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.
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.
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