Slashdot Mirror
Germany Wants Facebook To Obey Its Rules About Holocaust Denial
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."
Define hate speech.
A devout Christian thinks homosexuality is an abomination and posts some passionate stuff about it.
An atheist posts some passionate stuff against religion - and targets one, like Judaism.
And I have seen things here on Slashdot that could be considered hate speech by the overly sensitive. Look at the posts for any article about diversity in tech here on Slashdot.
If you do not like what someone says ; ignore it, argue against it or make fun of it (Mel Brooks is a God in that domain) - but NEVER ban it because it gives the 'haters" more power. People like banned things.
If Germany has a problem with German citizens why doesn't it create an internal security police--let's call it "Gestapo"--to locate those citizens writing illegal words and imprison them--perhaps in a network of work camps? Rumors that gas chambers are planned for these camps are of course ridiculous!
It was quite reasonable for the victors of WWII to impose temporary restrictions on free speech, given Germany's history. And in the short term, those restrictions were effective. Such restrictions weren't particularly burdensome either, since Germans never had enjoyed free speech rights before. The post-WWII restrictions by the allies were still liberal by historical German standards.
Today, Germany is largely its own master. It could easily abolish these restrictions on free speech if it wanted to. They are retained because Germans like such restrictions, not because anybody is forcing them to.
All of these comments about why the law exists are off base. Germany is fully aware that there are still Nazis within its borders. These Nazis are quite simply evil. They are incredibly dangerous, but it would be politically untenable to lock them all up, so instead measures are taken to prevent them from spreading their ideas or gaining power.
Examples of this:
- The BfV (office for protection of the constitution), the domestic intelligence agency, primarily charged with monitoring right wing extremists and disrupting their organizations when possible.
- Home-schooling is illegal in Germany, this is to prevent Nazis from isolating their children from opposing viewpoints, thus hopefully ensuring that eventually the Nazi ideology dies out entirely.
- Restrictions on use of Nazi symbols and Nazi speech (including Holocaust denial)
- Restrictions on certain forms of political speech. For instance, it's illegal to give a public speech or make an advertisement claiming that a particular racial group (e.g. Roma) should not be eligible to receive social benefits, the right to which are enshrined in the constitution.
This is what you do when you want to have a free country, but a minority wants to literally destroy the concept of freedom. The Nazis that are left have to be opposed at every turn lest they spread their disease to others, and enshrining such measures in law adds a measure of comfort that they will never gain power again. If we (the U.S.) had any sense we'd do the same thing with the KKK and symbols of the Confederacy - keeping in mind that this country has engaged in internment, forced sterilization, and genocidal war on the basis of race in the past, and a major candidate for President is running on a platform that includes scapegoating particular groups for economic problems.
None of this, by the way, really infringes on free speech in Germany. The German people take their civil rights very seriously, see for example public reaction and protests over the Netzpolitik scandal.
The right to protest the State is more sacred than the State.
I'm pretty sure Germany's had laws about denial of the holocaust since well before modern internet culture was around.
Sure, but that didn't cause much conflict with other cultures. German laws only applied to Germany. But with the Internet, it is common to find forums that mingle people from different cultures, and different legal jurisdictions. One of the big differences between cultures, is how they deal with the tradeoff between "freedom" and "order". Americans and Germans see that tradeoff from very different historical perspectives, and make very different tradeoffs. As an American, I believe that people should be able to express even the most odious opinions, and suppression of those opinions causes more problems than it solves. The Germans see it differently.
... then they came for the Nazis, and I did not speak out because I was not a Nazi.
Of course this isn't really about Nazis and Holocaust denial. It's actually about all kind of racist posts and other hate speech. Which Facebook says they would delete in their Community Standards (yes, even in the US, so the cultures argument is bogus really):
Facebook removes hate speech, which includes content that directly attacks people based on their: Race, Ethnicity, National origin, Religious affiliation, Sexual orientation, Sex, gender, or gender identity, or Serious disabilities or diseases.
But the real fun part is that "users also accuse the company of double standards for cracking down swifter and harder on nudity and sexual content than on hate-mongering."
So first the come for the nude people, you fucking asshole.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
I think it should be up to FB what content they allow and don't allow on their site. It shouldn't be up to the government of a country that has time and again failed at democracy and that still idolizes authoritarianism.
It is okay for people to defend their country and culture by lobbying for stricter immigration laws and the like.
It is NOT okay for them to burn down buildings that may contain living people just because they don't LIKE those people.
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
So censoring people who deny the Holocaust even happened is due to Germany's guilt, how. I can see how if Germany wanted to sweep the Holocaust under the rug and pretend it didn't happen was due to guilt, but in your mind censoring those who say it never happened is also due to guilt? Are you thinking they feel guilty about it and to make up for their guilt they want to prevent people who say it never happened from spreading the message? How is that hypocritical?
Wow. That's pretty ignorant.
It's also a crime in Germany to spread hate speech. Facebook is therefore breaking the law. I would say Maas' response is quite measured. Instead of taking Facebook to court, he asked to reach an agreement that could benefit both parties. Presumably so he can do what you suggest, namely, go after the people who are posting this illegal racist crap.
Just because Germany has different rules than the US does not mean that those rules are wrong. Try expanding your world-view a tiny bit. Free speech in the US is also not absolute. In Germany it is also not absolute. Laws are different in different countries. If you do business in one country, you must follow the law.
Get over it.
if FB wants to remove it, that's their prerogative. If you don't want to see it, you can quit using FB, and that's your prerogative, too. Forcing FB or anyone else to remove anything just because you don't want to see it, is NOT your prerogative.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
I think he *does* believe it "as an American". The value in question is a strong veneration of the bill of rights. The first amendment in particular has been used to craft or interpret a series of laws that have been wildly beneficial- from allowing religious competition under a secular field, to allowing unpopular opinions to be voiced and protected. Given how many misconceptions were accepted as fact in the past (all visible in hindsight), it doesn't appear to be helpful to prevent the expression of things that we "know are wrong", because history shows that any policy that can block a wrong opinion will also, without question, block a correct one.
What's your next guess, shithead?
I stand for the freedom of speech, and that necessarily includes speech that I find disgusting, whether it's nazis lying about the holocaust, or wannabe nazis like you trying to rationalize censorship.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
And really, I've read that 97% of the inhabitants of Gaza are antisemites.
I have my doubts about that, considering that Arabs are a semitic people.
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." Col. Jeff Cooper
Everything is word games. The questions asked will be "Do you believe the Jews have the sole right to Israel and the surrounding territory?" Any answer other that "Yes, it is their right and destiny" is counted as antisemitic.
Also, anti-zionist will be lumped in with anti-semitic. So to be clear, one must define their words. This is true in all emotionally charged debates, so "wordgames" means "I don't have a fucking clue, but I listen to the side that says what I like to hear".
Learn to love Alaska
Clear communication does not require precise definition and in fact this often works counterproductive. The word 'antisemitic' is generally understood as being against Jews, in a way that resembles european attitudes against Jews in the thirties for instance
That part of it is clear enough. Picking a logical but unused meaning of the word does not add clarity. The part that does demand attention is what is sufficient to put someone into that basket and you give examples of that.
"Why would you go thought tattooing peoples only to gas them and burn them."
Why would you go through putting bar codes to milk bricks only to sell them within a day?
Because that's the proper way to track things (and yes, jews were "things to be tracked" to those bastards).
"The intent of the Nazi was the deport them!
The intent of Nazis was to deprive them of their ability to influence society, then of citizenship, then of property, then to be deported, then... "oh, hell, why are we going through all this hassle? We know how we want jews, so let's go right to the end of it: the final solution!"
"The demonisation of the Nazi is very similar to the demonisation of the German peoples before the first and second world wars which lead me to believe it is all war propaganda."
Yeah, well, except for the tiny fact that they *did* kill jews (and gipsies and homosexuals, and Spanish republicans...) for the sake of it in a quite formal and organized manner.
"But yeah, MUH 6M LOLCOAST HOLOHOAX JEWISH PRIVILEGE! Help Israel apartheid state commit Palestinian genocide"
You do know what a "straw man" is, do you?
But, of course you do, you Mr Anonymous Troll.
If you were a neighbour of Israel, not well versed in the history of a different continent, and watched the way Israel shamelessly exploits the memory of the Holocaust for political gain, you'd be skeptical as to whether it was historical fact or just obscene propaganda.
This is not about "free oppinion" but about "redefining the past to prepare future crimes".
In germany you are free to promote national socialism as long as you do not deny its past flaws. This way a fascist has a harder time to prepare future crimes.
In the US you are free to promote pedophelia as long as you do not deny its past flaws. This way a pedophile has a harder time to prepare future crimes.
There is also the Markus Nessler parable:
One day some stranger starts following you while shouting "you stole my money, my jacket and my shoes!"
He continues to do so for some days then starts shouting "someone help me to get back my money, my jacket and my shoes!"
A couple of days later people start demanding from you to give back that mans money, jacket and shoes.
And some days later the man with help from some people takes away your money, your jacket and your shoes by force.
And everyone will say "you had it coming, he asked you for days to give back his money, his jacket and his shoes".
And that is the difference between "free speech" and "redefining the past to prepare future crimes". And thats the reason why you can shut up people by court order. Even in the US.
"Life is short and in most cases it ends with death." Sir Sinclair
Hitler was democratically elected, but it was limits on free speech that made that possible. The German government banned a lot of speech by socialists and communists, the people who would have been the primary opposition and political counterbalance to the Nazis. In addition, limits on free speech allowed utter idiots to remain in government and remain above criticism (including von Hindenburg and Kaas, who should have been ridiculed and skewered by the press), and it was the incompetence of these politicians that allowed Hitler to come to power. Banning political speech simply does not work in averting totalitarianism; the only thing that works is more free speech.
So where are these concentration camps?
In Guantanamo for Muslims and all over the country for black and Latins. Of course there are other points scattered around the globe for torture. Read the CIA torture report, or at least some highlights.
Please do not pretend a problem doesn't exist just because someone wasn't perfect on his list of exceptions on an argument.
Is the argument that evil, at any extreme, has the right to expression, in the name of free speech?
Does it follow then that you are willing to have the representatives from ISIS come to your local high schools and colleges and use their persuasive tactics to entice your neighbors and their children to massacre innocents in the name of some evil interpretation? Sleep well.
Why shouldn’t a country that has experienced an evil, magnitudes greater than ISIS, be allowed to determine what can, and what cannot, be said or distributed in its borders? [Remember, Americans think God gives them the right to pollute and police the world and everyone’s rights - it printed right on the dollar bill; “In God We Trust.”]
If you live in a country that interprets an eighteenth century individual ‘right', without taking 21st century technology into the equation, you are probably amongst the group that thinks some other 18th century ‘right’ also applies to 21st century weapons.
Fortunately only one country in the first world actually thinks that way. It’s also the same country with hundreds of religions that similarly interpret wisdom from preachers 2,000+ years ago as if nothing else has changed in the mean time. Those 'right thinking' people also control the dozens of states that allow Creationism to be taught as science, and they want their ‘rights' to have that interpretation included on national test standards. Twisted logic isn’t it?
Facebook operates and makes profit in many countries with limitations on information and the distribution of personal data. (China, Egypt, Dubai, Russia, India, EU etc.) they can and should respect German law in that country, or they should choose not to do business there. Easy. When Google couldn’t follow Chinese rules of censorship, they chose not to do business there. Today, Google’s principles have compromised the profit is more important than some ‘rights’.
There is no American ‘right’ to project its labyrinthine 18th century concepts into other countries where people consciously choose to limit the right of ISIS (or Nazis) to talk to their impressionable youth.
To paraphrase Zhou Enlai, "Let’s all check back in a hundred years and see if the American experiment continued to work.” No need for the rest of the world to follow them over a cliff.
Hitler was democratically elected
He wasn't. He was appointed by Paul von Hindenburg