By Katherine Timpf
Wednesday, July 03, 2019
France is pushing a new, absolutely terrible law that
could punish social-media “officials” with a year in prison for failing to
delete posts that are deemed to be “hate speech” within 24 hours.
Under the law, company officials could also face fines of
up to €250,000 — and the platforms themselves could face fines of 1.25 million
euros, according to an article in the New York Times. The piece also
notes that multiple violations could result in “fines of up to 4 percent of a
company’s global revenue — meaning, potentially, tens or even hundreds of
millions of dollars.” It could also punish people who abuse the reporting
features on social-media sites with up to a year in prison and a fine of up to
€15,000.
The Times reports that the content that would
count as “hate speech” covers a wide scope of things, such as speech that
disparages someone on the basis of sexual orientation, religion, nationality,
race, gender identity, or disability; harassment; and propaganda tied to
terrorism or war crimes.
Unlike the United States, France already has laws in
place that regulate hate speech, so this proposal just represents making those
regulations broader. I think that France should actually want to move in the opposite
direction — or, at the very least, not make things worse by enacting this law.
People who support laws that ban “hate speech” always
argue that they are necessary in order to protect people’s feelings. Although
I’d agree that it’s very nice to be nice, I’d also say that there’s something
that a country should be more concerned about protecting instead — and that’s
its citizens’ freedoms.
Make no mistake: What does and does not count as “hate
speech” is something that is completely in the eye of the beholder. What one
person might consider “hate speech,” another might think of as a harmless joke.
Everyone is offended by different things, and the same speech can cause
different reactions from different people. This, of course, is exactly
the problem with laws like the one being proposed: It would give the government
the power to literally imprison people based on a completely subjective standard,
and that’s not fair.
So what would be a better solution to fighting “hate
speech,” rather than banning it? Well, I’d argue that the best way to counter
speech you don’t like is never by banning it, but rather by using your own
speech to argue against it. Thankfully, we still handle it that way in the
United States, and I’m glad that we do.
Can it be difficult to read some of the vitriol that
people spew online? Yes, of course it can, and that is something that I
know firsthand. The thing is, though, something that I’d find much more
upsetting than even the most disgusting of speech would be seeing the
government have the power to tell people that they can’t use it. There is,
after all, only one way to guarantee that the government never has the power to
censor you, and that’s not giving them the power to censor anyone. You might
want laws to silence bigots, but once you give the government the right to
silence anyone, it could someday use those same laws to silence you.
No comments:
Post a Comment