It is a great law.
Mean ocuk would be responsible for deleting posts like this mindless drivel.
Fines for online Hate Speech in Germany
- Thread starter h4rm0ny
- Start date
It is a great law.
Mean ocuk would be responsible for deleting posts like this mindless drivel.
Does it really? Actually, I'd been wondering what the reaction of the girl's family and friends was going to be, with the fact that she had got herself a half English, half German, Christian boyfriend, but I don't suppose that suits your agenda, does it?
I couldn't give a rat's you know what if my kids or grandkids got into a relationship with an atheist North Korean, or a devout Thai Buddhist, providing they were happy.
Man of Honour
A large part of the point of using force to suppress speech is for people with power to suppress dissent. It shouldn't be hard to believe it would be used for that purpose. It should be hard to believe it wouldn't be used for that purpose. Labelling dissent as "hate" is just a useful deception.
Random example: Someone on Youtube who has a lot of knowledge of various aspects of history including (relevant to this issue) combat with hand to hand weapons made a rational video, supported by research and evidence, about why most warriors in most times and places in the past were men. As a result, he was accused of hate speech against women. The people attacking him in that way didn't have enough power to have him fined or jailed, but they want that much power and might get it at some point in the future. In Germany, they'd have the laws already in place.
The only thing that matters in the context of "hate" speech laws is the power to use them and how much privileged status a group identity has. If, for example, AMD fans had enough privileged status and enough power, then saying "Vega is rubbish" would be "hate" speech. Anything is "hate" speech with enough power and status and nothing is hate speech without it. For example, publically calling on people to murder "white" men is not defined as hate speech in the UK but publically calling on people to murder people in a different group identity would be. It has everything to do with power and status and nothing to do with what is said or written and nothing to do with inciting hate.
EDIT to prevent 2 posts:
In response to the question of people publically calling for genocide:
I was going to disagree with h4rm0ny on that point because I have a bit less absolute position on free speech than they do. I started a reply, thought about how possible legal "cures" would work, started another reply...and realised that I couldn't support my disagreement. I want there to be a legal "cure" that's less bad than the "disease", but I can't think of one. Not in the real world.
Last edited:
Yup, hate speech is pretty subjective and partly depends on personal bias. The whole point of 'freedom of speech' is to protect speech that others would object too, speech that no one has an issue with doesn't need protecting in the first place. 'Freedom of speech' therefore ought to protect 'hate speech' - this is one area that the US does better, the Supreme Court recently ruled that hate speech is protected over there under their right to 'freedom of speech', over here on the other hand we're supposed to have 'freedom of speech' but it is rather more constrained compared to the US. In other parts of the EU it is constrained even more, Germany passing this law is just further constraining it.
well I think the US is well protected in terms of 'freedom of speech' but even they will have some laws/restrictions when it comes to say inciting riots, or making death threats etc..
well I think the US is well protected in terms of 'freedom of speech' but even they will have some laws/restrictions when it comes to say inciting riots, or making death threats etc..
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2009
- Posts
- 4,589
Germany is trying it's best to escape from it's past but slowly creeping towards liberal fascism, just like this country. Freedom of speech should be protected. You should have the right to say anything within reason, that doesn't include threats of violence against someone, but if I want to say anything else, it should be allowed.
Classic example is Trumps latest twitter post, it's just a meme, it means nothing, but it's triggered the ********** so much.
People need to harden up.
America has many things wrong in their culture, but their idea of freedom of speech is one that should be enjoyed by everyone.
Otherwise, George Orwells thought police comes true.
Classic example is Trumps latest twitter post, it's just a meme, it means nothing, but it's triggered the ********** so much.
People need to harden up.
America has many things wrong in their culture, but their idea of freedom of speech is one that should be enjoyed by everyone.
Otherwise, George Orwells thought police comes true.
Last edited:
I would say yes. And anybody would have a right to go up to the caller and punch him in the face. Repeatedly. And thus self-regulate the number of genocide callers.
The possibility that majority would choose to join said callers is scary. It scares the governments too and thus they prefer to ban everything. Calling, punching, joining, everything.
Yeah, you only say that when it validates your narrative. But say any article pertaining a Muslim spreading hate speech you'll be 'the law is too soft!'. But something tells me you'll ignore those articles of such individuals being prosecuted under the same law.
Well Germany has had Hate Speech laws for a long time - this is essentially adding teeth and making companies enforce it rather than introducing something fundamentally new to Germany. Though that is my point - this is a meaningful step. The reason to emphasise this is because we already have a good idea of how Germany defines Hate Speech - although it is ever changing. Generally, at least based on what Germans have said to me, it's about incitement to violence rather than simply expressing dislike. So oddly, it's more a concern in other countries than Germany perhaps. Though I still find this very ominous in Germany as well. It's important to recognise that under the Hate Speech laws, factual accuracy is not a defence. You could say that the large-scale immigration in Germany has resulted in an increase of rape incidents and I think you'd be right in that. But it could still be Hate Speech.
I don't think it's hyperbole. Once you give the state the power to supress opinions and conversations with force, where do you think it will end? Do you really have that much faith in governments? I do not. Here's an interesting one. I have long hated the way the pro-Israeli attempts to conflate Zionist with Jewish. It's a deliberate and repugnant trick which I believe actually increases anti-Semitism. There are plenty of Jewish people who are not rabid Zionists. There are plenty of Zionists who are not Jewish. Yet an Israeli minister and his lobby has been campaigning behind the scenes with success to create a legal definition of anti-Semitism that explicitly includes criticism of Israel as a Jewish state as constituting such. It's been adopted by US departments, US judges trained on it and the Conservative Friends of Israel got it approved in the UK recently as well:
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/12/12/europe/uk-anti-semitism-definition/
It all sounds great - who doesn't want to reduce anti-Semitism? Until like many things you go beyond the name and look at the actual contents. Here's an in-depth and citation-heavy analysis and history of it:
http://dissidentvoice.org/2017/05/i...alizing-criticism-of-israel-as-anti-semitism/
(Note, the DV isn't my usual source - they have a pretty anti-capitalist stance, but a well-researched article is a well-researched article).
Police, judges, politicians are being instructed to view criticism of Israel as anti-Semitism. I.e. Hate Speech.
It is NOT hyperbole to be worried that these laws will shut down discussion of reasonable dialogue. The difficult part for a government is getting such powers. Abusing them afterwards is pretty easy. Besides, I'll defend freedom of speech even for those I disagree with.
Well yes - that's the intent. You can implement any law, seize any power you want, if you know the magic words: "paedophiles" and "terrorists".
You don't think describing Syrian refugees as "hordes of murdering rapists" is hyperbole?.....hmmmm
The Trump tweet is funny, but the guy is the President of the United States, he shouldn't be posting memes.
The irony of calling everyone else ********** when Trump is about the best example of one is fantastic.
He's a thin-skinned man-child who throws his toys out of the pram whenever someone criticises him.
One further problem with this - and I'm specifically referring to the fines and the encouragement to outsource content removal - is that it creates a general attitude of speech suppression. Does anybody think that Facebook or Google (incl. YouTube) are going to sit around waiting for fines to roll in? Does anybody believe that they'll leave stuff sitting there and go to court over any of this? Or even restore it later? Nor will users be able to challenge take-downs because "Facebook reserves the right..."
What this bill will accomplish is to make online services such as Facebook, YouTube or forums (such as OCUK!) have to err on the side of not getting massive fines and just take down anything resembling Hate Speech. Some people are arguing about legal niceties but the effect of this is for dialogue to be suppressed without reference to any court.
When the largest means of social discussion - Facebook, forums like this, etc. - are privately owned, cannot be legally challenged for suppressing opinion because their T&C give them carte blanche and the government cannot be challenged because it's outsourced to Third Parties and all "guidance", then that has a very significant effect on Free Speech.
What this bill will accomplish is to make online services such as Facebook, YouTube or forums (such as OCUK!) have to err on the side of not getting massive fines and just take down anything resembling Hate Speech. Some people are arguing about legal niceties but the effect of this is for dialogue to be suppressed without reference to any court.
When the largest means of social discussion - Facebook, forums like this, etc. - are privately owned, cannot be legally challenged for suppressing opinion because their T&C give them carte blanche and the government cannot be challenged because it's outsourced to Third Parties and all "guidance", then that has a very significant effect on Free Speech.
I don't think it's hyperbole to predict bad things coming from Hate Speech laws and their heavy enforcement.
That is quite clearly the end goal, and one May will also want, suppress anything said that the government does not agree with, it's V for Vendetta.
Which is one of the reasons companies like Facebook have been reluctant to implement strict rules on these things. Without strict guidance as to what is and what isn't considered hate speech from government they are just shooting blind and/or removing anything remotely controversial.
On an unrelated note (to that specific point above) the lack of a law like this is the reason Abu Hamza was allowed to continue speaking publicly for as long as he did. Either we restrict all hate speech, or we have very relaxed laws and allow much more freedom of speech. Believing that you should be allowed to say things and someone else shouldn't isn't enough.
The UK government tried to stop Hamza many times, but it was EU laws that got in the way. They also got in the way when the US wanted him to answer for terrorism charges. It was May (home secretary at the time) that told the EU to stuff it and extradited him anyway. Which finally got rid of him.
Soldato
There's a difference between hate speech and factual, constructive criticism though.
Yes but ********* justice doesn't see a difference.