Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Germany Cracks Down On Illegal Speech On Social Media. (smh.com.au)

Posted by EditorDavid on from the posts-vs-police dept.

ArmoredDragon writes: German police have raided 36 homes of people accused of using illegal speech on Facebook and Twitter. Much of it was aimed at political speech. According to the article, "Most of the raids concerned politically motivated right-wing incitement, according to the Federal Criminal Police Office, whose officers conducted home searches and interrogations. But the raids also targeted two people accused of left-wing extremist content, as well as one person accused of making threats or harassment based on someone's sexual orientation."

This comes just as a new law is being debated that can fine social media platforms $53 million for not removing 70% of illegal speech (including political, defamatory, and hateful speech) within 24 hours of it being posted, which Facebook argues will make it obligatory for them to delete posts and ban users for speech that isn't clearly illegal.

7 of 535 comments (clear)

  1. Illegal speech? by bongey · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There should be no such thing as illegal speech.

    1. Re:Illegal speech? by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There should be no such thing as illegal speech.

      Absolute free speech is a great idea... until you add human emotion to the equation. There must be basic limitations on things such as death threats. I'm not siding with Germany here, I'm just siding with common sense.

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    2. Re:Illegal speech? by Mr.+Shotgun · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The classic yelling fire in a crowded theater is a good example.

      The line was actually "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic." which would be more akin to immediately inciting a riot than mere words on facebook. But even at that the quote was part of a decision in Schenck vs. United States which justified imprisonment of Socialist protesters of the draft during World War I.

      If we were to apply the logic and decisions of that court case to the modern times every member of Code pink would be serving ten years in prison and Bernie Sanders would have long been sent to the gallows. While that quote is the goto response for people supporting censorship people should look into the circumstances, least they find themselves supporting a very terrible decision.

      --
      Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the (supposed) good of its victims may be the most oppressive
    3. Re: Illegal speech? by dunkelfalke · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Care to explain how vilifying the rich resulted in Hitler being funded by big business?
      Or maybe you can explain how NSDAP, being socialist, sent all socialists and communists to concentration camps immediately after seizing power?
      The schools were taken over so the children could be raised in a patriotic way, starting very much like your very own pledge of allegiance.
      Oh by the way, what idiot told you that nazis disarmed the general population? That never happened. Only jews, gypsies and socialists were disarmed, everyone else could buy any amount of long guns or munition they wanted without any paperwork.
      Only handguns were regulated, but the permit was very easy to obtain. With a special permit citizens could even buy tanks or military airplanes - not disarmed, mind you,

      How is any of this not right wing to you?

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
  2. Wrong icon by onyxruby · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Shouldn't this be under the censorship icon?

  3. Re:Checking... Nope. Still Great. by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You do realize that meaningful death threats are illegal, right?

    Yes, that was my point.

    That's the whole point of free speech; you are free to say anything but NOT free of consequences from what you say.

    Incorrect. The point of free speech is to keep the government from jailing you for speaking out against them.

    Everything else in your post is sheer drivel.

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
  4. Re: Free Speech by penandpaper · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Is the US raiding homes because of speech? News to me, got a source?

    The bathroom debate is more about a poorly written version of post-modern law, i.e. should the state recognize the gender you choose at any given time or should it use objective standards that represent 99% of the population. To quote Ted Cruz: "it isn't about the Caitlyn Jenners of the world. But if the law is such that any man if he feels like it can go into a womens restroom and you can't ask him to leave that opens the doors for predators.". Poorly written laws with good intentions are still bad laws. I don't like the idea that if you feel a certain way you can do anything you want. A pedophile feels attracted to children, does that mean I should be tolerant of that because of their feelings? No. I will not capitulate to feelings that disregard objectivity and the vulnerable.

    Whether you agree that the law should have a post-modern influence or not is very much different than raiding your home because you said wrong-speak. I would rather a Trump than a benevolent dictator.