European Commission, U.K. Government Warn Musk that Twitter "Must Protect Users"

[Brickjectivity]

The European Commission and a spokesman for Boris Johnson have warned Elon Musk that Twitter must comply with European laws regardless of who owns it:

Is there strong reason to think Twitter won't follow the laws? It remains a corporation, and it needs government protection wherever it operates.

 

[SomeRandom]

The European Commission and a spokesman for Boris Johnson have warned Elon Musk that Twitter must comply with European laws regardless of who owns it:



Elon Musk warned he must protect Twitter users

It makes me happy to see that the EU and U.K. are strict about their regulations despite Musk's peddling of (in my opinion) toxic and overly idealistic mantras of "free speech" taken straight out of American politics.

Good for Europe.

Well, if your company is international, you should also have the foresight to know that you will be beholden to international laws.
I remember learning that in freaking high school business class.

Though I’m curious to see how many reference like Brave New World in lieu of this.

(I know 1984 is the general go to. But come on free speech warriors. Pick up your game a bit. There’s other works of fiction that have a similar premise.)

 

[Revoltingest]

The "Euroweenies" are mostly doing just fine. Perhaps more American exceptionalists and ideologues need to learn from them instead of dismissing what works in favor of what their ideology dictates.

I find it interesting that you advocate increasing our
regulation of personal behavior by criminalizing
slander & libel, yet you criticize us for ranking so
low on that freedom index.
Would you want to criminalize hate speech too?

This increased governmental authority over us
that you advocate want would be wielded by the
kind of leaders we've endured, eg, Trump, Biden.
You trust them with this power far more than I do.
Perhaps you're too wrapped up in your ideology,
& don't adequately consider the downside of this
ever increasing government control over us, eh.

One thing that comes to mind is that I'll see women
here wearing hijabs/burkas in stores, & no one objects.
But in Europe....France & others made that illegal.
Prosecuting people for religious clothing...absurd.
I prefer our chaos over their orderly society.

 

[ChristineM]

Oh, please. Given the long history of European censorship this is hilarious. If the Euroweenies don’t like it they can pound sand.

Or block twitter. Ifche is unwilling to adhere to the laws of the countries he peddles his goods then he has no right to earn money from those countries

 

[Revoltingest]

Or block twitter. Ifche is unwilling to adhere to the laws of the countries he peddles his goods then he has no right to earn money from those countries

Another way to look at it is that countries who don't
want Twitter can simply block it. Some already do,
eg, Russia, China.

 

[Estro Felino]

They can stop Twitter in the EU though, if it does not comply with EU law.

Since there is no Common law member in the European Union any more (UK quit), I guess the Napoleonic juridical tradition will prevail in the communitarian jurisprudence.

And by the way, the Lauren Southern case makes me think the British notion of "freedom of thought" might be not in line with the EU's.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Is there strong reason to think Twitter won't follow the laws? It remains a corporation, and it needs government protection wherever it operates.

If Musk allows any and all kinds of speech on there under the banner of "free speech," then yes, I think there are reasons to think Twitter could run afoul of some European countries' laws. Posting neo-Nazi or hate speech on there could still be legally problematic in a European country even if Twitter allows it, for example.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I find it interesting that you advocate increasing our
regulation of personal behavior by criminalizing
slander & libel, yet you criticize us for ranking so
low on that freedom index.

Many of the countries ranking above the U.S. per that index have stricter defamation laws than the U.S. does. Clearly, there's much more to freedom than defamation laws and their application per se.

Would you want to criminalize hate speech too?

That depends on what one classifies as "hate speech." Nazi propaganda and symbols? Absolutely, and some of the most prosperous and free countries in the world (e.g., the Netherlands and Sweden) already do this. I view such speech as equivalent to incitement of violence, since it inherently includes such. (Advocacy of genocide is one of the cornerstones of Nazism, after all.)

Blasphemy, satire, and other speech that may offend but doesn't incite violence, though? No.

This increased governmental authority over us
that you advocate want would be wielded by the
kind of leaders we've endured, eg, Trump, Biden.
You trust them with this power far more than I do.
Perhaps you're too wrapped up in your ideology,
& don't adequately consider the downside of this
ever increasing government control over us, eh.

Separation of powers in any functioning democracy should ideally ensure that no one individual would have undue influence on state law. Recall that Biden failed to pass a federal vaccine mandate due to separation of powers, and both Obama and Trump failed to pass some of their desired measures for the same reason.

One thing that comes to mind is that I'll see women
here wearing hijabs/burkas in stores, & no one objects.
But in Europe....France & others made that illegal.
Prosecuting people for religious clothing...absurd.
I prefer our chaos over their orderly society.

Typically, European countries that ban burqas or hijabs tend to cite relatively nebulous concepts such as "cultural identity" and "security" (even when there's no demonstrable security risk or precedent thereof). Clothing bans seem rooted in nationalistic and sometimes anti-religious (or more specifically, anti-Islamic) rhetoric more than anything else. That's separate from laws concerning defamation, hate speech, and false accusations on social media like Twitter.

Besides, not all European countries ban the burqa, and most don't ban the hijab anyway.

 

[Revoltingest]

Many of the countries ranking above the U.S. per that index have stricter defamation laws than the U.S. does. Clearly, there's much more to freedom than defamation laws and their application per se.

And many rank lower.
Who is to say that we'd rank higher as the result
of criminalizing yet another human activity, eh.

That depends on what one classifies as "hate speech." Nazi propaganda and symbols? Absolutely, and some of the most prosperous and free countries in the world (e.g., the Netherlands and Sweden) already do this. I view such speech as equivalent to incitement of violence, since it inherently includes such. (Advocacy of genocide is one of the cornerstones of Nazism, after all.)

I prefer that government not have the authority
to decide which political expressions are illegal.
But if we were to do that, I'd criminalize any
advocacy for socialism, fascism, or communism.

Blasphemy, satire, and other speech that may offend but doesn't incite violence, though? No.

That depends upon the country.
Does "Charlie Hebdo" ring a bell?

Separation of powers in any functioning democracy should ideally ensure that no one individual would have undue influence on state law. Recall that Biden failed to pass a federal vaccine mandate due to separation of powers, and both Obama and Trump failed to pass some of their desired measures for the same reason.

I note that you used "ideally".
Things aren't always ideally implemented here.

Typically, European countries that ban burqas or hijabs tend to cite relatively nebulous concepts such as "cultural identity" and "security" (even when there's no demonstrable security risk or precedent thereof). Clothing bans seem rooted in nationalistic and sometimes anti-religious (or more specifically, anti-Islamic) rhetoric more than anything else. That's separate from laws concerning defamation, hate speech, and false accusations on social media like Twitter.

I prefer our more open society, despite the increased
risk of something offensive being said. You prefer the
European model. That's OK...for them & for you.

Besides, not all European countries ban the burqa, and most don't ban the hijab anyway.

I know.

 

[Secret Chief]

I prefer that government not have the authority
to decide which political expressions are illegal.
But if we were to do that, I'd criminalize any
advocacy for socialism, fascism, or communism.

Oh yeah, well I'd ban advocacy for capitalism, libertarianism and fascism. So there!

 

[Brickjectivity]

If Musk allows any and all kinds of speech on there under the banner of "free speech," then yes, I think there are reasons to think Twitter could run afoul of some European countries' laws. Posting neo-Nazi or hate speech on there could still be legally problematic in a European country even if Twitter allows it, for example.

Like in Germany. I hadn't thought of that. Yes there are places where certain things aren't allowed. Various countries don't allow certain kinds of topics to be discussed. They'll filter Twitter out if it doesn't bend the knee.

 

[Revoltingest]

Oh yeah, well I'd ban advocacy for capitalism, libertarianism and fascism. So there!

Hmmm....perhaps then it's a bad idea to
give government to have the power to ban
certain political advocacies, eh.

 

[Secret Chief]

Hmmm....perhaps then it's a bad idea to
give government to have the power to ban
certain political advocacies, eh.

No, hate speech and incitement to violence should be banned imo - typical advocacies of the far right / fascism. (And is banned in the UK I am glad to say).

- Hate crime | The Crown Prosecution Service

 

[Fallen Prophet]

The European Commission and a spokesman for Boris Johnson have warned Elon Musk that Twitter must comply with European laws regardless of who owns it:



Elon Musk warned he must protect Twitter users

It makes me happy to see that the EU and U.K. are strict about their regulations despite Musk's peddling of (in my opinion) toxic and overly idealistic mantras of "free speech" taken straight out of American politics.

Good for Europe.

There is no freedom of speech in Europe - so this really doesn't apply to them.

 

[Revoltingest]

No, hate speech and incitement to violence should be banned imo - typical advocacies of the far right / fascism. (And is banned in the UK I am glad to say).

- Hate crime | The Crown Prosecution Service

I favor the right to hate speech.

 

[Debater Slayer]

There is no freedom of speech in Europe - so this really doesn't apply to them.

My response to this is the same as my response to the idea that Europe is generally "less free" than the U.S. (well, except for eastern Europe, at least, which has a few far-right governments):

This is a freedom index compiled by Freedom House, an American non-profit mostly funded by the U.S. government. One can hardly call them biased against the U.S. Let's see where they list the U.S.:

Countries and Territories

Twelfth in internet freedom. As far as "global freedom" goes, I had to scroll down so much that I literally lost count of the countries ahead of the U.S.

This isn't the only freedom or quality-of-life index that lists multiple European countries ahead of the U.S.

The "Euroweenies" are mostly doing just fine. Perhaps more American exceptionalists and ideologues need to learn from them instead of dismissing what works in favor of what their ideology dictates.

 

[Stevicus]

Hmmm....perhaps then it's a bad idea to
give government to have the power to ban
certain political advocacies, eh.

Well, a government can't really ban ideas - at least not openly, but there are other ways a government or other powerful entity can seriously mess with someone who says something they don't like. They can set them up or frame them for some heinous crime - or find some other way to discredit them or make them look bad.

 

[Secret Chief]

I favor the right to hate speech.

This means you would have been OK with Goebbels to carry on doing his stuff then.

 

[Revoltingest]

This means you would have been OK with Goebbels to carry on doing his stuff then.

I never said that hate speech was OK.
Only that making it illegal is a cure worse than the disease.

Aren't there some things that you don't like,
but wouldn't make illegal?
- Prostitution
- Weed
- Abortion
- Religions & cults
- Insults, slander, & libel

 

[Estro Felino]

Well, a government can't really ban ideas - at least not openly, but there are other ways a government or other powerful entity can seriously mess with someone who says something they don't like. They can set them up or frame them for some heinous crime - or find some other way to discredit them or make them look bad.

There is a very effective censorship machine on the internet. It is indisputable.
I have figured that out when I had to substantiate the last years of Bonaldo Stringher's life, the governor of Bankitalia.
It turns out he was thrown out of the window...and died, apparently.
But since his murder has terrifying political implications (as for the Banking Seigniorage), this information was completely erased from any website in Italian (only in English something was left here and there).

And when I tried to bring it up on Twitter, they literally devoured me.