Germany Starts Enforcing Hate Speech Law (bbc.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Germany Starts Enforcing Hate Speech Law (bbc.com)

Posted by msmash on Monday January 1, 2018 @03:00AM from the taking-a-stand dept.

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.

55 of 545 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better? by muecksteiner · 2018-01-01 03:08 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
1. Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-01 03:20 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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.
2. Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better? by religionofpeas · 2018-01-01 03:24 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  That must be why they've opened their borders for Jew-hating immigrants.
3. Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better? by muecksteiner · 2018-01-01 03:35 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  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?
4. Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-01 03:49 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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?
5. Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better? by ScentCone · 2018-01-01 03:53 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
6. Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better? by Mr+D+from+63 · 2018-01-01 03:54 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  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.
7. Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better? by LynnwoodRooster · 2018-01-01 04:23 · Score: 2
  
  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...
  
  --
  Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
8. Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better? by dunkelfalke · 2018-01-01 05:30 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  
  --
  "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
9. Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better? by Shadow+of+Eternity · 2018-01-01 05:35 · Score: 2
  
  "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".
  
  --
  A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
10. Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better? by Orgasmatron · 2018-01-01 06:15 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  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.
  
  --
  See that "Preview" button?
11. Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better? by Hal_Porter · 2018-01-01 06:17 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  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.
  
  --
  echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
12. Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better? by skam240 · 2018-01-01 06:45 · Score: 2
  
  Oh, right, Muslim = "hates Jews" because Muslims arent actually individuals like the rest of us, they're just one big stereotype.
  
  --
  I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
13. Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better? by ClickOnThis · 2018-01-01 07:24 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  "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.
  
  --
  If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
14. Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better? by skam240 · 2018-01-01 07:28 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
15. Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better? by skam240 · 2018-01-01 07:32 · Score: 2
  
  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"
  
  --
  I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
16. Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better? by ClickOnThis · 2018-01-01 07:32 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
17. Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better? by AmiMoJo · 2018-01-01 11:01 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
18. Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better? by AmiMoJo · 2018-01-01 11:05 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
19. Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better? by AmiMoJo · 2018-01-01 11:10 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
20. Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better? by dunkelfalke · 2018-01-01 12:00 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  
  --
  "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
21. Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better? by skam240 · 2018-01-01 16:10 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  
  --
  I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
22. Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better? by penandpaper · 2018-01-02 03:22 · Score: 2
  
  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.
Those who forget history... by mwvdlee · 2018-01-01 03:16 · Score: 2, Insightful

And so it begins again.

--
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
REAL NEWS FROM GERMANY by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-01 03:18 · Score: 2, Informative

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 ... by CaptainDork · 2018-01-01 03:27 · Score: 4, Insightful

... 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.

--
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
1. Re:It's an admission ... by lucasnate1 · 2018-01-01 04:47 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  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.
  
  --
  Avantgarde Hebrew science fiction
Better question: does it apply to Slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-01 03:27 · Score: 4, Interesting

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?
1. Re:Better question: does it apply to Slashdot? by ShanghaiBill · 2018-01-01 05:58 · Score: 2
  
  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:Explain yourselves by GuB-42 · 2018-01-01 03:30 · Score: 2

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 by helpfulcorn · 2018-01-01 03:31 · Score: 2

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: ROTFLMAO by invalid_user · 2018-01-01 03:32 · Score: 3, Interesting

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."
Always the left pushing "hate speech" laws. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-01 03:38 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.
1. Re:Always the left pushing "hate speech" laws. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-01 04:37 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  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.
2. Re:Always the left pushing "hate speech" laws. by Dare+nMc · 2018-01-01 05:13 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  > 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.
3. Re:Always the left pushing "hate speech" laws. by Shadow+of+Eternity · 2018-01-01 05:28 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
4. Re:Always the left pushing "hate speech" laws. by Dare+nMc · 2018-01-01 05:52 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  > "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...
5. Re: Always the left pushing "hate speech" laws. by c6gunner · 2018-01-01 07:34 · Score: 2
  
  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.
6. Re:Always the left pushing "hate speech" laws. by Dare+nMc · 2018-01-01 10:39 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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.
MARXISM by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-01 03:44 · Score: 4, Insightful

...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.
1. Re:MARXISM by rock_climbing_guy · 2018-01-01 03:56 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  As has been previously pointed out, the proponents of these ideologies think that their ideas are so good, they must be mandatory!
  
  --
  Wh47 d1d j00 541, 31337 15n't t3h r0xor5 ne m0r3???
2. Re:MARXISM by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-01 04:39 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Spoken like a true leftist.
3. Re: MARXISM by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-01 04:54 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Yeah like antifas heroes, the Bolsheviks never murdered anyone.
Meh by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-01 04:09 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.
1. Re:Meh by PopeRatzo · 2018-01-01 04:16 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  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
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
2. Re:Meh by elrous0 · 2018-01-01 04:56 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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).
  
  --
  SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
3. Re:Meh by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-01 05:56 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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.
4. Re:Meh by Mashiki · 2018-01-01 06:00 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  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...
  
  --
  Om, nomnomnom...
5. Re: Meh by c6gunner · 2018-01-01 07:32 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  So basically anyone who shitposts is a Nazi.
  And you wonder why everyone thinks you're retarded.
6. Re: Meh by guruevi · 2018-01-01 15:05 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Any reputable news site will cover a number of Antifa cop shootings. There was one within the last 72 hours, look it up.
  
  --
  Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
7. Re: Meh by Mashiki · 2018-01-02 04:10 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  Om, nomnomnom...
8. Re: Meh by Mashiki · 2018-01-02 05:46 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  
  --
  Om, nomnomnom...
Obligatory C.S. Lewis quote. by Mr307 · 2018-01-01 05:41 · Score: 3, Insightful

“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.
Relevant quote by Solandri · 2018-01-01 06:58 · Score: 2

"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.
But Germany got top ranks for media freedom. by Jarwulf · 2018-01-01 11:18 · Score: 2

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