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."
I'm pretty sure Germany's had laws about denial of the holocaust since well before modern internet culture was around.
I thought it was an unconditional surrender.
"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."
Perhaps a more important lesson "in light of our German history" is learning that dictators require the power to silence opposition...especially political opposition. They can't wield it if it doesn't exist. Now it does. History gives no confidence it won't ultimately be misused. Your own country, along with ancient Greece and Rome, are prime examples of nominal free democracies that gave up "emergency powers" to someone who never gave it back.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
True: Germany has limited freedom of speech for centuries. It didn't prevent the Nazi rise to power, and it arguably contributed to it.
Perhaps it's time for Germany to actually change its "interpretation of freedom of speech" instead of clinging on to what hasn't worked historically.
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.
This is what happens when extraterritoriality expands unchecked. If you are not a citizen of Germany, you did not consent to be governed by the German government. Their laws should not apply to you. If they want to rule you they should give you citizenship along with all the rights of a German citizen and have you consent to that arrangement.
Of course the USA is no different. In 2009, Gary Kaplan, the boss of London-based gambling company BetOnSports, fell foul of a US law that bans Americans from placing bets online even on websites outside the US. He was jailed for four years. In 2006, three British former NatWest bankers were extradited to the US to face fraud charges, in a case that frieked out the British business community. At the time, the bankers said their crimes had taken place in the UK and the victim was a UK bank hence they wanted to be tried in Britain.
Of course to some degree you need jurisdiction preventing piracy at sea and so international treaties are needed in this case that allow countries to consent to having their citizens tried in another country.
Here, perhaps Facebook could block content using IP addresses, but in the case of the EU 'Right to be forgotten', the European Commission wants Google's search results censored throughout the world. That is absurd! And claiming that "It doesn't matter that we, because of historical reasons, have a stricter interpretation of freedom of speech than the United States does" is a legitimate legal argument for limiting free speech means that for all practical purposes the first amendment is gutted. China could ban the Wikipedia page on Taiwan and the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and subsequent mass killings by the Chinese army. Christian sites could be banned by Islamic regimes. Anything to do with psychology or science that offends any regime would be censored. We would be back in the dark ages.
I think there is another point. Some rights are inalienable - meaning they are incapable of being alienated and surrendered. Free speech is one of those rights. The fact that the EU fails to recognize this fact, does not change it. Indeed this concept was hinted at during shortly after founding of the UN when the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) was unanimously agreed. The preamble states:
Recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice, and peace in the world.
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.
Think of Germany's situation after WWII. They had a bunch of war criminals and could prosecute and punish them. Those were the people running camps, the soldiers guarding camps, anyone who explicitly knew what was happening and helped it happen.
But every single person in the country knew the Nazis had been rounding up jews and killing anyone who helped hide them. Many had to realize that millions of jews had disappeared and there weren't anywhere near enough soldiers left in country to guard and take care of them. Many knew that some jews were being used as slave labor. So basically, an unknown but large percentage of the country didn't outright commit war crimes but did collaborate with the Nazis to some degree.
You can't prosecute 25% of your country. So they just said "We aren't going to pretend this didn't happen. it's illegal to deny it happened. But we aren't going to let it happen again either -- it's illegal to try and spread racial hate through speech." It was a compromise to prevent having to throw 20% of the country in jail. It's not crazy, it's just very foreign to American concepts.
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.
OK, if you have a law, than how about you take legal action against the people saying things you don't like then, Maas. Why should other people in other countries do your job for you?
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
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 think you missed the implication: if Germany wants to grow up and become a free and democratic nation, it needs to get rid of these remnants from its dark past.
What the hell is a "Germany?" Never heard of such a thing.
Kommen auf Mich, bruder!
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
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."
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.
FWIW, Facebook has at least two physical offices in Germany. (Hamburg, Berlin).
Here in the U.S., you cannot just say anything that you want without consequences. Hate speech, threats, and bullying are illegal here.
I agree with the rest of what you wrote, but one correction - Of those three, only credible threats actually break the law (with a few temporary state-by-state exceptions for cyberbullying).
Hate speech absolutely does not violate US law. Inciting to violence against them, sometimes (again, if credible); Ranting until you go horse about the evils of Muslims or gays or Canadians, no. You have every right to hate whatever groups you want and talk about it every chance you get - Hell, you can even do it while running for president!
Several states have passed anti-bullying laws, but not federally, and individual state supreme courts (e.g., New York) have already started overturning them as unconstitutional, and only a matter of time until the USSC does the same.
They're weeds. You need to cut them down and drive them out.
No, you need to expose them. You need to let them spew whatever drivel they want out in public, and then publicly refute them. If you make their words illegal, then you drive them underground to persuade others in private, giving them an excuse never to expose their lies to the sunlight of public refutation.
And people certainly do like banned things; it makes them feel that they're learning some secret information that the powers that be have ulterior motives for concealing.
And then people will hear it in secret places, in the dark corners and hidden holes where there is no one to shine a light and call out the bullshit. And thus does evil grow.
Germany is perfectly correct that someone cannot stand up in a public square in Germany and state Holocaust denials. In Germany. This does not translate to a Spaniard making a video and posting it on YouTube where German citizens can view it.
That's the problem being faced now. The laws apply within a country's borders and they're trying to figure out how to apply them to technology that crosses their borders. In the previous example the Spaniard is doing nothing illegal. The German citizen may be by viewing the video - that would take a lawyer to answer.
Facebook is a social media platform. There is no one simple solution since there are millions of people posting their personal opinions at any given time. And lots of pictures of food but that's not as much of a problem. Germany is telling Facebook that it's their responsibility to enforce German laws across their entire user base. This is not practical nor is it right.
Sure. Close the Facebook offices in Germany. Don't allow German-based companies to advertise on Facebook. Fine. That's 'not doing business' with Germany. But they can't do much more than that unless Germany blocks all of Facebook. And we all know how well that works.
Germany needs to understand the difference here. They can't tell a Spaniard that laws in Germany apply to them just because they have something on the internet that Germans can view. It isn't going to happen and they need to focus on what they can control rather than what they cannot.
Hey, Germany, does denial of the Armenian holocaust count?
If so then WTF is anyone considering Turkey for EU membership?
If not then WTF double standards anyone?
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
France has pre-Charlie laws making it illegal to criticize Islam
No it doesn't
Watch this Heartland Institute video
"... has time and again failed at democracy and that still idolizes authoritarianism."
Right, like the time that the highest court in the country, that had been stacked by the previous right wing governments, decided the election against the popular vote.
Where districts are constantly gerrymandered to engineer the desired voting results.
Voter roles are getting purged and the identification requirements made ever more difficult to ensure only the right people get to vote.
Lines for polling stations wind around city blocks in the "wrong" part of town.
A recent impartial study concluded that the system is not democratic but constitutes an oligarchy, and a former president concurred that this is indeed the case.
Oh, wait a second, ...
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.
If Germany wants to be a democratic nation, it needs to stop criminalizing speech that the German state doesn't approve of. Is that so hard to grasp?
You know very well why those laws were passed. If you're from America, you're going to think they mean "a threat to the common people", or some vague crap like that. In actuality, they're very clear: you cannot make a remark in public that glorifies or approves of the Nazis. You are allowed to talk about them all you wish, and you can even campaign for it under a different name, but you cannot outright display hatred of another person's race or approve of the Nazis. It's exactly that. No more general than that. Given that the same law exists in America (not legally, but socially it does), I don't exactly see why you think this is totalitarian. Especially because social measures can go to anything society disproves of, while the law will always just limit this.
Now, the other reason why I believe you're in the wrong; Germany is not America, and is not beholden to implement what you suggest. They are a different country, and frankly, I don't see why you expect that your view of free speech should be enforced everywhere. I daresay Germany is far more accepting of free speech than the US on a cultural level - and if you want a reason why they have that law, then don't think of the Nazis. Think of the Klu Klux Klan. If you truly are American (as I presume you are), then you should be very familiar with them.
"Set a man a fire, he'll be warm for the rest of the night. Set a man afire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
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