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

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.

Comments

Free Speech

[Anonymous Coward]

You're doing it wrong!

Re: Free Speech

[aliquis]

They wereally weak socialists and strong nationalists.
Way better than the bolsjeviks.

Re: Free Speech

[penandpaper]

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.

Re:Free Speech

[AmiMoJo]

This comes down to different definitions of freedom in the EU and the US. In the US it's all about freedom from interference by the government, in the EU there is also the freedom to live without fear and oppression in your life.

In this case the stuff people have been posting is either direct harassment/threats to individuals, which is actually illegal in the US as well, or more controversially speech promoting violence and hatred of groups based on their ethnicity or religion.

It's interesting that the US was founded by people escaping from religious oppression in Europe. The US constitution guarantees no discrimination or oppression of religion by the government, but not by other citizens. I should stress that it's not about religious views, those should be open to criticism, it's about discrimination along the lines of a sign that says "no Jews". In Germany that got particularly bad a while back.

In the EU the right to "enjoy" life is a basic human right. By "enjoy" it doesn't mean you have to be happy, it just means you have to have the opportunity to use your freedoms without undue burdens like having to fear for your life or request police protection just to go outside. Thus not just threats against individuals are illegal, like in the US, but also threats against identifiable groups or incitements to violence against them.

Personally I find the incitement part problematic... I understand why it is there, but it's something that must be interpreted very narrowly to avoid restricting freedom of speech.

Re: Free Speech

[ud0]

German here. The National Socialists were considered right wing at the time, not afterwards, and they still are. This categorization is not based on whether they were fascists or not, although most Germans still associate fascism with the radical right (and where the radical right is active in Germany today, they usually also have a fascist agenda). The Nazis were a rightist worker party with an absolutist agenda that was almost entirely based on race and national identity. Even today, after the meaning of our terms has slipped somewhat, this fingerprint cannot be considered "left" by any standard.

If I were to hazard a guess, the US' public confusion and outright denial about the Nazi-rightist connection comes from several factors: First, the Nazi ideology was strongly collectivist, and collectivism is often associated with extremist left-wing regimes, plus the American right has a strong dislike for socialism and thereby is strongly anti-collectivist. Second, and I realize this may sound a little bit mean, but sympathizing even with extreme right-wing ideas is so mainstream in the US right now, that some redefinition of words was necessary in order to clean up the image of mass-supported rightist extremism, to purge it from harmful historical associations.

It's important to keep in mind that the Nazi party is not a blueprint for whatever is happening in the world right now, and it's neither fair nor accurate to brand the mainstream rightist movements currently sweeping many Western democracies in this light. In my opinion, people should also be aware that the currently leading rightist and leftist movements both are thoroughly authoritarian ideologies. In fact, authoritarianism is so popular that it even wins over centrists. I'm pointing this out, because people seem to be lost in escalating left vs. right debates leading nowhere, while their freedoms are taken away underneath them.

Re:Free Speech

[TFAFalcon]

They were escaping from the inability to oppress others, not from being oppressed.

Re: Free Speech

[Anonymous Coward]

The lack of education in your post is nearly unbearable, especially in combination with the fact that equally uneducated moderators have modded you up. Since when have so many people become completely ignorant? You should really read some history books.

National socialism is and always has been a right-wing movement, both in their own terms and according to every reasonable description that has ever been made of them. They were fighting socialists and communists and put them in Concentration Camps. Not only that, nearly every fascist right-wing movement in modern times has claimed to help workers and has mimicked false concern about the working class. That's why people have expressed so many fears about Trump, because he uses exactly this far right-wing rhetoric.

Like many people you're confusing a mixture of classical liberalism (e.g. Smith, Locke), utilitarianism and democratic conservatism with the rantings of the far right, which have nearly always been "pro workers class and for the rights of the 'small people" just like socialism and communism. The far right and the far left are similar in many respects, since they are both promoting different forms of totalitarianism, but they are based on different principles. Both of them have few things to do with moderate democratic positions like left- and right-wing liberalism, conservatives in general (who can be leaning left or right), those who are called 'progressives' in the US (i.e., mostly center left conservatives and left-wing liberals), or social democrats.

Also, your statements are way too general. For example, both the Franco regime in Spain and the Salazar regime in Portugal were certainly fascist, but they were neither left-wing like communists nor radical right-wing in the sense of Nazis, they were rather conservative, catholic right-wing fascist movements (though of course not 'fascism' in the sense of its Italian origins). No offense, but these two examples alone illustrate how mistaken you are.

You need to get away from your limited partisan views and take a look at the actual ideologies that were defended, and then you will quite quickly find out that blanket statements are simply false. Neither is Italian fascism a pure worker's movement, not does being pro workers indicate a left-wing position, nor is e.g. Italian fascism on a par with Nazis. And let's not even get started that you seem to be unwilling to even distinguish different forms of left-wing traditions such as anarchism, socialism, democratic socialism, Marxism, Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism, etc., as if they were all the same.

In countries like Portugal communists were tortured or died fighting against fascism. That doesn't mean you need to become a communist, but you should at least show some respect by getting a hint of an education before opening your uninformed mouth.

Re:Free Speech

[epyT-R]

Moving forward towards what exactly?

Re: Free Speech

[Rujiel]

Yeah, damn those progressives and their hatred of immigrants, unwillingness to deal with members of minority religions, hatred of homosexuals amd cripples, authoritarian leanings and appeals to religious authority... oh wait, that's a conservative I just described. Now are you going to complain to me about safe spaces and the war on christmas?

Illegal speech?

[bongey]

There should be no such thing as illegal speech.

Re:Illegal speech?

[LWATCDR]

Yes, there should.
The classic yelling fire in a crowded theater is a good example. Asking someone to commit murder is another example.
In this case, each nation has a different history and culture. The US has a very different history when it comes to Nazi's and antisemitism than many European nations. We allow Neo-Nazis to say the trash that they say because we believe that evil thrives in the dark and hates the light. Germany is a free democratic nation so if the citizens of Germany want to have those limitations then that is up to them.
I admit that I prefer the system in the US where you can express any idea or political thought but we limit profanity and sexual content. Those limitations do not prevent people from expressing ideas they just limit the words and images used to express them.
Each free and democratic nation must try and find the balance that works for them.

Re:Illegal speech?

[lucasnate1]

I am not sure whether racist speech should be limited or not. I am sure that I prefer limiting racist speech over limiting sexual content (assuming consent). I don't get it what's up with you americans and sexuality.

Re:Illegal speech?

[JBMcB]

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

This is not illegal. Google it.

Asking someone to commit murder is another example.

The standard is - if there is a reasonable expectation of your speech directly causing harm of someone specifically, then that can be considered incitement to commit violence or murder.

That's it. That's all that should be covered. The other exception is if you are motivated by hatred for some reason or another to commit a crime, which would be a hate crime - then your words can be used against you. But they can't be used to convict you of a crime alone, they have to be coupled with another crime.

Re:Illegal speech?

[Gravis Zero]

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.

Re:Illegal speech?

[Brett Buck]

This is not "yelling fire in a crowded theater", in any way, shape, or form. That theory is used incessantly to justify suppression of speech. In this case, it is being used to *intentionally suppress political speech that is not in accordance with the current government position*, which is the sort of speech that requires the most protection.

      Germany's history of anti-semitism is not the issue. If you examined the history of anti-semitism of Germany, it's hardly any different in theory from anyplace els - anti-semitism has been a recurring theme throughout history.

        What *is* different is their history of oppression that led to the most appalling - and efficient - attempt at genocide in human history. The root of this was permitting repression in favor of the government, leading to a dictatorship. This allowed thugs with delusions of racial superiority to take over.

    The Germans are *dead wrong* to criminalize speech, because as soon as you do, you permit someone else to decide what "hate" means - just like 1933.

       

Re:Illegal speech?

[Mr. Shotgun]

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.

Re:Illegal speech?

[AmiMoJo]

Just to be clear here, racist speech is legal in Germany. It becomes illegal when it goes from "X are all scum" to "X should be driven from our land". In other words, it's the threat part that is illegal. Unlike some countries it doesn't have to be a specific threat against an individual, it can be against large groups.

Re: Illegal speech?

[dunkelfalke]

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?

governments are scared

[Anonymous Coward]

governments are scared of the internet... they are trying to slowly kill it

Meanwhile in the US . . .

[DreadCthulhu]

Thankfully, here in the US the Supreme Court unanimously disagrees with this "hate speech" BS. Letting governments censor any sort of political speech is just a bad idea. https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Re:Germany leader of the free world

[MightyMartian]

Germany's limitations on far right speech have been around for seven decades, and were born out of the Allied Occupation and Allied Denazification policies. We can argue whether those laws are justifiable now, but the intent, as with banning the Imperial form of Shinto by the US during the occupation of Japan, was to assure that the militaristic regimes that had killed hundreds of millions would not rise again.

Wrong icon

[onyxruby]

Shouldn't this be under the censorship icon?

Re:Checking... Nope. Still Great.

[Gravis Zero]

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.

Re:Germany .... taking

[mvdwege]

Guess who insisted that criminalising Nazism was a pre-condition for an independent Germany?

Oh wait, it was those enlightened Free Speech activists known as the USA.