Twitter Censors German Neo-Nazi Group, Within Germany 227
judgecorp writes "Twitter has censored a neo-Nazi group, blocking Besseres Hannover (Better Hannover), a group accused of promoting race hate. This is the first time Twitter has used its power of blocking users in specific countries, announced back in January. Although blocked in Germany, the group is visible to the rest of the world." Update: 10/18 14:46 GMT by T : Note, that's Twitter doing the blocking, not Google, as it appeared originally. HT to reader eldavojohn.
Settle down, everyone. (Score:5, Funny)
It's nothing to raise a führer about!
Re:Settle down, everyone. (Score:5, Informative)
No, like every other country there are limits to free speech (ie in the US you can't yell fire in a crowded theater, direct people to actively fight against the government, and "fighting words" may limit the punishment of your attacker in an assault case).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or in the US, I'd call it free speech, except you're responsible for said speech. Yell fire in a theatre (untruthfully)? Responsible for chaos the ensues afterwards, including trampling and deaths (and probably the multimillion dollar lawsuits from said in
Re: (Score:2)
pfft. i'm a free speech absolutist. free aldrich ames! all he did was talk!
Re: (Score:2)
Ie in the US you can't yell fire in a crowded theater,
Often quoted, but very wrong. Yes you can yell fire in a crowded theater, and its not illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
You can be arrested for inciting panic, ie purely for your words. That is a limit on free speech.
Re: (Score:2)
"...like every other country there are limits to free speech (ie in the US you can't yell fire in a crowded theater,"
We need something like a Godwin's law for people who pull out this ridiculous "limit" every time the question of "free speech" comes up. Let's call it "Hugo's Law" after Justice Hugo Black who tore this argument to shreds.
Black's eloquent and brilliant argument is grounded in the idea of property rights. You have a right to free speech that is inviolable, but NOT a right to make a speech w
Re: (Score:2)
No, you can be arrested and held on criminal disturbing the peace charges for using fighting words. As to advocating the violent overthrow of the US government see Dennis v. United States and Yates v. United States.
Re: (Score:2)
That if somebody is being an asshole, I then tell him "Do that one more time, and I'll punch you in the nose."
Then you're the one committing the assault [wikipedia.org], not him. (In the rest of your example he's committing murder, but you're still the assaulter.)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, different countries - different priorities. In the EU, for example, there exists a right to life, in the USA there is no such thing (otherwise death penalty would not be possible).
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, different countries - different priorities. In the EU, for example, there exists a right to life, in the USA there is no such thing (otherwise death penalty would not be possible).
Are you serious?? The EU has outlawed abortion? When did this happen?
Re: (Score:2)
What does it have to do with abortions?
A phoetus is not necessarely considered a living human being.
Re: (Score:3)
What does it have to do with abortions? A phoetus is not necessarely considered a living human being.
What does it have to do with the death penalty? Other rights like freedom of speech, freedom from involuntary servitude and confinement, and freedom of assembly are denied when a person is convicted of a crime. Having a right to life doesn't have anything to do with the death penalty.
Interesting signature. Did you know fetuses feel pain?
Re: (Score:2)
Good that you have asked. Here is the article 2 of the EU charta of human rights:
Art 2. Right to Life
1. Everyone has the right to life.
2. No one shall be condemned to the death penalty, or executed.
I guess your question is answered now.
True, but according to the EU charta and the laws of the member st
Re: (Score:2)
"Right to life" is often used by 'Pro lifers' in North America, and maybe elsewhere, however it does not automatically mean anti-abortion.
Nor does it automatically mean the right of a murderer to live. We have freedom of speech, but if you commit a crime that freedom can be restricted. We have the right to freedom from involuntary servitude and confinement but again, if you commit a crime, you lose that right.
Re: (Score:2)
+1. :)
Although I'd say a fetus is definitely alive but is doesn't make sense to call it a human being. No brain, not a human. That's why we turn off life support for people whose brain is dead. And we don't have funerals for miscarriages or spontaneous abortions. Or tissues
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, the right to life is enshrined in both the Constitution and the Declaration of Independance. The latter says "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" and the former says "life, liberty, and property". However, if you get a speeding ticket they can take your property, if you rob a bank they'll take your liberty, and if you mass murder someone in a state with the death penalty you can forfeit your life.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
So...Germany is another country without free speech guarantee laws?
Correct. Germany, like most countries, has never recognized freedom of expression as a basic human right. Frederick the Great regularly pardoned people that violated the lese-majesty laws, but most other Germans have been less tolerant.
Re:Settle down, everyone. (Score:4, Insightful)
So...Germany is another country without free speech guarantee laws?
Correct. Germany, like most countries, has never recognized freedom of expression as a basic human right. Frederick the Great regularly pardoned people that violated the lese-majesty laws, but most other Germans have been less tolerant.
Article 5 of the German constitution would contradict that, but don't let facts get in the way.
Re:Settle down, everyone. (Score:4, Insightful)
Article 5 of the German constitution would contradict that, but don't let facts get in the way.
Written guarantees are meaningless if they are ignored in practice. The Soviet Union also guaranteed freedom of expression, yet 20 million people perished in the Gulags.
Re: (Score:2)
20 millions is a cold war propaganda figure. Between 20 millions there, 20 millions of losses in WW2 and another 60 millions murdered by Stalin personally, there would be just 20 millions left by the end of 1940ies.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Article 5 of the German constitution
I guess they put in an asterisk:
* unless the government disagrees with your political speech.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
So...Germany is another country without free speech guarantee laws?
Bizarrely, the Germans have looked at the balance between absolute free speech and preventing a return to Nazism, and have come down in favour of the latter. Who'd have thought that a country responsible for the Second World War, the Holocaust and so on would think that it was a good idea never to be seen to be going back along that road at the expense of the theoretical civil rights of a bunch of lunatics?
..." argument, Germany isn't rounding up
And before anyone starts on the "first they came for the
Re:Settle down, everyone. (Score:4, Insightful)
Laws always represent Teh Will Of Da Peoplz.
Those particular morons got caught calling for the overthrow of our pleasant little democracy and replace it with something nasty that hadn't worked before. This is understandably quite illegal. So the group got outlawed. So they get the boot as per German law. And since Twitter most likely formed a legal entity in Germany so they can do business with us(be pay in sausages) they are subjected to German law.
Hate speech in various colours will land you in front of a judge and you will not be tried by a jury of your peers but somebody who actually got some training. Repeat offenders spend time in the hospitality of the German people(they will be fed sausages). We do the same with Islamistic/Christianistic/PETAistic morons who have as of yet install a reign of terror(they get halal/tofu sausages made unless it's Friday which is when we feed them hotdog buns).
Unlawful speech is defined by the lawmaker who in turn got elected by the German people. So this is NOT Joachim Gauck/Norbert Lammert/Angela Merkel taking objection that lands you in the dock.
Next week:
Germany restricts your right to keep and arm bears.
Re: (Score:3)
Just ask Bradley Manning how free free speech is.
Remember: "Bradley broke the law" is precisely what this dude in Germany is doing.
Bradley Manning would not have had access to the information that he did if he had not agreed to the limitations put upon him regarding release of said information. He voluntarily gave up the right when he was granted access.
Re: (Score:2)
"So still you have nothing to counter, except that you ACCEPT the USA limitations on Free Speech, but not anybody else's."
Except that some of the things you're talking about are not limitations on "speech". You're talking about using the "act" of communication to break other laws.
Banning Mein Kampf is a limitation on free speech. Prohibitions on creating a disturbance in a theater and laws creating punishment for the leaking of classified data are not.
Re: (Score:2)
Remember: "Bradley broke the law" is precisely what this dude in Germany is doing.
Manning temporarily gave up his rights to free speech when he joined the military, and what he did was actual theft if he took paper documents. Nothing at all like Germany, where a civilian is not allowed to speak positively about Nazism. When you join the military, you give up a LOT of your rights.
Re: (Score:3)
So all privacy laws (HIPAA, etc) are violations of free speech? Holy crap you're a dumb fuck.
Strictly speaking, yes they are. Issues like privacy show where the concept of absolute freedom of speech falls down. If I get hold of your medical records and want to publish them, you are interfering with my freedom to publish what I like by denying me that option. (Same for publishing classified material or whatever).
Re: (Score:2)
*Are* there any countries that guarantee free speech?
There, FTFY.
Free speech isn't absolute in the US either. Try to say "fuck" on TV or "asshole" to a cop.
What? (Score:2)
Google? (Score:2)
This is the first time Google has used its power of blocking users in specific countries
Aren't we talking about Twitter? ffs, it's in the title AND the previous sentence!
Genuine ambivalence (Score:2)
This is both really good and really bad at the same time. Although I want these guys to be shut up, I do not agree that Google should censor opinions even if most of us find those opinions abhorrent.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, Twatter
Re: (Score:2)
This is both really good and really bad at the same time. Although I want these guys to be shut up, I do not agree that Google should censor opinions even if most of us find those opinions abhorrent.
I would be ok with it if Google/Twitter were simply saying "It's our service and we don't want to be a conduit for this kind of stuff." As a private business it is their service and if you don't like it you can use some other service. The problem is if they're doing it in response to the government. Deciding to use a different government is much harder and too often requires violence.
Re: (Score:2)
This is both really good and really bad at the same time. Although I want these guys to be shut up, I do not agree that Google should censor opinions even if most of us find those opinions abhorrent.
If the government won't shut them up, the people will. With their boots and fists. That's the only language these fascists understand anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Assuming you live in the US, have you yet had the chance to pick up 1984 or Lolita at your local library? Pot/kettle. Black.
Re: (Score:2)
Put a swastika, or even anything resembling a swastika, up publicly in Germany and you'll be arrested. Google/Twitter/whoever is merely following the law here.
Borderline untrue.
Being German I can tell from own experience that it depends on context. In our school books, museums, TV (documentaries as well as entertainment) you can find swastikas and other Nazi symbols.
The English Wikipedia entry on swastikas unfortunately doesn't go into details, the German entry for Hakenkreuz [wikipedia.org] (use Google translate) explains that education, art, documentations, research and a few more field are excempt from the prohibition.
Re: (Score:2)
The same way I feel about Toys'R'Us not selling Penthouse: It's their business, their rules, free speech rights are connected with Governments not businesses.
Yes! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, censorship wasn't exactly the worst thing the Nazis did, and they don't get censored because of the bad things they did, but because their "speach" consists of incitement to hatred.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Well, just about everyone with a reading level above kindergarten.
In case you hadn't noticed, Nazism calls for specific genocide on undesirables. If that isn't incitement, what is?
Mart
Re: (Score:2)
What about Nazi's who don't call for "specific genocide on undesirables"? Neo-Nazi's don't. Can they speak in Germany?
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah right. Neo-Nazis don't call for genocide. That's why they like to display the regalia of the Third Reich, to name just one thing.
Why don't you just shut up before you make even more of a fool of yourself? Or out yourself as a Neo-Nazi?
Mart
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Can I arrest [ Republican Party here in the U.S.] and still pretend to give a fuck about free speech, like you Germans?
Why do you bother asking stupid questions you already know the answer to?
Are the US Republican party promulgating Nazi ideology in Germany?
Why do you pretend to give a fuck about free speach when the only thing you can use that freedom for is to be an idiot on the internet?
Re: (Score:2)
their "speach" consists of incitement to hatred.
And who gets to define "incitement to hatred"? Because I think the Republican Party here in the U.S. has a lot of speech like that too. Can I arrest them and still pretend to give a fuck about free speech, like you Germans?
Please turn yourself in for incitement to hatred of Republicans.
Seriously though, if you believe it's only one sided, you need your eyes and ears checked.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
A lot of things should be hated and a lot of things should be loved. One of the purposes of free speech is to determine which is which. If "incitement to hatred" is the problem, would I be prosecuted for inciting hatred of the death camps?
Incitement to hatred of people.
Anyway, don't bother arguing with me about it. It's the citizens of Germany who decide what is and what is not allowed in Germany, not some random internet loser.
Re: (Score:3)
What are you complaining about? We used to just kill them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Yes! (Score:4, Insightful)
The law is not intended to show how Nazi censorship was wrong. I have absolutely no idea what would make you think that.
Slashdot, don't ever change (Score:2, Funny)
15 years with no copyediting whatsoever
Just complying with the law (Score:5, Informative)
In Germany, pro-Nazi speech is illegal. It's not Twitter's fault that they're complying with the law of the country they're doing business in.
The reason it's illegal is twofold: (1) the United States and other allies imposed that rule on the Germans in 1945. (2) the Germans have since then made a big effort to make it abundantly clear that they are thoroughly sorry for what happened under the Nazis and want to make absolutely certain it never happens again.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, this has nothing to do with the content of the Twitter feed, and therefore is not really a free speech issue. If you read the actual takedown request [chillingeffects.org], you will find that the Twitter account belongs to an organization that was recently disbanded and its assets (to which the account belongs) being seized by the authorities because its goals and actions were directed at overthrowing the constitutional order.
Re:Just complying with the law (Score:4, Informative)
3) It's an uncomfortable reminder of an embarrassment that they want to erase from history.
Not really. Being reminded of German history is extremely common in Germany. It is not illegal to speak of the Nazi past (in fact, pretty common, and in certain circumstances even mandatory to be political correct). The are countless books, reports on TV... especially of course at anniversaries of important dates (of which there are many). I had a year's worth of history classes about the time from WW I to 1945. This is surely not a way to "erase history".
What is problematic in Germany is to show support for the Nazis.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Hate speech in general is illegal in Germany and you have to overstep the line quite a bit before you get dragged into a court of law. It is currently under investigation if we want to shut down gaybashing Christianists. Islamists, leftwingists and notorious vegetarians already got their day in court.
All your twitter are belong to google... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is a path to doom, but not the usual way (Score:5, Insightful)
My problem with such censorship is mainly that it doesn't work.
1. It legitimizes the opposition. To them, their government now appears as a legitimate oppressor. In turn, that conveys legitimacy toward their message. If you really want to destroy them, treat their actions as a more mundane crime, like unlicensed use of unscientific ideas. Or tear a page from the Soviet book and categorize them as insane.
2. In a pluralistic society, clashes are inevitable. We now have thousands of different groups in just about every country, and most of them oppose almost all the others. Whose god is true? Whose idea of society is true? Socialism is incompatible with capitalism, some religion is incompatible with some science, many ethnic groups hate each other, most life-philosophies and political viewpoints clash, and any ideology is going to first oppose all others because to be an ideology it must claim to be the one right way. That includes pluralism, for Inception fans.
3. It is a slippery slope, for two reasons. First, the censored group is going to be evasive and start disguising their message. This means you're going to have to censor more and more stuff, and may eventually destroy your government's efficiency with lots and lots of possibly contradictory rules. Second, the more you censor, the greater likelihood that the opposition will be able to use this against you. We're already seeing this with people saying nasty things about Israel regarding Palestinians, in fact, calling them Nazis. I don't think this leads anywhere but to bad.
4. It teaches your citizens to become sheep. The message from government should not be, "We're going to get rid of bad ideas." It should be that citizens and institutions need to constantly be aware of why certain ideas are opposed. The censorship becomes a rule like traffic laws, which we evade when we can because we don't see a clear connection (mainly because it often does not exist) between going 5 mph faster and carnage on the roads. Imagine this applied to political ideas.
People usually tell you that censorship leads to 1984 and that may be true, but I find the above list even more likely and more dangerous. They are less exciting though and I'll never get on Letterman this way.
Re:This is a path to doom, but not the usual way (Score:4, Insightful)
It should be that citizens and institutions need to constantly be aware of why certain ideas are opposed.
Are you seriously suggesting that an average German doesn't understand why Nazis are trouble? I mean, they only have a large Holocaust monument approximately 350 meters from the seat of government, it's not like they think it's important or something.
I should point out that it's not any references to Nazis that are illegal, it's references to Nazis that are clearly intended to promote Nazis and Nazi values. The history books have the whole story, and that's fine. A few years ago, there was a production of The Producers, and laughing at Hitler was fine. But that's not what these guys are.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't that the GP's point? The monument 350m from the seat of government is enough of a reminder. Why put censoring on top of that?
In America, it is like prohibition vs taxing for cigarettes. If you just banned them, it wouldn't have been nearly as effective as taxing and providing information on why they are bad. 20 years ago it was "cool". Now you are a societal outsider if you smoke.
You can't censor/prohibit something you don't like. It won't work. Demonizing it is better.
Re: (Score:3)
They say they are not nazi
Re: (Score:3)
I think the main rationale for Germany's censorship laws is that there are still Nazis alive today, though their numbers are fast dwindling.
Imagine, if you will, that some charismatic former member of the 3d Reich named Schwarzenegger got up and started freely inciting the German populace. Reminding them of the humiliation of losing the previous war and the offences of Foreigners, Jews and outside Nations. How Germany deserves its rightful place at the forefront of the world. People like that are always wit
First (Score:3, Insightful)
First they came for the Nazis and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Nazi ...
Re:First (Score:4, Insightful)
Then they came for the serial killers and I didn't spreak out...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And I did not speak out
Because frankly they had it coming
I can post to it.... (Score:2)
QotD (Score:2)
Discuss. :)
Nazis -- maybe you have not heard of them? (Score:3)
People act like the jury is still out on Nazism in Germany, and the best thing to do is allow it to compete in the marketplace of ideas. Neo-nazi's do not want to participate in a competition for hearts and minds. They want to incite hatred and violence towards minorities. They don't want to set up a stall in some metaphorical marketplace. They want to burn the marketplace down.
Re:Google censors (Score:5, Informative)
That's a nice rant since Google is obviously a typo by the submitter given that they're talking about Twitter which is NOT owned by Google....
Oh, and Twitter is just following the law in Germany, being a neo-nazi or espousing neo-nazi ideas is illegal in Germany.
Re:Google censors (Score:5, Insightful)
Doubly good rant since it was posted at the time the article went live, by an account which has (as of this writing) only a single post. Don't worry, I'm sure you'll see some half-hearted posts in other threads today to make it look slightly less like a complete shill.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Is Twitter based in Germany, or a German company?
If not...why the fuck would they have to abide by any laws in Germany?
Re:Google censors (Score:5, Insightful)
Because they would like to do business in Germany.
Besides, fuck neo nazis.
Re: (Score:2)
But wearing Che Guevara t-shirts is ok there.
Re:Google censors (Score:5, Insightful)
That is ultimately a matter between Twitter and the country in question. Unless you believe that national sovereignty is reserved for the US and its satellite countries.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Google censors (Score:5, Interesting)
Should Twitter also censor disparaging comments about Mohammed in Muslim countries?
If it's specifically illegal there, then unfortunately yes.
If you can't abide by the laws in a certain country, you shouldn't go there, and this applies to companies as well as individuals on holiday. It is up to the people in that country to choose their own laws.
Re: (Score:3)
But, if they don't have physical offices or whatever there...then, no....they shouldn't be subject to the local laws.
Access isn't the same as physical presen
Re: (Score:3)
You don't need a physical presence to provide all kinds of goods and services in a country. That doesn't mean that you shouldn't be subject to that country's laws when doing so.
Germany has every right to ban neo-nazi speech. If neo-nazi's (or anyone else) doesn't like it, they can leave. I am sure Germany is more than fine with these people leaving.
Re: (Score:2)
By your own argument, your post is subject to the laws of Saudi Arabia, since it is accessible from there. Should you be subject to that country's laws regarding speech?
No, GP is right. If you have offices, partners etc there, then those can be prosecuted for not following the law. But if you provide a service over the Net, then you should not have to care about infringing laws in all countries where people can possibly access it. If they have a problem with your service, they can block it in their national
Re: (Score:2)
So you think The Pirate Bay is not subject to U.S. copyright laws? There are a few industry giants who disagree with you there...
Re:Google censors (Score:5, Informative)
Because they offer services to German citizens and have German operations (ie twitter.de). If a company doesn't want to follow the laws of a country it's quite simple, don't do trade in that country.
Re: (Score:2)
Or maybe it's a weird typo and they meant Twitter, not Google, and your rant is utter crap?
Re:Google censors (Score:4, Insightful)
Let's see...
1) Poster posts in the same minute story goes live.
2) Poster is not a subscriber, and post is longer than 90 words.
3) Poster is brand new, with only this post to his name.
4) Post consists entirely of "Google is evil!"
Woo, OCD anti-Google poster/shill is back.
By the way, Google did not remove the anti-muslim video, and Twitter (not Google) is following local German law. You're irrational, and can't read.
Re: (Score:2)
You're irrational, and can't read.
I was going to post something along the lines of what you and other commenters posted, but instead I'll point out that yes, (s)he's irrational, but as to being illiterate, that's the submitter. TFS does indeed say Google. It's a mystery why, but it is.
Re: (Score:2)
Censor, or merely block? Hey, maybe I could call it censorship when various YouTube channels are blocked in my country becuse of evil "distribution rights"?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, it is limited blocking, not censorship: the group can post but the post does not reach everyone.