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.

19 of 227 comments (clear)

  1. Settle down, everyone. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's nothing to raise a führer about!

    1. Re:Settle down, everyone. by afidel · · Score: 4, Informative

      No, like every other country there are limits to free speech (ie in the US you can't yell fire in a crowded theater, direct people to actively fight against the government, and "fighting words" may limit the punishment of your attacker in an assault case).

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    2. Re:Settle down, everyone. by Marianne013 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:Settle down, everyone. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Article 5 of the German constitution would contradict that, but don't let facts get in the way.

      Written guarantees are meaningless if they are ignored in practice. The Soviet Union also guaranteed freedom of expression, yet 20 million people perished in the Gulags.

    4. Re:Settle down, everyone. by bfandreas · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It is simpler than that.
      Laws always represent Teh Will Of Da Peoplz.
      Those particular morons got caught calling for the overthrow of our pleasant little democracy and replace it with something nasty that hadn't worked before. This is understandably quite illegal. So the group got outlawed. So they get the boot as per German law. And since Twitter most likely formed a legal entity in Germany so they can do business with us(be pay in sausages) they are subjected to German law.

      Hate speech in various colours will land you in front of a judge and you will not be tried by a jury of your peers but somebody who actually got some training. Repeat offenders spend time in the hospitality of the German people(they will be fed sausages). We do the same with Islamistic/Christianistic/PETAistic morons who have as of yet install a reign of terror(they get halal/tofu sausages made unless it's Friday which is when we feed them hotdog buns).

      Unlawful speech is defined by the lawmaker who in turn got elected by the German people. So this is NOT Joachim Gauck/Norbert Lammert/Angela Merkel taking objection that lands you in the dock.

      Next week:
      Germany restricts your right to keep and arm bears.

      --
      20 minutes into the future
  2. Re:Google censors by afidel · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.
  3. Yes! by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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!
    1. Re:Yes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The law is not intended to show how Nazi censorship was wrong. I have absolutely no idea what would make you think that.

  4. Re:Google censors by Baloroth · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  5. Re:Google censors by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
  6. Re:Google censors by lxs · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Because they would like to do business in Germany.

    Besides, fuck neo nazis.

  7. Just complying with the law by dkleinsc · · Score: 5, Informative

    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 /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    1. Re:Just complying with the law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      3) It's an uncomfortable reminder of an embarrassment that they want to erase from history.

      Not really. Being reminded of German history is extremely common in Germany. It is not illegal to speak of the Nazi past (in fact, pretty common, and in certain circumstances even mandatory to be political correct). The are countless books, reports on TV... especially of course at anniversaries of important dates (of which there are many). I had a year's worth of history classes about the time from WW I to 1945. This is surely not a way to "erase history".

      What is problematic in Germany is to show support for the Nazis.

  8. Re:Google censors by afidel · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.
  9. This is a path to doom, but not the usual way by concealment · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:This is a path to doom, but not the usual way by dkleinsc · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It should be that citizens and institutions need to constantly be aware of why certain ideas are opposed.

      Are you seriously suggesting that an average German doesn't understand why Nazis are trouble? I mean, they only have a large Holocaust monument approximately 350 meters from the seat of government, it's not like they think it's important or something.

      I should point out that it's not any references to Nazis that are illegal, it's references to Nazis that are clearly intended to promote Nazis and Nazi values. The history books have the whole story, and that's fine. A few years ago, there was a production of The Producers, and laughing at Hitler was fine. But that's not what these guys are.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
  10. Re:First by fredrated · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Then they came for the serial killers and I didn't spreak out...

  11. Re:Google censors by lxs · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  12. Re:Google censors by tehcyder · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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