Slashdot Mirror
Germany Plans To Fine Social Media Sites Over Hate Speech (reuters.com)
Germany plans a new law calling for social networks like Facebook to remove slanderous or threatening online postings quickly or face fines of up to 50 million euros ($53 mln). From a report: "This (draft law) sets out binding standards for the way operators of social networks deal with complaints and obliges them to delete criminal content," Justice Minister Heiko Maas said in a statement announcing the planned legislation on Tuesday. Failure to comply could see a social media company fined up to 50 million euros, and the company's chief representative in Germany fined up to 5 million euros. Germany already has some of the world's toughest hate speech laws covering defamation, slander, public incitement to commit crimes and threats of violence, backed up by prison sentences for Holocaust denial or inciting hatred against minorities. It now aims to update these rules for the social media age.
This will backfire so hard.
I am familiar with the German media landscape and people have been complaining about the lying press for years now. Especially the state-funded news stations.
Technically they do not have a lying press, but a press that very often omits and twists, but that is besides the question.
What will happen is that people will report every news statement from those state funded medias on facebook.
Facebook will then face the possibility of effectively removing everything from those medias, or pay a hefty fee.
Once the politicians realize what will happening they will retract that law, after all it is frequently happening that they move into the board of those media agencies after their term is over, despite the supposed neutrality of the state funded press.
Also, start jailing their execs if they do nothing about it.
How about you keep your Nazi hands out of American companies? It's the internet bro, and the Germans don't control American internet sites.
If I want to post that Angela Merkel is, in my opinion, a politician who destroys Europe, and that I would not be sad if someone would assasinate her, then that is my opinion which I am entitled to have and speak out, in the jurisdiction that I am currently living in and posting from. German law has NOTHING to do with that. So why should Mark Zuckerberg be jailed?
F German Law, and F the EUSSR.
I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
Why do we see so much hypocrisy from leftists?
On one hand, they're always talking about how important "openness", "tolerance", "acceptance", and "transparency" are.
Yet at the same time, leftists are at the forefront of putting extreme limits on what people can express, and extraordinarily harshly punishing anyone who dares to express an idea that these leftists dislike.
Are leftist ideologies inherently contradictory, resulting in this sort of hypocrisy emerging naturally?
Or is it some problem with the people themselves, such as a mental disorder of some sort, that draws them toward leftist ideologies in the first place, and renders them unable to see their own hypocrisy?
Is there some other explanation?
They had strict laws against hate speech in Weimar Republic - can everybody remember where that ended?
Why would there be any hate speech? Personally I love the fascist Nazis in Germany who have decided that they get to control what others say.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
How about "No." Failing that, how about "Fuck you totalitarian Nazi asswipes. It's our Internet. We built it. We'll use it to say pretty much what we want."
Does that work?
This is a slippery slope. Your hate speech may be another's holy scripture, and who are you to judge? Who is anyone? All speech should be legal.
I honestly wonder how Slashdotter's feel about the most "left-wing" countries pressing down on any kind of speech they dislike, including criticism of government policies.
I'm a moderate. I swing both ways. ( ;) )
But to me, it's alarming to me how left-wing countries are rapidly approaching and embracing authoritarianism / fascism. (Remember China is a left-wing authoritarian state.) But most people seem to conflate "right wing = authoritarian = bad guys" and "left wing = freedom = good guys."
At least with US politics, there's been a real splintering. The old GOP is still authoritarian. But the newer GOP are much more "pro-gay marraige, get the government out of your bedroom / life." While the old left seems to be more free loving, and the new left is the ones burning down starbucks because someone dared to say something they don't like.
So to head back to Germany. Honestly, I'm glad Trump won (WHAT, OMG, DOWNVOTE YOU BASTARD). Because Hillary had spoken at length about European governments being a "model" to follow and, not even about Hillary, but the thousands of people hoping to get into power and hold influence with Hillary at the helm, I really think the USA would have slanted further toward this idea where violence and government oppression is the cure to speech you dislike. (And when Trump got elected, it represented a clear setback.) And the second you say, "We don't use BETTER speech to defeat speech, we use laws and bats." You have basically tapped into people's primal urge to form lynch mobs, and when have you EVER heard of lynch mobs being associated with "justice?" Moreover, the heavily emotional (as opposed to fact-based) nature of the new left's strategy, leaves TONS of people waiting to be unleashed without any fact checking. People who become pawns for billionaires. People who get arrested while the billionaires can just say "I didn't MEAN they should really riot."
I remember growing up that being a liberal meant two things: 1) I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it. and 2) A diversity of IDEAS and perspectives strengthens us all.
And I'm honestly worried how the left has abandoned both of those core tenets yet somehow uses the same banner and labels. They're abusing the goodwill from decades of goodwork, to make people think their current oppression is still for the good of the world. Like a company buying out a brand name, and corrupting it with cheap knockoffs, but people still remember "The Brand Name" as something good so they get tricked by it.
And, vice versa, why should I care about your stupid USSA copyright laws? 120 years after the death of the author? Dude, WTF?...
But for better or worse, we're stuck with one another. Globalisation, they call it. Deal with it.
If I say 'what you are doing is wrong'? Do i hate you?
Am I encouraging violence against you? What if I say only evil people do that?
If I say 'who you are voting for is evil' or worse 'people who vote for XXX are evil' Am I spewing hate?
Where do you draw the line.
In my experience ALL attempts at defining hate speech are attacks on free speech. Whoever defined what is 'hate' now has the power to define what is speech.
The only place to draw the line is when someone is standing there say 'we need to get our and do XYX to ABC'.
But that isn't 'hate speech' now you are inciting to riot, which is already a crime.
âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
Why do you ask, you demented pile of mutant putrid infected trash!
Table-ized A.I.
Disgusting. Just f**king disgusting.
Free speech comes before anything else.
What? Are you in favor of blasphemy laws?
Can't defame the government?
Are you f**ked up stupid? There should be no laws against political speech; no laws regarding expressing your thoughts (even if they are vile).
Why? Because who decides what is, and what is not vile? We certainly can't use a majority vote for this? Who then? Which f**king gov't officials would you give that power to?
Laws against advocating violence against a particular person or organization or property is the only thing that *maybe* acceptable.
I hate Obama / Trump. Is OK.
Obama / Trump should be killed. Is morally horrible but should not be illegal.
Kill Obama / Trump now. Is morally horrible and I can compromise on making that statement illegal.
But political statements should always be illegal. Government tyranny and oppression is far worse than the vile statements.
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
Don't be silly. Hate speech in Germany is real simple. Here are some examples:
HATE SPEECH: Angela Merkel's immigration policy is stupid
NOT HATE SPEECH: Angela Merkel's opponents are Nazi, baby-killing, racist, misogynist scum!
HATE SPEECH: I disagree with the principals of Islam and feel it's a real threat to our country and its identity.
NOT HATE SPEECH: Christian priests are nothing but a bunch of molestors who should be hanged!
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
in general nothing of use is lost by banning hate speech
Yeah, just the First Amendment. Nothing important.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
There is no free speech in Germany. You can't publish games about killing nazis (with the Nazi swastika logo) in Germany. I would know, having published video games in that region. You might also be surprised to know that the United States, Canada and Mexico are the ONLY regions in the world that consider video games 'expressions of free speech' and therefore beyond government censorship/regulation? In these regions the ESRB rates video games, like the MPAA (movie ratings) they are determined by a private entity funded by a coalition of video game publishers and developers. The system is far from perfect but it means all the censorship is coming from the industry itself, fueled by fears of consumer outrage should they release violence and boobies in a 'Rated E for everyone' video game. The governments of these regions cannot pass a law like the one in Germany, there is zero percent government censorship.
In Japan, U.K., Germany, Italy, France and Spain (regions I have shipped games in) these games are 'rated' by an organization controlled by the government. They can be and often are subjected to the political forces of the week. What is and is not allowed is often arbitrary, obtuse, and games are regularly given harsher ratings for espousing political or social beliefs that the government of the year doesn't like. (Not to mention governments of the past, which may have encoded banned images/thoughts into law)
When i first realized this information, it dawned on me how fragile freedom is. As westerners we tend to take it for granted and think that all the developed nations are abundant with freedom. When you look really closely though, freedom is a rather precious, fragile, and rare commodity in the world, deserving of our protection.
My point was that I agree with GP but would have used different wording. I fully agree that all speech should be legal, and thankfully in the US we have a Constitutional protection (for now) on free speech. I just saw from SXSW that a group of Germans was lecturing people about how speech needs to be prevented, and they could not answer some basic questions. Like: Who determines what is and is not "hate" speech?
Germans should know better. Prior to starting off two major world wars their leadership did exactly what they are doing. Stifle free speech, push propaganda, control the populace.
Hey Germans, what ever happened to "nie wieder"?
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
For various reasons including avoiding US taxes and generating localized ad revenue directly, Facebook does have holdings in various countries including Germany. Thus they are (partially) a German company and thus have to adhere to local laws. Facebook could easily avoid this by repatriating all it's holdings and income to the US, whether that is good for the US, Facebook or German economies is an entirely different question.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Your masters define it.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
I don't like hate speech laws. They tend to be twisted to suppress legitimate political criticism.
Hate speech laws are almost always applied in a disproportionate way. They tend to pick and choose what racist behavior to censor, and what racist behavior is tolerated, compared to what racist behavior isn't tolerated. They pick winners and losers in the game of racism. Rather than condemn all racism, and promote secular egalitarianism.
Are Neo-Nazis, and the KKK Terrorists? Yes.
Are they a Protestant Christian Terrorist group that would not only attack Blacks, and Jews, Muslims but also Catholics, calling them Worshippers of Ba'al and Asherah? Yes.
Is Evangelical Protestant Christianity a dangerous cult that is a clear and present danger to Democracy, Secularism, and the rule of law, and civil rights? Yes.
Is it considered racist against white people or all Christians to say that? No. Because there are many sects of Christianity. With varying interpretations, and this points the finger of one particular violent cult.
Are ISIS and Al-Queada Terrorists? Yes.
Are they a Sunni Wahabi Islamic that would not only attack Blacks, and Jews, and Christians, but also Shites/The Shia for being Heretics for believing the wrong Successor to Muhammad was Ali? Yes.
Do the Sunni Wahabi Muslims represent all of Islam? No. There are several variants of Islam. From Shia, to Amadi, Alloyaite, etc.
Is Sunni Wahabi Islam a dangerous cult that is a clear and present danger to Democracy, Secularism, and the rule of law, and civil rights? Yes.
Is it considered racist against all Sunni Arabs or Arabians in general? Yes, but thats only because the Saudis have successfully lobbied governments to conflate critics of this ideology with critics of brown people.
As long as hate speech laws work this way, real racism, real hate, and real bigotry will go unchallenged.
Who defines "hate speech"?
Whoever happens to be in charge at the moment of course.
This is great when your party of choice is the one in charge, of course. It's not so great when their opposition wins in the next election and turns the tables on you.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
So will it be like the left? Hate speak is anything that I don't agree with. You disagreed with me so you hate me. You didn't vote for the past president so you are racist.
You seem to be complaining that these ant-free-speech laws are a form of oppression, and you are right: Germany is still an occupied country. They were given quite a bit of freedom because of the bigger Soviet threat, but none of the victors in WW2 wanted the Nazis to rise again, and no one wanted another holocaust. To prevent it from happening again, several measures were taken, among them was to censor speech. No more Nazi propaganda, no more people winning elections by demonizing Jews.
So yes, these laws are tools of an oppressor. Eventually maybe they will disappear, but when they were created, it was with a good purpose.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
After years of safe space demanding snowflakes in the US, we are starting to see them turn into cannibals. During the "woman's day march" fights broke out between different groups, with some groups claiming that the white protesters were not as victimized as others. But it's not enough, and not fast enough. The damage that things like Title 9 have done because of these groups isn't going away any time soon.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Pretty certain that Facebook (and Intel, Apple, Microsoft, whatever) have formed legally independent entities from which to operate in Germany. Worst that could happen is that Facebook GmbH (the German subsidiary) gets nuked, leaving Facebook (US) untouched.
(...and vice-versa - for instance, Solarworld is the biggest Solar panel maker in Germany, but their independent subsidiary, Solarworld USA, is legally separate, with its own C-level, its own financial and tax structure, its own distinct set of contracts with various vendors, etc.)
The parent and subsidiaries are structured to keep things separate, but have no qualms (or obstacles) to shipping money between them through various (And fully legal) mechanisms.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Yes, it can be banned. However, the extremist ideology (regardless of left or right) only festers. Germany may get FB to ban it, but there will be sites that it will move to. For example, last year when FB did a mass purge of gun buying/sales sites, all that stuff just went to MeWe. When Twitter banned the Breitbart guy, Gab formed. Look at how the Pirate Bay has been hunted down by some of the richest people, groups, companies, and governments in the world, and they still pop back up in some form. Banning free speech can be done, but it will take a lot of government resources to actually make it effective.
Worst case, the companies serving the German subscribers keep their servers in Russia or someplace outside of the German government's reach.
This is a slippery slope. Your hate speech may be another's holy scripture, and who are you to judge? Who is anyone? All speech should be legal.
The Germans, given their history, are a bit wiser than that. One man's freedom of speech can infringe on a million other people's freedom to survive. Speech can be dangerous.
Libel laws are also in place so that if someone ruins your life by calling you, say, a child molester for no reason, then you can sue and get some compensation.
Drill baby drill - on Mars
>Calling another culture or religion lazy, stupid, evil, greedy, ugly, smelly, short, fat, tall, greasy, rhythm-free, or whatever rarely ever does anything useful.
Au contraire, it makes it much easier for me to pinpoint idiots who have little useful to say.
>Hate speech as typically defined is not useful, and arguably can trigger Adolf 2.0
It certainly can. By banning it you instantly give credence to the person making the hate speech, because now his argument of "Listen to me, what I have to say is so earth-shattering the government won't let you hear it!" is an honest one. Thus creating more underground followers, who can't be tracked, who slowly give rise to the power of hate.
Oh, you meant that by allowing a fool like Ernst Zundel to run a hate website people would actually take him seriously and he would be Adolf 2.0? Ha! Well... now that he's been deported I certainly had a look at what he had to say. It's still bunk, but, frankly, if my idiotic country hadn't put so much effort into charging him with free speech crimes, I would never have known he existed (and he even lived in my city--chances are I had at least seen him).
>I'd hate to see "hate cops" that get carried away
Well, please don't come to Canada:
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/quebec-language-police
And please don't visit Germany, either, for that matter:
http://www.zdnet.com/article/corel-removes-nazi-symbols-from-coreldraw/
https://www.destructoid.com/see-how-wolfenstein-the-new-order-is-censored-in-germany-275315.phtml
>but in general nothing of use is lost by banning hate speech.
Just major desktop publishing software, breakthrough games, and (if you know the history of the sign law, it's simply a hate-the-english law) Italian food.
Zuckerberg only has a problem with censorship if competitors are legally able to host free speech and real news
Censorship is always dangerous and I wonder just how this will effect other nations. Since German nationals can visit foreign sites and see things that the German government may consider offensive or dangerous will that have any effect of sites outside of Germany? France has similar behaviors in banning the sale of war relics. If an American posts a Nazi helmet for sale on Ebay in the US will that have any effect upon Ebay offices that might exist in Germany?
For once can't a US company pull out of just one repressive country instead of capitulating to their asshattery?
Massive welcome signs costing thousands of immigrants their lives
Pursuit of "hate speech" charges against political adversaries
Banning religious attire
German government can't compete in the market of ideas so they shut it down out of fear of losing control. Way past time Merkel finds a new line of work.
They don't care what color they are they love their jack boots.
love is just extroverted narcissism
Speech can be dangerous.
Yes, and what it took to get that right and others was dangerous. Living in a society that do not value those rights are even more dangerous than living in a society with protections for the freedoms of individuals.
Rights are one of the few absolutes that society should always defend in whole all the time. Many people have died to get those rights and many more will die if society forgets sacrifices were necessary for freedoms we take advantage of.
If you aren't willing to die for your rights then anyone strong enough or popular enough will take them away.
The Germans, given their history, are a bit wiser than that. One man's freedom of speech can infringe on a million other people's freedom to survive. Speech can be dangerous.
I encourage everyone who believes this nonsense to form their own country and live in harmony with other fellow like minded cowards forever. Censorship of ideas was a core enabler of Nazi Germany and go-to means of control of every dictatorship in human history.
It wasn't Adolf Hitler that killed millions of people it was a whole country going along with his insanity. Censoring speech has a proven track record of actually being dangerous.
It's what cowards always do when they can't compete and fear losing.
I would advise Facebook to call their bluff. Germany doesn't have authority over what everyone on the internet can read/write. They may feel they have the authority to prohibit what people in Germany read/write. If Facebook refuses to comply with German laws and refuses to pay any fines, Germany's only real option is to force German ISPs to block facebook. Let German politicians deal with the repercussions of that decision.
The only time speech is dangerous is when it is used by the people that also control what is defined as "hate speech". Which is why "dangerous" speech will never technically be "hate" speech.
Correct. The right to bear arms comes first, because it protects all your other rights.
For various reasons including avoiding US taxes and generating localized ad revenue directly, Facebook does have holdings in various countries including Germany. Thus they are (partially) a German company and thus have to adhere to local laws. Facebook could easily avoid this by repatriating all it's holdings and income to the US, whether that is good for the US, Facebook or German economies is an entirely different question.
Why mix taxes into this issue? There are many countries that offer much more competitive tax rates than the U.S. but don't have the draconian hate speech laws that Germany has. Perhaps it would make more sense to move operations there.
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
just saying
In 1945 Germany wasn't a free country. They were a defeated country occupied by 4 foreign forces (US, USSR, England, France).
But this is 2017. Germany, supposedly, is a free country standing on it's own. If it is a free country then these laws should not exist; and most importantly they ought not be defended.
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
Your arguments remind me of the arguments that were used to censor pornography. "I know it when I see it."
Face it, once you start banning speech, the kind of speech that will be banned is the kind that is disliked by the ruling class. Thus it has always been.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
And who is to decide? Common decency & humanity will do. But the internet has proven to be uninterested in displaying such common ground, (and actually hosts venomous personalities & groups). So in other words "someone's gotta do it".
We should let the people who can muster the most outrage and draw the maximal offense decide for everyone else... what the hell... "Someone's gotta do it".
You know darn well the difference between 'free speech' moving to 'boisterous rambling' to 'shit talking' and finally to 'hate & violence inspiring speech'. You & I may be immune to nutjobz spewing nonsense but some people are not.
When people say they want all abortion doctors to die because they honestly believe they are in fact murders what are they? Is this just shit talking? Is this inciting violence? Is it hate speech? Is it free speech? The only thing I know darn well is language belongs to EVERYONE... not just you or people who think the way you do.
And they are called to action by such 'free' speech.
Most proponents of censorship invoke fear as justification for censorship. Fear of losing control, fear of other narratives or memes they disagree with taking hold. They want a free lunch off the legitimacy of the state without having to work equally hard to actively build consensus for the ideals they support. Support for censorship is often fueled by laziness and cowardice.
"All speech should be legal."
This is a dumb statement that is neither true, nor should be true.
"Old man yells at systemd"
'not useful' by whom? Allowing authority to dictate arbitrary limits on expression is far riskier to free society than some one/group taking offense. Frankly, if your leaders are willing to cause some calamity because they were called names, then they lack the discipline required for leadership and don't deserve to hold office.
There are 37 US military bases in Germany. There are more foreign soldiers in Germany than German soldiers (including French and British soldiers). Germany is surrounded by countries that have nuclear weapons. There is no way you can say Germany is a free country. If they piss off their occupiers, they will get smacked down.
Of course, Germany isn't likely to piss of their occupiers these days, because all parties have basically the same worldview. You might make an argument that there is no use for keeping foreign soldiers in Germany, and to a large degree the occupiers agree with you. They have been reducing their number of soldiers in Germany, and have plans in place to continue the reduction.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
"All speech should be legal."
This is a dumb statement that is neither true, nor should be true.
While you are right, we get wrapped around axles when we try to define it. Is humor that refers to a dark part of a countries past "hate speech"?Bill Maher might need indicted, as well as half of the internetz
Which is to say, can the modern German Government demand that any references to Nazi Germany be removed from Facebook - or that Godwin needs extradited to Munich and be put on trial?.
Some things are obvious. Death threats or threats of violence should be obvious. How about disparging remarks about a country's leaders? How about saying you hate someone. That is the very definition of hate speech.
Next, do we then remove all content that anyone anywhere finds hateful? I get annoyed as hell about some of my relatives postings, and they sure as hell hate who they are posting about.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
The Internet has never been owned by the US (except at the very beginning when it existed only there), and most of it has not been build by the US. It is also not under US control, even if that propaganda-statement is often repeated. But the truth is, if the US fell of the planet, the Internet would just continue to work as all critical components are geo-redundant.
Spoken like a true caveman though! It is easy to not like people like you.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Well, I sort of agree, but the thing is the Germans have extreme negative experience with what hate-speech can do. Maybe if the US had had a 3rd Reich on their ground, things would look different there too. That said, as far as I understand it this is about "kill xyz now"-type of speech.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
1764275% right. Accessory before the fact? No such thing, I just made it up.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
An that is the worst problem I see with this approach. The Germans have this stupid idea that just making a law that forbids something fixes all problems with it. They always try it and it usually fails, sometimes spectacularly. Hence I believe that most Germans do not even begin to understand that suppressing certain kinds of opinions does not make them go away at all. Instead it lends credibility to them by the "David and Goliath"-effect, because the state acts like a bully.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Agreed. 100%. "Hate Speech" is a cop-out for Censorship -- which is bullshit.
I came across this fantastic commentary on a YT video:
Let me be the first to congratulate it on what a great job it's doing.
Civil forfeiture, the TSA (which has jurisdiction everywhere because the entire country defined as a border because nowhere is more than 27,000 miles of an airport), a standing army disguised as police.
If it wasn't for people who fantasize about being Dirty Harry those things would be real.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
I understand what you are getting at, but you should pick another example, as this is actually legal.
What is illegal is FALSELY shouting Fire in a theater.
Maybe you're interested in what is classified as hate speech in Germany: publicly incite hatred against parts of the population or to call for violent or arbitrary measures against them or to insult, maliciously slur or defame them in a manner violating their (constitutionally protected) human dignity.
So saying the blacks should be sent to Africa is not ok. Saying that Muslims are terrorists is also not ok. Calling Mexicans rapists is also not ok. And this is as it should be.
entropy happens
AC its usually a gov, academic SJW or SJW in a company.
Hate speech is anything that upsets a SJW, government, political party, monarchy, theocracy, cult or brand.
Public private partnerships, cults, faith groups, other nations can also apply pressure.
The result can be faith based blasphemy laws, banning cartoons to ensure global investment and access to markets.
A communist party may want to protect the name and history of its founders and their military/political actions.
Other Communist nations may invest in projects via banks or front companies in the West.
With that funding comes the ability to sway the presentation of the Communist party and its ability to get results.
A social media company may have to instruct its own internal SJW workers to remove all kinds of material globally to ensure it can attract investors.
A theocracy or monarchy demanding blasphemy laws get enforced for their investment to save a failing US social media company.
In the private sector a Communist party could demand no comment or results surrounding terms like Tiananmen Square, 1989, Democracy Movement for after investing in a project.
Germany has it laws on not allowing any cult, faith, political party to endanger what was West now Germany democracy.
Groups on the left and right can be subjected to very harsh surveillance and have their funds, publications removed.
Germany uses the same legal framework to block any comment on the policy to accept vast numbers of illegal migrants.
So SJW are busy working for governments and in the private sector banning users, removing comments, reporting users to the authorities.
Once the private sector SJW reports a person for free speech a government might use a uniformed police visit to stop any further free speech.
If that chat down fails Germany has very powerful criminal laws to enforce the views of the SJW.
Germany has discovered the full East German ideal of Zersetzung (translated as decomposition, corrosion, undermining, biodegradation or dissolution) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... to ensure no public comment in Germany on government policy.
Given the criminal nature of such German laws, Germany may also like to use its federal criminal international law enforcement cooperation treaties.
Entering the EU could see German police interview requested to any EU nation. German police may also ask other nations to talk to a person about their comments and warn them that they are now on a German police watch list and will be interviewed if they ever enter or return to the EU or Germany.
Germany can then suggest to US law enforcement that a US citizen has a criminal federal investigation open in Germany.
A US lawyer would then be needed to clear up a US first amendment issue with the German government.
For that vast numbers of public and private sector SJW watch for any comments or publications and then make their reports to German government officials.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
That sounds lie medical speech
If so, my wife must be a doctor
Table-ized A.I.
I have dozens of relatives in Germany and guess what? They are all scared right now because of what is happening. I have an Aunt who recently passed away who was a child during WW II and told us how a majority of German citizens had no idea that Jews were being put to Genocide by the German Government. The US Soldiers marched German families through the concentration camps because Germans thought that the Allied Soldiers were lying. Their ignorance is a direct result of free speech dying and pure Government control of Newspapers, Radio, public speaking, and the education system.
That last part should bother the hell out of Germans who if they bothered to read a history book would find that the education system is one of the first places Hitler attacked with his ideology. He controlled all messages in education, just like you have today.
You took the wrong message, and shame on you for making such an asinine claim. Remember that the Jews were intolerant, the Pols were intolerant, the Hungarians were intolerant, the French were intolerant, the Russians were intolerant, the Brits were intolerant, the Schwarzs were intolerant, and I can repeat that for any group who spoke out against the State.
Everyone was was the enemy of the State. Just like today... You just refuse to admit as much
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Yes, and what it took to get that right and others was dangerous.
But what was it? You characterize, but do not identify.
War. I didn't think it was necessary to state the obvious.
Living in a society that do not value those rights are even more dangerous than living in a society with protections for the freedoms of individuals.
One would think so, after all, a society exists to protect individuals, so one with any other conditions is more dangerous by default.
Are you sure you said what you meant?
Individual freedoms and protections by the state are a fairly recent thing. It is more common that states organize and protect a small ruling class. For example a crown or religion via monarchy or theocracy respectively. Individuals have historically been oppressed "for the good of society". Society that favors individualism tend to have more freedom and liberty than those that feel justified in limiting the rights of individuals "for the good of society". A society that can justify any tyranny is inherently a dangerous place because oppression can come without warning or cause and the individual can have little or no recourse of action to protect against state aggression. Just because you have a benevolent dictator now does not mean that they will always be benevolent.
Rights are one of the few absolutes that society should always defend in whole all the time.
Rights are not absolutes, but instead, like all things, subject to moderation and consideration.
Yes, they are absolute and inalienable. They do not come from the state and they are not to be compromised in any irrational way. For example; It is rational to outlaw death threats because any rational person would feel justified in defending themselves from such a threat and that kind of threat can lead to physical violence.
If society forgets anything, it is doomed to repeat it. People will likely suffer and die because of it. And forgetting includes being mistaken about lessons learned, like the limits of rights.
Is there a limit to a fair trial? I don't think you have thought through the "limits of rights" if you can honestly answer that question and come to the conclusion that there is a limit to the "fairness" a trial may have during criminal prosecutions. Do you think the right of fair trial is worth dying for? Is it worth killing for? Rights are the extreme. Any limit will be extreme.
Better to consider what you are willing to live with instead.
Sounds like you are a coward even if you weren't an anonymous coward. Throughout history people considered tyranny livable. Sounds like you don't mind a boot on your face because you can live with it.
You are correct in stating that restrictions on speech in Germany were created with good purpose.
You're an idiot for stating that Germany is still an occupied country.
Facebook Europe is incorporated in Ireland. This is why German politicians are so fed up with facebook - whenever facebook fucks up, the German facebook representatives just shrug their shoulders and tell the authorities to please speak with Ireland, where any complains get quickly tossed into the memory hole.
Why does every buffoon go to this argument? Because they can only repeat what they are told?
Shouting fire in a crowded theater is not illegal. A call to action which may cause severe harm "may" be illegal, if the call to action is based on fabricated information intended to be malicious. E.G. "There is a bomb on the subway!", when in fact there is no bomb and the intent was to disturb the public.
Going a bit further, there is a gross distinction between a person yelling "fire" in a crowded theater and having a different opinion on politics than you. The people wanting to shut down speech are not worried about the former because it's illegal already, they want the latter. Which is fine as long as you agree with their position, but the minute they change course or you diverge you are silenced.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Two forms of comedy which must be banned under "hate" speech because it is impossible to discern comedy from hate. That is exactly why comedians will no longer perform on College campuses in the US today, and most stopped a decade ago.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
You're an idiot for stating that Germany is still an occupied country.
Really? What exactly would you call a country that has more external military than local military? A hotel? A brothel?
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Ya rly. What does a personal distaste for ostentatious patriotism displays have to do with hate speech? Many Europeas share Pratchetts opinion on it:
"I'd be very worried if I saw a man singing the national anthem and waving the flag, sir. It's really a thing foreigners do."
"Really? Why?"
"We don't need to show we're patriotic, sir... We don't have to make a fuss about being the best. We just know."
I can't believe that I actually defend Merkel. Can't stand her, but these accusations are stupid, and so are those who make them.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
The law against incitement to ethnic or racial hatred predates the second world war by almost a century. That law already existed in the Penal Code of the German Empire of 1871. Matter of fact, it was Â130, the same as today.
The 1871 wording is:
"Anyone who publicly incites to violence against different classes of the population in a way that disturbs public peace is punished with a fine of up to two hundred thalers* or with prison for up to two years."
*a silver coin valued at 3 goldmark
The current wording is much more verbose in the way that states more clearly what is considered incitement to hatred, but the gist is basically the same.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
You're an idiot for stating that Germany is still an occupied country.
Really? What exactly would you call a country that has more external military than local military? A hotel? A brothel?
This made my day. :-)
But what ever we say about the military threat to Germany I have always thought of Gemany as a country which can make its own laws.
The Germans, given their history, are a bit wiser than that. One man's freedom of speech can infringe on a million other people's freedom to survive. Speech can be dangerous.
I encourage everyone who believes this nonsense to form their own country and live in harmony with other fellow like minded cowards forever. Censorship of ideas was a core enabler of Nazi Germany and go-to means of control of every dictatorship in human history.
It wasn't Adolf Hitler that killed millions of people it was a whole country going along with his insanity. Censoring speech has a proven track record of actually being dangerous.
It's what cowards always do when they can't compete and fear losing.
Nope, name calling is what cowards do when they fear opinions other than their own.
I strongly encourage you to form your own country with no limits on speech... And I give you about 10 minutes before it collapses.
Nowhere is speech truly unlimited. Even you are trying to practice your own form of censorship by trying to tie a negative label to people that disagree with you. You're as bad as the people you're complaining about and dont even have the common courtesy to admit it... In fact, because you're trying to censor opposing opinions without admitting it, you're even worse.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Your arguments remind me of the arguments that were used to censor pornography. "I know it when I see it."
Face it, once you start banning speech, the kind of speech that will be banned is the kind that is disliked by the ruling class. Thus it has always been.
Yes, anyone should be allowed to shout fire in a crowded theatre. No harm there.
You lot have no idea what is actually happening in Germany.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
I respectfully disagree. Expressing yourself; expressing your beliefs should not be illegal in free society.
...
What your proposing would only lead to tyranny. Whistleblowers, skeptics of all sorts would be criminalized.
Imagine bringing up objections to Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment. What sort of proof would you need to bring forward?
How about Rachel Maddow and Trump returns. Should she be sued?
No. There ought not be a limit on freedom of thought, freedom of speech.
Are the positions of your adversaries wrong? Argue against the wrongfully stated position. Take it on in full daylight.
As a side note right now there are people who say there are different facts for different races and genders. How would you deal with those arguments? You needn't have to.
Everything you say should be legal.
Now, if you falsely, and knowingly create a panic (crying fire in a crowded theater) then being prosecuted for directly ensuing panic *may* make sense. But what do you do to people who
1. say that the economy is in bad condition.
2. declare that the existing president is not being helpful.
3. when a new president is elected (and before he comes to office) declare the economy is making a comeback and call it the "new_president recovery"
Should those obvious falsehood be a prosecutable offense?
Signals of the Clinton Recovery - Rebound Is Seen, but a Slow One
http://www.nytimes.com/1992/11...
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
And that's what I disagree with.
Each of those statements are valid statements (as regards political speech).
Saying white people are created by an evil scientist named Yakub. Is valid political speech. (Are you going to criminalize the NOI - Nation of Islam)?
Saying Muslims / Jews / Whites / Blacks / Asians / whatever are evil and should leave is valid political speech and ought not be criminalized.
Vile, hateful, incorrect statements are valid political statements because the alternative tyranny and thought police are worse. Far worse. Add to the fact that statements will most probably be applied to political opponents as opposed to political friends just exacerbates the issue. Just look at US campuses. Riots when Milo shows up.
Free speech needs to be defended. If you don't defend speech you disagree with you are not a defender of free speech.
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
They are valid statements because the alternative is tyranny and thought police? Come on, look at the countries where this garbage is forbidden: UK, France, Germany, Sweden, Danemark. Do you honestly think that these are tyrannical states who employ a thought police?
And your conjecture that these laws are used to target political opponents is simply false. I dare you to find a single example where this law was used to silence legitimate speech in Germany.
Milo is just a troll. He will say any crap he thinks will make people angry and grab their attention. As a slashdoter you should know how to deal with trolls: ignoring them. Not inviting them to speak a Universities.
entropy happens
No. It's not ok to assault people, specific groups or even politicians with lies, threads or disturbing images. Especially not if behind a cover of an anonymous account. What most people don"t understand: Free speech doesn't mean that you can't be hold accountable. You CAN say that "Xyz builds shitty cars and they fuck and lie to all customers". But Xyz is most likely suing you for defamation. But what if you post your "free speech" on Facebook fake account and hide in the shadows of Internet anonymity? What if Facebook doesn't take down your statement? So - the German government introduced a "big" stick. Either give us the identity of those who post "hate speech" or take it down. There's nothing preventing FB to sue the government.
So - go ahead and post your free speech. Nobody is going to stop you. And be prepared to defend it. That's what free speech is all about. If you just snipe from cover, your speech is worthless because it is undefended. It's ownership falls to the site it is made on. And the site will have to take it down. Simple as that.
Anytime the law or force is used to prevent political speech is wrong.
As per your statements Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Geert Wilders, Marine Le Pen and others have been brought up on charges. All these laws are BS.
Does it make sense to you that you can be brought up on blasphemy charges?
Keep pretending mate. Keep pretending.
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
They have been charged (and convicted) because what they said was hate speech. The case that I remember was Geert Wilders being convicted for saying that Moroccans are scum. This is not legitimate speech, this is just preaching hatred. I'm glad he was punished for it.
entropy happens
So what!?
So f**king what?
Who the hell cares? This is legitimate speech. It's disgusting, absolutely revolting to me that this is a law and that it's defended.
Would you arrest and convict women for saying that "all men are rapists?" Or that heterosexual sex (even consensual) is a form of male dominance?
All political speech, irrespective of truth or hurt feelings, is legitimate.
Should you go to jail for saying that the Koran / Bible is contradictory, irrational and foolish just because some may find the words to be The Truth and find your statements to be hurtful or "hateful"?
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
Yes, anyone should be allowed to shout fire in a crowded theatre. No harm there.
Just an FYI: this standard for freedom of speech is extremely outdated, has been discounted by the supreme court, and has become a cliche and a shibboleth revealing those who have no fucking clue what they are talking about.
You have no idea what is going on in Germany, it is not a theater on fire which for some reason you think it is.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Facebook Germany GmbH has their headquarters in Hamburg, they are doing "local ad sales and marketing".
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
"Moroccans are scum". This is legitimate speech? Seriously? Are you honestly defending that this is a political position that can be debated, that one can criticize one's leaders by saying "Moroccans are scum", that this can have any benefit to society whatsoever?
We know exactly what this kind of speech leads to, because it has happened several times before: race riots, lynching, deportations, pogroms, gulags, concentration camps, gas chambers.
entropy happens
That's a totally different law. Under that law, you can still talk or write about how much you hate another class (and people did). Under current law, you can't even do a historical analysis of the number of people killed in the holocaust. Games like Castle Wolfenstein can't be released in Germany because of the Nazi symbolism. Neither of these examples will disturb the public peace unless there is a different meaning to the word *disturb.*
Incidentally, Germany in the Bismark days definitely used censorship as a tool of oppression. Even before then, certainly under Frederick William II (although I believe that was only in Prussia) censorship was used as a tool of oppression, trying to suppress alternate ideas.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Yeah you are right, and the 'occupiers' have no intention of controlling with German government (Ha! I'll bet France wishes they could sometimes). That said, if the German government for some reason decided to invade Czech provinces, then it is certain the occupiers would this time take action. But that is only theoretical because Germany doesn't want to do that.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
You are apparently unacquainted with hate speech, if you think it is a wrong argument that serves a purpose. It is not a wrong argument because it is not even an argument, it is just preaching hatred. Just to give you a concrete example, Geert Wilders was recently convicted of hate speech because he said that Moroccans are scum. How on Earth is this an argument? What possible benefit there can be in listening to this garbage and debating it? How does it make us rationalize and check our beliefs? All it leads to is Moroccans being lynched.
entropy happens
You can still make a game with tits and violence, get rated 'MO' (Mature only, similar to "NC-17" or "Rated X" in movies) And sure, walmart won't sell your game, but you can sell it on a website, you can sell it on Steam. In that case you probably won't even bother getting rated in the first place and just remain 'N/A'. You see there is no law in America that says you MUST be rated or you can't sell your product. In Australia if your game isn't rated, you can't sell your game in Australia. (which is why they get so few games every year)
I assume EU countries have similar legislation, and even if they don't, they COULD implement such legislation at any point because the ratings organization are run by the govt, whereas when California tried to impose legislation requiring extra 'sticker warnings' be attached to Rated M games, one of the best legal defenses was that the MPAA wasn't a govt organization, therefore the govt couldn't pass laws based on its decisions
Yes. Political speech is legitimate even if wrong, vile, hateful and racist.
Again. Would you imprison NOI members (Farakan and others) for saying that white people were created by an evil scientist named yakub and are, by their very nature, degenerate and evil?
Would you arrest BLM members for their hateful speech against white people?
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
I agree you that should be able to be a skeptic, and that should be protected, there should be nothing wrong with stating you opinion as long as you state it as such. I believe the sky is green, is fine (unless I can prove that you actually don't believe that). I believe the sky is green because of ... is also ok unless you can prove in a court of law that ... is false.
There are already may cases that stating falsehoods is illegal, yes I will pay back the money, fraud is basically misrepresenting the truth. Why shouldn't I be able to falsify documents its just free speech.
Why shouldn't deception when it comes to politics be any different, its effects are much greater than one person stealing money of another. I know we are just so accustomed to being lied to by politicians that it seems normal, but it shouldn't be.
Society runs on trust, without it we have to check and double check every statement for ourselves. This is totally impractical. Imagine if food said "does not contain nuts", and did Its ok you should be able to say anything you like right, free speech right.
Like almost everything in life there is a balance to be struck, to me if you can prove that someone is misleading people beyond reasonable doubt it should be illegal.
Hate speech on the other hand is far to vague and open to manipulation.
Just respond to the following
Now, if you falsely, and knowingly create a panic (crying fire in a crowded theater) then being prosecuted for directly ensuing panic *may* make sense. But what do you do to people who
1. say that the economy is in bad condition.
2. declare that the existing president is not being helpful.
3. when a new president is elected (and before he comes to office) declare the economy is making a comeback and call it the "new_president recovery"
1. If you made up statics or evidence to support that, and it can be proved beyond reasonable doubt then yes.
2. Not quite sure what this means but if they state that they where not being helpful because the didn't do X and the president did then once again yes.
3. once again yes it should not be allowed if you a misrepresenting the truth why should this be allowed do this
In all instances you would have to prove that you where being deceptive beyond reasonable doubt.
depends if fb has any physical assets in germany, that they want to keep.
Come on, wake up, this is not political speech! Only in the sense that the Holocaust was a political decision.
But I just looked NOI up, and it is a clear case of hate speech: they should be punished for spreading this garbage. I don't know, however, what do you mean by hateful speech by BLM members. Care to give a specific example?
entropy happens
Freedom of Speech comes first.
It doesn't matter if it's hateful. What the NOI says shouldn't be a prosecutable offense. Is it stupid, hateful, dumb, racist, vile, pathetic, ridiculous? Yes.
google "BLM kill whitey"
also: "Yusra Khogali"
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
bullshit. the laws do not forbid historical analysis and nazi symbolism (which falls under a entirely different law, section 86a, using symbols of an anticonstitutional organisation) is allowed in research and teaching.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
OK ok, one part of what I said is bullshit. The rest is true.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
You are just repeating over and over again that freedom of speech comes first. Why? Is it for you an absolute value, an end in itself? Then there is no discussion possible, and I'm just wasting my time trying to reason with you.
Re BLM: I'm not searching for it. I asked for a concrete example, it would be nice of you to provide the link.
entropy happens
Well, the rest amounts to a game and what happened over a century ago in a real monarchy, which is oppressive by the very definition. It cannot be compared to a tourist attraction monarchy like it is nowadays in the UK or the Netherlands.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
You are just repeating over and over again that freedom of speech comes first. Why? Is it for you an absolute value, an end in itself? Then there is no discussion possible, and I'm just wasting my time trying to reason with you.
Re BLM: I'm not searching for it. I asked for a concrete example, it would be nice of you to provide the link.
Here's some. If you're interested there is more.
http://www.theblaze.com/news/2...
www.huffingtonpost.ca/.../black-lives-matter-toronto-yusra-khogali_b_14635896.html
http://www.torontosun.com/2017...
Why does Freedom of Speech come first?
What would it come after? Your feelings?
Should saying "Islam / Christianity is a barbaric, ridiculous religion" be against the law? No.
Would you make Islam illegal because it advocates killing infidels? No.
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
Indeed, but you tried to compare that to modern German democracy
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
how about anyone who referes to white people with the derogatory
'the man' or 'the oppressor'.
âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
The logical response of facebook should be to shutter all of it's german IP's with a sign that says, we are banned from doing business in Germany because we promote freedom of speech and leave it that way until things change.
That way the Germans can create their own censored Facebook knockoff and the German people suffer from isolation from the rest of the social network.
Part of the point of freedom of speech is free flow of information.
âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
Yeah, you're right. The US Constitution is only the most important chartering document second to the Magna Carta, and the greatest guarantee of freedom of speech ever crafted in history. No reason anybody would know about.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
You're just being ridiculous.
entropy happens