Munich Court To Try Facebook's Zuckerberg For Inciting Hatred (dw.com)

schadenfreude is German too by avandesande · 2016-11-04 11:25 · Score: 5, Insightful

Fun watching the SJWs eating their own.....

--
love is just extroverted narcissism

Re:schadenfreude is German too by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-04 13:59 · Score: 1

German hate speech laws (which are there for a reason)
Auschwitz was also there for a reason.
The cure for repression is not more repression.
Re: schadenfreude is German too by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-04 15:29 · Score: 1

It's the one argument they never seem to address, ever.

Might be because any time this discussion comes up, it is met with the "OMG OMG BIGBROTHER" hysteria reaction. Of course, the same applies to discussion of gun control, health insurance, refugees, climate change, banking reform, and whatever the latest thing the right-wing is having vapors over.
It's really hard to hear the other side when you start screaming that the end is nigh.
Re: schadenfreude is German too by hackwrench · 2016-11-04 16:07 · Score: 1

Not the "OMG OMG BIGBROTHER" hysteria reaction. https://www.youtube.com/result...
Re:schadenfreude is German too by SvnLyrBrto · 2016-11-04 16:58 · Score: 1

You could just try ignoring them. Seriously, don't bother engaging them and go about living your life. You'll save yourself some stress, and you'll avoid validating them.
It's funny how trends come in waves. This has all happened before, and no doubt it'll happen again. Now, the detractors call it "SJW". I don't know what they call themselves. But in the 1990s, it was the exact thing, only we all called it "political correctness". And you know what? The 1990s college kids eventually graduated, found out that the BS doesn't fly in the real-world workplace, and grew the fuck up. The "SJW" people will eventually do the same thing, everyone will forget about it the same way we've already forgotten about emo (Ha! Made you remember. I bet it's been years.), and in another two decades it'll be back with another new name. And boy, are the 1990s back in force. JNCOs are back. Kikwear is in business again. Raves are happening again. Nine Inch Nails played in San Francisco recently. And I swear to the gods... I saw a group of kids in the mall today who looked exact-fracking-ly like a garage ska band from when I was in high school.

--
Imagine all the people...
Re:schadenfreude is German too by ArmoredDragon · 2016-11-04 18:17 · Score: 2

Nazis get repressed because they're violent antisocial cunts. Deal with it.
So just to be safe, we have to censor all speech that can in any way be interpreted as nazism, instead of just letting the person ruin their own credibility. Fine people these Germans are.
It's no wonder the US issued a stark warning about Germany:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Re:schadenfreude is German too by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-04 20:49 · Score: 1

So I guess drunk driving is all fine and dandy as long as no one gets hit?
Re:schadenfreude is German too by serviscope_minor · 2016-11-04 22:15 · Score: 2

But in the 1990s, it was the exact thing, only we all called it "political correctness". And you know what? The 1990s college kids eventually graduated, found out that the BS doesn't fly in the real-world workplace, and grew the fuck up.
Except it didn't happen how you think it happened. An awful lot of stuff that people dismissed as "PC rubbish" has become part of the culture. For example homophobic slurs were common in the 90s, and pretty socially acceptable and the people speaking out against were dismissed as PC. What happened is they graduated, went to work and changed the culture making the old bigots get a clue.
It's not just homophobia either. I've not personally heard "paki" being used in the wild for well over a decade now. Etc etc etc.
So if "SJW" follows the same course as PC, some of it will disappear but the rest will stick and no one will think it's bad except a few raging bigots.

--
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Re:schadenfreude is German too by MoarSauce123 · 2016-11-04 23:30 · Score: 1

OK, then give the police department unrestricted access to the Facebook servers so that they can effectively enforce the law. Still think that is the way to go?
Re:schadenfreude is German too by MoarSauce123 · 2016-11-04 23:32 · Score: 1

Schadenfreude means to draw satisfaction from others misery.
Re:schadenfreude is German too by yuriklastalov · 2016-11-05 02:16 · Score: 1

First they came for our racial slurs, but I said nothing because I wasn't a racist.
Then they came for our anti-women slurs, but I said nothing because I wasn't a misogynist.
Then they came for our sexual orientation slurs, but I said nothing because I wasn't a homophobe.
Then they came for me, and I called them a my friends because there weren't any other words left.
Re:schadenfreude is German too by yuriklastalov · 2016-11-05 02:22 · Score: 1

Yes, whatever it takes! Won't somebody save us from this terrible free speech? These... people on the internet have ugly opinions, it's a travesty! They must be stopped!
Re: schadenfreude is German too by KingBenny · 2016-11-12 01:37 · Score: 1

thats right mah man, whatever you say there's always someone who will take offense, too many puppies, not enough mics
its pure neo-censorship in the name of terrerizms and nothing less (but its also a nice way to get billions for raison d'état ... maybe i should be careful what im saying here .ulz)

--
Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?

Oh Germany... by TiggertheMad · 2016-11-04 11:32 · Score: 4, Interesting

The fact that that Zuckerberg is Jewish makes the fact that he is being named in a German lawsuit about hate speech an holocaust denial particularly deliciously ironic.

--

HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!

Re:Oh Germany... by rmdingler · 2016-11-04 11:44 · Score: 5, Insightful

The fact that that Zuckerberg is Jewish makes the fact that he is being named in a German lawsuit about hate speech an holocaust denial particularly deliciously ironic.
Yes. Likewise, it is rather devilishly clever how fast freedom of speech can be called into question when it is renamed Hate. After all, hate is in the eye of the beholder, and everyone has the right to be offended. Too.
Christ, we are a mess.

--
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
Re:Oh Germany... by Jzanu+Syr · 2016-11-04 12:16 · Score: 1

His personal ancestry doesn't absolve him of fault for company operations contrary to German law. Facebook must comply in a timely manner not shift responsibility.
Re:Oh Germany... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-04 12:22 · Score: 2, Informative

The fact that that Zuckerberg is Jewish makes the fact that he is being named in a German lawsuit about hate speech an holocaust denial particularly deliciously ironic.
Yes. Likewise, it is rather devilishly clever how fast freedom of speech can be called into question when it is renamed Hate. After all, hate is in the eye of the beholder, and everyone has the right to be offended. Too.
Christ, we are a mess.
The correct response in most cases is to tell the offended person to grow up and get the fuck over it. Words don't really hurt you, only your own overreaction to them gives such power to whoever says them.
I personally accepted long ago that with several billion people in the world, I'm not going to like the opinions and beliefs of all of them. Also, plenty of them won't like my own thoughts. None of this gives me the right to censor anyone. Understanding that is part of growing up - so is understanding that any excuse for restricting freedom is very dangerous.
If you're going to have a criminal code, the punishment needs to be in proportion to the crime. If I say something that offends you, how long does it take for you to get over that (assuming you're immature and weak-willed enough that you got offended in the first place, instead of deciding to no longer listen to me)? A few minutes? A few hours maybe? In what way would this materially, measurably, objectively harm you? It wouldn't. Throwing someone in jail and placing large fines against them, just for this, is complete overkill. That's not remotely proportional.
Obviously I'm not talking about things like death threats, but in that case it's the threat of violence -- not the communication of unpopular/"offensive" ideas -- that causes it to be a crime. When it comes to Holocaust deniers, bigots, etc., I actually want them to speak up without fear of legal reprisal. I want them to openly identify themselves. That makes it much easier for me to choose never to associate with them. If I don't know who they are, this process takes more time and effort.
Free speech is for mature adult people who can deal with life. Censorship is for two types of people: 1. Overgrown children (often in adult bodies) who value fleeting emotional states more than their own precious freedoms, and, 2. Control freaks who love an excuse, any excuse, that "justifies" their desire to control what other people say and do. It really is that simple.
Re:Oh Germany... by ogdenk · 2016-11-04 12:51 · Score: 1

If it were me, I'd just shut down local operations in Germany, block '.de' and let the Nazis that believe in thought crime and want to suppress free speech stay in their safe space.
Re:Oh Germany... by ShanghaiBill · 2016-11-04 13:49 · Score: 1

If it were me, I'd just shut down local operations in Germany, block '.de'
It is not just Germany. Most European countries have laws against hate speech, and many specifically outlaw Holocaust denial.
Americans often assume that the free speech guarantees in our Constitution are the default, at least in Western countries. That is not true.
Re:Oh Germany... by ogdenk · 2016-11-04 14:50 · Score: 1

They aren't the default, and that's a problem. I'm not willing to have my rights online crippled to make overzealous douchebags across the sea feel better. Fuck'em.
Re:Oh Germany... by execthis · 2016-11-04 15:46 · Score: 1

Excellent response. Your points are not just rhetorically good ones, they are philosophically as well.
I'm still watching the video of the Hillary supporters who harassed, mocked, and abused the homeless woman in Hollywood who had been sitting there with a sign supporting Trump. Its so sickening that liberalism has been hijacked by the most disgusting sociopaths who represent that antithesis to actual liberal ideals.
Re: Oh Germany... by WaffleMonster · 2016-11-04 16:50 · Score: 1

If only it were limited to that. But it's not. The denial, the bigotry, leads to realization, to action, to results. Bullies don't bully just because it gives them an emotional thrill, though that is part of it. They do it because of the results it gets.
But thinking it is that simple is censorship in itself. At best, maybe you will grudgingly tolerate those with another opinion or perspective, but ultimately, you are refusing to recognize them which means if nothing else thay you must be censoring them in your own mind.
However, you think about that though, the real story is that if the people who would abuse truth and freedom are given free reign, they risk harming us all. At some point, there has to be a line.
I couldn't have summed it up any better myself. Exactly this kind of fear drives many feckless idiots such as yourself to believe censorship is cool.
They think if they don't "shut up" their opponents by means of leveraging their states monopoly on violence they will be doomed, Hitler will rise from his grave or consensus for a certain ideology you are diametrically opposed to will be forever lost to evil.
Freedom isn't free, you have a voice just like everyone else. If you give a shit you can work to bolster consensus for a different position than those you "hate" (e.g. think should to be silenced by means of violence).
People like you just want to be lazy and suck off the teet of your countries legitimacy rather than put up and fight for the ideas you believe in. Your pathetic.
Re:Oh Germany... by Mashiki · 2016-11-04 18:58 · Score: 1

Better watch out, there's plenty of screwballs here on /. that believe that your rights should be restricted or suspended because it hurts their feelings. Maybe you can join myself and others in the "defense of speech equals Fascism camp."

--
Om, nomnomnom...
Re:Oh Germany... by mvdwege · 2016-11-04 21:52 · Score: 1

Words don't really hurt you, only your own overreaction to them gives such power to whoever says them.

That's exactly what the German-Jewish middle class thought in the Weimar Republic. How many of them survived?
When you grow up and move out of your parents' basement, you may find out that life is a tad more complex than you think.

--
"I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
Re:Oh Germany... by CanEHdian · 2016-11-05 01:53 · Score: 1

Christ, we are a mess.
If only people could be convinced to leave religion completely out of this. The world is either supported on the backs of four elephants, themselves resting on the back of a turtle, OR it is being held up for eternity by the deity Atlas. So the Elephantians, asking the Atlassians what happens when Atlas needs to pee or gets itchy on his back, are subject to "hate speech" charges? I don't know about you, but for me it's impossible to take either Atlassians or Elephantians seriously, and the harder they try to convince, the louder the laughing gets. Because you don't have to go to LEO (though it helps) to know the Earth can be approximated to be an oblate spheroid, which you can circumvent. No Atlas, No Turtles. So what will people say in the year 2250? Laugh at us like we laugh at the Atlassians?
It takes Great Men^H^H^H Persons of Science to know the Earth moves in a straight line, with the curvature of space-time causing it to orbit the Sun. This insight takes time to develop and Eureka moments. But yes, Earth orbits the Sun, not the other way around. Another example of a Ridiculous Article Of Faith, Perfectly Fine To Make Fun Of. But if you were in front of the Spanish Inquisition at the time, you'd think twice about saying it.
Come to think of it, the similarities between the PC/SJW crowd/by extension the Munich Court and the Spanish Inquisition are striking!

--
When the copyright term is "forever minus a day", live every day like it's the last.
Re:Oh Germany... by rmdingler · 2016-11-05 02:20 · Score: 1

If we take care that the spread of scientific progress continues in this incredible age of free information, the dilution of religious influence will continue.
If we revert suddenly to dark times and dictatorships, whether due to technology's backfiring, natural disaster, or a geopolitical shift, we will once again embrace the narcotic of superstition.
*Swearing in religious terms or foreign languages is not intended to be considered an endorsement of either. Christ!

--
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
Re:Oh Germany... by drsquare · 2016-11-05 03:08 · Score: 1

Fine, just don't ever do business outside of the US, which is the only country in the world with an innate right to free speech.
Re:Oh Germany... by ogdenk · 2016-11-07 12:58 · Score: 1

If Trump wins it's because he has broad support and people agree with him. That just means there's a lot of assholes here but it's the right of the people to be assholes. I'm not voting for someone like that but I wouldn't try to stop anyone else from doing so. I'm more of a Gary Johnson fan.
You're either free or you aren't. If you prefer to be non-free in order to drive such views underground where assholes just develop a persecution complex you aren't doing yourself any favors.
No one will EVER get to tell me what views I can or can not express.
Re:Oh Germany... by ogdenk · 2016-11-07 16:04 · Score: 1

I can't help it if most subjects in other countries enjoy tyranny in order to never have their feelings hurt or core ideals and/or religion challenged. I certainly wouldn't waste money on developing tech to stop people from voicing their opinions, no matter how insane they are. Even if they're Nazis or terrorists. I prefer bigots be loud and proud, that way I know who they are and they can't claim they're being victimized or oppressed.
Suppression of free speech and freedom of the press is straight up tyranny and should have no place in modern society no matter how noble the intentions are or how objectionable the speech. The only exceptions being direct threats of violence not related to civil revolt.
I will not tolerate the US becoming a copy of the whiny sniveling EU.

Sorry NO by rtb61 · 2016-11-04 11:34 · Score: 1

Germany can not sue because the German government itself is criminally negligent because they can block it if they want to. Hence for Germany to sue Facebook, Germany must also sue itself. The German government chose not to block Facebook and hence the German government itself is liable. Facebook for all of it's many, many faults is quite simply an open broadcaster of the content created by others and it is the Germans along with the German government who choose to import that content as well as creating it's own internally. Every government faces the exact same issue. They can force it to be blocked by local service providers and until they do, they are more liable than the open broadcasters. The German government allows Facebook in, their choice, they are just as liable as Facebook. Technically first they have to strive to block Facebook and then they can try to sue Facebook for trying to get around those blocks.

Facebook should also declare on their homepage and as part of their sign up, that only 'Opinions' are allowed and Facebook is only an 'Opinion' social media site and in the most humorous fashion state categorically that no facts are allowed (technically already true for the majority of ads they show, they just lie about that). There is a real difference between, saying that I hate Germans (not true by the way) or saying that Germans should be hated ( again not true by the way, don't want the Germans to sue me or 'hmm' Slashdot ;D).

--
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen

Re:Sorry NO by duke_cheetah2003 · 2016-11-04 11:45 · Score: 3, Interesting

Germany can not sue because the German government itself is criminally negligent because they can block it if they want to. Hence for Germany to sue Facebook, Germany must also sue itself.
You must be one those people who thinks gun manufacturers are liable when someone shoots someone else with a gun they made.
Do you also think car manufacturers should be liable for automobile accidents?
What about refrigerators? Is it the manufacturers fault when your food spoils? No wait, it must be the electric company's fault for not supplying enough power.
This broken logic has no place here.
Re:Sorry NO by Knuckles · 2016-11-04 12:40 · Score: 1

Germany can not sue ...
Quite irrelevant since Germany does not sue. From TFS, "the complaint comes from the Wurzburg-based attorney Chan-jo Jun"

--
"When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
Re:Sorry NO by Baloroth · 2016-11-04 15:28 · Score: 1

Except that OP's logic is the same as that being used in the suit against Facebook. The ridiculousness of the logic is OP's entire point. Facebook didn't commit, incite, or in any way encourage the hate speech. All they did was offer a platform that allowed others to engage in it. They even actively moved to remove the illegal content, they just (allegedly) didn't do so quickly enough. The suit is holding Facebook responsible not for anything they did, but for something others did with their platform.

--
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
Re:Sorry NO by grep+-v+'.*'+* · 2016-11-04 18:33 · Score: 1

You must be one those people who thinks gun manufacturers are liable when someone shoots someone else with a gun they made.
You should only sue a gun manufacturers when the gun DOESN'T work and it's actually not your fault.

"Gun control means hitting your target." -- I told that as an offhand comment once to a self-proclaimed hippy, and she thought that was like the funniest thing she had ever heard; she laughed about it for over 10 minutes and chuckled for even longer.

OTOH, I was serious, and wasn't laughing for any of it.

--
If the universe is someone's simulation -- does that mean the stars are just stuck pixels?
Re:Sorry NO by Vlad_the_Inhaler · 2016-11-04 20:37 · Score: 1

who is in private practice.
This is his second attempt, the first one was in October 2015 (German language). Here is a link for the new one dated 30 September (also German). The difference appears to be that the Munich prosecutors are actually looking at it.

--
Mielipiteet omiani - Opinions personal, facts suspect.
Re:Sorry NO by angel'o'sphere · 2016-11-04 20:58 · Score: 1

Germany must also sue itself. The German government chose not to block Facebook and hence the German government itself is liable.
That is nonsense. There is no legal basis to block Facebook, ever heard ... cough cough ... about free speech? And Germany as a state is not responsible for FB not removing hate speech when it gets asked to do so.

--
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.

Why we never should handed over control of DNS by DarkOx · 2016-11-04 11:35 · Score: 1, Interesting

This happening to FB is ironic in that they advocated for the hand over, but this is how the rest of the world is going to treat freedom of speech online.

It was shameful shameful thing we did handing off the control to the UN.

This is a good example of where our state department ought to stand up for an American company. The message to Germany ought to be

"Screw you guys its an American website, Zuck can publish whatever the hell he wants and if you try to come after him or his assets we would be forced to retaliate against German citizens and German companies with assets in the USA. If you don't like his website, firewall it"

--
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html

Re:Why we never should handed over control of DNS by phantomfive · 2016-11-04 11:41 · Score: 4, Informative

Freedom of speech is a necessary pre-requisite for freedom, so it's worth mentioning:

The reason Germany has such strict anti-speech laws is actually a tool of oppression from the allies. They didn't want to have another uprising like Hitler leading into World War 3 (also part of the reason the US has military bases in Germany), so they took measures to ensure Hitler's specific type of propaganda would be oppressed.

So Germany is not an example to the world here, but neither were the laws intended to be.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Re:Why we never should handed over control of DNS by Calydor · 2016-11-04 12:14 · Score: 3, Interesting

And the US certainly isn't trying to make everyone forget the slave period ever existed by banning any kind of racist speech and rewriting literary classics to be politically correct, right?

--
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
Re:Why we never should handed over control of DNS by phantomfive · 2016-11-04 12:17 · Score: 1

tries to ... pretend that Hitler, and everything associated with him, never existed
Except that's not true.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Re:Why we never should handed over control of DNS by Knuckles · 2016-11-04 12:48 · Score: 1

Well, that's certainly one way to spin it.
A more honest way would be to admit that Germany is embarrassed by its past and so it tries to whitewash history and pretend that Hitler, and everything associated with him, never existed. What better way to do that than prohibit anyone from talking about it.
Wow, you know nothing. This was true for the majority during the early part of the cold war, but Germany has become quite exemplary in dealing with a troubled past and the country is plastered with memorials and documentation centers of a high standard. Maybe you should visit instead of talking out of your ass.

--
"When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
Re:Why we never should handed over control of DNS by ogdenk · 2016-11-04 12:53 · Score: 1

"Screw you guys its an American website, Zuck can publish whatever the hell he wants and if you try to come after him or his assets we would be forced to retaliate against German citizens and German companies with assets in the USA. If you don't like his website, firewall it"
If it were me, I'd just shut down local operations in Germany, block '.de' and let the Nazis that believe in thought crime and want to suppress free speech stay in their safe space.
Re:Why we never should handed over control of DNS by phantomfive · 2016-11-04 13:03 · Score: 3, Interesting

Here's what's been whitewashed (by both the Germans and the Americans):

Anti-Jewish sentiment in Germany was enormous before Hitler. Hitler wasn't some propaganda monster, he merely tapped into a current of hate that already existed. The hate that existed against Jews in Germany (and Austria) is disgusting. Look at some of the things Wagner said about Mendelssohn as one small example. Mahler was surrounded by hate for a decade merely because of his ancestry.

The Nuremberg show trials were show trials exactly for that reason: so we could blame it all on the leaders, and get over hating each other.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Re:Why we never should handed over control of DNS by dcw3 · 2016-11-04 13:38 · Score: 1

That's your opinion. And it's wrong.
Having lived there for six years, I'll just say that you're full of shit.

--
Just another day in Paradise
Re:Why we never should handed over control of DNS by DivineKnight · 2016-11-04 13:50 · Score: 1

If they don't want another Hitler, they shouldn't focus their efforts on propaganda, but on heavily regulating methamphetamines.
Re:Why we never should handed over control of DNS by moronoxyd · 2016-11-04 20:26 · Score: 1

A more honest way would be to admit that Germany is embarrassed by its past and so it tries to whitewash history and pretend that Hitler, and everything associated with him, never existed. What better way to do that than prohibit anyone from talking about it.
Except that's not what happens. Talking about Hitler and the Third Reich is not forbidden. Students learn about it in history class. There are exhibits in museums, at sites of former concentration camps, books are written, films are shot, and more.
What's forbidden is GLORIFYING what Hitler and the Nazis did. Or denying that the Holocaust happened.
Re:Why we never should handed over control of DNS by Vlad_the_Inhaler · 2016-11-04 20:50 · Score: 1

Hitler was 1/4 Jewish on his mother's side. He was an impoverished loser just trying to survive right up until the outbreak of WW1 - that allowed him to volunteer and be looked after.
The Jews looked after each other, they gave each other work and generally made sure that they were doing ok. If he had been half-jewish he would have had access to that network. Hate, hate, froths at mouth, hate, hate . . .
Hitler came out of WW1 in a far better situation than before the war. To his mind, war had allowed his natural qualities to show through and he floated to the top. War was g-o-o-d.
War was good and the Jews were bad. Everything was s-o-o-o simple. He took over a minor party, spread the word and made it so.
All the lies they told, all means to justify their insane ends.

--
Mielipiteet omiani - Opinions personal, facts suspect.
Re:Why we never should handed over control of DNS by rastos1 · 2016-11-05 00:52 · Score: 1

The reason Germany has such strict anti-speech laws is actually a tool of oppression from the allies.

The reason Germany (and most of EU) has such strict anti hate-speach laws is that people are idiots and can be swayed to do terrible and idiotic things. We have seen it first hand.
Btw, don't think that can't happen in US. The difference between US and EU in this, is only in where they draw the line.
Re:Why we never should handed over control of DNS by angel'o'sphere · 2016-11-05 03:12 · Score: 1

Anti-Jewish sentiment in Germany was enormous before Hitler.
That is not true.
Hitler wasn't some propaganda monster,
He was. But even more "good" in that area was Goebbles. ... he merely tapped into a current of hate that already existed.
Probably, but not to such an extend as you make us believe here.
The hate that existed against Jews in Germany (and Austria) is disgusting.
Like in our days people did not really care about religion or ancestry.
The haters are a small minority, unfortunately there is a big passive mass of people that swings with public expressions, only need to look at the new parties like AFD.

--
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Re:Why we never should handed over control of DNS by phantomfive · 2016-11-05 03:24 · Score: 1

Anti-Jewish sentiment in Germany was enormous before Hitler. That is not true.
Oh, yes it is. The anti-Jewishness goes back far.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Re:Why we never should handed over control of DNS by angel'o'sphere · 2016-11-05 06:28 · Score: 1

Oh, yes it is. The anti-Jewishness goes back far.
Yes, but not in the sense you implied before.
It always was a minority and mainly the rulers who spread anti jewish hate and laws to exploit them.
However there was no "general hatred" ... actually the percentage of jews was quite high in the german population. It is not really plausible that they would stay in Germany if everyone hated them.
I for my part don't know anyone who has resentments against Jews, or if he had would dare to share them in public.

--
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Re:Why we never should handed over control of DNS by phantomfive · 2016-11-05 07:26 · Score: 1

It always was a minority
Why on earth do you think it was minority? Defend yourself. In the 1700s, Jews were listed with animals in inventories and such.

I for my part don't know anyone who has resentments against Jews
Good, that's good.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Re:Why we never should handed over control of DNS by ckatko · 2016-11-05 07:55 · Score: 1

Then what was the reason for us NOT executing Emperor Hirohito? Japan committed tons of horrific war crimes under him. But they choose to keep him in power (and he got till live till freaking 1989).

By your logic then, we DIDN'T blame the leaders so we COULDN'T get over hating each other.

Something doesn't add up here.
Re:Why we never should handed over control of DNS by phantomfive · 2016-11-05 09:01 · Score: 1

Maybe if they had executed Hirohito, the Japanese would have been forgiven for their war crimes more than they are now.

Different people were in charge of the different regions after the war, so you shouldn't expect the treatment to be the same. Japan was oppressed in different ways (and many Japanese still consider themselves to be a vassal state).

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Re:Why we never should handed over control of DNS by Raenex · 2016-11-05 11:30 · Score: 1

Then what was the reason for us NOT executing Emperor Hirohito?
Probably because Japan unconditionally surrendered and he was useful as a puppet for propaganda reasons.
Re:Why we never should handed over control of DNS by angel'o'sphere · 2016-11-06 11:48 · Score: 1

In the 1700s, Jews were listed with animals in inventories and such.
In what kind of "inventory"?
You might want to read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... or translate the german version with translate.google.com.
Your ideas about Jew in germany and europe after the trimes of the great plagues are simply wrong, sorry.

--
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.

but of course by ooloorie · 2016-11-04 11:38 · Score: 4, Insightful

Laws regulating hate speech in Germany are extremely tight, with most Nazi symbolism and racist propaganda strictly forbidden, a legacy of Germany's role in World War II.

One of the primary characteristics of the Nazi regime was its suppression of free speech and control of the media by the German government. It is depressing that, rather than defend free speech, Germans have learned nothing from their history.

Re:but of course by Knuckles · 2016-11-04 12:50 · Score: 1

It's a result from the post-war period when there really was no other choice, and nowadays free Nazi speech would simply be too annoying for no gain, and no, it would not be a gain for free speech.

--
"When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
Re:but of course by misexistentialist · 2016-11-04 12:53 · Score: 1

Everyone learned how effective the Nazis were so naturally they want to follow their example. Pretty obvious when you see Jews calling for the government to confiscate all weapons, ignoring the groups that fought Hitler with the limited weapons they could find, but glorifying those who passively were victims of government.
Re:but of course by drinkypoo · 2016-11-04 17:14 · Score: 1

and nowadays free Nazi speech would simply be too annoying for no gain, and no, it would not be a gain for free speech
Free speech is a concept, it doesn't get gains. We do, unless we subvert the whole idea. And when you ban people talking about things, they only talk about them in secret and deprive you of the opportunity to keep tabs on their stupidity.
Germany's banning of even discussing Nazism is foolish at best.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:but of course by thegarbz · 2016-11-04 20:30 · Score: 1

They seemed to have learnt a lot. From what I remember the fall of Nazi Germany was a war, not an uprising of the people. The lesson from back then was that suppression of free speech worked and worked well.
Re:but of course by moronoxyd · 2016-11-04 20:34 · Score: 1

Germany's banning of even discussing Nazism is foolish at best.
How about you first learn what exactly is banned in Germany before you judge?
Discussing Nazism is NOT forbidden. Forbidden is glorifying the Nazis and the Third Reich or denying facts like the existence of concentration camps or that the Holocaust happened.
Re:but of course by Knuckles · 2016-11-04 23:21 · Score: 1

What @moronoxyd said in the other reply. Nothing worthwhile comes from people denying the Holocaust, and not having that does not undermine anything

--
"When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
Re:but of course by angel'o'sphere · 2016-11-05 03:16 · Score: 1

One of the primary characteristics of the Nazi regime was its suppression of free speech and control of the media by the German government.
Suppressing free speech on one side and having anti hate speech laws on the other side have nothing much to do with each other.
We have the same free speech laws in Europe (not only Germany) as you in the USA, with one minimal restriction: holocoust denial and hate speech are prohibited. Display of Nazi symbols are prohibited.
It is depressing that, rather than defend free speech, Germans have learned nothing from their history.
No, what depressing is, is that people like you don't grasp the difference of the concepts above.
And, JFYI: those laws were more or less forced on us by the occupying parties at the end resp. after WWII. So you have to pack your own nose :D

--
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Re:but of course by ooloorie · 2016-11-05 09:02 · Score: 1

Discussing Nazism is NOT forbidden. Forbidden is glorifying the Nazis and the Third Reich or denying facts like the existence of concentration camps or that the Holocaust happened.
What is forbidden is whatever the people in power want to forbid, and what they usually forbid is things that threaten their power.
In Germany, it's generally illegal to insult the head of state, as well as to refer to politicians, police, and other government officials as "Nazis" or "fascists".
Re:but of course by ooloorie · 2016-11-05 09:21 · Score: 1

We have the same free speech laws in Europe (not only Germany) as you in the USA, with one minimal restriction: holocoust denial and hate speech are prohibited. Display of Nazi symbols are prohibited.
You don't know what you are talking about. German restrictions on free speech are extensive, and different from much of Western Europe, and radically different from the US. Germany has criminal laws against insults, defamation, and slander. Germany has special criminal laws against defaming politicians, expressing contempt towards Germany, its constitution, or its symbols. Defaming the deceased is illegal. Blasphemy is illegal. No such criminal laws exist in the US.

And, JFYI: those laws were more or less forced on us by the occupying parties at the end resp. after WWII.
No, they werent. Post-WWII law was worked out in cooperation between the Allies and Germany; it was not dictated to Germany like post-WWI restrictions. And the restrictions allies were concerned with were restrictions on the glorification of Nazism and restrictions on antisemitism, for the simple reason that large parts of the German government, police, educational institutions, and business leadership were former Nazis (they are now mostly dead).
The German obsession with criminalizing speech in general has nothing to do with the Allies or WWII and goes back to long before the 20th century. Furthermore, since the early 1990's, Germany is pretty much free to do whatever it wants to.
Note that I didn't lament that Germans still have these restrictions per se, what I lamented is that Germans haven't learned from their Nazi past. In particular, even though these restrictions are still in place, they seem to be ineffective in dealing with Germany's massive and growing neo-Nazi problem. The fact that Germany still has these laws on the book is merely a symptom of deep-running problems with German democracy and society.
Re:but of course by angel'o'sphere · 2016-11-06 11:37 · Score: 1

Germany has criminal laws against insults, defamation, and slander.
No, we have not. That are civil laws just like in the USA.
Germany has special criminal laws against defaming politicians,
No we have not. The only criminal law in regard of that is insulting foreign politicians.
expressing contempt towards Germany, its constitution, or its symbols.
That is completely wrong.
Defaming the deceased is illegal
Yes, as it is in most countries.
Blasphemy is illegal.
No it is not.
No such criminal laws exist in the US. as I pointed out: those laws are in most cases civil laws and not criminal laws. And yes: most of them exist in the USA as well. Perhaps you should learn to google for them?
The fact that Germany still has these laws on the book is merely a symptom of deep-running problems with German democracy and society.
Germany consists of two countries that got forcefully united, similar as they got forcefully divided after/during WWII. What do you expect if a semi Nazi country gets integrated into a democratic one?
In particular, even though these restrictions are still in place, they seem to be ineffective in dealing with Germany's massive and growing neo-Nazi problem.
Of course they are. Anti hate speech laws don't prevent people from hating ...

--
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Re:but of course by ooloorie · 2016-11-06 11:59 · Score: 1

Germany has criminal laws against insults, defamation, and slander.
No, we have not. That are civil laws just like in the USA
Criminal libel is defined in Art 185-189 of the German criminal code, as well as Art 90 (defamation of the state), and Art. 166 (defamation of religions). Art 130 criminalizes "defaming segments of the population".
Seriously, you need to get a clue about what's going on in your own country.
Re:but of course by angel'o'sphere · 2016-11-06 13:17 · Score: 1

Regarding 185 there you might have a point. However it is not executed, unless the person who got "insulted" causes a case. In other words if a policeman is standing right beside me when I insult you, no one would charge me unless you do. In other words it is dead law ...
The other paragraphs (186-189) are not libel related. And ofc I'm completely ok with them.
Then again: A90, did you read the last paragraph? As long as the President is not going to court, there is no case. And then again: you claimed "any politician". It is obviously clear now it is only concerns "head of states". Would be a bit silly if we would protect foreign head of states from insults but missed our own president, or not?
Art 166, is not balsphemy as you claimed before, it is about defamation of religions ... face palm. And Art 130, is one of those the whole article in which we are posting is about, hate speech. Sigh, that was easy.

--
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Re:but of course by ooloorie · 2016-11-06 16:52 · Score: 1

Art 166, is not balsphemy as you claimed before, it is about defamation of religions ... face palm.

It's generally considered a blasphemy law.

Then again: A90, did you read the last paragraph? As long as the President is not going to court, there is no case.
And that affects the truth of my statement... how?

And then again: you claimed "any politician". It is obviously clear now it is only concerns "head of states".
Sorry, wrong again. Defamation of the German head of state is covered under Art 90. Defamation of foreign heads of states and symbols is covered under Art 103/104. Defamation of other politicians is covered under Art 188 (prison sentences run between 6 months and five years).

And ofc I'm completely ok with them.
So? What do I care what an ignorant proto-Nazi like you "is OK with"?
Re:but of course by angel'o'sphere · 2016-11-08 10:29 · Score: 1

Of course that are different paragraphs/articles, facepalm.
About what again are you nitpicking?
You claimed "germany has laws against insults towards politicians". Which sounds like a general rule towards all politicians.
I pointed out: you are wrong. So? Now you want to weasel around or what?
The only positions that are protected by law are heads of state, our own state and others.
And yes: I'm fine with that. If you are not, that is your problem, not mine.
Why that makes me a Nazi is up to you.
Regarding the "blasphemy" law, no idea who considers it like that. Actually every religion defines by itself what "blasphemy" is. There is no general law that defines what islamic, judaic, or christian blasphemy is.
Again, I and most of my co germans, are ok with laws that protect religions.
You have to accept that some countries have different ideas.
You think "free speech" (what ever that means in your country) is above "civil order", "protection of citizens", "safety to perform your religion".
We believe, giving our history, that the right to perform your religion without interferences is above "free speech" in regards to religions.
You seem to believe that "free speech" is an universal right, we believe "performing your religion" is an universal right.
Go figure.
Regarding all your examples you are right, we have some restrictions. Which I admitted in my first post. And we have no restrictions what so ever regarding everything else, just exactly as in your country. So for fuck sake ... what is your problem?

--
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Re:but of course by ooloorie · 2016-11-08 11:13 · Score: 1

You claimed "germany has laws against insults towards politicians". Which sounds like a general rule towards all politicians.
Well, yes, that's what it is..

You have to accept that some countries have different ideas.
I fully accept that Germany is different from the US, which is why I like using Germany as a negative example for what the US shouldn't do.

Which I admitted in my first post.
Yeah, sure, whatever.
Re:but of course by ooloorie · 2016-11-08 11:25 · Score: 1

You seem to believe that "free speech" is an universal right, we believe "performing your religion" is an universal right.
What is at issue is not what people "believe", but what states actually deliver; sadly, both freedom of speech and freedom of religion are seriously curtailed in Germany.

You think "free speech" (what ever that means in your country)
I encourage you to read up on it; you might learn something.
Re:but of course by angel'o'sphere · 2016-11-10 08:46 · Score: 1

As I said before: our free speech is the same as yours.
It is restricted in 4 cases only and most people agree with such restrictions. I most certainly do.
Your believe that you have more freedom just because your restrictions are not coded in laws but in court cases is simply idiotic.
sadly, both freedom of speech and freedom of religion are seriously curtailed in Germany.
They aren't. You can perform any religion you want ... unless it contains practices e.g. rape or human sacrifices which are obviously against other laws.

--
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Re:but of course by ooloorie · 2016-11-10 14:12 · Score: 1

As I said before: our free speech is the same as yours.
We have already established that that is false, with half a dozen German laws criminalizing various forms of speech.

Your believe that you have more freedom just because your restrictions are not coded in laws but in court cases is simply idiotic.
What is "idiotic" is that you don't understand the fundamental difference between a country that can throw you in jail just for insulting someone vs a country that cannot do that.

They aren't. You can perform any religion you want ... unless it contains practices e.g. rape or human sacrifices which are obviously against other laws.
The German government massively subsidizes and supports certain politically connected and favored religions while denouncing others. As a German tax payer, you are even required to declare your religion to the government. That is not "freedom of religion". In fact, many of those laws were established during the Nazi era, which makes the whole thing even worse. And the fact that you ignorantly try to defend this crap shows how little Germans have learned, and how much of the old Nazi structures survive in Germany.
Re:but of course by angel'o'sphere · 2016-11-13 20:09 · Score: 1

We have already established that that is false, with half a dozen German laws criminalizing various forms of speech.
No, we have established that it is true, except for those few laws you cited. Facepalm.
What is "idiotic" is that you don't understand the fundamental difference between a country that can throw you in jail just for insulting someone vs a country that cannot do that.
Actually this did not happen since decades. So?
And actually, you can be punished in your country for the same things, as soon as the victim sues you. The difference is marginal ... you seem not to get that.
The German government massively subsidizes and supports certain politically connected and favored religions while denouncing others.
That is a myth. There is no state / government money going to any religious organization in Germany.
as a German tax payer, you are even required to declare your religion to the government.
Yes, because if you are protestant or catholic on the tax paper you pay a fraction of your taxes as church tax. That is why everyone puts there a "no religion". And if you are from any other religion, you pay no church tax at all, so you simply check "other" ... no idea why you think this restricts your freedom.
However there are people like me, who simply quit church at age of 14 when we can decide by law about our religion by our selves. Which has the nice side effect that we have not to go to the 2 or 3 hours religion school classes per week anymore. So, if you want to talk about religious freedom: children under 14 can be forced by law or parents to go to religion classes. No idea how that is in your country.
And the fact that you ignorantly try to defend this crap shows how little Germans have learned, and how much of the old Nazi structures survive in Germany.
This is an idiotic claim as there is no logical or rational conclusion between the two things. Especially when you consider that in the USA you likely ave more Nazis than Germany has population ... KKK etc. or call they themselves KKC ... no idea.

--
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Re:but of course by ooloorie · 2016-11-13 21:45 · Score: 1

You are a credit to your country.

Re:Social media giants should pull out of Germany by rudy_wayne · 2016-11-04 12:05 · Score: 1

Ironically, under American law as I understand it this makes them liable for everything else that they don't censor.

No it doesn't.

As a private business, Facebook can prohibit, or "censor" anything they want.

Wrong and wrong. And wrong. by Qbertino · 2016-11-04 12:08 · Score: 1, Insightful

Dude, you got just about *everything* wrong in that headline. The only correct thing is "Mark Zuckerberg".

No trial. The Attorney Generals of Munich are investigating against Mark Zuckerberg. Big difference.
And it's not for inciting hatred. It is for enabling "Hate Speech". Big difference.

If it ever comes to a trial, I wonder how well this holds up in court.
I doubt it will come to a trial.

--
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca

A little reminder by LeftCoastThinker · 2016-11-04 13:34 · Score: 1

If I were Zuckerberg, I would remind the German fascists that he is Jewish and then block all German Facebook accounts, instead showing a big banner saying that Germany hates free speech and/or Jewish run businesses and put up the name and office phone number of the Attourneys General for everyone to complain to.

--
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like

Good by frovingslosh · 2016-11-04 14:04 · Score: 4, Funny

It is about time. He has certainly incited a lot of hatred in me.

Thank you nice peaceful Germans for confirming that my hatred doesn't indicate anything wrong with me, it is caused by Zukerberg. Get him!

--
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.

No leg to stand.. by XSportSeeker · 2016-11-04 14:04 · Score: 1

You can hate Facebook and Zuckerberg all you want, but this particular idea won't do anyone favors...
I mean, if something like this passes, next will be YouTube, Google in general, Reddit, Twitter, Steam, almost any other social network, forum, or virtual space where people gather to comment.

The problem here is not about hate speech, but about defining what exactly is an acceptable time frame for removing offending content on portals that have millions to billions of users. It's a technical limitation. No company is big enough or has enough money to hire an unimaginable number of people to keep a watchful eye towards all the content being published on the platform in a daily basis, and we all know that even modern AI automated systems have their own limitations. An attorney cannot demand that a company produces something out of nowhere that will solve such technical issues. But of course, these lawsuits usually comes from people who have zero understanding of how these things work.

Push an automated system too hard, you have protests like the one Facebook just faced with removal of the Napalm Girl image. I'm pretty sure they'd also have lawsuits thrown at them regarding freedom of speech and whatnot should they start removing any comment that fell in some category of hate speech.

And in the end, this solves nothing. People who use the internet to spread hate speech and harass others are still there. The solution, much in the same way, is to pursue those people and apply heavy penalties against them. Put laws in place that enable individuals to go against abusers and detractors, not try to put all the burden into the platforms itself. But oh, the justice system doesn't have enough people to work on that, and the police can't go after every case that happens. Yep. It goes both ways.

Shouldn't they sue paper manufacturers? by presidenteloco · 2016-11-04 14:59 · Score: 1

An awful lot of illegal things, including hate speech, and hateful images, have been written on, drawn on, or printed on paper.

Equally valid t blaming facebook for user content. Equally ridiculous.

--

Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?

Re:Shouldn't they sue paper manufacturers? by moronoxyd · 2016-11-04 20:14 · Score: 1

No, thats not equal.
Once the paper leave the manufacturing plant, the paper manufacturers don't have any control over what happens with their paper.
But Facebook can control what messages are distributed using their services. And they do: They are fast to remove anything they consider erotic by the somewhat prude US standards, but they lag when it comes to complying with actual laws of the countries they are active in.
Re:Shouldn't they sue paper manufacturers? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-04 22:42 · Score: 1

Equally valid t blaming facebook for user content. Equally ridiculous.
Facebook has shown in the past that it has automatic censoring and manual censoring in place. Since they are already censoring everything they don't like they may as well censor things that are actually illegal. Also it is often mentioned when corporate censorship comes up that facebook is privately owned and your right to free speech does not apply to privately owned property.
Re: Shouldn't they sue paper manufacturers? by DulcetTone · 2016-11-05 01:05 · Score: 1

But if paper manufacturers COULD do such a thing, it's fair to legally REQUIRE them to do so? #listentoyourself

--
tone

I've never had anything good to say about Facebook by Trax3001BBS · 2016-11-04 15:40 · Score: 1

But I'm behind them on this one.

A faster way by WaffleMonster · 2016-11-04 16:30 · Score: 1

The Holocaust obviously never happened. If it really did happen then why would IBM name computers after the guy who sold counting machines to Hitler? And why would Sony let said computer compete on Jeopardy?

The Armenian genocide never happened because Turkey a US Ally and fellow NATO member said so.

Darfur never happened because the UN itself said the government of Sudan didn't have an official policy of Genocide.

Stalin was a US Allie. Good ole Uncle Joe as FDR affectionately called him fighting the good fight against Hitler... do you really think he.... NO... of course not..

Any country who worships censorship and thinks silencing people who spew "hate speech" or buy into related crackpottery by force (e.g. violence) is a great idea are most welcome to disconnect themselves from the Internet.

By the way Germany Facebook's ASN is 32934. You can block it any time you damn well please. If you believe Zuckerberg's facebook is an evil hater factory you have all the power in the world to do something about it immediately.

Facebook certainly incites my hatred of Facebook.

Technical solutions by dumky2 · 2016-11-04 17:05 · Score: 1

If the handover of ICANN turns bad, DNS will be replaced by an alternative technical solution. Such solutions are already worked, based on DHT and blockchain storage.

--
These comments are mine; I do not speak for my employer.

Germany trying to stay in the news. by Pezbian · 2016-11-04 17:09 · Score: 1

The last thing sharp that came out of that country was spouted by that Hitler dude. And he didn't matter in the long run, either.

--
In a world of the blind, the one-eyed man is king--and the two-eyed man is a heretic.

Re:europe needs a new person like hitler by Zontar+The+Mindless · 2016-11-04 18:46 · Score: 1

Sverigedemokraten hittades.

--
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.

Zuckerberg == Sugar Mountain by No+Longer+an+AC · 2016-11-04 19:21 · Score: 1

I started learning a little German recently and apparently Zuckerberg translates to Sugar Mountain and now every time I read anything about Facebook I hear Neil Young.

With the barkers and the colored balloons, of course.

The article looks to be B.S. by Vlad_the_Inhaler · 2016-11-04 20:30 · Score: 1

This article appears to be written by someone who understands neither the German legal system nor (probably) the language.

Germany has public prosecutors, I think the US has the same system. This lawyer is in private practice. He has essentially gone to the law-enforcement authorities with a complaint. I looked up a German-language source and it is the second time he has tried this, the first one was in Hamburg last year and it was kicked around for a year before being dropped for "formal reasons".
btw, the article I found was dated 30 September - it just took a while for some English-language site to notice.

No big deal.

Finally, a Frank Herbert quote? "Eternal sloppiness is the price of liberty".
People moan that Google (+ Youtube) is too quick to delete content, people moan that Facebook is too slow. The Norwegian head of state recently got really stroppy with Facebook because they had censored that well known full-frontal picture of a naked girl running down the road after a napalm attack in Vietnam. It is not possible to get this one right.

--
Mielipiteet omiani - Opinions personal, facts suspect.

Re:The Fourth Reich is Rising! by moronoxyd · 2016-11-04 20:43 · Score: 1

Fun fact: The laws in question here have been pretty much unchanged in 60 years.
And Germany had 60+ years of (relative) peace. If you look at the history of Germany and western Europe, you will see that 60 years of peace is almost unheard of.

The current laws in Germany are not perfect. But they are based on the experiences we Germans made in the 100+ years leading up to the formation of our current state. Everything we learned from the horrors of the Third Reich, the deficiencies of the Weimar Republic, the imperialism of the German Empire and further back.
And the result is not perfect, but better than everything we had before.

Re:Germany, has never been a democracy by moronoxyd · 2016-11-04 20:46 · Score: 1

Europeans will travel to Amsterdam, and Thailand, and so on but nobody wants to go to Germany..

Well, I'm living in Berlin, but I guess all the British and Spanish and French people I thought I see on the streets every day are just in my head, right?

Facebook has only itself to blame by mvdwege · 2016-11-04 21:58 · Score: 3, Insightful

Really, if you ban nudity faster than you can say "b00b13s!" but leave outright hate speech and incitement to violence up, then you shouldn't be surprised that people actually start holding you accountable.

You either police your userbase, or you don't. If you do it halfway, you leave the impression you're taking sides, at best.

And for the libertard crowd who shout "Freeze Peach!"? You're free to create your own Facebook clone. What right do you have to force your idea of perfect user policies on Facebook, according to your own philosophy?

--
"I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?

Re:Facebook has only itself to blame by Raenex · 2016-11-05 11:21 · Score: 1

And for the libertard crowd who shout "Freeze Peach!"?
Oh look, you're using "hate speech" and disparaging two groups of people, those who value liberty and the mentally disabled by using a word derivative of "retard". Please report yourself to the nearest education center.

You're free to create your own Facebook clone. What right do you have to force your idea of perfect user policies on Facebook, according to your own philosophy?
Yes, legally, at least in the United States, Facebook can set their own policies. Most people who advocate for free speech aren't trying to legally force Facebook to do anything. They're, gasp, using their free speech to argue against Facebook's politically biased policies.
Facebook would like to pretend they aren't politically biased and support free speech, because it's a good marketing tool and they don't want to limit their audience to just the left. They should be called out on their bullshit.
Say what you want about Slashdot, but it's always been great about free speech, and I really appreciate that.

That law was imposed by allies by aepervius · 2016-11-04 22:30 · Score: 1

and never repelled. So if you want to complain about not learning, look at UK, USA, France.

--
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org

Re:That law was imposed by allies by ooloorie · 2016-11-05 08:47 · Score: 1

and never [repealed]
Yes, and for about 20 years, Germans have had the option to repeal such laws.

Breaking: Sealand adds RIAA/MPAA to terrorist list by CanEHdian · 2016-11-05 01:20 · Score: 1

Sealand, November 5 2016 -- In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court of the Kopimist Nation of Sealand ruled both RIAA and MPAA to be terrorist organisations, allowing for the rendition of any known RIAA/MPAA members, its agents or close associates "located anywhere in the universe, by any means necessary" to the Kopimist Nation of Sealand to answer for their crimes. The third organization on trial, BSA, was spared the terrorist organisation designation by the Supreme Court, however the racketeering-related convictions from the lower court were confirmed. Full verdict expected to be published in 72 hours. Story to be updated when new details emerge.

--
When the copyright term is "forever minus a day", live every day like it's the last.

Slashdot Mirror

Munich Court To Try Facebook's Zuckerberg For Inciting Hatred (dw.com)

100 of 179 comments (clear)