Law against Hate Speech etc etc etc...

VincentHanna said:
If that is going to be the case, then the comments they "don't agree with" would have to be considered hate speech under German law.

And if they are, then the person who said them should have thought about that.

And if they aren't and they get reported, they have nothing to worry about.
Click to expand...

no it doesnt because as DP just demonstraighted humans trawling through human posts is jist not going to work.

do you think facebook will suddenly employed 10bmillion plus people to check comments?

or do you think they will set up a peice of software that deleted any comment and warns the poster after 5 complaints?
 
mmj_uk said:
Very worrying, the trouble is most of what will fall under this censorship will be uncomfortable political views like the Google memo guy expressed and got fired for, social media will become an even bigger echo chamber for left wing politically correct groupthink.
Click to expand...

People who want to censor people if they say anything even remotely offensive are not left wing. They are just loonies.

There seems to be a popular opinion these days that it is the left who are causing all these issues but it really has nothing to do with left wing politics at all. It is a group of vocal extremists who like to say they are left wing or liberal but don't know what these political labels historically meant. They have basically just co-opted a term for their own use to fit in with their own agenda.

Liberals and left wing politicians from 50 years ago are probably turning in their graves at the moment.

I consider myself a liberal and left of centre politically but I hate these people who attempt to shut down any discussion they find distasteful. That is just straight up censorship. So please do not tar us all with the same brush. There are some liberals and left wingers who do not agree with these people.
 
Efour said:
I think it's a very outdated saying.
I think it stems from times when men were socially frowned upon to show any emotional reaction.
If you wanna live in a society where.people are like Vulcans and just don't react to 24h mental abuse that's fair enough.
I however doubt you personally, or anyone that agrees with "sticks and stones" would last long to 24/7 sustained psychological attack, for use of a better set of words.
Click to expand...

This will sound glib, but it isn't meant to be. There is a simple coping mechanism called 'walking away'.
 
Since this is just giving authorities greater powers to enforce existing laws on hate speech, has anyone found any examples of people being prosecuted under German law and what they said?
 
Tuppy_Glossop said:
This will sound glib, but it isn't meant to be. There is a simple coping mechanism called 'walking away'.
Click to expand...

There's an even easier one for those perpetually offended and over-sensitive types who get 'offended' or 'triggered' by words and pictures on the internet. You hit the 'x' and close the page.
 
Tuppy_Glossop said:
This will sound glib, but it isn't meant to be. There is a simple coping mechanism called 'walking away'.
Click to expand...
I do agree to some extent but I do also think people shouldn't be able to spout anything and everything they want under the guise of free speech.

Social media is a really different platform to a soap box and a loud speaker. It's scope is ridiculously wider.

I would be for some kind of way of your online presence being directly registered to your real and fully being accountable for the crap you potentially say.

That still gives you the right to talk drivel but at least be known as an idiot by your community etc.
 
Malevolence said:
There's an even easier one for those perpetually offended and over-sensitive types who get 'offended' or 'triggered' by words and pictures on the internet. You hit the 'x' and close the page.
Click to expand...

Totally agree and you could have done the same but you didn't. You wanted to make your 2 cents worth heard too.
Everyone got a voice these days and everyone wants it to be heard to some extent.

I'm just using you as an example not aiming at you.
 
Malevolence said:
There's an even easier one for those perpetually offended and over-sensitive types who get 'offended' or 'triggered' by words and pictures on the internet. You hit the 'x' and close the page.
Click to expand...

Do you think that authorities should hit the close button when they come across attempts by hate preachers to radicalise angry young men?

The German government is right-wing. This law isn’t about SJWs, safe spaces or being triggered.
 
Efour said:
I do agree to some extent but I do also think people shouldn't be able to spout anything and everything they want under the guise of free speech.

Social media is a really different platform to a soap box and a loud speaker. It's scope is ridiculously wider.

I would be for some kind of way of your online presence being directly registered to your real and fully being accountable for the crap you potentially say.

That still gives you the right to talk drivel but at least be known as an idiot by your community etc.
Click to expand...

I take this point. Face to face you have to moderate your speech against the possibility of physical attack (regardless of whether that is an appropriate and/or legal response) which results in less extreme dialogue. Online the need for this self-moderation is removed (hence mods). And you end up with horrific people like this. But the digital/real-world link has to be done in a sensible and controlled way and should never be public. It'll be expensive too.
 
Tunney said:
Do you think that authorities should hit the close button when they come across attempts by hate preachers to radicalise angry young men?

The German government is right-wing. This law isn’t about SJWs, safe spaces or being triggered.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it does make me laugh when these people who preach 'sticks and stones' way of ignoring things, but do you think they'll have the same tune if it comes to Islam and radicalisation? Not a damn chance.
 
Tuppy_Glossop said:
I take this point. Face to face you have to moderate your speech against the possibility of physical attack (regardless of whether that is an appropriate and/or legal response) which results in less extreme dialogue. Online the need for this self-moderation is removed (hence mods). And you end up with horrific people like this. But the digital/real-world link has to be done in a sensible and controlled way and should never be public. It'll be expensive too.
Click to expand...


no you don't as there's not many people who will physically attack you.

and if they do youve won anyway.

do it happens less in person as people tend not tonsee people they dislike in person for long chats about politics
 
diamount said:
Yeah, it does make me laugh when these people who preach 'sticks and stones' way of ignoring things, but do you think they'll have the same tune if it comes to Islam and radicalisation? Not a damn chance.
Click to expand...

that wouldnt actuslly be covered by rhis though would it? that is its own crime iirc
 
Tefal said:
no you don't as there's not many people who will physically attack you. and if they do youve won anyway. do it happens less in person as people tend not tonsee people they dislike in person for long chats about politics
Click to expand...

I certainly do moderate myself. I suppose it depends on the company you keep and how anodyne your dialogue is.
 
Tefal said:
that wouldnt actuslly be covered by rhis though would it? that is its own crime iirc
Click to expand...

It's enforceable under the same laws against hate speech. You know the sort of spiel like 'kill the unbelievers'?

Tuppy_Glossop said:
Not leaving much room for discussion there.
Click to expand...

It's been discussed to death already. Nothing new to be said. The same people who don't want the alt-right being censored don't hold the same tune when the same law prevents ISIS openly recruiting.
 
Words are cheap. I prefer to characterise people by their actions. If one leads to the other then somebody needs to make a better case against the action before it is undertaken.
 
Tuppy_Glossop said:
Words are cheap. I prefer to characterise people by their actions. If one leads to the other then somebody needs to make a better case against the action before it is undertaken.
Click to expand...
Eh? That's easier said than done if the person who ultimately commits the action is only listening to one side of the argument.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom