Germany Starts Enforcing Hate Speech Law (bbc.com)

Germany is set to start enforcing a law that demands social media sites move quickly to remove hate speech, fake news and illegal material. From a report: Sites that do not remove "obviously illegal" posts could face fines of up to 50m euro ($60m). The law gives the networks 24 hours to act after they have been told about law-breaking material. Social networks and media sites with more than two million members will fall under the law's provisions. Facebook, Twitter and YouTube will be the law's main focus but it is also likely to be applied to Reddit, Tumblr and Russian social network VK. Other sites such as Vimeo and Flickr could also be caught up in its provisions.

Comments

Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better?

[muecksteiner]

You know, what with their long and illustrious history of totalitarianism and censorship. Which always worked out so perfectly, right?

I guess the correct reply to this whole censorship thing would be "Jawohl, mein Führer!" (spoken to their "Minister of Justice" who came up with this insanity). And I wish this was funny, instead of tragic.

Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better?

[Anonymous Coward]

The "hate speech" laws are designed to crack down on "extremists" but of course they'll be used to crack down on "dissenting opinion" soon enough as the concept of hate speech is ill-defined and open to interpretation.

Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better?

[currently_awake]

They are trying to prevent the Evil that happened before from coming back. Hate speach against Jews -> violence against Jews -> death camps for Jews.

Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better?

[religionofpeas]

That must be why they've opened their borders for Jew-hating immigrants.

Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better?

[misexistentialist]

corporations had no problem doing business with Hitler, since their purpose is to make money, passing up the chance to make money is the only evil

Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better?

[muecksteiner]

Precisely this, a hundred times over. The current political establishment in DE gets a lot of good press, but mainly because the press loves them regardless of what they do. In reality, the current German government makes Mr. Trump seem sane and connected to reality, if you look closely how well their actions match their rhetoric.

In particular with regard to their stance on immigration, and with regard to Islamic fundamentalism in their own country. Are all Muslim immigrants radicals? No, of course not. But if a minority of immigrant Muslims routinely get away with anti-semitic rhetoric that would land a "native" German in jail, what the hell do they expect the outcome to be?

Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's all good and well when you agree with what constitutes evil, but if you had asked anyone in the German government in the 1930's what evil needed prevention I bet it wouldn't have been people saying mean things about Jews. Now you've created a legal instrument to suppress speech the government decides is "bad." What happens when what the government decides is "bad" isn't what you think is "bad"? They have a legal tool to stop you from saying "hateful" things, like that the Aryan race isn't the master race.

Why are pro-authoritarians always such morons?

Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better?

[Anonymous Coward]

They are trying to prevent the Evil that happened before from coming back. Hate speach against Jews -> violence against Jews -> death camps for Jews.

And yet those that dissented against that very Evil were censored or labelled as extremists by the governemnt.

Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better?

[ScentCone]

corporations had no problem doing business with Hitler

Because, in most cases, they saw things exactly as the British prime minister did. How bad could this guy REALLY be, after all? Or, they were businesses that literally had no choice because if they didn't play ball they were destroyed, and the company's assets and reigns handed to someone else. But for companies outside of Germany, don't underestimate the Chamberlain effect. Or the sort of blithe dismissal of Nazi evilness exhibited by Democrats like FDR until it was much too late.

Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better?

[Mr D from 63]

They are trying to prevent the Evil that happened before from coming back. Hate speach against Jews -> violence against Jews -> death camps for Jews.

Very understandable. Yet one thing very important to the NAZI government was control of the media and its content, so they should proceed with caution.

Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better?

[c]

Force the government to decide what is and isn't hate speech, on a post-by-post basis.

1. temporarily take down every post that looks like hate speech
2. forward the details and poster contact information to the authorities
3. if the government fails to respond with an investigation and/or charges, then it's obviously permissible speech; restore the post

The Youtube comment section alone should generate enough "hate speech" to completely shutdown the German beaurocracy within days.

Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better?

[AutodidactLabrat]

Protecting the innocent from neo-nazi lies like the "mass rape in Berlin" story is entirely different than murdering communists.

Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better?

[AmiMoJo]

You can make the same argument about US anti-speech laws. What is harassment? What is incitement? Is it your fault if you shout fire in a theatre and people believe you and get hurt? All open to interpretation and judgement, which is what we have a legal system for.

I'm not a fan of this, I'm just pointing out that all countries have laws that require judicial interpretation, because real life is too complex to enumerate every possibly.

Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better?

[admin7087]

On the contrary, Hitler rose to power because the Weimarer Republic had no provisions against hate speech and parties who directly acted against the constitution. Continuous hate speech, violence in the streets by the SA, and flaws in the constitution in combination allowed Nazis to take advantage of a power vacuum and then seize complete control after Hitler was elected. One of the lessons learned from the Nazi regime and the failure of the Weimarer Republic was that a democracy must be able to defend itself efficiently against enemies within and not just against enemies outside. Hate speech and possible party prohibitions (with very high juridical hurdles) are among these measures. There is also an irrevocable right in the constitution to resist unconstitutional actions by authorities, a delicate balance of power with a relatively powerless president, the Verfassungsschutz offices responsible not just for counter-espionage but also for intelligence regarding enemies of the constitution, and so forth.

It's a very modern and complex system of safeguards against totalitarianism. On a side note, the development of the (West) German constitution including its provisions against hate and unconstitutional speech and symbols was to a large extent guided by the US.

Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better?

[fustakrakich]

"Incitement" is bullshit. Rioting is a choice. Losing your head to the mob is no excuse. Large groups of people are just as dangerous as any other animal, you should expect the worst when they become agitated, but people do it by choice, either way, the best move is to keep a safe distance.

Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better?

[LynnwoodRooster]

Problem is step 3... Governments will NOT give you a waiver on an "illegal" action (like hate speech) just because they did not answer in time. So put those posts back up at your own risk, and hope they decide to NOT toss you in prison...

Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better?

[lucasnate1]

It's funny, my history classes always told me that Nazis took over because economy was shit and there was street violence, not because there was censorship on hate speech.

Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better?

[iamgnat]

"Incitement" is bullshit. Rioting is a choice. Losing your head to the mob is no excuse. Large groups of people are just as dangerous as any other animal, you should expect the worst when they become agitated, but people do it by choice, either way, the best move is to keep a safe distance.

While I agree that those in the mob are responsible for their own actions (including a panicking horde when someone "yells fire"), there is also responsibility on the one doing the shouting for recognizing the situation and the result of their "free expression".

Is the piece of shit that called in the SWAT team not culpable in the death of that innocent man? Certainly the police have responsibility for how they responded to the call and the actions they took, but ultimately they would not have been there had he not called. Additionally he clearly knew that the police would show up in force due to such a call and would have to be monumentally stupid (debatable given that he thinks swatting is "funny") to not grasp the potential outcome of such actions.

So yes, the people responding to the "free expression" have responsibility and should be held accountable, but the same goes for the expresser.

Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better?

[fustakrakich]

Or the sort of blithe dismissal of Nazi evilness exhibited by Democrats like FDR until it was much too late.

Or they may ave been waiting until there was sufficient inventory to fight a war, instead of just jumping right in. Maybe if the other guy had done the same thing, it would have turned differently, no? Nobody has any idea what went on behind the curtain. All we have here is tabloid press. They have high finance directing their actions. Besides, it wasn't too late, we won, or so they say. I do have to ask, why are we still there? I thought when you win a war, you go home back to the farm, put the rifle in the corner, and, you know, enjoy some conjugal relations...

Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better?

[LynnwoodRooster]

Unfortunately, much of Federal law, at least in the US, is functionally exempt from the statute of limitations. For example, taxes. For most issues, the statute only kicks in once the Government is aware of the crime. If they are not aware a crime was committed, the clock doesn't start. So they sit on your hate-speech post for 12 years, then get around to looking at it. Then whatever statute of limitations timing starts - AFTER they are aware of it (just like taxes; cheat on your taxes, they find the issue 9 years later, then the statute of limitations begins).

Re: Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better?

[Anonymous Coward]

So all the cyanide gas and mass executions with bullets were a result of supply line problems?

Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better?

[ScentCone]

Or they may ave been waiting until there was sufficient inventory to fight a war, instead of just jumping right in.

Or, you could just listen to the people who explained - at the time - why they didn't want to get involved. Because they explained their thinking for contemporary consumption and for posterity. You're part of posterity, but you're wishing away reality because it's uncomfortable realizing that hindsight is better than politically skewed contemporary processing of information, and you're wishing that the liberal establishment at the time would have been wiser about where Hitler was headed.

Besides, it wasn't too late, we won

Ah, so it doesn't matter how many millions of people die in the process. Gotcha. And you're not worried about (or even aware of?) the fact that much of what we fought against never went away.

I do have to ask, why are we still there?

That you don't understand that demonstrates how ignorant you are of what we were and are up against. Let me guess, you were also one of the people mocking Mitt Romney for mentioning Russia as one of the prominent threats to a peaceful world. Up until Hillary Clinton told you to blame them for her loss, at which point Russians are suddenly the bad guys again. They never stopped being the bad guys, and that's why we're still there. Can't believe you need that explained to you.

I thought when you win a war, you go home back to the farm

And if you haven't won, because totalitarians armed with nukes and huge armies are still standing there looking at you and marching into places like Ukraine, then no, you haven't won. At no point after defeating Nazi Germany, did any rational person consider matters "won." Convenient, fleeting cooperation with the Soviets in defeating a mutual enemy gave way - as it must - to an immediate tension between our vision of a free and democratic world and their vision, of a socialist prison empire looking to take over the world. They, as socialists always do, ran out of other people's money, and slid into more traditional totalitarian thuggery while their older ideological offspring around the world are still limping along, killing people who try to leave their little paradises. We're still in places like Asia and Europe because despite your completely wrong understanding of reality, there are still people that need staring down and others (including ourselves) that need defending from them.

Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better?

[dunkelfalke]

The Weimarer Republic had a law against hate speech. It is actually the same paragraph as nowadays, paragraph 130, codified with the rest of the the criminal code of the German Empire in 1871 and it was worded well enough to suppress the Nazis. Unfortunately it has been only used to prosecute socialists, just as it was planned right from the beginning, while the Nazis were tolerated.

Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better?

[lucasnate1]

Why the fuck did this get (+1)? Is "jew hating" the new blood libel? Hell, in Israel I see it used against anyone who criticizes jewism, including people who are holocaust survivors or their descendants.

Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better?

[fustakrakich]

Gotcha.

Right through the heart!

"Liberal Establishment" You're funny as hell! I love how you can dream this stuff up.. Oh wait, you don't, you just repeat the same old superficial bullshit you read in those tabloids. "Don't bury yourself in the part"!

Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better?

[Uberbah]

That must be why they've opened their borders for Jew-hating immigrants.

You mean the State Department's neo-Nazi pals in Ukraine that it used to overthrow the elected government? Yeah, those guys are assholes.

Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better?

[Shadow of Eternity]

"A totalitarian dictator rose to power because the state wasn't totalitarian enough to silence and repress his movement before he became a dictator!"

Yeah that argument doesn't really sound too compelling. It's kinda like when the military wing of the social justice movement, Antifa, shows up in their black and red uniforms with their black and red flags and start violently attacking everyone who disagrees with them... starting with the practicing jews they call "nazis".

Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better?

[ScentCone]

Ah, the immediate relapse into ad hominem, carefully avoiding the reality of the situation as usual. Careful! Don't notice any facts! Then you'd have to address them. Which you didn't because that would mean acknowledging the circumstances that you were pretending to be too ignorant to get. Your phony questioning of why we have forces near places like North Korea and Russia was silly enough, but maybe you could at least pretend to address the points made? But no, instead of troubling yourself to read the words expressed by liberal heroes like FDR, you're going to stick with your "he was just working on his inventory before helping with the Nazis" alternate history. Hilarious.

Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better?

[religionofpeas]

Is "jew hating" the new blood libel?

They hate gays too.

Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better?

[Mashiki]

Why the fuck did this get (+1)? Is "jew hating" the new blood libel?

Ask academia. There's plenty of jew hating and antisemitism coming from left-wing groups on university campuses. I mean this is from a university in my own province and it's coming directly out of the leftwing halls in those universities. And it's sure not limited to Canada, but EU universities and US universities. So much so that the difference between a far-right extremist and a far-left extremist simply boils down to who's got more power at the moment and how they can wield it. Right now? That's the left, and in many countries they've had institutional power in universities for over a generation.

Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better?

[kenai_alpenglow]

Except if they had jumped right in, the *Germans* didn't have enough inventory to fight the war (Rhineland, Austria, maybe Sudentenland)....the Brits/French waited long enough for Germany to build up their forces, and we saw the results (Poland/France/etc).

Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better?

[kenai_alpenglow]

Except we're not talking "yells fire". We're talking "Yells ". In that case I can see 'disturbing the piece' (though with the movies today, it might be an improvement to the plot...); but not 'Hate Speech'.

Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better?

[Orgasmatron]

Unfortunately it has been only used to prosecute socialists, just as it was planned right from the beginning, while the Nazis were tolerated.

You do know that the Nazis were socialists, right? I mean, it is right there in the name. And in the party platform. And in the books. And in the speeches. And in the policies.

The "right wing" in Germany was terminal by the 1920s. Germany was getting socialism ASAP, the question was - who is going to be in charge of German socialism?

On the broadest level, the debate was between the communists who wanted Germany to be ruled by Russians, and the Nazis who wanted Germany to be ruled by Germans. The two platforms were identical in regards to pretty much all economic matters - socialist healthcare, socialist retirement plans, socialist education, socialist employment and labor practices - all the same. What was different was that the Nazis rejected the anti-national planks of the communist plan. For example, they didn't want the German people dispersed across Russia and Russians brought in to fill the vacancies. (See Holodomor)

The Nazi party actual rose up because the government was not suppressing the communists, who then felt like they had free reign to attack the people.

The SA (which was later absorbed by the Nazi party) was a non-government organization originally set up to protect the political process (rallies, meetings, elections, etc) from communist groups like the RFB. They were doing the job the government had failed to do.

Believing fairy tales about the past is a sure way to be surprised when it comes back around.

Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better?

[Hal_Porter]

In the UK each time there's a terrorist attack the hate speech laws get tightened up to catch 'extremists'. And each time it seems like a lot more people complaining about terrorism get caught than actual terrorists. Or even Islamists. Anjem Choudary was regularly invited on TV to spread his loathsome views and was allowed to recruit people for al Qaeda, ISIS etc up until 2016, even though hate speech laws were supposed to stop him

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Meanwhile this hapless bastard got sent to prison, and mysteriously died there for putting a ham sandwich on a mosque. What did he die of? No one seems to care - even though there's supposed to be an inquiry no results of it were ever released.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...

So Crehan got very effectively screwed for committing 'a racially-motivated attack'. Anjem Choudhary blatantly recruited for ISIS from 2002 to 2016, was invited on the BBC to do it and is very unlikely to die mysteriously in prison. British prisons have a load of Islamists, so he'll be a hero in there.

tl;dr - hate speech laws get people who complain about Islamism, not actual Islamists.

Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better?

[fustakrakich]

I think people were just trying to keep their bank accounts (and their houses) intact. War can screw that up pretty bad too. And really, up until 1945, war in Europe has been pretty continuous for at least a few thousand years. They will never enjoy the blessed isolation provided by huge bodies of water to keep them safe from invaders. I can understand the reluctance to start another hot one, even if everyone knew it was inevitable. I would be fascinated to hear what people think keeps the peace now. It's not hate speech laws, that, I hope, is obvious.

Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better?

[lucasnate1]

Define antisemitism. I don't think that people should be prosecuted because of whatever is in their bloodstream, including jewish descent. However, I do think it is OK to judge people by their choices. For example, if someone chooses to take his baby to a religious cleric without any medical training who will cut his penis and then suck in the wound, then yes, I think it is ok to criticize him, and maybe even to abolish the practice since it is child abuse.

If that's antisemitism in some PC land, then so be it. In the past the word antisemitism used to refer to people who wanted to abuse and brutalize anyone who is of Jewish descent, not to people who have legitimate criticism against Jewish religion.

Note: most of my criticism here against Jewish religion can likely be said for Islam too, in fact, the reason that I dislike Jewish religion is because I find it very similar to Islam. The main difference between them is that Islam missionary while Jewish religion settles for abusing only its own people.

Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better?

[skam240]

Oh, right, Muslim = "hates Jews" because Muslims arent actually individuals like the rest of us, they're just one big stereotype.

Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better?

[skam240]

Maybe site some sources

Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better?

[Barsteward]

they opened it to Catholics?

Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better?

[skam240]

One doesnt announce "we're letting you do this so we can build up military inventory". Maybe look at the fact that the Brits were in fact building up their military because they werent the complete and utter idiots you seem to want to make them out to be.

Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better?

[religionofpeas]

because Muslims arent actually individuals like the rest of us, they're just one big stereotype.

How many Muslims do you know that complain about their Jew-hating brothers ?

Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better?

[Barsteward]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... - "The National Socialist German Workers' Party (German: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (helpinfo), abbreviated NSDAP), commonly referred to in English as the Nazi Party (/ntsi/), was a far-right political party in Germany that was active between 1920 and 1945 and practised the ideology of Nazism." - far and right and far left always look very similar

Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better?

[ClickOnThis]

"Incitement" is bullshit. Rioting is a choice. Losing your head to the mob is no excuse. Large groups of people are just as dangerous as any other animal, you should expect the worst when they become agitated, but people do it by choice, either way, the best move is to keep a safe distance.

Riiiight. A stick of dynamite has a "choice" to blow up. It's not my fault if I light the fuse.

If you say something that causes mass panic and could incite a riot, you are behaving in an irresponsible, if not criminal manner.

Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better?

[skam240]

Oh, "right there in the name"? So the Democratic Republic of North Korea (North Korea's legitimate name) is a Democratic Republic? What a world you live in. But alright, sure, on economic issues Nazis are to the Left a good portion of the time.

Now here's something that is really going to blow your mind though. This is not at all the reason why Nazis are one of history's greatest monsters. If the Germans had stayed in Germany and not killed millions of people no one would care.

Basically, what makes Nazism is not socialized medicine or retirement plans. That's just a modern scare tactic some American small government types love to wave around.

Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better?

[skam240]

Correction: "But alright, sure, on economic issues the Nazis of the 30's and 40's are to the Left a good portion of the time"

Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better?

[ClickOnThis]

They opened their borders to victims of terror. Can some terrorists sneak in? Of course. But that doesn't mean one can just ignore the human tragedy that's going on outside one's borders. Instead, one screens the people coming in, and tries one's best to keep the terrorists out.

Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better?

[fustakrakich]

Well, if you don't want to believe in freedom of choice, that's your thing, I guess. Can't argue against the party faithful. Just remember, that freedom is the singular thing that differentiates us from all other lifeforms.

Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better?

[hey!]

Well, they have to work within the boundaries of a Constitution that was written by the victorious allies in WW2 to ensure the thorough de-Nazification of the country which had been thoroughly under the Nazi party's thumb for sixteen years.

Re: Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better?

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you even read the article you linked to? The findings of that particular âoestudyâ weâ(TM)re heavily disputed by Jewish groups at those universities, presumably those least likely to do so had its findings been accurate

Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better?

[lucasnate1]

And you think religious jews dont?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...

Re: Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better?

[c6gunner]

No, that's not antisemitism, that's islamophobia. You're allowed to criticise Judaism and Christianity.

Re: Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better?

[c6gunner]

Looks like the Russian trolls aren't just using Facebook any more!

Re: Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better?

[c6gunner]

But I'm not here to out troll him

That's unfortunate because trolling seems to be the one thing you're kinda good at. You're certainly not going to out-think or out-debate him ... so if out-trolling is off the table, then you may as well give up and go home.

Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better?

[skam240]

Heh, read what you just asked.

If the answer is "many" then there are many more Muslims who arent or you wouldnt be hearing the complaints. If the answer is "none" or "few" then there could very well not be a major problem either.

In answer to your question though, none. However, I do hear the proprietor of my favorite local schawarma joint (who is a Muslim) complain about his land lord (who also happens to be a Muslim) being a crook by doing things like charging extra in December for rent for Christmas decorations in the parking lot when year after year there are no decorations. Meanwhile, his shop is located directly next to a Grocery store that is part of a small chain that is owned by a Jew and sponsors a very nice Hanukkah celebration outside of it every year.

Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better?

[skam240]

I like how you substitute "liberals" for general will of the American people. Getting involved in yet another European war wasnt popular with the bulk of Americans in general, not just liberals. Your revisionism truely knows no bounds

You're even taking an event where the US literally helped out Britain's war effort and trying to posit it as proof that the US did not help them. I really just dont know what to think of some one when they say shit like this.

Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better?

[fustakrakich]

Had a beer with any Ukrainians lately? I have. Know any Romanians?

Yeah, well, know your neighbor. Look, if it's such a big deal, you should finish the job you started. Your half assed methods are what put us where we are today.

Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better?

[hey!]

Of course they had a choice. You could argue that some people were naive about Nazi intentions in 1938, but nobody was caught by surprise 1941. Hitler had made his intentions clear all the way back in 1925 when he published Mein Kampf. And as it became more undeniably obvious he was going to follow through his plans, the option was always there to step back, to reduce your company's involvement. And many companies no doubt did. But others doubled down as long as there was a quick buck to be made.

Those companies had a choice. The men running those companies had a choice too. Even when there was no more choice, taking the path that led there had been a choice. After the war men like Alfred P Sloan and Henry Ford pretended they'd been ill-used by the Nazis, but it was their actions to make that possible, and they were well-paid for those actions. They transferred resources and technology to the Nazis even after it was clear that those things were going to be used against American soldiers. Ford even secretly kept it up after war had been formally declared and thousands of Americans were being killed.

Re: Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better?

[hey!]

The convention was called by the London 6 Power Conference. The attendees were reluctant to set up a West German constitution because it prejudiced German reunification, but had no choice. Their result was subject to the approval of the Trizone occupying powers. So, yeah. The Americans, Brits, and French were OK with a de-nazification friendly constitution.

Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better?

[ScentCone]

I like how you substitute "liberals" for general will of the American people.

We're talking about FDR and his cabinet, here. The very height of liberal politics. And I choose that word carefully because the sort of moral relativism on display in that shameful turn of events plugs in nicely with today's liberal politics, where Democrats, for example, insist that we treat the governments of cultures that throw gay people off of rooftops as moral equals because to call them what they are - when they happen to be predominantly from some other cultural heritage and statistically perhaps even a different shade of skin tone - would be racist. That sort of agonizingly muddled thinking on display today has its roots deep within the progressive politics hatched early in the 20th century. I do find your attempt to call someone pointing that out a revisionist to be hilarious, though. Thanks for humor this afternoon!

You're even taking an event where the US literally helped out Britain's war effort and trying to posit it as proof that the US did not help them.

No, you're taking an occasion when the US president signed an act preventing us from helping them, and then went to considerable lengths to avoid delivering to them manufactured items they needed for their defense, and only grudgingly allowed them to drag it literally with horses across the border into Canada to cravenly avoid being seen being making a moral distinction between the British and the Nazis ... as somehow "literally helping" Britain. It was pure obstructionism, which you're somehow getting exactly backwards. And you're complaining about what other people say?

Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better?

[ScentCone]

Yeah, well, know your neighbor. Look, if it's such a big deal, you should finish the job you started. Your half assed methods are what put us where we are today.

More intellectually empty, craven, cop-out crap. How embarrassing for you. But consistent, anyway.

Which of my half assed methods are you referring to, by the way? As usual, you're quick with the lazy ad hominem and ever so very careful to never mention a single concrete thing. Because you know you're being a gaseous hypocrite, as usual, and can never muster the energy to even badly attempt to back up your arm-waving histrionics. So, be specific. Which of my methods are you describing?

Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better?

[Anonymous Coward]

There is.

Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better?

[Vinegar Joe]

The Germans are still trying even though they lost in 1918 and 1945. I guess they think they'll be lucky the third time.

Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better?

[AmiMoJo]

Actually most of the Syrian refugees are quite well educated and liberal.

They don't hate Jews for the most part either. They might have specific issues with Israel. I do too, but that's due to politics rather than religion.

Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better?

[AmiMoJo]

So if they didn't pass these laws what would stop a far right government introducing them later? Nothing, nothing at all.

The only way to stop a repeat of the 30s is to stop far right governments taking power in the first place. Germany has protections against that. Yes, it does mean some politics are suppressed and censored. It's a balance, has to be.

Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better?

[AmiMoJo]

German courts won't allow fines if a genuine effort is made. Mistakes happen, and in Europe the courts tend to assume good faith unless shown otherwise.

Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better?

[serviscope_minor]

"Incitement" is bullshit. Rioting is a choice. Losing your head to the mob is no excuse. Large groups of people are just as dangerous as any other animal, you should expect the worst when they become agitated, but people do it by choice, either way, the best move is to keep a safe distance.

You started off saying incitement is bullshit then gave a very cogent explanation as to why it's not bullshit.

Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better?

[AmiMoJo]

Nazis are not socialists. They adopted some socialist ideas to get elected, standard populist stuff. But as soon as they had a grip on power they abandoned all that.

Gotta ask, does having a word in the name really make you think the organisation is that word? I mean, do you think that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is a democracy? I don't think that's how it works.

Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better?

[fustakrakich]

How's that? Keeping away from a crowd of irrational people would be most prudent.

Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better?

[skam240]

"We're talking about FDR and his cabinet, here"

No, you specifically said "And FDR, anxious not to upset the Germans but even more anxious to not upset his fellow liberals..." Don't deflect, it only weakens your argument.

In regards to Roosevelt, it's historic fact that from 1940 on we not only sold the Brits planes but boats as well. When they could no longer afford to pay for the arms we were selling them Roosevelt proposed the lend-lease act where we literally lent them military hardware in exchange for future payments. Roosevelt chose a side early in WW2 and it was most certainly with the Brits. Things like moving the planes over the Canadian boarder are not at all evidence of his lack of support for the UK, they are in fact evidence of his support for them in the face of the wide spread disinterest in getting involved in a European war.

"...insist that we treat the governments of cultures that throw gay people off of rooftops...."

What the hell are you rambling about now? We're a culture of rampant mass shootings, does that make us all evil? ISIS does horrible things (your roof top reference for instance) and that then applies to the entire culture they come from and that makes Islamic governments evil? What a bunch of nonsense. These things don't equate at all.

If you want to talk about US supporting intolerant Muslim nations though, conservatives are just as eager as any American politician to support nations like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better?

[dunkelfalke]

You are a bloody liar.
First, the Weimar government was suppressing the communists, paying the Freikorps - private right wing paramilitary organisations - to do the dirty work.
Second, SA started as the paramilitary organisation of the Nazi party in the first place, created to intimidate political enemies.
But I do understand why you lie and try to whitewash the Nazis - you yourself are a fucking brownshirt.

Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better?

[JaredOfEuropa]

A great example of that is what happened to Sarah Champion and Naz Shah, both MPs for Labour commenting on the widespread practise of grooming young girls for prostitution. One stated that “we cannot separate these acts from the culture of the perpetrators.” The other retweeted a statement that said that “these girls [the victims] should keep their mouths shut in the name of diversity”. Follow these statements, one MP was forced to resign, the other is now Corbyn’s darling. Guess who got which reward?

There’s a danger in these “hate speech” laws that are open for interpretation. Even if you believe that the judicial system will eventually render a fair verdict. Here in the Netherlands, a cartoonist by the pseudoniem of Nekschot was accused of inciting hatred. He was arrested in his home, at night, by a 10 man strong SWAT team, who took him and seized his computers. After a few days he was released... but he stopped drawing cartoons altogether after this event. I don’t think he got convicted in the end, but whoever ordered that arrest sure got what they wanted.

Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better?

[djinn6]

Actually most of the Syrian refugees are quite well educated and liberal.

Really? More than half? I for one can't find a source for Europe, but for those who are approved for entry into the US, less than 20% have anything more than a high school diploma.

They don't hate Jews for the most part either.

How do you know this?

Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better?

[Orgasmatron]

it is right there in the name. And in the party platform. And in the books. And in the speeches. And in the policies.

Any democratic policies in North Korea? Does Rocket Man campaign on a platform of broadening democracy? Does he give speeches about increasing democracy? Do they encourage their citizens and politicians to read books about democracy?

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, but you should be aware that I have lots of experience with little shits who try to play word games, which is why I didn't stop with just "right there in the name". For context, I was responding only to dunkelfuck's preposterous claim that Germany's hate speech laws were intended to suppress the socialists while the socialists were tolerated.

The right wing in pre-war Germany was the aristocracy. Think President Field Marshal Paul Ludwig Hans Anton von Beneckendorff und von Hindenburg. They were, as I said, terminal by the 1920s and the only remaining debate was over which of the two competing groups of socialists was going to take over.

If you read my whole post, you'll notice that I didn't put any value judgments in it - it was just a straightforward recitation of facts. I fully understand why modern socialists want to pretend that the Nazis were right wing, or at the very least pretend that they weren't socialists, but that is contrary to history. I'm also fully aware that they aren't hated today because of the socialism, but that is completely unrelated to the topic at hand.

Believing fairy tales about the past is a sure way to be surprised when it comes back around.

I repeat that because I'm begging you all to understand that Naziism didn't spring into the world fully formed, like Athena popping out of Zeus's head. There was a context, and understanding that context is important if you want to avoid a repeat.

Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better?

[AHuxley]

The law was set up after ww2 in West Germany. To protect democracy from anything that could disrupt politics and elections.
Every optical group in West Germany was to be investigated to see if it was comparable with democracy.
If the people or the part platform was investigated and found to be not democratic then laws existed to totally stop that party from functioning.
That law stayed in West German and then became German law.
With the internet Germany is trying to impose its 1950's West German election laws onto the world.

Re: Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better?

[guruevi]

Well, they also styled their elections around preventing another Hitler and now they canâ(TM)t get rid of Merkel.

Re: Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better?

[guruevi]

If you canâ(TM)t yell fire in a theater, youâ(TM)ll let everyone burn to a crisp so you wonâ(TM)t go to jail?

Try yelling fire in a theater and see how many people die... seriously, try - nobody will die, nobody will even move.

Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better?

[skam240]

And I'm begging you, please reject extremism. The economic policies of Nazi Germany are fairly similar to the entirety of all First world nations today. NO REASONABLE PERSON FINDS NAZI GERMANY OBJECTIONABLE BECAUSE THEY HAD SOCIALIZED MEDICINE OR ELDER CARE. There is nothing extreme about socialized medicine or elder care. You're creating false equivalencies. If i live a life like any other and then murder people that makes me evil. If I live a life like any other and don't murder anyone than that makes me as any other.

Your extremism lies in "anything Left is evil". Moderation has almost always been what's best for society, it's always when people run to the extremes that we have horror. Nazi Germany was by any modern observation a moderate in terms of its economy. In terms of nationalism though, it was pure hard Right. This does not make Right wing ideology evil any more than extreme Left wing ideology makes the Left evil. It's merely accepting that extremes are inherently unhealthy.

Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better?

[liquid_schwartz]

The "hate speech" laws are designed to crack down on "extremists" but of course they'll be used to crack down on "dissenting opinion" soon enough as the concept of hate speech is ill-defined and open to interpretation.

I think the powers that be consider this a feature not a bug. That's why thinking people, regardless of political leanings, are against hate speech laws.

Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better?

[Evtim]

Somehow I picture the minister as Dr. Strangelove - clamping desperately the right hand with the left in a vain attempt to conceal his/her true self.

Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better?

[Falconnan]

It's actually more insidious than that. The Nazis specifically called out Communists as enemies of the State. Further, they only adopted the word "Socialist" in the name to capitalize on the support actual Socialists were gaining. Fascism has features of both capitalism and socialism, combined with a co-opting of religion and strict social and/or legal means to support authority.

A bigger concern for all is how Fascism resembles an economic oligarchy. We are facing a problem wherein philosophical authoritarianism is being embraced by broader swathes of the population. Fear is being leveraged to spur this tendency. Hate speech, which I would personally define as generally intended to slander a group or encourage harm toward such a group, generally promotes authoritarian attitudes by promoting fear. Hitler and his cronies tapped into this, as have most authoritarians. If someone is quick to point to a scapegoat group for any complex issue, I strongly advise you treat them as suspect.

Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better?

[serviscope_minor]

How's that? Keeping away from a crowd of irrational people would be most prudent.

Well if you know crowds are irrational and dangerous, then it stands to reason that it is not reasonable to expect everyone in the croud to behave in a rational manner. So, incitement is a possibility.

And yes I agree, it's prudent to avoid such a crowd.

Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better?

[serviscope_minor]

Yeah that argument doesn't really sound too compelling. It's kinda like when the military wing of the social justice movement, Antifa, shows up in their black and red uniforms with their black and red flags and start violently attacking everyone who disagrees with them... starting with the practicing jews they call "nazis".

I see, so now antifa means "wilf fantasies of my fevered mind"?

Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better?

[DNS-and-BIND]

You mean a socialist government started out well, but then it all went to hell and millions died? Wow, that never happens when socialists get power.

Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better?

[DNS-and-BIND]

Slander a group? Scapegoat group? You mean like the deplorables?

Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better?

[MoarSauce123]

No wonder that such a comment was posted. This is not the same as censorship! If it was censorship the government wouldn't bother with fines, but instead pass a law that gives police direct access to the servers so that they can control at all times what gets posted. This law is about protecting people from online hate crimes. There is no difference if someone posts a comment online declaring all Germans as Nazis or spraying that on the German embassy building....just to stick with the theme of your prejudice. You may want to review the past 70 years of German history before dropping more comments that clearly show that you lack key information.

Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better?

[MoarSauce123]

Of course it is open to interpretation, but it is up to the social networks to enforce the rules. It is not the government itself. The key point here is to stop giving criminal haters a platform, such as von Storch or those who repost hate speech like Trump.

Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better?

[fustakrakich]

You don't let irrational people off the hook for being irrational. The choice to riot is still theirs. Incitement is still bullshit.

Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better?

[houghi]

Obviously caution is needed. I am sure they understand the part where yelling fire in a theater is not always dangerous and might save lives and has nothing to do with free speech.

There is also a difference between telling that somebody is an idiot and telling that you should be killed, because they are an idiot.

Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better?

[tinkerton]

Their economic policies were similar to the New Deal, and quite successful too.

Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better?

[houghi]

The UN clearly thinks so : http://www.un.org/apps/news/st...

3 December 2003 â" Three former senior figures in the Rwandan media were convicted today by the United Nations war crimes tribunal and sentenced to lengthy jail terms for inciting their compatriots to kill ethnic Tutsis during the 1994 genocide in Rwanda.

  Three judges of the UN International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), sitting in Arusha, Tanzania, announced the convictions and sentences for Ferdinand Nahimana, Jean-Bosco Barayagwiza and Hassan Ngeze in what has been dubbed âoethe media case.â

The three men were convicted of genocide, incitement to genocide, conspiracy, crimes against humanity, extermination and persecution. According to media reports, about 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus were murdered in Rwanda between April and the middle of 1994.

The ICTR said the convictions were the first of their kind since the Allied Tribunal at Nuremberg at 1946 sentenced Nazi publisher Julius Streicher to death for his anti-semitic publication Der Stürmer.

Mr. Nahimana, founder and ideologist of the Radio Télévision does Mille Coulines (RTLM), and Mr. Ngeze, chief editor of Kangura newspaper, were sentenced to life in prison. Mr. Barayagwiza, a high-ranking board member at RTLM and the founder of the Coalition for the Defence of Republic (CDR), a political party, received a 35-year jail term. He boycotted his trial.

In a broadcast on RTLM â" which became known to some Rwandans as âoeRadio Macheteâ â" in April 1994, Mr. Nahimana described a âoewar of media, words, newspapers and radio stationsâ to complement a war with bullets, according to the ICTR.

The presiding judge in the media case, Judge Navanethem Pillay, told Mr. Nahimana that he was fully aware of the power of radio to âoedisseminate hatred and violenceâ¦Without a firearm, machete or any physical weapon, you caused the death of thousands of innocent civilians.â

The judges also said Kangura targeted Tutsis for persecution by regularly stereotyping them as liars, thieves or killers, and depicting Tutsi women as femme fatales who could not be trusted. One Kangura publication labelled any Hutu man who married a Tutsi woman as a traitor.

In a statement released by the ICTR, the judges said they found that the three men âoeused the institutions they controlled and coordinated their efforts towards the common goal: the destruction of the Tutsi population.â They said their broadcasts and publications did not fall under the protection of the right to freedom of expression.

Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better?

[serviscope_minor]

You don't let irrational people off the hook for being irrational.

I absolutely agree. That's why, for example, rioting is a crime as well as incitement.

Incitement is still bullshit.

Except you're agreeing that people aren't beig rational, which is why incitement works. If incitement is successful, there are two worngdoers, the inciter and the incitee. If humans were perfectly rational, incitement would be bullshit. The law recognises that's not the case.

Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better?

[penandpaper]

We're a culture of rampant mass shootings

No, we're not. Even with all the mass shootings living in the US is a safe prospect especially not in the major cities where most of the shootings occur (coincidentally with strictest gun laws). Every mass shooting is universally condemned, does not have any public support, and is seen as an extreme thing universally. Unlike say, sharia law (that outlaws homosexuality and the legal framework for throwing gay people off rooftops) and the universal acceptance in Islamic cultures from many polls. No one acts within the law undertaking a mass shooting but you are within the legal framework in sharia law when you throw gay people off a rooftop.

There is a strong culture for guns but that is a different conversation. Conflating that with a culture of rampant mass shooting is ridiculous on it's face. I live in solace knowing that any US political party can never perpetrate what ISIS does because I can have guns and I can talk about any issue. Unlike Germany or ISIS.

Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better?

[fustakrakich]

If humans were perfectly rational, incitement would be bullshit. The law recognises that's not the case.

Where's the incentive to be rational when I can just say *the devil made me do it*? Now, maybe you could plead temporary insanity. You still can't externalize the provocation. The action is on the rioters, rational or irrational, they are the ones that chose to riot. The message to send to them is "Turn your back, if you don't, you're the one that gets in trouble". Acting irrationally is the crime, not speaking to the irrational.

Re: Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better?

[Mashiki]

Did you even read the article you linked to?

Did you even read the article I linked to? Only one university responded, and even at that they "only disagreed" because the faculty at that one university is knee deep in BDS.

Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better?

[Mashiki]

In the past the word antisemitism used to refer to people who wanted to abuse and brutalize anyone who is of Jewish descent, not to people who have legitimate criticism against Jewish religion.

Then by all means check UoT, McGill and UofM, you'll hit that "wanted to abuse and brutalize anyone who is of Jewish descent." UofM was bad enough ~6 years ago that Israeli students were leaving the campus.

Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better?

[liquid_schwartz]

There is very little support for abolishing hate speech laws and even less so among thinking people.

Maybe the thinking people haven't thought it through ;-) I think it's more a case of which circles you run in. I don't know very many people who support hate speech laws as they see the potential for abuse and know that hate speech is not well defined. As close as I get to wanting anti-hate speech laws is bullying, though the difference is that that has a specific person targeted repeatedly, not general statements which have far less impact.

Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better?

[Shadow of Eternity]

No antifa means "Those openly militarized uniform wearing flag carrying feminists who called me, a practicing jew, a nazi and threatened to murder me on my own college campus."

Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better?

[Mashiki]

You missed the part where the German Communist party paid their own black shirts(aka antifa) - private left wing paramilitary organizations to do the dirty work. And they of course were created to intimidate political enemies and attack people who refused to join the communist revolution. So with that, stop trying to white wash communists, especially german communists.

Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better?

[serviscope_minor]

Where's the incentive to be rational when I can just say *the devil made me do it*?

Humans AREN'T rational. Thing is though if you're caught rioting, you'll be prosecuted.

Now, maybe you could plead temporary insanity.

I doubt that would work, because it's temporary being-an-idiot not temporary insanity and the former isn't a defense.

The action is on the rioters, rational or irrational, they are the ones that chose to riot.

Yep, and they'll get prosecuted for it.

The message to send to them is "Turn your back, if you don't, you're the one that gets in trouble".

That's why rioting is a crime.

Acting irrationally is the crime, not speaking to the irrational.

Speaking to irrational people in general is not a crime. Incitement is. Like literally. It's an actual crime with actual laws against it and can wind you up in actual prison.

The law recognises both parties share the blame.

Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better?

[fustakrakich]

Incitement implies there is no choice. What else could it possibly mean? Do you believe there is no choice? And let's not bring in the "law". The law is most fickle, being written by sometimes irrational people itself. Is there no choice not to riot when when someone "incites" you to do so? Why should the speaker be held responsible for what irrational people do? That doesn't make sense, we would have to admit that freedom of choice is a myth.

Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better?

[Hognoxious]

I have lots of experience with little shits who try to play word games

Experience is one thing, and unremarkable because everyone has it. The faculty of learning from? Dear fellow, that's another thing entirely.
--
W.S. Churchill.

Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better?

[NeoTubNinja]

I can't tell if this is sarcasm or not, so I'm assuming it's not. This comment is like listening to conservative talk radio during the day.

You DID read where he said they abandoned the socialist ideas right?! They aren't socialists if they adopt socialist ideas to get into power and then abandon said socialist ideas.

Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better?

[Hognoxious]

I mean, it is right there in the name.

I drank a cotton gin once. Tasted fucking awful, no matter how much tonic I added.

Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better?

[Orgasmatron]

Name one. Name one "socialist idea" that they abandoned.

Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better?

[Orgasmatron]

Please point me towards any evidence you can find for "my extremism". I won't hold my breath.

Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better?

[serviscope_minor]

Incitement implies there is no choice.

No it doesn't.

The world is not black and white, there is an entire spectrum with a choice made with rational disinterested and having no choice at all.

And let's not bring in the "law".

It's meaningless to talk of whether things are a crime or not without reference to the law, since the law defines what is a crime.

Re: Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better?

[Kneo24]

You would never win a war, you fucking dimwit. You don't let your ideological enemies go once you have them captured. What do you think they will do? Not take up arms against you the moment they have a chance?

Re: Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better?

[Kneo24]

I just want to add I'm not saying this in defense of the previous comments here. Just the idea that you let your prisoners of war go, during a war time, when you have millions of them, is mind numbingly dumb.

Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better?

[KingBenny]

Shirley Bassey knew it .... it worked great last time ... i think it was like during "times of economic hardship" because of after WW1 they got completely wrecked by the rest of europe. Now they're the EU-powerhouse (well, britain clearly doesnt WANT to be :) ) ... which means actually the nazis won in the long run, they restored germany to its position on top so if you look at it like that its not too hard to fathom why history's repeating : the nazis never went, and now (just like in flanders it changed from VB to NV-a which is like blue/nat (blue means liberal means "the employers union" here) so they will stop the nazis in the name of what about the nazis (and bitcoin has pedophiles and copyright ofcourse) which is pretty ironic , but so is most of that high level politic, which is exactly why the neo's (fa and anti) are back on the rise, which seems to be the blindside of the lords of mordor. I realized that when i was in Paris this year (for some reason despite everything i succeeded in gathering a few 100 to escape from Hellgium for a few days) and i was standing on the 56th floor of Montparnasse tower (forget all the ancient legends about eiffel tower ... the eiffel tower is like a playmobil toy from up there) watching the sun set slowly on the city (highly recommended btw, if you can get to montmartre and watch the sun rise on the top of the stairs at sacré coeur and the same day watch the sun set from almost 60 stories high (the bullet life goes so fast you get this earpopping like on a plane liftoff) and im drifting ... i realized then, looking down on that shiney city with the lights and the sunset if you live your life in towers like that with a team of yea-nodders and a team of noses up your ass the world must look very shiney ... its no wonder they lose all track of actual reality and come up with these ultra-daft counter productive measures, which in the end lead only to dispersal and act like oil on the fire (after all, its close to telling a jihadi that you're gonna shoot him if he blows himself up ... well .. somewhat close) cos if you take the lift down and you go out the front door instead of into a limo from an underground parking you get what you cant see from up there ... refugees , homeless, piss ... stank of stale beercans ... armed military with automatics still patrolling since the last terrorist attack (thank you for those guys, america) they dont see that, they dont smell that , they dont have 20 filthy raggedies per minute come up to beg they see the shiney city from up top so yea these people have lost track, but since they are the law and their legalist mafia enforcers (popularly known as uncle po) get great benefits and retirement plans its an underground struggle it used to be called free speech in any way at any rate ... ok as long as you dont actually go shooting nuggers or hang nazis (yea pardon my french but i think a fanatic black-ist is just as bad as a racist nazi, i dont get down with any of that shit from either side) and SO ... here we are, germany banning free speech to protect the people from the nazis it IS ironic

Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better?

[Mashiki]

Yes, it does mean some politics are suppressed and censored. It's a balance, has to be.

Sieg Heil! And all that, because you are what you claim to be fighting against.

Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better?

[Mashiki]

I see, so now antifa means "wilf fantasies of my fevered mind"?

You mean like this? or do you mean like this? Because it sure isn't a fantasy in their fevered mind, but it sure does look like you're denying reality.

Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better?

[xenobyte]

The "hate speech" laws are designed to crack down on "extremists" but of course they'll be used to crack down on "dissenting opinion" soon enough as the concept of hate speech is ill-defined and open to interpretation.

This is exactly why the US Supreme Court struck down the updates to the CDA twice. It talks about 'obscene' and similar without a single attempt at defining them. Doesn't work the court said - people need to be able to know if they violate the law or not, and the judgements based on the law must be consistent and not subject to random interpretation.

Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better?

[AmiMoJo]

If there are no rules at all, then that's just oppression too.

Re: Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better?

[AK Marc]

It wasn't a "real war" when many of the killings happened. The holocaust denier is an idiot, but he was right in that many of the killings came after long-term storage. It's also quite clear that the public at the time thought the Jews were going into refugee camps, awaiting deportation to Israel (or similar, as Israel was created after).

But, to your point, the USA has let "enemies" go. Indians, Japanese, and others were rounded up into concentration camps, then later released after hating the US more on release than entry.

Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better?

[Falconnan]

Not exactly. Slander, at least as defined in the US, requires the information be generally false. Further, I was somewhat limited in my available time to write a full dissertation, but "The Deplorables" you point out would not be a group in the sense I was referring to, any more than people who own Fords would be a group. One can acknowledge a person's right to an opinion or position without having to respect them or the position.

Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better?

[Mashiki]

If there are no rules at all, then that's just oppression too.

There are rules. You just seem to want only your form of view to be acceptable though. Got your black boots polished yet?

Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better?

[AmiMoJo]

We could discuss the finer points of this, but you seem to have some preconceptions that are too much effort to bother with. I've pointed them out in the past with links to my posts that contradict them, and you still cling to them.

Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better?

[fustakrakich]

Really, this whole argument is so silly. I'm just looking forward to distributed servers, ad hoc mesh networks, whatever it takes to make censorship impossible, but I'll settle for impractical. Then we can argue about more important things, like, will it be over a hundred years before the Cubs win another World Series.or whether or not Liberace and Richard Simmons are really gay.

Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better?

[skam240]

Branding everything bad as Left and clearly making the assumption that nothing bad comes from the Right.

Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better?

[skam240]

Wow, way to bring up the minor point of mass shootings but sure I'll indulge your deflection from the topic.

No other first world nation has this problem we have with mass shootings to any similar degree. Meanwhile you you site "facts" about a third world ideology without siting any sources and confabulate first world problems with third.

They're different worlds my friend and support for Sharia law is not the same as wanting to throw gays off roof tops. Plenty of Christians believe that the bible preaches truths but wouldn't harm a gay person nor stone a person for working on the Sabbath despite it clearly advocating for both.

Re: Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better?

[Uberbah]

Looks like the Russian trolls aren't just using Facebook any more!

Looks like you're just as full of shit now as you were in 2003, when you ran around calling Iraq war skeptics Saddam supporters.

ROTFLMAO

[Shogun37]

After this, Twitter should have, what, 2 or 3 posts left?

Re: ROTFLMAO

[invalid_user]

Good! I don't want to see another tweet to the sound of
"All I want for Christmas is white genocide."
Or
"Band together to kill all men."

Re: ROTFLMAO

[Shogun37]

Don't forget "God's Dead, Ye Merry Gentlemen" or "Deck the Halls (With Gasoline)."

Re: ROTFLMAO

[ArtemaOne]

Don't forget "God's Dead, Ye Merry Gentlemen"

What's wrong with that?

Re: ROTFLMAO

[kenai_alpenglow]

It's insulting and juvenile...but not hate speech. Go ahead and say it, I'll just ignore you. Unlike a lot (not all) of atheists who brand any religious speech as "hate speech" or "illegal". (see: CT lawmakers who helped out the Salvation Army and got condemned by "freedom from religion" and multiple other examples.)

Re: ROTFLMAO

[ArtemaOne]

Salvation Army is a hateful organization, so being criticized for supporting it sounds like it isn't unreasonable, just not something I'd bother with. Sounds like snowflakes can't get criticized or "condemned" without people getting upset nowadays.

Those who forget history...

[mwvdlee]

And so it begins again.

Re:Those who forget history...

[Mashiki]

Hmm... well... You've got your organized antifa groups(again). You've got entrenched academia pushing identity politics and identiarianism. There is a nasty undercurrent of antisemitism. They'll claim that the reason that everything is failing is because of whites, sometimes asians. If you dare step off that line of thinking, you'll be harassed, attacked(socially and sometimes physically). If you dare to question what they're telling you, they will react in a violent manner. Yes...seems like the left have a real problem.

So yeah, those of us who actually have a clue, the sixty-some+ year-olds who've either lived or witnessed the horrors of war and genocide are going to do their damnest so that clueless free-speech-flag waiving little millenials like you never have to live through this hell.

And there comes the authoritarian line that attacks free speech. Because as we all know, hiding in the dark does wonders! A disenfranchised group of people who are already being marginalized by a particular group of people simply won't draw more people to them. Not at all.

Re:Those who forget history...

[Solandri]

The allies in WWII fought for very different reasons.

• Stalin fought to defeat Hitler, because Hitler had broken his non-aggression pact and invaded Russia.
• The other allies (US, UK, Canada, Australia, etc) fought to preserve and restore freedom and democracy.

The difference between these two became apparent after WWII. As soon as Hitler was gone, Stalin immediately took over the territories his armies occupied and put their people behind an iron curtain of repression no different than what Hitler sought to do, and which arguably did a lot more damage since it lasted 4x as long. The unfortunate people in those countries ended up being liberated from one dictator just to fall under the heel of another. OTOH, the other allies helped rebuild the liberated countries and installed free democracies, even those who had formerly been their enemies - Germany, Japan, Italy. Then they left, so those countries were free to decide their own path into the future.

You see, while the actions were the same, the goals, the reasons for those actions were very different. One fought to amass more power, and Hitler was just the target because he was the other one with power at the time. The others fought to restore freedom - the right to speak, act, choose to do as you wish, and Hitler was just the target because he tried to restrict these things.

While the purported goal of restricting hate speech is laudable, it comes with a tremendous risk. Once you establish government censorship of speech, its original goal can be subverted by the government itself. If the government stays free and democratic, there's no problem. But if the government becomes corrupt, then you've already established a means for it to control the population and prevent it from removing that corruption. The safer course is to do as the allies did after WWII. Restore freedom, then leave the people alone so they can decide their own path into the future.

On an abstract level, the issue here is whether a free democracy is self-sustainable. Those opposed to government censorship believe it is, and that since power flows from the people, leaving the people free to make their own choices and decisions is of the utmost importance. If OTOH, as you propose, a free democracy needs to restrict freedom in order to preserve itself and prevent a Hitler from coming into power, then you have admitted that a free democracy is not self-sustainable. The very act of allowing freedom results in the destruction of a free democracy. If that's the case, instead of trying to pretend that a free democracy is self-sustainable, we should abandon it and come up with a new form of government to replace it that is self-sustainable.

REAL NEWS FROM GERMANY

[Anonymous Coward]

https://www.rt.com/news/414744-berlin-sexual-harassment-arrested/

https://www.rt.com/news/414742-german-broadcaster-criticized-stabbing-refugee/

It's an admission ...

[CaptainDork]

... that social media is not your father's "me too," AOL.

The problem is not that there's hate speech on social media.

The problem is that people on social media validate the activity by objecting.

When governments regulate social media, social media becomes a branch of the government.

It's not. Leave it alone and don't feed the trolls.

Re:It's an admission ...

[lucasnate1]

According to your logic:
- When corporations regulate social media, it becomes a branch of the corporation.
- When nobody regulates social media, it becomes a branch of bots and spammers.

Re:It's an admission ...

[deesine]

Fine, so long as government stays out.

Re:It's an admission ...

[lucasnate1]

And now you are talking religion, you designate some group as evil "government" while allowing other groups to behave exactly the same. Sorry, in my eyes, a corporate dictator or a mob dictator is just the same as a government dictator. Hell, I suspect that in the future government dictators may actually be easier to replace than the corporate ones.

Re:It's an admission ...

[houghi]

The UN disagrees http://www.un.org/apps/news/st...

Re:It's an admission ...

[CaptainDork]

*Disagreed

3 December 2003

14 fucking years ago,

Re:It's an admission ...

[penandpaper]

Governments have a monopoly of pre-emptive violence through law that I cannot avoid. I can avoid Twitters authoritarian censorship very easily.

I agree that in certain situations corporations can be forced by law to protect the rights of the individual. But we should not be quick to restrict the rights of a group of individuals because they share a common goal e.g. a corporation.

Re:It's an admission ...

[lucasnate1]

How come a corporation can be considered a group of individuals that shares a common goal and a country can't? Also, current law allows corporations to sue you bankrupt, which will lead to violence being used to take your property away from you.

Idk, maybe I'm saying it because I am coming from a small country, but I would rather get in trouble with my country (Israel) than with a global company that is trying to bankrupt me all over the world. Israeli mossad assasins still have a lower success probability than international law.

Re:It's an admission ...

[penandpaper]

How come a corporation can be considered a group of individuals that shares a common goal and a country can't?

Because a corporation exists for a variety of reasons and acts within the law while the government exists to protect the rights of citizens through law. A corporation can have their life, liberty, and property taken away through due process just like an individual. The point is that the government should mostly be concerned with protecting the rights of their citizens more so than virtue signaling by social manipulation in subjective definitions of speech which fundamentally undermine the principles of democracy. Democracy cannot exist without free speech. Unless we want to contemplate whether democracy has failed and so we must restrict free speech for a different system.

law allows corporations to sue you bankrupt

Which also allows you to sue those corporations.

current law allows corporations to sue you bankrupt, which will lead to violence being used to take your property away from you.

Through law. Through action by the government on behalf of the corporation suing you. Also, I do not agree being sued bankrupt is the same as violence perpetrated to take your property unjustly. There are just reasons to take your life, liberty or property away through due process of law that apply to corporations. The government because of the people, through their elected representatives in the legislature, enacted such law for the government to execute.

a global company that is trying to bankrupt me all over the world.

I would expect my government to protect my rights and ensure that any retaliation was just and lawful. IOW, protect my rights that any corporation expects.

I am not sure what your point is.

Re:It's an admission ...

[lucasnate1]

A corporation can have their life, liberty, and property taken away through due process just like an individual

A dying human can't just resurrect under another name, a corp can.

Which also allows you to sue those corporations.

Our current legal system gives an advantage to those with more money.

take your property unjustly

Sorry, suing someone for millions for sharing a song is unjust. I agree it is legal, it just means that the law, due to currption, is straying away from justice.

I would expect my government to protect my rights and ensure that any retaliation was just and lawfu

So on one hand, libertarians don't trust government. On the other hand, they expect their government to protect one's rights?

Re:It's an admission ...

[penandpaper]

A dying human can't just resurrect under another name, a corp can.

Tell me more about Enron. Are you suggesting that the punishments for breaking the law by a corporation need be harsher or extend to the executives? Sure, but that is due process of law. That doesn't help your point.

Our current legal system gives an advantage to those with more money.

So what is your fix? That isn't reason enough to restrict the rights of everyone because some individuals with a common interest should be treated differently according to you.

uing someone for millions for sharing a song is unjust. I agree it is legal, it just means that the law, due to currption, is straying away from justice.

So what is your fix? Again, that is not reason enough to restrict the rights on individuals with a common interest. Anyone can rant and rave why things are broken, which is fine and dandy, but unless you have a valid solution beyond "restrict their rights" I am not sure what your point is other then complaining about the rights we all have. Copyright is a right that governments protect. Law isn't perfect, which is why we have the system we have. What's are your proposing we change? The law? Sure I can agree let's convince enough people to change it but as you know that isn't enough because we don't let mob rule win. It's a long and tedious process of convincing a lot of people by design. Change that system? No. How does that support your original point?

libertarians don't trust government. On the other hand, they expect their government to protect one's rights?

I said "government exists to protect the rights of their citizens". Libertarians or Socialists* generally agree on that idea. How the government does that is the point of contention. Does smaller limited government do better at protecting the rights of individuals? Or are larger government regulating common needs better at protect the rights of individuals? You are grossly misunderstanding libertarians positions.

*Using a loose term of "socialist" to mean opposite of libertarian e.g. more government isn't bad.

Re:It's an admission ...

[NeoTubNinja]

Yeah government is always getting in the way of the good stuff with those pesky laws. Why aren't rape and murder legal? Why do I have to stop at red lights when I wanna keep going?! WHAT ABOUT MY FREEDOMS?!?!

Better question: does it apply to Slashdot?

[Anonymous Coward]

A better question is, Does this forced censorship apply to Slashdot?

The summary says, with added emphasis:

Social networks and media sites with more than two million members ...

Give that Slashdot is a discussion site and news site, I think it would match the "social network" and "media site" criteria. This brings us to the user count.

There appear to be at least 4 million Slashdot accounts, since there are users like religionofpeas who has a user ID of 4511805. From what I can tell, the Slashdot user ID is sequential, since CmdrTaco has a user ID of 1, and we have long-time Slashdot users like jcr, who has a user ID of 53032.

Now there's always the possibility that some user IDs were skipped at some point, or that one personal has multiple accounts (like is probably the case with the so-called "creimer" family of accounts). But since the user IDs are well into at least the 4.5 million range, it would seem to me like Slashdot is well past the two million user threshold described in the summary.

So again, the question to ask is, Does this forced censorship apply to Slashdot?

Another question to ask is, If Slashdot is obliged to engage in such censorship, how is Slashdot's management going to deal with it? Will they accept it and delete content deemed "bad" by some bureaucrats far off in Europe? Or will they fight it? Or will they just block all German users, as much as is possible? Just what will the Slashdot management do?

Re:Better question: does it apply to Slashdot?

[ShanghaiBill]

There appear to be at least 4 million Slashdot accounts

There may be that many accounts, but there are no where near that many active users. Slashdot readership is way down from the peak.

Re:Better question: does it apply to Slashdot?

[AmiMoJo]

The answer is no, because Slashdot has no business presence in Germany so no fines can be levied. Only companies that exist in German jurisdiction are affected.

Re:Better question: does it apply to Slashdot?

[tsqr]

There appear to be at least 4 million Slashdot accounts

There may be that many accounts, but there are no where near that many active users. Slashdot readership is way down from the peak.

The law applies to social networks with "at least 2 million members". Note the absence of any qualifier such as "active".

Re:Better question: does it apply to Slashdot?

[ShanghaiBill]

The law applies to social networks with "at least 2 million members". Note the absence of any qualifier such as "active".

You are quoting the BBC article, not the law.

Very few German laws are written in English.

The law uses the term "Nutzern" which is more accurately translated as "user" than as "member", and the the "at least 2 million" refers to users IN GERMANY, not worldwide.

Re:Better question: does it apply to Slashdot?

[arcade]

I find it amusing that 53032 is considered a low user id these days. Mine certainly isn't very low.

Re:Explain yourselves

[GuB-42]

Where did you see that Slashdot is okay with censorship in Germany?
And there is nothing about exporting German law to other countries. It is not about writing posts, it is about publishing. And posts that are illegal in Germany will probably just end up being hidden from German IPs. It already happens with Google search results.

People will wimp out for sure

[helpfulcorn]

Just like the utterly stupid EU cookie law that's been enforced, I think one time in Spain, if people will follow a stupid, pointless law (even outside the EU!), they definitely will follow unjust ones. I can imagine Germany threatening non-German companies and people giving in or paying, giving the same moronic excuse they give for following the EU cookie law plastering their site with a pointless notification "well, better safe than sorry, hurrr!"

Re:If You Care About Free Speech, Prove It

[Tokolosh]

The Congo, today.

https://yro.slashdot.org/story...

Always the left pushing "hate speech" laws.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a good point.

Another thing we should remember is that it's always the political left pushing for "hate speech" legislation. It doesn't matter if we're talking about European nations, Canada, Australia, or even the US.

It's always members of the political left who want to start classifying speech and limiting it in such ways. Of course, it's conveniently also always members of the political left who get to determine what is and what isn't "hate speech".

The political right takes the opposite approach. Instead of preventing the expression of ideas, they prefer to use free expression to point out where they think that others are wrong, allowing any listeners/readers/viewers to come to their own conclusions.

President Trump is a good example of this. He doesn't push for the shutdown or silencing of media organizations that he questions the reporting of. Rather, he calls them out in public, often right to their faces. He presents his case, and lets everyone else make up their own minds.

When we compare the two approaches, it's clear that the pro-expression approach used by the political right is preferable for society at large. It's far more open and equitable than the censorship and silencing that the political left would prefer to use.

The political right pushes for free speech and free expression for all. The political left pushes for highly-controlled speech, where it is they (the political left) who decides what can be expressed.

Re:Always the left pushing "hate speech" laws.

[Anonymous Coward]

Pushing for more free speech isn't pushing for more "hate speech". Sure, you probably end up getting more "hate speech", but so what? Screeching "HATE SPEECH" doesn't actually make any valid points. It's a feelings argument going nowhere. You're a fucking idiot.

Re:Always the left pushing "hate speech" laws.

[Anonymous Coward]

You're confused and thinking of antifa's methodology, which is akin to the brown shirts.

Re:Always the left pushing "hate speech" laws.

[Dare nMc]

> The political right pushes for free speech and free expression for all.

I guess you don't count Trump as political right. His plan to tax and punish coaches who don't shut-up players who wouldn't stand for the anthem, and using his official communication channel of his office to call for firing of those who speak against him. The same guy who want to shutdown news media that has opposed him, because fake news is in no way based on truth, but that he doesn't think anything opposing him is not news, no mater how much truth it is based on. That the right isn't doing much to oppose any of this, shows how little the care for the constitution of the US.

I am not thinking the left is all good, but they are not anything to the extreme that the right is in the US at the moment.

Re:Always the left pushing "hate speech" laws.

[Shadow of Eternity]

Funny how when you guys do it you justify things by saying "freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences" but when someone else decides to simply not subsidize something you like it's fascism.

Re:Always the left pushing "hate speech" laws.

[Dare nMc]

> "freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences"

Correct, but the first amendment actually prevents the US government from restricting speech, without a overwhelming societal interest. Using a political office to directly restrict political speech is clearly a violation of that amendment. Especially when it is just to protect the presidents ego, because the president stepped into a solved concern, that was handled by the league, until the president made it more than 100* worse by stepping in. I see no problem if the team wants to fire a player, and if fans want to boycott the team. That you have the highest office of the government threatening through their designated official communication channel to take official action if harm doesn't happen to those who don't support his view.

Of course it isn't all the right, at least John McCain understands this president is doing permanent harm to the country: https://twitter.com/SenJohnMcC...

Re: Always the left pushing "hate speech" laws.

[c6gunner]

You think that "there's blame on both sides" qualifies as "hate speech"?

That's a pretty low standard even for an SJW. You're something special.

Re:Always the left pushing "hate speech" laws.

[Bongo]

I’ve read about this overall pattern: the left assumes problems are caused by society, whilst the right assumes problems are caused by individuals.

So for example, the right does not like abortion because the individual got thenselves pregnant, presumably due to lack of moral character. Meanwhile the left wants to tax the rich because no individual could be worth 1000 more than another, hence the system must be rigged and the system needs fixing.

So for the left, controlling speech is really about trying to fix the system as in, fix the culture, fix the language and memes.

Re:Always the left pushing "hate speech" laws.

[Dare nMc]

Why we don't teach civics to people like you is atrocious, clearly it is needed. The president swore to uphold the constitution, and to hold the rule of law above that of his own personal rights. The constitution is setup to give power to the people, to protect us from those with the power of the government. That is what McCain's post spells out so well.

Trump is the same as the likes of the leaders of Iraq, Congo, North Korea, Saudi Arabia when he uses his voice as president to attack individuals in order to suppress the political speech of regular citizens. That he also threatened to use his power of presidency really pushes it over the top, and put all of us in jeopardy to be a victim of lawsuits by the people he spoke out against. That so many conservatives now fail to understand the difference between a individuals right, and separate out that any government official that uses the power of their office we gave them, to then violate the constitution ( only to protect his own ego) should be removed from office.

Re:Always the left pushing "hate speech" laws.

[K. S. Kyosuke]

I didn't know that antifa was "political right". The political right in the 1930s Germany had brownshirts at their disposal, though, "to use free expression to point out where they think that others are wrong, allowing any listeners/readers/viewers to come to their own conclusion".

Re:Always the left pushing "hate speech" laws.

[jrumney]

President Trump is a good example of this. He doesn't push for the shutdown or silencing of media organizations that he questions the reporting of. Rather, he calls them out in public, often right to their faces.

Do you not see the irony about highlighting Trump's Lügenpresse claims in an article about Germany?

Re:Always the left pushing "hate speech" laws.

[Boronx]

President Trump is a good example of this. He doesn't push for the shutdown or silencing of media organizations that he questions the reporting of.

It's insane that your post get modded insightful. Have you already forgotten his campaign to get football players fired? His threats to Jeff Bezos? His threat to expel Muslims? His incitement of his crowds to violence against reporters and protestors?

And his criticisms of the press are mostly lies, almost as damaging as the threats. He claims they don't cover terrorism that never happened. Or don't cover terrorism that they did cover. That they are "cutting away form him" when they aren't. That they are enemies of the people. That Russian election interference was made up. That the investigation into collusion into Russia is first not happening, then later a witchhunt. That there's no merit to claims he is a sexual predator, that they're all in the tank for Clinton.

Re: Always the left pushing "hate speech" laws.

[guruevi]

Trump has free speech as much as you do. He canâ(TM)t fire anyone even as a President.

Re:Always the left pushing "hate speech" laws.

[blindseer]

In other words, the political left says to shut up while the political right says to keep talking.

Is that about right?

Re:Always the left pushing "hate speech" laws.

[Bongo]

As well as left and right, there’s also stages, which run from pre modern to modern, or to put it another’s way, we went from authoritarian systems to moden free individual/democatic systems. You can have left and right versions of each.

So what happens is, often the right will criticise the left by pointing to the earliest and most regressive stages in the left (like, the Nazis were socialists) and the left can point to the most regressive parts of the right (fascists).

This about crushing free speech, and censorship, assumes it is like nazis doing it, in a nazi way — that’s only true if the society wants s really at that kind of authoritarian stage where it would fly.

Nazis put people in jail, but that does not mean all jail keepers are nazis.

Governments sometimes use censorship, but that does not mean the government is a bunch of theocratic mullahs.

We have to look at the value of the government and why they are imposing these controls.

Re:Always the left pushing "hate speech" laws.

[Kiuas]

Pushing for more free speech isn't pushing for more "hate speech". Sure, you probably end up getting more "hate speech", but so what?

Not that I'm in favor of hate speech laws although they exist in most countries here in Europe but I'm gonna present a counter-argument to the 'so what'.

Speech that incites violence is illegal everywhere, including the States to my understanding. That is, no-one can go stand up on a soapbox and declare that all members of [insert ethnic or a political group/religious group/etc] must be killed. However, you can incite mobs to act in violent ways without directly calling out for violence if you essentially dehumanize your opposition hard enough. This is how most totalitarian states have done it in the past. They've not come out the gates right away and said that the enemies of the state need to be killed, but they've began by amping up propaganda about how said group is evil, vile and immoral and doing damage. That riles up the populace, so that when you finally bring out the death squads and the mass executions they'll be tolerated because after all, they're only killing the scumbags.

I agree with you that just screeching 'hate speech!" at someone is not an argument, and often it's thrown about when it's not even applicable and is instead used as an attempt to silence valid criticisms of ideologies or religions. However, actual hate speech, meaning the kind that portrays a group of people as somehow less than humans is in fact dangerous because it fuels lone wolf attackers and lunatics of all sorts. True hate speech is the kind that's semi-effectively used by terrorist organizations in their propaganda for example, but it's not limited to only that. Both the left and the right at times engage in hate speech to varying degrees of success. The goal is always to paint the opposition as scum, whether it be 'nazis' or 'antifa/marxists' or any other group being targeted.

The point here is not to say that hate speech will go away with more laws. One of the reasons I'm more in favor of a US-style approach to free speech is that the hate speech laws themselves have an inbuilt problem: utilizing them will make the targeted individual/group gain a sort of martyrdom status and can even unintentionally re-enforce the hateful message. That is, if you ban radicals from spouting their BS the leaders can turn to their following and go: 'see, see, they're trying to silence us because they're afraid of us, keep going!"

But that being said it doesn't mean one shouldn't be concerned over increasing polarization and hate speech because the more vitriol that's spread around, the easier it is for all sorts of internal conflicts to escalate and different kinds of strongman-led violent movements to spring up once more and more people start to hold onto the view that the $OTHER_SIDE are all raving lunatics that can be hit, shot, ran over with a car or blown to bits without doing anything wrong. This is why the Kremlin is supporting extremists movements on both ends of the political spectrum in Europe, directly and indirectly. They're not interested in picking winners and losers, just like they weren't in the american elections, they're interested in creating more chaos and division in western countries because that's the most effective way of sabotaging free and open societies and causing them to stagnate.

The only way to effectively counter bad ideas is with better ideas and actual conversations, not finger pointing and demonizing.

Re:Always the left pushing "hate speech" laws.

[JohnStock]

"it's always the political left pushing for "hate speech" legislation" That is absolute rubbish.

Re:Always the left pushing "hate speech" laws.

[AlwinBarni]

... President Trump is a good example of this. He doesn't push for the shutdown or silencing of media organizations that he questions the reporting of. ...

Well, he does - at least he tries. He tried to revoke broadcasting licenses for news criticizing him. His admiration for the totalitarian rulers shows where his heart is and when US would be if it was his way.

Sorry, the truth can be bitter, especially when it requires to leave the comfort zone.
And as usual, considering the scoring I can see, I know it's the voice of one crying in the desert, however things, which should be said, have to be said.

With regard to any reply, please reread the post and do not imply anything, which is not there.

Re:Always the left pushing "hate speech" laws.

[cthulhu11]

Um yes actually he calls for silencing them all the time, including firing of anyone who dares report the truth about his actions. He lets people come to their own conclusions? Seriously, dude, don't eat the brown acid!. And stop calling him President, he doesn't deserve the title.

Germany is very aware of the lingering stigma of the mid-century Nazi atrocities. For international relations, tourism, and commerce they take this seriously so that the rest of the world sees that the sins of their fathers are not lingering.

Re:Always the left pushing "hate speech" laws.

[slinches]

The President is precisely as justified in using his job as a platform to voice his personal opinions as the NFL players are. Or does somehow holding political office make it unconstitutional for a person to have an opinion? Now if Trump attempts to use the official powers of his office (not just his status) to silence others (not just voice disagreement with them), then we can start looking into impeachment and removal from office.

Re:Always the left pushing "hate speech" laws.

[Dare nMc]

take a minute and read his tweet:

https://twitter.com/realdonald...

this is after he called for the NFL to fire those protesting.

He took a pledge to uphold the constitution, if he cannot do his job as president without violating the constitution, by directing the government employees under his authority (as he hired and is able to fire the director of the IRS, FBI, FCC...) to take direct unconstitutional actions; he should step down.

So he has the right to free speach, but when that speach violates his oath of office, he should step down. The same is true when he called on the FCC to pull the broadcast licenses of Networks that are not supporting him enough, in his opinion.

I understood that the president speaks on behalf of the country, and is always the president, which is a office of the federal government, and thus covered by the constitution, where am I wrong? If constitution thus applies, he is not allowed to direct through his office, using his official communication channel to call to violate the constitutional rights of individual citizens. He has taken a oath to do the opposite, to make sure they do not.

Of course like so many of his tweets, this one was also wrong, that the NFL has no preferential status..

Re:Always the left pushing "hate speech" laws.

[NeoTubNinja]

The political right takes the opposite approach. Instead of preventing the expression of ideas, they prefer to use free expression to point out where they think that others are wrong, allowing any listeners/readers/viewers to come to their own conclusions.

President Trump is a good example of this. He doesn't push for the shutdown or silencing of media organizations that he questions the reporting of. Rather, he calls them out in public, often right to their faces. He presents his case, and lets everyone else make up their own minds.

Trump is a bad example of this. Tweeting "fake news" at everything isn't "using free expression to point out where they think others are wrong". It's setting up a mental barrier to critical thinking so you don't have to entertain another opinion, or even the truth these days. The political right is effectively regulating the speech, only internally through indoctrination. Also Trump may call out others in public (usually as a result of his own thin skin being pricked by WORDS), but don't you dare argue he presents a case. He presents a tweet about anything at most. He doesn't articulate anything. Defend his ability to not give a shit, but don't bend over backwards for the man at every corner. But I digress ...

As a person who is on the political left who is all about free speech, I do know that we have a few overzealous goody two shoes who want to be very PC. There is nothing wrong with that as it's just a difference of opinion. However, regulating everything isn't the right approach. Alternatively, all of you "wahhhhh big gubment"/"all regulations are bad wahhhh" people are just as bad in the opposite direction. Would you be OK with a somebody shouting obscenities and hate words at children in a preschool? Probably not. There's a line to be drawn somewhere and it sure as fuck isn't at either end of the spectrum most of the time.

One more thing to think about since you're such a big proponent of free speech and I bet you're a big critical thinker. While some on the political left may want to be a bit excessive in their speech regulation, there's a reason why the political right is taking the opposite stance. Not only is it partisan, but it allows for the free flow of not only facts, but lies and slander, and that's what the political right is after. In a world where you're not required to tell the truth, why not just tell the truth that people want to hear? Why address anything with a well-thought-out reply when you can have a beautiful retort like "fake news" and end the conversation?

There's a reason Donald Trump and Republicans like "free speech"(unless you're a Democrat, Muslim or brown though, "fuck you" right?!?! All those black voters didn't just get knocked to "inactive" in Alabama recently for no reason) and it's not because they like to the the truth. It's because it lets the system keep on churning that much longer for the people who benefit from it the most which is not the lower/middle class.

Re:Always the left pushing "hate speech" laws.

[Hognoxious]

You wouldn't get The Queen(GBH,SDAMJ,IALOLBINYO) doing that, and no mistake. Proper Lady she is. Not one blinkin' dicky about Brexit, even if it did mean she'd need a visa to visit most of her relatives.

Re:Always the left pushing "hate speech" laws.

[slinches]

I understood that the president speaks on behalf of the country, and is always the president, which is a office of the federal government, and thus covered by the constitution, where am I wrong? If constitution thus applies, he is not allowed to direct through his office, using his official communication channel to call to violate the constitutional rights of individual citizens. He has taken a oath to do the opposite, to make sure they do not.

That whole statement is wrong. Only the powers enumerated in the Constitution are granted to the President. Sure, he gets a lot of attention because of his position, but unless it's a command to the military, signing of a treaty or he's issuing an executive order (which only apply to executive branch offices) it doesn't carry the weight of law. Making decrees isn't an official power. He isn't King.

Again, outside of acting in his capacity to execute the official duties of the Presidency, his statements are just his opinions. They carry no more legal weight than my own. He just has a bigger audience due to that office.

Re: Always the left pushing "hate speech" laws.

[AutodidactLabrat]

Yes, when only the right COMMITTED FUCKING MURDER idiot

Re:Always the left pushing "hate speech" laws.

[Cinnamon Beige]

The communist party in 1930s Germany has its own paramilitary wing--the Roter Frontkampferbund. This wasn't precisely that strange when you're talking 1930s European politics; they and the Brownshirts are merely two of them, and they all got into fights with the police as well as each other. What it was like could be very accurately thought of as if all the political parties running people for office in your district were intimately linked with gangs with all that implies. (And yes, there were even centrist parties in Weimar Germany who had their own paramilitary branches.)

Politically-motivated violence has tended to not end anywhere good, if you consider human rights important. It's best to disapprove of it completely--to take the view that no matter how noble the cause they claim, it's really just how they are justifying indulging in their violent urges and some are self-aware enough to do this knowingly.

Re:Always the left pushing "hate speech" laws.

[Dare nMc]

Gotcha, so the oath of office is meaningless. The powers granted to the congress, where they passed laws putting the president in charge of picking the heads and leading these agencies is meaningless. I guess we can only agree to disagree.

Re:Always the left pushing "hate speech" laws.

[AK Marc]

the Nazis were socialists)

The Nazis were right-wing fascists. Never anything else. They named themselves Socialist for marketing reasons, not functional or factual ones. Like DPRK is not more democratic than the US (who doesn't even have democratic or republic in the name). Often the evil people will name themselves the opposite of what they are, trying to play both sides.

So what happens is, often the right will criticise the left by pointing to the earliest and most regressive stages in the left

The real trick the Right likes to use is to label someone with an obvious lie long after the changes. The Republicans are for minorties because Lincoln was Republican and the Southern Democrats in the '50s rejected integration. When today, the situation is obviously not related to the history (even if some of the names haven't even changed).

The other "favorite" is to call every dictatorship socialist. DRPK, Cuba, USSR (after Lenin died). Those 3 are dictatorships, but none of those 3 are socialist, even if they claimed to be, when they are not.

Though today, they give up all logic. anti-fascists are fascists by the definitions used by the American Right. How is that even possible? When North and anti-North (South) are the same direction, the problem isn't with South, but with the compass you are measuring them against.

Re: Always the left pushing "hate speech" laws.

[AK Marc]

When one person is standing, and someone else deliberately runs them over, blame on both sides clearly takes the side of the one driving the car. "both sides" is not hate speech, but was used with the intent and effect of supporting those who were using actual hate speech.

Re:Always the left pushing "hate speech" laws.

[Veretax]

If Trump was a real conservative, he would simply tell the government to stop sponsoring NFL games while the country's flag is being protested. That would do a HECK of a lot more IMO then you would think.

Re: Always the left pushing "hate speech" laws.

[c6gunner]

Ah, I see. So, hypothetically, if some old grandma runs over a Nazi, you would expect everyone to denounce octogenarian women?

Re:Always the left pushing "hate speech" laws.

[tehcyder]

In other words, the political left says to shut up while the political right says to keep talking.

Is that about right?

No.

Re:Always the left pushing "hate speech" laws.

[blindseer]

Can you elaborate? If it's not the left telling people to shut up and the right telling people to keep talking then how does it work?

Re: Always the left pushing "hate speech" laws.

[AK Marc]

Read again, slower. Donnie John defended a murdering Nazi. I said nothing else, the rest is your strawman.

Re:Always the left pushing "hate speech" laws.

[slinches]

The oath isn't meaningless and neither is the President's power to lead the executive branch or make appointments. It's just that what he says and does outside of his executive duties are personal activities and even if they are things I disagree with or find distasteful, he has as much right as anyone to voice his opinion.

By the way, I never said I agreed with what Trump has said. I don't. And don't take my rebuttal as defending what he has said or done on moral grounds. I don't like the man at all and think he's a pretty terrible person with no moral standing. It's just that saying stuff that I don't like isn't an impeachable offense. That requires a crime, which speech should not be except in extreme circumstances.

Re: Always the left pushing "hate speech" laws.

[c6gunner]

OK, so we can agree that you lied about him defending a murdering Nazi, which is why I'm curious if you would try to use the same "logic" when consisting my hypothetical scenario. That's not a strawman, that's just trying to figure out how exactly your mind ... "works".

Turns out it "works" by making shit up and then just dodging uncomfortable questions. Who knew.

Re:Always the left pushing "hate speech" laws.

[Dare nMc]

> he has as much right as anyone to voice his opinion.

He also has to follow the laws of the country and his oath of office or face the consequences for his actions. If they are incompatible (as I think is obvious that they are) he needs to forfeit either his unconstitutional speech, or his office. He can speak out against kneeling, that is not a problem. When he used the power and communications of his office, to push those whom he hired and can fire to take action against individuals who broke no law, he went beyond the law.

> isn't an impeachable offense.

I agree, and you were the first to mention impeachment I certainly never said, or meant to imply that is a action to take. The 25th amendment would be the path, if it went that far. His party (if they cared about free speech, and his actions) should condemn these actions (like only McCain did.) And ask him to either step down or at least fully walk back his calls for government action to silence those whom violated no US law by their actions. If he doesn't do either, then the 25th amendment gives them the power to walk a unfit president out of office, which repeated violation of his oath of office IMO is cause.

Re:Always the left pushing "hate speech" laws.

[slinches]

When he used the power and communications of his office, to push those whom he hired and can fire to take action against individuals who broke no law, he went beyond the law.

> isn't an impeachable offense.

Who can he hire/fire that can take away the tax breaks that apply to the NFL? Congress would need to alter the tax laws to do what he suggested and he has no authority over them. If he had directed the IRS to audit them specifically or the FBI to investigate them based on their protests, then you'd have a case.

As for the 25th amendment approach, that's not on the table right now. He's nowhere near unpopular enough for that to work. And I don't think it's worth the effort anyway. If it were to succeed, Pence is President who is likely to be more effective and also has more extreme policies. If it fails, you validate Trump's rhetoric of being the outsider who is "shaking up Washington" and it probably gets him re-elected. I think it's better to wait it out and put up better choices in the primaries next time around (on both sides of the aisle). I just hope this whole ordeal sobers people up a bit to the weaknesses of our political system, inspires more people to participate more actively and to make some changes to limit the powers we give to these people.

Re: Always the left pushing "hate speech" laws.

[AK Marc]

No. I did not lie. He defended a Nazi by indicating that the victim deserved it - "both sides" when one committed murder implies the victim was a murderer, and the killing could be seen as justified.

I'm curious if you would try to use the same "logic" when consisting my hypothetical scenario. That's not a strawman, that's just trying to figure out how exactly your mind ... "works".

If the octogenarian was found with anti-Nazi materials and statements to the effect of pre-meditating the murder, then yes, I'd denounce the murderer. If the President defended a murderer, I'd denounce the evil murderer-supporter.

If someone is both anti-murder and anti-Nazi, you can't comprehend what would happen if the two conflicted?

Turns out it "works" by making shit up and then just dodging uncomfortable questions.

The question wasn't "uncomfortable" just stupid. And you are the only one making up things. What do you think "hypothetical' means? Since you obviously don't know, it's a big word for "made up". Turns out, you should know the definitions of words you use. You literally make shit up, then your very next post complain that I make up shit. Pot, meet mirror.

Re: Always the left pushing "hate speech" laws.

[c6gunner]

No. I did not lie. He defended a Nazi by indicating that the victim deserved it - "both sides" when one committed murder implies the victim was a murderer, and the killing could be seen as justified.

Of course you lied, and you're still doing it. Nobody ever asked him "hey, trump man, what did you think of that guy running over the speedbumb brigade?". They asked him to comment on the violence in Charlotsville. As in ALL the violence at the protest; not one specific event.

Now, maybe you're intentionally lying, or maybe you're too stupid to understand the distinction, or maybe just too ignorant to care. It doesn't really matter; the nonsense you keep repeating is still a lie, and you are still lying.

If the octogenarian was found with anti-Nazi materials and statements to the effect of pre-meditating the murder, then yes, I'd denounce the murderer.

Congratulations on once again avoiding the question! I didn't ask whether you would denounce HER, I asked whether you would denounce all female octogenarians. You know, her "side". Or are you confused about what the word "side" means in the context of a statement like "there were bad people on both sides"?

And you are the only one making up things. What do you think "hypothetical' means? Since you obviously don't know, it's a big word for "made up". Turns out, you should know the definitions of words you use. You literally make shit up, then your very next post complain that I make up shit. Pot, meet mirror.

The difference, of course, being that a hypothetical scenario is one which is acknowledged by the presenter as being made up, usually in the pursuit of demonstrating or determining a greater truth. Whereas you are just making shit up and pretending that it's literally true.

If you see the use of hypothetically as some form of hypocrisy you are far more ignorant than I first thought.

Re: Always the left pushing "hate speech" laws.

[dave420]

If she was doing it because she was part of some octogenarian group which stands for killing others, yes, the group should get criticised. Or do you think his political stance had nothing to do with the attack and was purely accidental?

Re:Always the left pushing "hate speech" laws.

[dave420]

In Germany's case, it's the centre-right (as Merkel's party is) telling people that hate is dangerous (demonstrable fact), that spreading it hurts society (demonstrable fact), and that companies who wish to make money from peoples' speech need to be able to discern dangerous speech from not.

You kind of missed the entire discussion in your summary.

Re: Always the left pushing "hate speech" laws.

[AK Marc]

No, I wouldn't denounce octogenarians, because your strawman question doesn't indicate that there's any octogenarian movement in existence, and in reality there isn't. So it would be as logical as denouncing people with size 10 shoes, as that's the most common size of killers.

A self-identified Nazi killing for Nazi reasons would be linked to Nazis. Also note, when the media linked the killer to Nazis, the Nazis didn't denounce the killing. Octogenarians condemned the murderer in your strawman.

Re: Always the left pushing "hate speech" laws.

[c6gunner]

A self-identified Nazi killing for Nazi reasons would be linked to Nazis.

Sure. And tell me, sweetheart, which "Nazi reasons" are there for a "Nazi" to drive a car into a crowd of random Democrats? Is there some bit of Nazi ideology which tells them to run over jaywalkers? Which aspect of Nazism, specifically, led to this killing?

Also note, when the media linked the killer to Nazis, the Nazis didn't denounce the killing.

What I'm noting is that you're lying, again. "Vanguard America" - the white supremacist group to which he was most closely tied - immediately tweeted that he was not associated with them. If saying "this fucker ain't one of us" doesn't count as "denouncement" in your world, it's no wonder you're all screwed up when it comes to whom trump denounced and when.

Re: Always the left pushing "hate speech" laws.

[AK Marc]

sweetheart, which "Nazi reasons" are there for a "Nazi" to drive a car into a crowd of random Democrats?

Fucknut, you said they were violent protesters. So yes, why wouldn't Nazis attack violent anti-Nazis?

Re: Always the left pushing "hate speech" laws.

[c6gunner]

Eh ... so you think that attacking violent people is a Nazi thing?

I have no idea how we ended up here but it's probably time to stop.

Re: Always the left pushing "hate speech" laws.

[AK Marc]

You said he had no motive. Now you say it's a motive, and I was right all the time, but you want to stop playing. Got it. You know what they called Nazi apologists after WWII? "Nazi."

Re: Always the left pushing "hate speech" laws.

[c6gunner]

You said he had no motive.

No, that's not even close to what I said.

You know what they called Nazi apologists after WWII? "Nazi."

You mean people were prone to making logical fallacies as far back as 1945? Wow. Crazy.

Re: Always the left pushing "hate speech" laws.

[AK Marc]

which "Nazi reasons" are there for a "Nazi" to drive a car into a crowd of random Democrats?

You said he had no motive.

No, that's not even close to what I said.

Seems close enough. And I know you know you are wrong because you spend all your time attacking me, rather than clarifying what you meant.

Re: Always the left pushing "hate speech" laws.

[c6gunner]

Seems close enough.

Of course it does; just like "there are bad people on both sides" sounds close enough to "Nazis are like totally awesome", to you.

I'm not sure whether your problem is lack of intelligence or lack of care, but either way I suspect I've been wasting my time trying to explain to you where you've gone wrong. You either can't understand, or don't want to understand.

Hmmmm Looks like...

[Zurkeyon3733]

The Reich is back in town. Telling you what you can and cannot SAY, Think, Feel, and even WHEN and WHERE you are ALLOWED to be Raped!

How can this be?

[jez9999]

I don't get it. Since Trump was elected, Merkel is now the leader of the free world! This isn't free, it can't possibly be Merkel...

MARXISM

[Anonymous Coward]

...is always about Mind Control. They know that their ideology is so faulty it cannot stand the test of free speech. So they ALWAYS try to control the flow of information.

Marxism, Mohammedism, SPARTA - all the same idealist, brutish, deadly stuff.

Re:MARXISM

[rock_climbing_guy]

As has been previously pointed out, the proponents of these ideologies think that their ideas are so good, they must be mandatory!

Re:MARXISM

[Anonymous Coward]

Spoken like a true leftist.

Re: MARXISM

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah like antifas heroes, the Bolsheviks never murdered anyone.

Re: MARXISM

[Anonymous Coward]

Bill and Hillary?

Re:MARXISM

[RightwingNutjob]

You people are why unicode is poison.

Re:MARXISM

[skam240]

"As has been previously pointed out, the proponents of these ideologies think that their ideas are so good, they must be mandatory!"

All laws are this. Crowing "they're trying to control us!" over a law you dont like ignores this very simple fact of reality. All societies put limits on personal freedom.

Re:MARXISM

[Wootery]

Crowing "they're trying to control us!" over a law you dont like ignores this very simple fact of reality.

Or, to someone with a libertarian streak, it's precisely the opposite: when making laws, people too quickly forget that, by definition, every law infringes on liberty.

Re:MARXISM

[Maritz]

I'd like to sit down and have a serious talk with you regarding the nature of reality.

Don't do it to yourself. You'd have a horrible time and it would be a waste of time. Talk to someone who might listen.

Re:MARXISM

[Maritz]

Mate, go live somewhere with no laws. There are a few of them. Stay there. You'll fucking love it.

Re:MARXISM

[skam240]

Sure but that in no way makes laws bad by default nor even laws that impinge on individual liberties. For instance, I can't bring a suit case of dynamite onto a passenger plane even if I work in the mining industry and am taking it to a job site I'm flying to.

Meanwhile I can guarantee you I can find some form of "oppression" in any law that any libertarian finds acceptable.

Re:MARXISM

[skam240]

What if you raped someones underage daughter? Should they be able to kill you outside of a proper court hearing? Should they be able to rape your underage daughter?

Drinking and driving? Some people are far more functional than others when drunk. Is it fair for some one who is able to drive properly after having a few drink is punished?

Every time I think of Merkel and the UE

[wjcofkc]

I think how oh so very satisfied Hitler would be.

Re:Every time I think of Merkel and the UE

[Anonymous Coward]

I think how oh so very satisfied Hitler would be.

Clearly you know nothing about Hitler then.
He'd be extremely disappointed to see it "polluted with sub-standard trash humans" or something along those lines.
Hitler wasn't a power-freak, he was just a freak. The seeming power-grab was just a side-effect of him being mentally deranged.

Re:Every time I think of Merkel and the UE

[iggymanz]

Hitler not abnormal compared to other monarchs/dictators, where do you get that historically inaccurate idea?

"sub-standard human trash" classification exists in our society, and we enslave/maim/kill/steal from those for power and profit. we support governments that do such too.

Hitler was a corporate fascist. Our government system is corporate fascism. He had millions of innocents killed, our government's body count per decade might be only in the hundreds of thousands but it's the same shit only difference is height of the body pile.

Mohammedism

[Anonymous Coward]

The majority of muselmans are APPROVING of violent acts which will bring their imagined paradise about. Don't fool yourself, Mohammedism and Marxism spread by deadly violence and all of that is no coincidence. Read their ideological books and you will see lots of justifications for deadly violence.

Re:Mohammedism

[Barsteward]

Read the bible and you will see lots of justifications for deadly violence.

Re:They do

[BlueStrat]

They are learning from the mistakes of the past, and are doing their damnest so these horrors never happen again.

"We had to become Nazis to prevent Nazis!"

German leaders have become corrupt totalitarians (again). Yes, they learned from the Nazis. I just don't think the lessons they came away with are the same ones that everyone else came away with and assumed everyone shared.

Strat

Meh

[Anonymous Coward]

How many people were killed by American "alt-right" ?

What I can see is ANTIFA STORMTROOPERS here in Germany. They use SA methods, just short of outright murder.

Re:Meh

[PopeRatzo]

How many people were killed by American "alt-right" ?

Americans killed by Nazis in 2017:

Heather Heyer
Taliesin Namkai Meche
Ricky Best
Richard Collins III
Timothy Caughman
Srinivas Kuchibhotla
Buckley Kuhn-Fricker
Scott Fricker

Americans killed by anti-fascists: 0

Re:Meh

[elrous0]

Americans killed by anti-fascists: 0

Bullshit. There have been a significant number of cops killed in ambush style killings this year alone, increasingly often by people who've bought into the "anti-fascist"/anti-cop rhetoric of the left. And additionally, racially-motivated killings happen all the time against whites as well, you just will never hear them identified as such by the media because when it's a white victim, it's *never* treated as a hate crime by the media or government (even if the perpetrators are screaming racial epithets as they attack the person).

Re:Meh

[Anonymous Coward]

bet the guy with his skull cracked open doesn't like the "anti-fascists" that busted his face up.

oh but he's not dead. so violence is ok right?

you are a real piece of shit.

Re:Meh

[Mashiki]

Remember those 5 cops killed in Dallas(plus 12 injured) in 2017? Yeah, he bought into the anti-fascist/anti-cop rhetoric. So was the female cop sitting in the evidence van and had her brains smeared all over the inside. Oh did I mention she was also black and a single parent, and the person was also an anti-fascist/anti-cop nut. Then there were the two troopers in Georgia, another in Tennessee again the same garbage. And that's off the top of my head. Several more in Michigan, and on and on and on. Out of those, almost every case the person was an anti-cop and/or anti-fascist nut, who left behind long screeds justifying their murder of people.

Despite your list up at the top:
Heather Heyer - not directly killed, hasn't been proven in court. Maybe indirectly. Was not struck by the vehicle, died of heart attack. Was massively overweight, and a chain smoker.
Taliesin Namkai Meche - Not killed by a nazi, but by a supremacist of a different flavor.
Ricky Best - Same as above, linked to same story as Meche. Also suspect has yet to have their day in court.
Richard Collins III - unable to make any tie. Posted to a facebook group called "alt-riech" which was nothing but shitposting and memes. That's by the media's own fact checking in this case.
Timothy Caughman - unable to make any tie. Appears to be exactly the same as the black guy who walked up to a white guy a few years ago and shot him. Reasoning is the same "wanted to kill x group"
Srinivas Kuchibhotla - unable to make tie. Only sources are reportedlies and hearsay.
Buckley Kuhn-Fricker & Scott Fricker tied together. Unable to make tie, claims of "nazi behavior." Again no evidence, only reportedlies and hearsay.

In all of those above cases, there are no direct ties, no ranting screeds. You know, I'm sure someone can bring out the "all those white people killed by blacks" over the last 20 years, and were killed just because they were white if they really wanted. I mean come on, it's not like BLM has come out saying hate whitey or to shoot cops or anything. Oh right, they've said both...

Re: Meh

[c6gunner]

So basically anyone who shitposts is a Nazi.

And you wonder why everyone thinks you're retarded.

Re: Meh

[guruevi]

Any reputable news site will cover a number of Antifa cop shootings. There was one within the last 72 hours, look it up.

Re: Meh

[PopeRatzo]

Any reputable news site will cover a number of Antifa cop shootings.

So, it turns out that the guy who shot five deputies in Colorado yesterday was an alt-right jackoff with actual Pepe memes on his Facebook page.

https://www.mediaite.com/onlin...

And you still haven't posted a citation to one of your "Antifa cop shootings".

Re:Meh

[PopeRatzo]

There have been a significant number of cops killed in ambush style killings this year alone

You mean like this one last night by the guy with the alt-right Facebook page and Pepe memes?

https://www.mediaite.com/onlin...

Re:Meh

[PopeRatzo]

You picked random stories of violence from around the world and two infowars wannabe blogs.

Not even close.

Re:Meh

[Wootery]

You have no credibility.

You just invoked an anecdote as if it were a refutation of an statistical claim. Not any better than making a statistical claim without citation. Neither of you are worth taking seriously. You ACs never change.

Re:Meh

[Cederic]

Was not struck by the vehicle

Erm. Then what caused the blunt force injury to the chest?
http://www.newsweek.com/charlo...

Re:Meh

[MoarSauce123]

How many people were killed by American "alt-right" ? - Plenty! And where in Germany do you see Antifa storm troopers? If I see anything like those it is typically the hairless kind of what is the alt-right.

Re:Meh

[Mashiki]

Erm. Then what caused the blunt force injury to the chest?

Falling? Hitting a curb? Bollards? Crowd itself? There's a lot of things that can cause a blunt force injury to the chest. Also, you can have a blunt force injury to the chest from the heart attack itself as the muscles in the chest contract so hard they'll tear and cause traumatic bruising similar to a punch.

Re: Meh

[Mashiki]

No, but all nazis shitpost.

And all fascists engage in fallacies. Glad to see we've sorted this one out.

Re:Meh

[Mashiki]

And still not a single connection to the perpetrators of those crimes having anything to do with the antifascist movement.

No? That's why antifa, bamn and blm have all been working together.

Oh, you're a comedian.

No, I'm factual. Something that your previous posts could even hit.

Uh-huh. A different flavor of nazi.

Thanks for carving up the world into "nazi and not nazi" you're the shining beacon on the hill of a fascist.

Shitposting and memes were how nazis communicated in 2017.

No, it really wasn't. But if they did, you'd be the first one to be a nazi yourself.

Re: Meh

[Mashiki]

alt-right jackoff with actual Pepe memes on his Facebook page.

That's not even what the article says, if you got any further into crazy land by seeing what you can only see? I'd recommend psychiatric help.

Re: Meh

[PopeRatzo]

That's not even what the article says, if you got any further into crazy land by seeing what you can only see? I'd recommend psychiatric help.

It's exactly what the article says. The guy who shot the cops in Colorado on Sunday was an alt-right jackoff who posted Pepe memes.

https://www.rawstory.com/2018/...

Re:Meh

[cyberchondriac]

How did this get modded informative? Anti-fascist kills 0? That's simply not true. Leftist media chooses to downplay or ignore those events. I'm not so anal as to keep a dossier of these events but I could start easily enough.
Also, there is no connection between Timothy Caughman's murderer and nazis, unless you want to define every racist now as a "nazi", in which case, there would be nazis of all races.
The killers of Ricky Best were anti-muslim but that doesn't equate to white supremacism (unless you're CNN); many muslims are white; it's a religion, not a race.

Re: Meh

[Mashiki]

It's exactly what the article says. The guy who shot the cops in Colorado on Sunday was an alt-right jackoff who posted Pepe memes.

No it doesn't. The article makes the ASSUMPTION that's the case. Now read the rest of the article where it says:

Riehl seemed to have a grudge against local police officers, and posted multiple complaints about the Douglas County Sheriffâ(TM)s Department on YouTube.

Specifically, the AP notes that Riehl in a December video called for âoethe firing of Douglas County Sheriff Tony Spurlockâ and attacked him âoein highly personal terms.â Riehl also said that during that video that he would be running as a âoelibertarianâ candidate for Douglas County Sheriff.

Really, stop with the bullshit and shoehorning. All it does is show you're carrying an agenda that doesn't fit the real world.

Re: Meh

[Mashiki]

Vehicular manslaughter apologist, nice to meet you.

Injuries are inconsistent with that as reported in the media. There is no "strike damage to the lower torso" no broken bones, no fractures, no head injury. The air bags on the car weren't even deployed. Those are all facts you can find in the media, the mainstream press at that.

Re:Meh

[PopeRatzo]

Anti-fascist kills 0? That's simply not true.

So give us the examples of Antifa killing Americans.

Re:Meh

[Mashiki]

How did this get modded informative?

People who are carrying an agenda and don't like that the left as a whole has a problem right now. They're trying to bury their head up their ass as much as the right did back in the 90's.

Re:Meh

[Mashiki]

When you have the WAPO of all places saying that Antifa are just as bad as nazi's, you're in the wrong fucking neighborhood of support.

Oh and you want an example of Antifa killing americans? This one will do just fine. 26 dead at a church. Self-identified as a "UAF" that's "united against facsism" was a hardcore leftist who hated christians, and a extreme atheist to boot. UAF is a splinter of antifa.

Re:Meh

[PopeRatzo]

Oh and you want an example of Antifa killing americans? This one will do just fine. [mic.com] 26 dead at a church. Self-identified as a "UAF" that's "united against facsism" was a hardcore leftist who hated christians, and a extreme atheist to boot. UAF is a splinter of antifa.

Except you just made up the part about "UAF", didn't you?

All the conspiracy theories about Devin Patrick Kelley (the ex-Air Force guy who shot up the church in Texas) being "anti-fascist" and an "antifa terrorist" have been debunked. All of them. They seem to have been started when someone photoshopped a phony screenshot of his Facebook page including an antifa flag.

There was no connection between antifa and the Sutherland, Texas shooting. Try again.

Re: Meh

[PopeRatzo]

No it doesn't. The article makes the ASSUMPTION that's the case. Now read the rest of the article where it says:

Uh oh, you skipped the part of the article that says this:

"Forbes writer J.J. MacNab discovered Riehl’s Facebook page, in which he identifies himself as “Matt Gonzo,” and where he has posted multiple memes featuring Pepe the Frog, the cartoon that has been appropriated as a symbol for white nationalists. Other of Riehl’s Facebook posts include calling former President Barack Obama a “lying piece of sh*t” and shared posts from alt-right website Breitbart News."

Re:Meh

[Mashiki]

Except you just made up the part about "UAF", didn't you?
No, that's on his declaration of political party card you know the one. The one that lets you vote in primaries. You can go look it up anytime you want, those are public record.

There was no connection between antifa and the Sutherland, Texas shooting. Try again.

Yeah and bursting your bubble is just a fun hobby of mine, can't wait for you to go look it up.

Re: Meh

[Mashiki]

Uh oh, you skipped the part of the article that says this:

No, I didn't. There's the part where reality intrudes on reported information. So let's see, pepe hasn't been appropriated by anyone. Meme's don't get appropriated. But the only people who believe it to be so are the ones who have no understanding of chan culture. And calling Obama a "lying piece of shit" doesn't make him a nazi either. And Breitbart isn't alt-right. If it is, NPR is far-left, thus it makes listeners automatic communists going by your logic.

Whoops, guess you didn't think this through very hard.

Re: Meh

[PopeRatzo]

And Breitbart isn't alt-right.

I think you've just proven my point. I'm done with you.

Re:Meh

[cyberchondriac]

Well, 1, you didn't state antifa explicitly, you said "anti-facists".. but I think elrous0 did a pretty good job of enumerating them; cop killers and the like. Like I said though, I don't keep a tab. I'll start tracking them down though, to be fair.
Meanwhile, any jokes for today? You were on a roll with the Roy Moore jokes!

Re:Meh

[Cinnamon Beige]

Was not struck by the vehicle

Erm. Then what caused the blunt force injury to the chest? http://www.newsweek.com/charlo...

Just an FYI: CPR causes blunt force injuries to the chest when performed correctly--in fact, expect broken ribs--and that's just one of the various things that might be attempted to resuscitate somebody who seems to be having a heart attack, and most actually will leave a 'signature' set of blunt force injuries to the chest.

Which isn't to say that this might be the cause, but if you want me to tell you anything about that, give me a link to the ME's report, not Newsweek. Most journalists are as qualified to understand what they're reading when given an ME's report as they are if what they were reading was source code...

Re:Meh

[AutodidactLabrat]

While the right does actual murder.
Idiot

Re:Meh

[AutodidactLabrat]

Not one by BLM
In the most recent killing, the ALT-RIGHT POSTER who did the shooting was aiming at cops
And you want to play "inspired by" then by all means
1. Waco
2. circa 1062 UNARMED citizens killed by cops since 2000 (making the supposed "Blm inspired murders" into plain old self-defense)
3. Las Vega
4. Sandy Hook
All "inspired" by alt right lies.
Shall we go on with this?

Re: Meh

[AutodidactLabrat]

Utter lie

Re:Meh

[AutodidactLabrat]

You have no brains.
"Accosted" by whom? Name them. Specify where the "accosting" was in any way criminal WITH CITATION TO THE STATUTE as well as witness testimony sworn by deposition

Re:Meh

[AutodidactLabrat]

Meanwhile, your friends tried to play "antifa murderer" in Vegas and got caught!

Re: Meh

[AutodidactLabrat]

So, in fact, you have no source at all
Good to know

Re:Meh

[AutodidactLabrat]

And still not a single connection to the perpetrators of those crimes having anything to do with the antifascist movement.

No? That's why antifa, bamn and blm have all been working together.

Oh, you're a comedian.

No, I'm factual. Something that your previous posts could even hit.

Uh-huh. A different flavor of nazi.

Thanks for carving up the world into "nazi and not nazi" you're the shining beacon on the hill of a fascist.

Shitposting and memes were how nazis communicated in 2017.

No, it really wasn't. But if they did, you'd be the first one to be a nazi yourself.

Still no evidence shitposter

Re:Meh

[Mashiki]

Still no evidence shitposter

Did a bang-up job of outing yourself with a second account though. How pitiful.

Re: Meh

[Mashiki]

I think you've just proven my point. I'm done with you.

The only thing you've shown is that your world is divided into: "Left wing to the left of Marx" and "everyone else is a nazi" going by your own posts.

If you really think that breitbart is "alt-right" you've never read an actual alt-right, neonazi or even piece of nazi news and/or propaganda in your life, and are so mentally and socially isolated that you only look for information that further reinforces what you believe.

Re:Meh

[AutodidactLabrat]

Did a bang-up job of outing yourself with a second account though. How pitiful.

Sorry liar, only one account
You have multiple fact checkers making you look stupid is all

Re:Meh

[Mashiki]

You have multiple fact checkers making you look stupid is all

uh-huh. So far all you've done is prove that your akin to the other person, in more ways then one.

Re:Meh

[Mashiki]

Meanwhile, your friends tried to play

And it doesn't even say that, when you really are that stupid and think you're right...it makes me marvel at how society supports idiots.

Re:Meh

[dave420]

Most acts of terrorism in Germany are perpetrated by the right wing, usually in the form of firebomb attacks on refugee homes. As for Antifa, they fight fascists. Fascists want to fight everyone else. If you can't see the difference, I don't think I can help you.

Re:Hate speech is free speech

[PPH]

Hitler did nothing wrong.

Yes he did. He delayed the unification of Europe under German rule by about 50 years.

Re:If You Care About Free Speech, Prove It

[socheres]

Welp, yes... But we had to die in the troves to make our point... I was hoping for something more civilized this time around ....

Obligatory C.S. Lewis quote.

[Mr307]

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

The left has always had a more slippery slope towards authoritarian, fascist, totalitarian rule since they are imposing it all for our own good.

Re:Obligatory C.S. Lewis quote.

[zifuhumexa]

You haven't got the first clue about politics in Germany. Germany is probably the most extreme left-wing country after Sweden in Europe.

Re:Obligatory C.S. Lewis quote.

[NeoTubNinja]

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

Should it be obligatory though? What I believe you're implying by providing this quote is that it's better to keep the fox (robber baron) in the hen house with the hens because even if he does wreak havoc (cruelty), eventually he will be satiated for a bit (may sometimes sleep), than it is for the farmer (omnipotent moral busybodies) to enclose the hen house with a fence to keep said fox out and the hens safe (tormenting them for their own good), correct? I like books too, but quotes are not infallible.

Speech argument aside, I don't think caring about the environment or wanting to make sure people are healthy enough to be productive individuals of society could be considered authoritarian, fascist or totalitarian.

Obviously illegal

[mi]

Sites that do not remove "obviously illegal" posts could face fines of up to 50m euro ($60m).

Somehow, there are no lamentations today about the unwashed Americans being insufficiently similar to the enlightened Europeans...

Re:Thanks to diplomatic immunity

[Crass Spektakel]

You are only partially right:

While diplomats do not get prosecuted a nation also is not required to give diplomatic immunity to every foreign politicion. And even if a nation can not prosecute a diplomat it still can investigate a crime done by him. And you can always show him the door.

Relevant quote

[Solandri]

"We have to put a stop to the idea that it is a part of everybody's civil rights to say whatever he pleases." - Adolf Hitler

This is the movie trope about a superweapon developed by the bad guys falling into the hands of the good guys. Some of the good guys say destroy it, others say use it to advance the cause of good. The latter wins out and the weapon is used to defeat the bad guys. But then in the future, new bad guys infiltrate the good guys' government and gain control of the superweapon, and use it to carry out the goal of the original bad guys. At which point there's a great big war to fight the bad guys, millions of people die all, of which could've been prevented if they'd destroyed the superweapon in the first place.

Censorship, even well-intended, is just a bad idea fraught with risks and danger. Better to destroy it to prevent it from ever falling into the wrong hands.

Re:Relevant quote

[CaptainDork]

The goddam problem is people placing too much fucking importance on social media.

We need to teach that it's just a computer game, so use it for your stuff and ignore the batshit crazy people.

Hell, I do that at Thanksgiving over at grandma's house.

Re:They do

[Barsteward]

"German leaders have become corrupt totalitarians (again)" - what a load of ignorant bollox.

Re:They do

[skam240]

If you start with a completely fabricated premise like "We had to become Nazis to prevent Nazis!" then sure, Germany looks bad.

This of course is not what is happening at all. Putting a single limit on free speach does not equal Nazism unless you live on the biggest slippery slope around.

For the record, I dont think laws like this German one are the best way to fight intolerance. I'm just putting this out there because I dislike your mad, arms flailing, the sky is falling, rhetoric.

Because...

[Jiro]

Because if there's anyone who you'd trust to determine that some news is fake under penalty of destroying your business and maybe jailing you if you don't have a few million dollars to hand over, the government of Germany comes to mind.

Re:Because...

[Miles_O'Toole]

You'd rather trust Zuckerberg?

LOL.

Re:Because...

[Jiro]

Zuckerberg is unable to demand that I pay him a few million dollars or else go to jail.

Re:Because...

[Miles_O'Toole]

The German government isn't doing that either. What's your point?

US Precident

[Anonymous Coward]

The answer is yes, by taking US precident and fineing and applying laws to companies with no US presence.
And thus, the GDPR (EU wide), now fines companies who interact with EU resident even if they have no EU business presence.
EU VAT is now levied on all companies worldwide, who provide a digital service to an EU resident, even if they have no EU business presence. (I just signed up for my VAT submission account via Ireland, because English, despite being a US individiual, who only sells e-books online via a website in California.)

ah forced censorship without trial

[iggymanz]

what a bunch of fucking goosestepping nazis

oh, is that hate speech?

Re:If You Care About Free Speech, Prove It

[iggymanz]

take off the rose colored glasses, talk will get you nowhere but maybe a jackboot to your face.

the world is ruled by a small group of those that control big corporations, with powerful governments in their pockets and the rest at gunpoint.

talk won't change that at all.

Re:If You Care About Free Speech, Prove It

[iggymanz]

nonsense, there are other benefits to free expression than changing fascism,arts and science still benefit.

But it won't change the power structure of government we've had for centuries. even revolutions with democracy haven't changed that.

But Germany got top ranks for media freedom.

[Jarwulf]

It says so right here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:But Germany got top ranks for media freedom.

[AHuxley]

Every nation likes to support its own freedoms within its own limits of the law.
If a good German publishes about history, politics within the law they can be celebrated as a good example of freedom.
Safe topics get good coverage and regional/national fame.

Comment about what the results are for Germans in Germany under years of German politics? Government waste, spending, who in the community gets supported by the government spending?
That top ranked media freedom protection starts to slide.
The person might get a police interview and chat down. Their place of work might have had some police interview done to see what the person is like at work.
In police uniform so everyone knows who is doing the interview and the name of the person of interest.
A warning, fine is an option. The persons work place now knows of their politics and that is chilling to any further speech, publication, comment.

Still want to talk about the results of EU and German politics? The fines grow and prison time becomes a reality.
All a lawyer can do is read back the law and advice on who to cooperate and give a confession.
German laws does not protect freedom after speech, it enforces laws about the content of all speech.
The politician and political party is protecting "democracy" and so they are protected by law.
The government institution of democracy is fully protected. Speech has no protection only laws.
Any attempt to challenge a politician and their democratic party with a publication or speech is a legal challenge to the role of democracy in Germany.
The act of speaking out about Germany policy, politics, the results of such policy is an illegal act against democracy.
The person caught doing freedom of speech then has to prove in a legal setting that the comments are legally compatible with democracy.
Speech is not legal until it is proved to be legal.
A person become liable to the German government for their comments until they can prove the full democratic compatibility and legality of their speech.
Legal fees after a speech slow down any thought of affording to speak out again. Thats how Germany protects media freedom. German media is rewarded and protected if it supports and promotes German democracy. If a publication questions democracy and its results within Germany in any way, such a publication can be closed with fines and jail time.
Publication soon know what topics to publish, what wins awards and what never to comment on. What will bring the full force of German law down on a publication.

Re:They do

[BlueStrat]

If you start with a completely fabricated premise like "We had to become Nazis to prevent Nazis!" then sure, Germany looks bad.

This of course is not what is happening at all.

Not literally, no, they're not waving swastikas around and praising Hitler. As far as a "fabricated premise" that's a matter of individual perspective.

They are using the methods and tactics of Nazis and other similar authoritarian regimes by placing subjective legal restrictions on speech.

For the record, I dont think laws like this German one are the best way to fight intolerance. I'm just putting this out there because I dislike your mad, arms flailing, the sky is falling, rhetoric.

Ah, you dislike being confronted bluntly with unpleasant realities.

Sorry. Maybe you can get the Germans to ban my speech, too.

Life is rough. Get a helmet.

Strat

SubjectIsSubject

[p0p0]

Who knew that when heading down the street of Democracy and PC culture, Germany would have been the one to take the fourth reich into the side-street of totalitarianism?

No it is not.

[crimson tsunami]

Unfortunately, much of Federal law, at least in the US, is functionally exempt from the statute of limitations.

No it is not. Crimes considered heinous by society have no statute of limitations. Although there is usually no statute of limitations for murder (particularly first-degree murder), judges have been known to dismiss murder charges in cold cases if they feel the delay violates the defendant's right to a speedy trial.
So no, even if your nonsense were true, hate-speech still wouldn't be exempt from limitations.

For example, taxes.

Tax crimes have only 6 years if it's a 'mistake'.

For most issues, the statute only kicks in once the Government is aware of the crime. If they are not aware a crime was committed, the clock doesn't start.

Complete and utter bullshit.
A statute of limitations is a law which sets out the maximum time that parties have to initiate legal proceedings from the date of an alleged offense.statute of limitations USA

So they sit on your hate-speech post for 12 years, then get around to looking at it. Then whatever statute of limitations timing starts - AFTER they are aware of it (just like taxes; cheat on your taxes, they find the issue 9 years later, then the statute of limitations begins).

How can you possibly be this clueless and still think you are right? Timing starts from alleged offense, tax is only 6 years unless you don't file or there is a substantial omission/fraud. In that case though, the timing doesn't start because there is not a limitation in those cases.

Biological and chemical weapons crimes are only 8 years.
Burning or bombing federal property or slave trafficking is only 10 years.
But you think hate-speech would be 12?!?

Governments will NOT give you a waiver on an "illegal" action (like hate speech) just because they did not answer in time.

Yes it will, Statute of limitations exists. It would be 5 years, the standard where the crime isn't specifically listed as having a different length of time. Yes obviously it's not a crime, and they would most likely list a time if it were one.

Re:No it is not.

[LynnwoodRooster]

In most States (and with Federal law), the statute of limitations does not start until the date of the incident or discovery of a wrong. That second part - discovery of a wrong - is what can bite you here. Build chemical weapons, hold them in your backyard for 9 years - and then then let the police know. You will NOT be exempted from prosecution because the statute of limitations did not start until you told the police of your offense.

Re:They do

[skam240]

Man you're pathetic, you bring out calling me a snowflake in a few more words when all I did was point out how full of shit you are. You didn't bring up a single "unpleasant reality", you've only painted a fiction and that's why you haven't and cant counter my prior statement about your giant slippery slope.

Your "individual perspective" is completely irrational. Is the US communist for having social security? No. Is a dog a cat when it eats cat food? No. Is Germany run by Nazi's because of a single limitation on free speech? No.

You are just plain wrong

[crimson tsunami]

In California, statutory periods do not begin until offense is or should have been discovered. So no, your example of them deciding to sit on it for 12 years is not true. Even a murder sat on for 12 years would be questionable as shown by my example previously.

This is what can bite simpletons,

Unfortunately, much of Federal law, at least in the US, is functionally exempt from the statute of limitations.

You changing from a claim about Federal laws, and then trying to use California law as an example. Have another try without trying to be actively deceptive.

In most States (and with Federal law),

Your link only shows California, not even most states, and certainly not federal law.

Your chemical weapons example is stupid. It's illegal to posses them and you still posses them so the clock for that would start any time they were found. It's illegal to plan to use them, prosecutors will claim you are going to use them, the clock starts when they find them. If you build them, decided you weren't going to use them after all. disabled them so they were no longer functional and disposed of them, and then 10 years later some one finds out what you did. You will probably be OK as the limit has expired. Expect to be put on numerous watch lists etc. but you 'got away with' making chemical weapons.

Re:You are just plain wrong

[LynnwoodRooster]

Continuing violations don't start the statute of limitations until the violation has ended. You post hate speech, the limitations clock doesn't start until the post comes down. Meaning the Government can declare all posts under consideration, then once they sift through them - perhaps 7-8 years down the road - decide that your post was "hate speech" and start the clock at that time.

Re:You are just plain wrong

[crimson tsunami]

Crimes considered heinous by society have no statute of limitations . Although there is usually no statute of limitations for murder (particularly first-degree murder), judges have been known to dismiss murder charges in cold cases if they feel the delay violates the defendant's right to a speedy trial.
You sat on it for 7-8 years for no reason, case dismissed.

There's an opportunity here

[Miles_O'Toole]

It should be possible to offer training and accreditation to unpaid readers who would receive a cash reward for directing comments violating a site's fake news or hate speech rules to the company's editors.

Pay the reader for each comment that is actually against the site's rules, don't pay them for comments that are acceptable, and remove their accreditation if they cry wolf too many times.

If a tiered approach were used, where readers could move up in a hierarchy based on accuracy and quantity, sites like Facebook and Twitter could easily police their comments sections while still maintaining a level of freedom acceptable to reasonable people. In fact, the situation might improve because it would be unnecessary to blindly enforce blanket policies designed to avoid giving offense to anybody, no matter how thin-skinned and prissy they may be.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Simple solution

[Ash-Fox]

I have a simple solution for social media sites. Just automatically take down all posts that are reported for "hate speech" until it has been reviewed. Easily meets the confines of these laws. If politicians find themselves constantly silenced, they're free to amend the law.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

1933

[Reverend Green]

Apparently, Germans sure do hate freedom.

Re:1933

[Reverend Green]

Oh come on - everyone knows they don't have freedom of speech in Germany. It may well be a nice country, and they obviously have historic motivations for choosing to place violent legal sanctions against certain forms of expression. But when you have restrictions like that, you do NOT have freedom of speech.

A good move or Big Brother?

[iq145]

https://news.slashdot.org/stor... http://tech.slashdot.org/story... http://news.slashdot.org/story...