Slashdot Mirror
Twitter Censors German Neo-Nazi Group, Within Germany
judgecorp writes "Twitter has censored a neo-Nazi group, blocking Besseres Hannover (Better Hannover), a group accused of promoting race hate. This is the first time Twitter has used its power of blocking users in specific countries, announced back in January. Although blocked in Germany, the group is visible to the rest of the world." Update: 10/18 14:46 GMT by T : Note, that's Twitter doing the blocking, not Google, as it appeared originally. HT to reader eldavojohn.
It's nothing to raise a führer about!
Google has nothing to do with this? twitter is censoring twitter
This is the first time Google has used its power of blocking users in specific countries
Aren't we talking about Twitter? ffs, it's in the title AND the previous sentence!
Post mistakenly refers to Google
It's not like you wannabe idiots know the difference, or anything about computers or software.
"But, but, but, I'm a level 92 night elf warrior", I can hear you protesting.
That's a nice rant since Google is obviously a typo by the submitter given that they're talking about Twitter which is NOT owned by Google....
Oh, and Twitter is just following the law in Germany, being a neo-nazi or espousing neo-nazi ideas is illegal in Germany.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
twitter, not google
(captcha: ridicule)
I am German, for the record.
And I totally agree with Google. Let's go get'em!
www.weka-gartenhaus-holzprofi24.de
This is both really good and really bad at the same time. Although I want these guys to be shut up, I do not agree that Google should censor opinions even if most of us find those opinions abhorrent.
I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
Or maybe it's a weird typo and they meant Twitter, not Google, and your rant is utter crap?
I did a double-take when reading that summary.
I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar.
We're going to show how the Nazis' censorship was wrong, by censoring...whoops...
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
15 years with no copyediting whatsoever
Doubly good rant since it was posted at the time the article went live, by an account which has (as of this writing) only a single post. Don't worry, I'm sure you'll see some half-hearted posts in other threads today to make it look slightly less like a complete shill.
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
Instead of you know educating people on hate speech , groups and crimes they would just rather sweep it under the rug.
Let's see...
1) Poster posts in the same minute story goes live.
2) Poster is not a subscriber, and post is longer than 90 words.
3) Poster is brand new, with only this post to his name.
4) Post consists entirely of "Google is evil!"
Woo, OCD anti-Google poster/shill is back.
By the way, Google did not remove the anti-muslim video, and Twitter (not Google) is following local German law. You're irrational, and can't read.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Sensible decision, seeing how neo-nazi activism is illegal in Germany.
Hello there, you funny trigger-happy "haterboy". This story is not about Google at all.
At first I thought it was the usual incompetence of the editors that let these mistakes fly through, but now I see the light and understand that they do it to uncover troll accounts such as yours. Long live the Slashdot editors!
Is Twitter based in Germany, or a German company?
If not...why the fuck would they have to abide by any laws in Germany?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Yeah that's a good one to use the little flag button on.
Because they would like to do business in Germany.
Besides, fuck neo nazis.
By the way, Google did not remove the anti-muslim video
Actually, they did censor it in many countries.
In Germany, pro-Nazi speech is illegal. It's not Twitter's fault that they're complying with the law of the country they're doing business in.
The reason it's illegal is twofold: (1) the United States and other allies imposed that rule on the Germans in 1945. (2) the Germans have since then made a big effort to make it abundantly clear that they are thoroughly sorry for what happened under the Nazis and want to make absolutely certain it never happens again.
I am officially gone from
Because they offer services to German citizens and have German operations (ie twitter.de). If a company doesn't want to follow the laws of a country it's quite simple, don't do trade in that country.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Certain topics regarding Neo Nazi views are illegal for public display in Germany, such as denying the Holocaust and other hate speech. I think this move by Google came about from pressure within Germany and the compromise was made to only block those views in Germany only while leaving it public to areas where those view are not illegal.
Now releasing secret documents of a foreighn government is not illegal in that country.
So if Google had leaked info about, say, USA secrets, BUT BLOCKED THEM IN THE USA from being seen, would this be accepted?
oh they don't? they are two separate companies you say? interesting.
The solution to using government to silence your opposition? Using government to silence your opposition!
But it's OK because my side, with its attendant historical righteousness for the ages, is in control of it.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
1) Twitter and Google are not the same company. I'm not sure why both are mentioned.
2) This type of speech is illegal in Germany, and I doubt Twitter feels like putting up much of a fuss to fight in this instance. It makes sense that they'd censor it in the country it's not legal in.
My problem with such censorship is mainly that it doesn't work.
1. It legitimizes the opposition. To them, their government now appears as a legitimate oppressor. In turn, that conveys legitimacy toward their message. If you really want to destroy them, treat their actions as a more mundane crime, like unlicensed use of unscientific ideas. Or tear a page from the Soviet book and categorize them as insane.
2. In a pluralistic society, clashes are inevitable. We now have thousands of different groups in just about every country, and most of them oppose almost all the others. Whose god is true? Whose idea of society is true? Socialism is incompatible with capitalism, some religion is incompatible with some science, many ethnic groups hate each other, most life-philosophies and political viewpoints clash, and any ideology is going to first oppose all others because to be an ideology it must claim to be the one right way. That includes pluralism, for Inception fans.
3. It is a slippery slope, for two reasons. First, the censored group is going to be evasive and start disguising their message. This means you're going to have to censor more and more stuff, and may eventually destroy your government's efficiency with lots and lots of possibly contradictory rules. Second, the more you censor, the greater likelihood that the opposition will be able to use this against you. We're already seeing this with people saying nasty things about Israel regarding Palestinians, in fact, calling them Nazis. I don't think this leads anywhere but to bad.
4. It teaches your citizens to become sheep. The message from government should not be, "We're going to get rid of bad ideas." It should be that citizens and institutions need to constantly be aware of why certain ideas are opposed. The censorship becomes a rule like traffic laws, which we evade when we can because we don't see a clear connection (mainly because it often does not exist) between going 5 mph faster and carnage on the roads. Imagine this applied to political ideas.
People usually tell you that censorship leads to 1984 and that may be true, but I find the above list even more likely and more dangerous. They are less exciting though and I'll never get on Letterman this way.
Just ask Bradley Manning how free free speech is.
Remember: "Bradley broke the law" is precisely what this dude in Germany is doing.
Interesting if true.
Because they would like to do business in Germany.
Besides, fuck neo nazis.
Should Twitter also censor disparaging comments about Mohammed in Muslim countries?
Why should a social network become a content policeman?
First they came for the Nazis and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Nazi ...
Play Command HQ online
You're irrational, and can't read.
I was going to post something along the lines of what you and other commenters posted, but instead I'll point out that yes, (s)he's irrational, but as to being illiterate, that's the submitter. TFS does indeed say Google. It's a mystery why, but it is.
Free Martian Whores!
They would rather block only the offending Twitter users in Germany than have all of Twitter blocked in Germany
That is ultimately a matter between Twitter and the country in question. Unless you believe that national sovereignty is reserved for the US and its satellite countries.
What does HT stand for?
While neo-Nazis are about as likeable as NAMBLA, how far is Twitter willing to go with this 'country withheld content' feature?
Could someone fighting for women's rights in Saudi Arabia have her Twitter feed blocked in SA? Could a human rights campaigner in China have his feed blocked in China?
Twitter is a private (virtual) space which exists as software running on privately-owned servers.
This is not censorship but simply rules. It is equivalent to the rules I enforce in parties at my house. If someone came to my party and yelled "screw X (Jews, Muslims, whatever), they should burn and die to make room for the superior race", I would kick out that person prompto. My house, my rules. If you don't like my rules, feel free to find other friends and join other parties.
If some alternative hosts choose to be more tolerant than me, good for them. Maybe people will prefer to join my party ("strict"), or maybe people will prefer to join their parties ("tolerant" rules).
There is competition on features, and rules are just features.
I just accessed #BesseresHannover and posted a tweet and I am in Germany. I did however acquire my Twitter account in the US... I wonder if the are blocking it based on the user's IP address or user profile?
You're assuming that a tiny collection of miscellaneous cells that could eventually become a living being under the right circumstances is a living being.
That's a nice way to rationalize murder, by pretending that a collection of cells that unless significant action is taken WILL BECOME a living being mean nothing more than the dust bunnies under your bed or clouds of stardust waiting to coalesce into planets.
I support abortion to a point but am not willing to pretend that when a woman is detectably pregnant you are not dealing with a "collection of cells" that are in fact a living being.
Is there no point before birth you are willing to admit a fetus is a distinct living entity?
Should Twitter also censor disparaging comments about Mohammed in Muslim countries?
If it's specifically illegal there, then unfortunately yes.
If you can't abide by the laws in a certain country, you shouldn't go there, and this applies to companies as well as individuals on holiday. It is up to the people in that country to choose their own laws.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Really they should let these people tell the whole world what they think so that we all know who to roundly ridicule. Neo-nazis suck, but censorship sucks more.
see... Coffin Break - Stop (lyrics)
Not sure if troll or stupid.
20 minutes into the future
Social networks are publishers and they do have a responsibility to adhere to laws in countries they operate in. Also it might be prudent to censor comments about Muhammad in Muslim countries. What good really comes of these comments?
But, if they don't have physical offices or whatever there...then, no....they shouldn't be subject to the local laws.
Access isn't the same as physical presence....and with the internet, you don't need physical presence any longer...eh?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Discuss. :)
I hope I didn't brain my damage.
Its not christian to be a nazi. They shouldnt be allowed to say anything. Personally I think all the nazis should be in jail, not free to run around and pollute other peoples minds.
They shouldnt be allowed to speak or talk about such things. No one should.
Germany had someone talk about naughty jews and how they need to be solved. This caused some considerable chaos.
PS How many times do you think that people would ACTUALLY panic if you yelled "Fire" in a cinema? None?
You don't need a physical presence to provide all kinds of goods and services in a country. That doesn't mean that you shouldn't be subject to that country's laws when doing so.
Germany has every right to ban neo-nazi speech. If neo-nazi's (or anyone else) doesn't like it, they can leave. I am sure Germany is more than fine with these people leaving.
People act like the jury is still out on Nazism in Germany, and the best thing to do is allow it to compete in the marketplace of ideas. Neo-nazi's do not want to participate in a competition for hearts and minds. They want to incite hatred and violence towards minorities. They don't want to set up a stall in some metaphorical marketplace. They want to burn the marketplace down.
So you think The Pirate Bay is not subject to U.S. copyright laws? There are a few industry giants who disagree with you there...
Censor, or merely block? Hey, maybe I could call it censorship when various YouTube channels are blocked in my country becuse of evil "distribution rights"?
So still you have nothing to counter, except that you ACCEPT the USA limitations on Free Speech, but not anybody else's.
Context counts, doofus.
1) Twitter can get banned/blocked with the country for not following the law
2) Not following the law means that not only can you not have offices in that country, but in some cases, you can't even visit said country for the possibility of arrest (ridiculous but it does happen), a bad thing if you like to travel
3) If you don't like the law, blame the country, not the company that complies with it. Can a company choose not to do business with a company? It can but generally not a good move.
Who did you copy that from?
But wearing Che Guevara t-shirts is ok there.
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
By your own argument, your post is subject to the laws of Saudi Arabia, since it is accessible from there. Should you be subject to that country's laws regarding speech?
No, GP is right. If you have offices, partners etc there, then those can be prosecuted for not following the law. But if you provide a service over the Net, then you should not have to care about infringing laws in all countries where people can possibly access it. If they have a problem with your service, they can block it in their national firewall or something.
I don't like your comment very much. Since I don't like it, I think it's in need of censorship!
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Hate becomes a crime during the last stages of consolidating tyranny.
Seastead this.
Germany has every right to ban neo-nazi speech.
I agree, but in this case it was not a choice the Germans were free to make. The anti-Nazi clauses were included in the Bundesverfassung (the Federal German Constitution) as a condition imposed upon Germany by the occupying powers ... including the USA. It's just too ironic to read moronic young Americans chide the Germans for banning Nazi speech.
But wearing Che Guevara t-shirts is ok there.
But only because Che Guevara didn't figure back when the US et al. forced the Germans to include the anti-Nazi clause in their new constitution.
Is Twitter based in Germany, or a German company?
If not...why the fuck would they have to abide by any laws in Germany?
They don't have to.
They're doing this voluntarily as part of their new policy for working together with law enforcement in different countries.
In order to force twitter into blocking that neo-nazi content, the german judge or prosecutor would need to file an application for international assistance with the US authorities.
That would a) take a long time and there would b) be a good chance that US authorities deny their claim because the understandings and limits of free speech are quite a lot different in germany and the USA.
As far as I know you can tell almost anything and get away with it.
In germany if you publicly speak against the democratic order and/or the basic rights you'll be sentenced to a fine or even to jail.
And that's what these neo-nazi bullshit falls under.
I was under the impression that the Nazi party, including it's symbols and literature, were already banned in Germany and had been since the end of World War II. The fact that a Neo-Nazi group's twitter account would be inaccessible from within Germany seems like a no-brainer to me. Someone correct me if I'm wrong here, please.
Instead of ensuring better education to prevent the existence of 'robot-like' citizens who will follow a madman into atrocities, sweep the crazies under the rug until there is an outbreak again.
But we _need_ robot-like citizens for other purposes.
i'd really like to see a german history book. I can get why they don't want anything to do with their past but it is the past. I really wonder how much fact and neo-fiction will be taught because of that. (no i dont condone extrimism, not right not left, or any other dimension for that matter)
Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?