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.

Comments

Slippery Slope

[PeteJanda]

Dear Mark Z. - Please define "hate speech" and how you and / or Angela M.'s legions of government bureaucrats plan on not trampling all over legitimate free speech (e.g., "I disagree with Germany's immigration policy because it takes an unrealistic stance on available resources, and I want the immigrants to go home,").

Re:Slippery Slope

[Zeio]

This guy Zuck really does think he is Time Lord Lord President and all moral decisions that end up on his desk he is the sole arbiter of what is right and wrong. The fact that people are thinking a certain way he does not care he is going to correct that thinking by censoring. Unreal. More like Pravda these days than Voice of America.

Re:Slippery Slope

[Dutchmaan]

I would say cut your statement in half... you don't NEED to say "I want the immigrants to go home."

If your issue is with resources, address the possible causes and solutions. You've already come to a conclusion (which is wanting immigrants to leave), and you just want a validated excuse to have achieve that end.

See what you're doing?

Some people are more subtle about their distaste for different races and cultures, some are more overt (sometimes it spills over into actual hate speech).. you're already ON the slippery slope, and you're sliding in the wrong direction.

Re:Slippery Slope

[jbmartin6]

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.

Re:Slippery Slope

[allcoolnameswheretak]

Don't be finicky. If you can't tell the difference between voicing your opinion in valid arguments or telling people to fuck off and die burning in a fire, you need your head examined.

Re:Slippery Slope

[hey!]

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.

Re:Slippery Slope

[Anonymous Coward]

How about this for "hate" speech: "I want to live in an all white country."

It's presumably okay for NON-whites to say this, since the very fact that millions of them move to white countries every YEAR, uninvited by the people of those countries, proves they would rather live among white people than stay in their own countries.

How in the name of all that's decent have we reached the stage, in just fifty years of Jewish control of the media, where a white person who says "I want to live in an all white country" is regarded by even SOME white people, as being in the wrong?

Zuckerberg is a JEW, need I say more? The very term "hate speech" is a JEWISH invention, which ONLY came into 'popular' parlance because the JEWISH media has repeated this phrase tens of thousands of times, to their 'cattle' (goyim).

Re:Slippery Slope

[myowntrueself]

Dear Mark Z. - Please define "hate speech" and how you and / or Angela M.'s legions of government bureaucrats plan on not trampling all over legitimate free speech (e.g., "I disagree with Germany's immigration policy because it takes an unrealistic stance on available resources, and I want the immigrants to go home,").

These days the word 'hate' is being used in a massively exaggerated way, as is 'phobia'.

'hate' and 'phobia' are used to describe everything from disapproval through dislike and actual hate.

Eg 'homophobe' is used to describe people who, rather than fearing homosexuals, disapprove of it on moral grounds. These people do not fear homosexuals.

People who disapprove of mass immigration are described as 'race-haters'. These people do not hate people of other races.

This dilutes the value of the words 'hate' and 'phobia' so much that the abuse of these terms will have the reverse effect that their users would want.

Re:Slippery Slope

[starless]

These days the word 'hate' is being used in a massively exaggerated way, as is 'phobia'.

'hate' and 'phobia' are used to describe everything from disapproval through dislike and actual hate.

Eg 'homophobe' is used to describe people who, rather than fearing homosexuals, disapprove of it on moral grounds. These people do not fear homosexuals.

And calling molecules "hydrophobic" is similarly wrong.
They don't hate water, there is simply "an absence of attraction".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

So why do those politically correct SJW chemists have to bring hate into it?

Re:Slippery Slope

[KozmoStevnNaut]

That's not the issue here. The issue is that there are actual virulent hate groups active on Facebook. And it's not a reasonably credible and well-mannerede discussion as your example, these groups bristle will full-on nazi-like racism and hatred, and in some cases direct calls to violent action.

Re:Slippery Slope

[AmiMoJo]

The type of speech being banned is clearly laid out in German law. It's incitement to violence, basically.

I don't support these laws, I'm just pointing out that the definition is well defined in Germany and has been tested in court.

Re:Slippery Slope

[Beeftopia]

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.

But... what if there is some unflattering FACT about a group that offends and insults most members of that group? Conversely, there may be flattering fact about a group that most members of the group find flattering.

There seem to be two kinds of people when it comes to social policy:

Group 1 first asks whether something is true, then may consider whether it's offensive.
Group 2 first asks whether something is offensive, then may consider whether it's true.

I was going to say "conservative" and "liberal" but it didn't quite seem to cover it.

Re:Slippery Slope

[Dutchmaan]

"The problem is that these men want welfare(like they had in Syria)"

Really..I'll bet you ANYTHING you don't even know how the Syrian government worked. You're just slapping a "wanting welfare" label onto an ethnic group you dislike so that you can validate your desire for ethnic cleansing.

"The problem with Muslims in Europe is that they think the world revolves around them and that they should be treated as kings"

As opposed to say, YOU... who sit in your ivory tower turning away people who genuinely need the help because you're scared that what they are trying to escape from will land at YOUR door. You want THEM to go back and fight a shitty war so that YOU can feel safe in your chair at home. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Re:Slippery Slope

[hey!]

I'm not sure you actually know what a dilemma is. I'm not saying you HAVE to choose between posting your views to Facebook OR Stormfront; I'm saying you can express opinions on Stormfront (and other websites) that would be prohibited by Facebook's "Community Standards" [note 1], and that the existence of sites like Stormfront is due to US constitutional protections for unpopular speech.

What this means is that Facebook's Community Standards aren't a civil liberties issue, not even in a "positive liberty" sense.

NOTE 1: Here is the relevant section of Facebook's "Community Standards"

Hate Speech

Facebook removes hate speech, which includes content that directly attacks people based on their:
race,
ethnicity,
national origin,
religious affiliation,
sexual orientation,
sex, gender or gender identity, or
serious disabilities or diseases.

So you see that it happens that speech which is prohibited in Germany by law happens also to be prohibited on US Facebook by Facebook policy.

Re:Slippery Slope

[hey!]

But... what if there is some unflattering FACT about a group that offends and insults most members of that group? Conversely, there may be flattering fact about a group that most members of the group find flattering.

I'd be interested in examples of what you mean here.

I'll just remark that (a) offensive speech is, absent libel or incitement, perfectly legal in the US, but people don't have to listen to you or let you use their property as a forum for that speech; and (b) it's also quite possible to lie using facts by quoting them out of context. In fact that's how the most skillful liars work. But lying is generally protected speech unless it's libel or fraud, so you're safe there.

Re:Slippery Slope

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no such thing as "free speech", citizen-consumer. There is "government-approved speech" and there is "illegal speech". You would be well advised to keep silent and do exactly what the State tells you to do, when and how you're ordered to. Disobedience will be dealt with harshly. In the New Europe there is no place for ill-advised independent thought. All praise our lord and leader, the great fuehrer Juncker. Heil Juncker! Heil Europe! Sieg heil! SIEG HEIL!

Re:Slippery Slope

[reboot246]

Meanwhile it's okay with Zuckerberg and Merkel (and others of their ilk) that the immigrants can hate Europeans as much as they want. Both of them are too damned stupid to see what is actually happening. Either that or they're evil. I can believe either case.

Re:Slippery Slope

[cyberchondriac]

But... what if there is some unflattering FACT about a group that offends and insults most members of that group? Conversely, there may be flattering fact about a group that most members of the group find flattering.

I'd be interested in examples of what you mean here.

I'll just remark that (a) offensive speech is, absent libel or incitement, perfectly legal in the US, but people don't have to listen to you or let you use their property as a forum for that speech; and (b) it's also quite possible to lie using facts by quoting them out of context. In fact that's how the most skillful liars work. But lying is generally protected speech unless it's libel or fraud, so you're safe there.

1) The majority of organized terrorists operating in the world today, who have the largest organizations in terms of members and funding, and who have done the most damage in terms of cost (property) and lives, self-identify as muslims and explicitly act out in the name of Islam (ISIS, Al Qaeda, Al Shabab, Al Nusra Front, Boko Haram, etc..). 2) Asians tend to do really well in mathematics, and academia in general. You can also add slander to that list, BTW.

Re:Slippery Slope

[PeteJanda]

Ahh! That's the crux of it, isn't it? (Sentient / rational) people may be able to tell the difference, but how about Mark Z.'s C++ or Java code? Methinks the code will err on a very conservative side of things and end up censoring legitimate free speech.

Re:Slippery Slope

[PeteJanda]

Great. Now please post the design specs so that a coder can put in place logic enforcing such well-defined German laws and case precedents.

Re:Slippery Slope

[jez9999]

WTF is "legitimate" free speech?

I think it is illegitimate for you to criticize any migrants. BOOM. I just destroyed your free speech.

There's no such thing as "legitimate" or "illegitimate" free speech because such terms are completely subjective. There's free speech or there isn't. Pick one.

Re:Slippery Slope

[PeteJanda]

Dutch - A few things you should consider processing through that sanctimonious noggin of yours: 1. The quoted text is meant to be an example of content that could be caught up in Facebook's filter, despite its being fair / appropriate discourse on the subject. 2. Replace "Middle Eastern immigrants" with "polka-dotted spaghetti monster immigrants", and the core issue would still be the same: too few resources in terms of housing, law enforcement and social resources are creating a nightmare for the indigenous population. If you want to fund and house millions of people, be my guest. But don't expect everyone to share your brave altruism, and pretty-please-with-sugar-on-top don't try to force your altruism on everyone. 3. People are waking up to being silenced by accusations of racism, phobia, etc.and, candidly, are ceasing to care. You and your ilk have been carpet bombing the world with such (typically mindless) ad hominem attacks, and the efficacy of the attacks has waned. Go shovel that sht elsewhere.

Re:Slippery Slope

[vel-ex-tech]

I can get behind considering post-modernism hate speech!

Re:Slippery Slope

[vel-ex-tech]

But... what if there is some unflattering FACT about a group that offends and insults most members of that group?

I would posit that in an overwhelming majority of cases, that fact is not, in fact, a fact. There may be some individual members in the demographic you're talking about who demonstrate the proposed fact, but it will not be borne out across every last individual in the demographic. If it is borne out for a vast majority of the demographic, chances are it's not going to be something to get your panties in a twist about.

This is particularly interesting when considering the difference between a cult and a religion. We can make factual statements that will hold true for anybody who is say a Scientologist. That's low-hanging fruit.

Since we're almost certainly talking about Muslims, we can also make the observation that pretty much all of them will display similarities in manner of worship, but this is not something to be concerned about quite yet. If we go to assert that young Muslim men are rapists, that's a fairly broad brush to paint with.

(Even given the conspiracy theories ACs like to post about some massive cover up of these rapes going on, it still strikes me that the portion of young Muslim men who are rapists can't possibly be above a rounding error. Whether or not they're just looking for a welfare handout is beyond the scope of this comment. There are also most certainly young Muslim men who have committed acts of rape. I'm not attempting to argue that being a member of any demographic ensures that one isn't beyond violent acts.)

Essentially, I think your breakdown works out. It's indeed not a liberal/conservative thing. My go-to example on the liberal side is the phenomenon of rape cultures on college campuses. They begin with the offensive assertion that all young assigned males (regardless of lived gender or any medical facts really) are serial rapists. Er, well, in that case they never make it to the second half of considering whether it's true, but I gather that's how it goes with that direction of reasoning.

I mean, one can point out any day that there are a large number of trans women who don't pass well. It's unflattering, but I would be disingenuous not to recognize it as a fact.

Re:Slippery Slope

[Bing Tsher E]

A lot of times, the members of these groups are net ragers, also known as keyboard warriors, who will do nothing at all violent when they step away from their keyboards.

The people they might incite or inspire to actual violence is a problem, but their ludicrous raging is just a common internet phenomenon.

Re:Slippery Slope

[Anonymous Coward]

Except the chemists aren't trying to convince anyone that those molecules genuinely hate water.

The people who use the word "homophobe" every chance they get ARE trying to convince everyone that a person who disapproves of homosexuality MUST hate homosexuals.

The suffix has a different meaning when you're talking about people.

Re:Slippery Slope

[Anonymous Coward]

It's very sad, but I agree with you. The very same people wanting a multicultural society will soon find that the culture they're inviting in to join has no tolerance for any other culture and will actively seek to replace them by any and all means.

Re:Slippery Slope

[Mashiki]

Sure explains why people making statements that aren't an incitement to violence are being silenced then. The government fears people speaking out, and in turn are trying to silence their views.

Re:Slippery Slope

[Boronx]

The majority of terrorist attacks in the United States are carried out by right wing fanatics.

Re:Slippery Slope

[Boronx]

What's the moral question on gay sex? In all the years of debate, I've never seen anything other than "God said not to." Also some specious arguments that it leads to child rape and animal rape.

Re:Slippery Slope

[Boronx]

"A lot of times, the members of these groups are net ragers"

Pull your head out of your ass. The real-life Nazis love the internet. They've been using it to reach out to sympathizers for a long time.

Re:Slippery Slope

[Dutchmaan]

Dutch - A few things you should consider processing through that sanctimonious noggin of yours:

I suggest you look up the word "irony"

Re:Slippery Slope

[s.petry]

People who repeat definitions offend me. Please remove yourself from the Internet and never ever publicly post anything again. Er.. wait.. perhaps my offense at you repeating a definition caused you to be offended. Now what? Yes, it's a slipper slope and the definition you provided should make that fact pretty clear.

The wording in the Constitution is very clear and very intentional. The fact that our Press is no longer free should tell you where we stand as a Country in terms of having a Government honor the Constitution.

Anyway, I don't know what German law says about "hate speech". When I was there, there was no such thing. If you said something stupid people ignored you. But, when I was there we did not have hate speech in the US either. You were either guilty of a crime or not guilty of a crime. This extra penalties because you say or write something someone does not like is new. I am pretty sure the social engineers crafted those to provide the pretense for silencing dissent.

Re:Slippery Slope

[Shadow of Eternity]

We've already got precedent for this with R v Elliot. Disagreeing with someone on the internet is harassment, hate speech, and cyber-violence.

Re:Slippery Slope

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not true. Majority of deaths caused by Islamic terrorists, see 911, majority of murders by democrates in cities run by democrates, chicago, detroit, majority of mass shooting done by kids with no stated political affiliations. Your either ignorant or lying or probably both.

Re:Slippery Slope

[myowntrueself]

What's the moral question on gay sex? In all the years of debate, I've never seen anything other than "God said not to." Also some specious arguments that it leads to child rape and animal rape.

It doesn't really matter what the moral question is. That some people believe there is one is a personal issue for them to deal with.

But its not a phobia.

To call it 'homophobia' devalues 'phobia'.

Re:Slippery Slope

[ruir]

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."

Re:Slippery Slope

[ruir]

While ironic or not, I also share his sentiments; and to further add to the question: the problem of that people is not the magical/cursed land where they live, but their culture. They cannot fled from themselves. Opening the floodgates here just means Europe will become another middle east. The system they pretend to mooch on is also supposed to work because people basically lend/pooled money to it in order to support themselves in illness and old age, and has simply not the resources to be (ab)used and leaking money in large scale to people who never invested a cent on it. Lets be realistic, it is called social support, not "free money from baby Jesus".

Re:Slippery Slope

[Bite The Pillow]

I hate that stupid ass thieving magpie looking mutha fucka. Cracka ass cracka being all "Got yo nose, and ssn," can't buy threads just a busted ass gym rat costume like its national "Dress like you ain't a bitch" day all day erry day.

Fuckin white people. Prolly got a back yard full o maypoles and Santa marias and a Japanese stone garden made of little chunks of the Plymouth rock.

Re:Slippery Slope

[Barsteward]

replace Juncker with Nigel Farage or Marie Le Penn then maybe you'll have a point.

Re:Slippery Slope

[Barsteward]

if you are critical of a whole sector of a society because just they are born "jews" or "muslims" or "black" etc then you are not being critical, you are either being xenophobic or racist but definitely a bigot - you cannot tarnish a whole race based on the actions of a few. You can be critical of individuals or a sect like ISIS or groups like the KKK but not all muslims or all white people.

Re:Slippery Slope

[Barsteward]

its usually the hosts that do not welcome them in very well so they stick together for safety. first generation immigrants may not integrate much because of a language/cultural barrier but the following generations usually integrate because the native language becomes their first language and they make new friends at school/university.

Re:Slippery Slope

[MrL0G1C]

Unless you're Donald Trump and then apparently it's OK.

Re:Slippery Slope

[MrL0G1C]

or telling people to fuck off and die burning in a fire,

Lets leave the bible out of this please.

Re:Slippery Slope

[Barsteward]

"The very term "hate speech" is a JEWISH invention" I wouldn't say invention but as a result of the catholic church's demonisation of jews from the beginning of the catholic church, when you are hated because of being born a jew and no other reason then i think they have justification in calling it hate speech.

Re:Slippery Slope

[Barsteward]

"These days the word 'hate' is being used in a massively exaggerated way, as is 'phobia'.
'hate' and 'phobia' are used to describe everything from disapproval through dislike and actual hate."
true to a degree but people hide their bigotry behind disapproval etc.

"Eg 'homophobe' is used to describe people who, rather than fearing homosexuals, disapprove of it on moral grounds. These people do not fear homosexuals." - no, that "moral" is judgemental abrahamic religious view point, why is it immoral to be homosexual? again, hiding hatred behind a false premise
"People who disapprove of mass immigration are described as 'race-haters'. These people do not hate people of other races." have you heard Donald Trumps speeches where he wants to build a wall between mexico and usa and banning all muslims from entering the usa? what do you call that?

People try to hide their bigotry and hatred behind other reasons all the time to be "politically correct".

Re:Slippery Slope

[Barsteward]

yes, their personal issue is homophobia. they should learn to live and let live and not judge other people

Re: Slippery Slope

[prefec2]

Instead of asking what hate speech is you could just have googled it or checked Wikipedia. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...

BTW your first part of your statement is an opinion worth discussing. It is neutral and allows to investigate the subject. The second part is almost passive aggressive, as the people coming to Europe nowadays are refugees from a war zone (most of them). Therefore, sending them home is inhumane. Still it is not hate speech.

Re:Slippery Slope

[Jack Griffin]

Eg 'homophobe' is used to describe people who, rather than fearing homosexuals, disapprove of it on moral grounds. These people do not fear homosexuals.

They do if they feel the need to act on their opinion. If you didn't feel threatened you wouldn't care either way. The fact some people get so uppity about it reveals that deep down, they are scared of something.

Re:Slippery Slope

[Jack Griffin]

And calling molecules "hydrophobic" is similarly wrong. They don't hate water, there is simply "an absence of attraction".

Phobia doesn't mean hate, it means fear of. Hydrophobes exhibit a repulsion towards water hence the term.

Re:Slippery Slope

[Jack Griffin]

Great. Now please post the design specs so that a coder can put in place logic enforcing such well-defined German laws and case precedents.

Er, why? Any legal issues can be resolved by people, who are still far better at judging the nuances of human behaviour than any computer.

Re:Slippery Slope

[Jack Griffin]

Meanwhile it's okay with Zuckerberg and Merkel (and others of their ilk) that the immigrants can hate Europeans as much as they want. Both of them are too damned stupid to see what is actually happening. Either that or they're evil.

Or, Zuckerberg and Merkel know far more about all the issues involved than some guy who made his judgement based on a headline he read on the Internet one time...

Re:Slippery Slope

[Jack Griffin]

WTF is "legitimate" free speech?

I think it is illegitimate for you to criticize any migrants. BOOM. I just destroyed your free speech.

There's no such thing as "legitimate" or "illegitimate" free speech because such terms are completely subjective. There's free speech or there isn't. Pick one.

Only if you are pretending to be a robot from the 1950's. Most of us humans can figure out the difference.

Re: Slippery Slope

[cyber-vandal]

He's going to get a nasty shock when he gets to Britain and finds out that what he read in the Daily Mail was actually bollocks. He'd be better off going to Sweden.

Re:Slippery Slope

[turbidostato]

"Zuckerberg has resisted any kind of crackdown against hate speech before, the only reason he's doing it now is probably because Germany leaves him no option."

No - Option?

A damn billionaire has No - Option!!!???

What about not doing damn business in damn Germany if he is so damn in favor of damn free speech? Or is it that he's more in favor of damn money than he is in favor of damn free speech (even when talking about money that would make him just more billionaire on top of being already billionaire)?

Re: Slippery Slope

[cyber-vandal]

These same arguments were used against Hindus and Sikhs when they first came here. The papers were full of stories of these nasty foreigners getting free everything. The Rivers of Blood speech that you righties love so much was primarily about Indian and Pakistani immigration. History just keeps repeating and while rich white men continue to dismantle all the things our grandparents fought for, useful idiots like yourself keep blaming poor brown people whose only crime is wanting a better life.

Re:Slippery Slope

[ChrisMaple]

Considered as a group, Jews have been engaging in suicidal politics for over half a century. Hardworking and intelligent, and consequently financially successful, they vote for the Democrats who would tax away their wealth. They're disproportionately represented in extreme leftist organizations like the Communist Party. Consider, for example, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg. Go figure.

Re:Slippery Slope

[ChrisMaple]

Needing help and deserving help are two very different things. The perfect illustration of this is Al Wilson's "The Snake".

I'm proud of advancing arguments that protect my myself, my neighbors, and my country. People like you who claim I should endanger myself to help primitives in the name of a perverse moral code are disgusting.

Re:Slippery Slope

[serviscope_minor]

Not really. Germany has a lower bar for incitement of violence than tha US does. For example, it seems to be legal in the US to say "all jews should be killed", where as if you say "go and kill that jew over there", you've tipped over from protected speech to incitement of violence. In Germany the former qualifies, as do other things like saying "jews are terrible people (wouldn't it be nice if they all disappeared)".

The US definition of "incitement of violence" is not the only one.

Should I include a statement about whether or not I agree with the laws? Is it possible to have a reasonable discussion about laws and their meanings without throwing out accusations of suckage based on perceived (dis)agreement with laws?

Re:Slippery Slope

[ChrisMaple]

What does the mathematician Niels Henrik Abel have to do with racism?

Re:Slippery Slope

[serviscope_minor]

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.

Re:Slippery Slope

[hvdh]

Well, for me it seems that most of refugee-related destruction in Germany seems to come from Germans, who in certain areas set newly built refugee shelters on fire. In Hamburg, I live very close two container camps housing 850 mostly Syrian refugees. I've talked with several refugees, helped them find the right trains or groceries when they cannot read English or German. I haven't seen any "destruction", crime or even aggression from them.

Re:Slippery Slope

[Anonymous Coward]

This is very true. If you look at the Black Lives Matter web page, you will see its mission statement is purely for Blacks only. There is no mention of Asian, Hispanic, or White. If you had a movement like BLM (which Mark supports), and changed all the words of Black to White (or Asian, Hispanic, etc.) almost every Black person would denounce "White Lives Matter", "Asian Lives Matter", or "Hispanic Lives Matter" as rascist, because it did not include Blacks.

Check out the "about" page for BLM ...

"Black Lives Matter is a chapter-based national organization working for the validity of Black life. We are working to (re)build the Black liberation movement."

It also includes black gays, black trans, etc. Everyone in the Black community. There is no mention of including other races (as far as I can tell). It is essentially a revised playbook of the Black Panthers. Go to the Black Lives Matter web page and come to your conclusions. Maybe I missed something, maybe I didn't.

I suspect Mark did not even take the time to investigate BLM, but rather made a business decision, based on feedback from his legal and business staff.

"It goes beyond the narrow nationalism that can be prevalent within Black communities, which merely call on Black people to love Black, live Black and buy Black, keeping straight cis Black men in the front of the movement while our sisters, queer and trans and disabled folk take up roles in the background or not at all.

Black Lives Matter affirms the lives of Black queer and trans folks, disabled folks, black-undocumented folks, folks with records, women and all Black lives along the gender spectrum. It centers those that have been marginalized within Black liberation movements. It is a tactic to (re)build the Black liberation movement."

The above, sounds an awful lot like the mantra of the Black Panthers. There is no hope for self-segregation. The only hope for Black America, is integration, that does mean interracial marriage and only then will America have one people (one race: modern American). Only a Black man who has married a White woman knows and feels of the hatred of the Black community. You get judged as being too White. This is not to say that there is no hatred on the other side, but the Black community has too long ignored the racism inside our own community. We have been raised with the stereotype that all racists are white and all victims are Black.

Re:Slippery Slope

[StillAnonymous]

A phobia means an abnormal, irrational fear of something. You know how people are though, they are desperate to paint their enemies with as many negative terms as possible, in hopes that others will be convinced to feel the same way, that they will stoop to misusing terms or outright lying.

Being terrified of a black widow crawling up your arm is not arachnophobia. The fear of that spider biting and poisoning you is real and rational. Likewise, if someone is bringing a few thousand spiders into your house, some of which are poisonous, and you tell them to stop it, that is not arachnophobia either. Telling someone you do not like spiders does not make you an arachnophobe.

Not liking the ways of Islam and not wanting to see your country adopt those ways is not "Islamophobia" either. Which brings to question, why does that term even exist? Why is there not Christophobia, or Buddiphobia? It's only when there's an agenda to push that doesn't have a solid, logical, and beneficial backing to it that there's a need to pull out the 'ophobia terms in attempt to shame the opposition into caving to your demands.

Re: Slippery Slope

[guruevi]

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.

Re:Slippery Slope

[Barsteward]

you obviously didn't understand the boundaries yet, objection to homosexuality is nothing to do with morals because its not immoral to be homosexual, its is bigotry hiding behind ideology from crap religions.

No-one will have objections to illegal immigrants being deported in a humane way. If i recall correctly, Trump has called all mexicans rapists which is blatantly not true and its also true that not all mexicans in the USA are illegal. Trump didn't even want muslims coming there on holiday so dont; mix up immigration with that. I expect the native american indians didn;t want unfettered immigration either. No-one is expecting USA to operate by different rules, no-one expects to the USA or any country in the world to demonise a whole race of people because of their religion, I thought we'd left the racist ideologies of the 1930's back in the 1930s.

Re:Slippery Slope

[Wootery]

You can be critical of individuals or a sect like ISIS or groups like the KKK but not all muslims or all white people.

And Scientologists? What about the genuinely dangerous denominations of Islam? Or any other insane death cults?

In the real world, things don't fall into neat categories, and unlike ethnicity, religion is both genuinely important (beliefs are actually important, whereas what colour you are isn't) and is a matter of choice.

Re:Slippery Slope

[myowntrueself]

Lets put it this way.

If you encountered someone who was arachnophobic would it be appropriate for you to wave spiders in front of them? Personally, I'd feel like such an act was contemptible and lacking in compassion for someone with a phobia. Sure, its valid to say that someone with arachnophobia should probably be helped to overcome their irrational terror of spiders and sure, some level of desensitization and gradual exposure to spider-related experiences might be an appropriate part of that treatment.

If the term 'homophobe' were appropriate then the same standard should apply. Gays shouldn't flaunt their gayness in front of someone who is homophobic; that would be totally inconsiderate. Sure, someone who is homophobic should be helped to overcome their irrational fear and sure desensitization might be an appropriate part of that treatment. But flaunting gayness in front of them and telling them "JUST ACCEPT US!!!" is definitely NOT appropriate.

Otherwise, if you don't agree that 'homophobes' should be treated with respect and dignity, then 'phobe' is NOT an appropriate term for what is going on here so you should stop using it.

Surely this makes sense even to the most ardent SJW?

If these people really are homo*phobes* then they are the VICTIMS here!

Re: Slippery Slope

[Dutchmaan]

Oh the armchair vet wrapping himself in the flag and telling everyone to go #$%^ themselves because somehow he's already "done his part"... What a fine soldier you must have been.

Re:Slippery Slope

[Dutchmaan]

Needing help and deserving help are two very different things.

...and how are you determining which refugees are "deserving" and which ones aren't? I really look forward to your answer on that one.

I'm proud of advancing arguments that protect my myself, my neighbors, and my country. People like you who claim I should endanger myself to help primitives in the name of a perverse moral code are disgusting.

Primatives?! ..and how are you determining that people trying to escape a shitty system/situation are "primatives" (as if you are somehow enlightened)

Re: Slippery Slope

[lsatenstein]

There is a limit to free speech. You cannot insight readers to violence or fabricate lies that create hatrid to others. There is more to hate speech. You cannot extrapolate American rules to the rest of the world where to rules are more respectful.

Re:Slippery Slope

[MoarSauce123]

The point is that none of the criticism is voiced in such a way, although the example is factually wrong. Germany took in way more refugees as well as immigrants in much shorter time during economically much harder times. It is well possible to separate fact based debate from the nationalistic egoism that folks from CSU, AfD, and the various other nazi organizations propagate online. Besides that, Facebook is not the press. Facebook is a service that can allow or reject any content they deem unfit.

Re:Slippery Slope

[MoarSauce123]

50 years and plenty of integration! There are second generation Turks in the German parliament, on national sports teams, in top business positions, leaders in community organizations. Yes, there are those who never accepted that they are now living in a different world, but those are a negligible minority. Furthermore, the intent was to get guest workers in for a few years and then have them go back home. When these people arrived there was no need seen to integrate them in any way.

Re: Slippery Slope

[MoarSauce123]

I spent decades living in Germany and met many of integrated Muslims, several of those who even celebrate Christmas just so that they fit in although they still have their other religious believes. So what if they are called Mohammed or Mesut or Cenk or Mustafa or whatever else name their parents gave them. It is just a name. And "large portions of female children are in the "system" " is flatout wrong. Or do you have any convincing data to support that claim? The rest of your comment is just prejudice and hate speech, not worth commenting on.

Re:Slippery Slope

[MoarSauce123]

The issue of resources is factually wrong, it does not exist. Germany never had as many resources available as today and in the past mastered much larger numbers of refugees under much more difficult circumstances. Claiming there is a lack of resources is purely egoism.

Re:Slippery Slope

[MoarSauce123]

Where do you guys get this information? Yes, there were some high profile cases of organized crime, but across the board the refugees, immigrants, and foreigners are not more criminal than German citizens. It really is telling once you look at it taking income levels into account. Poor people are more likely to turn to crime, especially those who are prevented from taking on real jobs, such as the refugees. If you sit every day in mass housing with hundreds of others with zero privacy you just get dumb ideas.

Re:Slippery Slope

[MoarSauce123]

Bovine excrement! Merkel did what needed to be done because there are thousands of people who need help after fleeing a totally preventable civil war that only turned that nasty because other governments had zero interest to intervene. If you do not fix the problems over there the problems will come to your doorstep. After not doing a thing to stop Assad from murdering his own people the least we can do is give food, shelter, and a future to those who spent months traveling under horrid conditions.

Re:Slippery Slope

[MoarSauce123]

Core problem is the unrestricted sale of weapons into crisis regions. The millions of refugees in the world are fleeing armed conflicts.

Re:Slippery Slope

[Raenex]

Primatives?! ..and how are you determining that people trying to escape a shitty system/situation are "primatives" (as if you are somehow enlightened)

Open your eyes. "Germany shocked by Cologne New Year gang assaults on women"

They wouldn't be "shocked" if they were paying attention. Sweden opened their door to Muslim immigration and is now the rape capital of the Western world.

Look at what happened in the UK in Rotherham, where they covered up what was happening because they didn't want to be "racist".

Look what happened in Egypt.

Oh, no, but we don't want to be "xenophobes"! We must open our doors and welfare systems to all comers. Anybody who speaks out against it is guilty of hate speech!

Re:Slippery Slope

[Raenex]

Merkel did what needed to be done because there are thousands of people who need help after fleeing a totally preventable civil war that only turned that nasty because other governments had zero interest to intervene.

Because things turned out so great in Libya? And to say other governments haven't "intervened" isn't true, they did their part by arming and bombing both sides.

After not doing a thing to stop Assad from murdering his own people the least we can do is give food, shelter, and a future to those who spent months traveling under horrid conditions.

Why is it the rest of the world's responsibility to do either? And if all they want is food and shelter, then build food and shelters on the border. But that isn't the whole story, is it? There are massive amounts of immigrants (as in millions, not thousands) flooding in for welfare, something that's been going on for years, and accelerated after Syria.

What you are witnessing is the Islamification of Europe, encouraged, condoned, and defended by the useful idiots.

Re:Slippery Slope

[h4ck7h3p14n37]

But... what if there is some unflattering FACT about a group that offends and insults most members of that group? Conversely, there may be flattering fact about a group that most members of the group find flattering.

I'd be interested in examples of what you mean here.

How about some of these?

• Approximately 72% of black children are born out of wedlock.
• Blacks are responsible for more than 80% of the gun violence in Chicago.
• Blacks have been responsible for ten times as many murders in Chicago as either Hispanics or Police thus far in 2016.

Re:Slippery Slope

[ncc74656]

This is very true. If you look at the Black Lives Matter web page, you will see its mission statement is purely for Blacks only. There is no mention of Asian, Hispanic, or White. If you had a movement like BLM (which Mark supports), and changed all the words of Black to White (or Asian, Hispanic, etc.) almost every Black person would denounce "White Lives Matter", "Asian Lives Matter", or "Hispanic Lives Matter" as rascist, because it did not include Blacks.

You don't even have to go that far...remember how they got their panties in a bunch every time someone dared to utter "All Lives Matter?"

If they really wanted to be honest, the racists (that's what they are, and if you disagree with that assessment, you can GFY) behind Black Lives Matter would tack on an "Only" in front.

Re:Slippery Slope

[cyberchondriac]

I never said the "majority" number of random, disconnected attacks. What a useless metric.
What's important is the scale of the attacks: how many people killed, how much damage done, and the fact that there is a powerful organization behind it, bound by a common ideology and goals, actively plotting to do still more damage.

Re:Slippery Slope

[david_thornley]

Suppose you arrive at a dinner you've been invited to, and when you sit down at the table you don't get any food. You say "I've been invited, so I should get fed." The host says, "Everybody who's been invited should get fed" and does nothing. That satisfies you, right?

Blacks have particularly serious problems with police misconduct, and so there is a reason to address their problems specifically.

Re:Slippery Slope

[david_thornley]

Islam is a religion that promotes peace. Like all religions some of its practitioners do not live up to the religious ideals, and Islam is having a real problem with that. (So does Christianity, for that matter, but in different ways.)

Re:Slippery Slope

[david_thornley]

What's any more unfree about the US press than it used to be? If you're going to say "no longer free", shouldn't you tell us when it was more free, and why? It looks to me like it's freer than ever in some ways, now that it's easy to start up a website with your opinions.

There are no laws against hate speech in the US (well, that's probably not quite true, given such things as grandstanding legislatures, so let's say no laws that will stand up to an appeal in court). I don't know of any Constitutional laws about hate crimes. If you are convicted of something, there are a large number of considerations that may affect your sentence, and this is typically where the "hate crimes" come in. If you talk about how blacks are bad, and shoot a white man, that's obviously bad for the man but it doesn't have the same level of threat as if you shoot a black man. Terrorizing a large chunk of the population does increase the perceived severity of the crime.

Re:Slippery Slope

[david_thornley]

Exactly who is the US government silencing, and how? There's plenty of assholes saying hateful things in this country, who still haven't been shot by the FBI.

Re:Slippery Slope

[HornWumpus]

Just remember, Fort Hood was workplace violence and any non white male _minority_ getting jumped is terrorism.

Re:Slippery Slope

[Dutchmaan]

So you're fine being deported every time someone of your race/relgion commits a crime? Don't be a racist asshat, because that's exactly what you're being.

Re:Slippery Slope

[Raenex]

I suggest being a realist and not importing problems into your country. Denying the weight of the problem, the racial reality of the problem, and the fact that you are taking on a burden that isn't yours as an existential threat to your country is insane. Stop being a useful idiot.

Re:Slippery Slope

[Dutchmaan]

...when you are in need of help one day, may you deal with someone exactly like you...

Re:Slippery Slope

[Raenex]

And may you be the victim of those you seek to help. You're realize it when your country is as fucked as Sweden, but the mistake will be too late to correct.

Re:Slippery Slope

[s.petry]

Broadcast media has been monopolized by 2 mega corporations, which use the same exact source for all news and talking points (AP). A new broadcast company can NOT compete due to Government regulations and fees required to join the club.

Where people often attempt to claim balance is in "Internet blogs" which do not have the same reach and impact as broadcast media. Nobody has to "find" Fox, it's right there on the lowest number of the Cable box (normally). Nobody has to find ABC, NBC, CNN, or MSNBC either. Radio is very similar, where syndicated shows are broadcast over common airwaves that anyone can get anywhere. Rush Limbaugh uses the same stories and byline as other "news" while calling the other guys "idiots" to trick masses into a false belief that he is on the other side. Rush is one example of countless.

Naysayers can always go ahead and try to get an alternative talking point on to broadcast media. If I were you, I'd not hold my breath waiting

Re:Slippery Slope

[Boronx]

Comparison of Islamist attacks to far right wing attacks in US since 9/11. The numbers are pretty close. It doesn't include left wing attacks, but there have been a lot. It also doesn't include foiled attacks. There have been many foiled attacks by both Islamists and right wingers.

http://securitydata.newamerica...

Pre-9/11 there were a huge number of right wing terror attacks. And of course, going back to the '70s and '80s, you can find a lot of left wing terror attacks.

Re:Slippery Slope

[Dutchmaan]

...I'd rather die a good man, than live as a shitty one.

Re: Slippery Slope

[ruir]

I am not against "brown people" wanting a better life, as long as they work to pay for it. I am against being charged with yet more taxes to pay for they style of life, which is quite a different thing altogether. However, I do not mention only money there. And you are comparing too different things, we are comparing a different generation that came to work, to the current sad state of affairs where their middle class is paying a fortune to be smuggled to Europe because social handouts are better than the money they earn.

Re:Slippery Slope

[Raenex]

And I'd rather live and not be a useful idiot.

Re:Slippery Slope

[Dutchmaan]

..don't worry, you're not useful.

Re:Slippery Slope

[Raenex]

But you sure are an idiot.

Re:Slippery Slope

[Dutchmaan]

Anyone with more than two brain cells to rub together would have ascertained the implication that you were a useless idiot by my previous post, but thanks for missing it and adding weight to that assumption.

Re:Slippery Slope

[Raenex]

Ok, useful idiot. Enjoy your "cultural enrichment".

Re:Slippery Slope

[Dutchmaan]

..and you enjoy your life as a racist asshat.

Re:Slippery Slope

[Raenex]

As a realist not in denial, I will.

Re:Slippery Slope

[Dutchmaan]

"realist"... interesting how come every time someone calls themselves a "realist" it's to justify something negative... again.. "racist asshat".

Re:Slippery Slope

[Raenex]

Interesting how your only response to serious and real problems is "racist" and "asshat".

Re:Slippery Slope

[Dutchmaan]

"serious and real problems" yeah.. so glad that you can take responsibility for every crime committed by someone of your race... apparently YOU are a very real a serious problem that needs to be dealt with because people of your race commit crimes.

Re:Slippery Slope

[Raenex]

Apparently you are immune to statistics. You'll let your country be invaded by immigration, turned into a 3rd world shithole, and probably live under some for of Sharia law, but at least you won't be "racist".

Re:Slippery Slope

[Dutchmaan]

Apparently you are immune to humanity. I don't have to worry about cowering under my bed waiting for some imaginary "invasion" where I'm going to be "forced to live under Sharia Law" - I know plenty of Muslims and not one has tried to convert me in ANY way.. most are very nice people, right here in the good old USA... but hey.. feel free to live in fear - I'm sure you have a gun to go cling to.

Re:Slippery Slope

[Raenex]

Sweden embraced "humanity" and allowed a virtual invasion through immigration and turned their country into a shithole, but hey, you know a few Muslims, and they're cool. We'll just brush aside the ugly facts as "hate speech".

Re:Slippery Slope

[Dutchmaan]

However you want to roll chicken little... Shouldn't you be hiding under your bed about now, or are you late for your KKK/Trump rally?

Re:Slippery Slope

[Raenex]

Whatever you say, useful idiot. Here, have a another link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:Slippery Slope

[Dutchmaan]

...well since this has basically devolved into sticking tongues out at one another... have a nice day and go #$%^ yourself.

Re:Slippery Slope

[Raenex]

You too. Here, have another link that you can bury your head in the sand from:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...

Re:Slippery Slope

[Dutchmaan]

Again, you can go join them! Because you're JUST LIKE THEM...

Re:Slippery Slope

[Raenex]

I'm "JUST LIKE THEM"? Sorry, I'm not a migrant from Africa or the Middle East, I was born in my country, and I can't name an incident where I or anybody like me was part of a mob of 30 people chasing teenage girls around a fucking mall.

Here, have another link, useful idiot: http://www.breitbart.com/londo...

Re:Slippery Slope

[Dutchmaan]

"I'm "JUST LIKE THEM"? Sorry, I'm not a migrant from Africa or the Middle East" but you ARE a racist belligerent asshat.. so yeah.. you're JUST LIKE THEM.

Re:Slippery Slope

[Raenex]

That's why you're a useful idiot. Rather than address reality, you fall back to calling somebody racist when they point out real problems and resort to false equivalences. I'm guessing those girls that were chased around the mall would have a different opinion of your "JUST LIKE THEM" assessment.

Here, have another link, useful idiot: http://www.breitbart.com/londo...

And who decides what hate speech is?

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently, "I don't want criminals running around assulting women" is hate speech. Screw you Cuckerberg.

Re:And who decides what hate speech is?

[Anonymous Coward]

Some of the women that have been raped have apologized, so they obviously disagree with you. They recognize that the rape was the fault of society and not the victims that committed it.

Re:And who decides what hate speech is?

[Anonymous Coward]

Meanwhile, in Islamic countries, if you're an atheist, you're lucky you don't get stoned.

But in Europe, we're inviting millions of Islamics, and counter to a thousand years of History and common sense, we expect 3rd world people to become 1st worlders overnight and have our values.... and our birthrate is low low low (around 1.1 or less, historical replacement rate was 4 babies) and theirs is high.

Only "hate speechers" see the writing on the wall. Everyone is living a fantasy expecting these peopel to actually firm the foundation for the pyramid scheme that is our social security system....

Re:And who decides what hate speech is?

[Etcetera]

.... and our birthrate is low low low (around 1.1 or less, historical replacement rate was 4 babies) and theirs is high.

Historic, yes. Modern replacement rate for a society with generally first-world medical access (including those who've emigrated to such a country) would be ~2.1.

Modern (native) European birth rates are around 1.4-1.7, depending on the country. If you want to see a country that's probably already in the death spiral, take a look at Japan. (Also, read any of Mark Steyn's books for more.)

Re:And who decides what hate speech is?

[Anonymous Coward]

Some of the women that have been raped have apologized, so they obviously disagree with you. They recognize that the rape was the fault of society and not the victims that committed it.

9 out of 10 Women Raped by Muslims eventually understand that it was in fact their own fault that they were Raped because they were white and not wearing burkas.

They also learn to be grateful that they were only raped and not stoned as they should have been.

The remaining 1 out of 10 women are the ungrateful 9 year old wives of the rapists, who having only recently been sold into slavery by their Muslim parents aren't yet fully hip to the rules and their righteousness.

Re:And who decides what hate speech is?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup, you are a 'hate speecher' if you call it writing on the wall, because your premise is based on the fact that Muslims are inferior to white people. Why else would you be so worried about them *gasp* having children and getting jobs in the west.

Muslims ARE inferior to RATIONAL people of any ethnicity, as are people of any religion. Do you dispute that?

Re:And who decides what hate speech is?

[Etcetera]

I see no death spiral in Japan. They're adapting, in the way only a society with strong cohesion can.

They're adapting by inventing robots to do everything, but eventually the social safety net will have to give way. The trend is getting worse to, to the point that the birth rate might actually drop below 1.0, which is basically unheard of in any society that expects to still exist in 50 years.

Russia bad, but not anywhere near that. At this rate, China won't have to conquer the lands on either side of it, it'll just waltz over and settle the unoccupied space.

Re:And who decides what hate speech is?

[Applehu Akbar]

Some of the women that have been raped have apologized, so they obviously disagree with you. They recognize that the rape was the fault of society and not the victims that committed it.

This, succinctly, is the fundamental difference between the European and American worldviews.

Re:And who decides what hate speech is?

[basecastula]

But in WESTERN Europe, we're inviting millions of Islamics, and counter to a thousand years of History and common sense, we expect 3rd world people to become 1st worlders overnight and have our values.... and our birthrate is low low low (around 1.1 or less, historical replacement rate was 4 babies) and theirs is high.

FTFY. I'm Hungarian you insensitive clod! At least my current government isn't merrily going along with the NWO drum beat.

Wow. The crazies really have come out on this story. I would love a little breakdown of all the anonymous cowards who post on stories compared to the signed in, usually rational folk.

Re:And who decides what hate speech is?

[Jack Griffin]

I've noticed a pattern lately, AC's with provocative trolling getting modded up and drowning out the rational discussion.
New owners take note, this needs addressing.

Re:And who decides what hate speech is?

[ChrisMaple]

Some of the women that have been raped have apologized, so they obviously disagree with you. They recognize that the rape was the fault of society and not the victims that committed it

I see three possibilities here:

• You're lying
• They were apologizing under duress
• There's something analogous to the Stockholm Syndrome going on here.

There is never any valid justification for rape. Never.

Re:And who decides what hate speech is?

[ChrisMaple]

A religion that encourages murder is inferior in that regard to a religion that does not encourage murder. Islam encourages murder.

Re:And who decides what hate speech is?

[ChrisMaple]

We're talking about now, rather than the most egregious historical examples. Your context dropping is dishonest.

Zuck - Another Hypocritcal Genocidalist

[BECoole]

Even the UN recognizes that what Zuckerberg is trying to sell is the genocide of Europe (Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide).

He's just another condescending Pharisee screwing the people while trying to look morally superior.

The revolution will not be televised

[SuperKendall]

Canceled because our Facebook group was deleted.

translation: will obey the law, will censor

[sittingnut]

wonder if he knows that, if one obeys the law in one country, and not obey the law in another, when one is doing business with both, one are engaging in a version of racist discrimination.
one either stand up for universal principles regardless of law, until one is forced , or one obey at will and renounce any notion of universal rights.
   

The SJW definition, not actual hate speech.

[sethstorm]

Given that he supports hate of all things that aren't politically correct, wouldn't that make Zuckerberg the bigot?

We know what this really means

[PapayaSF]

If you say: "Kill gays," it's hate speech, granted. But if you say: "It's a bad idea to let millions of Muslims into Europe, because their holy book instructs them to kill gays," somehow that is "hate speech" against Muslims. Even more idiotically, it's considered "racism" even though Islam is a religion and not a race.

The crackdown on "incorrect" thoughts is reaching absurdities. Criticize feminism on Twitter, and you'll get banned. They'll even suppress the protest hashtag #FreeStacy by disabling autocomplete for it. But somehow the hashtag #KillAllWhiteMen is nothing for the "Trust and Safety Council" to be concerned about.

A 15-year-old student in the UK visited the UKIP website in class. His teachers then reported him to the police, who interrogated him for hours.

If that isn't enough to frighten you, here's some research about how easily Google could game elections by skewing search results in favor of one candidate or another, and how Facebook could do the same with targeted ads and by deciding what shows up on your wall. And the leadership of both companies are Hillary fans. That doesn't mean that they'll do it, but they have the motive, means, and opportunity to do so. And how would we know if they had?

Re:We know what this really means

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't change the subject to "but-but-but muh christians!"

Re:We know what this really means

[walterbyrd]

> If you say: "Kill gays," it's hate speech

If a Muslim says: "Kill gays" is that hate speech?

Re:We know what this really means

[PapayaSF]

> If you say: "Kill gays," it's hate speech

If a Muslim says: "Kill gays" is that hate speech?

Apparently not in England or Norway.

Re:We know what this really means

[PapayaSF]

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)....

Re:We know what this really means

[basecastula]

Thank $diety, the younger generation of Americans brought up in a Muslim have a more balanced view of their religion. As time goes on, I think the context you brought up will be realized.

Re:We know what this really means

[PapayaSF]

Thank $diety, the younger generation of Americans brought up in a Muslim have a more balanced view of their religion.

One hopes, but the opposite seems to have happened in France, for example. The Muslims who immigrated in the '50s and '60s caused few problems, AFAIK. It's their grandkids who are burning cars and supporting ISIS. Assimilation there is not working as it's supposed to.

Re:We know what this really means

[DocHoncho]

No, they're People of Color and are therefore exempt.

Re:We know what this really means

[Anonymous Coward]

I am french. And what you say about this generation difference is generally true.
My opinion is that their parents immigrate to France willfully and from a colony where they had began to adopt french behavior at a time where secularism was strong. On the opposite, these young muslims haven't chosen France. Also Saudi Arabia or Qatar are playing now a very wrong role in spreading their salafism.

An hint about why integration is working in reverse: there is this verse about tribes in the Quran. Tribes are forbidden and the muslim is only considered part of the Umma. This verse is interpreted against nationalism as well (Franks is a tribe, German is a tribe, English is a tribe etc). Integration is adopting the behavior of a tribe; also for people of arabic origin, it is losing the ability to speak the "holy" arabic language . So integration is forbidden. There are even some leftists here in France that argue that integration is a crime against humanity ("destroying a culture").

Re:We know what this really means

[Jack Griffin]

If that isn't enough to frighten you

Be afraid! What are you, Fox News?

Re:We know what this really means

[walterbyrd]

Quran

Quran (7:80-84) - "...For ye practice your lusts on men in preference to women: ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds.... And we rained down on them a shower (of brimstone)" - An account that is borrowed from the Biblical story of Sodom. Muslim scholars through the centuries have interpreted the "rain of stones" on the town as meaning that homosexuals should be stoned, since no other reason is given for the people's destruction. (The story is also repeated in suras 27 and29).

Quran (7:81) - "Will ye commit abomination such as no creature ever did before you?" This verse is part of the previous text and it establishes that homosexuality as different from (and much worse than) adultery or other sexual sin. According to the Arabic grammar, homosexuality is called the worst sin, while references elsewhere describe other forms of non-marital sex as being "among great sins."

Quran (26:165-166) - "Of all the creatures in the world, will ye approach males, "And leave those whom Allah has created for you to be your mates? Nay, ye are a people transgressing"

Quran (4:16) - "If two men among you are guilty of lewdness, punish them both. If they repent and amend, Leave them alone" This is the Yusuf Ali translation. The original Arabic does not use the word "men" and simply says "two from among you." Yusuf Ali may have added the word "men" because the verse seems to refer to a different set than referred to in the prior verse (explicitly denoted as "your women"). In other words, since 4:15 refers to "your women", 4:16 is presumably written to and refers to men.

Interestingly, the same rules don't seem to apply in paradise, where martyrs for the cause of Allah enjoy an orgy of virgins and "perpetual youth" Quran (56:17) (otherwise known as "boys" Quran (52:24)). Quran (76:19) bluntly states, "And immortal boys will circulate among them, when you see them you will count them as scattered pearls." Technically, the mere presence of boys doesn't necessarily mean sex, however it is strongly implied from the particular emphasis on the effeminacy, handsomeness and "freshness" of the boys. The female virgins of paradise are also compared to pearls (56:23).

Re:We know what this really means

[PapayaSF]

lol.. what a load of crock. You are an obvious Muslim hater..

I've read books on Islam, both pro and con. Have you? I'd like to know exactly what's a "crock" about anything I wrote.

Re:We know what this really means

[Bing Tsher E]

it is losing the ability to speak the "holy" arabic language .

The irony here is that arabic language speakers are a 'tribe' in this context.

Re:We know what this really means

[PapayaSF]

And yet, you have not provided any evidence to contradict anything I wrote. Just a bunch of comically simplistic blather. Try to get beyond the generalization "you're wrong" and use some proof next time.

Re:We know what this really means

[dywolf]

Yeah...no.
all you did was prove that you are very unfamiliar with BOTH books and with each religions theological teachings of the books.

Re:We know what this really means

[dywolf]

by Ann Coulter i'll wager.

Re:We know what this really means

[PapayaSF]

Yeah...no. all you did was prove that you are very unfamiliar with BOTH books and with each religions theological teachings of the books.

And yet, nobody in this thread has presented any evidence regarding a single, specific error I have made. Just a bunch of handwaving about how wrong I am. Your argument would be more convincing with some evidence.

I'm gay and AGAINST stupid hate speech laws

[Anonymous Coward]

Hate speech laws are used to persecute those the government doesn't like. Censorship is wrong. I might not like what someone has to say- but as long as its not physical actions upon me- that is violence- it is there right just as it is my right to say nasty things in return..

Words don't hurt people. Violence hurts people. I'm all for arresting people for harming others- physically- or through fraud- etc. But hate should never be part of the equation. Either in arresting someone or in sentencing them.

I'm against violence both by the government and the people and we don't solve this problem by utilizing violence until violence is actually used.

Hate inducing headlines

[Anonymous Coward]

Six months suspended: first verdict in Cologne NYE trials

The first man found guilty in connection with the crime wave in Cologne on New Year’s Eve has been given a six-month suspended sentence and a €100 fine.

The trials will be the first step towards achieving justice for more than 1,000 people who reported crimes in and around the western cathedral city's main train station on New Year's Eve.

But none of the men is charged with sexual assault – the key feature of the night which made it a lightning rod for fears about migration all over Germany, Europe and the world.

Women reported being surrounded, groped and threatened by large groups of men of north African and Middle Eastern appearance.

Among the more than 1,000 crime reports dealing with that night, more than 430 deal with sexual assault – up to and including rape.

Re:Hate inducing headlines

[StillAnonymous]

Anyone who thinks that there will be some semblance of "justice" from any of these kangaroo courts is dreaming.

It has gotten pretty blatant: If you're a local, if you're white, you will feel the full wrath of the government. If you're a minority, especially a new immigrant, you can do whatever you want with near impunity.

Yet, amazingly, people are baffled as to why there's backlash against the immigrants and the government by the locals. They're totally perplexed.

One would almost think the government's goal here is some sort of violent uprising among the people. To what end? Maybe so they could get away with a complete crackdown on freedoms in order to control the populace. In that case, guess what 'fugees? You're being used as pawns in this evil game.

Is criticism of immigration policies "hate?"

[walterbyrd]

Is it possible that some Germans have legitimate complaints?

Please watch this video:

Stunning video of crime in Berlin today
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9V96TPmAr8

Re:Why do you have to be a Neo-Nazi sympathizer...

[ITRambo]

It took centuries before the pope finally called Christians to arms. Yes, Muslims conquered Levant in the 7th century. But, damn, taking over 300 years to begin the action to free Jerusalem, was mighty slow. Even then, news took weeks or months, not hundreds of years to travel..

Re:Western schism

[phantomfive]

Nah, it's been this way since at least the founding of the United States. Those with power want to suppress those who don't have it. For an example, look at the US Alien and Sedition acts of the 1700s.

That's why we have the first amendment: the founders knew that freedom of speech is something that gets suppressed (because it is so powerful).

Do Germans remember censorship imposed by Nazis?

[walterbyrd]

This is not Germany's first rodeo when it comes to government imposed censorship.

I remember an a Nazi propaganda clip where smart young guy explains to an old dump guy why it is best to have the government decide what they can, and cannot, listen to on the radio.

History repeating?

Political correctness

[Anonymous Coward]

Has already created a special class of people that the police can't even do anything against anymore. Police end up protecting rapists that kidnap and use 12-year old girls as sex slaves. As a result more of this special class of people become criminals. The main proponent of political correctness is feminism. So we can thank feminism for creating a real rape culture, unlike the fantasy one they lie about.

Re:Political correctness

[Anonymous Coward]

And this right here, ladies and gentlemen, is the definition of a Chump. Good job, mate, you've earned your SJW pat on the head for the week :)

It's allready defined

[unami]

"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.

Re:ROME

[Anonymous Coward]

The Decline of the West written pre-WWI has been scarily accurate in its predictions and is an interest view of world histories and cultures. It is the book that Asimov's Foundation Trilogy was based.

The fall of Empire, gentlemen, is a massive thing, however, and not easily fought. It is dictated by a rising bureaucracy, a receding initiative, a freezing of caste, a damming of curiosity—a hundred other factors. It has been going on, as I have said, for centuries, and it is too majestic and massive a movement to stop.

Needs a facebook.gr

[l0n3s0m3phr34k]

To satisfy everyone, Zuckerberg should spin off a facebook.gr for Germany only. Applying German law to everyone on the planet hasn't worked out very well in the past, and won't work out to well this time either. No matter what his goal is, how soon will it be before US citizens who are violating Germany hate speech laws are censored? Are these "100 German employees" he's hiring going to geolocate each user before removing posts / banning users / notifying German authorities? What kind of precedent will this set, will Facebook find itself being dragged into courts in Myanmar for posts that disparaged their king? Will they have execution warrants against their employees if they don't censor pro-Israeli posts for the Saudi government?

TFA: "Prosecuters in Hamburg have opened a lawsuit against Facebook’s Northern, Central, and Eastern Europe managing director, Martin Ott". If I was Jonathan Labin (FB's managing director for the Middle East), I'd be worried that I'm next.

those laws define hate speech

[aepervius]

Summarizing : calling to violence against a volk in general e.g. "I hate all jew and they should be killed" is hate speech. Google Volksverhetzung for example. Another example is to "libel", if it is the correct term, a volk and/or spreading falsehood. E.g. gas chamber never existed, e.g. jew are drinking blood of christian babies. Now you may not like such laws, but I would like to remind that they were imposed by allies after WW2, and never removed. But yes hate speech is pretty much defined. See parapgraph 130 federal german law.

Free Speech vs Hate Speech

[7-Vodka]

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.

Re:Free Speech vs Hate Speech

[dywolf]

don't want to be accused of hate speech?
then don't use it.

examples:
calling them "invaders" IS hate speech.
falsely indicating that its mostly "uneducated and extremist fighting age men swarming into Germany" is also hate speech.
calling it "criminality and incompatible culture" is hate speech.
"soak up free benefits while Germany goes bankrupt" is hate speech.
saying they're gonna rape everyone is also, you guessed it, hate speech.

the idea of unpopular speech needing protection refers primarily to the market of ideas, particularly around political and philosophical thought.
hate speech doesn't really qualify at the same level of intellectual thought.
why? because along with our valuation of free speech we also implicitly value equality.
hate speech adds nothing of value to a discussion, and in fact only seeks to undercut that equality and ultimately deprive another of their equality.
in the end saying we must value allow hate speech is little different from saying that in the name of tolerance we must tolerate intolerance, which is rubbish.

Why now?

[qbast]

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

Re:Why now?

[rxmd]

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

Let's put some of that right:

• the main problem on New Year's Eve in Cologne was (a) inadequate policing near the cathedral where the assaults happened, and (b) that the police tried to cover this up in their initial report. Cologne police already has a bad reputation for cover-ups and various incidents, there have been calls for police reform in Cologne for a while now.
• as for the "media being silent for a week": New Year's Eve was a Thursday; Friday January 1 was a public holiday, followed by a weekend, so that most media outlets were severely understaffed and initially relied on the police reports. Cologne itself has two local newspapers: Kölner Express and Kölner Stadtanzeiger. "Express" is a tabloid and initially copied the police report. "Stadtanzeiger" had detailed coverage on the events in their first issue after the events, on Saturday January 2. As soon as it became clear that the police report was untrustworthy, other media got up to speed, and their issues of Monday and Tuesday January 4-5 (three to four days after the facts) were full of reports. Now that is still a long time, but not "silent for a week" and clearly not silenced from above.
• after that, mainstream media were full of op-eds and detailed pieces analyzing how it could happen that this was reported so late (again, 3-4 days), with lots of self-criticism (that you seem to to have read, chosen to ignore, or chosen not to believe).
• there are a lot of conspiracy theorists around who believe that the media "are controlled from above", are "silenced" etc.. These people have a strangely linear, vertical, and antiquated understanding of how German redactions work. These people are also stuck in the 1990s in that they completely ignore the boom of media outlets that has happened with the appearance of social media in general. It is now next to impossible to completely silence the media on any issue, because iany single person who were to be silenced and disagrees about it, immediately has lots of other outlets. The price for that is that on those outlets there is a bad signal/noise ratio and a lot of shit floating around (so reputation does matter).
• we are in a situation in Germany now where right-wing hate crimes (physical attacks up to murder and arson) are on the rise and are outnumbering other ideologically motivated crime, including left-wing and religious extremists, by a wide margin. This is in spite of the tendency of police and conservative politicians to be "blind on the right eye" - left-wing crime historically gets persecuted more extensively in Germany because of the history of left-wing terrorism of the 1970s. We have a major neo-Nazi problem in Germany now that is coming from below, and mostly (but not exclusively) from the east.
• as an expresson of this trend towards the right, German Facebook in particular has become full a lot of right-wing sentiment that sometimes takes very ugly expressions. It's not only "concerned citizens", some of these people are actually stating

Re:Why now?

[walterbyrd]

US troops are not there to rob, or rape. What is there to rob in the worthless country of Afghanistan?

The US is there to help the Afghanistan people defend themselves against the terrorist Taliban.

Re:Why now?

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? The problem with the (undisputed in your reply) fact that "hordes of immigrants sexually assaulted German women in Cologne and other cities" is inadequate policing? The problem isn't the sexual assault? Admittedly the police were pretty rubbish and disingenuous, but so was that aspect of the your claim to correct the parent.

Re:Why now?

[ChrisMaple]

Citations provided
http://www.examiner.com/article/twitter-fury-after-1-000-muslims-rape-sexually-attack-women-cologne-germany
http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/01/06/stories-on-cologne-assaults-face-censorship-on-reddit
http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/01/its-not-only-germany-that-covers-up-mass-sex-attacks-by-migrant-men-swedens-record-is-shameful/
http://newobserveronline.com/media-conspiracy-over-cologne-mass-sex-attack/
Four of the first five results from google search ---- censorship cologne | koln muslim attacks

Re:Why do you have to be a Neo-Nazi sympathizer...

[Anonymous Coward]

It didn't take centuries to call Christians to arms. The Christians have been constantly fighting Muslim invaders, but they were on the losing side for many centuries. Spain was completely Muslim, France was on its way to become Muslim too if it weren't for a lucky victory of Charles Martel. Italy was invaded, Rome was sacked. The Southern tip of Italy and Sicilia was Muslim territory for a few centuries. Italy was only made Muslim free in the 11th century, and only after the Muslims were kicked out of Italy, the crusades to the east started.

The Pope would really never call for a crusade to Levant when Rome was sacked. He would also not call for a crusade to Levant when North Western Europe is still fighting off their own Muslim invasions. He would also not call for a crusade to Levant when an important part of Italy is still a caliphate.

By thy way, the Muslims never stopped attacking European countries. They have been invading until the 18th/19th century. Even the US of A was attacked by Muslim pirates. It was just the collapse of the once mighty empire of the Ottomans that ended Islamic aspirations on European land. But slowly they are rebuilding their ideology. IS is just a symptom of a larger sentiment that Islam should rule the world.

What bothers me a lot is that the current political correct think that moderate Islam is the biggest enemy for radical Islam. But for 1400 years the vast majority of Muslims have been moderate. Yet radical Islam has been fighting, invading, killing, terrorizing people for 1400 years. If moderate Islam was really the weapon against radicalization, than their wouldn't have been radical Islam anymore.
 
Radical Christianity was countered by radical anti Christianity. The use of free speech to criticize the Christianity made way for the current left political elite. But this left political elite is now restricting free speech to protect radical Islam. They keep on calling everyone who doesn't agree with importing lots of people racist and xenophobe, until those who do not agree just accept that they are racist and side with the real racist, fascist right wing parties. Extreme political correctness leads to reactionary extremism. Free speech also includes the right to feel insulted, but not the right to physically hurt someone who insulted you. Because Muslims don't respect this type of Free speech, many artists are self censoring. Those who dare to criticize Islam through some form of art will have problems with radical Muslims (just look at the many examples in the last decades).
 

Re:Facebook will continue to be a platform for rac

[WaffleMonster]

His response to people scrawling "All Lives Matter" was "All Opinions Matter". Facebook isn't interested in taking a stand on racism, in USA, Germany, or anywhere.

Nor should they.

--
https://technet.microsoft.com/...

Laugh

[koan]

What Zuckerberg calls "hate speech" the real World calls valid concerns.

It's the fault of you idiots using Facebook that Zuckerberg has the ability to say, or do any of things he does.

If you use Facebook, fuck you.

Re:Hate speech is protected

[walterbyrd]

I don't think so.

It should be, but it's not.

Re:Do Germans remember censorship imposed by Nazis

[Boronx]

Yes, they remember. German censorship is aimed at suppressing Nazi-like hate groups and has been around since the end of the war. At least those laws should be useful in breaking up Islamic hate groups, too.

This is not history repeating. There was no glorious period of free speech in Germany that's now coming to an end.

Re:Would Zuckerberg let wife walk alone in Cologne

[Boronx]

Remember Buchenwald? Auschwitz? Maybe the refugees should expel the Germans. Or ... maybe a whole group isn't to blame for the actions of a few.

Volksverhetzung Hate Speech

[Crass Spektakel]

Hate Speech or Fighting Words is pretty much only limiting which words are "allowed" and which not. These concepts are not limiting what objectives are legal. In other words, "all bug ridden carriers of funny bears must be killed cruelsome" is NOT legal but "carriers of funny beards must be silenced" is legal under these concepts.

"Volksverhetzung" is a much broader definition because is also takes into consideration deeper motivations. Under these concepts it would be illegal to say "carriers of funny beards must be silenced" when it is obvious that "silenced" means "killed". Also proveless accussations would be illegal eg "all carrier of funny beards eat little children". You are still legal to say "carriers of funny beards eat 5% more children than others and this should be handled accordingly by law". Well at least if carriers of funny beards really eat 5% more children.

Re:Resources

[Barsteward]

when your country does not produce its own rapists/murderers etc then you can throw stones.

Re:Do Germans remember censorship imposed by Nazis

[walterbyrd]

> German censorship is aimed at suppressing Nazi-like hate groups and has been around since the end of the war. At least those laws should be useful in breaking up Islamic hate groups, too.

"Censorship is for the public's own good!" That is exactly what the Nazis said. "You are too stupid to know what opinions to listen to, let the government decide for you." Right out of Goebbels' playbook.

This is most certainly history repeating.

This is nothing but a government cover up.

[walterbyrd]

The German government does not want any discussion about their horrible mistake to take in so many Syrian refugees.

Under the guise of eliminating "hate speech" the German government has pressured social media to censor real information, and real discussion.

MOD PARENT UP!

[walterbyrd]

Exactly when you want to stop the dissemination of real information, or squash civil opinions, or prevent real discussions, you do so under the guise of preventing hate speech.

Re:Should someone define what hate speech is?

[walterbyrd]

"Hate speech" is a term used by lying governments, to cover their own ass.

When you want to stop the dissemination of real information, or squash civil opinions, or prevent real discussions, you do so under the guise of preventing hate speech.

Re:Resources

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong. The correct answer is: The country already has enough criminals and problems as it is, to willingly import more would be stupidity.

Re:Resources

[Barsteward]

no, its correct which ever way you look at it. when you own society is whiter than white (in the law abiding sense) then you can throw stones. the Solution provided that i responded to basically said that all immigrants from a particular culture(s) were all rapists.

Re:Would Zuckerberg let wife walk alone in Cologne

[StillAnonymous]

So we can expect to see you at the next pro-gun rally then? Guns themselves aren't a problem, just a small handful of people who misuse them are. I'm sure we can count on you to tell the rest of these lunatic gun-grabbers who would violate the 2nd amendment that the whole group isn't to blame for the actions of a few, right?

confirm to [the law] ...

[RockDoctor]

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.

One assumes that the alternative would have been being banned from maintaining any accounts for anyone who listed an address in Germany.

Would that have been over much of a loss? Including to the Germans and German residents?

Re:Resources

[MoarSauce123]

Cultures that encourage raping? Look at the places in the US where rape and teen pregnancy are highest: Alaska and all the of so Christian states in the Bible Belt.

Peace

[backwardsposter]

I find one of the most dangerous things about this situation (as I realized from reading another poster) is the fight against assimilation. This creates a divide (e.g. home preservation by one side and championed rights by the other! it's tempting to use ad hominem attacks here like 'racist'). The stronger a divide, the less likely peace is.

It all comes down to peace or pride. And pride is winning these days although it goes by many other words...