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.
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?
I believe the classic example is yelling “fire” in a crowded theater
Yeah, but when explaining it to someone with zero empathy, they dont understand unless it's explicitly about them…
If "fire in a theater" would work on that person, it would have already. It's not some obscure example no one's ever heard of before…
Which ironically is actually legal in the US. The big lines are libel, slander, defamation, incitement to imminent lawless action, fraud, threats and child pornography.
Assuming the person is not actually a child abuser, the example they used would actually cross the line in the US but really only for a civil case, rather than criminal. It wouldn't even count as incitement unless he was calling for the alleged child abuser to be lynched or something, even "someone ought to string up this child abuser" probably doesn't count as incitement.
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.
That's so much sadder than if you were being authentically stupid…
What's sad is you being mean to a person for simply making a comment on a social media platform.
Wait…
I thought you just said you were trolling…
Now your serious and it was a legitimate question?
JK, I don't give a fuck, I'm not even sure why I didn't block you already.
What? I never said I was trolling. I said I was offering a different perspective.
It's so bizarre how people are attacking me for that. You would think I said something awful.
I did enjoy the reaction that my original comment got but only because the comment wasn't intended to stir up controversy or invoke a strong reaction but clearly has.
I was contributing to a conversation with a comment that I feel was quite harmless. I didn't know free speech absolutism was such a feather rustling topic.
Did you really just go from “I think history shows us that the alternative is worse” to this?
cringe
Enjoying people being unhappy with you is not a very good life outlook.
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.
Indeed. Something the USA probably will never learn
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.
On the flip side, i learned from the finest Free Speech Absolutist that absolute free speech is absolute bullshit, as it's less about free speech and more about my speech.
Like, when? What are some examples? Back up your bullshit.