EU prepared to cut off free speech...

[hyphen]

ZedLeg said:

...
It's not true though is it? They're changing the rules to stop people using the livestream as a soapbox for extremist views. It may be abused but it's not even happened yet.

Its not 'people' as in the general public is it? its elected MEP's. They already have a code of conduct set out, and penalty procedures in place. Farage's viral speeches on Youtube have been seen by millions across the EU, and this is what they seem to be addressing.

This is outrageous stuff, glad we are out soon.

EU Code of conduct penalties said:

3. The penalty may consist of one or more of the following measures:

(a) a reprimand;

(b) forfeiture of entitlement to the daily subsistence allowance for a period of between two and thirty days;

(c) without prejudice to the right to vote in plenary, and subject, in this instance, to strict compliance with the Members' standards of conduct, temporary suspension from participation in all or some of the activities of Parliament for a period of between two and thirty days on which Parliament or any of its bodies, committees or delegations meet;

(d) prohibition of the Member from representing the Parliament on an inter-parliamentary delegation, inter-parliamentary conference or any inter-institutional forum, for up to one year;

(e) in the case of a breach in the obligations of confidentiality, a limitation in the rights to access confidential or classified information for up to one year.

4. The measures laid down in paragraph 3 (b) to (e) may be doubled in the case of repeated offences, or if the Member refuses to comply with a measure taken under Rule 165(3).

5. The President may additionally submit a proposal to the Conference of Presidents for the suspension or removal of the Member from one or more of the offices held by the Member in Parliament, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Rule 21.

[hyphen]

TTwiggy said:

Their site, their rules. We all signed up to them.

That is one mistake that seems to be made repeatedly when it comes to the EU.

It's not 'theirs' it is 'ours'. We don't just 'sign up', we help to create them in the first place.

The British Government & British MEPs are often complicit/advocates of things that are then later dodged as 'its the EU innit' - for example the aggressive enlargement of the EU was pushed by us.

British MEP(s) have voted for this too, one is quoted in the article.

[TTwiggy]

hyphen said:

TTwiggy said:

Their site, their rules. We all signed up to them.

That is one mistake that seems to be made repeatedly when it comes to the EU.

It's not 'theirs' it is 'ours'. We don't just 'sign up', we help to create them in the first place.

The British Government & British MEPs are often complicit/advocates of things that are then later dodged as 'its the EU innit' - for example the aggressive enlargement of the EU was pushed by us.

British MEP(s) have voted for this too, one is quoted in the article.

I was talking about PH.

[hyphen]

TTwiggy said:

I was talking about PH.

Doh!

I'm just off to feed my new whoosh parrot.

[ZedLeg]

hyphen said:

ZedLeg said:

...
It's not true though is it? They're changing the rules to stop people using the livestream as a soapbox for extremist views. It may be abused but it's not even happened yet.

Its not 'people' as in the general public is it? its elected MEP's. They already have a code of conduct set out, and penalty procedures in place. Farage's viral speeches on Youtube have been seen by millions across the EU, and this is what they seem to be addressing.

This is outrageous stuff, glad we are out soon.

the article said:

But some MEPs say nationalist rhetoric has recently crossed the line of what is acceptable.

"There have been a growing number of cases of politicians saying things that are beyond the pale of normal parliamentary discussion and debate," said Richard Corbett, a British MEP who backed the new rule.

"What if this became not isolated incidents, but specific, where people could say: 'Hey, this is a fantastic platform. It's broad, it's live-streamed. It can be recorded and repeated. Let's use it for something more vociferous, more spectacular,'

So they've updated the rules to reflect how they think their system is being used/abused.

I don't think Farage actually turns up for work enough for it to affect him.

[hyphen]

ZedLeg said:

So they've updated the rules to reflect how they think their system is being used/abused.

I don't think Farage actually turns up for work enough for it to affect him.

But these are elected MEP's.

If some far right Austrian MEP wants to rant about Jews or Migrants then let him or her get on with it. Set out rules and if he crosses the line then punish him or her accordingly, and leave the video on to allow the public to castigate him and the opposition to condone him.

Turning off the broadcast is only going to bring more notoriety to the individual, and make people seek him out on other platforms.

[Vocal Minority]

As loathe as I am to agree with PH on an anti EU rant....hyphen has a point.

This measure does give it a certain 'forbidden fruit' quality.....

Any sensible person doesn't want extremism of any flavour...but this would create a hint of the martyr about them.

To the extent a clever Politian with an agenda would be able to use it to their advantage even

Edited by Vocal Minority on Tuesday 28th February 12:40

[Terminator X]

TTwiggy said:

Their site, their rules. We all signed up to them.

I noticed that we were "forced" to accept an update recently when logging on and from briefly reading them it seemed to me that if rigidly enforced then the whole place would get banned pretty quick!

TX.

[ZedLeg]

hyphen said:

ZedLeg said:

So they've updated the rules to reflect how they think their system is being used/abused.

I don't think Farage actually turns up for work enough for it to affect him.

But these are elected MEP's.

If some far right Austrian MEP wants to rant about Jews or Migrants then let him or her get on with it. Set out rules and if he crosses the line then punish him or her accordingly,

I dont disagree, the impression I got from the article was it being an attempt at trying to stop those people who'd use the stream as a platform to go viral wasting the parliament's time rather than trying to stifle any discussion of it.

[SystemParanoia]

Terminator X said:

TTwiggy said:

Their site, their rules. We all signed up to them.

I noticed that we were "forced" to accept an update recently when logging on and from briefly reading them it seemed to me that if rigidly enforced then the whole place would get banned pretty quick!

TX.

I'd say "Forced" is the wrong word.

we were given the choice to accept, or to close the browser and never return as a contributor.

you chose the latter even after reading it, without anyone pointing a gun to your head

[Einion Yrth]

SystemParanoia said:

Terminator X said:

TTwiggy said:

Their site, their rules. We all signed up to them.

I noticed that we were "forced" to accept an update recently when logging on and from briefly reading them it seemed to me that if rigidly enforced then the whole place would get banned pretty quick!

TX.

I'd say "Forced" is the wrong word.

we were given the choice to accept, or to close the browser and never return as a contributor.

you chose the latter even after reading it, without anyone pointing a gun to your head

No point in banning yourself prematurely; it'll come in time.

[Mark Benson]

ZedLeg said:

Mark Benson said:

ZedLeg said:

You could work for the Daily Mail with clickbait headlines like that

It's not true though is it? They're changing the rules to stop people using the livestream as a soapbox for extremist views. It may be abused but it's not even happened yet.

Slightly different from a sitting president banning a large proportion of the press from talking to him because they won't roll over for him.

However....

Telegraph said:

Rule 165 of the parliament's rules of procedure allows the chair of debates to halt the live broadcast "in the case of defamatory, racist or xenophobic language or behavior by a member." The maximum fine for offenders would be around 9,000 euros ($9,500).

The new rule, which was not made public by the assemble until it was reported by Spain's La Vanguardia newspaper, offending material could be "deleted from the audiovisual record of proceedings," meaning citizens would never know it happened unless reporters were in the room.

So:
a) The plan was kept secret, suggesting they knew it would be controversial.
b) Who defines 'defamatory' and 'xenophobic'? While racist language should quite rightly be banned, I have a sneaking suspicion that 'defamatory' could well mean defamatory to the EU and 'xenophobic' could be conflated with 'nationalist', so removing the platform for anyone who doesn't espouse an EU-friendly collectivist stance.

All seems a bit 1984 to me. It's precisely this kind of thing that makes me more and more keen for the UK to get out.

Still a whole lot of supposition there.

From both you and me. As you said initially, it's only a proposal at the moment.

I wonder which one of us will be proven correct.

[Terminator X]

SystemParanoia said:

Terminator X said:

TTwiggy said:

Their site, their rules. We all signed up to them.

I noticed that we were "forced" to accept an update recently when logging on and from briefly reading them it seemed to me that if rigidly enforced then the whole place would get banned pretty quick!

TX.

I'd say "Forced" is the wrong word.

we were given the choice to accept, or to close the browser and never return as a contributor.

you chose the latter even after reading it, without anyone pointing a gun to your head

I like posting on here so I could hardly refuse ... s

TX.

[Mrr T]

Mark Benson said:

ZedLeg said:

Mark Benson said:

ZedLeg said:

You could work for the Daily Mail with clickbait headlines like that

It's not true though is it? They're changing the rules to stop people using the livestream as a soapbox for extremist views. It may be abused but it's not even happened yet.

Slightly different from a sitting president banning a large proportion of the press from talking to him because they won't roll over for him.

However....

Telegraph said:

Rule 165 of the parliament's rules of procedure allows the chair of debates to halt the live broadcast "in the case of defamatory, racist or xenophobic language or behavior by a member." The maximum fine for offenders would be around 9,000 euros ($9,500).

The new rule, which was not made public by the assemble until it was reported by Spain's La Vanguardia newspaper, offending material could be "deleted from the audiovisual record of proceedings," meaning citizens would never know it happened unless reporters were in the room.

So:
a) The plan was kept secret, suggesting they knew it would be controversial.
b) Who defines 'defamatory' and 'xenophobic'? While racist language should quite rightly be banned, I have a sneaking suspicion that 'defamatory' could well mean defamatory to the EU and 'xenophobic' could be conflated with 'nationalist', so removing the platform for anyone who doesn't espouse an EU-friendly collectivist stance.

All seems a bit 1984 to me. It's precisely this kind of thing that makes me more and more keen for the UK to get out.

Still a whole lot of supposition there.

From both you and me. As you said initially, it's only a proposal at the moment.

I wonder which one of us will be proven correct.

I wonder how many of our rabid anti EU frothers have ever considered the powers of the speaker on the HOC.

[mybrainhurts]

amancalledrob said:

Fittster said:

Why do people how claim to support free speech use PH?

The terms and conditions of this site don't allow hate speech.

"to disseminate any material which is or may infringe the rights (including intellectual property rights) of any third party or be unlawful, threatening, defamatory, obscene, indecent, offensive, pornographic, abusive, liable to incite racial hatred, discriminatory, menacing, scandalous, inflammatory, blasphemous, in breach of confidence, in breach of privacy, which may cause annoyance or inconvenience or may restrict or inhibit the use of the Website by any person or which constitutes or encourages conduct that may be considered a criminal offence or give rise to civil liability in any country in the world;"

Blasphemy not allowed?! Why should Pistonheads be at all concerned it PHers believe the bible's a fairy story? Banning blasphemy effectively stamps out any discussion about the merits of religion and is, as you say, the opposite of free speech

All a bit over the top.

According to that, we mustn't criticise North Korea and Robert Mugabe is a really a good egg...

[KarlMac]

I'm sure this has nothing to do with the sudden increase in 'like and sharing' of Farage, Le Pen and Wilder speeches.

[Mrr T]

Funkycoldribena said:

Mrr T said:

I wonder how many of our rabid anti EU frothers have ever considered the powers of the speaker on the HOC.

Im a rabid anti eu frother and I'd sling him out on his ear as well.

I would sling him out as well. However, I am talking about the powers of the office not the person.

[hidetheelephants]

amancalledrob said:

Fittster said:

Why do people how claim to support free speech use PH?

The terms and conditions of this site don't allow hate speech.

"to disseminate any material which is or may infringe the rights (including intellectual property rights) of any third party or be unlawful, threatening, defamatory, obscene, indecent, offensive, pornographic, abusive, liable to incite racial hatred, discriminatory, menacing, scandalous, inflammatory, blasphemous, in breach of confidence, in breach of privacy, which may cause annoyance or inconvenience or may restrict or inhibit the use of the Website by any person or which constitutes or encourages conduct that may be considered a criminal offence or give rise to civil liability in any country in the world;"

Edited by Fittster on Tuesday 28th February 11:38

Blasphemy not allowed?! Why should Pistonheads be at all concerned it PHers believe the bible's a fairy story? Banning blasphemy effectively stamps out any discussion about the merits of religion and is, as you say, the opposite of free speech

Jehovah!
[waits for banhammer]

hyphen said:

But these are elected MEP's.

If some far right Austrian MEP wants to rant about Jews or Migrants then let him or her get on with it. Set out rules and if he crosses the line then punish him or her accordingly, and leave the video on to allow the public to castigate him and the opposition to condone him.

Turning off the broadcast is only going to bring more notoriety to the individual, and make people seek him out on other platforms.

Austria has extremely strict law concerning anti-semitism so any EU law is likely to dilute rather than strengthen it.

[Mark Benson]

Mrr T said:

Funkycoldribena said:

Mrr T said:

I wonder how many of our rabid anti EU frothers have ever considered the powers of the speaker on the HOC.

Im a rabid anti eu frother and I'd sling him out on his ear as well.

I would sling him out as well. However, I am talking about the powers of the office not the person.

I wasn't aware the speaker could delete all records and prevent the public ever knowing what was said in the HoC if they decided to.

But then obsessive remainiacs do have a habit of overstating things.

[mybrainhurts]

There was a proposal to make any criticism of the EU a criminal offence in the EU a year or two ago.