Slashdot Mirror
Mark Zuckerberg Confronts 'Hate Speech' In Germany And At Facebook (csmonitor.com)
Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg announced on Friday in Berlin that he recognized that Facebook needs to crack down more on "hate speech" against migrants. In September, Facebook announced that it would work with the German Justice Ministry to crack down on anti-migrant posts. Under German law, social media users who incite hatred or violence against an ethnic or religious group can be punished by up to three years in jail. "If people, using their own name, incite hatred against other people, not only the government has to act, but also Facebook should do something against those statements," German Chancellor Angela Merkel told the Rheinische Post. Facebook has been in discussions about privacy and hate speech with Germany for months. Last summer, it announced that it would conform to Germany's strict hate speech laws and attempt to take down racist posts within a day.
http://dailycaller.com/2015/10...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...
http://www.americanthinker.com...
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ge...
http://nypost.com/2016/02/09/e...
https://pjmedia.com/homeland-s...
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/ho...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...
http://www.thelocal.dk/2016012...
http://www.politico.eu/article...
http://www.express.co.uk/news/...
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2...
http://www.breitbart.com/big-g...
Why does he have to define it? It's a question of German law, not Facebook's opinion. By all means review the relevant German laws and legal precedents if you are really that curious.
This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
Here is what the American Bar Association says about "hate speech"; it's worth repeating:
Hate speech is speech that offends, threatens, or insults groups, based on race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, disability, or other traits. Should hate speech be discouraged? The answer is easy—of course! However, developing such policies runs the risk of limiting an individual’s ability to exercise free speech. When a conflict arises about which is more important—protecting community interests or safeguarding the rights of the individual—a balance must be found that protects the civil rights of all without limiting the civil liberties of the speaker.
Now in the US hate speech is usually protected under the First Amendment. The exceptions are when the speaker is intentionally inciting imminent lawless action, or uttering fighting words. Fighting words are at present is something of a Constitutional moving target.
Hate speech can also be an aggravating factor in an ordinary crime. Think about the difference between burning a barrel of leaves on a neighbor's property, and burning a cross (if that neighbor is black). Physically these acts are not so different, but the nature of the crimes are very different. The intent of the cross burning is to frighten the neighbor, perhaps to force him to move away; it is in effect a crime against liberty.
Of course I'm talking about the US, and this situation is in Germany for historical and constitutional reasons takes a stronger stance against hate speech. There it is called Voksverhetzung; there's a definition of Voksverthetzung in the Wikipedia article if you're interested in specifics. Clearly it's illegal to say many things in Germany that would be protected speech in the US (e.g. merely advocating violence against Jews as opposed to inciting it). But even in the US what Zuckerberg is doing would be perfectly legal; Facebook is a private vendor who sets its terms of service and if you don't like it, well, you can always post your updates over on Stormfront (which operates in the US because it's protected -- their server is in Texas apparently).
Zuckerberg can define "hate speech" any way he wants and enforce it in his TOS, as long as the stockholders don't rise up in revolt.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
"anti hate speech" laws are nothing new in germany, there's already lots of definition, legal precedents, etc. go look it up. if that differs from the american definition of free speech, facebook is free to stop it's operation in germany or even go to court and try changing those laws.
Here's the problem: Social Justice Warriors (SJW) always attack speech they don't agree by saying 'it's offensive', 'it's racist', 'it's the patriarchy', 'it's oppressive' or 'it's hate speech'.
To protect free speech one must protect the unpopular things said by unpopular people.
Nobody needs to defend the right of a popular person saying things nobody objects to.
I'm willing to go out on a limb and say that if you post anything negative about the invaders in Germany you get censored for 'hate speech' because it might incite violence. Meanwhile the uneducated and extremist fighting age men swarming into Germany, assaulting the natives, popping off guns in the streets, bring their criminality and incompatible culture to soak up the free benefits while Germany goes bankrupt. you better lock up your wives and lock up your husbands cos they raping everyone up in here.
Liberty.
If you wonder why Facebook suddenly cracks down on unkind posts about immigrants, here is the reason:
- during new year celebrations hordes of immigrants sexually assaulted German women in Cologne and other cities
- media kept it quiet for about a week. Hard to say if it was case of self-censorship or pressure from federal government
- after a week coverup finally failed due to increasing discussion of the events of Facebook. At that time German government have not managed to get Facebook to remove any mentions of cologne attacks
- apparently Facebook finally caved and will participate in future media blackouts when hordes of immigrants get violent next time. Merkel bet her career on 'success' of immigration plan and since she cannot actually prevent immigrants from assaulting, robbing and raping, the only way forward is to cover up everything. This could not work without compliance of social media
So you're OK with Christians whose holy book advocates pedophilia and incest?
The Koran and Bible are quite different in many ways.
The Bible was written by dozens of people "inspired" by God, in a handful of languages, over hundreds of years. Very few read it in the original languages. The New Testament, centered on the pacifistic Jesus, largely supersedes* the Old. (*This is probably not the theologically-correct word, but you get my meaning.) There's lots of room for interpretation, and nearly all of the bad stuff that people cite is in the Old Testament, which very few Christians treat as central or equal to the New. (Many Bibles simply delete the entire Old Testament.)
The Koran is very different. It was (supposedly) dictated by Allah (who speaks a somewhat archaic Arabic) through Gabriel to Mohammad. Mohammad was very different from Jesus: not a pacifist but a caravan robber, murderer, and warlord. The copies of the Koran on Earth are "perfect" copies of Allah's copy in heaven. Muslims are expected to read it in the original Arabic. (Korans in translation are not "really" Korans in their view.) There is comparatively little room for interpretation.
The Koran itself is almost the opposite of the Bible: it's more peaceful in the beginning, and gets more violent later on, reflecting Mohammad's transformation from caravan robber to prophet to warlord. So you might notice that when Muslim apologists quote the Koran, they quote early passages, and when critics do, they quote later ones. But like the Bible, the latter parts are said to supersede (to some degree) the earlier parts.
In addition to the Koran being Allah's direct words, there's the problem of considering Muhammad "perfect" and a model for all Muslims: that gives you justification for child brides and cousin marriage (hence the well-documented negative eugenic effects of inbreeding in the Muslim world), slavery (ISIS has total theological justification for their sex slavery), hatred of Jews, death for gays, death for apostates, death for blasphemers, etc. And, of course, it's a central Islamic belief that Islam is destined to rule the world, with everyone else officially subjugated as second-class citizens, or converted, or killed. Which happens in every country ruled by Muslims.
You will find very little like that in the Bible, and very few Christians defend violence in the name of Jesus. But many Muslims all over the world are fine with religious violence. And mentioning these facts about Islam counts as "hate speech" in many European countries (not to mention Islamic ones)....
Q: What does the "B." in Benoit B. Mandelbrot stand for? A: Benoit B. Mandelbrot
You and other people please keep your eyes open. In Calais the majority of them were not syrian, but African. The media shut out filming them after a while just because of that. There are Iranian, Ethiopian, people from Malawi... it is all the floodgates open, no due process, no passports, all them entitled to go to El Dorado of the UK for the good life. Even as of this week, they interviewed a black guy here (syrian you say), that said verbatim, "we are all here in camps, and we ought to choose the country of our camps. If it were not to go to Britain, I would have stayed put in my country."
WTF is "legitimate" free speech?
There are many things you can say which no one considers part of free speech, for example:
* Slander
* Libel
* Incitement to violence
* Fighting words
* Solicitation of murder
There are other things which are apparently considered legally free speech but many people think aren't such as:
* Using a limited liability entity to donate money to political campaigns
So, as always the world is subtle and nuanced.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Except Muslims. Muslims in Europe's first generation was in the 50s to work in the mining and construction industry as well as factories and the like. Forward 50 years (early 2000's) and the majority still hasn't integrated, the majority of male children born in the EU are named Muhammed, large portions of female children are in the "system" and instead of integrating they are opting to create Islam Sharia Law political parties with large cities now having politicians favoring Sharia Law and police no longer enforcing the country's law in certain parts of the city and subsequent riots because no business development exists and thus they have no work. Forward another 10 (now) and they're importing their brethren en masse with the only purpose of extending the Islam State and extinguishing all opposers.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com