Germany Plans To Fine Social Media Sites Over Hate Speech (reuters.com) 305
Germany plans a new law calling for social networks like Facebook to remove slanderous or threatening online postings quickly or face fines of up to 50 million euros ($53 mln). From a report: "This (draft law) sets out binding standards for the way operators of social networks deal with complaints and obliges them to delete criminal content," Justice Minister Heiko Maas said in a statement announcing the planned legislation on Tuesday. Failure to comply could see a social media company fined up to 50 million euros, and the company's chief representative in Germany fined up to 5 million euros. Germany already has some of the world's toughest hate speech laws covering defamation, slander, public incitement to commit crimes and threats of violence, backed up by prison sentences for Holocaust denial or inciting hatred against minorities. It now aims to update these rules for the social media age.
Double Edge (Score:2, Interesting)
This will backfire so hard.
I am familiar with the German media landscape and people have been complaining about the lying press for years now. Especially the state-funded news stations.
Technically they do not have a lying press, but a press that very often omits and twists, but that is besides the question.
What will happen is that people will report every news statement from those state funded medias on facebook.
Facebook will then face the possibility of effectively removing everything from those medias, or
Not without a lot of pain (Score:3)
After years of safe space demanding snowflakes in the US, we are starting to see them turn into cannibals. During the "woman's day march" fights broke out between different groups, with some groups claiming that the white protesters were not as victimized as others. But it's not enough, and not fast enough. The damage that things like Title 9 have done because of these groups isn't going away any time soon.
Re: (Score:2)
Fighting over who has more victimness? How pathetic can human beings get?
Re: (Score:2)
A ranking to find the most marginalized. Like an international sporting event podium only one group can be the most marginalized.
Re: (Score:2)
Germany does not have state funded/financed press or other media.
Re: (Score:2)
Reality would like to disagree:
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
alternatively: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Sure, officially it is independent, but my point was that it is not at all, which is a huge problem for many people.
Their money comes from the state (well it is collected with authority of the state, not like a private company), their program is set by the state (through politicians who look for a job after their term and often simply through calls or letters from politicians still in office) ther
Re: (Score:2)
Then a political party, cult or publisher learns how well funded the German government is.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, let's just get rid of the mainstream press and follow some random website that agrees with your preconceptions instead. You'll get all the alternative facts you want, everyone will support your conspiracy theories, and you won't be faced with inconvenient truths like global warming.
Why so much hypocrisy from leftists? (Score:4, Interesting)
Why do we see so much hypocrisy from leftists?
On one hand, they're always talking about how important "openness", "tolerance", "acceptance", and "transparency" are.
Yet at the same time, leftists are at the forefront of putting extreme limits on what people can express, and extraordinarily harshly punishing anyone who dares to express an idea that these leftists dislike.
Are leftist ideologies inherently contradictory, resulting in this sort of hypocrisy emerging naturally?
Or is it some problem with the people themselves, such as a mental disorder of some sort, that draws them toward leftist ideologies in the first place, and renders them unable to see their own hypocrisy?
Is there some other explanation?
Re:Why so much hypocrisy from leftists? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
not sure if i agree that tolerance can be justified to use hate speech?
granted the whole SJW politically correct speech has gone "full retard" in most cases.
heck my use of the term probably will have negative reactions anyway but free speech needs to stay free.
Re: (Score:2)
not sure if i agree that tolerance can be justified to use hate speech?
Yes it can because there is no such thing as 'hate speech' unless you can give me some kind of well thought out definition for it that doesn't preventing people from saying what they believe is true ?
I've never seen one, they all basically amount to , I want to sensor opinions I don't believe are correct.
Re: (Score:2)
Political Correctness is fascism pretending to be Manners.
-- George Carlin
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah the corporate and political propagandist trolls are working full time on this story. Want to behave like a dick bag, expect to be called one. Behave like an uncle tom, well, don't be surprised when you are called one. Slime you way into a group, just to use and exploit the group don't be surprised when you are called out and told to bugger off.
When Uncle Tom Obama started random blowing people up with drones, then insults are to be expected and they are whole lot less harmfull than those missiles. Sam
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is the people who will use the very openness of a society to destroy it. See how the Nazis rose to power in Germany. This is known as the paradox of tolerance [wikipedia.org], proposed by Karl Popper, who personally saw everything going to shit, and in the end had to escape Austria before the concentration camps started working.
So no, the Germans know very well what they are doing, and they are doing it right: do not tolerate the intolerant.
Re: (Score:2)
Because it is hate speech. You are just preaching hatred against Islam, not only making the sweeping generalisation that all Islam is intolerant towards gays and women, but even saying that Islam is incapable of changing, by calling it "inherent".
You do get into a lot of trouble in Germany if you preach hatred against gays, for example. And being Muslim doesn't allow you to do it either.
Re: (Score:2)
Who gets to decide? The German parliament has already decided, so you could just look it up [wikipedia.org]. This is not about tolerating any particular group, it is about not tolerating inciting hatred and violence against anyone.
Re: (Score:2)
The question is not about who gets to speak, but what sort of speech is allowed. I only can't see what is the benefit to society of allowing people to openly preach that Jews should be exterminated.
Re:Why so much hypocrisy from leftists? (Score:5, Interesting)
Modern SJW liberalism is VERY different from classic liberalism. I myself am a classic liberal who left the Democrat Party over this. I can no longer support a party that has abandoned the principles of true equality and liberty for a very warped version of "equality" based on simply reversing who gets discriminated against. The liberal ideal I always stood for was that of an integrated society where all groups lived as equals, in union and harmony. The new SJW ideal is that of a re-segregated society where formerly oppressed classes rule and everyone else lives as second-class citizens. No thanks.
Re: (Score:2)
Like 1984 comes to life, Animal Farm also holds heavy relevance in today's political climate.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The liberal ideal I always stood for was that of an integrated society where all groups lived as equals, in union and harmony.
Do you mean equality of outcome or equality of opportunity?
Secondarily, but just as important: should people take responsibility for their own lives and their own decisions or should the government?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
It's only considered "right wing" because the political spectrum is shifted so extremely far to the left in Europe as compared to the rest of the world. The policies they've been responsible for would be considered quite leftist in the US, and even in a more liberal place like Australia.
No "rightist" in any reasonable political spectrum would have allowed in as many illegal aliens as Germany has these past couple of years. No "rightist" would tolerate the numerous violent and deadly attacks committed by the
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
This is coming from the right in Germany. The right wants the laws they support on hate speech, particularly Nazism, applied online. They already made sure that Germany gets special versions of games and movies with the swastikas removed.
Hate speech? (Score:2, Funny)
I know the way Slashdotters vote but... (Score:4, Informative)
I honestly wonder how Slashdotter's feel about the most "left-wing" countries pressing down on any kind of speech they dislike, including criticism of government policies.
I'm a moderate. I swing both ways. ( ;) )
But to me, it's alarming to me how left-wing countries are rapidly approaching and embracing authoritarianism / fascism. (Remember China is a left-wing authoritarian state.) But most people seem to conflate "right wing = authoritarian = bad guys" and "left wing = freedom = good guys."
At least with US politics, there's been a real splintering. The old GOP is still authoritarian. But the newer GOP are much more "pro-gay marraige, get the government out of your bedroom / life." While the old left seems to be more free loving, and the new left is the ones burning down starbucks because someone dared to say something they don't like.
So to head back to Germany. Honestly, I'm glad Trump won (WHAT, OMG, DOWNVOTE YOU BASTARD). Because Hillary had spoken at length about European governments being a "model" to follow and, not even about Hillary, but the thousands of people hoping to get into power and hold influence with Hillary at the helm, I really think the USA would have slanted further toward this idea where violence and government oppression is the cure to speech you dislike. (And when Trump got elected, it represented a clear setback.) And the second you say, "We don't use BETTER speech to defeat speech, we use laws and bats." You have basically tapped into people's primal urge to form lynch mobs, and when have you EVER heard of lynch mobs being associated with "justice?" Moreover, the heavily emotional (as opposed to fact-based) nature of the new left's strategy, leaves TONS of people waiting to be unleashed without any fact checking. People who become pawns for billionaires. People who get arrested while the billionaires can just say "I didn't MEAN they should really riot."
I remember growing up that being a liberal meant two things: 1) I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it. and 2) A diversity of IDEAS and perspectives strengthens us all.
And I'm honestly worried how the left has abandoned both of those core tenets yet somehow uses the same banner and labels. They're abusing the goodwill from decades of goodwork, to make people think their current oppression is still for the good of the world. Like a company buying out a brand name, and corrupting it with cheap knockoffs, but people still remember "The Brand Name" as something good so they get tricked by it.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
it's alarming to me how left-wing countries are rapidly approaching and embracing authoritarianism / fascism
It isn't "left-wing countries," it's lefties in general over the last few decades. There is no greater group of speech-muzzling little tyrants to be found. Try saying something out of alignment with the dictatorial left on a college campus like Berkeley - and get literally beaten bloody and unconscious. And then watch the lefty columnists in the school paper cheer it on! It's astonishing. Or would be, if we hadn't been seeing the liberals/progressives patting their brown shirts on the back for some years n
Re: (Score:2)
This just reinforces the view that the only people fit to lead are those that don't want to.
Re: (Score:3)
Its not our fault that people are dumb enough to buy garbage like pizza gate to the point where some fuckwit with a gun shows up and shoots up a pizza parlor.
This kind of speech is dangerous and while I might have, at one point, believed that nobody of consequence would believe such obvious bullshit that is clearly not the case so now we have to worry about folks that get indoctrinated into this kind of bullshit doing things like killing innocent people.
We used to say that the truth is the best way to inocu
Re: (Score:2)
You have to spin alternative narratives. It's not enough to just say pizzagate is fake, you have to give them a compelling story too. Write about how it was created, by whom and for what reason.
Compare these statements and decide which is more compelling:
Obama isn't a Muslim.
Obama is a Christian.
Re: (Score:2)
wow, i didn't know there were still any other moderates out there.
I don't think I've even heard the term in the media in the last 10 years.
Although i think the situation is worse then you might imagine.
I really believe that about 25% of the people on both the left and the right have been programmed to respond when 'triggered' to whatever activities their common social group might want censored. So that is about 40% of the country total.
However, that is a natural consequence of the indoctrination within our
Re:I know the way Slashdotters vote but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Left wing? What are you smoking? Merkel belongs to the CDU party (christian democratic union) and it is a center - right party.
And speaking of lynch mobs [slashdot.org]. Your very idol Trump is how they happen, not hate speech laws.
If you call yourself a moderate with a straight face then people around you must be so far right that German neo-Nazi groups would feel underachieving in comparison.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What a hateful thing to say ;)
Re:I know the way Slashdotters vote but... (Score:4, Informative)
The old GOP is still authoritarian. But the newer GOP are much more "pro-gay marraige, get the government out of your bedroom / life."
Which "newer GOP" is that? Trump's? Because Trump's GOP is taking a hard turn towards authoritarianism. Sure, he doesn't care about gay marriage, but he's all for silencing the press and any other sort of dissent, wants to massively expand the police state (mostly, but not entirely, in the name of fighting illegal immigration), is happy to use government power to lean on any private business he doesn't approve of, etc. He doesn't care about your bedroom primarily because he doesn't want anyone looking too closely at his bedroom, not because he actually believes in liberty.
Re: (Score:3)
The laws in Germany regarding Nazism were necessary for a time. That time is over now, it's time they moved forward.
Beyond that, harassment should be dealt with. Most of the times people start screaming "censorship!" it turns out to just be harassment. Obviously no system is perfect and mistakes will be made. Law enforcement is imperfect, but still worth having.
Beyond that, every venue should be free to decide what their rules are, or have no rules at all.
Define Hate? (Score:2)
If I say 'what you are doing is wrong'? Do i hate you?
Am I encouraging violence against you? What if I say only evil people do that?
If I say 'who you are voting for is evil' or worse 'people who vote for XXX are evil' Am I spewing hate?
Where do you draw the line.
In my experience ALL attempts at defining hate speech are attacks on free speech. Whoever defined what is 'hate' now has the power to define what is speech.
The only place to draw the line is when someone is standing there say 'we need to get our
Oh thats right (Score:5, Interesting)
In Japan, U.K., Germany, Italy, France and Spain (regions I have shipped games in) these games are 'rated' by an organization controlled by the government. They can be and often are subjected to the political forces of the week. What is and is not allowed is often arbitrary, obtuse, and games are regularly given harsher ratings for espousing political or social beliefs that the government of the year doesn't like. (Not to mention governments of the past, which may have encoded banned images/thoughts into law)
When i first realized this information, it dawned on me how fragile freedom is. As westerners we tend to take it for granted and think that all the developed nations are abundant with freedom. When you look really closely though, freedom is a rather precious, fragile, and rare commodity in the world, deserving of our protection.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's not correct. In the UK we have the BBFC, which is a non governmental organisation that is not controlled by the state. Since 2010 it has had a statutory duty to rate films, but it decides the rating system by itself and has on several occasions been at odds with the government.
It's not perfect and in the internet age it's also less relevant, but it isn't correct to say that it is controlled by the government. Also, freedom of speech is unaffected since it only covers commercial releases, your are sti
Re: (Score:3)
Then why are some films banned in the UK?
Re: (Score:2)
In Japan, U.K., Germany, Italy, France and Spain (regions I have shipped games in) these games are 'rated' by an organization controlled by the government. They can be and often are subjected to the political forces of the week. What is and is not allowed is often arbitrary, obtuse, and games are regularly given harsher ratings for espousing political or social beliefs that the government of the year doesn't like. (Not to mention governments of the past, which may have encoded banned images/thoughts into law)
I'm sure that from a publisher's commercial perspective hitting your desired age rating is important. Short of porn there's not much that restricts parents from doing whatever they want with TV shows and computer games and if it's for adults you can always release it unrated for 18yo+ so the freedom of speech angle is a bit far fetched. Here in Norway it's 6/9/12/15/18 and except for 18+ you can see movies one rating higher accompanied by an adult. So:
Frozen 6yo -> 0yo with adult.
Beauty and the Beast 9yo
Re: (Score:2)
We Germans had a bad time with the nazis
Umm, I think the countries invaded by Germany, such as Poland and Netherlands, etc., had an even WORSE time with the Nazis!
and decided to do something about it.
Actually, it was the allies, British, Amerericans, etc., that did something about it! Some of the earliest hate speech laws ever passed were in Germany during the Weimar Republic and they were used by Nazi's to suppress dissent. Frankly, I find it shocking that a country that lived under such an oppressive regime as the Nazi's would continue with these sorts of laws.
I don't like hate speech laws. (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't like hate speech laws. They tend to be twisted to suppress legitimate political criticism.
Hate speech laws are almost always applied in a disproportionate way. They tend to pick and choose what racist behavior to censor, and what racist behavior is tolerated, compared to what racist behavior isn't tolerated. They pick winners and losers in the game of racism. Rather than condemn all racism, and promote secular egalitarianism.
Are Neo-Nazis, and the KKK Terrorists? Yes.
Are they a Protestant Christian Terrorist group that would not only attack Blacks, and Jews, Muslims but also Catholics, calling them Worshippers of Ba'al and Asherah? Yes.
Is Evangelical Protestant Christianity a dangerous cult that is a clear and present danger to Democracy, Secularism, and the rule of law, and civil rights? Yes.
Is it considered racist against white people or all Christians to say that? No. Because there are many sects of Christianity. With varying interpretations, and this points the finger of one particular violent cult.
Are ISIS and Al-Queada Terrorists? Yes.
Are they a Sunni Wahabi Islamic that would not only attack Blacks, and Jews, and Christians, but also Shites/The Shia for being Heretics for believing the wrong Successor to Muhammad was Ali? Yes.
Do the Sunni Wahabi Muslims represent all of Islam? No. There are several variants of Islam. From Shia, to Amadi, Alloyaite, etc.
Is Sunni Wahabi Islam a dangerous cult that is a clear and present danger to Democracy, Secularism, and the rule of law, and civil rights? Yes.
Is it considered racist against all Sunni Arabs or Arabians in general? Yes, but thats only because the Saudis have successfully lobbied governments to conflate critics of this ideology with critics of brown people.
As long as hate speech laws work this way, real racism, real hate, and real bigotry will go unchallenged.
Re: (Score:2)
"Is Evangelical Protestant Christianity a dangerous cult that is a clear and present danger to Democracy, Secularism, and the rule of law, and civil rights?"
I disagree with you - the Christians I know mostly fall into this particular section of the spectrum, and not a single one is a threat to or opposed to democracy or the rule of law. I nearly modded you down, but... free speech is important! You have your opinions, I have mine. An open discussion and dialog is more important than trying to silence our op
Re: (Score:3)
I would concur that they are a 'threat' to secularism, in that they believe and will preach in opposition to it, but the OP stated "Democracy, Secularism, and the rule of law, and civil rights". Using "and" makes it inclusive, and if even one of the four listed is not true then the whole statement becomes untrue. But I digress.
As for civil rights, I would say that depends on what rights you are looking at. Free speech, self defense, the right to life... all of these are fully supported by Christianity (both
Re: (Score:2)
Real heat is in the hearts of mankind.
It will never be overcome unless there is a God to overcome because it is beyond the power of mankind.
Effect Other Nations? (Score:2)
Merkel hates speech (Score:2)
For once can't a US company pull out of just one repressive country instead of capitulating to their asshattery?
Massive welcome signs costing thousands of immigrants their lives
Pursuit of "hate speech" charges against political adversaries
Banning religious attire
German government can't compete in the market of ideas so they shut it down out of fear of losing control. Way past time Merkel finds a new line of work.
One thing is for sure... (Score:2)
Call their bluff. (Score:2)
I love you guys and your opinions are correct (Score:2)
Re:This is a wise move (Score:5, Insightful)
Free speech comes before anything else.
What? Are you in favor of blasphemy laws?
Can't defame the government?
Are you f**ked up stupid? There should be no laws against political speech; no laws regarding expressing your thoughts (even if they are vile).
Why? Because who decides what is, and what is not vile? We certainly can't use a majority vote for this? Who then? Which f**king gov't officials would you give that power to?
Laws against advocating violence against a particular person or organization or property is the only thing that *maybe* acceptable.
I hate Obama / Trump. Is OK.
Obama / Trump should be killed. Is morally horrible but should not be illegal.
Kill Obama / Trump now. Is morally horrible and I can compromise on making that statement illegal.
But political statements should always be illegal. Government tyranny and oppression is far worse than the vile statements.
Re:This is a wise move (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't be silly. Hate speech in Germany is real simple. Here are some examples:
HATE SPEECH: Angela Merkel's immigration policy is stupid
NOT HATE SPEECH: Angela Merkel's opponents are Nazi, baby-killing, racist, misogynist scum!
HATE SPEECH: I disagree with the principals of Islam and feel it's a real threat to our country and its identity.
NOT HATE SPEECH: Christian priests are nothing but a bunch of molestors who should be hanged!
Re: This is a wise move (Score:2)
Ya rly. What does a personal distaste for ostentatious patriotism displays have to do with hate speech? Many Europeas share Pratchetts opinion on it:
"I'd be very worried if I saw a man singing the national anthem and waving the flag, sir. It's really a thing foreigners do."
"Really? Why?"
"We don't need to show we're patriotic, sir... We don't have to make a fuss about being the best. We just know."
I can't believe that I actually defend Merkel. Can't stand her, but these accusations are stupid, and so are tho
Re: (Score:3)
So yes, these law
Re: (Score:2)
But this is 2017. Germany, supposedly, is a free country standing on it's own. If it is a free country then these laws should not exist; and most importantly they ought not be defended.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, Germany isn't likely to piss of their occupiers these days, because all parties have basically the same worldview. You might make an argument that there is no use for keepi
Re: (Score:2)
You're an idiot for stating that Germany is still an occupied country.
Really? What exactly would you call a country that has more external military than local military? A hotel? A brothel?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I sort of agree, but the thing is the Germans have extreme negative experience with what hate-speech can do. Maybe if the US had had a 3rd Reich on their ground, things would look different there too. That said, as far as I understand it this is about "kill xyz now"-type of speech.
Re:This is a wise move (Score:4, Interesting)
Agreed. 100%. "Hate Speech" is a cop-out for Censorship -- which is bullshit.
I came across this fantastic commentary [youtube.com] on a YT video:
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe you're interested in what is classified as hate speech in Germany [wikipedia.org]: publicly incite hatred against parts of the population or to call for violent or arbitrary measures against them or to insult, maliciously slur or defame them in a manner violating their (constitutionally protected) human dignity.
So saying the blacks should be sent to Africa is not ok. Saying that Muslims are terrorists is also not ok. Calling Mexicans rapists is also not ok. And this is as it should be.
Re:This is a wise move (Score:5, Insightful)
Face it, once you start banning speech, the kind of speech that will be banned is the kind that is disliked by the ruling class. Thus it has always been.
Re: (Score:2)
And who is to decide? Common decency & humanity will do. But the internet has proven to be uninterested in displaying such common ground, (and actually hosts venomous personalities & groups). So in other words "someone's gotta do it".
We should let the people who can muster the most outrage and draw the maximal offense decide for everyone else... what the hell... "Someone's gotta do it".
You know darn well the difference between 'free speech' moving to 'boisterous rambling' to 'shit talking' and finally to 'hate & violence inspiring speech'. You & I may be immune to nutjobz spewing nonsense but some people are not.
When people say they want all abortion doctors to die because they honestly believe they are in fact murders what are they? Is this just shit talking? Is this inciting violence? Is it hate speech? Is it free speech? The only thing I know darn well is language belongs to EVERYONE... not just you or people who think the way you do.
And they are called to action by such 'free' speech.
Most proponents of c
Re: (Score:2)
1764275% right. Accessory before the fact? No such thing, I just made it up.
Re: (Score:2)
Let me be the first to congratulate it on what a great job it's doing.
Civil forfeiture, the TSA (which has jurisdiction everywhere because the entire country defined as a border because nowhere is more than 27,000 miles of an airport), a standing army disguised as police.
If it wasn't for people who fantasize about being Dirty Harry those things would be real.
Re:This is a wise move (Score:5, Informative)
For various reasons including avoiding US taxes and generating localized ad revenue directly, Facebook does have holdings in various countries including Germany. Thus they are (partially) a German company and thus have to adhere to local laws. Facebook could easily avoid this by repatriating all it's holdings and income to the US, whether that is good for the US, Facebook or German economies is an entirely different question.
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty certain that Facebook (and Intel, Apple, Microsoft, whatever) have formed legally independent entities from which to operate in Germany. Worst that could happen is that Facebook GmbH (the German subsidiary) gets nuked, leaving Facebook (US) untouched.
(...and vice-versa - for instance, Solarworld is the biggest Solar panel maker in Germany, but their independent subsidiary, Solarworld USA, is legally separate, with its own C-level, its own financial and tax structure, its own distinct set of c
Re: (Score:2)
For various reasons including avoiding US taxes and generating localized ad revenue directly, Facebook does have holdings in various countries including Germany. Thus they are (partially) a German company and thus have to adhere to local laws. Facebook could easily avoid this by repatriating all it's holdings and income to the US, whether that is good for the US, Facebook or German economies is an entirely different question.
Why mix taxes into this issue? There are many countries that offer much more competitive tax rates than the U.S. but don't have the draconian hate speech laws that Germany has. Perhaps it would make more sense to move operations there.
That was my point (Score:4, Insightful)
My point was that I agree with GP but would have used different wording. I fully agree that all speech should be legal, and thankfully in the US we have a Constitutional protection (for now) on free speech. I just saw from SXSW that a group of Germans was lecturing people about how speech needs to be prevented, and they could not answer some basic questions. Like: Who determines what is and is not "hate" speech?
Germans should know better. Prior to starting off two major world wars their leadership did exactly what they are doing. Stifle free speech, push propaganda, control the populace.
Hey Germans, what ever happened to "nie wieder"?
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, different cultures/governments hold speech in differing regards. Germany doesn't hold it in as high regard as the UK does, and the UK doesn't fully enshrine it as a near-holy and near-inviolable law like the US does.
Re: (Score:2)
IOW, the mainstream positions of the German government (and others) are so weak and vapid they have to censor anything they disregard as hate speech? Very telling.
Maybe their position wouldn't be so weak and vapid if they didn't ignore reality. Maybe there is something wrong with your position if the only reasonable response is government intervention via censorship and a Ministry of Truth.
Re: (Score:2)
Commit hate speech? You mean say stupid shit?
The more you try to "stifle" them the more you legitimize them because they have something to say that the government won't let them say. You galvanize support and you create martyrs.
Innocent until proven guilty. Yes, you have to wait until actions that are illegal besides "saying stupid shit". How far are you going to outlaw "saying stupid shit"? How many innocent individuals are you willing to oppress to feel safer from mean words?
Restraint in the face of necessity is as bad as reckless action in a crisis.
The road to hell is paved with
Sarcasm and Irony (Score:2)
Two forms of comedy which must be banned under "hate" speech because it is impossible to discern comedy from hate. That is exactly why comedians will no longer perform on College campuses in the US today, and most stopped a decade ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Two forms of comedy which must be banned under "hate" speech because it is impossible to discern comedy from hate. That is exactly why comedians will no longer perform on College campuses in the US today, and most stopped a decade ago.
It's somewhat an open secret these days that colleges are not places of free speech like they once were. If you don't follow certain unwritten speech rules, you'll be kicked out. This can even include not speaking at all, such as simply reading a book that has a title that somebody doesn't like.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Hey Germans, what ever happened to "nie wieder"?
They gassed it.
Re: That was my point (Score:2)
To be fair, this basic question is puzzling. Do you need an explanation of how laws are passed and how courts of law work in Germany? And as for the quip about two world wars: the first one had nothing to do with free speech and was caused by stupid but war loving monarchs, and the rise of Hitler had a lot to do with hate speech that was not only allowed, but even encouraged.
Re: (Score:3)
I fully agree that all speech should be legal, and thankfully in the US we have a Constitutional protection (for now) on free speech.
Sure - but with all freedom comes responsibility. If you lie for profit, it is fraud, and you should be punished accordingly. If you stir up hatred, you incite to violence, and should face consequences. This is not about thought policing, it is about observable consequences: if some white supremacist tells his followers that he thinks they should go out and beat up blacks, and they then go and do it, then the consequence is real. If a Muslim or Christian preacher stirs up their followers, who then go and co
Horse shit! (Score:5, Insightful)
I have dozens of relatives in Germany and guess what? They are all scared right now because of what is happening. I have an Aunt who recently passed away who was a child during WW II and told us how a majority of German citizens had no idea that Jews were being put to Genocide by the German Government. The US Soldiers marched German families through the concentration camps because Germans thought that the Allied Soldiers were lying. Their ignorance is a direct result of free speech dying and pure Government control of Newspapers, Radio, public speaking, and the education system.
That last part should bother the hell out of Germans who if they bothered to read a history book would find that the education system is one of the first places Hitler attacked with his ideology. He controlled all messages in education, just like you have today.
You took the wrong message, and shame on you for making such an asinine claim. Remember that the Jews were intolerant, the Pols were intolerant, the Hungarians were intolerant, the French were intolerant, the Russians were intolerant, the Brits were intolerant, the Schwarzs were intolerant, and I can repeat that for any group who spoke out against the State.
Everyone was was the enemy of the State. Just like today... You just refuse to admit as much
Re: (Score:3)
That's rich, considering that we in the US just elected a nationalistic militaristic fascist.
If you think Trump is fascist then either you don't know what fascism is, don't know what Trump is, or don't know either.
Re: (Score:2)
This is a slippery slope. Your hate speech may be another's holy scripture, and who are you to judge? Who is anyone? All speech should be legal.
The Germans, given their history, are a bit wiser than that. One man's freedom of speech can infringe on a million other people's freedom to survive. Speech can be dangerous.
Libel laws are also in place so that if someone ruins your life by calling you, say, a child molester for no reason, then you can sue and get some compensation.
Re: (Score:3)
Speech can be dangerous.
Yes, and what it took to get that right and others was dangerous. Living in a society that do not value those rights are even more dangerous than living in a society with protections for the freedoms of individuals.
Rights are one of the few absolutes that society should always defend in whole all the time. Many people have died to get those rights and many more will die if society forgets sacrifices were necessary for freedoms we take advantage of.
If you aren't willing to die for your rights then anyone str
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, and what it took to get that right and others was dangerous.
But what was it? You characterize, but do not identify.
War. I didn't think it was necessary to state the obvious.
Living in a society that do not value those rights are even more dangerous than living in a society with protections for the freedoms of individuals.
One would think so, after all, a society exists to protect individuals, so one with any other conditions is more dangerous by default.
Are you sure you said what you meant?
Individual freedoms and protections by the state are a fairly recent thing. It is more common that states organize and protect a small ruling class. For example a crown or religion via monarchy or theocracy respectively. Individuals have historically been oppressed "for the good of society". Society that favors individualism tend to have more freedom and liberty than those that feel justified in limiting the rights of individuals "for the good of soc
Re:This is a wise move (Score:5, Insightful)
The Germans, given their history, are a bit wiser than that. One man's freedom of speech can infringe on a million other people's freedom to survive. Speech can be dangerous.
I encourage everyone who believes this nonsense to form their own country and live in harmony with other fellow like minded cowards forever. Censorship of ideas was a core enabler of Nazi Germany and go-to means of control of every dictatorship in human history.
It wasn't Adolf Hitler that killed millions of people it was a whole country going along with his insanity. Censoring speech has a proven track record of actually being dangerous.
It's what cowards always do when they can't compete and fear losing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"All speech should be legal."
This is a dumb statement that is neither true, nor should be true.
Re: (Score:2)
"All speech should be legal."
This is a dumb statement that is neither true, nor should be true.
While you are right, we get wrapped around axles when we try to define it. Is humor that refers to a dark part of a countries past "hate speech"?Bill Maher might need indicted, as well as half of the internetz
Which is to say, can the modern German Government demand that any references to Nazi Germany be removed from Facebook - or that Godwin needs extradited to Munich and be put on trial?.
Some things are obvious. Death threats or threats of violence should be obvious. How about disparging remarks about
Re: (Score:2)
I understand what you are getting at, but you should pick another example, as this is actually legal.
What is illegal is FALSELY shouting Fire in a theater.
Typical idiocy (Score:3)
Why does every buffoon go to this argument? Because they can only repeat what they are told?
Shouting fire in a crowded theater is not illegal. A call to action which may cause severe harm "may" be illegal, if the call to action is based on fabricated information intended to be malicious. E.G. "There is a bomb on the subway!", when in fact there is no bomb and the intent was to disturb the public.
Going a bit further, there is a gross distinction between a person yelling "fire" in a crowded theater and
Re: (Score:2)
The Internet has never been owned by the US (except at the very beginning when it existed only there), and most of it has not been build by the US. It is also not under US control, even if that propaganda-statement is often repeated. But the truth is, if the US fell of the planet, the Internet would just continue to work as all critical components are geo-redundant.
Spoken like a true caveman though! It is easy to not like people like you.
Re:"Freedom" (Score:4, Informative)
in general nothing of use is lost by banning hate speech
Yeah, just the First Amendment. Nothing important.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it can be banned. However, the extremist ideology (regardless of left or right) only festers. Germany may get FB to ban it, but there will be sites that it will move to. For example, last year when FB did a mass purge of gun buying/sales sites, all that stuff just went to MeWe. When Twitter banned the Breitbart guy, Gab formed. Look at how the Pirate Bay has been hunted down by some of the richest people, groups, companies, and governments in the world, and they still pop back up in some form. Ba
Re: (Score:2)
An that is the worst problem I see with this approach. The Germans have this stupid idea that just making a law that forbids something fixes all problems with it. They always try it and it usually fails, sometimes spectacularly. Hence I believe that most Germans do not even begin to understand that suppressing certain kinds of opinions does not make them go away at all. Instead it lends credibility to them by the "David and Goliath"-effect, because the state acts like a bully.
Re: (Score:2)
'not useful' by whom? Allowing authority to dictate arbitrary limits on expression is far riskier to free society than some one/group taking offense. Frankly, if your leaders are willing to cause some calamity because they were called names, then they lack the discipline required for leadership and don't deserve to hold office.
Re: (Score:2)
Your masters define it.
Re: (Score:3)
Who defines "hate speech"?
Whoever happens to be in charge at the moment of course.
This is great when your party of choice is the one in charge, of course. It's not so great when their opposition wins in the next election and turns the tables on you.
Re: (Score:2)
Hate speech is anything that upsets a SJW, government, political party, monarchy, theocracy, cult or brand.
Public private partnerships, cults, faith groups, other nations can also apply pressure.
The result can be faith based blasphemy laws, banning cartoons to ensure global investment and access to markets.
A communist party may want to protect the name and history of its founders and their military/political actions.
Other Communist nations may i
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If so, my wife must be a doctor
Re: (Score:2)