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!
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.
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
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.
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.........
Because they would like to do business in Germany.
Besides, fuck neo nazis.
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.
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.
First they came for the Nazis and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Nazi ...
Play Command HQ online
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.
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?
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
So all privacy laws (HIPAA, etc) are violations of free speech? Holy crap you're a dumb fuck.
Strictly speaking, yes they are. Issues like privacy show where the concept of absolute freedom of speech falls down. If I get hold of your medical records and want to publish them, you are interfering with my freedom to publish what I like by denying me that option. (Same for publishing classified material or whatever).
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Not sure if troll or stupid.
20 minutes into the future
Just ask Bradley Manning how free free speech is.
Remember: "Bradley broke the law" is precisely what this dude in Germany is doing.
Bradley Manning would not have had access to the information that he did if he had not agreed to the limitations put upon him regarding release of said information. He voluntarily gave up the right when he was granted access.
Just another day in Paradise
Depiction of emblems of illegal organizations is a thing here. Indiana Jones 3 got the same treatment. Not the movie, but the Lucasfilmgames point&click thing. Those were the 90ies and we had to think of the children.
Assuming you live in the US, have you yet had the chance to pick up 1984 or Lolita at your local library? Pot/kettle. Black.
20 minutes into the future
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.........
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.
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.