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
Dear Citizens, you've got freedom of speech as long as you agree with our 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."
There is a big difference between criticism and hatespeech.
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?
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?"
There is a big difference between criticism and hatespeech.
...it all depends on who gets to define what "hate speech" is. Therein lies the problem.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
What you describe, is not hate speach, so it is allowed.
As fars I see it there is no particular raping going on, but interesting words you have chosen.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
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...
If you didn't see the relevant South Park episode, that's why you don't get the title.
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.
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
Like political cartoons that cause riots? We need to quit trying to "understand" and compromise these attacks on our freedom of speech, regardless of how "noble" we think their author's intent is.
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.
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.
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).
Your population is old and dying. You don't have enough young people to keep your countries running and the few young people do have are weak cowards who can't take care of themselves. Everything is ripe for the taking, the takeover is happening, and you still won't even acknowledge its happening. You are not allowed to complain about it either and there is nothing you can do about it.
As fars I see it there is no particular raping going on,
http://www.gatestoneinstitute....
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.
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.
How about an experiment? Next time when you're pulled aside in a traffic control and get really angry at a policeman, just vent your anger and tell him to "Fuck off you stupid cunt!" repeatedly, again and again. Then let us know whether he was able to stop you from expressing your emotions or not.
That's NOT hate speech, it is an opinion. Unless it specifically incites someone to violence, like "go out and strangle all muslims at 3pm next Tues"....then it isn't hate speech, or it shouldn't be.
You should be perfectly free, to express that "I can't stand all the fucking 's out there that think wants you to not eat and thinks should blow all and rot in hell. "
That's an opinion, and even if it had all the racial slurs, and all.....it is nothing more than that. That is valid as free speech to anyone that values ALL free speech. The only thing that should be investigated, is if you directly threaten someone or some group with specific violent actions.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
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.
You should be a comedian, if you aren't one already.
I have to comment on this. You are linking to gatestoneinstitute.org. Have you bothered to look into who owns and runs this site? I took the time to ensure they never appear in my Google News feed again. Right at the moment I type this, their top headline screams that Iran is taking over Latin America. That should give you an idea of the bent of their "reporting". Take a moment and have a look at their About page to see who they publicly disclose is behind the site - first and foremost, far-right former Ambassador John R. Bolton.
It is NOT a "news" site. It is a political propaganda site not beholden to accepted standards of journalism.
New Motto
"We didn't learn from past fascism, so here we go repeating it"
The problem is that it starts as a definite item: A bong threat or direct threats on someone's life.
"When an atomic bomb goes off, there's devastation; when an atomic bong goes off, there's celebration." --Robin Williams
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?
It is hilarious to me that you're afraid of a bunch of malnourished dirt farmers.
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.
That's NOT hate speech, it is an opinion. Unless it specifically incites someone to violence, like "go out and strangle all muslims at 3pm next Tues"....then it isn't hate speech, or it shouldn't be.
You should be perfectly free, to express that "I can't stand all the fucking [racial epithet] 's out there that think [diety] wants you to not eat [certain foods] and thinks all [non-believers] [gender] should blow all [religious right fighers] and rot in hell. "
That's an opinion, and even if it had all the racial slurs, and all.....it is nothing more than that. That is valid as free speech to anyone that values ALL free speech. The only thing that should be investigated, is if you directly threaten someone or some group with specific violent actions.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
you think being an opinion somehow makes it not hate speech?
you're a fool , but then I shouldn't be surprised considering you're also the same fool who regularly engages of dog whistle racism (ie, hate speech) of his own. you think you're somehow enlightened by saying these things, but really you're just a bigot apologist, and a bigot yourself from your own past dog whistles.
bugger off troll.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Yes.
And who makes YOU the judge on what is or is not hate speech and therefore censored?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
" I took the time to ensure they never appear in my Google News feed again."
When I enter 'news' as a Google search term, the first entry is Foxnews, also not a real news site.
you think being an opinion somehow makes it not hate speech?
If you are incited to violence just because someone expressed an opinion, then you are part of the problem, not the solution. Only if that "opinion" actually calls for violence can you even begin to justify banning it. "Your god does not exist, you worship hot air" is an opinion. That's all it is. Get over it. "We should all go out and kill those who worship like you do" is an opinion trying to incite violence.
A local newspaper blog just had an example of the stupidity of trying to claim every opinion someone doesn't like is a call to violence. One person said that someone else was stupid and the time for talking was over. The stupid one claimed that this was a death threat. Really. I kid you not. Getting tired of talking to X was a death threat. I hope the stupid guy has never been on Usenet and been "plonked". He'd be apoplectic and calling the cops every ten minutes.
but really you're just a bigot apologist,
I think it was said best by an early US founder. Something like "I oppose what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it." I suppose he is a "bigot apologist", too, because he opposed what was said.
The issue with Google et. al going along with this is that removing "hate speech" (as defined by someone) does not stop racism. It only makes the speakers 1. go underground and 2. resent even more the fact they are being silenced in the name of political correctness. It's not a winning strategy, and our (the US) founders knew that.
I hate to defend Germany 'cause, you know, I'm a prick. But, in all fairness, I watched a documentary not too many years ago on this - it actually had to do with computers in some fashion. While I don't remember the title, I do remember them getting into the case-law, the history of speech laws since WWII and the infractions, and the government has a pretty good record for this.
For instance, the government has, at times, refused to prosecute when the people wanted prosecution for hate speech violations. The threshold hadn't been met. You've got to be pretty damned specific to violate those laws. Consider, they were heavily influenced by the US.
The documentary in question had to do with Neo-Nazis and was way back during the BBC days. I do not remember the title. I saw it again a few years ago, probably on YouTube. The key point being, that like any tool - it must be wielded with care and they are entitled to their sovereignty unless they're harming their populace. So far, they've done well....
Now back to my antiquated Germany during WWII bashing.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
I hardly think a "bong threat" is going to create any *serious* national emergencies. It's probably not even an emergency on a very small scale - even if it breaks, there are a million and three different ways to smoke marijuana. (I've managed to hit at least 17,438 of these ways.) In fact, it doesn't even take much to make a good gravity bong.
I guess, if you want, you can threaten someone with a bong. You can hit them with it or you can say you'll force them to smoke out of it. I had a great big bong, I probably still do, that might be a threat at a very small level as I don't recall anyone ever clearing it without hacking out a lung. (If you put some peppermint extract in it, it kind of helps - not too much.)
So, I think I have a solution. If you ever, ever have a major bong threat you can simply go down to the 7-11 and find the guy who's confused about so many brands of chips. They'll help you with your threat and be more than happy to save the day. I'd give you my number to help aid in your threat defense but I have to finish up all of my weed today or tomorrow. I'm off to Florida. They don't take kindly to weed smoking hippies in Florida. Fortunately, they have lots of coke. ;-) (I probably won't be imbibing in that. I'm getting kind of old for that sort of stuff.)
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
And since when did being a racist become illegal?
It might not be pretty....but if you ban speech like that, you are really greasing up the slippery slope on thought crime.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
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!”
And since when did being a racist become illegal?
Huh? Said nothing about it being illegal. Talking about the reason why Germany wants Google et.al to remove "hate speech". Let's curb racism by banning hate speech -- except it doesn't.
...but if you ban speech like that, you are really greasing up the slippery slope on thought crime.
Did you see me say anything that disagrees with that?
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
Funny thing: don't remember a lot of cartoonists killed by offended Jews.
In fact, I cannot seem to remember anybody killed for criticizing Judaism.
Can you say the same about Islam?
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.
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?
yeah no sorry, not flamebait.
it is hate speech and it is exactly what this is about, no matter how much you want to use your sockpuppets to bury it by modding the truth flamebait.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
I gave the same treatment to Fox - I don't see their "news" in my feed either.
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
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.
I think you are right. And I fear with this mass invasion we are seeing the early stages of WW3, even tho it may take 50 years to heat up to a shooting war.
Makes me glad America has only one indefensible border, rather than being surrounded by indefensible borders as is the case in most of the world.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?