Fines for online Hate Speech in Germany

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.

I never actually followed the case closely. By my standards, he should not be punished for "Hate Speech". He was also imprisoned for Solicitation for Murder, attempting to set up a terrorist training camp and involvement in hostage taking, though. So it seems there was plenty else to charge him with?
 
Last edited:
I never actually followed the case closely. By my standards, he should not be punished for "Hate Speech". He was also imprisoned for Solicitation for Murder, attempting to set up a terrorist training camp and involvement in hostage taking, though. So it seems there was plenty else to charge him with?

I think you meant to quote @Amp34.
You've attributed an entire paragraph of his text to me.
 
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.

No, he had been speaking for years but never quite went over the line that allows the police to arrest him and courts to convict him(although they did arrest him and subsequently drop charges previously).

The EU/US issue is unrelated to that, but rather incidents in Yemen years before, not crimes committed in the UK which is what he was eventually also arrested for.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Hamza_al-Masri

I never actually followed the case closely. By my standards, he should not be punished for "Hate Speech". He was also imprisoned for Solicitation for Murder, attempting to set up a terrorist training camp and involvement in hostage taking, though. So it seems there was plenty else to charge him with?

Again, same as above. You're confusing two separate parts. There was the US extradition request (the terrorist training camp, hostage taking) and the UK arrest which was for:

On 26 August 2004, Hamza was arrested by British police under section 41 of the Terrorism Act 2000, which covers the instigation of acts of terrorism. Charges against him were dropped on 31 August 2004, but he was kept in jail whilst a US extradition case was developed and British authorities drew up further criminal charges of their own.[36] Almost two months later, on 19 October 2004, Hamza was charged with fifteen offences under the provisions of various British statutes, including encouraging the killing of non-Muslims, and intent to stir up racial hatred.[37] The trial commenced on 5 July 2005, but was adjourned, and not resumed until 9 January 2006. On 7 February 2006, he was found guilty on eleven charges and not guilty on four:

  • Guilty of six charges of soliciting murder under the Offences against the Person Act 1861; not guilty on three further such charges.
  • Guilty of three charges related to "using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour with intent to stir up racial hatred, contrary to section 18 (1) of the Public Order Act 1986",[38] not guilty on one further such charge.
  • Guilty of one charge of "possession of threatening, abusive or insulting recordings of sound, with intent to stir up racial hatred, contrary to section 23 of the Public Order Act 1986".[38]
  • Guilty of one charge of "possessing a document containing information likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism",[38] under the Terrorism Act 2000, s58. This charge under the Terrorism Act of 2000 related to his possession of an Encyclopedia of Afghan Jihad, an Al Qaeda Handbook and other propaganda materials produced by Abu Hamza.[39]

A mix of terrorism and hate speech related crimes.

The difficulty with hate speech is where do you draw the line? Do you keep the law relaxed and allow people to say things that many would construe as hate speech - in which case allow people like Hamza and other far right people to spout hate? Alternatively do you make it strict and end up with potentially a lot of collateral damage and law that can possibly be used to help suppress government dissent.

There is no logical option that would allow right wing anti muslim/immigrant hate speakers to continue spouting their hate, but lock up people spouting the same hate but against "natives". It's one or the other, there shouldn't be a difference, hence Hamza being able to speak for so long.
 
Last edited:
Again, same as above. You're confusing two separate parts. There was the US extradition request (the terrorist training camp, hostage taking) and the UK arrest which was for:

Ah, again - my bad. Thanks. Well Solicitation to Murder is not "Hate Speech", I believe. The rest seems to be though. Again, I don't know the case well enough to comment but if it's as it appears, then that shouldn't be criminalised, imo. Solicitation to Murder is rightly a crime, though.


There is no logical option that would allow right wing anti muslim/immigrant hate speakers to continue spouting their hate, but lock up people spouting the same hate but against "natives". It's one or the other, there shouldn't be a difference, hence Hamza being able to speak for so long.

Well my position is consistent, I feel. I would allow him to continue his bile. There are better ways to counter his rhetoric than by throwing out what we as Western society have striven so hard to achieve.
 
Nobody is getting fined anytime soon in this country for making a sensible supportable argument ie the suffering in halal slaughter is unnecessary and brutal compare to a modern method, I have no problem with those that phrase this in a 'different' way being punished the way we express our opinions is important.
 
What defines hate speech is Angela Merkel being outspoken against gay marriage hate speech?
depends how she phrases it if she says she is against gay marriage as it runs contrary to her personal beliefs that is fine if she says she is against it because all gay people are disgusting scum who deserve to die then she is crossing the line.
 
Ah, again - my bad. Thanks. Well Solicitation to Murder is not "Hate Speech", I believe. The rest seems to be though. Again, I don't know the case well enough to comment but if it's as it appears, then that shouldn't be criminalised, imo. Solicitation to Murder is rightly a crime, though.

I agree, there were a mix of crimes he was found guilty of, some more "hate speech" related, others not so much. With stricter hate speech laws he could have been arrested much earlier however.

Well my position is consistent, I feel. I would allow him to continue his bile. There are better ways to counter his rhetoric than by throwing out what we as Western society have striven so hard to achieve.

That wasn't aimed at you, it was just a general comment to all.

I agree with your position entirely there, but there has been a lot of discussion on this forum on the past about people like him and "why the government didn't do anything before", hence bringing it up. A lot of people seem to want their cake and eat it however - stop the people they don't like from talking, while still wanting to be able to spout their own hate, "because they're telling the truth/only stating facts". It's always "the other guy" that's doing the bad stuff.
 
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.

No I wouldn't. Freedom of speech should be enjoyed by everyone, including them. I would fight for their right to say whatever they want as much as yours.

The only time when it's wrong is threats of violence against a person.
 
There's a difference between hate speech and factual, constructive criticism though.

No, there isn't. This law (and others like it) explicitly state that facts are not a defence because, and this is an important point, "hate" speech is about who claims to be offended or which group identity they are claiming to be offended on behalf of and has nothing at all to do with what is or isn't true. Anything claimed to be criticism of a group identity with enough power and status is "hate" speech, even if it's true and/or it isn't a criticism and/or it isn't actually about that group identity. Nothing is "hate" speech if it targets a group identity with low power and status, even if it really is hate speech, even if it's outright incitement to murder. "hate" speech rules have nothing to do with the speech and everything to do with group identity power and status.
 
No, there isn't. This law (and others like it) explicitly state that facts are not a defence because, and this is an important point, "hate" speech is about who claims to be offended or which group identity they are claiming to be offended on behalf of and has nothing at all to do with what is or isn't true. Anything claimed to be criticism of a group identity with enough power and status is "hate" speech, even if it's true and/or it isn't a criticism and/or it isn't actually about that group identity. Nothing is "hate" speech if it targets a group identity with low power and status, even if it really is hate speech, even if it's outright incitement to murder. "hate" speech rules have nothing to do with the speech and everything to do with group identity power and status.


You had a point at the start but you lose it at the end.

Nothing is "hate" speech if it targets a group identity with low power and status

White people have far more power and status than black people.

But which do you think is more likely to be charged with hate speach for tbe same comment aimed at the other
 
Indeed, the whole point of having a right to 'freedom of speech' is to protect speech that others might strongly dislike or want to suppress.

The US Supreme Court ruled on hate speech recently, it is still protected by the US constitution:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...o-the-first-amendment/?utm_term=.9b896405a9c7

A law found to discriminate based on viewpoint is an “egregious form of content discrimination,” which is “presumptively unconstitutional.” … A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all. The First Amendment does not entrust that power to the government’s benevolence. Instead, our reliance must be on the substantial safeguards of free and open discussion in a democratic society.

The case itself is a bit random.. an Asian American band who wanted to trademark their name 'The Slants' but were denied a trademark as the name could be seen as being offensive. Yet I'm pretty sure that the band N.W.A have a trademarks and frankly the 'N' part of their name is pretty unambiguously offensive and I'd be breaking forum rules if I posted it here.
 
[..]
White people have far more power and status than black people.

It's far lower group identity power and status, obviously, or else it wouldn't have such low power and status that publically calling for the murder of white men is legal and criticism of that call to murder results in articles supporting it being published in mainstream media.

The existence of individuals with power and status doesn't necessarily reflect group identity power and status - the former is personal, the latter is political. Two different things.
 
White people have far more power and status than black people.

But which do you think is more likely to be charged with hate speach for tbe same comment aimed at the other

Angilion has already answered very well but I will also add my view. A great deal of law enforcement is focused on social stability rather than justice. Groups like BLM are active political forces carrying a lot of public and media weight. In short, they threaten the Status Quo. That is the power that matters. That is why those in power must exert themselves to slam down things that offend such groups - to signal their inclusiveness of such groups. They have little need to signal their inclusiveness of "White people". "White people" seldom define themselves by their skin colour or equate it with their culture. Groups that have endured a lot of oppression - such as Black people in the USA - start doing so in response. Hate Speech laws do not come about from a desire to protect individuals, but through a desire to placate groups.
 
Don't like this sort of thing really.

Always think its better to know if someone had these views. If they pay something at least they can be monitored.

Also, the big issue.. Where does it stop. And so defines 'hate'
 
No society can move forward without rational debate about controversial topics. Inciting violence is off the books and there is a certain way to communicate and engage people without causing undue offence; I think everyone agrees with that. However this push to close down discussion of anything controversial is deeply worrying. The only way to find out what is best for society is to challenge ideas.

There should be no presumption that an idea is sacred or beyond question, I should not be forced to respect ideas that require a belief based on no evidence.
 
Wow it's like 1945 all over again when Germany had other laws suppressing free speech, guess some countries don't learn lessons from history!

The type of things that are classified as hate speech are absurd, being insulting or bigoted should not be a criminal offence.

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.

There is no such thing as "liberal fascism", the words mean the exact opposite of each other.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom