Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Germany Wants Facebook To Obey Its Rules About Holocaust Denial

Posted by timothy on from the truth-will-out dept.

Bruce66423 writes: In a classic example of the conflict of cultures bought about by the internet, Germany is trying to get Facebook to obey its rules about banning holocaust denial posts. From the linked Jerusalem Post article: [Justice Minister Heiko] Maas, who has accused Facebook of doing too little to thwart racist and hate posts on its social media platform, said that Germany has zero tolerance for such expression and expects the US-based company to be more vigilant. "One thing is clear: if Facebook wants to do business in Germany, then it must abide by German laws," Maas told Reuters. "It doesn't matter that we, because of historical reasons, have a stricter interpretation of freedom of speech than the United States does." "Holocaust denial and inciting racial hatred are crimes in Germany and it doesn't matter if they're posted on Facebook or uttered out in the public on the market square," he added. ... "There's no scope for misplaced tolerance towards internet users who spread racist propaganda. That's especially the case in light of our German history."

8 of 728 comments (clear)

  1. Brought about by the internet? by Fwipp · · Score: 5, Informative

    I'm pretty sure Germany's had laws about denial of the holocaust since well before modern internet culture was around.

    1. Re:Brought about by the internet? by prefec2 · · Score: 3, Informative

      They modified the law against "incitement of the people" from 1871 in 1959 to include holocaust denial explicitly. In 1994 is was changed again and the maximum sentence was increased (at least this is what wikipedia knows).

    2. Re: Brought about by the internet? by tinkerton · · Score: 2, Informative

      That's just wordgames. The common interpretation is anti-jew.

    3. Re: Brought about by the internet? by tinkerton · · Score: 3, Informative

      I only object against the word 'clear'. There are constant attempts to defend the distinction between criticism of the state of Israel and antisemitism. In reality it requires a lot of sophistication and political correctness to criticize the Israeli side in a way that avoids the antisemitism stamp. It's pretty obvious. If you take the simple case of mixing up 'jewish' and 'israeli'. There has been a very strong support amongst jews for Israel, and in Israeli public communication there has been a longstanding practice of talking for all the Jews. But as soon as someone blames 'the Jews' instead of 'the state of Israel' this person becomes an antisemite and therefore a foul person. I can't imagine the majority of people passing that test. To put it differently, the test is rigged.
      When discussing Nazi stuff in WW2 I've also mixed 'german' and 'nazi' constantly. It's normal.

    4. Re: Brought about by the internet? by spire3661 · · Score: 4, Informative

      " Just because a lot of people misuse a term doesn't change the meaning of the word."
      Actually, this is wrong. Dictionaries don't 'define' words, they are a record of USAGE. As a word is used more and more, it becomes eligible to be included in the dictionary. A lot of people misusing a word can cause it to change meaning.

      --
      Good-bye
    5. Re:Brought about by the internet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is still criminal when you know there's no fire.

      You may think this case is easily distinguished from the German case, but consider this: cops have surrounded a suspect. It's a tense situation. You yell, "he has a gun!", knowing there was no gun, and the cops open fire. Should that be criminal? Does it matter that the cops were trigger happy and only needed the barest of excuses to shoot the guy?

      Now look at Germany. It's not just about the Holocaust. Only last year people were throwing bombs into synagogues. And anti-Semitic violence is much worse in other European countries. For various cultural reasons, it's very _easy_ to incite violence against Jews. I might not agree with the laws in Germany and other countries in Europe, but I can't simply deny that they have any rational basis.

      The American notion of free speech is radical. It's also new. You could still be _legally_ thrown into jail here for passing out communist literature until the 1950s. The First Amendment, then and now, still has implied exceptions; they're just construed _much_ more narrowly today than even a couple of decades ago. Heck, now the First Amendment prevents restrictions on corporate donations to campaign finance! It's naive to think that our conception and application of the free speech can or should be transplanted in every other country.

  2. Recent events by demon+driver · · Score: 5, Informative

    Maas' statement is to be seen in the light of recent events. Following a larger-than-usual wave of refugees, there has been a major outbreak of racist uproar in (mostly eastern) Germany, not only on the Net, but on the streets, too, with groups of neonazi extremists allied with so-called "concerned citizens" demonstrating, shouting hate and sometimes throwing stones or bottles in front of refugee hostels, and a new arson attack on a refugee hostel every other day (most of them, until now, having been empty at the time of the crime, with no refugees being hurt yet, but I fear that's just a matter of time). German government seems to very, very slowly notice that this comes as a result of a development both their domestic and foreign policies over the last 25 years have some responsibility for.

  3. It's absolutely stunning how WAY OFF most of you a by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    As a native German, I have to say that 99% of the responses I read here are so WAY OFF reality, I'm absolutely stunned.

    Just a few short comments for those of you who care to be educated:
    - Maas politely invited Facebook to have a discussion on that topic. Nothing more, no laws or courts involved.
    - Mentioning Nazi topics is not at all prohibited in Germany. On the contrary, the topic is extensively discussed in history school books, every-night TV documentations, exhibitions, public memorials in every city and town (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolperstein), and our schoolchildrens' education on the topic is probably the most extensive in the world. A visit to a former concentration camp is mandatory for everyone in high school.
    - The book "Mein Kampf" is not at all prohibited and may be sold if it includes academic historians' comments.
    - What _is_ prohibited is showing certain Nazi symbols (e.g. swastika) or using Nazi expressions (e.g. "Sieg Heil!" or "Mit Deutschem Gruss!") in a supportive context. This very sentence, for example, is perfectly legal in Germany, because my context is explanatory, not supportive.
    - Of course there is protection of free speech in Germany. And that freedom ends exactly where freedom of others starts. What is prohibited is public speech that aims at depriving minorities (religious, ethnical, etc.) from constitutional rights, or calls for criminal acts. If can't personally find this to infringe on my freedom.