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.
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
Because they would like to do business in Germany.
Besides, fuck neo nazis.
The law is not intended to show how Nazi censorship was wrong. I have absolutely no idea what would make you think that.
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.
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.
So...Germany is another country without free speech guarantee laws?
Correct. Germany, like most countries, has never recognized freedom of expression as a basic human right. Frederick the Great regularly pardoned people that violated the lese-majesty laws, but most other Germans have been less tolerant.
Article 5 of the German constitution would contradict that, but don't let facts get in the way.