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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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."
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.