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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[Boronx]

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

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

[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

[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

[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]

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

[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

[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]

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

[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

[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.

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?

[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?

[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.

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

[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

[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

[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.

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.

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.

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 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: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.