Germany Acts to Tame Facebook, Learning from Its Own History of Hate(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Germany Acts to Tame Facebook, Learning from Its Own History of Hate
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/19/technology/facebook-deletion-center-germany.html
205 comments
Depending on the type of hate speech in Germany, you can get thrown in prison for up to 5 years.
Thats true. One of my ex classmates went first time abroad, and upon leaving zoll (german border) he told officer “heil hitler” out of pure excitement and probably too many historical movies watched (is there anything else to watch that is german made?). No amount of explanations was sufficient. He got 3 months behind bars and 10 years ban to visit germany. That was in 2007. I assume now its even worse.
That is basically the most hurtful and offensive thing you could possibly say to any German in a position of authority.
It is cutting extremely deep into their greatest national shame, one of the worst parts of any nation's legacy and all of human history.
Imagine going up to a Russian border guard and going "hail, comrade Stalin!". It's that bad, or worse.
I hope he learned an extremely valuable lesson.
It is cutting extremely deep into their greatest national shame, one of the worst parts of any nation's legacy and all of human history.
Imagine going up to a Russian border guard and going "hail, comrade Stalin!". It's that bad, or worse.
I hope he learned an extremely valuable lesson.
The difference being that the Russian guard will quite possibly like it.
Yeah, or he might be a neo-nazi. It's impossible to know.
A better example would be going "hey boy, get back to pickin' cotton!" to a black border guard in the US.
A better example would be going "hey boy, get back to pickin' cotton!" to a black border guard in the US.
Well, the difference is that being a (neo)Nazi is, rightly, illegal in Germany. Being a Communist (or even a Stalinist) is perfectly acceptable, and even encouraged from the top, in Russia.
Not exactly. What is strongly encouraged is supporting Putin's cult of personality. And Russia (especially Moscow) is more along the lines of crony capitalism these days.
They do try to wrap it in nationalism and appeals to history ("back when the motherland was strong!"), but it's transparently about enforcing the oligarchy.
They do try to wrap it in nationalism and appeals to history ("back when the motherland was strong!"), but it's transparently about enforcing the oligarchy.
There's quite a bit of rehabilitation of Stalin going on, and a lot of "and if somebody was executed, well they were the enemy and deserved it". Reading Russian forums can be quite "entertaining" in a way lately.
Well, it is traditional for tyrants and despots to rewrite history to suit their goals. And it does make sense to attempt a restoration of Stalin's public image.
He was objectively the greatest leader in the history of their country/union, with a massively powerful cult of personality. To paraphrase from a popular series of books, "after all, [he] did great things – terrible, yes, but great."
He was objectively the greatest leader in the history of their country/union, with a massively powerful cult of personality. To paraphrase from a popular series of books, "after all, [he] did great things – terrible, yes, but great."
Great -- as in slaughtering more of his own people than even Hitler did to them?
While the Russians might even, to some degree, like the idea, it does not make it right.
While the Russians might even, to some degree, like the idea, it does not make it right.
Unfortunately, those „historical movies“ didn‘t teach him anything.
Worse? Germany takes that shit seriously. The first amendment (absolute freedom of speech) is not a worldwide thing.
It's unclear whether you mean you're German, and your German classmate was leaving Germany, or you're foreign, and your classmate was entering Germany.
Blows my mind people will downvote just because someone happen to say a relevant story.
God, what an asshole. Three months seem hardly enough to teach this level of stupid.
excitement? that's just dumbness.
Nazi whatever aside, these are border officers..
You don't mess with them, period, unless you're into body cavity searches and the like..
Nazi whatever aside, these are border officers..
You don't mess with them, period, unless you're into body cavity searches and the like..
You really shouldn't blame the victim just because you've been reading more news stories than him. It's the sort of thing I might have done when I was younger. I grew up trusting authorities and them always being reasonable and I would never have imagined Germany was such a bizarrely brutal place. People often joke with the workers they have to interact with. I've done that before. It's human nature.
I used to have a nazi symbol on my car just to rile people up. Once a neighbor called the police who were completely reasonable and asked me to please not park so close to his house because it's making him angry.
I used to have a nazi symbol on my car just to rile people up. Once a neighbor called the police who were completely reasonable and asked me to please not park so close to his house because it's making him angry.
> I used to have a nazi symbol on my car just to rile people up.
No healthy person does this "just to rile people up."
This is profoundly fucked behavior, and in a sane society it does, and should, lead to ostracizing. Actions have consequences.
No healthy person does this "just to rile people up."
This is profoundly fucked behavior, and in a sane society it does, and should, lead to ostracizing. Actions have consequences.
At absolute best, it's tasteless, and certainly grounds for social exclusion, but criminalizing and especially pathologizing mildly anti-social behavior is profoundly immoral, reckless, and inhumane.
Nazism and its asides are not merely mildly antisocial behavior. Nazism is a pathology, it is the declaration of the intent to commit violence, and repping Nazi symbols makes you a goddamn Nazi. I believe that communities and societies have the right and the duty to defend themselves against clearly communicated threats of violence. Germany and countries with similar antifascist and anti-Nazi legal strictures have the right of it.
Nah, this is wrong. Putting a Nazi symbol on your car with the intent to piss people off is a juvenile provocation and in no way requires that the perpetrator actually harbor a secret desire to bring about the extermination of the untermenschen.
Completely relinquishing the ability to judge things on their actual context in favor of the unthinking punitive application of absolutist principles is the beating heart of every anti-human ideology.
Completely relinquishing the ability to judge things on their actual context in favor of the unthinking punitive application of absolutist principles is the beating heart of every anti-human ideology.
You're certainly entitled to that opinion. But your assertion is not convincing. This rather is my bag; studying neofascists and their propaganda tactics is a rather in-depth hobby of mine. And the way they rely upon the plausible deniability of "actual context" is why I am happy to disregard it. Literally any other nonfascist ideology, yes, I agree. Not Nazis, not fascists. They're autoimmune disorders and societies and communities erring on caution with and specifically with fascists won't keep me up at night.
Putting Nazi shit on things you own is a sign of tribal identity and that tribe exists to break our norms and kill us once they have the chance. On one's own head be it. This may catch up some dipshits who want to offend people. But...y'know? That's OK. Don't be that dipshit. Don't play with Nazi shit.
Putting Nazi shit on things you own is a sign of tribal identity and that tribe exists to break our norms and kill us once they have the chance. On one's own head be it. This may catch up some dipshits who want to offend people. But...y'know? That's OK. Don't be that dipshit. Don't play with Nazi shit.
If you have a whole class of people who have every hour of the day to nanny and harass other people - to rile them up- with any means possible, seems like a good cause.
Bonus Points if you put a Hammer and Sickle right next to them. Creepy Thought-controll-freaks of all nations united- in outrage. My man.
Bonus Points if you put a Hammer and Sickle right next to them. Creepy Thought-controll-freaks of all nations united- in outrage. My man.
Hammer and Sickle gets you into serious trouble in much of East Europe, particularly in Poland and the Czech Republic.
I’ve seen people (fellow foreigners) wearing hammer and sickle on tshirts in czech and it didn’t seem to cause any trouble. I’m sure people quietly thought “what an idiot” but nobody actually did anything. Weirdly a friend of a friend who was a member of the local football ultras threatened to kick the shit out of a someone who was wearing that iconic Che-Guevara-face t-shirt
... but nothing happened (and that’s probably one of the more violent people).
In all fairness, you need to be a particular brand of idiot to show communist glorification on your clothing in the country that was subject to the violent break of the liberalization that we now know as Prague Spring. Anyone who has read anything about Czechia knows about that.
I would expect czech police there to be more "nah, above my paygrade" when it comes to foreigners than German customs officers.
I would expect czech police there to be more "nah, above my paygrade" when it comes to foreigners than German customs officers.
Oh I don't disagree - when wearing this sorta stuff you're at best ignorant and at worst trying to be provocative (god knows why you'd want to). The cases I saw were mostly the dumb Threadless "Communist Party" t-shirt which is definitely in the latter camp.
And you're right, the police would likely just roll their eyes and move on. I think anything nazi-related is taken much more seriously in Germany than anything socialist/communist related is here (there's even still an actual communist party which iirc gets regular single-digit share of electoral votes).
And you're right, the police would likely just roll their eyes and move on. I think anything nazi-related is taken much more seriously in Germany than anything socialist/communist related is here (there's even still an actual communist party which iirc gets regular single-digit share of electoral votes).
Yes they do. The students of the university I was at were always doing offensive things trying to provoke reactions. Like a column about "Underage celebrities I'd go to jail for" or drawing a giant penis on the carpark. It's normal student culture where I'm from.
Are you serious? I am from Switzerland and live in Germany for 10 years, even in Switzerland I would not dare to say this to an officer. At worst they will take it as a personal offence, like I'd imply they are like the Gestapo and at best they'll suspect that I am on drugs or mentally handicapped.
> You really shouldn't blame the victim
Point is, he's not a victim, he's a criminal and has received his well-deserved punishment.
> you've been reading more news stories than him.
When you go to another country, it is your responsibility to follow their laws. Ignorantia legis non excusat.
>I grew up trusting authorities and them always being reasonable and I would never have imagined Germany was such a bizarrely brutal place.
"Brutal". In all fairness, compared to US prisons, German prisons must feel like holiday resorts... As a German citizen, I trust my authorities to uphold the laws.
> I used to have a nazi symbol on my car just to rile people up.
No. You had Nazi symbolism on your car because you are likely someone who agrees with the ideology. This also reflects in the kind of people you hang around with.
> Once a neighbor called the police who were completely reasonable and asked me to please not park so close to his house because it's making him angry.
And in Germany, you would have gotten jail time (§ 86a StGB), have your car confiscated and likely destroyed, and probably would have lost your driving license because you have demonstrated that you lack the adequate character to safely operate a vehicle.
And I would have been ok with that.
Point is, he's not a victim, he's a criminal and has received his well-deserved punishment.
> you've been reading more news stories than him.
When you go to another country, it is your responsibility to follow their laws. Ignorantia legis non excusat.
>I grew up trusting authorities and them always being reasonable and I would never have imagined Germany was such a bizarrely brutal place.
"Brutal". In all fairness, compared to US prisons, German prisons must feel like holiday resorts... As a German citizen, I trust my authorities to uphold the laws.
> I used to have a nazi symbol on my car just to rile people up.
No. You had Nazi symbolism on your car because you are likely someone who agrees with the ideology. This also reflects in the kind of people you hang around with.
> Once a neighbor called the police who were completely reasonable and asked me to please not park so close to his house because it's making him angry.
And in Germany, you would have gotten jail time (§ 86a StGB), have your car confiscated and likely destroyed, and probably would have lost your driving license because you have demonstrated that you lack the adequate character to safely operate a vehicle.
And I would have been ok with that.
"And in Germany, you would have gotten jail time (§ 86a StGB), have your car confiscated and likely destroyed, and probably would have lost your driving license because you have demonstrated that you lack the adequate character to safely operate a vehicle.
And I would have been ok with that."
And no german would see the irony in this...
And I would have been ok with that."
And no german would see the irony in this...
German laws and authorities have very little tolerance for Nazis, for damn good reason.
No, this was the ironic part: "As a German citizen, I trust my authorities to uphold the laws."
We all do - we just watch very carefully when those laws are being written down.
This is something we are learning in the UK as sweeping powers "necessary to implement Brexit" are getting pushed through Parliament. Only so very principled MPs are preventing really sweeping executive powers being granted - they are referred to as Henry VIII laws to give an idea how retrograde we are getting
This is something we are learning in the UK as sweeping powers "necessary to implement Brexit" are getting pushed through Parliament. Only so very principled MPs are preventing really sweeping executive powers being granted - they are referred to as Henry VIII laws to give an idea how retrograde we are getting
You obviously know that it's a crime in Germany. The parent's friend obviously didn't.
Are you actually in support of rule of law no matter what, or is it just this law you like? For example, are you OK with China executing Falun Gong members? Are you OK with ISIS killing gay people (it's the law of Islam!)? Are you OK with slavery as long as it's legal? Or are you just angry about Nazis especially out of all the other horrible groups in history for some reason? What about the Romans? They were pretty brutal - do you want to destroy the property of people who write roman numerals and write Latin phrases on things? Your extreme reaction doesn't make sense to me.
> lack the adequate character to safely operate a vehicle
It has nothing to do with safety. I grew up playing Wolfenstein 3D and watching the History channel. Nazi symbols were completely normal and everywhere. It was in no sense a crime or an indication that you're so mentally ill that you're going to crash your car.
> No. You had Nazi symbolism on your car because you are likely someone who agrees with the ideology. This also reflects in the kind of people you hang around with.
Please don't make personal judgments. I explained my reason.
Are you actually in support of rule of law no matter what, or is it just this law you like? For example, are you OK with China executing Falun Gong members? Are you OK with ISIS killing gay people (it's the law of Islam!)? Are you OK with slavery as long as it's legal? Or are you just angry about Nazis especially out of all the other horrible groups in history for some reason? What about the Romans? They were pretty brutal - do you want to destroy the property of people who write roman numerals and write Latin phrases on things? Your extreme reaction doesn't make sense to me.
> lack the adequate character to safely operate a vehicle
It has nothing to do with safety. I grew up playing Wolfenstein 3D and watching the History channel. Nazi symbols were completely normal and everywhere. It was in no sense a crime or an indication that you're so mentally ill that you're going to crash your car.
> No. You had Nazi symbolism on your car because you are likely someone who agrees with the ideology. This also reflects in the kind of people you hang around with.
Please don't make personal judgments. I explained my reason.
It's like going to the US and saying to the first black customs officer you see something along the lines of "So how's slavery treating ya?"/"Boy, get my luggage and find me a car!".
This is universally known as insensitive behaviour and no amount of "muh free speech" is gonna save you from being charged with a hate crime.
When you go to a country, at the very least make the effort not to offend officials with the worst part of that country's history. Otherwise you're not just gonna be seen as a total (criminal) twat but also a lazy one at that.
This is universally known as insensitive behaviour and no amount of "muh free speech" is gonna save you from being charged with a hate crime.
When you go to a country, at the very least make the effort not to offend officials with the worst part of that country's history. Otherwise you're not just gonna be seen as a total (criminal) twat but also a lazy one at that.
Racist comments aren't hate crimes in the US. It's violence that is. You won't be charged with anything.
You subscribe to the might-makes-right mindset by demanding respect for people who have the power to punish you. That's practical, but not morally very solid since it implies less politeness to weaker people.
Some would argue the 30 years war was worse than the Nazis. It killed more people than the holocaust, and at a time when the population was much smaller.
I totally oppose physical violence against people for saying insults. That's terrible to me. For exactly this reason - innocent people not trying to hurt anybody end up getting punished because they're misunderstood. The swastika really doesn't mean the same thing to people everywhere in the world. Not everyone shares the Germans' violent anger at people who remind them of their past.
You subscribe to the might-makes-right mindset by demanding respect for people who have the power to punish you. That's practical, but not morally very solid since it implies less politeness to weaker people.
Some would argue the 30 years war was worse than the Nazis. It killed more people than the holocaust, and at a time when the population was much smaller.
I totally oppose physical violence against people for saying insults. That's terrible to me. For exactly this reason - innocent people not trying to hurt anybody end up getting punished because they're misunderstood. The swastika really doesn't mean the same thing to people everywhere in the world. Not everyone shares the Germans' violent anger at people who remind them of their past.
No, I subscribe to the concept of "basic decency", I would not even say that phrase to a dying beggar lying in the streets.
But still fuck you for comparing an instance of senseless mass-murder/genocide with a religious war spanning 30 years and involving most of central europe ~400 years ago, at a time where the slightest wound may have condemned one to die, notwithstanding the quite "good" chance to starve or die from plague as back then hygiene wasn't really that important to the people.
But still fuck you for comparing an instance of senseless mass-murder/genocide with a religious war spanning 30 years and involving most of central europe ~400 years ago, at a time where the slightest wound may have condemned one to die, notwithstanding the quite "good" chance to starve or die from plague as back then hygiene wasn't really that important to the people.
>"I grew up playing Wolfenstein 3D and watching the History channel. Nazi symbols were completely normal and everywhere."
You obviously should have paid a lot more attention, then.
Can it with the whataboutism, it's not helping you.
If you visit a country, you respect its laws and customs. You don't go around breaking them because you disagree with them. Leave it to the residents of that country to change their laws if needed, don't be an invading asshole.
You obviously should have paid a lot more attention, then.
Can it with the whataboutism, it's not helping you.
If you visit a country, you respect its laws and customs. You don't go around breaking them because you disagree with them. Leave it to the residents of that country to change their laws if needed, don't be an invading asshole.
I'm sure he didn't know that law. That seems to be lost on everyone in this thread. It would be a complete surprise to someone who didn't see Nazis as a real personal terrible anger-shame-inducing thing and who comes from a country with freedom of speech.
> I'm sure he didn't know that law.
Let me speak it out for you again:
It doesn't matter. Ignorance does not protect against punishment.
Let me speak it out for you again:
It doesn't matter. Ignorance does not protect against punishment.
Ignorance is not an excuse. Would you find it acceptable to go "heil Hitler!" at random people? I hope you don't.
Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences.
Your friend must have been completely and utterly ignorant of fundamental history. That's not something to be proud of.
Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences.
Your friend must have been completely and utterly ignorant of fundamental history. That's not something to be proud of.
You're culturally oblivious. Stop being so insulting. I wasn't rude to anybody but I'm suddenly facing a barrage of abuse. I get it that Germans have a penchant for imprisoning people because they're insulted. But the rest of us don't have that luxury. Just stop being an asshole to people you talk to.
I wasn't using whataboutism. I was showing an inconsistency in the commenter's general claim. Do you also really believe gays are being assholes if they have sex in Saudi Arabia? That they should show respect to the culture that has a deep shame about homosexuals?
I wasn't using whataboutism. I was showing an inconsistency in the commenter's general claim. Do you also really believe gays are being assholes if they have sex in Saudi Arabia? That they should show respect to the culture that has a deep shame about homosexuals?
I'm being culturally ignorant? That's rich. Is it US culture to just randomly insult everyone?
>"Do you also really believe gays are being assholes if they have sex in Saudi Arabia? That they should show respect to the culture that has a deep shame about homosexuals?"
More whataboutism. No, I don't think they're assholes, I think they're idiots. Going to a notoriously anti-gay country, with a death penalty for homosexuality, and then completely flouting those laws? Yeah, that's a really bad idea.
>"Do you also really believe gays are being assholes if they have sex in Saudi Arabia? That they should show respect to the culture that has a deep shame about homosexuals?"
More whataboutism. No, I don't think they're assholes, I think they're idiots. Going to a notoriously anti-gay country, with a death penalty for homosexuality, and then completely flouting those laws? Yeah, that's a really bad idea.
That's not what whataboutism means. It means A criticizes B so B responds by criticizing A for a comparable thing.
Here, I'm trying to tease out the meaning from you and a grandparent's posts that seem to ridicule anyone breaking any law, no matter how unjust the law might be. Your particular disrespect seems to be focused on foreigners visiting a country, which seems kind of arbitrary but you've done such a poor job explaining what's behind your judgments that I don't think there's much there besides the desire for violence against anyone who, even unknowingly, offends you. You've also been offensive to me in this thread (feeling free to because I don't have the power to punish you?) and say that you would insult the victims of anti-gay laws. It's clear now that you're a hate filled person so I don't want to know what you really mean anymore.
Here, I'm trying to tease out the meaning from you and a grandparent's posts that seem to ridicule anyone breaking any law, no matter how unjust the law might be. Your particular disrespect seems to be focused on foreigners visiting a country, which seems kind of arbitrary but you've done such a poor job explaining what's behind your judgments that I don't think there's much there besides the desire for violence against anyone who, even unknowingly, offends you. You've also been offensive to me in this thread (feeling free to because I don't have the power to punish you?) and say that you would insult the victims of anti-gay laws. It's clear now that you're a hate filled person so I don't want to know what you really mean anymore.
We've now wandered way too far off from the original topic.
The simple truth is, if you go visit a country, you do a bit of preparation before you go. That includes any local laws and customs that may differ from those in your home country, in order to avoid trouble.
You wouldn't try to bring a pocket knife on a flight, would you? Like me, you probably disagree with the security theater that has been put in place, but that does not mean you get to plead innocence because of ignorance, or because you disagree with the rules.
Once again: ignorance does not confer immunity from the law, no matter how unjust the law is.
The simple truth is, if you go visit a country, you do a bit of preparation before you go. That includes any local laws and customs that may differ from those in your home country, in order to avoid trouble.
You wouldn't try to bring a pocket knife on a flight, would you? Like me, you probably disagree with the security theater that has been put in place, but that does not mean you get to plead innocence because of ignorance, or because you disagree with the rules.
Once again: ignorance does not confer immunity from the law, no matter how unjust the law is.
When you go to another country, you follow the law there. If you break it, expect punishment.
That doesn't mean the law is okay but the country is fully free to punish you as they see fit.
> Nazi symbols were completely normal and everywhere.
Not here. Outside of certain exceptions, don't go waving around Nazi symbols in the country that to this day regrets this part of history.
That doesn't mean the law is okay but the country is fully free to punish you as they see fit.
> Nazi symbols were completely normal and everywhere.
Not here. Outside of certain exceptions, don't go waving around Nazi symbols in the country that to this day regrets this part of history.
DocTomoe(1)
Why do you think the users are not liable for creating it?
AFAICT the new law largely doesn't effect individuals, but you're right the existing laws do criminalise hate speech, with prosecutions up over a few years ago: https://www.eurozine.com/no-freedom-to-hate-germanys-new-law...
Still, the scale of the two issues - prosecutions vs platform censorship basically implies that most of the things being censored do not rise to that level of illegality.
Still, the scale of the two issues - prosecutions vs platform censorship basically implies that most of the things being censored do not rise to that level of illegality.
Yes, the new thing is basically that the platforms are taking part in the enforcement. This provides a pragmatic and efficient solution:
* The illegal content can be removed quickly, without tying up resources in the prosecution of minor offenders. Prosecution can focus on the worst of them.
* The platforms get to play the role of a neutral party and are not themselves being responsible for distributing the illegal content.
Given the increased centralization on the Internet to a few of these platforms, this allows for efficient implementation of the law.
This is quite similar to the development of copyright law (in the US). The DMCA grants platforms immunity by actively taking part in the removal of illegal content when requested. I haven't checked the numbers, but I expect that here also the number of DMCA takedowns greatly outnumbers the copyright violation law suits (which would be kept for the worst offenders)
* The illegal content can be removed quickly, without tying up resources in the prosecution of minor offenders. Prosecution can focus on the worst of them.
* The platforms get to play the role of a neutral party and are not themselves being responsible for distributing the illegal content.
Given the increased centralization on the Internet to a few of these platforms, this allows for efficient implementation of the law.
This is quite similar to the development of copyright law (in the US). The DMCA grants platforms immunity by actively taking part in the removal of illegal content when requested. I haven't checked the numbers, but I expect that here also the number of DMCA takedowns greatly outnumbers the copyright violation law suits (which would be kept for the worst offenders)
Your portrayal of NetzDG as "[allowing] for efficient implementation" is IMHO very naive. NetzDG has been highly controversial in the informed part of the populace (for example, it's frequently discussed https://netzpolitik.org, in German). Among the concerns are that providers preemptively take down content outside the regular juristical process without transparency and appeal. Moreover, the law is criticized for cementing the defacto monopolization on the Web, and has yet to stand before court. It is seen as a publicity stunt to "do something about hate speech and fake news" and has had also the smell of an attempt to suppress opposing views when it was signed just during last year's federal election campaign by Heiko Maas, former minister of justice, now minister of foreign affairs.
Where did you get the idea that the creator is not liable?
> I find it interesting that platforms are liable for hosting hate speech, but individual users are not liable for creating it.
NetzDG only regulates how platforms that get a lot of complaints about content that is already illegal under existing criminal code have to handle and report those complaints.
NetzDG only regulates how platforms that get a lot of complaints about content that is already illegal under existing criminal code have to handle and report those complaints.
That is precisely the problem with NetzDG: That a private company effectively becomes judge, jury and executor.
It has been deemed unconstitutional by many experts - and whether it holds up against those claims will have to be decided in the supreme court.
That Arvato, the company running the content-checking centers, is a subsidiary of Bertelsmann isn't helping either: Criticism of the government that gets deleted on Facebook by a pro-government company like Bertelsmann comes with a certain stench.
As comes the fact that the NYT somehow forgets to mention this affiliation and somehow manages it to intertwine this with the "right cause" of post-war Germany's approach to limit free-speech for Nazism.
It has been deemed unconstitutional by many experts - and whether it holds up against those claims will have to be decided in the supreme court.
That Arvato, the company running the content-checking centers, is a subsidiary of Bertelsmann isn't helping either: Criticism of the government that gets deleted on Facebook by a pro-government company like Bertelsmann comes with a certain stench.
As comes the fact that the NYT somehow forgets to mention this affiliation and somehow manages it to intertwine this with the "right cause" of post-war Germany's approach to limit free-speech for Nazism.
[deleted]
Hate speech laws aren't completely uncommon, so individual users would be liable for creating it. In NZ law, it's part of our Human Rights Act:
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0082/latest/D...
"It shall be unlawful for any person to publish or distribute written matter which is threatening, abusive, or insulting, or to broadcast by means of radio or television or other electronic communication words which are threatening, abusive, or insulting"
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0082/latest/D...
"It shall be unlawful for any person to publish or distribute written matter which is threatening, abusive, or insulting, or to broadcast by means of radio or television or other electronic communication words which are threatening, abusive, or insulting"
Wow that's terribly vague. Insulting people publicly is illegal?
It's in the "Other forms of discrimination" => "Racial disharmony" section, so it's applied in the context of racism (there are other sections that dictate other acts such as sexual harassment etc). There is also another section on "131 - Inciting racial disharmony"
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0082/latest/D...
which references the previously mentioned section. But also followed up by
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0082/latest/D...
"No prosecution for an offence against section 131 shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney-General."
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0082/latest/D...
which references the previously mentioned section. But also followed up by
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0082/latest/D...
"No prosecution for an offence against section 131 shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney-General."
labster(5)
If someone spray painted a swastika on your house, how would you react? That’s basically what people are doing to the Facebook platform, and Facebook is fine with it.
Which is weird, because they are already censoring you considering there is a long range of things you can’t share in their platform, such as pictures of you breastfeeding your baby.
I’m not sure why breastfeeding is considered worse than hate speech at Facebook but apparently it is. Please note that while I mentioned the swastika, I didn’t mean to imply that Facebook is only cool with alt-right nonsense, the truth is that you can share all sorts of radical hatred from any political standpoint and Facebook is completely fine with it.
I get the free speech argument though, but the truth is that you’re always on someone’s platform and most of them wouldn’t be cool with your crazy. I mean, you’d get thrown out of a public park if you started making Facebook styled hate comments at random strangers.
Which is weird, because they are already censoring you considering there is a long range of things you can’t share in their platform, such as pictures of you breastfeeding your baby.
I’m not sure why breastfeeding is considered worse than hate speech at Facebook but apparently it is. Please note that while I mentioned the swastika, I didn’t mean to imply that Facebook is only cool with alt-right nonsense, the truth is that you can share all sorts of radical hatred from any political standpoint and Facebook is completely fine with it.
I get the free speech argument though, but the truth is that you’re always on someone’s platform and most of them wouldn’t be cool with your crazy. I mean, you’d get thrown out of a public park if you started making Facebook styled hate comments at random strangers.
> If someone spray painted a swastika on your house, how would you react?
Where I live (Görlitzer Park), those kinds of signs are literally everywhere -- only they're the leftwing equivalent, calling for bloody revolution, for the rich to be booted from their homes, racists and xenophobes to be punched, etc. I'm actually pretty relaxed about it -- a bunch of 20 year olds who get their kicks spray painting while drinking copious amounts of booze? Big deal.
And to offer another perspective on the recent emotional concern expressed so histrioniocally by a, politically speaking, suspiciously homogeneous crowd: Last year there was a huge, state financed charity billboard celebrating the life of... Fidel Castro. It was a collab between our Green local govt and the Cuban tourist ministry IIRC. Castro... who was responsible for how many deaths, 50,000? 100K?
By way of comparison, Pinochet had (according to Wikipedia) 10-30K on his account. I guarantee you there were no billboards of him around. Do I need to mention the recent merry festivities surrounding Karl Marx 200th birthday -- ceremony lead by Jean-Claude Juncker? Lest I have my words twisted against: I don't desire either of the these men to be displayed on taxpayer financed billboards!
The point that I'm trying to make is that this kind of legislation, and the so-called journalism and commentary surrounding it, don't fool anyone who's even the slightest bit (like me) conservative. We see right through these tendentiously applied, faux histrionic ("oh pity the poor soul who has endure watching -- and then deleting -- horribly vicious, hate-filled posts") outbursts whose real purpose is totally obvious. Namely to leverage dominance in various domains (journalism, charity, education, civil service) to usurp the electoral beating the left taken in any number of countries over the past two years. A beating meted out by a population who sees through the phony social concern, and sees the manifest and seething hypocrisy, the coziness of those who are insanely rich and the charity, journalistic, and civil service complexes.
In this battle any means to push back against at the barbarians at the gate are deemed appropriate. And so we are treated to the pathetic spectacle of those screeching about the deleterious, democracy damaging impact of fake news happily engaging in its production if it suits their side, the so-called defenders of liberty and free speech engaging in a rampage of censorship, bullying, "calling out", etc. of anyone who has an even slightly different opinion.
Now, don't get me wrong, I understand that those forces have no intention of trying to convince me. That is definitely not the goal, for if it were, the path that's being taken would certainly be recognized as wholly counterproductive. No, the real goal is to set boundaries, to wear out, tire, and demoralize the enemy. In other words, this is a propaganda war, exactly as e.g. Jacques Ellul described it. The very focus on such emotively charged terms as "love" (what we're about) and "hate speech" (what they do) makes this patently obvious.
To finalize, my feeling is that the forces I've described are winning, and I actually think they'll prevail in the battle. The propaganda war won't make any friends, but I believe it will succeed in its purpose, which is to wear out and dissipate the forces currently arrayed against it.
Final note: this is just an opinion. It's a strong one, yes. But I really love being proven wrong, so I'm really happy for the many highly intelligent and well-informed HNers to tear my argument apart. Have fun :)
Where I live (Görlitzer Park), those kinds of signs are literally everywhere -- only they're the leftwing equivalent, calling for bloody revolution, for the rich to be booted from their homes, racists and xenophobes to be punched, etc. I'm actually pretty relaxed about it -- a bunch of 20 year olds who get their kicks spray painting while drinking copious amounts of booze? Big deal.
And to offer another perspective on the recent emotional concern expressed so histrioniocally by a, politically speaking, suspiciously homogeneous crowd: Last year there was a huge, state financed charity billboard celebrating the life of... Fidel Castro. It was a collab between our Green local govt and the Cuban tourist ministry IIRC. Castro... who was responsible for how many deaths, 50,000? 100K?
By way of comparison, Pinochet had (according to Wikipedia) 10-30K on his account. I guarantee you there were no billboards of him around. Do I need to mention the recent merry festivities surrounding Karl Marx 200th birthday -- ceremony lead by Jean-Claude Juncker? Lest I have my words twisted against: I don't desire either of the these men to be displayed on taxpayer financed billboards!
The point that I'm trying to make is that this kind of legislation, and the so-called journalism and commentary surrounding it, don't fool anyone who's even the slightest bit (like me) conservative. We see right through these tendentiously applied, faux histrionic ("oh pity the poor soul who has endure watching -- and then deleting -- horribly vicious, hate-filled posts") outbursts whose real purpose is totally obvious. Namely to leverage dominance in various domains (journalism, charity, education, civil service) to usurp the electoral beating the left taken in any number of countries over the past two years. A beating meted out by a population who sees through the phony social concern, and sees the manifest and seething hypocrisy, the coziness of those who are insanely rich and the charity, journalistic, and civil service complexes.
In this battle any means to push back against at the barbarians at the gate are deemed appropriate. And so we are treated to the pathetic spectacle of those screeching about the deleterious, democracy damaging impact of fake news happily engaging in its production if it suits their side, the so-called defenders of liberty and free speech engaging in a rampage of censorship, bullying, "calling out", etc. of anyone who has an even slightly different opinion.
Now, don't get me wrong, I understand that those forces have no intention of trying to convince me. That is definitely not the goal, for if it were, the path that's being taken would certainly be recognized as wholly counterproductive. No, the real goal is to set boundaries, to wear out, tire, and demoralize the enemy. In other words, this is a propaganda war, exactly as e.g. Jacques Ellul described it. The very focus on such emotively charged terms as "love" (what we're about) and "hate speech" (what they do) makes this patently obvious.
To finalize, my feeling is that the forces I've described are winning, and I actually think they'll prevail in the battle. The propaganda war won't make any friends, but I believe it will succeed in its purpose, which is to wear out and dissipate the forces currently arrayed against it.
Final note: this is just an opinion. It's a strong one, yes. But I really love being proven wrong, so I'm really happy for the many highly intelligent and well-informed HNers to tear my argument apart. Have fun :)
Yep, always funny when protesters think they are somehow rebelling against the interests of power. Protest is primarily an expression of power. Once I understood this things made a lot more sense.
The authentic protest is almost always met with violence, either directly from the state or with the state allowing or aiding in its administration.
I think, at its core, the message of the state sanctioned protest/counter-protest is essentially "these people can be unleashed on you and you will have no recourse".
The authentic protest is almost always met with violence, either directly from the state or with the state allowing or aiding in its administration.
I think, at its core, the message of the state sanctioned protest/counter-protest is essentially "these people can be unleashed on you and you will have no recourse".
I don't know if I can prove you wrong, but in my opinion your example of Karl Marx's 200th birthday is misjudged. As far as I know he neither killed nor ordered to be killed anyone. He is no more responsible for people (I assume you have Stalin in mind) twisting his thought than is anyone else. To follow that logic to its conclusion you would also need to express outrage at Christmas, or at the depiction of Jesus on the billboards of churches, because of the deaths occasioned by the Crusades.
Fair point -- the Marx remark is a little unfair.
If their tactics are patently obvious why do you suppose they'll prevail?
Because they're in power. I recommend Jacques Ellul's Propaganda. The fact that the tactics are totally obvious is, in fact, exactly the point. They serve not to convince, but remind who has the power.
Ellul has a passage in which ancient Chinese poetry is "analyzed" by communist party members. This was served in classrooms of course. And the analysis was manifestly ridiculous. Anyone who reads it can't help but chuckle at the ham-fisted attempt to suggest that a poem about the sky, actually was referring to the glorious peoples revolution.
But: read that every day, hear in class every year, hear 1000 messages that confirm and reinforce this crazy, idiotic, message, and you can't help but be affected by it.
That is the nature of propaganda. In it's essence, it is a demonstration, an exercise of power. There is nothing subtle about it, and only part of it is covert.
Ellul has a passage in which ancient Chinese poetry is "analyzed" by communist party members. This was served in classrooms of course. And the analysis was manifestly ridiculous. Anyone who reads it can't help but chuckle at the ham-fisted attempt to suggest that a poem about the sky, actually was referring to the glorious peoples revolution.
But: read that every day, hear in class every year, hear 1000 messages that confirm and reinforce this crazy, idiotic, message, and you can't help but be affected by it.
That is the nature of propaganda. In it's essence, it is a demonstration, an exercise of power. There is nothing subtle about it, and only part of it is covert.
Here's be passage in question:
```In on article in Pruula in May 1957. the Chinese writer Mao Dun wrote that the ancient poets of Chma used the following words to express the striving of the people toward a better life: The Bowers perfume the air. the moon shines, man has a long life " And he added: “Allow me to give a new explanation of these poetic terms The flowers perfume the air — this means that the flowers of the art of socialist realism are incomparably beautiful The moon shines — this means that the sputnik has opened a new era In the conquest of space Man has a long life — this means that the grout Soviet Union will live tens and tens of thousands of years “
When one reads this ouce, one smiles If one reads i* a thousand times, and no longer reads anything else, one must undergo a change. And we must reflect on the transformation of perspective already suffered by a whole society in which texts like this I pub- lished by the thousands) can be distributed and taken seriously not only by the authorities but by the intellectuals This complete change of perspective of the Weltanschauung is the primary totali- tarian element of propaganda.
```
```In on article in Pruula in May 1957. the Chinese writer Mao Dun wrote that the ancient poets of Chma used the following words to express the striving of the people toward a better life: The Bowers perfume the air. the moon shines, man has a long life " And he added: “Allow me to give a new explanation of these poetic terms The flowers perfume the air — this means that the flowers of the art of socialist realism are incomparably beautiful The moon shines — this means that the sputnik has opened a new era In the conquest of space Man has a long life — this means that the grout Soviet Union will live tens and tens of thousands of years “
When one reads this ouce, one smiles If one reads i* a thousand times, and no longer reads anything else, one must undergo a change. And we must reflect on the transformation of perspective already suffered by a whole society in which texts like this I pub- lished by the thousands) can be distributed and taken seriously not only by the authorities but by the intellectuals This complete change of perspective of the Weltanschauung is the primary totali- tarian element of propaganda.
```
I view it a lot less like a battle between the establishment and the barbarians at the gate, and much more a struggle to take away the megaphone from the village idiot.
We’ve always had people who called vaccines dangerous against better evidence, but platforms like facebook, allowed these people to construct their own realities, and as a result people are now dying from diseases that have been extinct for more than 50 years.
As I’ve said, there have always been village idiots, but social media marks the first time in human history, that we’ve actually had to take them seriously.
We’ve always had people who called vaccines dangerous against better evidence, but platforms like facebook, allowed these people to construct their own realities, and as a result people are now dying from diseases that have been extinct for more than 50 years.
As I’ve said, there have always been village idiots, but social media marks the first time in human history, that we’ve actually had to take them seriously.
This comment is rather amusing -- probably unwittingly so -- when juxtaposed with (your) preceding post. In one, you ask us to empathize with the feelings of one group of people, those who are flustered by seeing (horrible) extremist propaganda. In the very next, not only are those finely-tuned emotional antennae manifestly off, but... well, suggesting a rather large cohort of people are mentally disabled? This from the person that wishes to portray themselves as the adult who needs "take their megaphones", which I understand as code for "let's have any comments they make on FB or other social networks erased". A little childish, perhaps?
What do I make of these two comments? How I read them is as follows: you're so utterly sure of your position -- because you're likely inclined to believe it, and because you've been bombarded with messages confirming it ("the others are stupid") -- that you're quite literally failing to engage your brain. Instead, you're making lazy, emotive arguments.
So thanks for proving my point: the claims that one should consider so-and-so's feelings, the supposed humanism. That's just BS, isn't it?
What do I make of these two comments? How I read them is as follows: you're so utterly sure of your position -- because you're likely inclined to believe it, and because you've been bombarded with messages confirming it ("the others are stupid") -- that you're quite literally failing to engage your brain. Instead, you're making lazy, emotive arguments.
So thanks for proving my point: the claims that one should consider so-and-so's feelings, the supposed humanism. That's just BS, isn't it?
What on earth gave you the impression that I was some sort of liberal lighthouse?
On parts of Facebook the value of a professor in medicine counts for less than the experiences of an average soccer mom, and you’re seriously telling me to accept that as a new norm because it might hurt someone’s feelings if I didn’t? Right.
On parts of Facebook the value of a professor in medicine counts for less than the experiences of an average soccer mom, and you’re seriously telling me to accept that as a new norm because it might hurt someone’s feelings if I didn’t? Right.
There's a big difference between kicking downwards (ala fascism), and kicking upwards (ala socialism).
"kicking" is an interesting euphemism. Even if it were true that fascism "kicked" downwards and socialism "kicked" upwards, what the egregious socialist and fascist governments of the 20th century did wasn't just kicking. It was often quite literally rape, torture, murder, enslavement, and genocide.
Socialism by definition takes care of everyone equally.
You can tell those regimes didn't actually believe in socialism, by how they oppressed the poor, the weak and those who were different (religiously, sexually and so on).
You can tell those regimes didn't actually believe in socialism, by how they oppressed the poor, the weak and those who were different (religiously, sexually and so on).
> Socialism by definition takes care of everyone equally.
I think this is far harder to implement than people assume. We still have many things in life that are non-fungible, the most obvious of which is probably housing location.
I think this is far harder to implement than people assume. We still have many things in life that are non-fungible, the most obvious of which is probably housing location.
What even is this article? There is nothing substantive here. Like many other mainstream tech articles these days, this reeks of mass-media narrative control. I just wonder if it's the clicks that drive these or if there are other actors behind the scenes encouraging the deluge of anti-FB, anti-Goog, anti-Twitter, etc articles. Maybe I'm viewing this too broadly, but I get an icky feeling of intentional furor construction.
Legacy media is threatened by social media. So they focus on the bad parts and use what power they have remaining to shame and try to shut down social media.
When in reality, I believe, social media has done more to connect people and show them more possible lives than anything in history.
Journalism in its best form is first-hand. Meaning, those images and videos of events you see are most likely coming from an eyewitness on the ground, who happened to be there. Legacy journalism will have to evolve to survive. So far its devolved
When in reality, I believe, social media has done more to connect people and show them more possible lives than anything in history.
Journalism in its best form is first-hand. Meaning, those images and videos of events you see are most likely coming from an eyewitness on the ground, who happened to be there. Legacy journalism will have to evolve to survive. So far its devolved
It doesn't even mention the actual name of the law.
> the deluge of anti-FB, anti-Goog, anti-Twitter, etc articles. Maybe I'm viewing this too broadly, but I get an icky feeling of intentional furor construction.
Those companies are enabling the criminals. German law defines the users as criminals and it is this pre-internet law that is being upgraded and enforced, because profiting from enabling illegal activity is clearly wrong.
FB employs 1200 people to deal with this... why is that? It isn't their fault that the world has so many fucktards in it, but is their problem when they give a platform to their illegality
furor over the failings of the "city state" that FB are trying to establish. Good
Those companies are enabling the criminals. German law defines the users as criminals and it is this pre-internet law that is being upgraded and enforced, because profiting from enabling illegal activity is clearly wrong.
FB employs 1200 people to deal with this... why is that? It isn't their fault that the world has so many fucktards in it, but is their problem when they give a platform to their illegality
furor over the failings of the "city state" that FB are trying to establish. Good
Ok...I mean you see it that way and I don't really agree, but that is unrelated to my comment. Mine is a general comment about the flow of "news" concerning large web companies. It feels like this article was just the next one on the weekend assembly line. I'm not really a fan of manipulation even if I agree w/ the manipulators. Granted, my observations are my own based on the news cycles and my limited empirical evidence leaves my suspicions in the realm of conspiracy theory. Just a comment on the patterns I see.
Could you be a bit more specific about your criticism of the article. I found it interesting. I don't really see how it is anti-FB. It seems to describe the current situation by anecdotes instead of statistics/scientific analysis. I can understand some not liking that style (especially considering information per time), but it seems highly effective at describing issues to most people (probably the thing you call media narrative control). I've got no problem with that.
But your "There is nothing substantive here" is worrying me, since it probably means you'd like more that a somewhat mundane description of the situation without judgment. Did you expect a strong position, probably in favor of US free speech values? It to be a hit piece for or against NetzDG? Strong policy recommendations with big impacts? I don't want that! I like our current society and want marginal fixes for its countless little flaws. But responding to the current hot issue (lets say school shootings) with extremist positions (arm everyone vs take all guns away) seems highly unproductive in improving our lives.
But your "There is nothing substantive here" is worrying me, since it probably means you'd like more that a somewhat mundane description of the situation without judgment. Did you expect a strong position, probably in favor of US free speech values? It to be a hit piece for or against NetzDG? Strong policy recommendations with big impacts? I don't want that! I like our current society and want marginal fixes for its countless little flaws. But responding to the current hot issue (lets say school shootings) with extremist positions (arm everyone vs take all guns away) seems highly unproductive in improving our lives.
[deleted]
"Germany, home to a tough new online hate speech law", anybody have the definition of hate speech according to this law? This article has a lot of information but a cogent definition of hate speech is not given.
There's no new "hate speech law". There's only new law that punishes sites for failing to remove content that was already illegal. For this they have up to 24 hours, or a week if it is a more complex matter.
That article generally misrepresents German laws, making them seem more draconian than they actually are.
For instance displaying a Swastika is perfectly legal if you don't "objectively" use it to "promote (the) national socialism".
The German definition of Volksverhetzung, often translated as "hate speech", is also quite a bit a narrower than what your average native english speaker would understand as hate speech: basically, under that law, ONLY hate speech against a group or individual targeting them for belonging to a certain ethnic group, nationality, or religion is illegal IF it is disseminated in a way that has the potential to disrupt public peace.
That article generally misrepresents German laws, making them seem more draconian than they actually are.
For instance displaying a Swastika is perfectly legal if you don't "objectively" use it to "promote (the) national socialism".
The German definition of Volksverhetzung, often translated as "hate speech", is also quite a bit a narrower than what your average native english speaker would understand as hate speech: basically, under that law, ONLY hate speech against a group or individual targeting them for belonging to a certain ethnic group, nationality, or religion is illegal IF it is disseminated in a way that has the potential to disrupt public peace.
> displaying a Swastika is perfectly legal if you don't "objectively" use it to "promote (the) national socialism".
It seems that only applies if your work falls clearly within a few categories of exceptions. For example, Wolfenstein, a game about a Jewish commando fighting against the Nazis, was censored in Germany to comply with the law.
> "In Germany, we've removed all Nazi symbols and references. Unlike films and other works of art, video games in Germany are forbidden to use such symbols and references as they are classified in Germany as toys and not media art." The illegal display of Nazi imagery is punishable by three years in prison in Germany. (http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-27488254)
Even "Maus: A Survivor's Tale" struggled to be published uncensored. They eventually succeeded in convincing the culture ministry to allow publication, but it's not enough to be anti-Nazi.
It seems that only applies if your work falls clearly within a few categories of exceptions. For example, Wolfenstein, a game about a Jewish commando fighting against the Nazis, was censored in Germany to comply with the law.
> "In Germany, we've removed all Nazi symbols and references. Unlike films and other works of art, video games in Germany are forbidden to use such symbols and references as they are classified in Germany as toys and not media art." The illegal display of Nazi imagery is punishable by three years in prison in Germany. (http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-27488254)
Even "Maus: A Survivor's Tale" struggled to be published uncensored. They eventually succeeded in convincing the culture ministry to allow publication, but it's not enough to be anti-Nazi.
>For example, Wolfenstein, a game about a Jewish commando fighting against the Nazis, was censored in Germany to comply with the law.
Art, sciences and education are obviously exempt from these rules and while many pretty much assumed games to be art a recent court confirmed that games would be ruled as art.
The reason why Wolfenstein was censored is because of the USK, the board behind age ratings in germany, which has in the past been rather strict with nazi symbolism, regardless of context. They've softened up a lot and would wave through games with nazi symbolism like the newer Wolfenstein titles, however publishers don't want to take the chances of having to reapply for rating and simply already submit a censored version before it even hits their desks.
Art, sciences and education are obviously exempt from these rules and while many pretty much assumed games to be art a recent court confirmed that games would be ruled as art.
The reason why Wolfenstein was censored is because of the USK, the board behind age ratings in germany, which has in the past been rather strict with nazi symbolism, regardless of context. They've softened up a lot and would wave through games with nazi symbolism like the newer Wolfenstein titles, however publishers don't want to take the chances of having to reapply for rating and simply already submit a censored version before it even hits their desks.
> For instance displaying a Swastika is perfectly legal if you don't "objectively" use it to "promote (the) national socialism".
Yet the chilling effects are real, leading to silly examples of censorship. Particularly in new mediums such as video games - most famously Wolfenstein 3D. The Bundesprüfstelle für jugendgefährdende Medien (BPjM) / Jugendschutzgesetz (JuSchG) has made some questionable decisions in the past.
I agree that "hate speech" has a different connotation than Volksverhetzung (particularly in this day and age), and it's a bit more nuances than the article presents it.
Yet the chilling effects are real, leading to silly examples of censorship. Particularly in new mediums such as video games - most famously Wolfenstein 3D. The Bundesprüfstelle für jugendgefährdende Medien (BPjM) / Jugendschutzgesetz (JuSchG) has made some questionable decisions in the past.
I agree that "hate speech" has a different connotation than Volksverhetzung (particularly in this day and age), and it's a bit more nuances than the article presents it.
Yes you're right. I was setting some facts straight and answering my parent post's question. I wasn't voicing my opinion on whether or not I agree with those laws (I don't) and think they're well-designed (they're not IMHO).
There are no easy definitions for everything, the world is complex, deal with it. It is the same, for example, with pornography. One and the same image might either be pornography or a work of art, one and the same image might either be a holiday picture from the beach or child pornography, and you would be unable to tell the difference just from looking at the images.
In some situations it is just more practical to leave things vague and deal with the facts on a case by case basis once the need arises instead of trying forever - and probably failing - to come up with an airtight definitions covering each and every edge case.
In some situations it is just more practical to leave things vague and deal with the facts on a case by case basis once the need arises instead of trying forever - and probably failing - to come up with an airtight definitions covering each and every edge case.
Actually Germany has a pretty clear definition and precedent of this and it is certainly nowhere near to being congruent with what Americans call hate speech. This likely makes the translation "hate speech" a factual error.
I don't know how good or bad the German definition of hate speech is, my point was more that even if there is or were no precise definition, it would still not be a huge problem. This just seems to be a rather popular misconceptions that laws require and are not useful without perfect definitions for everything. In reality there is a lot for variation, some things are totally nailed down, some things are intentionally left open to interpretation.
The less something like "hate speech" is nailed down, the more the law can be used to criminalize anything.
There absolutely is a problem with these sorts of laws.
For example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obscenity.
There absolutely is a problem with these sorts of laws.
For example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obscenity.
The justice system in Germany is operating completely different than the US justice system. While in the US precedent is one of the most important factors, German courts try to apply "common sense" (quite literally). Laws take this into account and leave a lot more wiggle room for the courts. Thus the laws in Germany occur strange to Americans that only know "if it's not explicitly forbidden, it's allowed".
The NetzDG (which the article is about) exhaustively lists applicable statutes. Among them is Volksverhetzung, which is what is referred to here as hate speech, which is wildly inaccurate.
Algolia says: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13039422#13043027
Here is the full text of the law in question: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/netzdg/BJNR335210017.html (and here is a legally non-binding English translation: https://www.bmjv.de/SharedDocs/Gesetzgebungsverfahren/Dokume... )
§ 1(3) contains the exhaustive list of crimes I mentioned above.
Algolia says: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13039422#13043027
Here is the full text of the law in question: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/netzdg/BJNR335210017.html (and here is a legally non-binding English translation: https://www.bmjv.de/SharedDocs/Gesetzgebungsverfahren/Dokume... )
§ 1(3) contains the exhaustive list of crimes I mentioned above.
> Who does one of the following in a way apt to disturb/destroy public peace/harmony agitate against national/racial/religious or ethnic group, or against parts of the public or against private persons due to their belonging to a recognized group / part of the public, in order to incite hate or violence. attacking the human dignity of <the same blob of text as above> or defames or libels. - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13039422#13043027
Reading the translation I have a couple questions. Is the same punishment given whether it is "hate" or "violence"? (I assume not)
What is Germany's definition of "hate"? Is it just up to the court to decide if something is considered hate?
Reading the translation I have a couple questions. Is the same punishment given whether it is "hate" or "violence"? (I assume not)
What is Germany's definition of "hate"? Is it just up to the court to decide if something is considered hate?
The important point is not "hate", but "in public": You are free to believe whatever you want in private, you are free to talk with your friends about it in whatever way you like. But when you do this in public, with the possible (very likely intended) consequence of making others use violence against some group (usually a minority), than this is bad.
So the intention of the law is to protect the victims of the violence before the public incitation can reach a point where they become victims. Because that's what happened during the Third Reich in Germany on a large scale (and it's still happening everywhere on the world).
In other words, your personal freedom (of free spech) ends where it starts to violate the personal freedom of other people (bodily harm via a third party). That's different from the American view, which somehow has glorified free spech as an absolute virtue, and doesn't care about negative consequences.
So this law is not about violence at all (which is also punishable, by other, very different laws). This law is about public behaviour. And if a case comes before a court, the court won't have to define "hate", the court will have to decide "is this public behaviour which can serve as incitation to violence against others". And in a case like "seven people were beat to death in India after a false viral message on Faceback", it's probably pretty easy to decide. In other cases, it will be harder, but that's what courts are for.
And a big problem of course is that the internet is blurring the distinction between public and private: Before the internet, you'd need to print and distribute flyers, or manage to get an article in a newspaper, or book a slot on TV. That's costly and not open for everyone. Now, you can just write a message on Facebook at no cost at all, and millions can read it.
The law has to catch up with this problem somehow, to protect the victims. In what way the law needs to be modified to deal with it remains to be seen; but it should be obvious by now that the big actors like Facebook have no interest in dealing with this problem on their own, without prodding.
So the intention of the law is to protect the victims of the violence before the public incitation can reach a point where they become victims. Because that's what happened during the Third Reich in Germany on a large scale (and it's still happening everywhere on the world).
In other words, your personal freedom (of free spech) ends where it starts to violate the personal freedom of other people (bodily harm via a third party). That's different from the American view, which somehow has glorified free spech as an absolute virtue, and doesn't care about negative consequences.
So this law is not about violence at all (which is also punishable, by other, very different laws). This law is about public behaviour. And if a case comes before a court, the court won't have to define "hate", the court will have to decide "is this public behaviour which can serve as incitation to violence against others". And in a case like "seven people were beat to death in India after a false viral message on Faceback", it's probably pretty easy to decide. In other cases, it will be harder, but that's what courts are for.
And a big problem of course is that the internet is blurring the distinction between public and private: Before the internet, you'd need to print and distribute flyers, or manage to get an article in a newspaper, or book a slot on TV. That's costly and not open for everyone. Now, you can just write a message on Facebook at no cost at all, and millions can read it.
The law has to catch up with this problem somehow, to protect the victims. In what way the law needs to be modified to deal with it remains to be seen; but it should be obvious by now that the big actors like Facebook have no interest in dealing with this problem on their own, without prodding.
not a lawyer, but I think the spirit of the law is to punish not those who hate, but those who instill hatred / potentially incite violence.
For example, I have never heard of someone being convicted of "Volksverhetzung" (demagogery, incitement of the masses) just because they were homophobic. Its when they incite other people is when that paragraph is applied.
For example, I have never heard of someone being convicted of "Volksverhetzung" (demagogery, incitement of the masses) just because they were homophobic. Its when they incite other people is when that paragraph is applied.
And there you have it: the New York Times will side with censorship and against free speech as long as it's to the detriment of a tech company.
I love my “Vaterland” :) but I’m not sure if that’ll work. We are to small and Facebook to large and smart for regulation
Facebook will adapt to as many global regulatory approaches as it has to, and there will be dozens of them at a minimum that will be major markets and require compliance. The world is going to get very, very messy when it comes to complying with all the various approaches nations will implement (to speech broadly, politics, commerce, privacy, you name it). The compliance will act as a tax on its fat margins, basically.
It will become nearly impossible to form a new global social network as these rules come into being. No other entities will be capable of dealing with it, you'll have to have vast resources to do it. It won't be about paid vs ad supported approaches, that doesn't matter for that purpose: the localized compliance will go far beyond privacy (that is merely one issue on a long list of compliance requirements that will exist in the future, it'll be as complex and varied as cultures and government systems are).
It will become nearly impossible to form a new global social network as these rules come into being. No other entities will be capable of dealing with it, you'll have to have vast resources to do it. It won't be about paid vs ad supported approaches, that doesn't matter for that purpose: the localized compliance will go far beyond privacy (that is merely one issue on a long list of compliance requirements that will exist in the future, it'll be as complex and varied as cultures and government systems are).
The solution is to have local networks, then you care only about the local laws. Like on reddit each subreddit has it's rules, you have to respect the local rules , but you can participate in any subreddit
Pretty much, but its a tad complex.
Microsoft hosts for example in Ireland (part of the EU), but is an American company.
A subreddit has its own moderators and rules, but has to also adhere the global Reddit policy.
FOSS is developed by people all over the world.
One solution is to lay low and be low profile. For example, an invite-only system, or E2EE. Another is to host in a more liberal country. But if the website is in Russian, it is assumed that its being served for Russians (people in Russia).
Microsoft hosts for example in Ireland (part of the EU), but is an American company.
A subreddit has its own moderators and rules, but has to also adhere the global Reddit policy.
FOSS is developed by people all over the world.
One solution is to lay low and be low profile. For example, an invite-only system, or E2EE. Another is to host in a more liberal country. But if the website is in Russian, it is assumed that its being served for Russians (people in Russia).
Another solution is anonymity.
Facebook just removed 584 million fake accounts. Isn't that like 1/3rd of their user base?
Comparing those two numbers (removed fake account, and FB userbase) does not give you reasonable insights.
FB ususally reports DAU/MAU (daily active users, weekly active users). That means, if you remove 500 million of not active users (not using facebook last month), these numbers are not affected. I don't think this would explain the majority of 500M number.
Most of the 584 million removed fake accounts were most likely created in the same period (and most of them were removed quickly after registration -- as said in the FB report). So they didn't decimate their user base, but additional 500M accounts that were deleted (so they shouldn't affect the user growth). This assumes vast majority of active fake accounts will be blocked.
FB ususally reports DAU/MAU (daily active users, weekly active users). That means, if you remove 500 million of not active users (not using facebook last month), these numbers are not affected. I don't think this would explain the majority of 500M number.
Most of the 584 million removed fake accounts were most likely created in the same period (and most of them were removed quickly after registration -- as said in the FB report). So they didn't decimate their user base, but additional 500M accounts that were deleted (so they shouldn't affect the user growth). This assumes vast majority of active fake accounts will be blocked.
They are NOT learning from their history. In fact (to quote from https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/copenhagen-speech-v...):
"I found that, contrary to what most people think, Weimar Germany did have hate-speech laws, and they were applied quite frequently. The assertion that Nazi propaganda played a significant role in mobilizing anti-Jewish sentiment is, of course, irrefutable. But to claim that the Holocaust could have been prevented if only anti-Semitic speech and Nazi propaganda had been banned has little basis in reality. Leading Nazis such as Joseph Goebbels, Theodor Fritsch, and Julius Streicher were all prosecuted for anti-Semitic speech. Streicher served two prison sentences. Rather than deterring the Nazis and countering anti-Semitism, the many court cases served as effective public-relations machinery, affording Streicher the kind of attention he would never have found in a climate of a free and open debate. In the years from 1923 to 1933, Der Stürmer [Streicher's newspaper] was either confiscated or editors taken to court on no fewer than thirty-six occasions. The more charges Streicher faced, the greater became the admiration of his supporters. The courts became an important platform for Streicher's campaign against the Jews. In the words of a present-day civil-rights campaigner, pre-Hitler Germany had laws very much like the anti-hate laws of today, and they were enforced with some vigor. As history so painfully testifies, this type of legislation proved ineffectual on the one occasion when there was a real argument for it."
"I found that, contrary to what most people think, Weimar Germany did have hate-speech laws, and they were applied quite frequently. The assertion that Nazi propaganda played a significant role in mobilizing anti-Jewish sentiment is, of course, irrefutable. But to claim that the Holocaust could have been prevented if only anti-Semitic speech and Nazi propaganda had been banned has little basis in reality. Leading Nazis such as Joseph Goebbels, Theodor Fritsch, and Julius Streicher were all prosecuted for anti-Semitic speech. Streicher served two prison sentences. Rather than deterring the Nazis and countering anti-Semitism, the many court cases served as effective public-relations machinery, affording Streicher the kind of attention he would never have found in a climate of a free and open debate. In the years from 1923 to 1933, Der Stürmer [Streicher's newspaper] was either confiscated or editors taken to court on no fewer than thirty-six occasions. The more charges Streicher faced, the greater became the admiration of his supporters. The courts became an important platform for Streicher's campaign against the Jews. In the words of a present-day civil-rights campaigner, pre-Hitler Germany had laws very much like the anti-hate laws of today, and they were enforced with some vigor. As history so painfully testifies, this type of legislation proved ineffectual on the one occasion when there was a real argument for it."
The lesson to be learned is that they did not strike down the fascists hard enough, while they still could.
Fascism must be met at all time with hard, Swift and decisive opposition, violent if necessary. There must be no tolerance for ideologies built on intolerance.
Fascism must be met at all time with hard, Swift and decisive opposition, violent if necessary. There must be no tolerance for ideologies built on intolerance.
And who will decide what is not to be tolerated?
Intolerance towards others will not be tolerated. Simple.
So while you are intolerant to Nazis (who you will define yourself) will you be making an exception for yourself, or will you not tolerate your own intolerance to wrongthink?
That discussion has been had so many times, it's not even funny. Of course you should not tolerate intolerance, that's not even up for discussion anymore.
And no, you obviously shouldn't attack people for "wrongthink". You have to attack them for acts, not for thoughts. Standing up in public and calling for violence and persecution against people is an act, not a thought.
And no, you obviously shouldn't attack people for "wrongthink". You have to attack them for acts, not for thoughts. Standing up in public and calling for violence and persecution against people is an act, not a thought.
"Standing up in public and calling for violence and persecution against people is an act, not a thought."
I don't understand why our reaction to that should be also violent, why cannot we, as you write, "swiftly and decisively", collectively ignore that act.
On one hand, you deny that society has moral agency, because you think that this is not an alternative. On the other hand, you want the society to act, as if it had a moral agency. So which is it?
I don't understand why our reaction to that should be also violent, why cannot we, as you write, "swiftly and decisively", collectively ignore that act.
On one hand, you deny that society has moral agency, because you think that this is not an alternative. On the other hand, you want the society to act, as if it had a moral agency. So which is it?
Because such public speeches lead directly to violence against minorities. This has been shown again and again throughout human history.
If we do not act and do not speak out against them or even attack them, we are tacitly saying "well, they might have a point", and that leads to unacceptable acceptance of intolerant acts.
If we do not act and do not speak out against them or even attack them, we are tacitly saying "well, they might have a point", and that leads to unacceptable acceptance of intolerant acts.
> Because such public speeches lead directly to violence against minorities.
What do you mean by "lead"? Do you consider the people who cause such violence as being not responsible for their own actions?
Let's take an example. A person A says that there should be violence against person C. Then, person B commits violence against person C.
I totally agree that society should persecute person B, but I don't see why persecute (with violence) the person A. Person B is morally responsible for their own action (we don't absolve people of murder even if someone suggests to them that they should murder someone). And I also agree that we should speak out against A's suggestion of violence.
So you can see, I am not advocating tacit tolerance of any intolerant acts, and yet disagree with your suggestion of persecution of person A (actually, not in all situations, but I disagree with it in general).
What do you mean by "lead"? Do you consider the people who cause such violence as being not responsible for their own actions?
Let's take an example. A person A says that there should be violence against person C. Then, person B commits violence against person C.
I totally agree that society should persecute person B, but I don't see why persecute (with violence) the person A. Person B is morally responsible for their own action (we don't absolve people of murder even if someone suggests to them that they should murder someone). And I also agree that we should speak out against A's suggestion of violence.
So you can see, I am not advocating tacit tolerance of any intolerant acts, and yet disagree with your suggestion of persecution of person A (actually, not in all situations, but I disagree with it in general).
If person A can be determined (with a high degree of certainty) to have incited the actions of person B, preferably in a court of law, then yes they are also responsible, even more so if they directly commanded person B to commit acts of violence on person C.
Also, if a person directly calls to action against specific groups (eg. "we must throw out all immigrants right now! The police and courts are useless, we have to act!"), that should also be dealt with, rather harshly.
Like I've said before, freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences. You can say exactly what you want, and neither the government nor anyone else can legally stop you from doing so. But they can very much hold you accountable for the consequences of what you say, and the manner in which you said it (eg. publicly, to a large crowd of angry people).
Also, if a person directly calls to action against specific groups (eg. "we must throw out all immigrants right now! The police and courts are useless, we have to act!"), that should also be dealt with, rather harshly.
Like I've said before, freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences. You can say exactly what you want, and neither the government nor anyone else can legally stop you from doing so. But they can very much hold you accountable for the consequences of what you say, and the manner in which you said it (eg. publicly, to a large crowd of angry people).
"then yes they are also responsible, even more so if they directly commanded person B to commit acts of violence on person C"
If person A commanded (or otherwise extorted) person B to act, then it's a different situation. And it's already covered in laws against threatening and extortion.
I am asking about situation where person B can, with reason, and on their own will, ignore the pleading of person A for violence. Or what if there is no person B? Should we punish person A regardless?
"Like I've said before, freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences."
I strongly disagree, and I think it's misunderstanding of concept of free speech. The act of speech must be without consequence, if it's to be free.
People often give an example of somebody saying something to their employer and the employer firing them for that. This is a limitation of free speech.
Before making that argument, you should consider that in the communist regimes (such in Czech Republic), dissidents were often suppressed by being fired from their job. You're effectively saying that it was morally acceptable, and I disagree.
If person A commanded (or otherwise extorted) person B to act, then it's a different situation. And it's already covered in laws against threatening and extortion.
I am asking about situation where person B can, with reason, and on their own will, ignore the pleading of person A for violence. Or what if there is no person B? Should we punish person A regardless?
"Like I've said before, freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences."
I strongly disagree, and I think it's misunderstanding of concept of free speech. The act of speech must be without consequence, if it's to be free.
People often give an example of somebody saying something to their employer and the employer firing them for that. This is a limitation of free speech.
Before making that argument, you should consider that in the communist regimes (such in Czech Republic), dissidents were often suppressed by being fired from their job. You're effectively saying that it was morally acceptable, and I disagree.
>"I am asking about situation where person B can, with reason, and on their own will, ignore the pleading of person A for violence. Or what if there is no person B? Should we punish person A regardless?"
That is ideally for the courts to decide, whether A's utterances and calls for action can reasonably be said to have incited B's actions. Obviously B bears the primary responsibility, but A can also be culpable, especially if they have knowledge that their words are very likely to spur people like B into action.
>"The act of speech must be without consequence, if it's to be free."
No. Even in the US ("LAND OF THE FREE RAH RAH RAH HOME OF THE BRAVE U S A U S A U S A"), freedom of speech is not absolute. There are laws against libel and slander, for good reason.
If you walk up to your employer and call them a fascist limp-dicked low-paying money-grubbing shitstain, what do you think will happen? Do you think you'll just keep your job, keep working as if nothing happened? Do you think they'll just ignore that and act as if nothing had happened?
What if you do the same thing by posting it publicly on the internet or in a newspaper? Do you expect there to be no consequences?
In other words, freedom of speech means that you are free to express yourself, with no threat of censorship. It does not absolve you from responsibility for what you said. Stand by what you say, take responsibility.
That is ideally for the courts to decide, whether A's utterances and calls for action can reasonably be said to have incited B's actions. Obviously B bears the primary responsibility, but A can also be culpable, especially if they have knowledge that their words are very likely to spur people like B into action.
>"The act of speech must be without consequence, if it's to be free."
No. Even in the US ("LAND OF THE FREE RAH RAH RAH HOME OF THE BRAVE U S A U S A U S A"), freedom of speech is not absolute. There are laws against libel and slander, for good reason.
If you walk up to your employer and call them a fascist limp-dicked low-paying money-grubbing shitstain, what do you think will happen? Do you think you'll just keep your job, keep working as if nothing happened? Do you think they'll just ignore that and act as if nothing had happened?
What if you do the same thing by posting it publicly on the internet or in a newspaper? Do you expect there to be no consequences?
In other words, freedom of speech means that you are free to express yourself, with no threat of censorship. It does not absolve you from responsibility for what you said. Stand by what you say, take responsibility.
So you do agree then, that if I find your intolerance of possibly perfectly fine (after all, why should your judgement of what is acceptable and what is not be any more valid than mine, his, hers, or that guy-over-there's) and at the very least in the US legal and specifically protected, I would have every right to take you out?
Not to godwin this, but historical parallels for your approach here do point very much at Germany.
Not to godwin this, but historical parallels for your approach here do point very much at Germany.
Read what I wrote. I am 100% for free speech, it is one of the most important aspects of any free society.
However, freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences. If you make public speeches calling for the violent persecution of immigrants, there will be consequences for you. Yes, even in the US.
However, freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences. If you make public speeches calling for the violent persecution of immigrants, there will be consequences for you. Yes, even in the US.
But that's not the question. The question is who decides, and how, what speech should have (negative) consequences. If I am reading you correctly, you are saying that you will provide consequences to those who you deem to be calling for something you do not agree with.
Another one of the most important aspect of the free society is the rule of law. Not vigilante justice.
Another one of the most important aspect of the free society is the rule of law. Not vigilante justice.
Ideally, the rule of law decides.
Unfortunately it very often is susceptible to political and economic influences. And the courts are not in the streets, where the attacks happen. Far too often the police turn a blind eye to right wing incitement and violence (due to a large number of sympathizers in the police), so sometimes direct action is the only way to show fascists and other hatemongers the error of their ways.
Unfortunately it very often is susceptible to political and economic influences. And the courts are not in the streets, where the attacks happen. Far too often the police turn a blind eye to right wing incitement and violence (due to a large number of sympathizers in the police), so sometimes direct action is the only way to show fascists and other hatemongers the error of their ways.
I wonder, out loud to all you HN lawyers, if not officially supporting an EU country gets you out of EU law. If a site offers no official language support, does it have to follow Germany's law simply because a German saw it?
FB, Google and so on have subsidiaries in Germany (+other EU countries) and have a significant part of their user base there. They are very deliberately focused on having a large number of Germans use their services.
It wouldn't apply to a site like HN, for instance.
It wouldn't apply to a site like HN, for instance.
They have to follow German law because they have German users, German customers (German companies buying ads), use German infrastructure, German marketing and German offices housing German employees.
If they would like to turn their back to an 80 million people market, sure. However, if this becomes the EU standard, it jumps up to a market of almost 500 million people. Hard to turn that down.
If they would like to turn their back to an 80 million people market, sure. However, if this becomes the EU standard, it jumps up to a market of almost 500 million people. Hard to turn that down.
If they have users, but transact everything in Dollars and only host out of the US, does Germany have claim to dictate terms? For example if Germans come to America and buy things, the German government has little control to exert power.
You're correct, but that's not the case. They host all across the EU (and have special agreements with the local governments about power supply for example), have employees all across the EU, accept Euros as payment and wouldn't want it any other way. If they didn't, it would be much harder for them to stay competitive in the EU. If they stop they would negatively impact the experience for their users and customers in Germany, meaning losses of revenue from that market and the risk of being overtaken.
[deleted]
Is hate never justifiable?
You can hate as much as you want, in private. Germans are very adamant about the protection of privacy.
The problem starts if you go around in public, making hateful speeches that incite violence.
The problem starts if you go around in public, making hateful speeches that incite violence.
That sounds like a great way to protect those who commit acts worthy of hate from any public remonstration.
You are absolutely and perfectly allowed to speak out in public against such people. But you must be prepared to take responsibility if your speech is worded to spur people into violent action and to incite hateful action.
The court of public opinion is notoriously fickle. Rousing hate in the masses is not a reliable tactic, and often backfires.
The court of public opinion is notoriously fickle. Rousing hate in the masses is not a reliable tactic, and often backfires.
There’s a difference between what’s good for a country and what’s good for an individual person - society at large can’t really function if it laws place the singular wants and needs of any given person as the metric of allowable. Just because you can justify a hatred doesn’t mean there’s some transitive property that means society should therefore tolerate it.
jk2323(1)
And yet the hammer and sickle are regarded as symbols of freedom and Marxism is regarded as a movement to empower the oppressed. How revolting. Adherents to Communist ideology have killed many millions more than Nazis ever dreamed of and caused untold amounts of devastation over the past century.
Not only that, but communism is still an ongoing danger, unlike Nazism. Venezuela just experienced it. Zimbabwe a decade before, and now South Africa is slipping closer towards it. It's a real danger to human life but somehow people celebrate it.
lol, "nazism is not an ongoing danger"
This is amazing, it's like Charlottesville never happened and Bannon never had the president's ear.
This is amazing, it's like Charlottesville never happened and Bannon never had the president's ear.
The situations in those countries are a lot more complicated than simply "COMMUNISM!".
This article is mostly not about Nazis (search for it, it shows up once, and just one out of a number of examples). I'm a bit baffled why you think it is.
>"the hammer and sickle are regarded as symbols of freedom"
Where?
>"Marxism is regarded as a movement to empower the oppressed."
Because it is. That is literally the entire point of Marxism.
Marxism != Communism.
I'm more towards AnCom myself, but Marxism makes some extremely valid points about the exploitation of labor.
Where?
>"Marxism is regarded as a movement to empower the oppressed."
Because it is. That is literally the entire point of Marxism.
Marxism != Communism.
I'm more towards AnCom myself, but Marxism makes some extremely valid points about the exploitation of labor.
Germany acts to clamp down on free speach, learning from its own history of clamping down on free speech under both the communists and the nazis.
They are even hiring former stasi people to do it.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/09/17/german-govt-hires...
They are even hiring former stasi people to do it.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/09/17/german-govt-hires...
The didn't have free speech to begin with. People forget Germany, France and the UK don't have the basic concept of freedom of speech that America does. You could already go to prison for insulting the wrong groups or supporting the wrong political party, and people have.
>People forget Germany, France and the UK don't have the basic concept of freedom of speech that America does
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_10_of_the_European_Con...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_10_of_the_European_Con...
If you read that, you see there are so many exceptions and they're so subjective (protection of morals?) that it's pretty much not a freedom at all.
Like who? Citations please.
But Germany and other countries without the concept of free speech are regularly ranking a lot higher than the US on the Press Freedom Index. How do you explain that?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Freedom_Index
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Freedom_Index
Because their methodology does not take into account the most important right of all.
the 4th amendment? or the 1st?
I believe parent means that "clamping down on free speech" is the real problem of any regime, even if it's done in the name of "non-violence" and protection of minorities or whatever.
In practice he's right because eventually it will be used to silence valid criticism against the state.
In practice he's right because eventually it will be used to silence valid criticism against the state.
Don't link to Breitbart.
It's also interesting that Human Rights Watch has come out against the German law: https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/02/14/germany-flawed-social-me...