Law against Hate Speech etc etc etc...

D.P. said:
Someone clearly doesn't know the definition of hate speech.
Click to expand...

Who does? it's subjective.

The extreme cases might be obvious such as ISIS propaganda or KKK type material but there'll be a lot more grey areas where it's a judgement call, I believe one of Facebook's criticisms of this law before was that they're being asked to do in 30mins something that would take the legal system months in most cases in deciding whether something breaches so called "hate speech" laws. Social media websites are just going to end up pulling anything that gets complaints/flags and is mildly questionable for fear of being fined and we know which end of the political spectrum loves to take offence at every little thing and shut down opposing views.
 
mmj_uk said:
Who does? it's subjective.

The extreme cases might be obvious such as ISIS propaganda or KKK type material but there'll be a lot more grey areas where it's a judgement call, I believe one of Facebook's criticisms of this law before was that they're being asked to do in 30mins something that would take the legal system months in most cases in deciding whether something breaches so called "hate speech" laws. Social media websites are just going to end up pulling anything that gets complaints/flags and is mildly questionable for fear of being fined and we know which end of the political spectrum loves to take offence at every little thing and shut down opposing views.
Click to expand...

Some people class hate speech if they’re losing an argument. Hate speech between football fans, AMD and NVIDIA, Xbox and Playstation, Intel and AMD and all those fights and discussions. People would class that as hateful.
 
mmj_uk said:
Who does? it's subjective.

The extreme cases might be obvious such as ISIS propaganda or KKK type material but there'll be a lot more grey areas where it's a judgement call, I believe one of Facebook's criticisms of this law before was that they're being asked to do in 30mins something that would take the legal system months in most cases in deciding whether something breaches so called "hate speech" laws. Social media websites are just going to end up pulling anything that gets complaints/flags and is mildly questionable for fear of being fined and we know which end of the political spectrum loves to take offence at every little thing and shut down opposing views.
Click to expand...


There is a well defined legal meaning, there is really nothing subjective about it.

Facebook don;t like such laws because they make money by hosting hate groups. It is also important to note that under this German law, the likes of Facebook would not be fined if individuals post hate speech which are in part removed. The fines are only applicable if Facebook consistently did not make attempts at removing hate speech.
 
D.P. said:
There is a well defined legal meaning, there is really nothing subjective about it.

Facebook don;t like such laws because they make money by hosting hate groups. It is also important to note that under this German law, the likes of Facebook would not be fined if individuals post hate speech which are in part removed. The fines are only applicable if Facebook consistently did not make attempts at removing hate speech.
Click to expand...

Hate speech is a pile of BS. This type of thing will lead to Symes dictionary.

Telling truth can already get you prison and or a fine in Germany. At what point does truth become hate speech? Is it at the point we say: Black people commit proportionally most murders? Or will you use Symes dictionary to twist every ounce of substance out of what is a factually accurate statement?

As someone who is anti-facebook, I would love them to be thundered into immediate fines, however my principle of truth being a paramountcy when it comes to expression overrides the need to see Cuckerberg get cucked with something he routinely censoring anyway.

A bad decision and one that will trickle into EU member states.
 
VincentHanna said:
That's not hate speech.
Click to expand...

It could, depending upon what a magistrate thinks.

(1) A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he— (a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.
Click to expand...

The law isn't definitive, which is sometimes a good thing as it allows it to be flexible, but sometimes a bad thing as it means that sometimes you may not know if something is breaking the law or not.
 
Sounds like a load of **** to me, how can you expect to regulate something that's subjective, everything is hate speech these days. Ben Shapiro cannot open his mouth, no, he can't even get into colleges or universities without a riot breaking out because SJW think everything he says is hate speech.

So 50m Euro fine from Germany if they consider something hate speech, how many times will Facebook absorb that, how many times can they absorb that before they pull the plug and remove access to Facebook from Germany because they cannot afford to operate there.
 
esoteric said:
Sounds like a load of **** to me, how can you expect to regulate something that's subjective, everything is hate speech these days. Ben Shapiro cannot open his mouth, no, he can't even get into colleges or universities without a riot breaking out because SJW think everything he says is hate speech.

So 50m Euro fine from Germany if they consider something hate speech, how many times will Facebook absorb that, how many times can they absorb that before they pull the plug and remove access to Facebook from Germany because they cannot afford to operate there.
Click to expand...

If you'd actually care to read, the law is clearly defined on the German government considers hate speech.
 
D.P. said:
Nope, I have presented the truth. A Neonazi is a neonazi, you can't dress them up as anything different. That is not hate speech, it is factual observation.

If you believe I have i committed a hate speech then please go and provide the evidence or retract your ridiculous claim.
Click to expand...


The problem with the terms "Nazi and "Fascist" is that in the English language at least they are terms so broadly used in context as to make them worthless at being actually able to clearly describe a person or group anymore.

'Nazi' can be used as a pejorative term for someone or a group in authority or for someone or a group who is perceived as being a bully, bossy or a pedant.... take grammar 'nazi' of 'feminazi' for example... neither of these groups of people actually are Nazi's

D.P of course seems fully aware of the now perverted use of this word....

D.P. said:
yes, i'm a food Nazi :p

When you make food, make it properly. ;) :D
Click to expand...

But like 'Nazi', fascism (of which Nazism is a subset) does have a definition relevant in a political sense

Fascism /ˈfæʃɪzəm/ is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism, characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and control of industry and commerce, that came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe.

and this is where D.P loses the plot totally subscribing to the popular meme that trump is a fascist ............ (presumably seeking to describe his politics given that he's one of the worlds most important politicians currently)

D.P. said:
And don't forget Trump trying to make Fascism great again.
Click to expand...

Trump may be many things a demagogue among them but he is not a 'fascist' (if you are seeking to describe his politics)

So there's is a real problem labelling another as a fascist or Nazi and even when people apply the term to themselves you have to actually ask...but are they actually fascist at least in the original political sense of the word?

Even as far back as 1944 Orwell recognised the problems with the word 'Fascist'

It will be seen that, as used, the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless, almost any English person would accept ‘bully’ as a synonym for ‘Fascist’. That is about as near to a definition as this much-abused word has come.

So the whole punch a 'Nazi/ Fascist' thing simply boils down to 'punch someone who I disagree with'

Much the same those that cheer enthusiastically for 'Hate speech' laws should be aware that their speech may be deemed 'hateful' one day so they should perhaps reflect as to whether it is wise to support the state having such power to censor its populace...
 
Last edited:
Caracus2k said:
Much the same those that cheer enthusiastically for 'Hate speech' laws should be aware that their speech may be deemed 'hateful' one day so they should perhaps reflect as to whether it is wise to support the state having such power to censor its populace...
Click to expand...

Quoted for truth.
 
diamount said:
https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_stgb.html#p1246

Section 130, Incitement to Hatred
Click to expand...

Again, while a little more succinct than UK law it still leaves an awful lot of wiggle room:

assaults the human dignity of others by insulting, maliciously maligning an aforementioined group, segments of the population or individuals because of their belonging to one of the aforementioned groups or segments of the population, or defaming segments of the population
Click to expand...

Is quite vague. What does assaulting human dignity mean? It is open to interpretation.
 
RDM said:
Again, while a little more succinct than UK law it still leaves an awful lot of wiggle room:



Is quite vague. What does assaulting human dignity mean? It is open to interpretation.
Click to expand...

Doesn't seem vague to me at all. It means to call them subhuman due to their nationality, race, religion, etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom