
The EU Terrorist Content Regulation – a threat to the ecosystem and user rights - Vinnl
https://blog.mozilla.org/netpolicy/2018/11/21/the-eu-terrorist-content-regulation-a-threat-to-the-ecosystem-and-our-users-rights/
======
deugtniet
This proposal is very bad. But luckily it is only a proposal. The council and
parliament will still vote for this, before it becomes European law. Both
bodies will likely oppose, and the proposal will be significantly amended. I
honestly don't see the commissions reasoning on why this is a good proposal.
But I don't see how the EU as an institution is bashed for this. This is a
similar process as occurs in any other member state and other democracies. Not
to mention the US, with it's secret laws and national security letters.

My personal opinion is that illegal content (CP, inciting violence) should be
moderated quickly, where failure to act has big consequences. What I don't
like about the proposal is that it is enforced by governments, and not some
judiciary body. I hope the council and parliament will amend the proposal in
such a way this is reflected in a final law.

~~~
raxxorrax
It is normal political procedure to have an aweful initial proposal so that
amendments seem like a lesser evil, while still being bad.

I doubt we really have a need to act on these issues in the first place and
that was explicitly not the goal of those who initiated this proposal. You
just need to take a look at who proposed it.

So the question about illegal content is completely misplaced.

~~~
doombolt
That's why we need tools to permanently ban politicians from law making if
their proposal is awful enough.

Kind of "[X] No and don't ask again", democracy version.

Having thought of it, the main problem here it's no longer "Political party
versus political party" when speaking about law making, but "Parliament versus
public". For some reason they have shared agenda instead of competing on it.
They all unanimously want to sell us to copyright holders and secret services
so bad, it's only our stupid resistance is what's holding them. Hence,
proposal adjustments tricks.

------
sbhn
Everything I know about isis, I got from the bbc and politicians.

~~~
gaius
They used to publish their own newsletter
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dabiq_(magazine)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dabiq_\(magazine\))

------
afroboy
No more Israel criticism then or we labelled antisemitism, On what basis they
trying to define terrorism? because where i live what USA is doing with their
drones is considered terrorism.

~~~
dao-
Where do you live and why are US drones a reason to criticize Israel?

You're right that the term is a bit nebulous, but this isn't a new problem.
E.g. criminal law already treats terrorism differently in many countries. As
is often the case in law, courts would have to figure what should be
considered terrorism. Courts in your country could decide differently than in
mine, which can be a good thing or a bad thing depending on your point of
view.

~~~
afroboy
> Where do you live and why are US drones a reason to criticize Israel?

Sorry, those were intended as two different examples.

------
ElBarto
Most EU countries already have similar legislation.

------
dbmyh
The EU has never had freedom of expression, so these regulations are anything
but surprising. They just extend what already existed to the digital era.

~~~
deugtniet
Source? I am a EU citizen, My freedom of speech is only inhibited when I
incite to violence or discriminate. That is because it is illegal to do, seems
fair.

~~~
dbmyh
[https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6316567/Woman-
corre...](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6316567/Woman-correctly-
convicted-Austria-calling-Prophet-Mohammed-paedophile-ECHR-rules.html)

(I would like an explanation to my GP's comment being flagged other than "I
would like this to not be true")

~~~
deugtniet
She was not convicted after appeal right? She retained her right to free
speech, and the Austrian courts should not convict somebody on these counts.
Weird that you link that.

EDIT: It's the total opposite, I apologize. She was convicted for her speech,
but the courts found her speech to disrupt the religious peace, and not
freedom of opinion. Turns out disrupting religious peace is illegal in
Austria, which is a stupid law.

~~~
cyphar
From the first line in the article:

> The European Court of Human Rights has ruled a woman convicted by an
> Austrian court of calling the Prophet Mohammed a paedophile did not have her
> freedom of speech rights infringed.

Now, I don't particularly like the Daily Mail, but given that you are
expressing the exact opposite of the situation described in the article I
would expect some sort of argument. It appears you misunderstood the article's
title?

------
lbj
The time for the EU has passed. Its too decoupled from the real world, too
draconian in its approach. It was created for the sole purpose of making
cross-border dealings easy within the EU but on it's own initiative its grown
into a monster that regulates everything from the amount of cinnamon on buns
to blogposts written online.

~~~
ahartmetz
The EU was created to prevent further wars in Europe. Nowadays it is also seen
as necessary for European countries to represent their interests in the world.

~~~
timrichard
That's the popular quote, but presumably something was preventing war in
Europe prior to the creation of the EU in 1993.

The European Coal and Steel Community (grandfather of the EU) was created in
1952 to regulate production of these materials, and address the risk of
massive re-armament. I'm not convinced how relevant that is after the US
detonated the first atomic weapon in 1945.

IMHO, NATO has been the factor in preventing war in Europe during the last 70
years.

~~~
pgeorgi
The European Economic Community was founded in 1957, following in the ECSC's
footsteps (ECSC was later merged into the EEC).

In 1993, the EEC was renamed to European Community and merged into the EU.

So there's direct lineage back to post-war times, and without the "baby steps"
of creating close ties between significant parts of the economies (steel and
coal were kind of a big deal back then) of countries that considered each
other arch-foes until then (Germany and France in particular), the later
initiatives might have failed, like the attempts to form the European
Political Community and the European Defence Community did in the 1950s.

------
DyslexicAtheist
I'm pro Europe and thought I'd always would be. If this takes off I'm gonna
jump ship and join every anti EU camp and would even cheer for fascists just
so that _the empire gets struck back_. That's the level of pissed I am at this
empire building shit on all sides.

~~~
lawlessone
>and would even cheer for fascists

I'm lost for words to describe the stupidity of this

~~~
DyslexicAtheist
you possibly misunderstood the difference between anger and intelligence? a
system that uses technology to increase surveillance and a fear mongering
language (seriously " _terrorism_ "??) needs to be stopped with every means
possible. Especially if they're sneaking it in so that you can't legally fight
it. How else are you going to fight them? Buttons and a leaflet campaign? Come
on!

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _needs to be stopped with every means possible_

Nothing needs to be done by every means possible. This isn’t worth vaporising
cities over, for one example. Or fascism, for another.

~~~
starbeast
When people start thinking that the ends justify the means, they forget that
outside of maybe death, and people still argue about that, ends are just
narrative conveniences and there is only means. And you can't very well have
means justifying means, can you?

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _you can 't very well have means justifying means_

Yes you can. They’re called instrumental values and goals.

