Twitter hands over data to ID racist users(bbc.co.uk)
bbc.co.uk
Twitter hands over data to ID racist users
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23290066
5 comments
I few days ago I was accused here on HN of being homophobic, you know, like in hating homosexuals, because I expressed my opinion that a child needs a mother and a father.
In other news, here's an interesting discussion on humor: http://philosophybites.com/2011/04/no%C3%ABl-carroll-on-humo...
In other news, here's an interesting discussion on humor: http://philosophybites.com/2011/04/no%C3%ABl-carroll-on-humo...
Your opinion sure is.
His opinion is sexist and not homophobic. He's saying a male father provides specific things that only a male father can provide; likewise with the female mother. He would be opposed to two parents of the same sex, but for sexist reasons.
I'm not saying his judgement is correct, but nature is sometimes sexist (e.g., men naturally build muscles quicker than women due the difference in hormones).
I'm not saying his judgement is correct, but nature is sometimes sexist (e.g., men naturally build muscles quicker than women due the difference in hormones).
I wouldn't say it's sexist, there's no arbitrary discrimination against either men or women. He's saying neither men nor women can fulfill the requirements on their own. It's not sexist to say that it takes a man and a woman to make a baby.
he's not saying that, he's talking about raising a child, not making one.
Yeah, I know, that was an example of something else that isn't sexist.
This would also extend to being against a single parent too. Which isn't directly relevant to homophobia (yet that is what people jump to conclusions to)
That's like saying I am against people with one hand because I believe that having two hands is better than having one hand.
I actually have no clue as to what you mean by "being against".
I actually have no clue as to what you mean by "being against".
His point is simply that believing in a mother and father being the best environment for a child can be interpreted as being against (or less in favor of) an environment with two parents that are in a same sex relationship (i.e. homophobic) or it can be interpreted as being against (or less in favor of) an environment with a single parent.
But actually, all you are saying is that you believe the ideal environment for a child is a mother and father, presumably living together.
At any rate, even if you were expressing homophobia, it isn't necessarily hate speech. Saying that it's a good idea to burn homosexuals is.
Out of curiosity, do you believe that living with two same sex parents in a healthy relationship is better than a mother and father in an abusive relationship?
But actually, all you are saying is that you believe the ideal environment for a child is a mother and father, presumably living together.
At any rate, even if you were expressing homophobia, it isn't necessarily hate speech. Saying that it's a good idea to burn homosexuals is.
Out of curiosity, do you believe that living with two same sex parents in a healthy relationship is better than a mother and father in an abusive relationship?
> Out of curiosity, do you believe that living with two same sex parents in a healthy relationship is better than a mother and father in an abusive relationship?
Yes.
Yes.
So if it's any consolation, homophobic people don't believe things like that.
[deleted]
Perfectly worded. What I wish I had said.
Didn't mean to sound like I was antagonizing you or against you. I think what you originally said was fine. I should've thought of a better way to word my comment over "being against". Since yeah my point was basically what you said with the hands.
Either way foobarbazqux's reply comment says this all far better :p
Either way foobarbazqux's reply comment says this all far better :p
What more could one want than a government who suppresses freedom of speech via an over reaching police force? Wait a second..
Well, that's pretty disgusting.
Disgusting was the right word for me - I literally felt ill reading those statements. But should saying things like that be a criminal offense? Personally I would say no.
However, I can also understand the extreme sensitivity in various European countries in this area - especially when there are still people alive who survived the camps.
However, I can also understand the extreme sensitivity in various European countries in this area - especially when there are still people alive who survived the camps.
Tons of other stuff is digusting too.
That shouldn't make excuses and laws to ban free speech.
That shouldn't make excuses and laws to ban free speech.
Free speech has barriers. Like all freedom, if the freedom of one minimizes the freedom of others; or if one specific freedom minimizes another freedom, a fair balance has to be uphold. In the case of freedom of speech, it is such a fair balance to ban incitement of the people in favor of the other forms of freedoms like the right to exist without being subject to such forms of hatred.
France, Germany and many other seem to agree in that point. Those tweets exactly cross the barrier, and the author has to be prosecuted.
France, Germany and many other seem to agree in that point. Those tweets exactly cross the barrier, and the author has to be prosecuted.
Which part is doing it for you? That Twitter would hand over your identifying information because they don't like the contents of your tweets? The idea that governments can prohibit the written expression of thoughts and ideas? Or was it the distasteful tweets of some bigots (or perhaps more likely, just unfunny and immature people) about the jews?
>That Twitter would hand over your identifying information because they don't like the contents of your tweets?
Twitter refused to hand over the data until the French court forced them to.
>The idea that governments can prohibit the written expression of thoughts and ideas?
I have no problem with governments prohibiting hate speech. I have never felt suppressed by these laws because I have never felt the need to express hate speech online or offline.
> "But others who have just as much rights as you and do want to send out distasteful tweets DO feel suppressed."
Good. The majority of people in my country agree that living in a respectful society is more important than having the freedom to say things that you wouldn't want to say. You can find that overly restrictive but then so are traffic lights, queues at the supermarket, clothing, and doors.
>Or was it the distasteful tweets of some bigots (or perhaps more likely, just unfunny and immature people) about the jews?
That's just being willfully ignorant.
Twitter refused to hand over the data until the French court forced them to.
>The idea that governments can prohibit the written expression of thoughts and ideas?
I have no problem with governments prohibiting hate speech. I have never felt suppressed by these laws because I have never felt the need to express hate speech online or offline.
> "But others who have just as much rights as you and do want to send out distasteful tweets DO feel suppressed."
Good. The majority of people in my country agree that living in a respectful society is more important than having the freedom to say things that you wouldn't want to say. You can find that overly restrictive but then so are traffic lights, queues at the supermarket, clothing, and doors.
>Or was it the distasteful tweets of some bigots (or perhaps more likely, just unfunny and immature people) about the jews?
That's just being willfully ignorant.
In all seriousness, who does get to decide what speech is illegal in your country? If you're about to say something that might upset some group, do you restrain yourself or say it any way and wait for the courts to decide of your speech was lawful? From my American perspective, it sounds like an awful restriction to have.
I wonder what percentage of people in your country feel that their speech has ever been restrained in any way.
Also, what about political speech that is satirical and offensive to some groups, like Parazit or The Daily Show?
I wonder what percentage of people in your country feel that their speech has ever been restrained in any way.
Also, what about political speech that is satirical and offensive to some groups, like Parazit or The Daily Show?
It's not about saying things that might upset some group. It's about saying things in a public forum that are deliberately upsetting and abusive and promoting hatred. You don't have to worry about it because you know exactly what you are doing when you do it. It's like worrying about getting a ticket because you accidentally drove in reverse down a one way street. And if you look the vast majority of cases get dismissed.
Also consider that American corporations wield an immense power to restrict speech, and they are quite liberal about doing so.
Also consider that American corporations wield an immense power to restrict speech, and they are quite liberal about doing so.
Were the tweets really so bad that they incited racial hatred?
I think you will find "causing serious offence" is also a crime. At least it is in Australia. Which means even jokes and flippant remarks can result in criminal convictions if you didn't show enough sensitivity to some minority group.
Americans are extremely lucky that they live in a country with two principals that basically don't exist anywhere else 1) that there should be limits on the power of the state to interfere in private affairs and 2) freedom of thought/expression.
The fact that the NSA scandal has become...well such a scandal is that those principals existed to be violated in the first place.
Americans are extremely lucky that they live in a country with two principals that basically don't exist anywhere else 1) that there should be limits on the power of the state to interfere in private affairs and 2) freedom of thought/expression.
The fact that the NSA scandal has become...well such a scandal is that those principals existed to be violated in the first place.
>I think you will find "causing serious offence" is also a crime. At least it is in Australia. Which means even jokes and flippant remarks can result in criminal convictions if you didn't show enough sensitivity to some minority group.
Yes, after fucking over the native population for centuries, hunting them like animals, and closing them in concentration fuck-camps, suddenly the Australian government is all-too sensitive to the effects of ...hate speech.
Yes, after fucking over the native population for centuries, hunting them like animals, and closing them in concentration fuck-camps, suddenly the Australian government is all-too sensitive to the effects of ...hate speech.
Yes, I think you'll find the UN is pushing for that worldwide. It's not the UN per se, but mostly the OIC (who think nothing is wrong with stealing children to rape them, but "hate speech", that's a problem). Although I can fully understand why a bunch of islamic dictators feel the need to suppress the truth, and punish any "hate" speech harshly. They certainly do so in their own countries. Europe somehow thinks it's a good idea to oblige.
Interesting titbit "Vlad Dracul", the real one, king of Wallacia, is one of those children stolen under muslim law. Didn't work out to well for the thieves, or for anybody else for that matter. (ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlad_the_Impaler#Life_in_Edirn... )
Interesting titbit "Vlad Dracul", the real one, king of Wallacia, is one of those children stolen under muslim law. Didn't work out to well for the thieves, or for anybody else for that matter. (ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlad_the_Impaler#Life_in_Edirn... )
I am an American. I knew they had ridiculous laws like this in the UK. I recall hearing about some lady who said something racist on a subway and got arrested. Pretty ridiculous in my opinion.
>The fact that the NSA scandal has become...well such a scandal is that those principals existed to be violated in the first place.
It still would have been pretty big news. The director of national intelligence lied to congress. People likely would have just brushed that under the table (like they are doing now) though.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_R._Clapper#False_testimo...
>The fact that the NSA scandal has become...well such a scandal is that those principals existed to be violated in the first place.
It still would have been pretty big news. The director of national intelligence lied to congress. People likely would have just brushed that under the table (like they are doing now) though.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_R._Clapper#False_testimo...
It's my understanding that the content provider is only responsible for laws in areas where their data is hosted. Does Twitter have a data center in France? If not, how did this end up in French court?
Your understanding is incorrect.
You just generally won't get your datacenter raided except for violating the laws of the country where you host data.
Most nations (US included) try to claim jurisdiction over anything that affects people in their nation.
In practice, your choices end up being: 1. Comply
or some combination of: 2a. Have any local offices (not datacenter) raided and any country-level execs possibly arrested 2b. Having any remote execs arrested if they ever end up in that country.
Most nations (US included) try to claim jurisdiction over anything that affects people in their nation.
In practice, your choices end up being: 1. Comply
or some combination of: 2a. Have any local offices (not datacenter) raided and any country-level execs possibly arrested 2b. Having any remote execs arrested if they ever end up in that country.
Any country can sue any person or any company around the world if they want to. The question is if such sentences can be enforced.
OK so let me get this straight: Many French tweeted jokes about "#UnBonJuif" (translation: a good jew), then an organization called UEJF (Union of French Jewish Students) goes on a legal attack and manages to get Twitter to cough up the info on the "perpetrators" and now those users are facing jail time?
Two conclusions I can make here: France, despite being a proponent of "liberte", does not have freedom of speech. Secondly, don't insult Jews, even on the internet.
Two conclusions I can make here: France, despite being a proponent of "liberte", does not have freedom of speech. Secondly, don't insult Jews, even on the internet.
While over here if you make a terrorism joke and then immediately say that you were joking, you also face jail time.
With unreasonable bails, and a "speedy trial" means within a year or so.
No, in Europe we have the concept of "freedom of speech has limits". Basically, you are free to speak, but you are not free to make hate speech.
So, you're not free to speak.
Because somebody else gets to decide what's "hate speech".
Speaking against the aristocrats, back in the day, would also be regarded as "hate speech". Or speaking against class privilege, now.
And of course, anybody talking against mass immigration (which, as a social phenomenon has a lot of downsides too), will easily be classified as "hate speaker" too.
Because somebody else gets to decide what's "hate speech".
Speaking against the aristocrats, back in the day, would also be regarded as "hate speech". Or speaking against class privilege, now.
And of course, anybody talking against mass immigration (which, as a social phenomenon has a lot of downsides too), will easily be classified as "hate speaker" too.
> So, you're not free to speak.
But everywhere has some practical limits on free speech. It's a question of where the line is drawn. Shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre, threatening the President, you get the picture.
Of course we're not all going to agree on where the line should be drawn, and some would like there to be no line at all. You can't please everyone.
In France and Germany, it's illegal to deny that the holocaust happened, but it's not in the UK or Spain, for example.
> Because somebody else gets to decide what's "hate speech".
We decide what is hate speech, through our elected representatives. It's far from perfect, but it's the better than all the alternatives.
But everywhere has some practical limits on free speech. It's a question of where the line is drawn. Shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre, threatening the President, you get the picture.
Of course we're not all going to agree on where the line should be drawn, and some would like there to be no line at all. You can't please everyone.
In France and Germany, it's illegal to deny that the holocaust happened, but it's not in the UK or Spain, for example.
> Because somebody else gets to decide what's "hate speech".
We decide what is hate speech, through our elected representatives. It's far from perfect, but it's the better than all the alternatives.
The alternative of unrestricted free speech is better.
Why? I prefer to live in a society where people can't march through the streets waving signs designed specifically to vilify a specific group. Can you tell me how this freedom makes your society better in any way?
I see a huge value in political protest. It allows a society to figure out its problems. You suggest to sweep problems under the rug until they go real bad and even, in the competitive world, ruin the society's chances forever.
Why would people do what you describe? Because they are pure evil? What if they occassionally do have a point?
Why would people do what you describe? Because they are pure evil? What if they occassionally do have a point?
You post a load of conjecture that is purely hypothetical and then ask questions from this non-existent world.
You do not comprehend the reality you are discussing. Screaming 'GOD HATES FAGS' at someone's funeral is not political protest. It is disgusting psychological abuse.
You do not comprehend the reality you are discussing. Screaming 'GOD HATES FAGS' at someone's funeral is not political protest. It is disgusting psychological abuse.
Screaming at somebody's funeral should be punishable without the need of referring the content of screams in question.
"""I prefer to live in a society where people can't march through the streets waving signs designed specifically to vilify a specific group. Can you tell me how this freedom makes your society better in any way?"""
For one, what if that specific group makes life worse for the others, so it's rightly villified? Then it would be important that their complaint is known.
Second, even if what they say in their "signs" is wrong, I better publicly KNOW that there are people that think this way, and take precautions, that have them do it in secret.
Third, it never stops there. It opens an Overton Window that makes speaking freely all the more difficult.
For one, what if that specific group makes life worse for the others, so it's rightly villified? Then it would be important that their complaint is known.
Second, even if what they say in their "signs" is wrong, I better publicly KNOW that there are people that think this way, and take precautions, that have them do it in secret.
Third, it never stops there. It opens an Overton Window that makes speaking freely all the more difficult.
> For one, what if that specific group makes life worse for the others, so it's rightly villified? Then it would be important that their complaint is known.
Sorry what? That's like saying we should listen to the KKK because after all they do make life worse for others!
Sorry what? That's like saying we should listen to the KKK because after all they do make life worse for others!
"speaking against class privilege, now...",
"anybody talking against mass immigration...will easily be classified as 'hate speaker' too" - please cite a single law of any European country classifying those as hate speech. Up until then I'll say you are spouting utter rubbish.
>please cite a single law of any European country classifying those as hate speech
That's utterly naive, don't you think? They don't have to specifically classify those as hate speech. They just have to make the law vague enough -- and then the "offended parties", activists and other over-sensitive folks jump to take the opportunity.
"""In England, Wales, and Scotland, the Public Order Act 1986 prohibits, by its Part 3, expressions of racial hatred, which is defined as hatred against a group of persons by reason of the group's colour, race, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins. Section 18 of the Act says: 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."""
Can it be any more vague?
Here's an example of such laws in action: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7842344.stm
Would you be OK if Atheists couldn't talk against Christianism in the same way?
>Up until then I'll say you are spouting utter rubbish.
You can say anything you want -- however rude and ad hominen. I'm for free speech after all.
That's utterly naive, don't you think? They don't have to specifically classify those as hate speech. They just have to make the law vague enough -- and then the "offended parties", activists and other over-sensitive folks jump to take the opportunity.
"""In England, Wales, and Scotland, the Public Order Act 1986 prohibits, by its Part 3, expressions of racial hatred, which is defined as hatred against a group of persons by reason of the group's colour, race, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins. Section 18 of the Act says: 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."""
Can it be any more vague?
Here's an example of such laws in action: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7842344.stm
Would you be OK if Atheists couldn't talk against Christianism in the same way?
>Up until then I'll say you are spouting utter rubbish.
You can say anything you want -- however rude and ad hominen. I'm for free speech after all.
"can it be any more vague" - easily; it's quite clear to me: don't spout fascist sentiments that are likely to result in violent hatred. I wouldn't want to live anywhere where, by omission of such a law, such speech is encouraged.
"Here's an example" - good: I don't believe you should be able to make and distribute a film equating an established world religion with nazism.
"Here's an example" - good: I don't believe you should be able to make and distribute a film equating an established world religion with nazism.
>"Here's an example" - good: I don't believe you should be able to make and distribute a film equating an established world religion with nazism.
Then you are a little fascist youself: you want to impose into people what they can and cannot say.
Not to mention, nazism is a historical phenomenon. Same as the slaughters of millions in the name of various Gods. So why shouldn't anyone equate an "established world religion with nazism"? If anything, some religious wars killed more people than nazism did -- or at least affected and enslaved larger areas for far far more years -- millenia even.
Then you are a little fascist youself: you want to impose into people what they can and cannot say.
Not to mention, nazism is a historical phenomenon. Same as the slaughters of millions in the name of various Gods. So why shouldn't anyone equate an "established world religion with nazism"? If anything, some religious wars killed more people than nazism did -- or at least affected and enslaved larger areas for far far more years -- millenia even.
You are a fascist then. That's what this word means.
Yes it could be more vague, an amendment of that act means that section 4a now includes:
"""(1) A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he— (a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress."""
"""(1) A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he— (a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress."""
In the same way that you're not free to act in (almost?) every country in the world, including the USA, because 'someone else' gets to decide what an illegal act is. BTW, in a democracy, you get to decide who that someone is, so chances are that the definition will be a fair and balanced one.
Definition of hate speech - anything that can make anyone vaguely uncomfortable or the government don't like.
It will be interesting to compare east and west Germans on their attitudes towards free speech since the last had to "enjoy" the rule of communist party.
(disclaimer - my relatives were prosecuted in the 40s-50s from the newly empowered communist party in Bulgaria)
When a nation lives trough that you become to respect the almost absolute freedom US enjoys.
It will be interesting to compare east and west Germans on their attitudes towards free speech since the last had to "enjoy" the rule of communist party.
(disclaimer - my relatives were prosecuted in the 40s-50s from the newly empowered communist party in Bulgaria)
When a nation lives trough that you become to respect the almost absolute freedom US enjoys.
>freedom of speech has limits
Well it's not really freedom of speech then, is it? I understand physical dangers like yelling fire in a theater, but this is limiting what can actually be expressed despite the context. "Hateful language" is defined by the victim's feelings, and someone expressing their speech has no control over that. Perhaps someone innocuously posts a picture of Muhammed unknowing that it just offended millions of Muslims who want him punished for his "hateful language". So you can't draw the line when people's feelings are involved.
I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it. EDIT: -Evelyn_Beatrice_Hall
Well it's not really freedom of speech then, is it? I understand physical dangers like yelling fire in a theater, but this is limiting what can actually be expressed despite the context. "Hateful language" is defined by the victim's feelings, and someone expressing their speech has no control over that. Perhaps someone innocuously posts a picture of Muhammed unknowing that it just offended millions of Muslims who want him punished for his "hateful language". So you can't draw the line when people's feelings are involved.
I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it. EDIT: -Evelyn_Beatrice_Hall
Funny thing about the "crowded theater" bit, because it was used to stifle free speech:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States
>-Voltaire
Just FYI: Nope, not Voltaire.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evelyn_Beatrice_Hall
Just FYI: Nope, not Voltaire.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evelyn_Beatrice_Hall
"but this is limiting what can actually be expressed despite the context"
Not at all; the context - twitter, essentially a public broadcaster - is highly relevant. Most of us would defend the right of an individual to express themselves however they wish in private - or even in most public, but 'local' situations - even in terms of the abhorrent language/concepts expressed in this case. However, when your platform is a national - even global - one, the context is radically different, and incitement to commit racist crime becomes possible.
As you admit, there is no such thing as 100% free speech, even in the USA, so it will always be a case of finding the line somewhere. In Europe, we just happen to have the line slightly closer to civility, something of which I am very glad.
Not at all; the context - twitter, essentially a public broadcaster - is highly relevant. Most of us would defend the right of an individual to express themselves however they wish in private - or even in most public, but 'local' situations - even in terms of the abhorrent language/concepts expressed in this case. However, when your platform is a national - even global - one, the context is radically different, and incitement to commit racist crime becomes possible.
As you admit, there is no such thing as 100% free speech, even in the USA, so it will always be a case of finding the line somewhere. In Europe, we just happen to have the line slightly closer to civility, something of which I am very glad.
Does Twitter have a business presence in France? If not, why did they bother to comply?
http://www.lemonde.fr/technologies/article/2012/10/14/unbonj...
Stuff like that. I'm at a bit of a loss for words; I feel a deep sadness about this. These are the French hate speech laws:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_France
The courts don't appear keen to convict based on the case history, and I'm guessing these guys will be acquitted.