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.

7 of 259 comments (clear)

  1. Chilling by Tailhook · · Score: 5, Insightful

    All criticism of Islam or resistance of Muslim immigration is hate speech. Modulate yourself, or else.

    --
    Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
  2. Suppression by Scutter · · Score: 5, Funny

    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?"
  3. Re:Yet another bow to islam by Penguinisto · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?
  4. how is it defined by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 5, Informative

    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
    1. Re:how is it defined by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Please explain what these mean:

        - criminal expressions,
        - sedition,
        - incitement to carry out criminal offences that threaten people

      For each, please give an example that _almost_ fits the category, like you feel it's a bit sketchy and maybe in fact it should be illegal, but because of the wording it technically isn't.

      If you can't do that, the law is broad and leaves discretion in the hands of the enforcer, like the parent said.

  5. Re:Yet another bow to islam by cayenne8 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    who see their country raped by foreigners

    now see? that's exactly the kind of hate speech we're talking about. thanks for providing the example. now crawl back under your rock.

    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.........
  6. Re:Yes. Why did you need to ask? by cayenne8 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yes there is. Go look at the documentaries from the time of MLK.

    Fuck, look at Trump.

    And look at the video of Khomeni when he was telling the Iranians to blow the shit out of the Great Satan.

    You telling me that's not hate speech?

    Big differences in your examples.

    If you want to investigate and possibly prosecute someone that makes direct threats against someone, that seem actionable (I"m gonna kill all the white guys this week, who's with me?)...that's one thing.

    But to say "I hate all 's and they are the lowest scum of the earth and I don't think those fucking should be allowed to invade and change my country's core beliefs", is nothing more than one person's opinion.

    It shouldn't be against any law to say you don't like crackers, towel heads, spear chuckers, wops, gooks, chinks, spics or any other racial slur you wish to use.

    You may find some people are offended and may not want to hang around or be associated with you, and that's fine...but that is free speech.

    If you value free speech, then you value even offensive speech.

    At least that is the ideal.

    Freedom of speech by necessity cannot allow anyone to be free from being offended.

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........