Germany Starts Enforcing Hate Speech Law (bbc.com) 545
Germany is set to start enforcing a law that demands social media sites move quickly to remove hate speech, fake news and illegal material. From a report: Sites that do not remove "obviously illegal" posts could face fines of up to 50m euro ($60m). The law gives the networks 24 hours to act after they have been told about law-breaking material. Social networks and media sites with more than two million members will fall under the law's provisions. Facebook, Twitter and YouTube will be the law's main focus but it is also likely to be applied to Reddit, Tumblr and Russian social network VK. Other sites such as Vimeo and Flickr could also be caught up in its provisions.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better? (Score:5, Insightful)
The "hate speech" laws are designed to crack down on "extremists" but of course they'll be used to crack down on "dissenting opinion" soon enough as the concept of hate speech is ill-defined and open to interpretation.
Always the left pushing "hate speech" laws. (Score:3, Insightful)
That's a good point.
Another thing we should remember is that it's always the political left pushing for "hate speech" legislation. It doesn't matter if we're talking about European nations, Canada, Australia, or even the US.
It's always members of the political left who want to start classifying speech and limiting it in such ways. Of course, it's conveniently also always members of the political left who get to determine what is and what isn't "hate speech".
The political right takes the opposite approach. I
MARXISM (Score:4, Insightful)
...is always about Mind Control. They know that their ideology is so faulty it cannot stand the test of free speech. So they ALWAYS try to control the flow of information.
Marxism, Mohammedism, SPARTA - all the same idealist, brutish, deadly stuff.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
"As has been previously pointed out, the proponents of these ideologies think that their ideas are so good, they must be mandatory!"
All laws are this. Crowing "they're trying to control us!" over a law you dont like ignores this very simple fact of reality. All societies put limits on personal freedom.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Spoken like a true leftist.
Re: (Score:2)
Meh (Score:2, Insightful)
How many people were killed by American "alt-right" ?
What I can see is ANTIFA STORMTROOPERS here in Germany. They use SA methods, just short of outright murder.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Americans killed by Nazis in 2017:
Heather Heyer
Taliesin Namkai Meche
Ricky Best
Richard Collins III
Timothy Caughman
Srinivas Kuchibhotla
Buckley Kuhn-Fricker
Scott Fricker
Americans killed by anti-fascists: 0
Re:Meh (Score:5, Insightful)
Americans killed by anti-fascists: 0
Bullshit. There have been a significant number of cops killed in ambush style killings this year alone, increasingly often by people who've bought into the "anti-fascist"/anti-cop rhetoric of the left. And additionally, racially-motivated killings happen all the time against whites as well, you just will never hear them identified as such by the media because when it's a white victim, it's *never* treated as a hate crime by the media or government (even if the perpetrators are screaming racial epithets [foxnews.com] as they attack the person).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Remember those 5 cops killed in Dallas(plus 12 injured) in 2017? Yeah, he bought into the anti-fascist/anti-cop rhetoric. So was the female cop sitting in the evidence van and had her brains smeared all over the inside. Oh did I mention she was also black and a single parent, and the person was also an anti-fascist/anti-cop nut. Then there were the two troopers in Georgia, another in Tennessee again the same garbage. And that's off the top of my head. Several more in Michigan, and on and on and on. Out
Re: Meh (Score:3, Insightful)
Any reputable news site will cover a number of Antifa cop shootings. There was one within the last 72 hours, look it up.
Re: Meh (Score:3, Insightful)
So basically anyone who shitposts is a Nazi.
And you wonder why everyone thinks you're retarded.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
alt-right jackoff with actual Pepe memes on his Facebook page.
That's not even what the article says, if you got any further into crazy land by seeing what you can only see? I'd recommend psychiatric help.
Re: (Score:3)
It's exactly what the article says. The guy who shot the cops in Colorado on Sunday was an alt-right jackoff who posted Pepe memes.
No it doesn't. The article makes the ASSUMPTION that's the case. Now read the rest of the article where it says:
Riehl seemed to have a grudge against local police officers, and posted multiple complaints about the Douglas County Sheriffâ(TM)s Department on YouTube.
Specifically, the AP notes that Riehl in a December video called for âoethe firing of Douglas County Sheriff Tony Spurlockâ and attacked him âoein highly personal terms.â Riehl also said that during that video that he would be running as a âoelibertarianâ candidate for Douglas County Sheriff.
Really, stop with the bullshit and shoehorning. All it does is show you're carrying an agenda that doesn't fit the real world.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
bet the guy with his skull cracked open doesn't like the "anti-fascists" that busted his face up.
oh but he's not dead. so violence is ok right?
you are a real piece of shit.
Re: MARXISM (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah like antifas heroes, the Bolsheviks never murdered anyone.
Re:Always the left pushing "hate speech" laws. (Score:5, Insightful)
> The political right pushes for free speech and free expression for all.
I guess you don't count Trump as political right. His plan to tax and punish coaches who don't shut-up players who wouldn't stand for the anthem, and using his official communication channel of his office to call for firing of those who speak against him. The same guy who want to shutdown news media that has opposed him, because fake news is in no way based on truth, but that he doesn't think anything opposing him is not news, no mater how much truth it is based on. That the right isn't doing much to oppose any of this, shows how little the care for the constitution of the US.
I am not thinking the left is all good, but they are not anything to the extreme that the right is in the US at the moment.
Re:Always the left pushing "hate speech" laws. (Score:4, Insightful)
Funny how when you guys do it you justify things by saying "freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences" but when someone else decides to simply not subsidize something you like it's fascism.
Re:Always the left pushing "hate speech" laws. (Score:4, Interesting)
> "freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences"
Correct, but the first amendment actually prevents the US government from restricting speech, without a overwhelming societal interest. Using a political office to directly restrict political speech is clearly a violation of that amendment. Especially when it is just to protect the presidents ego, because the president stepped into a solved concern, that was handled by the league, until the president made it more than 100* worse by stepping in. I see no problem if the team wants to fire a player, and if fans want to boycott the team. That you have the highest office of the government threatening through their designated official communication channel to take official action if harm doesn't happen to those who don't support his view.
Of course it isn't all the right, at least John McCain understands this president is doing permanent harm to the country: https://twitter.com/SenJohnMcC... [twitter.com]
Re:Always the left pushing "hate speech" laws. (Score:5, Insightful)
Why we don't teach civics to people like you is atrocious, clearly it is needed. The president swore to uphold the constitution, and to hold the rule of law above that of his own personal rights. The constitution is setup to give power to the people, to protect us from those with the power of the government. That is what McCain's post spells out so well.
Trump is the same as the likes of the leaders of Iraq, Congo, North Korea, Saudi Arabia when he uses his voice as president to attack individuals in order to suppress the political speech of regular citizens. That he also threatened to use his power of presidency really pushes it over the top, and put all of us in jeopardy to be a victim of lawsuits by the people he spoke out against. That so many conservatives now fail to understand the difference between a individuals right, and separate out that any government official that uses the power of their office we gave them, to then violate the constitution ( only to protect his own ego) should be removed from office.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Pushing for more free speech isn't pushing for more "hate speech". Sure, you probably end up getting more "hate speech", but so what? Screeching "HATE SPEECH" doesn't actually make any valid points. It's a feelings argument going nowhere. You're a fucking idiot.
Re: Always the left pushing "hate speech" laws. (Score:3)
You think that "there's blame on both sides" qualifies as "hate speech"?
That's a pretty low standard even for an SJW. You're something special.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
You can make the same argument about US anti-speech laws. What is harassment? What is incitement? Is it your fault if you shout fire in a theatre and people believe you and get hurt? All open to interpretation and judgement, which is what we have a legal system for.
I'm not a fan of this, I'm just pointing out that all countries have laws that require judicial interpretation, because real life is too complex to enumerate every possibly.
Re: (Score:2)
"Incitement" is bullshit. Rioting is a choice. Losing your head to the mob is no excuse. Large groups of people are just as dangerous as any other animal, you should expect the worst when they become agitated, but people do it by choice, either way, the best move is to keep a safe distance.
While I agree that those in the mob are responsible for their own actions (including a panicking horde when someone "yells fire"), there is also responsibility on the one doing the shouting for recognizing the situation and the result of their "free expression".
Is the piece of shit that called in the SWAT team not culpable in the death of that innocent man? Certainly the police have responsibility for how they responded to the call and the actions they took, but ultimately they would not have been there had
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better? (Score:4, Insightful)
"Incitement" is bullshit. Rioting is a choice. Losing your head to the mob is no excuse. Large groups of people are just as dangerous as any other animal, you should expect the worst when they become agitated, but people do it by choice, either way, the best move is to keep a safe distance.
Riiiight. A stick of dynamite has a "choice" to blow up. It's not my fault if I light the fuse.
If you say something that causes mass panic and could incite a riot, you are behaving in an irresponsible, if not criminal manner.
Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better? (Score:5, Interesting)
In the UK each time there's a terrorist attack the hate speech laws get tightened up to catch 'extremists'. And each time it seems like a lot more people complaining about terrorism get caught than actual terrorists. Or even Islamists. Anjem Choudary was regularly invited on TV to spread his loathsome views and was allowed to recruit people for al Qaeda, ISIS etc up until 2016, even though hate speech laws were supposed to stop him
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Meanwhile this hapless bastard got sent to prison, and mysteriously died there for putting a ham sandwich on a mosque. What did he die of? No one seems to care - even though there's supposed to be an inquiry no results of it were ever released.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new... [dailymail.co.uk]
So Crehan got very effectively screwed for committing 'a racially-motivated attack'. Anjem Choudhary blatantly recruited for ISIS from 2002 to 2016, was invited on the BBC to do it and is very unlikely to die mysteriously in prison. British prisons have a load of Islamists, so he'll be a hero in there.
tl;dr - hate speech laws get people who complain about Islamism, not actual Islamists.
Better question: does it apply to Slashdot? (Score:4, Interesting)
A better question is, Does this forced censorship apply to Slashdot?
The summary says, with added emphasis:
Give that Slashdot is a discussion site and news site, I think it would match the "social network" and "media site" criteria. This brings us to the user count.
There appear to be at least 4 million Slashdot accounts, since there are users like religionofpeas [slashdot.org] who has a user ID of 4511805. From what I can tell, the Slashdot user ID is sequential, since CmdrTaco [slashdot.org] has a user ID of 1, and we have long-time Slashdot users like jcr [slashdot.org], who has a user ID of 53032.
Now there's always the possibility that some user IDs were skipped at some point, or that one personal has multiple accounts (like is probably the case with the so-called "creimer" family of accounts). But since the user IDs are well into at least the 4.5 million range, it would seem to me like Slashdot is well past the two million user threshold described in the summary.
So again, the question to ask is, Does this forced censorship apply to Slashdot?
Another question to ask is, If Slashdot is obliged to engage in such censorship, how is Slashdot's management going to deal with it? Will they accept it and delete content deemed "bad" by some bureaucrats far off in Europe? Or will they fight it? Or will they just block all German users, as much as is possible? Just what will the Slashdot management do?
Re: (Score:2)
There appear to be at least 4 million Slashdot accounts
There may be that many accounts, but there are no where near that many active users. Slashdot readership is way down from the peak.
Re: (Score:2)
There appear to be at least 4 million Slashdot accounts
There may be that many accounts, but there are no where near that many active users. Slashdot readership is way down from the peak.
The law applies to social networks with "at least 2 million members". Note the absence of any qualifier such as "active".
Re: (Score:3)
The law applies to social networks with "at least 2 million members". Note the absence of any qualifier such as "active".
You are quoting the BBC article, not the law.
Very few German laws are written in English.
The law uses the term "Nutzern" which is more accurately translated as "user" than as "member", and the the "at least 2 million" refers to users IN GERMANY, not worldwide.
Re: (Score:2)
The answer is no, because Slashdot has no business presence in Germany so no fines can be levied. Only companies that exist in German jurisdiction are affected.
Re: (Score:2)
On the contrary, Hitler rose to power because the Weimarer Republic had no provisions against hate speech and parties who directly acted against the constitution. Continuous hate speech, violence in the streets by the SA, and flaws in the constitution in combination allowed Nazis to take advantage of a power vacuum and then seize complete control after Hitler was elected. One of the lessons learned from the Nazi regime and the failure of the Weimarer Republic was that a democracy must be able to defend itse
Re: (Score:3)
The Weimarer Republic had a law against hate speech. It is actually the same paragraph as nowadays, paragraph 130, codified with the rest of the the criminal code of the German Empire in 1871 and it was worded well enough to suppress the Nazis. Unfortunately it has been only used to prosecute socialists, just as it was planned right from the beginning, while the Nazis were tolerated.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
You do know that the Nazis were socialists, right? I mean, it is right there in the name. And in the party platform. And in the books. And in the speeches. And in the policies.
The "right wing" in Germany was terminal by the 1920s. Germany was getting socialism ASAP, the question was - who is going to be in charge of German socialism?
On the broadest level, the deb
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, "right there in the name"? So the Democratic Republic of North Korea (North Korea's legitimate name) is a Democratic Republic? What a world you live in. But alright, sure, on economic issues Nazis are to the Left a good portion of the time.
Now here's something that is really going to blow your mind though. This is not at all the reason why Nazis are one of history's greatest monsters. If the Germans had stayed in Germany and not killed millions of people no one would care.
Basically, what makes Nazism is
Re: (Score:3)
Correction: "But alright, sure, on economic issues the Nazis of the 30's and 40's are to the Left a good portion of the time"
Re: (Score:3)
And I'm begging you, please reject extremism. The economic policies of Nazi Germany are fairly similar to the entirety of all First world nations today. NO REASONABLE PERSON FINDS NAZI GERMANY OBJECTIONABLE BECAUSE THEY HAD SOCIALIZED MEDICINE OR ELDER CARE. There is nothing extreme about socialized medicine or elder care. You're creating false equivalencies. If i live a life like any other and then murder people that makes me evil. If I live a life like any other and don't murder anyone than that makes me
Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better? (Score:4, Insightful)
Nazis are not socialists. They adopted some socialist ideas to get elected, standard populist stuff. But as soon as they had a grip on power they abandoned all that.
Gotta ask, does having a word in the name really make you think the organisation is that word? I mean, do you think that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is a democracy? I don't think that's how it works.
Re: (Score:3)
You are a bloody liar.
First, the Weimar government was suppressing the communists, paying the Freikorps - private right wing paramilitary organisations - to do the dirty work.
Second, SA started as the paramilitary organisation of the Nazi party in the first place, created to intimidate political enemies.
But I do understand why you lie and try to whitewash the Nazis - you yourself are a fucking brownshirt.
Re: (Score:3)
"A totalitarian dictator rose to power because the state wasn't totalitarian enough to silence and repress his movement before he became a dictator!"
Yeah that argument doesn't really sound too compelling. It's kinda like when the military wing of the social justice movement, Antifa, shows up in their black and red uniforms with their black and red flags and start violently attacking everyone who disagrees with them... starting with the practicing jews they call "nazis".
Re: (Score:2)
It's funny, my history classes always told me that Nazis took over because economy was shit and there was street violence, not because there was censorship on hate speech.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, they have to work within the boundaries of a Constitution that was written by the victorious allies in WW2 to ensure the thorough de-Nazification of the country which had been thoroughly under the Nazi party's thumb for sixteen years.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That must be why they've opened their borders for Jew-hating immigrants.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe site some sources
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why the fuck did this get (+1)? Is "jew hating" the new blood libel? Hell, in Israel I see it used against anyone who criticizes jewism, including people who are holocaust survivors or their descendants.
Re: (Score:2)
Is "jew hating" the new blood libel?
They hate gays too.
Re: (Score:2)
And you think religious jews dont?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Why the fuck did this get (+1)? Is "jew hating" the new blood libel?
Ask academia. There's plenty of jew hating and antisemitism coming from left-wing groups on university campuses. I mean this is from a university in my own province [nationalpost.com] and it's coming directly out of the leftwing halls in those universities. And it's sure not limited to Canada, but EU universities and US universities. So much so that the difference between a far-right extremist and a far-left extremist simply boils down to who's got more power at the moment and how they can wield it. Right now? That's th
Re: (Score:2)
Define antisemitism. I don't think that people should be prosecuted because of whatever is in their bloodstream, including jewish descent. However, I do think it is OK to judge people by their choices. For example, if someone chooses to take his baby to a religious cleric without any medical training who will cut his penis and then suck in the wound, then yes, I think it is ok to criticize him, and maybe even to abolish the practice since it is child abuse.
If that's antisemitism in some PC land, then so be
Re: Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better? (Score:2)
No, that's not antisemitism, that's islamophobia. You're allowed to criticise Judaism and Christianity.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean the State Department's neo-Nazi pals in Ukraine that it used to overthrow the elected government? Yeah, those guys are assholes.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh, right, Muslim = "hates Jews" because Muslims arent actually individuals like the rest of us, they're just one big stereotype.
Re: (Score:2)
because Muslims arent actually individuals like the rest of us, they're just one big stereotype.
How many Muslims do you know that complain about their Jew-hating brothers ?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better? (Score:4, Insightful)
They opened their borders to victims of terror. Can some terrorists sneak in? Of course. But that doesn't mean one can just ignore the human tragedy that's going on outside one's borders. Instead, one screens the people coming in, and tries one's best to keep the terrorists out.
Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better? (Score:4, Insightful)
That's all good and well when you agree with what constitutes evil, but if you had asked anyone in the German government in the 1930's what evil needed prevention I bet it wouldn't have been people saying mean things about Jews. Now you've created a legal instrument to suppress speech the government decides is "bad." What happens when what the government decides is "bad" isn't what you think is "bad"? They have a legal tool to stop you from saying "hateful" things, like that the Aryan race isn't the master race.
Why are pro-authoritarians always such morons?
Re: (Score:3)
So if they didn't pass these laws what would stop a far right government introducing them later? Nothing, nothing at all.
The only way to stop a repeat of the 30s is to stop far right governments taking power in the first place. Germany has protections against that. Yes, it does mean some politics are suppressed and censored. It's a balance, has to be.
Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better? (Score:5, Informative)
They are trying to prevent the Evil that happened before from coming back. Hate speach against Jews -> violence against Jews -> death camps for Jews.
Very understandable. Yet one thing very important to the NAZI government was control of the media and its content, so they should proceed with caution.
Re: (Score:2)
Force the government to decide what is and isn't hate speech, on a post-by-post basis.
1. temporarily take down every post that looks like hate speech
2. forward the details and poster contact information to the authorities
3. if the government fails to respond with an investigation and/or charges, then it's obviously permissible speech; restore the post
The Youtube comment section alone should generate enough "hate speech" to completely shutdown the German beaurocracy within days.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
German courts won't allow fines if a genuine effort is made. Mistakes happen, and in Europe the courts tend to assume good faith unless shown otherwise.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Shouldn't they, of all countries, know better? (Score:5, Insightful)
corporations had no problem doing business with Hitler
Because, in most cases, they saw things exactly as the British prime minister did. How bad could this guy REALLY be, after all? Or, they were businesses that literally had no choice because if they didn't play ball they were destroyed, and the company's assets and reigns handed to someone else. But for companies outside of Germany, don't underestimate the Chamberlain effect. Or the sort of blithe dismissal of Nazi evilness exhibited by Democrats like FDR until it was much too late.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Or they may ave been waiting until there was sufficient inventory to fight a war, instead of just jumping right in.
Or, you could just listen to the people who explained - at the time - why they didn't want to get involved. Because they explained their thinking for contemporary consumption and for posterity. You're part of posterity, but you're wishing away reality because it's uncomfortable realizing that hindsight is better than politically skewed contemporary processing of information, and you're wishing that the liberal establishment at the time would have been wiser about where Hitler was headed.
Besides, it wasn't too late, we won
Ah, so it doesn't
Re: (Score:2)
One doesnt announce "we're letting you do this so we can build up military inventory". Maybe look at the fact that the Brits were in fact building up their military because they werent the complete and utter idiots you seem to want to make them out to be.
Re: (Score:3)
We're a culture of rampant mass shootings
No, we're not. Even with all the mass shootings living in the US is a safe prospect especially not in the major cities where most of the shootings occur (coincidentally with strictest gun laws). Every mass shooting is universally condemned, does not have any public support, and is seen as an extreme thing universally. Unlike say, sharia law (that outlaws homosexuality and the legal framework for throwing gay people off rooftops) and the universal acceptance in Islamic cultures from many polls. No one acts w
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
They are learning from the mistakes of the past, and are doing their damnest so these horrors never happen again.
"We had to become Nazis to prevent Nazis!"
German leaders have become corrupt totalitarians (again). Yes, they learned from the Nazis. I just don't think the lessons they came away with are the same ones that everyone else came away with and assumed everyone shared.
Strat
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you start with a completely fabricated premise like "We had to become Nazis to prevent Nazis!" then sure, Germany looks bad.
This of course is not what is happening at all. Putting a single limit on free speach does not equal Nazism unless you live on the biggest slippery slope around.
For the record, I dont think laws like this German one are the best way to fight intolerance. I'm just putting this out there because I dislike your mad, arms flailing, the sky is falling, rhetoric.
Those who forget history... (Score:3, Insightful)
And so it begins again.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm... well... You've got your organized antifa groups(again). You've got entrenched academia pushing identity politics and identiarianism. There is a nasty undercurrent of antisemitism. They'll claim that the reason that everything is failing is because of whites, sometimes asians. If you dare step off that line of thinking, you'll be harassed, attacked(socially and sometimes physically). If you dare to question what they're telling you, they will react in a violent manner. Yes...seems like the left h
Re: (Score:2)
The difference between these two became apparent after WWII. As soon as Hitler was gone, Stalin immediately took over the territories his armies occupied and put their people behind an iron curtain of repression no different than what Hitler sought
REAL NEWS FROM GERMANY (Score:2, Informative)
https://www.rt.com/news/414744-berlin-sexual-harassment-arrested/
https://www.rt.com/news/414742-german-broadcaster-criticized-stabbing-refugee/
It's an admission ... (Score:5, Insightful)
... that social media is not your father's "me too," AOL.
The problem is not that there's hate speech on social media.
The problem is that people on social media validate the activity by objecting.
When governments regulate social media, social media becomes a branch of the government.
It's not. Leave it alone and don't feed the trolls.
Re:It's an admission ... (Score:4, Interesting)
According to your logic:
- When corporations regulate social media, it becomes a branch of the corporation.
- When nobody regulates social media, it becomes a branch of bots and spammers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And now you are talking religion, you designate some group as evil "government" while allowing other groups to behave exactly the same. Sorry, in my eyes, a corporate dictator or a mob dictator is just the same as a government dictator. Hell, I suspect that in the future government dictators may actually be easier to replace than the corporate ones.
Relevant quote (Score:3)
This is the movie trope about a superweapon developed by the bad guys falling into the hands of the good guys. Some of the good guys say destroy it, others say use it to advance the cause of good. The latter wins out and the weapon is used to defeat the bad guys. But then in the future, new bad guys infiltrate the good guys' government and gain control of the superweapon, and use
People will wimp out for sure (Score:2)
How can this be? (Score:2)
I don't get it. Since Trump was elected, Merkel is now the leader of the free world [indy100.com]! This isn't free, it can't possibly be Merkel...
Every time I think of Merkel and the UE (Score:2)
Obligatory C.S. Lewis quote. (Score:4, Insightful)
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
The left has always had a more slippery slope towards authoritarian, fascist, totalitarian rule since they are imposing it all for our own good.
Obviously illegal (Score:2)
Somehow, there are no lamentations today about the unwashed Americans being insufficiently similar to the enlightened Europeans...
Because... (Score:2)
Because if there's anyone who you'd trust to determine that some news is fake under penalty of destroying your business and maybe jailing you if you don't have a few million dollars to hand over, the government of Germany comes to mind.
Re: (Score:3)
Where did you see that Slashdot is okay with censorship in Germany?
And there is nothing about exporting German law to other countries. It is not about writing posts, it is about publishing. And posts that are illegal in Germany will probably just end up being hidden from German IPs. It already happens with Google search results.
Re: ROTFLMAO (Score:3, Interesting)
Good! I don't want to see another tweet to the sound of
"All I want for Christmas is white genocide."
Or
"Band together to kill all men."
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget "God's Dead, Ye Merry Gentlemen"
What's wrong with that?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Salvation Army is a hateful organization, so being criticized for supporting it sounds like it isn't unreasonable, just not something I'd bother with. Sounds like snowflakes can't get criticized or "condemned" without people getting upset nowadays.
Re: (Score:2)
The Congo, today.
https://yro.slashdot.org/story... [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Hitler did nothing wrong.
Yes he did. He delayed the unification of Europe under German rule by about 50 years.
Re: (Score:2)
You are only partially right:
While diplomats do not get prosecuted a nation also is not required to give diplomatic immunity to every foreign politicion. And even if a nation can not prosecute a diplomat it still can investigate a crime done by him. And you can always show him the door.