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

[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

[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]

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

[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.

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]

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....

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]

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)....

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 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).