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.
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.
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.