Messages of love and hate, “likes” and hoax.


- Should we insist on the freedom of expression or roll out rules against fake news, insults and bots?

Share your idea

Please try to be as concrete as possible when answering the questions, the more in depth you go the more impactful your ideas will be!


Why do we ask our self, if we should ban hate speech? Does banning something from somewhere did ever help? Shouldn´t we ask our self, where the motion of trying to express someones self aggresivly in the WWW, Internet or how ever you wanna call it, comes from and start there?
Vote up!

Votes: 60

You voted ‘up’

To say you can ban or regulate hate speech on the Internet is just plain nieve. If you take away someones speech on the Internet they'll find another way to talk about it on another platform. Either it be on the private meetings and or the dark Web. Both of these cases make us blind to the threat and bread a feeling of militancy to those taking part in it. An oppressed versus the oppressor mentality. Freedom of speech is the freedom to speak whatever. If anything the definition should be reformed to allow hate speech so we can at least see every argument and the people on either side.

Votes: 73

European countries should boost free spe

Votes: 85

There where some terroristic attacks last few years in EU territory, so some people became scarred and againts European integrity. Some of them are using really hard words on social medials such as Facebook or YouTube that are calling to using force against people from outside Europe because of they skin colour or religion. Migration problem cannot make European citizens feeling as better humans. So on every social media should be a control there made by some moderators or even police to reduce hate level there. The punishment could be (for example) cutting the Internet connection for some period of time.

Votes: 86

There should most definitely be a hate-speech ban to protect those vulnerable to discrimination from enduring the hateful behaviour and talks they endure every day. It will also show a further intolerance to hate-speech and keep the hate at bay. May people who I have spoken to who have endured hate-speech are afraid to go outside because of the abuse they receive, they feel unwelcome and as though their voices are falling on deaf ears. By allowing hate-speech to go on we are marginalising the minorities and making it easier for terror groups to infiltrate them. Ban hate-speech and hate behaviour will help reduce the risk of the minority groups feeling isloated, bullied and unheard; will give a strong message of intolerance of hate-speech and behaviour; will make our stance against radicalisation stronger and our ability to integrate the community easier. There is a fine line between free-speech and hate-speech. Let us make that line clear and ban hate-speech and truly make our democracy an equal one.

Votes: 83

The question may be rephrased as: “Do you want the EU to support a cornerstone of liberal democracy?” There should be an obvious answer to this from supporters of liberal democracies. Although I do understand that we need to realistic, not all speech should be allowed, quite contradictingly, to protect the liberal democracy. This is a dilemma, by protecting the liberal democracy we love, we end up eroding it inthe process. Personally I would allow hate speech but illegalice speech that incites violence and direct verbal assaults, because as much as we have free speech we also have the right to not be harassed.

Votes: 89

Who will we let define hate speech? If I say we should shoot all heterosexual white males, is this hate speech? Or is it just against minorities like some propose? Is cyberbullying a part of it? There is also a question of becoming over-sensitive like it happened in USA with political correctness that went overboard (well, before Trump and probably what also helped Trump get elected). In this day and age there is a lot of hate speech, but there is also a lot of people practising their 'right to be offended'. Fake news are everyone's problem. It's not just about the journalists who don't verify information. It's about us who don't like paying for our news any more. Less money, less staff, less time. It about our lack of critical thinking and media literacy. Do you click on big, fat, scandalous headlines (click-baits)? Why? Do you share an article about how drinking water cures breast cancer, or do you verify it beforehand? Do you even have the will to do so? And how do we outlaw bots? Not completely, but let's say the ones Devumi uses to 'accelerate your social media growth'? Stealing real user's accounts to create fake ones, so those who pay can appear to have more followers. There's a lot of revenue money in it, in the influencers. Twitter isn't doing much to battle them, can EU enforce their law on a corporation from USA? This questions are too big for me, I admit. The best solution I see is in education. Perhaps we need to implement media and scientific literacy into schools. For sure, we need to implement a lot more critical thinking, starting with primary schools. To teach our young to keep a critical eye on what they see and read. To understand how Facebook algorithm works (and changes) and be less susceptible to the likes of Cambridge Analitica. To understand the importance of escaping your 'filter bubble' and noticing where our conformation bias starts. To show alternatives to mindlessly scrolling news feed. And to stop demonising people who use hate speech. We are not better if we label them as villains and we are certainly not helping anyone by shaming them. Do you even know why people start using hate speech, what the psychology behind it is? It would help to have more focus groups with (cyber)bullies, hate speech proponents, to better understand their drives and motives. Because, how do you battle a thing you don't truly(!) understand?

Votes: 92

The internet is a public room or should be treated like one. There should be the same laws as in reality. Just because there is a laptop between the hate speeches and the consumer doesn't make insults better or legal. Everyone has an identity, even in the internet. It´s not and never was, anonymous. Otherwise the internet will turns out to be a legalized place to do illegal things. And thats not the future I´m a dreaming of. Give everyone one identity and let the people grow up, so that they take over responsibility for their actions and thoughts.

Votes: 89

There should be efforts to define hate speech more accurately before even going into this discussion. The reality is that we should look at whether something is offensive to people. For example, fake news doesn't have to be offensive, neither be on purpose. If a journalist was wrongly informed, they would write something that is classified as fake news, even though the overall article is important and possibly not even in any way offensive. While on the other hand insults are 100% of the time offensive, that is what an insult eventually is. The same goes for bots, what do they actually do? - The reality is every form of artificial intelligence is a bot, and not everything has to be a problem. Let's not forget that on social media people use certain applications to share quotes, which can be also in form of a bot, yet that one wouldn't hurt anyone. When looking at free speech and hate speech, we need to take everything into account, like if it is purposeful, does it truly hurt anyone, and related arguments to possibly say something is good or bad. Because of that, we can't just ban something because it is fake news, or ban a bot because it is a bot. We have examples outside of the EU of how not defining it closely enough will cause problems, and as for this, this is not a subject at which we could just say that we should do something or not, it requires a case by case approach. Which requires new laws to make it all possible, but also a far more detailed approach than banning or not banning.

Votes: 113

We need to criminalize hate speech!! People have the right to feel secure and hate speech, which may include swearing, obscenities, threats, slanders, blackmailing and discrimination, is infringing on our right to free expression and, in the long-term, on our right to freedom! Verbal "assaulting" is just as damaging and evil as physical assaulting, and can be used to silence us and marginalize us with the goal of limiting our liberties! Some might dismiss the criminalization of hate speech as an infringement on the right to free speech. But this right, just like all rights, comes with its limitations, you are not supposed to use your rights to infringe another person's rights. This is exactly what a legal offense sounds like and, therefore, hate speech should necessarily be considered a foleny!!

Votes: 148