There have been various reports about how Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter work behind the scenes to suppress conservative voices. We’ve gone in depth on the matter as it’s related to LouderwithCrowder. However, it’s not censorship since – at least for now – as none of the three social media platforms are government entities. “Censorship” is a legal term applicable to government censoring speech. Semantics matter here.
But when Europe does it? That is censorship. And the big three are on board.…
Some of the biggest U.S. tech firms have signed up to a code of conduct formulated by the European Commission, in which they agree to help fight against the spread of hate speech in Europe.
Online rights groups have reacted with outrage, saying they have no confidence in the agreement because they were left out of the discussions leading up to it (a point now being investigated by an EU watchdog) and they think the deal fails to protect free speech rights.
Facebook promised to review most reports of illegal hate speech on their platforms within 24 hours and act on them by removing or disabling access to the content, as long as the complaints are precise and substantiated. Their terms of service and community guidelines will have to be clear that they prohibit hateful conduct and incitements to violence.
Based on a 2008 piece of legislation, the code of conduct describes the illegal material as “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, color, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin.”
Notice something? The large umbrella which defines what constitutes “hate speech.” This code of conduct says hate speech can be “hatred directed against a group of persons…” but fails to define what “hatred” means. Disagreement? Admitting truth? Casting insults? Jokes? So if we said “Islam sucks,” or “Muslims beat their wives” which are two true statements, is that “hatred” becuase it’s directed towards a group of people of a certain religion?
If you said yes, thanks for proving my point. Now, you same people who think I should be banned for saying “Muslims beat their wives,” should you also be banned for saying “All priests molest alter boys and should be hanged”? Because based on the same criteria you used to insist I be banned for my comments about Islam, so should you be banned for inciting violence against a religious group.
See how that works?
Designating certain speech as “hate speech” is a tool to ban disagreement. It’s a way to limit speech of all kinds: civil, political, religious, whatever. The moment you say “That’s hate speech,” you’ve surrendered your right to speak your mind on anything. We’ve seen the “this is hate speech” crap used all the time for that reason. “I don’t like what you’re saying. Ergo, hate speech. Ergo, STFU.” See Steven Crowder Delivers Most Epic Smackdown of Leftist Protestors Ever.
Something to think about: Who are these arbitors in government who you want to determine what is acceptable to say and what isn’t? Bearing in mind government leadership changes. So what one side may deem “hate speech” another side might change later down the road. Then come for you.
This is just in Europe…for now. Though, you know liberals and SJWs in this country just downloaded in their shorts over the possibility of getting the big three to do something similar in this country. However, it is the same Europe that just recently arrested a woman for wearing a t-shirt, and another for singing “King Fu Fighting.”
Limiting free speech is already happening. Be aware and fight back: