Munich Court To Try Facebook's Zuckerberg For Inciting Hatred (dw.com) 179
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Deutsche Welle: A Munich court has opened a lawsuit against Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, German media reported on Friday. News outlet "der Spiegel" wrote on its website, before the main weekly magazine's Saturday release, that it had obtained court documents charging the social media mogul with incitement to hatred. Zuckerberg is reportedly being charged alongside Facebook CEO Sheryl Sandberg, chief Europe lobbyist Richard Allan, and his Berlin counterpart Eva-Maria Kirschsieper. According to Spiegel, the complaint comes from the Wurzburg-based attorney Chan-jo Jun. In the suit, he accuses Facebook of tolerating appeals for murder, threats of violence, and Holocaust denial, among other things. Laws regulating hate speech in Germany are extremely tight, with most Nazi symbolism and racist propaganda strictly forbidden, a legacy of Germany's role in World War II. Although Facebook is obliged to remove illegal content from its site, it has repeatedly garnered hefty criticism for the time it takes to do so.
schadenfreude is German too (Score:5, Insightful)
Good (Score:5, Funny)
It is about time. He has certainly incited a lot of hatred in me.
Thank you nice peaceful Germans for confirming that my hatred doesn't indicate anything wrong with me, it is caused by Zukerberg. Get him!
Re: (Score:1)
German hate speech laws (which are there for a reason)
Auschwitz was also there for a reason.
The cure for repression is not more repression.
Re: (Score:3)
Nazis get repressed because they're violent antisocial cunts. Deal with it.
So just to be safe, we have to censor all speech that can in any way be interpreted as nazism, instead of just letting the person ruin their own credibility. Fine people these Germans are.
It's no wonder the US issued a stark warning about Germany:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Shouldn't they sue paper manufacturers? (Score:2)
An awful lot of illegal things, including hate speech, and hateful images, have been written on, drawn on, or printed on paper.
Equally valid t blaming facebook for user content. Equally ridiculous.
Re: (Score:2)
No, thats not equal.
Once the paper leave the manufacturing plant, the paper manufacturers don't have any control over what happens with their paper.
But Facebook can control what messages are distributed using their services. And they do: They are fast to remove anything they consider erotic by the somewhat prude US standards, but they lag when it comes to complying with actual laws of the countries they are active in.
Re: Shouldn't they sue paper manufacturers? (Score:1)
But if paper manufacturers COULD do such a thing, it's fair to legally REQUIRE them to do so? #listentoyourself
Re: (Score:1)
Equally valid t blaming facebook for user content. Equally ridiculous.
Facebook has shown in the past that it has automatic censoring and manual censoring in place. Since they are already censoring everything they don't like they may as well censor things that are actually illegal. Also it is often mentioned when corporate censorship comes up that facebook is privately owned and your right to free speech does not apply to privately owned property.
Re: (Score:1)
So I guess drunk driving is all fine and dandy as long as no one gets hit?
Re: schadenfreude is German too (Score:1)
It's the one argument they never seem to address, ever.
Might be because any time this discussion comes up, it is met with the "OMG OMG BIGBROTHER" hysteria reaction. Of course, the same applies to discussion of gun control, health insurance, refugees, climate change, banking reform, and whatever the latest thing the right-wing is having vapors over.
It's really hard to hear the other side when you start screaming that the end is nigh.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Not the "OMG OMG BIGBROTHER" hysteria reaction.
Imagine though, if Facebook or any other social media were forced to remove or not allow posting of anything anyone found objectionable.
By the time you added up the concerns of individual countries like Germany, France, Turkey, China, North Korea, and take individual groups concerns, PETA, the Tumbler crowd, Religion pro or con, or any other group that is offended at something, you come up with nothing allowable.
Because for whatever is out there, someone hates it.
I would suggest that if Germany find
Re: (Score:2)
You could just try ignoring them. Seriously, don't bother engaging them and go about living your life. You'll save yourself some stress, and you'll avoid validating them.
It's funny how trends come in waves. This has all happened before, and no doubt it'll happen again. Now, the detractors call it "SJW". I don't know what they call themselves. But in the 1990s, it was the exact thing, only we all called it "political correctness". And you know what? The 1990s college kids eventually graduated, found
Re: (Score:3)
But in the 1990s, it was the exact thing, only we all called it "political correctness". And you know what? The 1990s college kids eventually graduated, found out that the BS doesn't fly in the real-world workplace, and grew the fuck up.
Except it didn't happen how you think it happened. An awful lot of stuff that people dismissed as "PC rubbish" has become part of the culture. For example homophobic slurs were common in the 90s, and pretty socially acceptable and the people speaking out against were dismis
Re: (Score:2)
First they came for our racial slurs, but I said nothing because I wasn't a racist.
Then they came for our anti-women slurs, but I said nothing because I wasn't a misogynist.
Then they came for our sexual orientation slurs, but I said nothing because I wasn't a homophobe.
Then they came for me, and I called them a my friends because there weren't any other words left.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, whatever it takes! Won't somebody save us from this terrible free speech? These... people on the internet have ugly opinions, it's a travesty! They must be stopped!
Re: (Score:2)
Oh Germany... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Oh Germany... (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact that that Zuckerberg is Jewish makes the fact that he is being named in a German lawsuit about hate speech an holocaust denial particularly deliciously ironic.
Yes. Likewise, it is rather devilishly clever how fast freedom of speech can be called into question when it is renamed Hate. After all, hate is in the eye of the beholder, and everyone has the right to be offended. Too.
Christ, we are a mess.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The fact that that Zuckerberg is Jewish makes the fact that he is being named in a German lawsuit about hate speech an holocaust denial particularly deliciously ironic.
Yes. Likewise, it is rather devilishly clever how fast freedom of speech can be called into question when it is renamed Hate. After all, hate is in the eye of the beholder, and everyone has the right to be offended. Too.
Christ, we are a mess.
The correct response in most cases is to tell the offended person to grow up and get the fuck over it. Words don't really hurt you, only your own overreaction to them gives such power to whoever says them.
I personally accepted long ago that with several billion people in the world, I'm not going to like the opinions and beliefs of all of them. Also, plenty of them won't like my own thoughts. None of this gives me the right to censor anyone. Understanding that is part of growing up - so is understanding
Re: (Score:2)
Excellent response. Your points are not just rhetorically good ones, they are philosophically as well.
I'm still watching the video of the Hillary supporters who harassed, mocked, and abused the homeless woman in Hollywood who had been sitting there with a sign supporting Trump. Its so sickening that liberalism has been hijacked by the most disgusting sociopaths who represent that antithesis to actual liberal ideals.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If only it were limited to that. But it's not. The denial, the bigotry, leads to realization, to action, to results. Bullies don't bully just because it gives them an emotional thrill, though that is part of it. They do it because of the results it gets.
But thinking it is that simple is censorship in itself. At best, maybe you will grudgingly tolerate those with another opinion or perspective, but ultimately, you are refusing to recognize them which means if nothing else thay you must be censoring them in your own mind.
However, you think about that though, the real story is that if the people who would abuse truth and freedom are given free reign, they risk harming us all. At some point, there has to be a line.
I couldn't have summed it up any better myself. Exactly this kind of fear drives many feckless idiots such as yourself to believe censorship is cool.
They think if they don't "shut up" their opponents by means of leveraging their states monopoly on violence they will be doomed, Hitler will rise from his grave or consensus for a certain ideology you are diametrically opposed to will be forever lost to evil.
Freedom isn't free, you have a voice just like everyone else. If you give a shit you can work to bolst
Re: (Score:2)
Christ, we are a mess.
If only people could be convinced to leave religion completely out of this. The world is either supported on the backs of four elephants, themselves resting on the back of a turtle, OR it is being held up for eternity by the deity Atlas. So the Elephantians, asking the Atlassians what happens when Atlas needs to pee or gets itchy on his back, are subject to "hate speech" charges? I don't know about you, but for me it's impossible to take either Atlassians or Elephantians seriously, and the harder they try t
Re: (Score:2)
If we revert suddenly to dark times and dictatorships, whether due to technology's backfiring, natural disaster, or a geopolitical shift, we will once again embrace the narcotic of superstition.
*Swearing in religious terms or foreign languages is not intended to be considered an endorsement of either. Christ!
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
If it were me, I'd just shut down local operations in Germany, block '.de' and let the Nazis that believe in thought crime and want to suppress free speech stay in their safe space.
Re: (Score:2)
If it were me, I'd just shut down local operations in Germany, block '.de'
It is not just Germany. Most European countries have laws against hate speech, and many specifically outlaw Holocaust denial.
Americans often assume that the free speech guarantees in our Constitution are the default, at least in Western countries. That is not true.
Re: (Score:2)
They aren't the default, and that's a problem. I'm not willing to have my rights online crippled to make overzealous douchebags across the sea feel better. Fuck'em.
Re: (Score:2)
Better watch out, there's plenty of screwballs here on /. that believe that your rights should be restricted or suspended because it hurts their feelings. Maybe you can join myself and others in the "defense of speech equals Fascism camp."
Re: (Score:2)
Fine, just don't ever do business outside of the US, which is the only country in the world with an innate right to free speech.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't help it if most subjects in other countries enjoy tyranny in order to never have their feelings hurt or core ideals and/or religion challenged. I certainly wouldn't waste money on developing tech to stop people from voicing their opinions, no matter how insane they are. Even if they're Nazis or terrorists. I prefer bigots be loud and proud, that way I know who they are and they can't claim they're being victimized or oppressed.
Suppression of free speech and freedom of the press is straight up tyr
Re: (Score:2)
If Trump wins it's because he has broad support and people agree with him. That just means there's a lot of assholes here but it's the right of the people to be assholes. I'm not voting for someone like that but I wouldn't try to stop anyone else from doing so. I'm more of a Gary Johnson fan.
You're either free or you aren't. If you prefer to be non-free in order to drive such views underground where assholes just develop a persecution complex you aren't doing yourself any favors.
No one will EVER get to
Sorry NO (Score:2)
Germany can not sue because the German government itself is criminally negligent because they can block it if they want to. Hence for Germany to sue Facebook, Germany must also sue itself. The German government chose not to block Facebook and hence the German government itself is liable. Facebook for all of it's many, many faults is quite simply an open broadcaster of the content created by others and it is the Germans along with the German government who choose to import that content as well as creating it
Re:Sorry NO (Score:4, Interesting)
Germany can not sue because the German government itself is criminally negligent because they can block it if they want to. Hence for Germany to sue Facebook, Germany must also sue itself.
You must be one those people who thinks gun manufacturers are liable when someone shoots someone else with a gun they made.
Do you also think car manufacturers should be liable for automobile accidents?
What about refrigerators? Is it the manufacturers fault when your food spoils? No wait, it must be the electric company's fault for not supplying enough power.
This broken logic has no place here.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that OP's logic is the same as that being used in the suit against Facebook. The ridiculousness of the logic is OP's entire point. Facebook didn't commit, incite, or in any way encourage the hate speech. All they did was offer a platform that allowed others to engage in it. They even actively moved to remove the illegal content, they just (allegedly) didn't do so quickly enough. The suit is holding Facebook responsible not for anything they did, but for something others did with their platform.
Re: (Score:2)
You must be one those people who thinks gun manufacturers are liable when someone shoots someone else with a gun they made.
You should only sue a gun manufacturers when the gun DOESN'T work and it's actually not your fault.
"Gun control means hitting your target." -- I told that as an offhand comment once to a self-proclaimed hippy, and she thought that was like the funniest thing she had ever heard; she laughed about it for over 10 minutes and chuckled for even longer.
OTOH, I was serious, and wasn't laughing for any of it.
Re: (Score:1)
Germany can not sue ...
Quite irrelevant since Germany does not sue. From TFS, "the complaint comes from the Wurzburg-based attorney Chan-jo Jun"
Re: (Score:2)
who is in private practice.
This is his second attempt, the first one was in October 2015 [spiegel.de] (German language). Here is a link for the new one dated 30 September [www.br.de] (also German). The difference appears to be that the Munich prosecutors are actually looking at it.
The article looks to be B.S. (Score:2)
This article appears to be written by someone who understands neither the German legal system nor (probably) the language.
Germany has public prosecutors, I think the US has the same system. This lawyer is in private practice. He has essentially gone to the law-enforcement authorities with a complaint. I looked up a German-language source and it is the second time he has tried this, the first one was in Hamburg last year and it was kicked around for a year before being dropped for "formal reasons".
btw, th
Re: (Score:2)
Germany must also sue itself. The German government chose not to block Facebook and hence the German government itself is liable. ... cough cough ... about free speech? And Germany as a state is not responsible for FB not removing hate speech when it gets asked to do so.
That is nonsense. There is no legal basis to block Facebook, ever heard
Why we never should handed over control of DNS (Score:2, Interesting)
This happening to FB is ironic in that they advocated for the hand over, but this is how the rest of the world is going to treat freedom of speech online.
It was shameful shameful thing we did handing off the control to the UN.
This is a good example of where our state department ought to stand up for an American company. The message to Germany ought to be
"Screw you guys its an American website, Zuck can publish whatever the hell he wants and if you try to come after him or his assets we would be forced to r
Re:Why we never should handed over control of DNS (Score:5, Informative)
The reason Germany has such strict anti-speech laws is actually a tool of oppression from the allies. They didn't want to have another uprising like Hitler leading into World War 3 (also part of the reason the US has military bases in Germany), so they took measures to ensure Hitler's specific type of propaganda would be oppressed.
So Germany is not an example to the world here, but neither were the laws intended to be.
Re: (Score:2)
If they don't want another Hitler, they shouldn't focus their efforts on propaganda, but on heavily regulating methamphetamines.
Re: (Score:2)
Sverigedemokraten hittades.
Re: (Score:2)
The reason Germany (and most of EU) has such strict anti hate-speach laws is that people are idiots and can be swayed to do terrible and idiotic things. We have seen it first hand.
Btw, don't think that can't happen in US. The difference between US and EU in this, is only in where they draw the line.
Re:Why we never should handed over control of DNS (Score:4, Interesting)
And the US certainly isn't trying to make everyone forget the slave period ever existed by banning any kind of racist speech and rewriting literary classics to be politically correct, right?
Re: (Score:2)
tries to ... pretend that Hitler, and everything associated with him, never existed
Except that's not true.
Re:Why we never should handed over control of DNS (Score:4, Interesting)
Anti-Jewish sentiment in Germany was enormous before Hitler. Hitler wasn't some propaganda monster, he merely tapped into a current of hate that already existed. The hate that existed against Jews in Germany (and Austria) is disgusting. Look at some of the things Wagner said about Mendelssohn as one small example. Mahler was surrounded by hate for a decade merely because of his ancestry.
The Nuremberg show trials were show trials exactly for that reason: so we could blame it all on the leaders, and get over hating each other.
Re: (Score:2)
Hitler was 1/4 Jewish on his mother's side. He was an impoverished loser just trying to survive right up until the outbreak of WW1 - that allowed him to volunteer and be looked after. .
The Jews looked after each other, they gave each other work and generally made sure that they were doing ok. If he had been half-jewish he would have had access to that network. Hate, hate, froths at mouth, hate, hate . .
Hitler came out of WW1 in a far better situation than before the war. To his mind, war had allowed his
Re: (Score:2)
Anti-Jewish sentiment in Germany was enormous before Hitler. ... he merely tapped into a current of hate that already existed.
That is not true.
Hitler wasn't some propaganda monster,
He was. But even more "good" in that area was Goebbles.
Probably, but not to such an extend as you make us believe here.
The hate that existed against Jews in Germany (and Austria) is disgusting.
Like in our days people did not really care about religion or ancestry.
The haters are a small minority, unfortunately there is a big pas
Re: (Score:2)
Anti-Jewish sentiment in Germany was enormous before Hitler. That is not true.
Oh, yes it is. The anti-Jewishness goes back far.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, yes it is. The anti-Jewishness goes back far.
Yes, but not in the sense you implied before.
It always was a minority and mainly the rulers who spread anti jewish hate and laws to exploit them.
However there was no "general hatred" ... actually the percentage of jews was quite high in the german population. It is not really plausible that they would stay in Germany if everyone hated them.
I for my part don't know anyone who has resentments against Jews, or if he had would dare to share them in public.
Re: (Score:2)
It always was a minority
Why on earth do you think it was minority? Defend yourself. In the 1700s, Jews were listed with animals in inventories and such.
I for my part don't know anyone who has resentments against Jews
Good, that's good.
Re: (Score:2)
In the 1700s, Jews were listed with animals in inventories and such.
In what kind of "inventory"?
You might want to read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] or translate the german version with translate.google.com.
Your ideas about Jew in germany and europe after the trimes of the great plagues are simply wrong, sorry.
Re: (Score:2)
By your logic then, we DIDN'T blame the leaders so we COULDN'T get over hating each other.
Something doesn't add up here.
Re: (Score:2)
Different people were in charge of the different regions after the war, so you shouldn't expect the treatment to be the same. Japan was oppressed in different ways (and many Japanese still consider themselves to be a vassal state).
Re: (Score:2)
Then what was the reason for us NOT executing Emperor Hirohito?
Probably because Japan unconditionally surrendered and he was useful as a puppet for propaganda reasons.
Re: (Score:2)
That's your opinion. And it's wrong.
Having lived there for six years, I'll just say that you're full of shit.
Re: (Score:1)
Well, that's certainly one way to spin it.
A more honest way would be to admit that Germany is embarrassed by its past and so it tries to whitewash history and pretend that Hitler, and everything associated with him, never existed. What better way to do that than prohibit anyone from talking about it.
Wow, you know nothing. This was true for the majority during the early part of the cold war, but Germany has become quite exemplary in dealing with a troubled past and the country is plastered with memorials and documentation centers of a high standard. Maybe you should visit instead of talking out of your ass.
Re: (Score:2)
A more honest way would be to admit that Germany is embarrassed by its past and so it tries to whitewash history and pretend that Hitler, and everything associated with him, never existed. What better way to do that than prohibit anyone from talking about it.
Except that's not what happens. Talking about Hitler and the Third Reich is not forbidden. Students learn about it in history class. There are exhibits in museums, at sites of former concentration camps, books are written, films are shot, and more.
What's forbidden is GLORIFYING what Hitler and the Nazis did. Or denying that the Holocaust happened.
Re: (Score:2)
"Screw you guys its an American website, Zuck can publish whatever the hell he wants and if you try to come after him or his assets we would be forced to retaliate against German citizens and German companies with assets in the USA. If you don't like his website, firewall it"
If it were me, I'd just shut down local operations in Germany, block '.de' and let the Nazis that believe in thought crime and want to suppress free speech stay in their safe space.
Technical solutions (Score:1)
but of course (Score:5, Insightful)
One of the primary characteristics of the Nazi regime was its suppression of free speech and control of the media by the German government. It is depressing that, rather than defend free speech, Germans have learned nothing from their history.
Re: (Score:1)
It's a result from the post-war period when there really was no other choice, and nowadays free Nazi speech would simply be too annoying for no gain, and no, it would not be a gain for free speech.
Re: (Score:2)
and nowadays free Nazi speech would simply be too annoying for no gain, and no, it would not be a gain for free speech
Free speech is a concept, it doesn't get gains. We do, unless we subvert the whole idea. And when you ban people talking about things, they only talk about them in secret and deprive you of the opportunity to keep tabs on their stupidity.
Germany's banning of even discussing Nazism is foolish at best.
Re: (Score:2)
Germany's banning of even discussing Nazism is foolish at best.
How about you first learn what exactly is banned in Germany before you judge?
Discussing Nazism is NOT forbidden. Forbidden is glorifying the Nazis and the Third Reich or denying facts like the existence of concentration camps or that the Holocaust happened.
Re: (Score:2)
What is forbidden is whatever the people in power want to forbid, and what they usually forbid is things that threaten their power.
In Germany, it's generally illegal to insult the head of state, as well as to refer to politicians, police, and other government officials as "Nazis" or "fascists".
Re: (Score:1)
What @moronoxyd said in the other reply. Nothing worthwhile comes from people denying the Holocaust, and not having that does not undermine anything
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
They seemed to have learnt a lot. From what I remember the fall of Nazi Germany was a war, not an uprising of the people. The lesson from back then was that suppression of free speech worked and worked well.
That law was imposed by allies (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, and for about 20 years, Germans have had the option to repeal such laws.
Re: (Score:2)
One of the primary characteristics of the Nazi regime was its suppression of free speech and control of the media by the German government.
Suppressing free speech on one side and having anti hate speech laws on the other side have nothing much to do with each other.
We have the same free speech laws in Europe (not only Germany) as you in the USA, with one minimal restriction: holocoust denial and hate speech are prohibited. Display of Nazi symbols are prohibited.
It is depressing that, rather than defend fre
Re: (Score:2)
You don't know what you are talking about. German restrictions on free speech are extensive, and different from much of Western Europe, and radically different from the US. Germany has criminal laws against insults, defamation, and slander. Germany has special criminal laws against defaming politicians, express
Re: (Score:2)
Germany has criminal laws against insults, defamation, and slander.
No, we have not. That are civil laws just like in the USA.
Germany has special criminal laws against defaming politicians,
No we have not. The only criminal law in regard of that is insulting foreign politicians.
expressing contempt towards Germany, its constitution, or its symbols.
That is completely wrong.
Defaming the deceased is illegal
Yes, as it is in most countries.
Blasphemy is illegal.
No it is not.
No such criminal laws exist in the US.
Re: (Score:2)
Criminal libel is defined in Art 185-189 of the German criminal code, as well as Art 90 (defamation of the state), and Art. 166 (defamation of religions). Art 130 criminalizes "defaming segments of the population".
Seriously, you need to get a clue about what's going on in your own country.
Re: (Score:2)
Regarding 185 there you might have a point. However it is not executed, unless the person who got "insulted" causes a case. In other words if a policeman is standing right beside me when I insult you, no one would charge me unless you do. In other words it is dead law ...
The other paragraphs (186-189) are not libel related. And ofc I'm completely ok with them.
Then again: A90, did you read the last paragraph? As long as the President is not going to court, there is no case. And then again: you claimed "any p
Re: (Score:2)
It's generally considered a blasphemy law [wikipedia.org].
And that affects the truth of my statement... how?
Sorry, wrong again. Defamation of the German head of state is covered under Art 90. Defamation
Re: (Score:2)
Of course that are different paragraphs/articles, facepalm.
About what again are you nitpicking?
You claimed "germany has laws against insults towards politicians". Which sounds like a general rule towards all politicians.
I pointed out: you are wrong. So? Now you want to weasel around or what?
The only positions that are protected by law are heads of state, our own state and others.
And yes: I'm fine with that. If you are not, that is your problem, not mine.
Why that makes me a Nazi is up to you.
Regarding the "b
Re: (Score:2)
Well, yes, that's what it is. [gesetze-im-internet.de].
I fully accept that Germany is different from the US, which is why I like using Germany as a negative example for what the US shouldn't do.
Yeah, sure, whatever. [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
What is at issue is not what people "believe", but what states actually deliver; sadly, both freedom of speech and freedom of religion are seriously curtailed in Germany.
I encourage you to read up on it; you might learn something.
Re: (Score:2)
As I said before: our free speech is the same as yours.
It is restricted in 4 cases only and most people agree with such restrictions. I most certainly do.
Your believe that you have more freedom just because your restrictions are not coded in laws but in court cases is simply idiotic.
sadly, both freedom of speech and freedom of religion are seriously curtailed in Germany. ... unless it contains practices e.g. rape or human sacrifices which are obviously aga
They aren't. You can perform any religion you want
Re: (Score:2)
We have already established that that is false, with half a dozen German laws criminalizing various forms of speech.
What is "idiotic" is that you don't understand the fundamental difference between a country that can throw you in jail just for insulting someone vs a country that cannot do that.
Re: (Score:2)
We have already established that that is false, with half a dozen German laws criminalizing various forms of speech.
No, we have established that it is true, except for those few laws you cited. Facepalm.
What is "idiotic" is that you don't understand the fundamental difference between a country that can throw you in jail just for insulting someone vs a country that cannot do that.
Actually this did not happen since decades. So?
And actually, you can be punished in your country for the same things, as soon as t
Re: (Score:2)
You are a credit to your country.
Wrong and wrong. And wrong. (Score:2, Insightful)
Dude, you got just about *everything* wrong in that headline. The only correct thing is "Mark Zuckerberg".
No trial. The Attorney Generals of Munich are investigating against Mark Zuckerberg. Big difference.
And it's not for inciting hatred. It is for enabling "Hate Speech". Big difference.
If it ever comes to a trial, I wonder how well this holds up in court.
I doubt it will come to a trial.
A little reminder (Score:1)
If I were Zuckerberg, I would remind the German fascists that he is Jewish and then block all German Facebook accounts, instead showing a big banner saying that Germany hates free speech and/or Jewish run businesses and put up the name and office phone number of the Attourneys General for everyone to complain to.
No leg to stand.. (Score:2)
You can hate Facebook and Zuckerberg all you want, but this particular idea won't do anyone favors...
I mean, if something like this passes, next will be YouTube, Google in general, Reddit, Twitter, Steam, almost any other social network, forum, or virtual space where people gather to comment.
The problem here is not about hate speech, but about defining what exactly is an acceptable time frame for removing offending content on portals that have millions to billions of users. It's a technical limitation. No c
I've never had anything good to say about Facebook (Score:2)
But I'm behind them on this one.
A faster way (Score:2)
The Holocaust obviously never happened. If it really did happen then why would IBM name computers after the guy who sold counting machines to Hitler? And why would Sony let said computer compete on Jeopardy?
The Armenian genocide never happened because Turkey a US Ally and fellow NATO member said so.
Darfur never happened because the UN itself said the government of Sudan didn't have an official policy of Genocide.
Stalin was a US Allie. Good ole Uncle Joe as FDR affectionately called him fighting the good
Germany trying to stay in the news. (Score:2)
The last thing sharp that came out of that country was spouted by that Hitler dude. And he didn't matter in the long run, either.
Zuckerberg == Sugar Mountain (Score:2)
I started learning a little German recently and apparently Zuckerberg translates to Sugar Mountain and now every time I read anything about Facebook I hear Neil Young.
With the barkers and the colored balloons, of course.
Facebook has only itself to blame (Score:4, Insightful)
Really, if you ban nudity faster than you can say "b00b13s!" but leave outright hate speech and incitement to violence up, then you shouldn't be surprised that people actually start holding you accountable.
You either police your userbase, or you don't. If you do it halfway, you leave the impression you're taking sides, at best.
And for the libertard crowd who shout "Freeze Peach!"? You're free to create your own Facebook clone. What right do you have to force your idea of perfect user policies on Facebook, according to your own philosophy?
Re: (Score:2)
And for the libertard crowd who shout "Freeze Peach!"?
Oh look, you're using "hate speech" and disparaging two groups of people, those who value liberty and the mentally disabled by using a word derivative of "retard". Please report yourself to the nearest education center.
You're free to create your own Facebook clone. What right do you have to force your idea of perfect user policies on Facebook, according to your own philosophy?
Yes, legally, at least in the United States, Facebook can set their own policies. Most people who advocate for free speech aren't trying to legally force Facebook to do anything. They're, gasp, using their free speech to argue against Facebook's politically biased policies.
Facebook would like
Breaking: Sealand adds RIAA/MPAA to terrorist list (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ironically, under American law as I understand it this makes them liable for everything else that they don't censor.
No it doesn't.
As a private business, Facebook can prohibit, or "censor" anything they want.
Re: (Score:2)
Fun fact: The laws in question here have been pretty much unchanged in 60 years.
And Germany had 60+ years of (relative) peace. If you look at the history of Germany and western Europe, you will see that 60 years of peace is almost unheard of.
The current laws in Germany are not perfect. But they are based on the experiences we Germans made in the 100+ years leading up to the formation of our current state. Everything we learned from the horrors of the Third Reich, the deficiencies of the Weimar Republic, the
Re: (Score:2)
Europeans will travel to Amsterdam, and Thailand, and so on but nobody wants to go to Germany..
Well, I'm living in Berlin, but I guess all the British and Spanish and French people I thought I see on the streets every day are just in my head, right?