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
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."
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?
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.
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.
Why would people say that? Germany has never has true freedom of speech. Everyone seems to import the US perspective of Freedom of Speech on other countries. Germany does technically have Freedom of Expression in their Basic Law, but there are so many exceptions (like hate speech, holocaust denial and more), that it might as well not be called Freedom of Expression.
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
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.
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.
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