Elon Musk has until the end of Wednesday to respond to demands from Brussels to remove graphic images and disinformation linked to the violence in Israel from his social network X — or face the full force of Europe’s new social media rules.
Thierry Breton, the European Union commissioner who oversees the bloc’s Digital Services Act (DSA) rules, wrote to the owner of X, formerly Twitter, to warn Musk of his obligations under the bloc’s content rules.
If Musk fails to comply, the EU’s rules state X could face fines of up to 6 percent of its revenue for potential wrongdoing. Under the regulations, social media companies are obliged to remove all forms of hate speech, incitement to violence and other gruesome images or propaganda that promote terrorist organizations.
Since Hamas launched its violent attacks on Israel on October 7, X has been flooded with images, videos and hashtags depicting — in graphic detail — how hundreds of Israelis have been murdered or kidnapped. Under X’s own policies, such material should also be removed immediately.
Get out of here with your silly US-centric idea of “absolute free speech”. Pretty much every civilized country in the world has boundaries to what is considered acceptable.
And even the US does (though they are fewer than elsewhere, granted).
But for some reason the US has produced this myth that absolute freedom of speech (which it doesn’t have) somehow is the best possible choice (which it isn’t).
My favourite is “absolute free speech!!” combined with “if you say something someone doesn’t like, they are entitled to punch you”
Or “freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom from consequences” lmao but then it’s not [absolute] free speech
Its freedom of speech from the government not carte blanche to say what you want.
Granted even that is still slightly restricted.
It baffles me that y’all are ok with being muzzled.
Straight talk time.
Those images should be posted and not removed.
People need to see what is happening for them to react.
Pictures and videos proved the holocaust to the world.
Pictures and videos got the us out of Vietnam
People need to see things that make them viscerally uncomfortable.
The only images the EU asked to have removed are images from unrelated conflicts and video games portrayed as geniune images of the current events, so blatant disinformation.
It’s in the request made by the EU. The Politico article made up the part where all graphic images are to be removed.
Its freedom of speech from the government not carte blanche to say what you want.
No other institution can instill punishment for speech except the government, so freedom of speech from the government means freedom of speech absolute. Joe Blogs migh have a pop at me, but then he’s guilty of assault. My employer might decide my views are not consistent with theirs, but unless I was acting as their representative at the time most decent worker protection laws across the globe would deem it as you acting as a private individual, and therefore none of your employer’s concern.
Now, is it polite, civil and sociable to say certain things? No, but if I’m prepared to contravene social etiquette, I can say whatever I want under a system of protected speech from the government.
No, you don’t understand, it’s easy:
- if the government punishes you for what you said, it’s an attack on Free Speech™
- if woke Twitter cancels you for what you said, it’s an attack on Free Speech™
- if a far-right/Republican shoots you down for what you said, it’s just the consequences of your Free Speech™
- if you’re writing a book about sexual education, it’s not Free Speech™ anymore, and you should be censored
Easy, huh? /s
My favourite is “absolute free speech!!” combined with “if you say something someone doesn’t like, they are entitled to punch you”
Anyone who says that is forgetting that punching falls under assault.
Hate speech is far beyond merely “something I don’t like”. It is advocating for the oppression and even eradication of people based on their very identity.
Hate speech should not be tolerated if we want to live in a society that tolerates the existence of others. (So called “paradox of tolerance” which is really not a paradox when you frame it as I have). We can tolerate the existence of bigoted assholes but prohibit them spreading their bigotry. Otherwise we live in a society that supports intolerance.
The concept of absolute freedom of speech is based on lessons learned in history and even the present. As soon as you start limiting speech you have to draw a line and nobody can agree on where that line should be. The real issue however, is that it’s ultimately government that decides.
A government that can limit few speech gets to decide what acceptable speech is and that’s a dangerous power in the hands of the wrong people.
There’s definitely consequences to unhinderred free speech but I think history shows us that the alternative is worse.
So…
You think it should be legal for any random person to stand outside your house with a megaphone telling everyone that you’re a child abuser and the only way to protect the kids is to immediately kill you?
No I don’t personally believe in absolute free speech I was just trying to offer perspective in response to a comment that was rejecting the concept outright.
I do enjoy the rise it got out of this audience though.
This is a slippery slope logical fallacy.
As in A is like B is like C […] is like Z.
In the case at hand, no one is talking about censoring someone’s spicy take on bidenomics - is a binary question of “is this image likely to support extremism”.
History does not show that censoring this type of material leads to an autocracy.
A government that can limit few speech gets to decide what acceptable speech is and that’s a dangerous power in the hands of the wrong people.
The life hack we use in Europe is that we have more than two parties and a functioning electoral system, so the regulatory capture of corporations and their fascist leaning CEOs is only partial. That makes it easier to draw the line where people want it to, since we can vote out our government.
The lesson learned from history, at least when it came to drafting the German Basic Law in 1948/49, is that freedom of speech must bow to the sanctity of human dignity, as does everything else.
It isn’t and it’s a good idea.
But somehow the US doesn’t seem to be as good at having one as they might want to think:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Press_Freedom_Index
It’s not terrible in that index, but it’s below most European countries.
Edit: or maybe you prefer an index by a US instituation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_the_Press_(report) the ranking looks pretty similar, though.
Free speech and free press are vital to intellectual progress.
Information needs to be exchanged to grow.
