Germany Wants Facebook To Obey Its Rules About Holocaust Denial 728
Bruce66423 writes: In a classic example of the conflict of cultures bought about by the internet, Germany is trying to get Facebook to obey its rules about banning holocaust denial posts. From the linked Jerusalem Post article:
[Justice Minister Heiko] Maas, who has accused Facebook of doing too little to thwart racist and hate posts on its social media platform, said that Germany has zero tolerance for such expression and expects the US-based company to be more vigilant. "One thing is clear: if Facebook wants to do business in Germany, then it must abide by German laws," Maas told Reuters. "It doesn't matter that we, because of historical reasons, have a stricter interpretation of freedom of speech than the United States does." "Holocaust denial and inciting racial hatred are crimes in Germany and it doesn't matter if they're posted on Facebook or uttered out in the public on the market square," he added. ... "There's no scope for misplaced tolerance towards internet users who spread racist propaganda. That's especially the case in light of our German history."
Brought about by the internet? (Score:5, Informative)
I'm pretty sure Germany's had laws about denial of the holocaust since well before modern internet culture was around.
Re:Brought about by the internet? (Score:4, Informative)
They modified the law against "incitement of the people" from 1871 in 1959 to include holocaust denial explicitly. In 1994 is was changed again and the maximum sentence was increased (at least this is what wikipedia knows).
Re:Brought about by the internet? (Score:5, Interesting)
As times change the meaning of the laws changes as well. For the last generation or so laws that target Holocaust denial are almost entirely about targeting critics of Israel. On the one hand by equating critics of Israel with antisemites, on the other hand by equating the Holocaust denial that is common in the arab world with german or western european Holocaust denial. In fact the two are very different. the latter is denial of guilt, or it used to be that, while the former is not. In the arab world Holocaust denial is highly correlated with recent Israeli operations against for instance Gaza. It's an act of spite.
And really, I've read that 97% of the inhabitants of Gaza are antisemites. Authoritative poll. That conclusion is completely daft.
Re: Brought about by the internet? (Score:5, Insightful)
And really, I've read that 97% of the inhabitants of Gaza are antisemites.
I have my doubts about that, considering that Arabs are a semitic people.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That's just wordgames. The common interpretation is anti-jew.
Re: Brought about by the internet? (Score:4, Insightful)
Also, anti-zionist will be lumped in with anti-semitic. So to be clear, one must define their words. This is true in all emotionally charged debates, so "wordgames" means "I don't have a fucking clue, but I listen to the side that says what I like to hear".
Re: Brought about by the internet? (Score:5, Insightful)
Clear communication does not require precise definition and in fact this often works counterproductive. The word 'antisemitic' is generally understood as being against Jews, in a way that resembles european attitudes against Jews in the thirties for instance
That part of it is clear enough. Picking a logical but unused meaning of the word does not add clarity. The part that does demand attention is what is sufficient to put someone into that basket and you give examples of that.
Re: Brought about by the internet? (Score:3)
And? Organic is commonly used to mean how something was grown instead of the correct meaning of "carbon based". Just because a lot of people misuse a term doesn't change the meaning of the word.
Re: Brought about by the internet? (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, this is wrong. Dictionaries don't 'define' words, they are a record of USAGE. As a word is used more and more, it becomes eligible to be included in the dictionary. A lot of people misusing a word can cause it to change meaning.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't see much evidence that it has to do with criticism of Israel. The laws in Germany are mostly used to target the domestic far-right, NPD types, who don't really like Israel.
Re: Brought about by the internet? (Score:4, Informative)
I only object against the word 'clear'. There are constant attempts to defend the distinction between criticism of the state of Israel and antisemitism. In reality it requires a lot of sophistication and political correctness to criticize the Israeli side in a way that avoids the antisemitism stamp. It's pretty obvious. If you take the simple case of mixing up 'jewish' and 'israeli'. There has been a very strong support amongst jews for Israel, and in Israeli public communication there has been a longstanding practice of talking for all the Jews. But as soon as someone blames 'the Jews' instead of 'the state of Israel' this person becomes an antisemite and therefore a foul person. I can't imagine the majority of people passing that test. To put it differently, the test is rigged.
When discussing Nazi stuff in WW2 I've also mixed 'german' and 'nazi' constantly. It's normal.
Re: (Score:3)
The other thing of course is that the world has a long history of people blaming "the jews" for random shit and at best exiling them or at worst murdering them.
Yeah, the world has a long history of people blaming "the nazis" for shit that wasn't just done by Nazis, right? It was done by other Germans. It was done by "The Germans". That doesn't mean that all Germans are evil. It does mean that the evil that came out of Germany during a certain period wasn't just all Nazi. It was German. And the evil that comes out of the USA daily isn't just republican, or just democrat. It's all our responsibility.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, and as we all know, Germany has been peaceful and democratic since 1871, thanks to its restrictions on free speech and civil liberties! Oh, wait...
Re: (Score:3)
Sure they are. Otherwise, you don't have a populace that can freely participate in democracy. If any form of heresy is tolerable, then the powers that be can just redefine it in a way that suits them.
The whole effort is naieve.
The problem with the Nazis is not that they "said things" but that they "did things" which should have been prosecuted as crimes when they happened.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, and in North Korea you are not free to critisese the Great Leader. End of a similar story.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Brought about by the internet? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Why would you go thought tattooing peoples only to gas them and burn them."
Why would you go through putting bar codes to milk bricks only to sell them within a day?
Because that's the proper way to track things (and yes, jews were "things to be tracked" to those bastards).
"The intent of the Nazi was the deport them!
The intent of Nazis was to deprive them of their ability to influence society, then of citizenship, then of property, then to be deported, then... "oh, hell, why are we going through all this hassle? We know how we want jews, so let's go right to the end of it: the final solution!"
"The demonisation of the Nazi is very similar to the demonisation of the German peoples before the first and second world wars which lead me to believe it is all war propaganda."
Yeah, well, except for the tiny fact that they *did* kill jews (and gipsies and homosexuals, and Spanish republicans...) for the sake of it in a quite formal and organized manner.
"But yeah, MUH 6M LOLCOAST HOLOHOAX JEWISH PRIVILEGE! Help Israel apartheid state commit Palestinian genocide"
You do know what a "straw man" is, do you?
But, of course you do, you Mr Anonymous Troll.
Re: (Score:3)
The intent of Nazis was to deprive them of their ability to influence society, then of citizenship, then of property, then to be deported, then... "oh, hell, why are we going through all this hassle? We know how we want jews, so let's go right to the end of it: the final solution!"
One thing that has always bothered me about that whole mess: Why bother with Zyklon B at all?
Why not just have a trap door open up that tosses them directly into the incinerator while they were alive? I would guess psychology...
It still utterly blows me away to this day that people did this to other people and that people now are not afraid of setting up similar controls because they think something like the Holocaust could never happen again. It can. It shouldn't. Think people. Think.
Re:Brought about by the internet? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm pretty sure Germany's had laws about denial of the holocaust since well before modern internet culture was around.
Sure, but that didn't cause much conflict with other cultures. German laws only applied to Germany. But with the Internet, it is common to find forums that mingle people from different cultures, and different legal jurisdictions. One of the big differences between cultures, is how they deal with the tradeoff between "freedom" and "order". Americans and Germans see that tradeoff from very different historical perspectives, and make very different tradeoffs. As an American, I believe that people should be able to express even the most odious opinions, and suppression of those opinions causes more problems than it solves. The Germans see it differently.
... then they came for the Nazis, and I did not speak out because I was not a Nazi.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm pretty sure Germany's had laws about denial of the holocaust since well before modern internet culture was around.
Sure, but that didn't cause much conflict with other cultures. German laws only applied to Germany. But with the Internet, it is common to find forums that mingle people from different cultures, and different legal jurisdictions. One of the big differences between cultures, is how they deal with the tradeoff between "freedom" and "order". Americans and Germans see that tradeoff from very different historical perspectives, and make very different tradeoffs. As an American, I believe that people should be able to express even the most odious opinions, and suppression of those opinions causes more problems than it solves. The Germans see it differently.
... then they came for the Nazis, and I did not speak out because I was not a Nazi.
Of course this isn't really about Nazis and Holocaust denial. It's actually about all kind of racist posts and other hate speech. Which Facebook says they would delete in their Community Standards [facebook.com] (yes, even in the US, so the cultures argument is bogus really):
Facebook removes hate speech, which includes content that directly attacks people based on their: Race, Ethnicity, National origin, Religious affiliation, Sexual orientation, Sex, gender, or gender identity, or Serious disabilities or diseases.
But the real fun part is that "users also accuse the company of double standards for cracking down swifter and harder on nudity and sexual content than on hate-mongering."
So first the come for the nude people, you fucking asshole.
Re:Brought about by the internet? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think he *does* believe it "as an American". The value in question is a strong veneration of the bill of rights. The first amendment in particular has been used to craft or interpret a series of laws that have been wildly beneficial- from allowing religious competition under a secular field, to allowing unpopular opinions to be voiced and protected. Given how many misconceptions were accepted as fact in the past (all visible in hindsight), it doesn't appear to be helpful to prevent the expression of things that we "know are wrong", because history shows that any policy that can block a wrong opinion will also, without question, block a correct one.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is still criminal when you know there's no fire.
You may think this case is easily distinguished from the German case, but consider this: cops have surrounded a suspect. It's a tense situation. You yell, "he has a gun!", knowing there was no gun, and the cops open fire. Should that be criminal? Does it matter that the cops were trigger happy and only needed the barest of excuses to shoot the guy?
Now look at Germany. It's not just about the Holocaust. Only last year people
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Actually since shortly after WW2.
Guess who insisted those laws come into existence. Hint: Germany could issue no laws without the consent of the occupying forces, and usually did at the request or rather demand of them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You're nuttier than a fruitcake.
No one wants to get rid of 6 or 7 billion people.
Those are the customer base.
Christ on a popsicle stick, now what? (Score:2)
I thought it was an unconditional surrender.
"There's no scope for misplaced tolerance towards internet users who spread racist propaganda. That's especially the case in light of our German history."
Perhaps a more important lesson "in light of our German history" is learning that dictators require the power to silence opposition...especially political opposition. They can't wield it if it doesn't exist. Now it does. History gives no confidence it won't ultimately be misused. Your own country, along with ancient Greece and Rome, are prime examples of nominal free democracies that gave up "emergency powers" to someone who never gave it back.
Re: (Score:3)
I thought it was an unconditional surrender.
The Allies wanted the law against Holocaust denial in Germany...
Re: Christ on a popsicle stick, now what? (Score:2, Troll)
Germany was great during Hitler if you were a standard, run of the mill German. If you were Jewish, gay, non-Christian, atheist, immigrant then you were in trouble, it started by losing your job, being relocated and eventually prison or concentration camps. The police grew extra powers such as warrantless spying on citizens, seizure of property and indefinite arrests. Churches, corporations and banks became invulnerable to prosecution and the state sponsored a great deal of them.
The same holds for the curre
Re: (Score:2)
Nazism made worse the conditions caused by the Treaty of Versailles, as any unfree economic system is bound to do. Hitler spending resources on armament instead of allowing a consumer economy to develop hurt everyone except party leaders and those in high places in certain industries, such as Krupp.
The longer a repressive regime stays in power and the bigger it becomes, the smaller is the portion of people whose condition can be
Re: Christ on a popsicle stick, now what? (Score:5, Insightful)
So where are these concentration camps?
In Guantanamo for Muslims and all over the country for black and Latins. Of course there are other points scattered around the globe for torture. Read the CIA torture report, or at least some highlights.
Please do not pretend a problem doesn't exist just because someone wasn't perfect on his list of exceptions on an argument.
The reason for these laws (Score:2)
Don't be mistaken and think that these laws are a model of free speech.
Re:The reason for these laws (Score:4, Insightful)
It was quite reasonable for the victors of WWII to impose temporary restrictions on free speech, given Germany's history. And in the short term, those restrictions were effective. Such restrictions weren't particularly burdensome either, since Germans never had enjoyed free speech rights before. The post-WWII restrictions by the allies were still liberal by historical German standards.
Today, Germany is largely its own master. It could easily abolish these restrictions on free speech if it wanted to. They are retained because Germans like such restrictions, not because anybody is forcing them to.
Re: (Score:2)
It was quite reasonable for the victors of WWII to impose temporary restrictions on free speech, given Germany's history. And in the short term, those restrictions were effective.
Yes.
Today, Germany is largely its own master. It could easily abolish these restrictions on free speech if it wanted to.
Also yes (and thank goodness......who wants to be in charge of some other country?)
Re:The reason for these laws (Score:4, Interesting)
I think you missed the implication: if Germany wants to grow up and become a free and democratic nation, it needs to get rid of these remnants from its dark past.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The reason for these laws (Score:4, Interesting)
If Germany wants to be a democratic nation, it needs to stop criminalizing speech that the German state doesn't approve of. Is that so hard to grasp?
You know very well why those laws were passed. If you're from America, you're going to think they mean "a threat to the common people", or some vague crap like that. In actuality, they're very clear: you cannot make a remark in public that glorifies or approves of the Nazis. You are allowed to talk about them all you wish, and you can even campaign for it under a different name, but you cannot outright display hatred of another person's race or approve of the Nazis. It's exactly that. No more general than that. Given that the same law exists in America (not legally, but socially it does), I don't exactly see why you think this is totalitarian. Especially because social measures can go to anything society disproves of, while the law will always just limit this.
Now, the other reason why I believe you're in the wrong; Germany is not America, and is not beholden to implement what you suggest. They are a different country, and frankly, I don't see why you expect that your view of free speech should be enforced everywhere. I daresay Germany is far more accepting of free speech than the US on a cultural level - and if you want a reason why they have that law, then don't think of the Nazis. Think of the Klu Klux Klan. If you truly are American (as I presume you are), then you should be very familiar with them.
Re: (Score:2)
It was quite reasonable for the victors of WWII to impose temporary restrictions on free speech, given Germany's history. And in the short term, those restrictions were effective. Such restrictions weren't particularly burdensome either, since Germans never had enjoyed free speech rights before. The post-WWII restrictions by the allies were still liberal by historical German standards.
Today, Germany is largely its own master. It could easily abolish these restrictions on free speech if it wanted to. They are retained because Germans like such restrictions, not because anybody is forcing them to.
Like is a strong word. It is more that no one wants to be "soft on nazis", and they still have neo-nazis.
Re:The reason for these laws (Score:5, Insightful)
Hitler was democratically elected, but it was limits on free speech that made that possible. The German government banned a lot of speech by socialists and communists, the people who would have been the primary opposition and political counterbalance to the Nazis. In addition, limits on free speech allowed utter idiots to remain in government and remain above criticism (including von Hindenburg and Kaas, who should have been ridiculed and skewered by the press), and it was the incompetence of these politicians that allowed Hitler to come to power. Banning political speech simply does not work in averting totalitarianism; the only thing that works is more free speech.
NO, Hitler wasn't democratically elected (Score:4, Insightful)
Hitler was democratically elected
He wasn't. He was appointed by Paul von Hindenburg [wikipedia.org]
Re:The reason for these laws (Score:5, Insightful)
Examples of this:
- The BfV (office for protection of the constitution), the domestic intelligence agency, primarily charged with monitoring right wing extremists and disrupting their organizations when possible.
- Home-schooling is illegal in Germany, this is to prevent Nazis from isolating their children from opposing viewpoints, thus hopefully ensuring that eventually the Nazi ideology dies out entirely.
- Restrictions on use of Nazi symbols and Nazi speech (including Holocaust denial)
- Restrictions on certain forms of political speech. For instance, it's illegal to give a public speech or make an advertisement claiming that a particular racial group (e.g. Roma) should not be eligible to receive social benefits, the right to which are enshrined in the constitution.
This is what you do when you want to have a free country, but a minority wants to literally destroy the concept of freedom. The Nazis that are left have to be opposed at every turn lest they spread their disease to others, and enshrining such measures in law adds a measure of comfort that they will never gain power again. If we (the U.S.) had any sense we'd do the same thing with the KKK and symbols of the Confederacy - keeping in mind that this country has engaged in internment, forced sterilization, and genocidal war on the basis of race in the past, and a major candidate for President is running on a platform that includes scapegoating particular groups for economic problems.
None of this, by the way, really infringes on free speech in Germany. The German people take their civil rights very seriously, see for example public reaction and protests over the Netzpolitik scandal.
Re: (Score:2)
If we (the U.S.) had any sense we'd do the same thing with the KKK and symbols of the Confederacy - keeping in mind that this country has engaged in internment, forced sterilization, and genocidal war on the basis of race in the past, and a major candidate for President is running on a platform that includes scapegoating particular groups for economic problems.
That's all good when you're the one choosing who gets to be censored.
Re: (Score:2)
If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence. Only an emergency can justify repression. Such must be the rule if authority is to be reconciled with freedom. -Justice Sanford
You have the problem of thinking about what you want now, without considering all the consequences of what you want. You haven't thought deeply about how to reconcile authority with freedom. Those who have, understand why freedom of speech is important.
Re: (Score:2)
There are Nazis and right wing extremists in every country. What distinguishes Germany is that they got into power in 1933. And they didn't get into power because Ger
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The reason for these laws: Evil OK if wrapped i (Score:3, Insightful)
Is the argument that evil, at any extreme, has the right to expression, in the name of free speech?
Does it follow then that you are willing to have the representatives from ISIS come to your local high schools and colleges and use their persuasive tactics to entice your neighbors and their children to massacre innocents in the name of some evil interpretation? Sleep well.
Why shouldn’t a country that has experienced an evil, magnitudes greater than ISIS, be allowed to determine what can, and what can
Re: (Score:2)
long history indeed (Score:5, Interesting)
True: Germany has limited freedom of speech for centuries. It didn't prevent the Nazi rise to power, and it arguably contributed to it.
Perhaps it's time for Germany to actually change its "interpretation of freedom of speech" instead of clinging on to what hasn't worked historically.
Re: (Score:3)
What speech laws did Weimar Germany have? In practice, at least, virtually anything was permitted, from the revolutionary far-left to the revolutionary far-right, and everything in between. Hitler was never arrested for his speech; the only time he was arrested (1923), was because he led an armed paramilitary group to attempt a coup.
pretty meta (Score:2)
I just read: "There's no scope for misplaced tolerance towards group a".
I have mixed feelings...
Hate speech (Score:2, Interesting)
Maas requests that Facebook obeys the law and deletes posts containing hate speech and calls for violence. Such shit is even illegal in the US. However, FB is unwilling to comply. They have no problem filtering naked breasts out (which would in most cases be no problem in Germany, but are a problem in the US for no apparent reason). BTW the hate speech going on in FB in Germany is written by Germans and in read by Germans and it is illegal in Germany, so it would be sufficient if FB would employ people able
Re: (Score:2)
There is no evidence that FB is "unwilling to comply". They haven't responded yet, and there are no legal charges or indictments. Maas wanted press coverage and appeal to German nationalism, and you have fallen for it.
Personally, I wish Facebook and other Internet companies actually had the balls to close their German operations and tell these proto-fascists to get lost.
Re: (Score:2)
Maas wanted... [to] appeal to German nationalism,
The irony of which would be hilarious, if it wasn't terrifying.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it has everything to do with free speech. Here in the US, it is absolutely legal for me to say, for example:
"Those pig-fucking ape-brained Germans should be exterminated, each and every one. Everyone should find the nearest Germans, burn them out of their homes and shoot them down as they flee, men, women and children alike. And in the future, little children should be taught in school to celebrate the wholly righteous total genocide of the German people."
Because, you see, in the US I actually
Recent events (Score:5, Informative)
Maas' statement is to be seen in the light of recent events. Following a larger-than-usual wave of refugees, there has been a major outbreak of racist uproar in (mostly eastern) Germany, not only on the Net, but on the streets, too, with groups of neonazi extremists allied with so-called "concerned citizens" demonstrating, shouting hate and sometimes throwing stones or bottles in front of refugee hostels, and a new arson attack on a refugee hostel every other day (most of them, until now, having been empty at the time of the crime, with no refugees being hurt yet, but I fear that's just a matter of time). German government seems to very, very slowly notice that this comes as a result of a development both their domestic and foreign policies over the last 25 years have some responsibility for.
Re: Recent events (Score:4, Insightful)
It is okay for people to defend their country and culture by lobbying for stricter immigration laws and the like.
It is NOT okay for them to burn down buildings that may contain living people just because they don't LIKE those people.
What does do business mean? (Score:2)
if Facebook wants to do business in Germany, then it must abide by German laws.
Does "do business" mean sell advertising or does it mean allowing citizens of Germany to access it's pages. I can see how Germany could legally control allowing foreign companies from doing business in Germany (selling advertising in this case), but I don't see how Germany could prevent its citizens from accessing the whole internet (Facebook in this case), unless it wants to try to be like China or North Korea. I can see trying to restrict the monetary flow in or out of a country, but trying to restrict th
Re: (Score:3)
Start topics denying Germany exists (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
What the hell is a "Germany?" Never heard of such a thing.
Kommen auf Mich, bruder!
Extraterritorial jurisdiction gone amuck (Score:3)
Of course the USA is no different. In 2009, Gary Kaplan, the boss of London-based gambling company BetOnSports, fell foul of a US law that bans Americans from placing bets online even on websites outside the US. He was jailed for four years. In 2006, three British former NatWest bankers were extradited to the US to face fraud charges, in a case that frieked out the British business community. At the time, the bankers said their crimes had taken place in the UK and the victim was a UK bank hence they wanted to be tried in Britain.
Of course to some degree you need jurisdiction preventing piracy at sea and so international treaties are needed in this case that allow countries to consent to having their citizens tried in another country.
Here, perhaps Facebook could block content using IP addresses, but in the case of the EU 'Right to be forgotten', the European Commission wants Google's search results censored throughout the world. That is absurd! And claiming that "It doesn't matter that we, because of historical reasons, have a stricter interpretation of freedom of speech than the United States does" is a legitimate legal argument for limiting free speech means that for all practical purposes the first amendment is gutted. China could ban the Wikipedia page on Taiwan and the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and subsequent mass killings by the Chinese army. Christian sites could be banned by Islamic regimes. Anything to do with psychology or science that offends any regime would be censored. We would be back in the dark ages.
I think there is another point. Some rights are inalienable - meaning they are incapable of being alienated and surrendered. Free speech is one of those rights. The fact that the EU fails to recognize this fact, does not change it. Indeed this concept was hinted at during shortly after founding of the UN when the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) was unanimously agreed. The preamble states:
Recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice, and peace in the world.
Re: (Score:2)
Germany does have a unique history (Score:3)
But every single person in the country knew the Nazis had been rounding up jews and killing anyone who helped hide them. Many had to realize that millions of jews had disappeared and there weren't anywhere near enough soldiers left in country to guard and take care of them. Many knew that some jews were being used as slave labor. So basically, an unknown but large percentage of the country didn't outright commit war crimes but did collaborate with the Nazis to some degree.
You can't prosecute 25% of your country. So they just said "We aren't going to pretend this didn't happen. it's illegal to deny it happened. But we aren't going to let it happen again either -- it's illegal to try and spread racial hate through speech." It was a compromise to prevent having to throw 20% of the country in jail. It's not crazy, it's just very foreign to American concepts.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"We aren't going to pretend this didn't happen." Except that is exactly what they did. You cannot even learn about the Nazis in Germany, as they ban all content the mentions them. America and the rest of the world gets Nazi and holocaust documentaries and novels, German citizens don't.
That is news to me. Just go to amazon.de and search for "Hitler", "das dritte Reich", or whatever else you want to look for. And the last time I was in Berlin, there are plenty of exhibitions showing you more than you ever wanted to know.
Re: (Score:3)
"We aren't going to pretend this didn't happen." Except that is exactly what they did. You cannot even learn about the Nazis in Germany, as they ban all content the mentions them. America and the rest of the world gets Nazi and holocaust documentaries and novels, German citizens don't.
are you really so ignorant? There is noplace on eather where one is more inundated with documentaries and films about the abuses of the nazis, than modern day Germany. There is no country on the planet earth that has done more to own their role in the horrors of the 20th century than Germany, which is one of the reasons why the majority of Germans are now pacifists. Along with making certain forms of hate speech illegal they actully succeeded in socially excising the machismo, tough guy/brute social role o
Laws Equal Legal Action (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Wow. That's pretty ignorant.
It's also a crime in Germany to spread hate speech. Facebook is therefore breaking the law. I would say Maas' response is quite measured. Instead of taking Facebook to court, he asked to reach an agreement that could benefit both parties. Presumably so he can do what you suggest, namely, go after the people who are posting this illegal racist crap.
Just because Germany has different rules than the US does not mean that those rules are wrong. Try expanding your world-view a tiny bi
Just block any country that makes these claims (Score:2)
Or better yet, have them click some sort of agreement where they agree they're not german. Just some sort of legal mechanism to move the jurisdiction of the site even more clearly out of their legal authority.
It's absolutely stunning how WAY OFF most of you a (Score:5, Informative)
As a native German, I have to say that 99% of the responses I read here are so WAY OFF reality, I'm absolutely stunned.
Just a few short comments for those of you who care to be educated:
- Maas politely invited Facebook to have a discussion on that topic. Nothing more, no laws or courts involved.
- Mentioning Nazi topics is not at all prohibited in Germany. On the contrary, the topic is extensively discussed in history school books, every-night TV documentations, exhibitions, public memorials in every city and town (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolperstein), and our schoolchildrens' education on the topic is probably the most extensive in the world. A visit to a former concentration camp is mandatory for everyone in high school.
- The book "Mein Kampf" is not at all prohibited and may be sold if it includes academic historians' comments.
- What _is_ prohibited is showing certain Nazi symbols (e.g. swastika) or using Nazi expressions (e.g. "Sieg Heil!" or "Mit Deutschem Gruss!") in a supportive context. This very sentence, for example, is perfectly legal in Germany, because my context is explanatory, not supportive.
- Of course there is protection of free speech in Germany. And that freedom ends exactly where freedom of others starts. What is prohibited is public speech that aims at depriving minorities (religious, ethnical, etc.) from constitutional rights, or calls for criminal acts. If can't personally find this to infringe on my freedom.
Re: (Score:2)
- Of course there is protection of free speech in Germany. And that freedom ends exactly where freedom of others starts. What is prohibited is public speech that aims at depriving minorities (religious, ethnical, etc.) from constitutional rights, or calls for criminal acts. If can't personally find this to infringe on my freedom.
I find it useful to allow people to speak such offensive things. This makes it easier to identify the assholes.
Re: (Score:2)
Merkel & Streisand v. Internet (Score:2)
We'll see how this works out
Can they be more specific? (Score:2)
Without knowing exactly what they are asking for we can't properly tell them how what they are asking for is impossible.
How about Armenia? (Score:3)
Hey, Germany, does denial of the Armenian holocaust count?
If so then WTF is anyone considering Turkey for EU membership?
If not then WTF double standards anyone?
Promoting Fascism/Pedophelia (Score:4, Insightful)
This is not about "free oppinion" but about "redefining the past to prepare future crimes".
In germany you are free to promote national socialism as long as you do not deny its past flaws. This way a fascist has a harder time to prepare future crimes.
In the US you are free to promote pedophelia as long as you do not deny its past flaws. This way a pedophile has a harder time to prepare future crimes.
There is also the Markus Nessler parable:
One day some stranger starts following you while shouting "you stole my money, my jacket and my shoes!"
He continues to do so for some days then starts shouting "someone help me to get back my money, my jacket and my shoes!"
A couple of days later people start demanding from you to give back that mans money, jacket and shoes.
And some days later the man with help from some people takes away your money, your jacket and your shoes by force.
And everyone will say "you had it coming, he asked you for days to give back his money, his jacket and his shoes".
And that is the difference between "free speech" and "redefining the past to prepare future crimes". And thats the reason why you can shut up people by court order. Even in the US.
Re: (Score:2)
(a) it is too late for that now. If you have a time machine, go back shot Hitler and the other Nazis in 1932 and before. We would all be very happy if you could do that.
(b) holocaust denial is part of typical Nazi hat speech. So it is only an example of hate speech and not the only kind of fascistic hate speech. And it should be obvious to everybody that such crimes must be punished and that such post must be deleted, but flipping FB is unable to comply because it is in German. For such a rich company this
Re: (Score:2)
Do you think that hate speech should not be removed from FB? Interesting.
Re: Germany wants a lot... (Score:5, Insightful)
Define hate speech.
A devout Christian thinks homosexuality is an abomination and posts some passionate stuff about it.
An atheist posts some passionate stuff against religion - and targets one, like Judaism.
And I have seen things here on Slashdot that could be considered hate speech by the overly sensitive. Look at the posts for any article about diversity in tech here on Slashdot.
If you do not like what someone says ; ignore it, argue against it or make fun of it (Mel Brooks is a God in that domain) - but NEVER ban it because it gives the 'haters" more power. People like banned things.
Re: (Score:2)
"Define hate speech."
That's the problem. France has pre-Charlie laws making it illegal to criticize Islam. Can they reach oiut over the Internet and censor American comics? How about our profusion of ads for greasy fast food? Thailand still makes lèse-majeste, criticizing the king, a crime.
Let each country have fun trying to program a firewall to keep its own version of the bad stuff out.
Re: Germany wants a lot... (Score:5, Interesting)
They're weeds. You need to cut them down and drive them out.
No, you need to expose them. You need to let them spew whatever drivel they want out in public, and then publicly refute them. If you make their words illegal, then you drive them underground to persuade others in private, giving them an excuse never to expose their lies to the sunlight of public refutation.
And people certainly do like banned things; it makes them feel that they're learning some secret information that the powers that be have ulterior motives for concealing.
Re: (Score:2)
We are better off knowing about the haters than to have them seething behind our backs.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I think it should be up to FB what content they allow and don't allow on their site. It shouldn't be up to the government of a country that has time and again failed at democracy and that still idolizes authoritarianism.
Re: (Score:3)
"... has time and again failed at democracy and that still idolizes authoritarianism."
Right, like the time that the highest court in the country, that had been stacked by the previous right wing governments, decided the election against the popular vote.
Where districts are constantly gerrymandered to engineer the desired voting results.
Voter roles are getting purged and the identification requirements made ever more difficult to ensure only the right people get to vote.
Lines for polling stations wind around
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Plus, if you let them spout on Facebook, they're easy as hell to keep track of. A simple regexp can do it.
Re: (Score:2)
The point is everyone has the freedom of speech.
The fact that Facebook is in a better position than individuals to resist state coercion to the contrary is besides the point.
People don't magically gain rights because they form together in a group. Employees of Facebook and police in Germany alike don't gain any ability to silence people or kill people, any more than you or I could.
Re: (Score:2)
So Germany can have an American librarian extradited for loaning Mein Kampf to a German citizen visiting Milwaukee?
That rationale seems a bit... irrational.
Re: (Score:2)
...especially since Jews and Israelis are the LAST people who would want to censor anyone. They're usually the first ones to get abuse by something like this.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I agree with the rest of what you wrote, but one correction - Of those three, only credible threats actually break the law (with a few temporary state-by-state exceptions for cyberbullying).
Hate speech absolutely does not violate US law. Inciting to violence against them, sometimes (again, if credible); Ranting until you go horse about the evils of Muslims or gays or
Re: (Score:3)
And then people will hear it in secret places, in the dark corners and hidden holes where there is no one to shine a light and call out the bullshit. And thus does evil grow.