Bill Bonner, whose Diaries<\/em> we republish here, is well-known for being an equal opportunity offender\u00a0 \u2013 meaning that political affiliation, gender, age, or any other defining characteristics won\u2019t save worthy targets from getting offended. As far as we are concerned, we generally try not to be unnecessarily rude to people, but occasionally giving offense is not exactly beneath us either.<\/p>\n Some people really deserve it after all\u2026which is why we often refer to modern-day central bankers as lunatics, politicians as psychopaths, governments as gangs\u00a0 of highway robbers waving a flag, and so forth. On one occasion we even provided a translation of Mr. B\u00f6hmermann\u2019s \u201cabusive criticism\u201d of Mr. Erdogan, which fell afoul of a 19th<\/sup> century l\u00e8se majest\u00e9<\/em> law on Germany\u2019s statute books.<\/p>\n That poem really was<\/em> rude and insulting, no doubt about it. However, locking up journalists and opposition politicians under the pretext that they \u201cthreaten national security\u201d, or bombing and suppressing ethnic minorities<\/a> (for narrow and selfish political goals to boot) seems a lot worse to us.<\/p>\n The person responsible actually deserves to be insulted day and night, and given how thin-skinned Mr. Erdogan is, insulting him is great fun to boot. Admittedly, only as long as one is not within grabbing distance of his enforcers.<\/p>\n Similar to Bill, we also believe in equal opportunity offending. Since we are often at odds with the mainstream narrative on a wide variety of subjects, it seems unavoidable. For all their diversity, most of the targets are united by one overarching defining characteristic: they are either exercising power over other people, or dispensing advice to those exercising such power. In our opinion, this makes them fair game.<\/p>\n As has been pointed out in these pages, so-called \u201cpolitical correctness\u201d is essentially an attempt to muzzle free speech and introduce thought control (see\u00a0 \u201cCultural Marxism and the Birth of Modern Thought Crime<\/a>\u201d by Claudio Grass for an in-depth discussion of the topic). It also has the uncanny power to transform normally intelligent people into gibbering idiots and pansies (\u201cReality is a Formidable Enemy<\/a>\u201d provides\u00a0 a few striking examples).<\/p>\n Unfortunately, equal opportunity offenders are an increasingly endangered species. The world\u2019s densest concentration of powerful and unaccountable statist control freaks in Brussels has just decided that \u201chate speech\u201d is in need of more policing. Given the salami tactics favored by the eurocracy, this is quite alarming.<\/p>\n The EU Commission and three large US technology companies (Facebook, Google and Microsoft) have just signed an agreement<\/a> on policing and eradicating so-called \u201chate speech\u201d \u2013 under, you probably guessed it, the pretext of \u201cfighting terrorism\u201d.<\/p>\n Terrorism has become a catch-all very similar to \u201cclimate change\u201d. Just as there is apparently no ill in this world that cannot somehow be traced to the latter (global warming is responsible for such diverse evils<\/a> as heroin addiction, the rise of ISIS, a lack of red-haired people, bear attacks in Japan, collapsing gingerbread houses in Sweden and even global cooling<\/em>) \u2013 there are seemingly no civil liberties that cannot be done away with at the stroke of a pen in order to \u201cfight terrorism\u201d.<\/p>\n You won\u2019t be surprised to learn that there has been no public consultation, parliamentary debate or vote on this agreement. It has simply sprung into being overnight. After all, who could possibly<\/em> be against it? No-one is in favor of hate or terrorism, and since the \u201ccode of conduct\u201d agreement is \u201cvoluntary\u201d and doesn\u2019t constitute legislation, the EU bureaucrats decided no debate was necessary.<\/p>\n To this one must keep in mind that US technology companies are subject to regular shakedowns by the EU\u2019s \u201ccompetition commission\u201d, as if competing European companies actually existed. They don\u2019t<\/em> exist of course, because innovation and capital accumulation have become nigh impossible tasks in the sclerotic socialistic EU.<\/p>\n Normally, big businesses use \u201canti-trust\u201d laws as a means to bludgeon the competition. In this case though, the shakedowns are initiated by bureaucrats themselves, in the name of protecting non-existing companies. This makes the whole exercise especially bizarre, but no less costly to its victims.<\/p>\n The upshot is though that US technology companies are eager to please EU bureaucrats, so as to avoid getting shaken down again for big money too soon<\/em>.<\/p>\n The official goal of these restrictions on \u201chate speech\u201d is to remove messages and postings by jihadists supporting ISIS. These are held to entice impressionable youngsters living in various \u201cno future\u201d ghettos across Europe \u2013 the people so eagerly invited in by the very same politicians imposing these restrictions now \u2013 to join the IS in Syria or commit violence in its name.<\/p>\n Granted, confused young Muslims surely need and deserve better role models than propagandists of IS and the violent medieval retro-philosophy they preach. The problem is however that what constitutes \u201chate speech\u201d is very much in the eye of the beholder.<\/p>\n For once we are on the same page with the usually firmly etatiste<\/em> pro-establishment magazine \u201cThe Economist\u201d, which has surprised us positively\u00a0 with a critical assessment<\/a> of the EU\u2019s latest move to restrict free speech. As the Economist notes:<\/p>\n If one doesn\u2019t agree with someone\u2019s speech, one should simply counter it with more convincing speech. Suppressing views one disagrees with by law (or by means of a \u201cvoluntary\u201d agreement as is the case here) may only end up convincing those holding these views that they have to resort to more forceful means if they want to make themselves heard. In other words, more, rather than less violence may be the result.<\/p>\n The \u201ccode of conduct\u201d is supposed to be applied to speech identified as \u201cracist and xenophobic\u201d \u2013 as if racism and xenophobia could be eradicated by prohibiting people from voicing it!<\/p>\n Immigration is moreover a hot button political issue in Europe right now, so it is easy to see how the charge of \u201cracism and xenophobia\u201d could be misused to simply suppress political dissent. In fact, the vultures are already beginning to circle.<\/p>\n Here is an article by the left-leaning Guardian<\/a> on the issue, which contrary to the Economist, seems perfectly unconcerned with the free speech angle. In fact, it seems far more concerned with \u201careas of online abuse\u201d that \u201cremain uncovered by the limited scope of the agreement\u201d!<\/p>\n If you scroll down to the bottom of the article, you will see the following insert on the left-hand side (which links to another article on the topic):<\/p>\n Does this mean we can no longer call militant feminists names? Can we still call Hillary a blood-thirsty war-mongering lying harpy?<\/p>\n As we noted above, the vultures are already circling. The Guardian erroneously asserts that the agreement is \u201cvery narrowly worded\u201d:<\/p>\n <\/p>\n That ban is counterbalanced by the right to freedom of expression, which, the code highlights, covers \u201cnot only\u2026 \u2018information\u2019 or \u2018ideas\u2019 that are favorably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb the state or any sector of the population\u201d.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n (emphasis added)<\/p>\n This may indeed seem innocuous at first glance, but it really isn\u2019t. We may agree that the \u201cincitement to violence\u201d part is largely not really contentious. But what exactly constitutes \u201chate speech\u201d, apart from the general idea that it supposedly \u201cincites hatred\u201d?<\/p>\n The vagueness of this definition may well invite all sorts of interventions by self-anointed censors. As Paul Coleman writes at Spiked<\/a><\/p>\n In another document, the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights took hate speech to\u00a0include\u00a0a \u2018broader spectrum of verbal acts\u2019, including \u2018disrespectful public discourse\u2019. And in an EU-funded manual on\u00a0online hate speech\u00a0by IGLYO (the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer and Intersex Youth and Student Organisation), we are reminded that \u2018the vast majority of hate speech is being perpetrated by regular people, not by extremists or radicals\u2019.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n To paraphrase Humpty Dumpty, hate speech means just what those in power choose it to mean \u2013 neither more nor less.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n (emphasis added)<\/p>\n Free speech has been qualified by V?ra Jourov\u00e1, the EU commissioner for justice, consumers and gender equality (another utterly superfluous job) as \u201cfree and \u2018democratic\u2019 expression\u201d<\/em>, according to the Guardian. \u201cFree\u201d alone is apparently not enough<\/p>\n (emphasis added)<\/p>\n As Mr. Coleman reports, while the commissioner has sprinkled the term \u201cterrorism\u201d liberally across the press release announcing the agreement, her personal views on what should be regarded as \u201chate speech\u201d (and therefore prohibited and \u201ctaken off the web as soon as it is reported<\/em>\u201d) seem to be a lot less \u201cnarrow\u201d:<\/p>\n But given the non-definition of hate speech, it is clear the code will go far beyond countering terrorism. In fact, Jourov\u00e1 has confirmed as much in other venues. In October 2015, she addressed the annual conference of ILGA-Europe and\u00a0said\u00a0\u2018a narrative undermining LGBTI rights is quietly spreading, often disguised as so-called religious principles. This is unacceptable\u2026 It is clear that we must fight all hate speech, online and offline, whatever group of society it targets. We will work with internet providers to ensure hate speech is taken off the web as soon as it is reported.\u2019<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n So, with very little effort, the EU commissioner is happy to shift from countering terrorism to countering \u2018so-called religious principles\u2019 \u2013 and she bundles up all this \u2018unacceptable\u2019 speech under the banner of hate speech.<\/em><\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n (emphasis added)<\/p>\n Perhaps someone can explain to us how exactly this jibes with \u201cthe right to freedom of expression, which, the code highlights, covers \u201cnot only\u2026 \u2018information\u2019 or \u2018ideas\u2019 that are favorably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb the state or any sector of the population\u201d.<\/em><\/p>\n It is also worth considering the legal consequences suffered by European citizens falling afoul of already existing legal restrictions on free speech across European countries. Mr. Coleman provides us with several concrete examples:<\/p>\n In 2011, Scottish football fan Stephen Birrell was\u00a0<\/em>sentenced<\/em><\/a> to an extraordinary eight months in prison for insulting Celtic fans, Catholics and the Pope on a Facebook page. During sentencing, the sheriff, Bill Totten,\u00a0<\/strong><\/em>told<\/em><\/strong><\/a> Birrell that his views would not be tolerated by \u2018the right-thinking people of Glasgow and Scotland\u2019.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n And between 2014 and 2016, 78-year-old Northern Irish pastor James McConnell endured an 18-month police investigation and criminal prosecution after criticizing Islam in a sermon that was posted\u00a0<\/em>online<\/em><\/a> . Apparently he was\u00a0<\/strong><\/em>acquitted<\/em><\/strong><\/a> because his comments were \u2018offensive\u2019 but not \u2018grossly offensive\u2019 \u2013 a legal standard that nobody can be expected to understand or follow.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n With the new code of conduct in place, we can expect more cases like these before the courts, and a lot more censorship. The powerful have spoken and the rest of us will be forced into silence.\u201d<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n (emphasis added)<\/p>\n People in Europe may generally have less to fear from running afoul of the State\u2019s censors than people in many other even places in the world, but this strikes us as bad enough.<\/p>\n Note as an aside to this that people questioning the officially sanctioned history of the Third Reich can be thrown into jail for years in Germany and Austria, especially if they are repeat offenders. We are anything but<\/em> fans of Hitler and fascism. We despise the Nazi ideology and are horrified by the crimes committed in its name. We do however believe that even the most odious views should be open to debate. The truth should not be in need of legal protection.<\/p>\n Americans should be very happy that the constitutional right to freedom of speech has so far been held in far higher regard by the US legislative and judiciary than anyone\u2019s alleged \u201cright\u201d not to be offended. This is one of the things with respect to which the US remains a shining light and an example to the world worth following. Don\u2019t let them ever take that right away.<\/p>\n Speech is either free or it isn\u2019t. <\/strong>One cannot have it both ways, as the EU apparatchiks apparently think. As soon as restrictions on free speech are introduced, abuse is sure to follow.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n![\"offend\"](\"http:\/\/www.acting-man.com\/blog\/media\/2016\/06\/offend.jpg\")
The motto of the equal opportunity offender\u2026.<\/h4>\n![\"erdogoll\"](\"http:\/\/www.acting-man.com\/blog\/media\/2016\/06\/erdogoll.jpg\")
Gollum and his twin brother Erdogan \u2013 fair game<\/h4>\n\u201cVoluntary\u201d Agreement and Official Goals<\/strong><\/h3>\n
![\"muzzled\"](\"http:\/\/www.acting-man.com\/blog\/media\/2016\/06\/muzzled.jpg\")
Don\u2019t worry, we\u2019ll only muzzle the bad guys!<\/h4>\nA Problem of Definitions<\/strong><\/h3>\n
\n
![\"Not](\"http:\/\/www.acting-man.com\/blog\/media\/2016\/06\/Not-tolerated.png\")
<\/p>\n\n
Who Decides What Constitutes Hate Speech?<\/strong><\/h3>\n
\n
\n
![\"jerouva\"](\"http:\/\/www.acting-man.com\/blog\/media\/2016\/06\/jerouva-1024x576.jpg\")
<\/a>V?ra Jourov\u00e1, EU commissioner for justice, consumers and gender equality \u2013 arbiter of what constitutes hate speech?<\/h4>\n\n
Serious Consequences<\/strong><\/u><\/h3>\n
\n
![\"happy-80th-birthday-brigitte-bardot-1-638\"](\"http:\/\/www.acting-man.com\/blog\/media\/2016\/06\/happy-80th-birthday-brigitte-bardot-1-638.jpg\")
Brigitte Bardot \u2013 has five convictions for \u201chate speech\u201d to her name by now<\/h4>\nConclusion<\/strong><\/u><\/h3>\n