European police in coordinated raids against online hate speech(de.reuters.com)
de.reuters.com
European police in coordinated raids against online hate speech
https://de.reuters.com/article/us-europe-crime-internet/european-police-in-coordinated-raids-against-online-hate-speech-idUSKBN27J1C3
38 comments
Here in the US, I could go downtown, stand on a street corner, and yell "F^%# the president" (or governor, or senator, or judge, or whoever). Before this year, I'd probably get some frowns and some smiles (under any administration). This year, I might get beat up.
What I wouldn't get is arrested. If I got in trouble with the police, it would be for disturbing the peace, not for the content of my speech.
What I wouldn't get is arrested. If I got in trouble with the police, it would be for disturbing the peace, not for the content of my speech.
Reminds me of the old joke...
Reagan was talking to Gorbachev, and told him "in the US, anyone can march into my office and yell 'I don't like the way you're running your country!'"
Gorbachev replied, "Same for us! In the Soviet Union, anyone can march into my office and yell 'I don't like the way Reagan is running his country!'"
Reagan was talking to Gorbachev, and told him "in the US, anyone can march into my office and yell 'I don't like the way you're running your country!'"
Gorbachev replied, "Same for us! In the Soviet Union, anyone can march into my office and yell 'I don't like the way Reagan is running his country!'"
A significant part of the population decided free speech is only relevant if the state does the censoring. It is really a failure of education.
Anyone who is interested in free speech issues and civil rights should be very uneasy by the idea that the police can raid your house and interrogate you over online comments that are deemed by the politics de jour to be "hate speech"
Not trying to convince you or anything, but I think you'd have a different opinion on the subject if you were as exposed as the politician mentioned in the article and regularly received death threats and harassment.
Consider also that a raid in Germany is not like a raid in the US.
The US doesn't have this problem with wide legal protections for free speech online or off. Europeans are not so lucky.
This is not reflected in the World Press Freedom Index, maybe because there are non-hateful ways to express most thoughts: https://rsf.org/en/ranking
Not trying to convince you or anything, but I think you'd have a different opinion on the subject if you were as exposed as the politician mentioned in the article and regularly received death threats and harassment.
Consider also that a raid in Germany is not like a raid in the US.
The US doesn't have this problem with wide legal protections for free speech online or off. Europeans are not so lucky.
This is not reflected in the World Press Freedom Index, maybe because there are non-hateful ways to express most thoughts: https://rsf.org/en/ranking
Politicians are, by their choice of profession, exposed. Which is not to say that death threats and/or harassment shouldn't have legal consequences based on their severity, which of course they should. But note that this article mentions neither, instead saying that someone "insulted a female politician online," which I hope you would agree shouldn't be a crime.
I...also don't know how to respond to your point about the Press Freedom Index other than to say, most European countries have blasphemy or heresy laws, and those apply to the press as well. So I don't know what this index is scoring based off of, but American journalists just don't go to jail for what they write. As opposed to David Irving[1], who did just that.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_trial
I...also don't know how to respond to your point about the Press Freedom Index other than to say, most European countries have blasphemy or heresy laws, and those apply to the press as well. So I don't know what this index is scoring based off of, but American journalists just don't go to jail for what they write. As opposed to David Irving[1], who did just that.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_trial
This doesn't excuse this behavior. I would be one of the first to go if people start to measure skulls again. And this behavior of executive forces is much more concerning than what some people post on the internet. It shows to me that the EU is not ready to take a leadership role in the 21st century and just tries to repeat old mistakes.
Pitiful really and the brutality of the raid isn't the issue here.
It is not even a question if the German state will use this to suppress "unfortunate" opinions and they would not deny it if you asked.
Pitiful really and the brutality of the raid isn't the issue here.
It is not even a question if the German state will use this to suppress "unfortunate" opinions and they would not deny it if you asked.
Meanwhile people are dying from terror attacks & COVID but I guess it's very important to ransack someone's apartment that insulted a politician online.
I have lost faith in the EU a long time ago and everyday it proves me that it wants to be the Soviet Union 2.0
I just hope it won't take 70 years to fail.
I have lost faith in the EU a long time ago and everyday it proves me that it wants to be the Soviet Union 2.0
I just hope it won't take 70 years to fail.
This is why we need free speech reform throughout europe to match the american standards. Freedom of expression (nonviolent) cuts both ways and raids like these are contemptible. Unfortunately germany leads this anti free speech stance and they re not likely to change.
They have a reasonable historic reason to be extra sensitive with xenophobia.
I'm not saying its the correct ideological position, but it sure is understandable.
If you consider the structural and institutional racism in the US, and how many innocent people die because of it, one could wonder what the lesser evil is.
IF it would work. But it doesn't. It actually increases polarisation and radicalization. The more you treat the population like idiots the more they will become that.
The best strategy is always for the state to lead in humanism, by example. By showing mercy, patience, tolerance and respect.
I'm not saying its the correct ideological position, but it sure is understandable.
If you consider the structural and institutional racism in the US, and how many innocent people die because of it, one could wonder what the lesser evil is.
IF it would work. But it doesn't. It actually increases polarisation and radicalization. The more you treat the population like idiots the more they will become that.
The best strategy is always for the state to lead in humanism, by example. By showing mercy, patience, tolerance and respect.
> They have a reasonable historic reason to be extra sensitive with xenophobia.
> I'm not saying its the correct ideological position, but it sure is understandable
It's not understandable, especially as Germany is pushing for harmonization of EU laws based on their prehistoric laws that still have the gestapo mentality.
It's not understandable, especially as Germany is pushing for harmonization of EU laws based on their prehistoric laws that still have the gestapo mentality.
> a reasonable historic reason to be extra sensitive with xenophobia
That's the common excuse. The truth is, EU has increased overall free speech limitations for various reasons that no longer exist. The international political climate helps, with calls for censorship etc from around the world.
That's the common excuse. The truth is, EU has increased overall free speech limitations for various reasons that no longer exist. The international political climate helps, with calls for censorship etc from around the world.
So You don't have the right to say you want to kill some Jews? Sure what a regression this is to a civilised society.
I don't think the law is that specific
> They have a reasonable historic reason [...]
To not raid peoples homes and not to curb free speech. This is getting ridiculous...
To not raid peoples homes and not to curb free speech. This is getting ridiculous...
Reminds me of the case of Mark Meechan a.k.a. Count Dankula:
>Mark Meechan, 30, recorded his girlfriend's pug, Buddha, responding to statements such as "Sieg Heil" by raising its paw.
>The clip was viewed more than three million times on YouTube.
>Meechan, of Coatbridge, North Lanarkshire, was sentenced at Airdrie Sheriff Court after being found guilty of committing a hate crime last month.
>He had denied any wrong-doing and insisted he made the video, which was posted in April 2016, to annoy his girlfriend.
>But Sheriff Derek O'Carroll found him guilty of a charge under the Communications Act that he posted a video on social media and YouTube which was grossly offensive because it was "anti-Semitic and racist in nature" and was aggravated by religious prejudice.
Cases like these are an absolute waste of the police and prosecutor's time, in my American opinion.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-43864133
>Mark Meechan, 30, recorded his girlfriend's pug, Buddha, responding to statements such as "Sieg Heil" by raising its paw.
>The clip was viewed more than three million times on YouTube.
>Meechan, of Coatbridge, North Lanarkshire, was sentenced at Airdrie Sheriff Court after being found guilty of committing a hate crime last month.
>He had denied any wrong-doing and insisted he made the video, which was posted in April 2016, to annoy his girlfriend.
>But Sheriff Derek O'Carroll found him guilty of a charge under the Communications Act that he posted a video on social media and YouTube which was grossly offensive because it was "anti-Semitic and racist in nature" and was aggravated by religious prejudice.
Cases like these are an absolute waste of the police and prosecutor's time, in my American opinion.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-43864133
Well if we're quoting how about including this part:
> Fining Meechan £800, the sheriff told him: "The centrepiece of your video consists of you repeating the phrase 'Gas the Jews' over and over again as a command to a dog which then reacts.
> Fining Meechan £800, the sheriff told him: "The centrepiece of your video consists of you repeating the phrase 'Gas the Jews' over and over again as a command to a dog which then reacts.
This is absolutely horrifying. It is not even clear who wanted these laws in the first place. This is mostly the effect of a system in which politicians have been scared into endorsing harsher and harsher measures because if they oppose them they can be represented as racists or misogynists.
And the net effect of these laws is not that of appeasing or diminishing hatred or negative views, probably quite the opposite. But they do make very clear that any speech about some categories, even legitimate and factual criticism, can put you in big trouble. This, I guess, is their real purpose: silencing critical voices with the threat of a damning accusation, police intervention and criminal charges.
And the net effect of these laws is not that of appeasing or diminishing hatred or negative views, probably quite the opposite. But they do make very clear that any speech about some categories, even legitimate and factual criticism, can put you in big trouble. This, I guess, is their real purpose: silencing critical voices with the threat of a damning accusation, police intervention and criminal charges.
This is to be read in the context of the recent terrorist attacks (Conflans, Nice in France; and Vienna in Austria) in Europe.
Which were flagged on HN.
Which were flagged on HN.
I've been a (sometimes leading) member of multiple groups with "counter bad speech with good speech" ideals and have often wondered whether it really is the best way. As time goes on it feels ever more futile? I guess the groups are still around, so it's not impossible.
I found myself rewatching "Hated in the Nation" recently which gave me shivers. Obviously we're not there yet but I feel there's an argument to be made that "targets" lose livelihoods these days, not lives? Somehow I doubt the "twist" will ever come close to reality.
I found myself rewatching "Hated in the Nation" recently which gave me shivers. Obviously we're not there yet but I feel there's an argument to be made that "targets" lose livelihoods these days, not lives? Somehow I doubt the "twist" will ever come close to reality.
Could someone explain how these laws' delineate hate speech vs. non-hate speech?
I suspect that any discussions about these laws will really benefit from a clear understanding of the laws' precision and scope.
I suspect that any discussions about these laws will really benefit from a clear understanding of the laws' precision and scope.
§1(3) NetzDG (Network Enforcement Act):
"Unlawful content is content in the sense of paragraph 1 that fulfills the requirements of §§
* 86 (Dissemination of propaganda material of unconstitutional organisations)
* 86a (Use of symbols of unconstitutional organisations)
* 89a (Preparation of serious violent offence endangering state)
* 91 (Instructions for committing serious violent offence endangering state)
* 100a (Treasonous forgery)
* 111 (Public incitement to commit offences)
* 126 (Disturbing public peace by threatening to commit offences)
* 129 to 129b (Forming criminal organisations, Forming terrorist organisations, Foreign criminal and terrorist organisations; confiscation)
* 130 (Incitement of masses)
* 131 (Depictions of violence)
* 140 (Rewarding and approval of offences)
* 166 (Revilement of religious faiths and religious and ideological communities)
* 184b (Dissemination, procurement and possession of child pornography) in connection with 184d (Making pornographic content available through broadcasting or telemedia services; accessing child or youth pornographic content via telemedia)
* 185 to 187 (Insult, Malicious gossip (üble Nachrede), Defamation)
* 201a (Violation of intimate privacy by taking photographs or other images)
* 241 (Threatening commission of serious criminal offence)
* 269 (Forgery of data of probative value)
of the StGB (criminal code) and not justified."
Criminal code translated to English, for details on all these points: http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/index.html#g...
"Unlawful content is content in the sense of paragraph 1 that fulfills the requirements of §§
* 86 (Dissemination of propaganda material of unconstitutional organisations)
* 86a (Use of symbols of unconstitutional organisations)
* 89a (Preparation of serious violent offence endangering state)
* 91 (Instructions for committing serious violent offence endangering state)
* 100a (Treasonous forgery)
* 111 (Public incitement to commit offences)
* 126 (Disturbing public peace by threatening to commit offences)
* 129 to 129b (Forming criminal organisations, Forming terrorist organisations, Foreign criminal and terrorist organisations; confiscation)
* 130 (Incitement of masses)
* 131 (Depictions of violence)
* 140 (Rewarding and approval of offences)
* 166 (Revilement of religious faiths and religious and ideological communities)
* 184b (Dissemination, procurement and possession of child pornography) in connection with 184d (Making pornographic content available through broadcasting or telemedia services; accessing child or youth pornographic content via telemedia)
* 185 to 187 (Insult, Malicious gossip (üble Nachrede), Defamation)
* 201a (Violation of intimate privacy by taking photographs or other images)
* 241 (Threatening commission of serious criminal offence)
* 269 (Forgery of data of probative value)
of the StGB (criminal code) and not justified."
Criminal code translated to English, for details on all these points: http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/index.html#g...
This raid and the killing of the teacher in France because he showed insulting cartoons, both come from the same principle: There is speech so offensive that merely communicating that speech is cause for opposing that speech with physical violence.
It seems Europe embraces that principle. I am glad that the United States on the whole rejects that principle in favor a more broad embrace of free speech.
It seems Europe embraces that principle. I am glad that the United States on the whole rejects that principle in favor a more broad embrace of free speech.
Note that in France last year someone was sentenced to a year in jail for publishing this cartoon:
https://besttv232-ynet-images1-prod.cdn.it.best-tv.com/PicSe...
Then a few days ago Macron, referring to the killing of the teacher, said "I will always defend the freedom to speak, to write, to think and to draw". Cognitive dissonance.
https://besttv232-ynet-images1-prod.cdn.it.best-tv.com/PicSe...
Then a few days ago Macron, referring to the killing of the teacher, said "I will always defend the freedom to speak, to write, to think and to draw". Cognitive dissonance.
I don't get it. I don't speak French, and I'm not in that culture. Can anyone explain what the offensiveness is?
I'm not French either, but it appears it was ruled to be Holocaust Denial. Apparently, that can warrant jail time in France.
> Cognitive dissonance.
It might be just a different definition for what free speech covers. Holocaust denial and inciting to violence are two examples of what is not protected in most European countries.
Since I didn't know what the cartoon was about I did a bit of research, and the article I found shows that its author was sentenced for "questioning crimes against humanity" and "racial insult"[1] of which the cartoon seems to be just one example.
[1] https://qz.com/1595792/holocaust-denial-in-france-alain-sora...
It might be just a different definition for what free speech covers. Holocaust denial and inciting to violence are two examples of what is not protected in most European countries.
Since I didn't know what the cartoon was about I did a bit of research, and the article I found shows that its author was sentenced for "questioning crimes against humanity" and "racial insult"[1] of which the cartoon seems to be just one example.
[1] https://qz.com/1595792/holocaust-denial-in-france-alain-sora...
Well, the US is getting to the point where there are plenty of people who think that speech is cause for opposing that speech with violence. The difference is that it's their violence, not (usually) official police violence.
Some European countries consider politicians a legally protected minorities, critiquing their speech that was broadcasted on national television on your own website/blog can get you in trouble if you are not considered a journalist (distinction here being freedom of press and freedom of speech). State aligned journalists could even hang you out for online harassment and hate speech if you don't choose your words carefully, satire is essentially dead in Europe. This kind of bs would never fly in the States, EU is becoming the new and capitalistic flipped mirrored version of Soviet Union, we just haven't had our Stalin yet.
What did they say?
while another insulted a female politician online
The list of countries where you can be arrested for insulting a politician is generally not good company. It is generally fascinating, however, to watch us hit this end of the horseshoe.
The list of countries where you can be arrested for insulting a politician is generally not good company. It is generally fascinating, however, to watch us hit this end of the horseshoe.
I live in Germany and I agree. If it weren't for friends/family I would like to flee.
This is Europe's form of police brutality and it needs to stop. The article mentions incitement to violence but fails to support that. It later refers to "inciting hatred against minorities," which is nebulous at best. Specifically, it refers to "[promoting] racism and xenophobia", "insulting a female politician", holocaust denial, and other such conduct.
For all of her flaws, this is one thing America gets right: people should never face criminal charges for this sort of thing.
For all of her flaws, this is one thing America gets right: people should never face criminal charges for this sort of thing.
As a free-speech absolutist, while I have nothing but sympathy for the poor folks that were caught up in this, I can't help but see a silver lining here. The reason truly anonymous communication like Freenet, I2P and Tor never really caught on with the mainstream is because too many people bought into the "I have nothing to hide, so I have nothing to fear". Untraceable communication is technically feasible, but it requires a critical mass. This sort of thing might provide the kick-in-the-pants that the larger populace needs to finally take anonymity seriously.
"police searched 83 apartments and other buildings to seize evidence like smart phones and laptops. Prosecutors said 96 suspects are being questioned about hateful posts they made online."
"One of the suspects is accused of making anti-Semitic comments while another insulted a female politician online"
Anyone who is interested in free speech issues and civil rights should be very uneasy by the idea that the police can raid your house and interrogate you over online comments that are deemed by the politics de jour to be "hate speech", which, as we all know, is a slippery and ever-expanding category.
The US doesn't have this problem with wide legal protections for free speech online or off. Europeans are not so lucky.