
Twitter hands over data to ID racist users - titlex
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23290066
======
foobarbazqux
Here's a compilation of the tweets in French:

[http://www.lemonde.fr/technologies/article/2012/10/14/unbonj...](http://www.lemonde.fr/technologies/article/2012/10/14/unbonjuif-
un-concours-de-blagues-antisemites-derape-sur-twitter_1775233_651865.html)

    
    
      - <picture of a jew in a concentration camp bed> #UnBonJuif
      - A good jew is hard to cook.
      - A good jew is a dead jew.
      - <picture of ashes pouring out of a hand> #UnBonJuif
      - A good jew is cooked well-done.
    

Stuff like that. I'm at a bit of a loss for words; I feel a deep sadness about
this. These are the French hate speech laws:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_France](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_France)

The courts don't appear keen to convict based on the case history, and I'm
guessing these guys will be acquitted.

~~~
TazeTSchnitzel
Well, that's pretty disgusting.

~~~
maqr
Which part is doing it for you? That Twitter would hand over your identifying
information because they don't like the contents of your tweets? The idea that
governments can prohibit the written expression of thoughts and ideas? Or was
it the distasteful tweets of some bigots (or perhaps more likely, just unfunny
and immature people) about the jews?

~~~
omd
>That Twitter would hand over your identifying information because they don't
like the contents of your tweets?

Twitter refused to hand over the data until the French court forced them to.

>The idea that governments can prohibit the written expression of thoughts and
ideas?

I have no problem with governments prohibiting hate speech. I have never felt
suppressed by these laws because I have never felt the need to express hate
speech online or offline.

> "But others who have just as much rights as you and do want to send out
> distasteful tweets DO feel suppressed."

Good. The majority of people in my country agree that living in a respectful
society is more important than having the freedom to say things that you
wouldn't want to say. You can find that overly restrictive but then so are
traffic lights, queues at the supermarket, clothing, and doors.

>Or was it the distasteful tweets of some bigots (or perhaps more likely, just
unfunny and immature people) about the jews?

That's just being willfully ignorant.

~~~
maqr
In all seriousness, who does get to decide what speech is illegal in your
country? If you're about to say something that might upset some group, do you
restrain yourself or say it any way and wait for the courts to decide of your
speech was lawful? From my American perspective, it sounds like an awful
restriction to have.

I wonder what percentage of people in your country feel that their speech has
ever been restrained in any way.

Also, what about political speech that is satirical and offensive to some
groups, like Parazit or The Daily Show?

~~~
foobarbazqux
It's not about saying things that might upset some group. It's about saying
things in a public forum that are deliberately upsetting and abusive and
promoting hatred. You don't have to worry about it because you know exactly
what you are doing when you do it. It's like worrying about getting a ticket
because you accidentally drove in reverse down a one way street. And if you
look the vast majority of cases get dismissed.

Also consider that American corporations wield an immense power to restrict
speech, and they are quite liberal about doing so.

------
codezero
It's my understanding that the content provider is only responsible for laws
in areas where their data is hosted. Does Twitter have a data center in
France? If not, how did this end up in French court?

~~~
DannyBee
Your understanding is incorrect. You just generally won't get your datacenter
_raided_ except for violating the laws of the country where you host data.

Most nations (US included) try to claim jurisdiction over anything that
affects people in their nation.

In practice, your choices end up being: 1\. Comply

or some combination of: 2a. Have any local _offices_ (not datacenter) raided
and any country-level execs possibly arrested 2b. Having any remote execs
arrested if they ever end up in that country.

~~~
codezero
But if you have no offices then you are OK?

Thanks, by the way for clarifying.

~~~
desas
If you don't have any offices, money or staff based in a country, and no-one
visits it (even for holiday), then they have nothing to enforce the law
against.

------
dnskw
Were the tweets really so bad that they incited racial hatred?

~~~
smegel
I think you will find "causing serious offence" is also a crime. At least it
is in Australia. Which means even jokes and flippant remarks can result in
criminal convictions if you didn't show enough sensitivity to some minority
group.

Americans are extremely lucky that they live in a country with two principals
that basically don't exist anywhere else 1) that there should be limits on the
power of the state to interfere in private affairs and 2) freedom of
thought/expression.

The fact that the NSA scandal has become...well such a scandal is that those
principals existed to be violated in the first place.

~~~
coldtea
> _I think you will find "causing serious offence" is also a crime. At least
> it is in Australia. Which means even jokes and flippant remarks can result
> in criminal convictions if you didn't show enough sensitivity to some
> minority group._

Yes, after fucking over the native population for centuries, hunting them like
animals, and closing them in concentration fuck-camps, suddenly the Australian
government is all-too sensitive to the effects of ...hate speech.

~~~
waps
Yes, I think you'll find the UN is pushing for that worldwide. It's not the UN
per se, but mostly the OIC (who think nothing is wrong with stealing children
to rape them, but "hate speech", that's a problem). Although I can fully
understand why a bunch of islamic dictators feel the need to suppress the
truth, and punish any "hate" speech harshly. They certainly do so in their own
countries. Europe somehow thinks it's a good idea to oblige.

Interesting titbit "Vlad Dracul", the real one, king of Wallacia, is one of
those children stolen under muslim law. Didn't work out to well for the
thieves, or for anybody else for that matter. (ref:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlad_the_Impaler#Life_in_Edirn...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlad_the_Impaler#Life_in_Edirne)
)

------
driverdan
Does Twitter have a business presence in France? If not, why did they bother
to comply?

------
eeky
OK so let me get this straight: Many French tweeted jokes about "#UnBonJuif"
(translation: a good jew), then an organization called UEJF (Union of French
Jewish Students) goes on a legal attack and manages to get Twitter to cough up
the info on the "perpetrators" and now those users are facing jail time?

Two conclusions I can make here: France, despite being a proponent of
"liberte", does not have freedom of speech. Secondly, don't insult Jews, even
on the internet.

~~~
TazeTSchnitzel
No, in Europe we have the concept of "freedom of speech has limits".
Basically, you are free to speak, but you are not free to make hate speech.

~~~
coldtea
So, you're not free to speak.

Because somebody else gets to decide what's "hate speech".

Speaking against the aristocrats, back in the day, would also be regarded as
"hate speech". Or speaking against class privilege, now.

And of course, anybody talking against mass immigration (which, as a social
phenomenon has a lot of downsides too), will easily be classified as "hate
speaker" too.

~~~
radio4fan
> So, you're not free to speak.

But everywhere has some practical limits on free speech. It's a question of
where the line is drawn. Shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre, threatening the
President, you get the picture.

Of course we're not all going to agree on where the line should be drawn, and
some would like there to be no line at all. You can't please everyone.

In France and Germany, it's illegal to deny that the holocaust happened, but
it's not in the UK or Spain, for example.

> Because somebody else gets to decide what's "hate speech".

We decide what is hate speech, through our elected representatives. It's far
from perfect, but it's the better than all the alternatives.

~~~
guard-of-terra
The alternative of unrestricted free speech is better.

~~~
hahainternet
Why? I prefer to live in a society where people can't march through the
streets waving signs designed specifically to vilify a specific group. Can you
tell me how this freedom makes your society better in any way?

~~~
guard-of-terra
I see a huge value in political protest. It allows a society to figure out its
problems. You suggest to sweep problems under the rug until they go real bad
and even, in the competitive world, ruin the society's chances forever.

Why would people do what you describe? Because they are pure evil? What if
they occassionally do have a point?

~~~
hahainternet
You post a load of conjecture that is purely hypothetical and then ask
questions from this non-existent world.

You do not comprehend the reality you are discussing. Screaming 'GOD HATES
FAGS' at someone's funeral is not political protest. It is disgusting
psychological abuse.

~~~
guard-of-terra
Screaming at somebody's funeral should be punishable without the need of
referring the content of screams in question.

