Intro to ‘European
Union Declares War on Internet Free Speech’
Edited by John R.
Houk
May 3, 2016
I just finished an anti-Multiculturalist post inspired by
the
Gatestone
Institute that focused on the EU hammering Counterjihad
journalist Ingrid Carlqvist (of Sweden) and a bit of fund raising – “
Multiculturalism Destroying Europe’s
Culture”. As I was doing my daily Internet surfing I discovered
another
Gatestone Institute article
by
Soeren Kern exposing the fact that the big dogs of Social
Media are in complete agreement with the European Union on squelching Free
Speech exposing the dark side of Islam which is currently showing up Muslim
refugees and immigrants.
The Social Media giants spoken of in the article:
o
Microsoft:
Bill Gates and
Paul Allen are the original names connected to Microsoft,
but then
Steve Ballmer became the shot
caller for the computer giant amassing billions of dollars in fortune (as in
over $20 billion with a “B”). Apparently
Satya Nadella the big dog now. Microsoft
influence in Social Media is its fingerprint on PCs and the Internet. Here’s a
decent synopsis of their influence:
… Microsoft are almost expected to
have an enviable social media presence. They have led the way to the future, so
social media is an important aspect of their strategy as a trailblazing
company that creates and innovates. They have created web browsers,
operating systems, office applications and web services almost dominating the
internet and giving people the ability to be immersed into a technological
world. (
How Microsoft Uses Social
Media [CASE STUDY]; By
CASEY FLEISCHMANN;
LinkHumans.com)
Interestingly the owners of YouTube which is Google, are not
talked about by Soeren Kern. Google was founded by
Larry Page and
Sergey Brin while they
were Ph.D. students at Stanford University:
After the company's IPO in 2004,
founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page and CEO Eric Schmidt requested that their
base salary be cut to $1.
Subsequent offers by the company to increase their salaries were turned down,
primarily because their main compensation continues to come from owning stock
in Google. (
Google; Wikipedia;
page was last modified on 31 May 2016, at 22:47.)
Apparently “Google” is now an amalgam multiple corporations
with a publically held corporation at the top being Alphabet:
Silicon Valley – and Wall Street –
have a new king. Alphabet, the
company formerly known as Google,
looks set to become the world’s largest publicly traded company …
…
Commercially, when we say Alphabet,
we really mean Google. The old company still represents the vast majority of
Alphabet’s revenues, and almost all of its major businesses (including search,
maps, YouTube, advertising and Android) still sit under Google and its new
chief executive, Sundar Pichai. The rest of Alphabet may represent the bets on
the industries of the future but for today, it’s
Google that pays the bills. (
How Alphabet became the biggest company in
the world; By
Alex Hern;
The Guardian; 2/2/16 03.08 EST)
Wikipedia on
Alphabet Inc.:
Alphabet Inc. (commonly
known as
Alphabet, and frequently informally referred to as
Google)
is an American multinational
conglomerate created
in 2015 as the parent company of
Google and several other companies previously owned by
Google.
[5][6][7][8][9] The company is based
in
Mountain
View, California and headed by Google's co-founders,
Larry Page and
Sergey Brin, with Page serving
as
CEO and Brin as
President.
[10] The reorganization
of Google into Alphabet was completed on October 2, 2015.
[11] Alphabet's
portfolio encompasses several industries, including technology, life sciences,
investment capital, and research. Some of its subsidiaries include
Google,
Calico,
GV,
Google Capital,
X, and
Google Fiber. Some of the
subsidiaries of Alphabet have altered their names since leaving Google—Google
Ventures becoming GV, Google Life Sciences becoming
Verily and Google X becoming just X. Following the
restructuring Page became CEO of Alphabet while
Sundar Pichai took his
position as CEO of Google.
[5][6] Shares of Google's
stock have been converted into Alphabet stock, which trade under Google's
former ticker symbols of "GOOG" and "GOOGL".
The establishment of Alphabet was
prompted by a desire to make the core Google
Internet services business
"cleaner and more accountable" while allowing greater autonomy to
group companies that operate in businesses other than Internet services.
[6][12] (
Alphabet Inc.; Wikipedia; page was last
modified on 1 June 2016, at 13:41.)
In the 21st century, money is power. People this
is a lot of power pushing Multicultural ideology to the detriment of Western
culture in Europe and America.
JRH 6/3/16
*****************
European Union Declares War on Internet Free Speech
June 3, 2016 at 5:00 am
o
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.
o
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."
o
"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.
o
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.
The European Union (EU), in partnership with Facebook,
Twitter, YouTube and Microsoft, has unveiled a "code of conduct" to
combat the spread of "illegal hate speech" online in Europe.
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."
The "code of conduct" was announced on May 31 in a
statement by
the European Commission, the unelected administrative arm of the European
Union. A
summary of the initiative
follows:
"By signing this code of
conduct, the IT companies commit to continuing their efforts to tackle illegal
hate speech online. This will include the continued development of internal
procedures and staff training to guarantee that they review the majority of valid
notifications for removal of illegal hate speech in less than 24 hours and
remove or disable access to such content, if necessary.
"The IT companies will also
endeavor to strengthen their ongoing partnerships with civil society
organisations who will help flag content that promotes incitement to violence
and hateful conduct. The IT companies and the European Commission also aim to
continue their work in identifying and promoting independent
counter-narratives [emphasis added], new ideas and initiatives, and
supporting educational programs that encourage critical thinking."
Excerpts of the "code of conduct"
include:
"The IT Companies share the
European Commission's and EU Member States' commitment to tackle illegal hate
speech online. Illegal hate speech, as defined by the Framework Decision
2008/913/JHA of 28 November 2008 on combating certain forms and expressions of
racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law and national laws transposing
it, means 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....
"The IT Companies support the
European Commission and EU Member States in the effort to respond to the
challenge of ensuring that online platforms do not offer opportunities for
illegal online hate speech to spread virally. The spread of illegal hate speech
online not only negatively affects the groups or individuals that it targets,
it also negatively impacts those who speak out for freedom, tolerance and
non-discrimination in our open societies and has a chilling effect on the
democratic discourse on online platforms.
"While the effective
application of provisions criminalizing hate speech is dependent on a robust
system of enforcement of criminal law sanctions against the individual
perpetrators of hate speech, this work must be complemented with actions geared
at ensuring that illegal hate speech online is expeditiously acted upon by
online intermediaries and social media platforms, upon receipt of a valid
notification, in an appropriate time-frame. To be considered valid in this
respect, a notification should not be insufficiently precise or inadequately
substantiated.
"The IT Companies, taking the
lead on countering the spread of illegal hate speech online, have agreed with
the European Commission on a code of conduct setting the following public
commitments:
o
"The IT Companies to have in place clear
and effective processes to review notifications regarding illegal hate speech
on their services so they can remove or disable access to such content. The IT
companies to have in place Rules or Community Guidelines clarifying that they
prohibit the promotion of incitement to violence and hateful conduct.
o
"The IT Companies to review the majority of
valid notifications for removal of illegal hate speech in less than 24 hours
and remove or disable access to such content, if necessary.
o
"The IT Companies and the European Commission,
recognising the value of independent counter speech against hateful rhetoric
and prejudice, aim to continue their work in identifying and promoting
independent counter-narratives, new ideas and initiatives and supporting
educational programs that encourage critical thinking."
The agreement also requires Internet companies to establish
a network of "trusted reporters" in all 28 EU member states to flag
online content that "promotes incitement to violence and hateful
conduct."
The EU Commissioner for Justice, Consumers and Gender
Equality, Vĕra Jourová, has
defended the initiative:
"The recent terror attacks
have reminded us of the urgent need to address illegal online hate speech.
Social media is unfortunately one of the tools that terrorist groups use to
radicalize young people and racists use to spread violence and hatred. This
agreement is an important step forward to ensure that the internet remains a
place of free and democratic expression, where European values and laws are
respected. I welcome the commitment of worldwide IT companies to review the
majority of valid notifications for removal of illegal hate speech in less than
24 hours and remove or disable access to such content, if necessary."
Others disagree. The National Secular Society (NSS) of the
UK warned that the EU's plans "rest on a vague definition of 'hate speech'
and risk threatening online discussions which criticize religion." It
added:
"The agreement comes amid
repeated accusations from ex-Muslims that social media organizations are
censoring them online. The Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain has now begun
collecting examples from its followers of Facebook censoring 'atheist, secular
and ex-Muslim content' after false 'mass reporting' by 'cyber Jihadists.' They
have asked their supporters to report details and evidence of any instances of
pages and groups being 'banned [or] suspended from Facebook for criticizing
Islam and Islamism.'"
NSS communications officer Benjamin Jones
said:
"Far from tackling online
'cyber jihad,' the agreement risks having the exact opposite effect and
entrapping any critical discussion of religion under vague 'hate speech' rules.
Poorly-trained Facebook or Twitter staff, perhaps with their own ideological
bias, could easily see heated criticism of Islam and think it is 'hate speech,'
particularly if pages or users are targeted and mass reported by Islamists."
In an interview with
Breitbart London, the CEO
of Index on Censorship, Jodie Ginsburg,
said:
"Hate speech laws are already
too broad and ambiguous in much of Europe. This agreement fails to properly
define what 'illegal hate speech' is and does not provide sufficient safeguards
for freedom of expression.
"It devolves power once again
to unelected corporations to determine what amounts to hate speech and police
it — a move that is guaranteed to stifle free speech in the mistaken belief
this will make us all safer. It won't. It will simply drive unpalatable ideas
and opinions underground where they are harder to police — or to challenge.
"There have been precedents of
content removal for unpopular or offensive viewpoints and this agreement risks
amplifying the phenomenon of deleting controversial — yet legal — content via
misuse or abuse of the notification processes."
A coalition of free speech organizations, European Digital
Rights and Access Now, announced their decision not to take part in future
discussions with the European Commission, saying that "we do not have
confidence in the ill-considered 'code of conduct' that was agreed." A
statement
warned:
"In short, the 'code of
conduct' downgrades the law to a second-class status, behind the 'leading role'
of private companies that are being asked to arbitrarily implement their terms
of service. This process, established outside an accountable democratic
framework, exploits unclear liability rules for online companies. It also
creates serious risks for freedom of expression, as legal — but controversial —
content may well be deleted as a result of this voluntary and unaccountable
take-down mechanism.
"This means that this
'agreement' between only a handful of companies and the European Commission is
likely in breach of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (under which
restrictions on fundamental rights should be provided for by law), and will, in
practical terms, overturn case law of the European Court of Human Rights on the
defense of legal speech."
Janice Atkinson, an independent MEP for the South East
England region,
summed it
up this way: "It's Orwellian. Anyone who has read 1984 sees its very
re-enactment live."
Even before signing on to the EU's code of conduct, social
media sites have been cracking down on free speech, often at the behest of
foreign governments.
In September 2015, German Chancellor Angela Merkel was
overheard on
a live microphone confronting Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg on what he was doing
to prevent criticism of her open-door immigration policies.
Writing for Gatestone Institute, British commentator Douglas
Murray
noted that
Facebook's assault on "racist" speech "appears to include
anything critical of the EU's current catastrophic immigration policy." He
wrote:
"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 (who, it must be stressed, are opposed
to Chancellor Merkel's policies) into 'racist' views, and so is condemning the
majority of Europeans as 'racist.' This is a policy that will do its part in
pushing Europe into a disastrous future.
Facebook has also set its sights on Gatestone Institute
affiliated writers. 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. Abu Toameh
wrote:
"It's still a matter of
censorship. They decide what's acceptable. Now we have to be careful about what
we post and what we share. Does this mean we can't criticize Arab governments
anymore?"
In June 2016, Facebook
suspended the
account of Ingrid Carlqvist, Gatestone's Swedish expert, after she posted a
Gatestone video to her Facebook feed — called "Sweden's Migrant Rape
Epidemic." In an editorial, Gatestone
wrote:
"After enormous grassroots
pressure from Gatestone's readers, the Swedish media started reporting on
Facebook's heavy-handed censorship. It backfired, and Facebook went into
damage-control mode. They put Ingrid's account back up — without any
explanation or apology. Ironically, their censorship only gave Ingrid's video
more attention.
"Facebook and the EU have
backed down — for now. But they're deadly serious about stopping ideas they
don't like. They'll be back."
Soeren Kern is a
Senior Fellow at the New York-based Gatestone Institute. He is also Senior Fellow for
European Politics at the Madrid-based Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos/Strategic
Studies Group. Follow him on Facebook and on Twitter. His first book, Global Fire,
will be out in 2016.
_______________________________
© 2016 Gatestone Institute. All rights
reserved. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be
reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone
Institute.
Blog Editor: If GI asks me
to remove this post I will comply. If you wish to share anything other than a
link you had better GI permission.
