Hate-speech attack plan draws serious fire

Religious and secular activists both are taking aim at a new plan by the European Union to require tech companies such as Facebook and Twitter to attack "hate" speech online.

And for the same reason: The vague definitions could give people with nefarious agendas the power to censor speech.

WND recently reported the agreement tech giants Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and others reached with the European Union to crack down on what some regard as "hate speech."

The Associated Press reported the newly approved "code of conduct" will have the tech companies "quickly" remove "illegal hate speech directed against anyone over issues of race, color, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin."

The companies agreed "to strengthen their partnerships with civil society organizations [that] often flag content that promotes incitement to violence and hateful conduct," the report said.

Vera Jourova, the EU commissioner responsible for justice, consumers and gender equality, said in the report that the Internet "is a place for free speech, not hate speech."

“The Liberty Amendments” is the blueprint on how to fix our broken government by Mark Levin, the #1 New York Times bestselling author of “Liberty and Tyranny” and “Ameritopia.” Order it today at WND's Superstore.

However, Barnabas Fund, a Christian organization that supports Christians suffering from discrimination or oppression, said the agreement is providing grounds for "serious concerns that the definition of hate speech is so vague it could effectively censor anything deemed politically incorrect, including for example, any criticism of Islamism, mass migration or even the European Union itself."

The group said it could have serious implications for Christian organizations such as Barnabas Fund that report the persecution of Christians, including converts from Islam.

The Christian organization said that by adopting the policy, the EU "is therefore restricting freedom of the press, something that has existed as a historic national value in countries such as the UK for over 300 years."

"It is giving Islamic organizations the power to censor any online comments critical of Islam, including those discussing the rapidly spreading persecution of Christians in Muslim majority contexts. Even worse it is doing so not directly, in a way in which it might perhaps be held to account by the electorate, but via commercial companies," Barnabas Fund said.

"The latter is particularly significant as there have recently been significant concerns raised about both political bias within search engines such as Google and censorship of internet posts by Facebook. In September 2015, German Chancellor Angela Merkel was overheard on a live microphone confronting Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg on what he was doing to prevent criticism of her open-door immigration policies. While award winning Arab journalist Khaled Abu Toameh who works for the Jerusalem Post had his Facebook account suspended after he wrote about corruption in the Palestinian Authority. Abu Toameh believes that Facebook censored his account in response to complaints from anti-Israel activists."

The organization put the new EU regulation into historical context.

"In 1694 the UK parliament effectively ended press censorship by not renewing the 1643 licensing order that allowed search, seizure and destruction of all books deemed to be 'offensive' to the government. The EU is now effectively reintroducing online press censorship – with any posts deemed offensive by either itself or the staff of internet companies being destroyed."

Barnabas Fund warned that it "poses a significant risk to both freedom of the press and freedom of religion, including potentially our ability to write about the causes of Christian persecution in Muslim-majority contexts."

The code calls for oversight by the High Level Group on Combating Racism, Xenophobia and all forms of intolerance.

IT companies will have to set up processes to remove material that draws complaints, specifically material that promotes "the incitement to violence and hateful conduct."

They are to train staff members on "current societal developments," but they don't clearly defines "hate" speech, which drew criticism from the National Secular Society.

"The plans rest on a vague definition of 'hate speech' and risk threatening online discussions which criticize religion," the group said.

"The agreement comes amid repeated accusations from ex-Muslims that social media organizations are censoring them online. The Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain has now begun collecting examples from its followers on Facebook censoring 'atheist, secular and ex-Muslim content' after false 'mass reporting' by 'cyber jihadists.'"

NSS communications officer Benjamin Jones said: "Far from tackling online 'cyber jihad,' the agreement risks having the exact opposite effect and entrapping any critical discussion of religion under ague 'hate speech' rules. Poorly trained Facebook or Twitter staff, perhaps with their own ideological bias, could easily see heated criticism of Islam and think it is 'hate speech,' particularly if pages or users are targeted and mass reported by Islamists.'"

The EU said hate speech is "public incitement to violence or hatred directed against a group of persons … defined by reference to race, color, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin."

However, Jones said, "Incitement to violence and incitement to 'hatred' are very different things."

The Index on Censorship noted, "Hate speech laws are already too broad and ambiguous in much of Europe. This agreement fails to properly define what 'illegal hate speech' is and does not provide sufficient safeguards for freedom of expression."

When the announcement was made, Bloomberg reported: "A French Jewish youth group, UEJF, sued Twitter, Facebook and Google in Paris this month over how they monitor hate speech on the Web. In the course of about six weeks in April and May, members of French anti-discrimination groups flagged unambiguous hate speech that they said promoted racism, homophobia or anti-Semitism. More than 90 percent of the posts pointed out to Twitter and YouTube remained online within 15 days on average following requests for removal, according to the study by UEJF, SOS Racisme and SOS Homophobie."

The AP said the company was telling customers to use online reporting tools to monitor speech.

Meanwhile, Fortune said that as Facebook has focused on becoming a platform for video, publishers who don't work in the medium are becoming less involved.

The report cited a study by NewsWhip that found there's been a "noticeable decline" in engagement with Facebook.

The results follow a scandal in which Facebook was accused of suppressing stories with a conservative viewpoint. Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg held a meeting with conservative leaders over the issue.

The NewsWhip study said it looked at "likes," comments and sharing of linked articles "from the top 10 publishers on Facebook over the past year."

"Over the past nine months, NewsWhip says, the research shows a fairly sharp decline in engagement of all kinds: Likes, the most dominant form of interaction, dropped by about 55 percent between July of last year and April of 2016. And sharing activity also declined sharply: Shares fell by 57 percent and comments by almost 64 percent."

The report said it "seems obvious that engagement for non-video content is declining. But why? It could be that Facebook is deliberately pushing that kind of article down in people's feeds."

WND reported two years ago the Southern Poverty Law Center called the World Congress of Families, which promotes the "natural family," an "anti-LGBT hate group."

And the same SPLC has blasted the Drudge Report for covering "black crime," charging that the immensely popular Internet news aggregator "has been rife with what the online publisher calls 'scary black people' stories."

Then there was the bill from Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y.

Their Hate Crime Reporting Act of 2014 would have created "an updated comprehensive report examining the role of the Internet and other telecommunications in encouraging hate crimes based on gender, race, religion, ethnicity, or sexual orientation and create recommendations to address such crimes," stated a news release from Markey's office.

SPLC was later linked to domestic terror when it was cited as a source of information for a man who attacked the Washington offices of Family Research Council and admitted he wanted to kill as many as possible.

The issue was that SPLC labeled FRC a "hate" group while it simply follows the biblical view of marriage and family.

Several years earlier, a Canadian administrative judge's demand for a $5,000 penalty and a written apology from a man who criticized homosexuality in a letter to his local newspaper was overturned on appeal, because the law exempts "the free expression of opinion on any subject" and only applies to actions.

That's been the legal standard in the United States as well, although there have been attempts to apply it to speech.

A spokesman for the Alliance Defending Freedom noted the U.S. First Amendment and the Canadian Charter of Rights were designed to protect unwanted speech.

"Speech everyone wants to hear doesn't need protection. It's the only reason the First Amendment was written, to protect unwanted or hurtful expressions," the spokesman said at the time. "That's what separates us from the totalitarian societies behind the old Iron Curtain."

Obama signed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act early in his presidency, which cracks down on any acts that could be linked to criticism of homosexuality or even the "perception" of homosexuality.

As Congress debated it, there were assurances it would not be used to crack down on speech.

Days after Obama signed it, pastors and other Christian leaders gathered to read from the Bible at a rally organized with the help of Gary Cass of the Christian Anti-Defamation Coalition.

"If this law is used to silence me or any of these preachers for speaking the truth, then we will be forced to conscientiously defy it," declared Rick Scarborough, president of Vision America. "That is my calling as a Christian and my right as an American citizen."

The bill signed by Obama was opposed by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, which called it a "menace" to civil liberties. The commission argued the law allows federal authorities to bring charges against individuals even if they've already been cleared in a state court.