EU Pushes More Censorship... To "Protect" You

Authored by Judith Bergman via The Gatestone Institute,

On March 1, The European Commission -- the unelected executive branch of the European Union -- told social media companies to remove illegal online terrorist content within an hour, or risk facing EU-wide legislation on the topic. The ultimatum was part of a new set of recommendations that will apply to all forms of "illegal content" online, "from terrorist content, incitement to hatred and violence, child sexual abuse material, counterfeit products and copyright infringement."

The European Commission said, "Considering that terrorist content is most harmful in the first hours of its appearance online, all companies should remove such content within one hour from its referral as a general rule".

While the one-hour ultimatum is ostensibly only about terrorist content, this is how the European Commission motivated the new recommendations:

"The Juncker Commission made security a top priority from day one. It is the most basic and universal of rights to feel safe in your own home or when walking down the street. Europeans rightly expect their Union to provide that security for them – online and offline. The Commission has taken a number of actions to protect Europeans online – be it from terrorist content, illegal hate speech or fake news... we are continuously looking into ways we can improve our fight against illegal content online. Illegal content means any information which is not in compliance with Union law or the law of a Member State, such as content inciting people to terrorism, racist or xenophobic, illegal hate speech, child sexual exploitation... What is illegal offline is also illegal online".

"Illegal hate speech", is broadly defined by the European Commission as "incitement to violence or hatred directed against a group of persons or a member of such a group defined by reference to race, colour, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin".

The internet companies have three months to deliver results and the European Commission will then decide whether it will introduce legislation. Incidentally, the three-month deadline, in May 2018, coincides with the deadline that the European Commission gave itself in 2017 on deciding whether the "Code of Conduct on countering illegal online hate speech" should be made into legislation.

In May 2016, the European Commission and Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Microsoft, agreed on a "Code of Conduct on countering illegal online hate speech" (Google+ and Instagram joined the Code of Conduct in January 2018). The Code of Conduct commits the social media companies to review and remove within 24 hours content that is deemed to be, "illegal hate speech". According to the Code of Conduct, when companies receive a request to remove content, they must "assess the request against their rules and community guidelines and, where applicable, national laws on combating racism and xenophobia..." In other words, the social media giants act as voluntary censors on behalf of the European Union.

The European Commission has been regularly monitoring the implementation of the Code of Conduct. It recently found that "Under the Code of Conduct on Countering Illegal Hate Speech Online, internet companies now remove on average 70% of illegal hate speech notified to them and in more than 80% of these cases, the removals took place within 24 hours".

The European Commission's announcement on the new recommendations, specifically the one-hour rule, was heavily criticized. EDiMA, an industry association that includes Facebook, YouTube, Google and Twitter, said it was "dismayed" by the Commission's announcement:

Our sector accepts the urgency but needs to balance the responsibility to protect users while upholding fundamental rights -- a one-hour turn-around time in such cases could harm the effectiveness of service providers' take-down systems rather than help... EDiMA fails to see how the arbitrary Recommendation published by the European Commission, without due consideration of the types of content; the context and impact of the obligation on other regulatory issues; and, the feasibility of applying such broad recommendations by different kinds of service providers can be seen as a positive step forward.

Joe McNamee, executive director of European Digital Rights, described the Commission's proposal as "voluntary censorship":

"Today's recommendation institutionalizes a role for Facebook and Google in regulating the free speech of Europeans," he said in a statement. "The Commission needs to be smart and to finally start developing policy based on reliable data and not public relations spin."

Facebook, on the other hand, said that it shares the European Commission's goal:

"We have already made good progress removing various forms of illegal content," the company said in a statement. "We continue to work hard to remove hate speech and terrorist content while making sure that Facebook remains a platform for all ideas."

There appears to be a huge disconnect here between the EU's professed concern for keeping Europeans safe -- as expressed in the one hour rule -- and the EU's actual refusal to keep Europeans safe in the offline world. The result is that Europeans, manipulated by an untransparent, unaccountable body, will not be kept safe either online or off.

Only a few months ago, EU's Commissioner for Migration, Home Affairs and Citizenship, Dimitris Avramopoulos wrote, "We cannot and will never be able to stop migration... At the end of the day, we all need to be ready to accept migration, mobility and diversity as the new norm and tailor our policies accordingly".

The enormous influx of migrants into the EU, especially since 2015, is closely linked to the spike in terrorism, as well as the current and future Islamization of the continent. ISIS terrorists have returned to Europe or entered the continent disguised as migrants, and several have perpetrated terror attacks. According to Gilles de Kerchove, EU Counterterrorism Coordinator, there are now more than 50,000 jihadists living in Europe. In 2017, one terrorist attack was attempted every seven days in Europe, on average. When Jean-Claude Juncker, President of the European Commission, gave his State of the Union Address to the European Parliament in September 2017, he admitted a hugely embarrassing fact:

"We still lack the means to act quickly in case of cross-border terrorist threats. This is why I call for a European intelligence unit that ensures data concerning terrorists and foreign fighters are automatically shared among intelligence services and with the police".

After the ISIS attacks in Paris in November 2015, the Brussels attacks in March 2016, the Nice attack in July 2016, the Berlin Christmas Market attack in December 2016, and the Manchester attack in May 2017 -- and those are just the most spectacular ones -- should the "intelligence unit" for which Juncker calls not have been the very highest priority for the European Commission? After all, it claims that security is its "top priority". Yet, Europeans are supposed to believe that removing "terrorist content" within one hour is going to protect them against future terrorist attacks?

Moreover, as long as you are claiming that security is a "top priority", if President Juncker so readily admits to lacking "the means to act quickly in case of cross-border terrorist threats", would the logical consequence not be to close those borders, at least until you have acquired those means?


European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker. (Photo by Sean Gallup/Getty Images)


European intelligence authorities have repeatedly stated that with the ongoing migration, Europe is "... importing Islamic extremism, Arab anti-Semitism, national and ethnic conflicts of other peoples, as well as a different understanding of society and law".

These are all factors contributing to the current spikes not only in the terror threat to Europe, but also in the crime waves sweeping countries such as Sweden and Germany, including the surge in rapes.

Regardless of these facts, including that women can no longer exercise their freedom to walk in safety in many neighborhoods of European cities, the EU has staunchly refused to stop the influx of migrants. It is, therefore, difficult to take seriously in any way the European Commission's claim that the security, offline and online, of EU citizens is a "top priority". If that were true, why does not Europe simply close the borders? Stopping terrorists at the borders would be infinitely more efficient at reducing the terrorist threat than requiring tech companies to remove "Illegal online content". Instead, the EU actually sues EU countries -- Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic -- who refuse to endanger their citizens by admitting the quota of migrants that the EU assigns for them.

These EU ultimatums also fail to take into account what a recent study showed: that the second most important factor in the radicalization of Muslims, after Islam itself, is the environment, namely the mosques and imams to which Muslims go and on which they rely. Although the internet evidently does play a role in the radicalization process, the study showed that face-to-face encounters were more important, and that dawa, proselytizing Islam, plays a central role in this process. Perhaps the EU should obsess less over inconsequential time frames -- last year the European Commission talked about a two-hour time frame for removal -- and worry more about what is being preached inside the thousands of mosques scattered around its membership countries, so many of them financed by Saudi Arabia and Qatar?

Recent experience with Germany's censorship law shows that a company is likely to err on the side of caution -- censorship. And what if the content in question, as has already occurred may be trying to warn the public about terrorism?

Above all, the one-hour rule, with the threat of legislation behind it, looks more like a diversion created for public relations and for sneaking even more authoritarian censorship -- plus the ignorance that goes with it -- into the lives of its EU citizens.


Pinot-Noir Thu, 03/15/2018 - 05:10 Permalink

I love Europe ....that's why I hate the E.U.


I live in France and I can't believe I'm living through this creeping dystopian nightmare that will be the Federal states of Europe.



The Celt Pinot-Noir Thu, 03/15/2018 - 07:05 Permalink

+1 The European community was a great thing, sharing resources ideas, respecting each countries unique identities and culture. I never voted for anyone on this "commission". This made-up federal Union is not a democracy.
'Illegal content means any information which is not in compliance with Union law' -1984- thought crime is a crime against the Union Law. Ireland like many ex eastern block countries only had a few decades of self rule. Ireland was ruled by UK for centuries, getting independence 1922 becoming a republic in 1948 joining the EEC in 1977 and then relinquishing self-rule with the Treaty of Lisbon 2007. 1922-1980's Ireland was under the heavy influrance of the RomanCatholicChurch. So brief history of Ireland UK->RCC+ROI->EU can't a country get a break.

In reply to by Pinot-Noir

FreeMoney The Celt Thu, 03/15/2018 - 11:38 Permalink

The socialist welfare state requires a continuous growth of population to provide for the re-election promises made of more free shit.

Once the population makes the mental change from produce = get to need = get then they are trapped.  They think they will receive more than they have to pay, and somehow magically "Guberment" will provide.  Guberment borrows to fill the gap, because "need" is so much more important than produce when you are trying to get re-elected. 

Simultaneously they realize that only the future can pay for this benefit today so they decide to not saddle their own children with this burden by not having children.

With shrinking domestic population there are not enough taxpayers ( there never are ) to foot the bill.  So now they open the borders to bring in the next generation of tax donkey.

Pulling the strings behind it all are the bankers, who control the price and available quantity of money and collect interest on all the debt.

The people are easily manipulated with the promise of affordable benefits especially when they are told someone else will foot the bill.  Through inflation the people foot the bill.

When the people realize they can vote themselves moneys from the public coffers, the republic is dead.

In reply to by The Celt

buzzsaw99 Thu, 03/15/2018 - 05:18 Permalink

i miss the wild west days of the internet when ruthlessly trolling people was the norm.  they've all but killed it.  now it's just a shopping channel.

Let's go, boys. Let these sissies have their party.  [/Buford "Mad Dog" Tannen]

BritBob Thu, 03/15/2018 - 06:05 Permalink

The Crazy EU- Gibraltar

MEPs and legal experts have claimed the veto over the territory’s future after Brexit would give Spain special status among EU nation, when they should be on an equal level.

The EU’s Brexit negotiating guidelines stated that the Brexit deal will not apply to Gibraltar without an “agreement between the kingdom of Spain and the UK”.

Experts have told the Telegraph that the veto could be illegal under EU law.

Spain's Gibraltar claim has NO legitimacy and YES would be illegal.

They've effectively signed the territory away 3x times!

Gibraltar – Spanish Myths and Agreements (single page):

Fireman Thu, 03/15/2018 - 06:56 Permalink

Any retard resorting to Facespuk, Goggle, Twatter and the rest of the NSA GESTAPO fly traps deserves to be gulagged and liquidated.

Do not encourage STASI Erika in Berlin and the Pedophile Poliburo in Natostan sewer Brussels.

Kokulakai Thu, 03/15/2018 - 07:19 Permalink

All speech, and soon your thoughts, are belong to us.

When TPTB feel comfortable with predictive profiling the thought police become reality.

Greed is King Thu, 03/15/2018 - 07:44 Permalink

One of my favourite quotes comes from Ben Franklin, it has very often been misquoted, but the original text is:

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety,
 deserve neither Liberty nor Safety, and will lose both".

So why is Germany doing exactly what Ben warned against, why is a country that since 1945 has seemed to be striving to rid itself of its totalitarian past and embrace the virtues of Democracy, civil liberties, Justice and the inalienable rights of man, now introducing Draconian laws (this is not the first) that curtail if not abolish the very principles they profess to hold sacred ?.

Could it be the old Devil money again ?, the old Devil money in the shape of the anti-Christ dual citizenship of American and British holding Hungarian born multi billionaire who has because of his birth and supposedly near death experience at the hands of the German Nazi`s and later another very bad experience at the hands of the Russians be using his vast wealth for revenge by bringing about the collapse of the Fourth Reich German Empire of the EU ?, and using his vast wealth to bring about the alienation and destruction of Russia ?.

Could it all be the work of the self styled real life Big Brother with a name reminiscent of Reptiles ?, could Germany`s, Russia`s and indirectly OUR ills and woes be the work of G.Saurus ?.

EddieLomax Greed is King Thu, 03/15/2018 - 07:59 Permalink

Soro's is definitely not trying to bring the collapse of the EU empire, he's trying to prop it up.

But Europe's decline was first recognized by Nietzsche when he said "God is dead", for most Europeans that was true.  In place of god though we got politics, especially communism along with its softer brother socialism.

They've destroyed more wealth and caused more deaths in the 100 years they've been around than all the worlds religions combined ever did.

Someone once said, if a person does not believe in god he'll believe in anything, alas he was true.  Nietzsche's later works to try and solve the problem he recognized of no god, nihilism, were all but ignored by the mainstream as they were much more interested in their quest to reshape society into the depraved monstrosity we have today.

In reply to by Greed is King

zccu17 Thu, 03/15/2018 - 08:23 Permalink

I don't like feeling hatred toward people, in individuals or groups.

Yet I feel that to hate is human.

I feel that I have a basic human right to hate whomever I want.

I ought to be free to hate whomever I want.

CompassionateC… Thu, 03/15/2018 - 08:30 Permalink

I don't see what the problem is here.  Hate speech is NOT free speech.  It is irrelevant whether it is the truth or not.  Hate speech cannot be tolerated because too many are starting to find out what is going on and what the Jews intend to do to them therefore because THE GOYIM KNOW they have to SHUT IT DOWN!  

It would be highly anti-semitic to resist what is going on in the world right now and that in itself is a hate crime.  It's a good thing that the British white goyim gave up their guns and are highly brainwashed into thinking that it was the right thing to do.  Once that is accomplished in the US the first amendment is toast because RACISM and ANTI-SEMITISM are a serious threat and surely lead to anudda shoah!