Germany Cracks Down On Illegal Speech On Social Media. (smh.com.au) 535
ArmoredDragon writes: German police have raided 36 homes of people accused of using illegal speech on Facebook and Twitter. Much of it was aimed at political speech. According to the article, "Most of the raids concerned politically motivated right-wing incitement, according to the Federal Criminal Police Office, whose officers conducted home searches and interrogations. But the raids also targeted two people accused of left-wing extremist content, as well as one person accused of making threats or harassment based on someone's sexual orientation."
This comes just as a new law is being debated that can fine social media platforms $53 million for not removing 70% of illegal speech (including political, defamatory, and hateful speech) within 24 hours of it being posted, which Facebook argues will make it obligatory for them to delete posts and ban users for speech that isn't clearly illegal.
This comes just as a new law is being debated that can fine social media platforms $53 million for not removing 70% of illegal speech (including political, defamatory, and hateful speech) within 24 hours of it being posted, which Facebook argues will make it obligatory for them to delete posts and ban users for speech that isn't clearly illegal.
Free Speech (Score:3, Insightful)
You're doing it wrong!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Scratch a Progressive and you'll always find a Nazi underneath.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Free Speech (Score:4)
Moving forward towards what exactly?
Re: Free Speech (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
You haven't seen Progressives of this decade in action, have you?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Neo-Nazi's here in the states voted for Trump, calling him the white mans savior. They're fascists, they know it, and the difference between them and other conservatives is that they don't care when people call them what they are.... they readily a
Re: (Score:3)
The other difference is, the other conservatives are too fucking stupid, with their heads buried so far up their asses, they can't see what they've become.
There are all sort of conservatives - not just the extremes and "the other conservatives". For example, I'm a moderate conservative; I'm a mixture of liberal and conservative.
Like a liberal,
- I'm concerned about the environment,
- I think we should get our military out of the Middle East,
- I believe in gun control,
- I think what consenting adults do in the bedroom is their own business, and
- I think people should reach out and help each other.
- Also back in the 1970s, liberals were concerned about overpopula
Re: (Score:2)
Because Hitler's master plan involved idiots with bad spray tans? I must have missed that chapter in Mein Kampf
Re: (Score:3)
Your side has lost the debate because you bring no intellectual value to the table other than calling the people you disagree with fascists and racists like a bunch of children.
I'm sorry but isn't that basically how Trump won?
Re: Free Speech (Score:3, Informative)
They wereally weak socialists and strong nationalists.
Way better than the bolsjeviks.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The Nazi's were in power for two decades.
The redefinition that came afterwards, the one that labeled the Nazi's as "right wing" is based on the notion that fascism is right wing, but it isn't. Every major case of fascism so far in the world has been from the left. The Nazi's rose to power as the workers party, and so did the Fascists of Italy.
Adolf Hitler - Rose to power via NAZI - National Socialist Workers Party
Mussolini - Rose to power via PSI - Italian Socialist Party
You dont
Re: (Score:2)
You are right, the biggest atrocities in history came from the left.
Re: Free Speech (Score:5, Informative)
German here. The National Socialists were considered right wing at the time, not afterwards, and they still are. This categorization is not based on whether they were fascists or not, although most Germans still associate fascism with the radical right (and where the radical right is active in Germany today, they usually also have a fascist agenda). The Nazis were a rightist worker party with an absolutist agenda that was almost entirely based on race and national identity. Even today, after the meaning of our terms has slipped somewhat, this fingerprint cannot be considered "left" by any standard.
If I were to hazard a guess, the US' public confusion and outright denial about the Nazi-rightist connection comes from several factors: First, the Nazi ideology was strongly collectivist, and collectivism is often associated with extremist left-wing regimes, plus the American right has a strong dislike for socialism and thereby is strongly anti-collectivist. Second, and I realize this may sound a little bit mean, but sympathizing even with extreme right-wing ideas is so mainstream in the US right now, that some redefinition of words was necessary in order to clean up the image of mass-supported rightist extremism, to purge it from harmful historical associations.
It's important to keep in mind that the Nazi party is not a blueprint for whatever is happening in the world right now, and it's neither fair nor accurate to brand the mainstream rightist movements currently sweeping many Western democracies in this light. In my opinion, people should also be aware that the currently leading rightist and leftist movements both are thoroughly authoritarian ideologies. In fact, authoritarianism is so popular that it even wins over centrists. I'm pointing this out, because people seem to be lost in escalating left vs. right debates leading nowhere, while their freedoms are taken away underneath them.
Re: (Score:3)
Just off the cuff Denmark and Great Britain.
Dismantling public services, fucking over the poor while giving tax breaks to the wealthy, passing laws to allow greater pollution and construction in previously-protected nature areas, increased military spending, the list goes on and on.
Re: Free Speech (Score:5, Informative)
The lack of education in your post is nearly unbearable, especially in combination with the fact that equally uneducated moderators have modded you up. Since when have so many people become completely ignorant? You should really read some history books.
National socialism is and always has been a right-wing movement, both in their own terms and according to every reasonable description that has ever been made of them. They were fighting socialists and communists and put them in Concentration Camps. Not only that, nearly every fascist right-wing movement in modern times has claimed to help workers and has mimicked false concern about the working class. That's why people have expressed so many fears about Trump, because he uses exactly this far right-wing rhetoric.
Like many people you're confusing a mixture of classical liberalism (e.g. Smith, Locke), utilitarianism and democratic conservatism with the rantings of the far right, which have nearly always been "pro workers class and for the rights of the 'small people" just like socialism and communism. The far right and the far left are similar in many respects, since they are both promoting different forms of totalitarianism, but they are based on different principles. Both of them have few things to do with moderate democratic positions like left- and right-wing liberalism, conservatives in general (who can be leaning left or right), those who are called 'progressives' in the US (i.e., mostly center left conservatives and left-wing liberals), or social democrats.
Also, your statements are way too general. For example, both the Franco regime in Spain and the Salazar regime in Portugal were certainly fascist, but they were neither left-wing like communists nor radical right-wing in the sense of Nazis, they were rather conservative, catholic right-wing fascist movements (though of course not 'fascism' in the sense of its Italian origins). No offense, but these two examples alone illustrate how mistaken you are.
You need to get away from your limited partisan views and take a look at the actual ideologies that were defended, and then you will quite quickly find out that blanket statements are simply false. Neither is Italian fascism a pure worker's movement, not does being pro workers indicate a left-wing position, nor is e.g. Italian fascism on a par with Nazis. And let's not even get started that you seem to be unwilling to even distinguish different forms of left-wing traditions such as anarchism, socialism, democratic socialism, Marxism, Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism, etc., as if they were all the same.
In countries like Portugal communists were tortured or died fighting against fascism. That doesn't mean you need to become a communist, but you should at least show some respect by getting a hint of an education before opening your uninformed mouth.
Fascism is Anti-Socialism (Score:3, Informative)
You dont get to change the facts of history buddy.
You're claiming a monopoly on that, yeah?
The redefinition that came afterwards ... the one that labeled the Nazi's as "right wing"
Yup, and we've always been at war with Eastasia ...
The NSDAP, despite it's name (by the time it came to power it was as "Socialist" as the German Democratic Republic was "democratic"), was clearly understood to be a party of the right, at the time. It is true that at it's inception the NSDAP did include Socialistic aspects, a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, right wing is all about large centralized government that controls what people are allowed to do inside their own homes. Thus the nazis were both extreme right and left wing. They really don't fit on conventional political maps, and neither do the Italian fascists.
Re: (Score:3)
Nazis were not left-wing in any sense while in power. The left wing of the party was terminated with extreme prejudice in the 1930s, and they hadn't had significant influence in Hitler's governing up until then..
Re:Free Speech (Score:4, Insightful)
This comes down to different definitions of freedom in the EU and the US. In the US it's all about freedom from interference by the government, in the EU there is also the freedom to live without fear and oppression in your life.
In this case the stuff people have been posting is either direct harassment/threats to individuals, which is actually illegal in the US as well, or more controversially speech promoting violence and hatred of groups based on their ethnicity or religion.
It's interesting that the US was founded by people escaping from religious oppression in Europe. The US constitution guarantees no discrimination or oppression of religion by the government, but not by other citizens. I should stress that it's not about religious views, those should be open to criticism, it's about discrimination along the lines of a sign that says "no Jews". In Germany that got particularly bad a while back.
In the EU the right to "enjoy" life is a basic human right. By "enjoy" it doesn't mean you have to be happy, it just means you have to have the opportunity to use your freedoms without undue burdens like having to fear for your life or request police protection just to go outside. Thus not just threats against individuals are illegal, like in the US, but also threats against identifiable groups or incitements to violence against them.
Personally I find the incitement part problematic... I understand why it is there, but it's something that must be interpreted very narrowly to avoid restricting freedom of speech.
Re:Free Speech (Score:4, Informative)
They were escaping from the inability to oppress others, not from being oppressed.
Re: Free Speech (Score:5, Insightful)
Is the US raiding homes because of speech? News to me, got a source?
The bathroom debate is more about a poorly written version of post-modern law, i.e. should the state recognize the gender you choose at any given time or should it use objective standards that represent 99% of the population. To quote Ted Cruz: "it isn't about the Caitlyn Jenners of the world. But if the law is such that any man if he feels like it can go into a womens restroom and you can't ask him to leave that opens the doors for predators." [cnn.com]. Poorly written laws with good intentions are still bad laws. I don't like the idea that if you feel a certain way you can do anything you want. A pedophile feels attracted to children, does that mean I should be tolerant of that because of their feelings? No. I will not capitulate to feelings that disregard objectivity and the vulnerable.
Whether you agree that the law should have a post-modern influence or not is very much different than raiding your home because you said wrong-speak. I would rather a Trump than a benevolent dictator.
Illegal speech? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The players change, but the script remains the same.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, there should.
The classic yelling fire in a crowded theater is a good example. Asking someone to commit murder is another example.
In this case, each nation has a different history and culture. The US has a very different history when it comes to Nazi's and antisemitism than many European nations. We allow Neo-Nazis to say the trash that they say because we believe that evil thrives in the dark and hates the light. Germany is a free democratic nation so if the citizens of Germany want to have those limit
Re:Illegal speech? (Score:5, Interesting)
I am not sure whether racist speech should be limited or not. I am sure that I prefer limiting racist speech over limiting sexual content (assuming consent). I don't get it what's up with you americans and sexuality.
Re: (Score:2)
I am not sure whether racist speech should be limited or not. I am sure that I prefer limiting racist speech over limiting sexual content (assuming consent). I don't get it what's up with you americans and sexuality.
Of course, once you begin limiting the free speech, beginning with the variety you find most offensive, it becomes so expensive that no one can afford it.
Re: Illegal speech? (Score:5, Insightful)
Care to explain how vilifying the rich resulted in Hitler being funded by big business [wikipedia.org]?
Or maybe you can explain how NSDAP, being socialist, sent all socialists and communists to concentration camps [wikipedia.org] immediately after seizing power?
The schools were taken over so the children could be raised in a patriotic way [wikipedia.org], starting very much like your very own pledge of allegiance.
Oh by the way, what idiot told you that nazis disarmed the general population? That never happened. Only jews, gypsies and socialists were disarmed, everyone else could buy any amount of long guns or munition they wanted without any paperwork.
Only handguns were regulated [wikisource.org], but the permit was very easy to obtain. With a special permit citizens could even buy tanks or military airplanes - not disarmed, mind you,
How is any of this not right wing to you?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Illegal speech? (Score:2)
Re:Illegal speech? (Score:5, Informative)
Just to be clear here, racist speech is legal in Germany. It becomes illegal when it goes from "X are all scum" to "X should be driven from our land". In other words, it's the threat part that is illegal. Unlike some countries it doesn't have to be a specific threat against an individual, it can be against large groups.
Re: Illegal speech? (Score:2)
How do you square your claim with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org], which explains that basically any thing that could be called "hate speech" is illegal in Germany as long as it is done "in a manner capable of disturbing the public peace"? To me, that seems like it is about the vaguest possible threshold.
Re:Illegal speech? (Score:5, Informative)
The classic yelling fire in a crowded theater is a good example.
This is not illegal. Google it.
Asking someone to commit murder is another example.
The standard is - if there is a reasonable expectation of your speech directly causing harm of someone specifically, then that can be considered incitement to commit violence or murder.
That's it. That's all that should be covered. The other exception is if you are motivated by hatred for some reason or another to commit a crime, which would be a hate crime - then your words can be used against you. But they can't be used to convict you of a crime alone, they have to be coupled with another crime.
Re: (Score:2)
How does conspiracy factor into that? In essence, a conspiracy is communicating for the intent to commit a crime. As with treason, conspiracy both involves the use of an accused's words as evidence of intent and as the crime itself.
Even in the United States speech has never been an absolute liberty (also see obscenity laws).
Re: (Score:2)
This comes just as a new law is being debated that can fine social media platforms $53 million for not removing 70% of illegal speech...
Exactly $53 million [billboard.com] you say... and Zuck had $11.5 million in his checking account and just sold some stock. [qz.com]
Hmmm...
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Illegal speech? (Score:5, Interesting)
This is not "yelling fire in a crowded theater", in any way, shape, or form. That theory is used incessantly to justify suppression of speech. In this case, it is being used to *intentionally suppress political speech that is not in accordance with the current government position*, which is the sort of speech that requires the most protection.
Germany's history of anti-semitism is not the issue. If you examined the history of anti-semitism of Germany, it's hardly any different in theory from anyplace els - anti-semitism has been a recurring theme throughout history.
What *is* different is their history of oppression that led to the most appalling - and efficient - attempt at genocide in human history. The root of this was permitting repression in favor of the government, leading to a dictatorship. This allowed thugs with delusions of racial superiority to take over.
The Germans are *dead wrong* to criminalize speech, because as soon as you do, you permit someone else to decide what "hate" means - just like 1933.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The Germans are *dead wrong* to criminalize speech, because as soon as you do, you permit someone else to decide what "hate" means - just like 1933.
Precisely so.
Good thing we in the US don't have any major institutions with Orwellian speech codes, adjudicated by absurd kangaroo pseudo-courts ...
I disagree (Score:2)
Take any awful thing that's been done in history and it's always about money when all's said and done. If you want to stop Genocide, oppression and everything else tha
Re: (Score:2)
No that's wrong, you do show the cause and effect in a wrong way.
robbing possession
As it is true that the Nazis robbed or coerced jewish people - those that were able to leave the country or those getting slaughtered - off their possession, the basic cause for the prosecution was a racistic - racial ideology - view on humans, their physiognomic properties and their suggested different worth for society.
pseudo-scientific racial "theory"
This pseudo-scientific racial theory/ideology, in contrast to the "norma
Re: (Score:2)
The workers party. Fighting the good fight against the rich. The Jews became the poster child for their 1%, the people that had to be stopped, but the hatred of the Jews wasnt the cause, it was the effect. Had to make a villain.
All the ethnic and racial hatred was the effect, not the cause. The modern day left still decries the rich, manufactures easily classified villains from it.
The left are the problem not because of their ideals, but because
Re: (Score:2)
The article section you referenced does only say things about the involvement in humans being used as test subjects and the involvement of the Bayer company in the holocaust.
And this was only possible because people were seen as being of less worth than others - as so called "Untermenschen" (-> sub-humans). And these people could to anything with those so called "Untermenschen", and gain profit.
However you missed the initial point that the holocaust was only to gain money from robbing jews of their poss
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
You do realize this quote was the Supreme Court's justification of why it's okay for the government to jail anti-war protesters [wikipedia.org]?
Re: Illegal speech? (Score:3)
Also that the original quote was limited to falsely crying that there was a fire, meaning it was always about claims of objective fact rather than opinion or emotion. On top of that, the justice who wrote it later recanted and said it was a wrong argument in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Illegal speech? (Score:2)
We ban fraud, but only make defamation a tort. (There are a few criminal defamation laws in various US states, but they are essentially dead letters. Given current precedent, they would almost certainly be ruled unconstitutional at the first challenge.)
Re:Illegal speech? (Score:5, Insightful)
The classic yelling fire in a crowded theater is a good example.
The line was actually "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic." which would be more akin to immediately inciting a riot than mere words on facebook. But even at that the quote was part of a decision in Schenck vs. United States [cornell.edu] which justified imprisonment of Socialist protesters of the draft during World War I [popehat.com].
If we were to apply the logic and decisions of that court case to the modern times every member of Code pink would be serving ten years in prison and Bernie Sanders would have long been sent to the gallows. While that quote is the goto response for people supporting censorship people should look into the circumstances, least they find themselves supporting a very terrible decision.
Re: (Score:2)
The 'classic' yelling fire in a crowded theater example was never law, and the case in which it was said was overturned in 1969.
The original author Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes just 1 year later ruled completely the opposite in a similar case. In that 2nd case Holmes has a line which ought to be more quoted by everyone when talking about free speech:
"The ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas - that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the co
Re: (Score:2)
Even after the Federal government grew in power enormously relative to the States, it still cannot happen. Thats how resilient the system was when it started. I think if the founding fathers had foreknowledge they would have done it a bit differently, as obviously the Federal government is way too removed from people to
Re:Illegal speech? (Score:5, Insightful)
There should be no such thing as illegal speech.
Absolute free speech is a great idea... until you add human emotion to the equation. There must be basic limitations on things such as death threats. I'm not siding with Germany here, I'm just siding with common sense.
Re:Checking... Nope. Still Great. (Score:5, Insightful)
You do realize that meaningful death threats are illegal, right?
Yes, that was my point.
That's the whole point of free speech; you are free to say anything but NOT free of consequences from what you say.
Incorrect. The point of free speech is to keep the government from jailing you for speaking out against them.
Everything else in your post is sheer drivel.
Re: (Score:2)
keep the government from jailing you
This right here! It is amazing the number of people who will quote the colloquial title of the applicable part of the constitution as the law itself, but can't even get to reading the first word of the text which limits the application of the entire first amendment to only apply to congress.
Yet, they try to use free speech as an excuse for everything from arranging drug deals, to defending against libel.
Maybe the colloquial name should change to
"Free* speech".
*Some speech is still restricted
Re: (Score:3)
In the United States, there are some exceedingly narrow limitations on the freedom of expression outside the public airwaves (which I will not address because frankly I don't know much about them). One of the exceptional few them is outlined by Ohoio v. Brandenburg: [cornell.edu] "Freedoms of speech and press do not permit a State to forbid advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How's #45 getting on?
Re: (Score:2)
There should be no such thing as illegal speech.
I disagree. Democracy and liberty need to defend themselves against disinformation, lies, hate speech and propaganda that attempts to destabilize and ultimately abolish it.
Free speech doesn't mean we need to listen and tolerate it if someone shouts "death to all Jews" or "kill all the infidels".
Re: Illegal speech? (Score:2)
The defense to that is not to ban it, but to counter it with speech.
Re: (Score:2)
Why?
And why it is rated "insightful"? As a German I find such a statement rather dumb.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Sir, this is my soapbox. You are free to yell atop a soapbox, just not on top of MY soapbox.
governments are scared (Score:3, Insightful)
governments are scared of the internet... they are trying to slowly kill it
Meanwhile in the US . . . (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
German people need to go 1776 on their government (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm not saying "work within the system" the system is corrupt and does not represent it's people, any attempt to work with the system just creates more prisoners. The people have a duty to replace their government with a government that represents them.
Re: (Score:2)
Laws that should have protected from communist and fascist parties, their meetings, fund raising and publishing.
Such laws are now been used to stop any and all comments on the policies of todays German political policy.
Report on local issues, how local services are been used, what governments are doing, the results of illegal immigration and risk a police interview.
Re: (Score:2)
The people have a duty to replace their government with a government that represents them.
What makes you think the government doesn't represent them?
Re: (Score:2)
The thing is the government itself if full of petty cowards. You ever seen what happens to a petty coward when they're legitimately threatened or challenged? Petty cowards show courage when they're walking around with a clipboard citing laws and regulations and they have you over a barrel with protocol. When protocol is gone and you're enacting the laws of nature they crack - quickly. If the people wanted an old fashioned rabble - the modern equivalent of showing up with pitchforks and torches, maybe a
Re: (Score:3)
I would argue any time you can get arrested for expressing an opinion or belief you absolutely do not have democracy.
Democracy is built on the concept of debate, discussion, and trying to persuade others to your ideas. If you get arrested for attempting to debate, discuss, or persuade you are nowhere near a democracy.
Germany leader of the free world (Score:2)
Re:Germany leader of the free world (Score:5, Informative)
Germany's limitations on far right speech have been around for seven decades, and were born out of the Allied Occupation and Allied Denazification policies. We can argue whether those laws are justifiable now, but the intent, as with banning the Imperial form of Shinto by the US during the occupation of Japan, was to assure that the militaristic regimes that had killed hundreds of millions would not rise again.
Coming soon to a country near you... (Score:2, Insightful)
Coming soon to a country near you with all the snowflakes who will want legally mandated safe spaces.
Re: (Score:2)
How to remove 70% of illegal posts on your site (Score:2)
1) Count how many posts are made each day.
2) "Arrange" for 2.5 as many illegal posts to be made.
3) Remove all the posts from step 2.
4) P- You know.
Wrong icon (Score:5, Insightful)
Shouldn't this be under the censorship icon?
Re: (Score:2)
From TFA (Score:3)
"Our free society must not allow a climate of fear, threat, criminal violence and violence either on the street or on the internet."
So we'll kick in your door if you make an internet post we don't like.
Just pull out of Germany (Score:3)
If Facebook and other social media companies dont like these new laws they should shut down all their German operations and have no employees, no servers, no infrastructure and no business presence in Germany and then say "we no longer have a presence in Germany therefore German law doesn't apply to us"
This is the real evil, not the speech itself (Score:3)
"Illegal speech" is only one tiny step away from "illegal thought". You can stuff these laws in your keester.
s/Illegal/Conservative/ (Score:2)
Merkel only seeks to silence opposition under the banner of political correctness.
Re: (Score:2)
No she doesn't. And there are VERY good reasons for Germany to fear the reemergence of insane right-wing demagogues.
Those Germans (Score:3)
It's not like they have a history of overreacting. :D
Give Europe the 1st Amendment (Score:2, Insightful)
The foundational cornerstone of American democracy are the first and second amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The guarantee against government interference of free speech and the right of citizens to arm themselves. Everything else, all the other rights and amendments laid out in that document flow from and depend on the first two.
If you look at Europe today, that is exactly what European "democracies" lack, real U.S. strength 1st and 2nd amendments. What they lack are real free speech rights and the a
Re: (Score:2)
Give them the ability to say political things that their governments or Merkel doesn't like
they already have that.
Re: (Score:2)
I think we can get along fine without lessons on democracy from the USA, thanks!
Re: (Score:2)
Authoritarian governments to the extreme since 1933.
Not that I agree with Germany's restrictions on speech but I'd say it much more a desperate attempt to avoid another authoritarian governemnt
Re: (Score:2)
Huh?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Germany .... taking (Score:2)
Since when has it been okay to be an authoritarian government in order to prevent your government from becoming authoritarian?
Re: (Score:2)
Not that I agree with Germany's restrictions on speech but I'd say it much more a desperate attempt to avoid another authoritarian government
So a coordinated campaign against 36 people, across 14 states, for words on the internet does not seem authoritarian to you?
Hmm, so how is North Korea this time of year? Is is any good? How is Jong-un doing these days, hanging in there?
Re: (Score:2)
Protect East Germany from the West.
Help protect West Germany from the communists.
Report to Moscow or the CIA, GCHQ or NSA over the decades.
Generations of German staff enjoying overtime and the most advanced telco tech.
Now a new generation gets to watch over all communication in Germany.
Say or write anything wrong and the police get a report.
No freedom of speech. No freedom after speech.
Re:Germany .... taking (Score:5, Interesting)
Guess who insisted that criminalising Nazism was a pre-condition for an independent Germany?
Oh wait, it was those enlightened Free Speech activists known as the USA.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Merkel is killing millions of Jews, occupying Europe and bombing Britain?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Threats aren't protected speech.
They should be. In the highly unlikely scenario where someone truly intends to do me harm, I'd rather know about it than have it sprung as a surprise later. In the highly likely scenario of idle threats and foolish blustering, there's no point in worrying about it.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure how you can call one of the most successful and prosperous countries in the world a "failed state", but then again I suspect you have private definitions of common words and phrases so you can shock and overawe those of lesser wit than yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
Assresting [sic] people for speech you don't like is something Hitler would do.
So is metabolizing oxygen. Well, when he was alive. So is drinking water and eating food.
I don't agree with what is going on with regards to curtailing speech, but comparing everything to Hitler and Nazis is just stupid.
Eisenhower also got the idea for the interstate highway system from Hitler's Autobahn. Should we also remove those? How about jet engines and rockets?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Before WW2, during WW2.
After WW2 the Stasi had files on a lot of people. In the West the groups like the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] ensured the new West German democracy stayed really safe.
Germany kept its powerful laws and political comments start interviews and investigations.
People report comments. Social media report people. Freedom after speech is a legal matter.
Re: (Score:2)