethnic/sexual etc. minnorities.
So you can say: Man i fucking hate gypsies. Bastards stole my clothes.
But not: Man let's go and kill those gypsie fuckers.
Sadly the left is trying to erase the boundrary between those two to promote censorship by calling any opposing views "nazi" & "racist" etc.
>>48801
>Sadly the left is trying to erase the boundrary between those two to promote censorship by calling any opposing views "nazi" & "racist" etc.
Different countries, same tactics.
>>48793
>The US Supreme Court has ruled in several cases that private companies do provide a sort of public forum and that abridging speech due to content is a violation of first amendment rights.
No they haven't and they won't. Companies like Twitter and Facebook doesn't exist to provide a public forum, it exists to provide marketing companies raw data about every person's likes and dislikes. MS provides less of an example.
>>48824
>Different countries, same tactics.
Yep. I agree, but I do believe that the tactics are the same league as the intention -- to reduce anarchists.
>>47882
Donald Trump
No?
>>49581
No. Terrible example. First of all, Donald Trump is a nice guy. If you're looking for a bad person, you couldn't be more wrong. Don't let yourself be brainwashed by the leftist media. If you care to actually listen to what Trump says, you'll know he's a much better person than what the media tells you.
Secondly, politicians should always be allowed to speak their minds. If you don't let them have their say, you have a dictatorship. Someone would get to decide what's acceptable and what not, and they probably want to hold on to that position of power. Only a totalitarian (e.g. any radical feminist) would like this idea. Democracy relies on freedom of speech, it's not a luxury. It's a constitutional right and anyone who says differently is either hugely misinformed or has an agenda of grabbing power and doing evil.
>>48825
I'm pretty sure they exist to get money by providing the service of letting people communicate with each other
>>48095
that's why you shouldn't have facebook, or twitter
I don't have, which is why I can say "niggers, kill yourselves"
