Facebook, Google and Twitter Agree To Delete Hate Speech In Germany (reuters.com) 259
An anonymous reader writes: Facebook, Google, and Twitter have agreed to remove hateful posts from their platforms within 24 hours in Germany, officials announced yesterday. The web companies committed to the move in a new agreement with German authorities, after coming under increased pressure to help curb racism online in the country. The agreement will require web companies operating in Germany to conform with the law when monitoring hate speech expressed on their platforms, instead of referring to internal policies. The German law stipulates that any comment inciting violence against ethnic or religious groups is punishable by up to three years in prison.
How about hatespeech from muslims? (Score:4, Insightful)
Do the same rules apply?
German Muslim: 'Islam Is Coming And Your Daughters Will Wear The Hijab'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAWNmAdgMHI
Yes. Why did you need to ask? (Score:4, Insightful)
Where does it say "but not Muslim"? Anywhere, in any law on what constitutes "hate speech" is "but not Muslim" appearing?
If nowhere, then where did this pansy query come from and why was it so central to your psyche that you HAD TO ask it?
And the same to the other morons making the same whiney-ass pissant little cries about "wadaboudamusim!" like scsirob.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Between the lines, of course. I'll eat my own shoe if it's actually enforced against Muslims inciting violence as well.
Re:Yes. Why did you need to ask? (Score:5, Insightful)
This should be a bad idea to do this..but then again, this isn't the US, it is Germany who can do as they please there....
Re:Yes. Why did you need to ask? (Score:5, Insightful)
Big differences in your examples.
If you want to investigate and possibly prosecute someone that makes direct threats against someone, that seem actionable (I"m gonna kill all the white guys this week, who's with me?)...that's one thing.
But to say "I hate all 's and they are the lowest scum of the earth and I don't think those fucking should be allowed to invade and change my country's core beliefs", is nothing more than one person's opinion.
It shouldn't be against any law to say you don't like crackers, towel heads, spear chuckers, wops, gooks, chinks, spics or any other racial slur you wish to use.
You may find some people are offended and may not want to hang around or be associated with you, and that's fine...but that is free speech.
If you value free speech, then you value even offensive speech.
At least that is the ideal.
Freedom of speech by necessity cannot allow anyone to be free from being offended.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Do the same rules apply?
German Muslim: 'Islam Is Coming And Your Daughters Will Wear The Hijab' https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
I see your point, but is that actually hateful?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:How about hatespeech from muslims? (Score:4, Insightful)
That actually highlights a problem with any type of anti-hate legislation which I first ran across in Everquest. Sony's anti-harassment policy said you could be banned for targeting another player for harassment. Which on the face of it sounds fine.
The problem came when a griefer parked himself in an area messing things up for other players trying to complete quests in that area. Any player. In other words, the griefer wasn't targeting any particular player, and thus his behavior was legal under the harassment policy. The people who tried to impede the griefer however (e.g. surrounding him with fat ogre characters so he couldn't move or target anything), they were targeting a specific player, and thus they got banned. The anti-harassment policy ended up protecting the harasser and banning the people trying to end the harassment.
In the same way, the Muslim making that general statement you've quoted is not targeting a particular religion or ethnic group. And thus this new policy does not apply to his statement. People criticizing him for making such an inflammatory statement though could be (mis)construed as inciting violence against his religion or ethnicity, and their posts classified as hate speech and deleted.
The problem crops up any time you outlaw a certain behavior only if it's targeted at certain groups or individuals. Basically all anti-hate legislation which tries to protect certain groups from "hate", rather than protecting the general population from "hate". Your laws have to be consistent whether applied to part of the population, or the entire population. Any law which tries to provide additional protection to just a part of the population basically amounts to the same thing as legislating a privileged class.
Chilling (Score:5, Insightful)
All criticism of Islam or resistance of Muslim immigration is hate speech. Modulate yourself, or else.
Free speech vs. hate speech (Score:2)
All criticism of Islam or resistance of Muslim immigration is hate speech. Modulate yourself, or else.
I think you meant "resistance to" and "Moderate", but anyway: you're wrong.
My country (the NL) has pretty similar laws when it comes to freedom of expression: basically the line is drawn at calling upon others to use violence against (members of) some group of society.
If you ridicule, make a parody, or just plain state you hate some group, then free speech-wise you're in the clear. The simple fact that some part of the population may feel offended, is not enough to wield the ban ham
Re: (Score:2)
How about:
"Wouldn't it be great if someone went out and killed $this_group_or_person?"
"I'd appreciate it if someone went out and killed $this_group_or_person?"
"I'd consider the murder of $this_group_or_person to be an asset to the world at large?"
"If you kill/harm/maim $this_group_or_person you'll be lauded as a hero?"
Note: Those are all, to my mind, containing subtle but important differences. They're all at the edge of where I'd consider MOST people, those who support such regulations, to be either on the
Re: (Score:3)
At least here in Norway I would say those tip-toeing on the line is mainly the Islamists. They're quoting selected passages from the scriptures and saying all true Muslims has a duty to obey the scriptures, but not in the same place so that it becomes a direct incitement to break the law. To use an example from the Bible (Leviticus 20:13):
If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
It's hard to ban quoting the book. And it's hard to ban saying every word in the Bible is God's will. But if I added 2+2 and said "All Christians have a moral duty to kill
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Pointing out the stupidity of the barbaric Quran is not hate speech, it is information about facts to overcome ignorance and spiritual immaturity:
Quran (2:191-193) [quran.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Bob: "Zeus wants me to chop heads off."
What about criticizing empirically observed manifestations of some religions like fe/male genital mutilation, honor killing and so on?
Are you saying that chopping peoples' heads off doesn't qualify as an empirically observed act?
Re: (Score:2)
"Zeus wants me to chop heads off." it's an opinion, not a fact.
You obviously don't understand how religion works.
Re: (Score:2)
"Zeus wants me to chop heads off." it's an opinion, not a fact.
So is "My god wants me to kill my sister to bring honor to our family" and "My god wants me to mutilate my daughter's genitals".
Chopping people's heads off is the physical manifestation (which does happen BTW), just like performing an honor killing or mutilating your children is a physical manifestation of religious and/or cultural beliefs.
Re: (Score:2)
All criticism of Islam or resistance of Muslim immigration is hate speech. Modulate yourself, or else.
So I guess your position is that you can be as free as you like to say stuff as long as it isn't "Praise Allah".
How do you get that out of his/her comment?
Can of worms (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
... but I can't imagine a system of implementation that would be remotely fair ...
Germany has anti hate speach laws since end of 1945. Installed under the supervision of the american and other allied occupying forces.
As the laws are pretty clear, there was no case of abuse as far as I'm aware.
How exactly would you imagine such an abuse anyway?
Poor quality article (Score:3)
The article implies that this was already law and Germany is just extending it to the internet/social media. You can't incite violence against a group of people, simple as that. And no, it's not the same as "Islam is coming and your daughters will wear the Hijab" unless that is followed by "or die". That might be considered inciting violence but maybe not, depending upon who's judging.
Re: (Score:2)
That's the big problem : "depending on who is judging" .
The whole "hate" concept it pretty useless anyway. it's whatever someone wants to define it as. Today's "I don't like you" is tomorrow's hate speech.
Re: (Score:3)
The whole "hate" concept it pretty useless anyway.
Only because it is mistranslated in american news into 'hate speach'. The proper term would be "incitememt of people", degrading assault on other cultures or religions etc. e.g 'aggittation to commit murder, rape, pillaging, arson'
it's whatever someone wants to define it as. Today's "I don't like you" is tomorrow's hate speech.
No it isn't. It is defined in the relevant laws, and we have enough precedense to stay on track.
Re: (Score:2)
The proper term would be "incitememt of people", degrading assault on other cultures or religions etc.
So then, saying negative things about Allah is hate speech because we know it will incite a certain number of Muslims to violence, but saying negative things about Jesus is not because it is unlikely to incite the same kind of violence?
This is a clear example of how the law is flawed. Your speech is banned if someone will riot because of it, no matter how unjustified they are in doing so. If I can find 1000 people who will burn down a movie theater because they object to Jedi nonsense, can I get the new St
Re: (Score:2)
So then, saying negative things about Allah is hate speech because we know it will incite a certain number of Muslims to violence, but saying negative things about Jesus is not because it is unlikely to incite the same kind of violence?
Are you argumenting for the arguments sake to drive non english speakers in a corner where they can not compete with your superior english?
Or is it the other way around: your english comprehension skills are so bad that you come up with such an out of context answer?
What exac
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
argumenting = arguing.
Was writing on my iPad, for some reason half the time it is not red underlining errors ...
The language is german ... argumentieren.
Re: (Score:3)
I'd be a nickel that his English is better than your German. I know it's better than my German.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you argumenting for the arguments sake to drive non english speakers in a corner where they can not compete with your superior english?
You provided what was supposed to be the correct translation of a German law regarding "hate speech". You used the phrase "incitement of people". Was that not correct? If not, why are you blaming me?
What exactly is "incitememt of people" when people by themselves decide to take action?
If "people by themselves" decide, then it isn't incitement. "Incite" is an active verb requiring an action on something. What we're talking about is NOT "people by themselves", we're talking about expressions of opinions that "incite" other people to commit violence. Like, publishing an editorial cartoon that de
Re: (Score:2)
What we're talking about is NOT "people by themselves", we're talking about expressions of opinions that "incite" other people to commit violence.
That is exactly what we are NOT talking about as this is free speech.
Facepalm.
Since we know that expressing that speech today will cause a violent outcome (i.e. "incitement of people") then clearly that speech is "hate speech" according to German law
No, it is not, as I have pointed out several times now. The 'author' of that work, speech or whatever is not active
Re: (Score:2)
They don't have to, because we should know better than to legislate arbitrary criteria. Ideally justice is blind, and the law is written so well it can be blindly followed.
In other words, the law is written so well it can't be "interpreted".
Suppression (Score:5, Funny)
Nothing encourages a free and open dialogue like stamping out opposing viewpoints.
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't graps the difference between hate speach and opposing views you should perhaps refrain yourself from posting?
Re:Suppression (Score:4, Insightful)
One man's hate speech is another man's opinion. Who are you to judge which is which? That's the entire point of "free speech". It certainly seems like what is being considered "hate speech" in the context of this article has a pretty broad and over-reaching definition.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
One man's hate speech is another man's opinion. ...' is hardly an opinion. It is hate speach, no need to argue about it.
A sentence like: 'lets gather tomorrow in front of the refugee camp, burn it to the ground, kill every man running out and rape every woman
Who are you to judge which is which?
I'm not judging that. A judge is judging that.
That's the entire point of "free speech".
That is not even true in your country. Free speach in Europe means: you can attack the government in any way you want with words.
Re: (Score:2)
One man's hate speech is another man's opinion. ...' is hardly an opinion. It is hate speach, no need to argue about it.
A sentence like: 'lets gather tomorrow in front of the refugee camp, burn it to the ground, kill every man running out and rape every woman
Who are you to judge which is which?
I'm not judging that. A judge is judging that.
That's the entire point of "free speech".
That is not even true in your country. Free speach in Europe means: you can attack the government in any way you want with words. And the government has no base to prosecute you for it. It does not mean that you are allowed to agitate the populace into rape and plunder and pillaging.
You may disagree, I for my part, don't.
It certainly seems like what is being considered "hate speech" in the context of this article has a pretty broad and over-reaching definition.
The context of this article does not mention what hate speach is. Hint: read the relevant laws, I guess you easily find english translations.
Thank you for this sensible view. I'd like to add that what much of what GOP presidential candidates are spewing forth, especially Trump, would be considered hate speech over here in ol'Europe - I frankly wonder whether those people would end up in prison or in an asylum.
Let's also add that while us europeans do have an issue with hate mongers, we don't have bigoted views on such natural things as a woman's breast, which apparently maims children for life over the big pond... a wonder breastfeeding hasn't b
Re: (Score:2)
A sentence like: 'lets gather tomorrow in front of the refugee camp, burn it to the ground, kill every man running out and rape every woman ...' is hardly an opinion. It is hate speach, no need to argue about it.
There's a crime for that already, it's called "assault". (legally defined as credible threat of violence)
Creating new words to describe an existing crime doesn't help to stop it. However, the creation of "hate speech" does set the stage to criminalize badthink.
So go ahead and embrace your actual position - you want thought police.
Re: (Score:3)
In your country that might be "assault".
In our country it is "incitement of the people".
"Hate speech" is a mistranslation you americans make. There is no new law, the law is from 1945, installed by the american occupying forces.
Bottom line, if you don't comprehend stuff: stay out of the discussion.
In Germany, if I take your world assault it would translate to: "it is actual violence that has happened, leading to death or injury". Obviously agitating people to commit 'assault' is not assault, and not covered
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe you can ponder the irony of griping about "thought police" while splitting semantic hairs.
Online disagreement is the exact same thing as criminal charges with associated penalties.
Re: (Score:2)
My bad. "Criminal threat" is probably the more appropriate analog.
In the case of hate speech, the perpetrator is sitting comfortably in his armchair at home, not personally threatening anyone, posting Internet comments like "hey everybody, go kill some $group", which might cause some completely different dumbass to actually do it.
Bearing in mind that the crime also needs to have provable harm - "someone else might do something bad after they hear you" is a very broad net.
Put another way - it needs to have a clear way to weed out false positives, or it will be abused.
Re: (Score:2)
Ridiculous. Making it illegal to hire a murderer or start a riot is not a limitation on free speech. Such laws are in place to prohibit you from infringing on the rights of others, namely the potential murder victim or the people who will suffer injury and property destruction as a result of your riot.
If you read the linked article, these people are asking for something a little more extreme than the removal of content like that.
"user complaints about racist content were often rebutted by Facebook, claimi
Re: (Score:2)
Making it illegal to hire a murderer or start a riot is not a limitation on free speech. Such laws are in place to prohibit you from infringing on the rights of others, namely the potential murder victim or the people who will suffer injury and property destruction as a result of your riot.
These would be limitations on free speech, actually. Murder and rioting themselves would be non-speech actions which cause harm to others, but offering to pay for a murder, or making a speech which you hope will lead to a riot, are merely speech, and of themselves cause harm to no one. Someone else has to make the choice to actually perform the harmful act, and they are wholly responsible for the consequences of that choice.
Re: (Score:3)
If you don't graps the difference between hate speach and opposing views you should perhaps refrain yourself from posting?
That was a hateful comment/attack you made.
See how easy it is to find yourself on the wrong side of censorship?
Re: (Score:2)
That was a hateful comment/attack you made.
See how easy it is to find yourself on the wrong side of censorship?
No it was not. You see now how dumb you are? It was not even insulting or in any way related to libel ... so I'm not on the wrong side of censorship. Also: forbidding hate speach and doing censoring are two different things, which anyone can tell you who lived in a society where "censoring" before something got published was mandatory.
But good luck, your, your insights into european laws and cultur
Re: (Score:2)
No it wasn't ... and I suspect you're not even making it in good faith.
Of course I'm not. I think the law is ridiculous and I am ridiculing it.
OMG! (Score:4, Insightful)
That's why the twitter account of the CSU has been so quiet lately.
(CSU: Conservative party of Bavaria)
I know what people will say (Score:2)
Freedom of speech and all that.
I am not a constitutional scholar or anything, but I always thought that freedom of speech extended to the point where it met my freedom to not be persecuted or slandered.
Besides, Facebook and Google (or any company) has any obligation to provide uncensored service.
I think that if they want to, and in the interest of fairness, can prove (to themselves) that the speech is hurtful to someone, then by all means, delete the content. I think these companies have an obligation to pr
Re:I know what people will say (Score:5, Informative)
Why would people say that? Germany has never has true freedom of speech. Everyone seems to import the US perspective of Freedom of Speech on other countries. Germany does technically have Freedom of Expression in their Basic Law, but there are so many exceptions (like hate speech, holocaust denial and more), that it might as well not be called Freedom of Expression.
Re: (Score:2)
I just meant that is what people will say.
I know that this is Germany we are talking about.
And you are right, Americans export their culture all the time.
Thanks for the great reply :)
Re: (Score:2)
my freedom to not be persecuted or slandered.
You're *already* protected from slander. The statutes and case law on slander are well established, you could probably get an LL.M in just slander & libel.
I'm curious how you can be "persecuted" by speech, though. Persecution ultimately implies harm through violence, discriminatory social practices in hiring, housing or resource allocation or some other means of a tangible nature.
Mere speech doesn't seem capable of persecuting you because it has no tangible element to it. It requires an actual physic
Re: (Score:2)
For your information, I live in a windowless subterranean room and I have a romantic attraction to coleoidea, you insensitive clod!
Butters better learn some German (Score:2)
How exactly do they delete? (Score:2)
1) Make it not visible within Germany?
2)Delete it on versions of websites popular/based/focused on in Germany, but leaving it visible on similar websites popular in other countries?
3) Delete it if it originates in Germany?
These things are important, it affects whether Germany et. al.'s laws are affecting non-Germans. #1 is the most fair to non-germans but isn't really deleting anything, #3 may technically comply but leave Germany with many issues - chief among them watching citizens from other
It's the people's right to know (Score:2)
I hope at the very least they replace the posts with a message about government censorship.
What is "hate speech"? (Score:2)
As a staunch atheist, I make sure I don't point my finger at people, only at religion, but I know full well that my posts irritate some people. My posts generate a lot of cognitive dissonance in religious, so I'm perceived as dangerous, even "hateful". Just see the reaction to #exMuslimBecause to see the kind of silly over-reaction and bluster that such posts can produce by the detractors.
Islam isn’t the problem; assholes are (Score:5, Insightful)
1000 years ago, Christians were roaming the world, killing non-believers. How is this a whole lot different? Christopher Hitchens (may he rest in peace) would go on and on about the evils of religion. But the truth is that religion only dictates the form of the assholery. If people didn’t have the religion, they’d find some other ideoligical reason to go around killing people they disagree with.
I’m not an expert in Islam. People tell me that there are lots of “kill the infidel” parts, and they’re later in the Qur’an, so they supercede peaceful stuff towards the beginning. You can find lots of violence in the Hebrew bible too. In all cases, I think it’s a matter of people cherry-picking the parts of their religious texts that support their idiosyncrasies and using that as justification. So you’re an asshole because God said to be? No. You’re an asshole. And you use your God to justify the shit you want to do.
There aren’t more assholes in the middle east, though. Most people there are relatively poor. However, there are oil barrons who want to control economies, and they find their religion as a convenient vehicle. MAYBE it’s easier to recruit and rile up your troops if you play on their religion, and MAYBE if you didn’t have that religion, it might be harder to do this. But the fact is, millions of people want to leave Syria to get away from ISIS. Those people are primarily Muslim too, but they just want to live in peace.
We taught to think of Hinduism as one of those inherently non-violent religions. But did you know that there are Hindu fundamentalists who feel inclined to resort to voilence over their beliefs? There are. Were some people so inclined, I’m sure they could twist Hinduism around to motivate people into violence.
The main reason that Christians and Jews and many other religious people are no longer violent (en masse anyhow) is because the violence we’re seeing now with Islam already happened with those other religions. The maintream groups have been there and done that and have matured past it. Perhaps in another 500 years, Islam will mature (perhaps through a lot of natural selection) to the point where it becomes an inherently peaceful religion.
We already have Islamic countries that have developed some maturity. Jordan is a great example. Their law is inherently Shari’a, which I wouldn’t want to live under, but it is tempered. For instance, sodomy was made legal in 1951. They don’t embrace it, but it’s not illegal, so you can’t be jailed for it. Basically private consential sex acts are not under the jurisdiction of the government. Moreover, if a family kills one of their kin for “shaming” them in this way or other, that death is considered murder and will be prosecuted like any other. There is maturity in separating the “moral” from the “legal” where they consider something to be immoral but do not take it upon themselves to punish all whom they consider sinners. I’m not saying this is perfect or anything, but Jordan is one of the safest countries to visit in the middle east, yet it is a solidly Islamic country. Why? Because their government is comprised of people who aren’t assholes (irrespective of their religious beliefs).
Re: (Score:3)
Did you really just go "1000 years ago" in a current events discussion? Christians and Jews had reformations that excluded the radical practices that include acts of law. (aka killing/stoning/etc). Islam has been going the other way, pushing oppressive additions. Some of the more extreme arab states rewrite the quran to include radical beliefs and practices.
So yes, while some islamic countries practice the basic islamic religion they all still share the basic moral and legal actions. Its still being ta
Re: (Score:2)
And I'm pretty sure both our posts would be classified as hate speech.
By what definition in which country?
Re: (Score:2)
Jordan is a great example.
Jordan is a constitutional monarchy in which the King has very broad executive and legislative power. Any form of popular representation is somewhat of a facade....quite a few of their representatives are not elected by the populace but are appointed by the King, and there are actually quotas for the number of women and Christians that can serve in their congress. The Prime Minister, Cabinet, and regional governors are all appointed by the King. It's a borderline dictatorship, which is really the only th
Re: (Score:2)
Right now, in certain parts of the world, this is happening.
Arguably worse, certain sects of Christianity are killing other Christians.
The example that most westerners would be familiar with would be Protestant vs Catholic in Ireland.
American political pundits and politicians still actively call for religiously-based wars and killings.
Re:Islam isn’t the problem; assholes are (Score:5, Informative)
1000 years ago, Christians were roaming the world, killing non-believers. How is this a whole lot different?
Which Christians are you talking about?
Looking at the history of Islam and Europe [thelatinlibrary.com], 1000 years ago ...
The first Crusades don't happen until almost 100 years later, in 1096, after yet more Islamic conquest and expansion.
So 1000 years ago, Muslims were conquering nations and killing unbelievers. Why are you downplaying Islamic violence by creating a false equivalence with Christians?
Re: (Score:2)
The main reason that Christians and Jews and many other religious people are no longer violent (en masse anyhow) is because the violence we’re seeing now with Islam already happened with those other religions. The maintream groups have been there and done that and have matured past it. Perhaps in another 500 years, Islam will mature (perhaps through a lot of natural selection) to the point where it becomes an inherently peaceful religion.
So the Crusades had nothing to do with Muslim Conquests [wikipedia.org]?
This is as good as... (Score:2)
trying to define where earth's atmosphere ends and space starts.
Interpreting the actual intent of a person, from a sentence he/she wrote, is quite challenging.
Especially if you are using a language like English. Not convinced? read this one -> "Is the duck ready to eat?"
On the other end, things can be taken out of context. Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses is a prime example, where all book burners read only certain passages, not the entire novel.
Germany (Score:2)
New Motto
"We didn't learn from past fascism, so here we go repeating it"
Socialism FTW! (Score:2)
Are ag-gag laws an assault on free speech? (Score:2)
If so, is the USA any better than Germany?
North Carolina has just enacted ag-gag laws.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
What you describe, is not hate speach, so it is allowed.
As fars I see it there is no particular raping going on, but interesting words you have chosen.
Re: (Score:2)
As fars I see it there is no particular raping going on,
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.... [gatestoneinstitute.org]
Re: (Score:2)
I have to comment on this. You are linking to gatestoneinstitute.org. Have you bothered to look into who owns and runs this site? I took the time to ensure they never appear in my Google News feed again. Right at the moment I type this, their top headline screams that Iran is taking over Latin America. That should give you an idea of the bent of their "reporting". Take a moment and have a look at their About page to see who they publicly disclose is behind the site - first and foremost, far-right former Amb
Re: (Score:2)
" I took the time to ensure they never appear in my Google News feed again."
When I enter 'news' as a Google search term, the first entry is Foxnews, also not a real news site.
Not without any guns. (Score:2, Insightful)
It seems history repeats itself. [wikipedia.org]
this has even more detail, from the Library of Congress (US) no less... [loc.gov]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Your population is old and dying. You don't have enough young people to keep your countries running and the few young people do have are weak cowards who can't take care of themselves. Everything is ripe for the taking, the takeover is happening, and you still won't even acknowledge its happening. You are not allowed to complain about it either and there is nothing you can do about it.
Re:Yet another bow to islam (Score:5, Insightful)
There is a big difference between criticism and hatespeech.
...it all depends on who gets to define what "hate speech" is. Therein lies the problem.
how is it defined (Score:5, Informative)
The definition of hate speech is right there in the article:
"any comment inciting violence against ethnic or religious groups."
More specifically, from the article linked [reuters.com], a comment is to be deleted: "when it is about criminal expressions, sedition, incitement to carry out criminal offences that threaten people"
Re:how is it defined (Score:5, Interesting)
Please explain what these mean:
- criminal expressions,
- sedition,
- incitement to carry out criminal offences that threaten people
For each, please give an example that _almost_ fits the category, like you feel it's a bit sketchy and maybe in fact it should be illegal, but because of the wording it technically isn't.
If you can't do that, the law is broad and leaves discretion in the hands of the enforcer, like the parent said.
Re: (Score:3)
If you are to dumb to find your own answers to that by thinking ten seconds .... then no answer I give you will be satisfying for you.
- criminal experessions: lets smach in all windows of the next best church of religion X
- sedition: (that is an easy one, no idea why you don't graps that): lets run around and burn all houses of people of religion, nationality X
- incitement: we need to stand together and have to convice friends to go against: X, Y, Z and burn and rape an pillage, and think about the loot, th
Re: (Score:3)
"Sedition" has always meant "criticizing those in power". It's right there that the point is to abuse this to outlaw such speech.
Re: (Score:3)
No it dies not.
Under the typical European laws, you are free to speak up against the government, and as long as you are not violating any hate speach laws the government can not prosecute you.
So if it happens to be that the president is a jew and you jump up and yell: 'All jews, like our president, should be nburned alife' this is obviously hate speach. Even calling: 'the president should be burned' might be hate speach.
But: we should get rid of the president, or the president is an idiot or the president s
Re: (Score:3)
Per TFA:
"When the limits of free speech are trespassed, when it is about criminal expressions, sedition, incitement to carry out criminal offences that threaten people, such content has to be deleted from the net," Maas said. "And we agree that as a rule this should be possible within 24 hours."
These are 3 separate categories banned:
* criminal expressions
* sedition
* incitement
So, my point was in addition to "hate speech" this also bans sedition, which is speech advocating overthrow of the government.
This shit always happens with speech-banning laws. They always creep in scope until they include criticizing the rulers.
Re: (Score:3)
There is no "in addition to hate speech", those three terms define 'hate speech'.
* sedition that does not mean "overthrowing the government", it is only a more harsh version of incitement: the actual conduction of "acts" that are violent and crimes and are committed especially against minorities, another word is: riots!
They always creep in scope until they include criticizing the rulers.
No they don't. Anything you say against rulers is "protected by free speech" as the topics both cover are mutual exclusi
Re: (Score:2)
There is no "in addition to hate speech", those three terms define 'hate speech'.
Maybe it loses something in translation? Per Webster [merriam-webster.com]
Sedition : the crime of saying, writing, or doing something that encourages people to disobey their government
We have a long tradition of this in the US, and the occasional shameful period of outlawing it anyway.
Some "other people" have a little higher level of protection, e.g. ethnic or religious groups are extra protected, again: why you can not cope with that is beyond me.
Because of a popular and well-know act of sedition: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal ..." It's rather fundamental over here.
Re: (Score:3)
Then perhaps the translation from german to english is wrong?
The law text regarding 'sedition' means: instigation of riots, in particular against other ethic groups or religions, no 'government' involved.
Conspirating against the government is covered by the same laws as in your country: terrorism and treason.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal ..." It's rather fundamental over here.
Same here. Hence we explicitely put into the law: if you prosecute and hunt 'other' people,
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is that it starts as a definite item: A bong threat or direct threats on someone's life.
"When an atomic bomb goes off, there's devastation; when an atomic bong goes off, there's celebration." --Robin Williams
Re:Yet another bow to islam (Score:5, Insightful)
That's NOT hate speech, it is an opinion. Unless it specifically incites someone to violence, like "go out and strangle all muslims at 3pm next Tues"....then it isn't hate speech, or it shouldn't be.
You should be perfectly free, to express that "I can't stand all the fucking 's out there that think wants you to not eat and thinks should blow all and rot in hell. "
That's an opinion, and even if it had all the racial slurs, and all.....it is nothing more than that. That is valid as free speech to anyone that values ALL free speech. The only thing that should be investigated, is if you directly threaten someone or some group with specific violent actions.
Re: (Score:2)
That's NOT hate speech, it is an opinion. Unless it specifically incites someone to violence, like "go out and strangle all muslims at 3pm next Tues"....then it isn't hate speech, or it shouldn't be.
You should be perfectly free, to express that "I can't stand all the fucking [racial epithet] 's out there that think [diety] wants you to not eat [certain foods] and thinks all [non-believers] [gender] should blow all [religio
Re: (Score:2)
you think being an opinion somehow makes it not hate speech?
you're a fool , but then I shouldn't be surprised considering you're also the same fool who regularly engages of dog whistle racism (ie, hate speech) of his own. you think you're somehow enlightened by saying these things, but really you're just a bigot apologist, and a bigot yourself from your own past dog whistles.
bugger off troll.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes.
And who makes YOU the judge on what is or is not hate speech and therefore censored?
Re: (Score:2)
you think being an opinion somehow makes it not hate speech?
If you are incited to violence just because someone expressed an opinion, then you are part of the problem, not the solution. Only if that "opinion" actually calls for violence can you even begin to justify banning it. "Your god does not exist, you worship hot air" is an opinion. That's all it is. Get over it. "We should all go out and kill those who worship like you do" is an opinion trying to incite violence.
A local newspaper blog just had an example of the stupidity of trying to claim every opinion som
Re: (Score:2)
And since when did being a racist become illegal?
It might not be pretty....but if you ban speech like that, you are really greasing up the slippery slope on thought crime.
Re: (Score:2)
And since when did being a racist become illegal?
Huh? Said nothing about it being illegal. Talking about the reason why Germany wants Google et.al to remove "hate speech". Let's curb racism by banning hate speech -- except it doesn't.
...but if you ban speech like that, you are really greasing up the slippery slope on thought crime.
Did you see me say anything that disagrees with that?
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, banning incitement to carry out criminal offences is fine. But this "war" against hate speech has a bit of a sour taste to me. What's next, making it illegal to utter anti-democratic opinion?
Sedition is a criminal offense so it should be covered in what you define is "fine".
Do you see the slippery slope that starts once you start compromising on free speech?
Re: (Score:2)
I can understand that if someone say something to incite violence against someone else based on racial or religious grounds may be deemed as race speech
Like political cartoons that cause riots? We need to quit trying to "understand" and compromise these attacks on our freedom of speech, regardless of how "noble" we think their author's intent is.
Re: (Score:2)
How about an experiment? Next time when you're pulled aside in a traffic control and get really angry at a policeman, just vent your anger and tell him to "Fuck off you stupid cunt!" repeatedly, again and again. Then let us know whether he was able to stop you from expressing your emotions or not.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're the least bit interested in preserving freedom of expression, that "solution" is much worse than having private companies delete so-called "hate speech" from their websites.
There are millions (billions?) of people who have to fear reprisal for voicing their opinions or even reporting unpopular facts. Taking away anonymity (assuming there was a way to do so) would do more to stifle political dissent than deter politically incorrect "hate speech". Few places in the world have anything like the Fir
Re: (Score:2)
Funny thing: don't remember a lot of cartoonists killed by offended Jews.
In fact, I cannot seem to remember anybody killed for criticizing Judaism.
Can you say the same about Islam?