Slashdot Mirror
Facebook, Google and Twitter Agree To Delete Hate Speech In Germany (reuters.com)
An anonymous reader writes: Facebook, Google, and Twitter have agreed to remove hateful posts from their platforms within 24 hours in Germany, officials announced yesterday. The web companies committed to the move in a new agreement with German authorities, after coming under increased pressure to help curb racism online in the country. The agreement will require web companies operating in Germany to conform with the law when monitoring hate speech expressed on their platforms, instead of referring to internal policies. The German law stipulates that any comment inciting violence against ethnic or religious groups is punishable by up to three years in prison.
Do the same rules apply?
German Muslim: 'Islam Is Coming And Your Daughters Will Wear The Hijab'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAWNmAdgMHI
It is obvious. No criticism on islam allowed by mere citizens who see their country raped by foreigners. No 'nein' to mrs Merkel allowed. Bend over and take it.
The day will come when the ordinary people stand up and defend their lives.
To Terminate, or not to Terminate, that's the question - SCSIROB
Dear Citizens, you've got freedom of speech as long as you agree with your speech.
All criticism of Islam or resistance of Muslim immigration is hate speech. Modulate yourself, or else.
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
I have mixed feelings about this. Not a big fan of hate speach but I can't imagine a system of implementation that would be remotely fair and not riddled with abuse.
The article implies that this was already law and Germany is just extending it to the internet/social media. You can't incite violence against a group of people, simple as that. And no, it's not the same as "Islam is coming and your daughters will wear the Hijab" unless that is followed by "or die". That might be considered inciting violence but maybe not, depending upon who's judging.
"Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
From the article:
sedition |sd()n| noun [ mass noun ]: conduct or speech inciting people to rebel against the authority of a state or monarch.
Now that can be interpreted in many different ways. I would love to know there's an error in the translation somewhere.
Sure, banning incitement to carry out criminal offences is fine. But this "war" against hate speech has a bit of a sour taste to me. What's next, making it illegal to utter anti-democratic opinion? And how would this help anything, really?
I can understand that if someone say something to incite violence against someone else based on racial or religious grounds may be deemed as race speech,
Does it mean that we can discuss rationally why someone believes in what they do and why someone may have a different idea.
Can we discuss the implications of immigration policies etc?
Can we have differing views from the populous without being branded hate speech?
Where is the line drawn?
Please define.
Nothing encourages a free and open dialogue like stamping out opposing viewpoints.
"Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
hate is an emotion. you can't stop people expressing emotions.
1up.org
That's why the twitter account of the CSU has been so quiet lately.
(CSU: Conservative party of Bavaria)
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Freedom of speech and all that.
I am not a constitutional scholar or anything, but I always thought that freedom of speech extended to the point where it met my freedom to not be persecuted or slandered.
Besides, Facebook and Google (or any company) has any obligation to provide uncensored service.
I think that if they want to, and in the interest of fairness, can prove (to themselves) that the speech is hurtful to someone, then by all means, delete the content. I think these companies have an obligation to protect their customers equal to the obligation to make their services as accessible as possible to as many people as possible.
The other side of that coin is that if they do it too much and with too heavy a hand, they will drive away customers. But you can't please everyone.
My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
It seems history repeats itself.
this has even more detail, from the Library of Congress (US) no less...
Remember how that evil Nazi Trump wanted to cut off parts of the Internet?
I didn't know the Germans had put him in charge!
And so it begins. Already, our Attorney General has already said she will prosecute anyone on any anti-Muslim speech. Now in Germany where women can not go alone anywhere safely and doctors have to have armed guards while seeing patients are not allowed to speak out on the cause of their plight. Silence is consent. Look at how long it took for the White House to actually say the words Terrorist Attack. I am not sure if they ever actually said Muslim Terrorist. If you can't talk about the problem, then you can't fight the problem. Silence is consent. It is considered perfectly legal for the ONLY Black Lives Matter people to call for killing whites and burning businesses and rioting and looting, and everyone is OK for religious nuts who want to bomb Planned Parenthood to have their say and lets not forget the KKK wackos who have their say legally, but if someone brings up the FACT that we absolutely can't be sure any Syrian passport is real because ISIS has a passport machine and several hundred blank passports in their possession, and therefore any Syrian Muslim immigration should be scrutinized more closely before allowing them into this country- everyone loses their minds! Silence is consent and this is forced silence and forced consent. Shame on Facebook and Twitter for allowing it.
If you didn't see the relevant South Park episode, that's why you don't get the title.
Be sure to ban all speech from those misogyolord goobergragglies as well. Video games are literally terrorism!
1) Make it not visible within Germany?
2)Delete it on versions of websites popular/based/focused on in Germany, but leaving it visible on similar websites popular in other countries?
3) Delete it if it originates in Germany?
These things are important, it affects whether Germany et. al.'s laws are affecting non-Germans. #1 is the most fair to non-germans but isn't really deleting anything, #3 may technically comply but leave Germany with many issues - chief among them watching citizens from other countries break their law willynilly. #2 seems to comply with the German law, but lets Germans say whatever they want in another language - say English for example
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
I hope at the very least they replace the posts with a message about government censorship.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Where does it say "but not Muslim"? Anywhere, in any law on what constitutes "hate speech" is "but not Muslim" appearing?
If nowhere, then where did this pansy query come from and why was it so central to your psyche that you HAD TO ask it?
And the same to the other morons making the same whiney-ass pissant little cries about "wadaboudamusim!" like scsirob.
What if this were the law in the Nazi Germany time? Most of the world would be speaking German right now if no one had been allowed to say what was going on to the rest of the world.
They're only deleting the bad speech, so it's okay, right?
Is this really progress?
As a staunch atheist, I make sure I don't point my finger at people, only at religion, but I know full well that my posts irritate some people. My posts generate a lot of cognitive dissonance in religious, so I'm perceived as dangerous, even "hateful". Just see the reaction to #exMuslimBecause to see the kind of silly over-reaction and bluster that such posts can produce by the detractors.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
"And who decides the standards?"
Rather than censorship I have a better solution. Remove anonymity from posting. Boom problem fixed.
[><]
|
|
They'll be sitting there around their big conference table, eating their sushi then--BOOM! Glug, glug, glug.
The definition of hate speech is right there in the article:
"any comment inciting violence against ethnic or religious groups."
More specifically, from the article linked, a comment is to be deleted: "when it is about criminal expressions, sedition, incitement to carry out criminal offences that threaten people"
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
This is how it starts Germany.
You will bow down to your new Islamic masters euro scum. Your land, riches and your daughters are now property of Islam and if you don't like it, shut up and die islamophobic scum.
The Germans must be humiliated to feel they have to nanny their fellow citizens this way, and further shamed they have to beg American companies to do it, companies who resist because even notoriously violent Americans are trusted adult enough no censorship or lax corporate "policy" censorship won't result in a genocidal civil war. They would not quibble about this unless posts were barely getting censored fast enough in Germany to hold off the door-to-door death squads.
All criticism of Islam or resistance of Muslim immigration is hate speech. Modulate yourself, or else.
Oh cry me a river... While engaging with various types of right wing types and weirdos who have hijacked the label 'christian conservative' I have discovered that:
Having pointed out the hypocrisy dripping off your statement I will freely admit that you have an implied point there even if you probably did not intend to make it. I'd much prefer that these bozos who get off on labelling 1.6 billion moslems as terrorists be allowed to freely spew their hate online and in print. Any attempt to censor them confers upon them the status of a victim and lends a degree of truth of their previously unfounded claims that they are victims of an injustice and that their right to freedom of expression is being infringed because in effect they are. I much prefer to engage with these people debunk the hateful crap they spew even if it exposes me to virulent verbal abuse and occasionally threats of being beaten up or even threats that they might kill me (which most of them are far to cowardly to actually carry out).
Where's the difference between murder and killing?
Where's the difference between honest faith and false proclamation of faith?
Where's the difference between Imam incitement and Imam preaching?
Where's the difference between possessing child porn and being a child rapist?
Where's the line between day and night?
Where's the line between death and life?
Where's the line between middle age and old age?
Where's the line between child and adult?
Where's the line between drinking and drunken?
Where's the difference between law and repression?
Where's the difference between your freedom and your tyrrany?
There are things that don't have lines. When you draw one, you draw one based on what you currently, at that time, with that context, think the line should be, but will change that line based on what other context you may later have internalised just previous. The fact may be that there is no line. And asking is pointless. And what's the line between inquiry and JAQing off to paint yourself as victim for not being allowed to do as you please?
OK but will this be effective the other way around,,,,,i mean, we all know that what is considered "White people" have some kind of status where we cant complain about anything because that makes us racist,,,,,but sorry to say but it must work the other way around,,i'm not seeing that
1000 years ago, Christians were roaming the world, killing non-believers. How is this a whole lot different? Christopher Hitchens (may he rest in peace) would go on and on about the evils of religion. But the truth is that religion only dictates the form of the assholery. If people didn’t have the religion, they’d find some other ideoligical reason to go around killing people they disagree with.
I’m not an expert in Islam. People tell me that there are lots of “kill the infidel” parts, and they’re later in the Qur’an, so they supercede peaceful stuff towards the beginning. You can find lots of violence in the Hebrew bible too. In all cases, I think it’s a matter of people cherry-picking the parts of their religious texts that support their idiosyncrasies and using that as justification. So you’re an asshole because God said to be? No. You’re an asshole. And you use your God to justify the shit you want to do.
There aren’t more assholes in the middle east, though. Most people there are relatively poor. However, there are oil barrons who want to control economies, and they find their religion as a convenient vehicle. MAYBE it’s easier to recruit and rile up your troops if you play on their religion, and MAYBE if you didn’t have that religion, it might be harder to do this. But the fact is, millions of people want to leave Syria to get away from ISIS. Those people are primarily Muslim too, but they just want to live in peace.
We taught to think of Hinduism as one of those inherently non-violent religions. But did you know that there are Hindu fundamentalists who feel inclined to resort to voilence over their beliefs? There are. Were some people so inclined, I’m sure they could twist Hinduism around to motivate people into violence.
The main reason that Christians and Jews and many other religious people are no longer violent (en masse anyhow) is because the violence we’re seeing now with Islam already happened with those other religions. The maintream groups have been there and done that and have matured past it. Perhaps in another 500 years, Islam will mature (perhaps through a lot of natural selection) to the point where it becomes an inherently peaceful religion.
We already have Islamic countries that have developed some maturity. Jordan is a great example. Their law is inherently Shari’a, which I wouldn’t want to live under, but it is tempered. For instance, sodomy was made legal in 1951. They don’t embrace it, but it’s not illegal, so you can’t be jailed for it. Basically private consential sex acts are not under the jurisdiction of the government. Moreover, if a family kills one of their kin for “shaming” them in this way or other, that death is considered murder and will be prosecuted like any other. There is maturity in separating the “moral” from the “legal” where they consider something to be immoral but do not take it upon themselves to punish all whom they consider sinners. I’m not saying this is perfect or anything, but Jordan is one of the safest countries to visit in the middle east, yet it is a solidly Islamic country. Why? Because their government is comprised of people who aren’t assholes (irrespective of their religious beliefs).
Thanks Merkel, I really wanted to visit Germany before it became an Islamic country. Suppressing the free speech rights of your native born citizens should be considered treason.
It's really quiet here.
Wonder why?
trying to define where earth's atmosphere ends and space starts.
Interpreting the actual intent of a person, from a sentence he/she wrote, is quite challenging.
Especially if you are using a language like English. Not convinced? read this one -> "Is the duck ready to eat?"
On the other end, things can be taken out of context. Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses is a prime example, where all book burners read only certain passages, not the entire novel.
And who exactly determines what is "hate speech"? As much as I dislike people and comments that are TRULY racist or hateful, all this development will lead to is censorship and reduced (or eliminated) freedom of speech, to the extent that Germany even has any real free speech. It will be abused and used as a political weapon, incarcerating anyone with any objection to the opinions of the State. Glad I don't live in Germany.
http://balder.org/judea/Hate-Speech-Laws-Immigration-Jewish-Influence-Britain.php
Oh look, the Jewish nation-wreckers at it again. What a joke. "Hate" means "telling the truth about the Jewish parasites and their foot soldiers".
All criticism of Islam or resistance of Muslim immigration is hate speech. Modulate yourself, or else.
I think you meant "resistance to" and "Moderate", but anyway: you're wrong.
My country (the NL) has pretty similar laws when it comes to freedom of expression: basically the line is drawn at calling upon others to use violence against (members of) some group of society.
If you ridicule, make a parody, or just plain state you hate some group, then free speech-wise you're in the clear. The simple fact that some part of the population may feel offended, is not enough to wield the ban hammer. Even staying within these limits allows a lot of speech, which is often misunderstood as "anything goes". Not so.
If you say you'd rather see some people walk off a cliff, hit by a bus, die in a fire, return to where they came from (or similar), then you're walking the line. For example our own politician Geert Wilders is known for doing this, and has crossed the line, or not (depending on point of view or interpretation of the law). What matters here is whether you advocate actively doing those things to others, or not. The difference between "I wouldn't mind if he died" vs. "Let's go out and kill him!".
If you clearly do the latter, then you have crossed into territory when free speech ends. Calling upon others to burn down houses, hit someone in the face when "Allah Akbar!" is heard, beat up immigrants or Arabic-looking people with too long beards, all qualifies. The specific group doesn't matter; immigrants, Muslims, blacks, Jews, any minority (or even majority) enjoys the same protections.
In practice, the line is blurred. Sensitivities may differ. Some targeted groups are more likely to file a complaint than others. Some groups may be more used to being ridiculed or discriminated against. Laws are open to interpretation, what's decided in a lower court may be tossed by a higher court. Context, and common practice may have a lot of weight in the decision. But in any case, above principles apply.
Also note that free speech doesn't imply a free press for everyone. Facebook, Google, Twitter etc can be said to have some social responsibility, should provide an open platform etc. But in the end they're private companies. Their site, their rules (within the law, that is). So I read this newspost mostly as a statement saying "yes we'll do more policing to remove content that is questionable with respect to your local laws". Censorship? Removing stuff that (as free speech) should be allowed? Perhaps... but not so much, imho.
New Motto
"We didn't learn from past fascism, so here we go repeating it"
Can the PC stupidity just go away? PC Principle is alive and well, and spreading stupidity and dividing lines across the country. Privilege check anyone?
You are already being raped and pillaged by legions young male foreigners and will eventually be fully taken over. Now, you are not even allowed to whine about it online (let alone actually do something and kick the fuckers out). Welcome to German Arabia!
It is hilarious to me that you're afraid of a bunch of malnourished dirt farmers.
Whether it is illegal to post remarks which express an opinion or not, the person who has a certain opinion
is not going to change his or her opinion simply because it is forbidden to express it on the web.
The real problem is that governments have policies which screw over the people who form the core population
of a country. This is true whether you are German, American, or any other nationality. Many people are sick and
tired of their governments allowing things like H-1 visas, or illegal workers who will undercut the wages demanded
by a citizen who IS legally residing in a country.
The bottom line is the same, no matter what, and that is that the wealthy few screw over the masses for the benefit
of the wealthy few. This will continue until force is used to effect change. The question is, how much more are
you going to allow yourself to be screwed before you've had enough ?
I hope this trend continues. Censor all the people. Once no one is allowed to think or speak, then we can start the mass euthanasia. The only thing that will stop disgusting humans from being the horrible, feral animals that we are would be mass extinction. I hope every night before bed that tomorrow will be the day that a giant asteroid plummets into the Earth. So fucking tired of our having to listen to our bullshit arguments over which skin color is the correct one.
He'll disappear from the internet in Germany then.
All criticism of Islam or resistance of Muslim immigration is hate speech
This is utter garbage. It's hate speech, not criticism of Muslims or Islam in particular that's being discussed. Fucking cretin.
Nice to see a lot of criticism about this decision from people who never in their life left their home in Buttfuck, Idaho.
no other reason
Whatever happened to that idea? How do we make the internet absolutely indelible? Only when it becomes truly peer to peer, I suppose. The service provider is the single point of failure to overcome.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
So, if I was arrested for violence in Germany, and claimed that what incited my violence was the new German law about hate speech, the politicians who passed the bill would go to prison? Cool!
So if you go to Germany and be violent, you will be in prison.
You'll have to convince 12 people that someone on the internet made you mad and you couldn't control yourself.
This may mean lifetime in an institution, but at least your bumhole will be safe. If that's a thing that you worry about.
If so, is the USA any better than Germany?
North Carolina has just enacted ag-gag laws.
http://yourdailyjournal.com/opinion/editorials/19778/our-view-cruelty-arrest-shows-need-for-ag-gag-laws-repeal
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."
I may not like what you say, in fact I may consider it to be abhorrent to everything I believe in, but I will defend your right to say it.
As the old saying goes "Deeds, not words". I would rather have those who are filled with hate expressing it through words than the alternative which would be for them to be silently plotting to commit actual deeds against those they hate because they feel they can not get their message across any other way.
We are closer to the edge than most believe, just look at the fertility rates of western nations. The smell of enlightened suicide is in the air.
'I don't know what it's called. I just know the sound it makes, when it takes a man's life.' ~ Four Leaf Tayback
You cannot have a democracy without free speech. Hate speech legislation is the slippery slope to tyranny, because opposition and opposing arguments are the lifeblood of any free society. As soon as you start criminalizing the other's opinions you lose that very necessary but intangible principle. Once you start designating certain opinions as wrong and unutterable lest you go to jail you've started on the path to tyranny.
In the linked video, somebody says (off camera) that he thinks that
a) Germany will become islamic because of the substantially higher birth rate of muslims living there.
b) Western countries have abused and exploited muslim countries but God will grant victory to Islam by non-violent means, i.e. demographics.
The first is an unlikely prognosis, the latter starts with an actual point followed by a religious fairy tale. He then mocks the alleged german person (face is blurred) in the video for the hate in their eyes.
What about this is hate speech?
How are you supposed to figure out who the bigots are if FB keeps deleting all their posts?
Have you ever fallen asleep at the keybhanusdiog?
No Western country criminalizes opinions. All of them censor speech, to some extent. There are things you can say to me that can have me suing you for slander and winning. It's a civil suit, granted, but it has the force of government behind it. There are things you can say in potential riot situation that will be considered inciting and illegal. There are sometimes things you can say to me that will have the government not prosecute me if I then attack you physically.
Words have power, socially and psychologically. Sometimes, words can be used in ways that are immediately destructive. Sometimes, they can be used for lasting effect.
Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can make me feel I deserve it.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Funny how the same people who say there is no hate speech are deeply offended by The Big Bang Theory, and liken it to nerd bullying.
I wish this was true but in Germany, Belgium and holland uttering the opinion that the holocaust didn't happen (an idiot's point of view but an opinion nonetheless) or minimizing the jewish holocaust in any way will land you in jail. Racism is a crime in Belgium for which you can be fined. Other mass murders (soviet, chinese or Turkish genocide of Armenians) can be denied to your hart's content. This is of course an extreme example but the slippery slope always start at the extreme end.