Germany to force Facebook, Google and Twitter to act on hate speech

[Vyxn]

We in Europe (but escpecialy the Jews, ethnic Poles and other Slavs, Soviet citizens and Soviet POWs, Romanis, communists, homosexuals, Freemasons, Jehovah's Witnesses and the mentally and physically disabled) know everything about what can happen when we let "freedom of speech" roam free uncontrolled. There was a very high price payed for that lesson.

That that lesson seems to be forgotten by many (or over-shouted by many) should be a warning, allthough few will recognise the signs.




You are pranking right? You don't know this? Denying genocide and/or the holocaust is illegal in;

Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Israel, Italy, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Slovakia, Spain and Switzerland. And rightfully so!

Funny how you think it was freedom of speech that caused the hate and what that hate lead too when in fact is was government propaganda and censorship that did
because the best way to combat hate speech is with opposing speech not censorship

[Kupsy]

Censorship? Pretty sure it's action on hate speech which most decent, civilized people support. Of course there's gonna be some racists that are upset but why should the government care?

Hate speech is a terribly ambiguous term already. Criticizing ancient superstitious nonsense (religion), for example, is already considered "hate speech".

Freedom of expression must be absolute. The importance of being free to think for oneself and express one's ideas and views cannot be understated. It is of the utmost importance. That means even those people we disagree with - even grievously - have a right to express themselves too.

The German government has, via the trojan horse of "hate speech", taken the authority to police speech, art, media, and ultimately, thought. If you wish to applaud them or gleefully cheer as your right to think and speak freely is taken from you, go right ahead, but keep me out of it. If you want to live your life being ruled and conditioned by your government, you can, but I will not be a serf for fascist governments.

Somebody needs to remind Germany they already have a shameful history of fascism. They should know better.

As long as laws against free thought and speech exist, any act against them is righteous.

[Vyxn]

Only someone who doesn't have a clue how it feels to be discriminated against or be the victim of a hate crime could consider this a negative thing.

best way to combat hate speech is opposing speech not censorship

[Merie]

I do not believe hate speech should be censored or made illegal. It is free expression. People should have the right to make asses of themselves if they so choose, as well as endure the social consequences that come with it. Censoring speech through laws and government is no solution.

[Pengekaer]

Hate speech is a terribly ambiguous term already. Criticizing ancient superstitious nonsense (religion), for example, is already considered "hate speech".

Freedom of expression must be absolute. The importance of being free to think for oneself and express one's ideas and views is of the utmost importance. That means even those people we disagree with - even grievously - have a right to express themselves too.

The German government has, via the trojan horse of "hate speech", taken the authority to police speech, art, media, and ultimately, thought. If you wish to applaud them or gleefully cheer as your right to think and speak freely is taken from you, go right ahead, but keep me out of it. If you want to live your life being ruled and conditioned by your government, you can, but I will not be a serf for fascist governments.

Somebody needs to remind Germany they already have a shameful history of fascism. They should know better.

As long as laws against free thought and speech exist, any act against them is righteous.

<3 <3 <3
/10 chars

[Tennis]

best way to combat hate speech is opposing speech not censorship

Clearly not true considering what experts have to say on the matter.

[Pengekaer]

Clearly not true considering what experts have to say on the matter.

Ahh, the experts. With sufficient cherry-picking, all experts turn into 1 homogenous mass that fortunately agrees with the Nanny State, amirite? ;-)

[Tijuana]

Should it become legal to shout "FIRE!" in a theatre? Because that's banned in the USA.

Of course that should not be protected speech, as it can cause physical harm. It's hardly similar to not being able to give your opinion.

[Butler to Baby Sloths]

Hate speech is a terribly ambiguous term already.

Hate speech is defined very clearly in Germany.

Freedom of expression must be absolute. The importance of being free to think for oneself and express one's ideas and views is of the utmost importance. That means even those people we disagree with - even grievously - have a right to express themselves too.

Neonazis are allowed to do demonstration marches. They are allowed to meet. Membership of the NPD is, still, not proscribed (despite them being the successor to the NSDAP). Neither is the AfD. The only thing they aren't allowed to say is that the Holocaust didn't happen and to incite people to beat up immigrants.

As long as laws against free thought and speech exist, any act against them is righteous.

Even violence?

By the way, the Americans had a massive hand in writing the constitution, the civil code of law and the criminal code of law. They INSISTED that these amendments to freedom of expression be codified in law and that they should be immutable.

Of course that should not be protected speech, as it can cause physical harm. It's hardly similar to not being able to give your opinion.

So how is that different to causing physical harm through inciting violence against immigrants?

[Activi-T]

So, you are against free speech, a basic human right. What other human rights are you against?

It's a bit hypocritical being lecture to on basic human rights from a citizen of a nation that holds people indefinitely without due process (Guantanimo), kills their own civilians without trial in drone strikes and spies on its citizens (like most western nations).

Not even brining up the facts that you can be fired for being gay in certain states or don't have access to healthcare without facing massive financial losses, to name but two social issues. What happened to "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."?

[Vyxn]

Should it become legal to shout "FIRE!" in a theatre? Because that's banned in the USA.

but we don't put muzzles on people before they enter a theatre to keep them from yelling fire

[Tijuana]

Hate speech is defined very clearly in Germany.



Neonazis are allowed to do demonstration marches. They are allowed to meet. Membership of the NPD is, still, not proscribed (despite them being the successor to the NSDAP). Neither is the AfD. The only thing they aren't allowed to say is that the Holocaust didn't happen and to incite people to beat up immigrants.



Even violence?

By the way, the Americans had a massive hand in writing the constitution, the civil code of law and the criminal code of law. They INSISTED that these amendments to freedom of expression be codified in law and that they should be immutable.



So how is that different to causing physical harm through inciting violence against immigrants?

Because each of us is only responsible for our own actions. If I am responsible for your actions, who is responsible for mine? It's a logical fallacy to say that one person can be at fault for another person's actions.

[Butler to Baby Sloths]

but we don't put muzzles on people before they enter a theatre to keep them from yelling fire

Your govermnet did just as much as the German Criminal Code does to prevent people from denying the holocaust when they passed that law. Your law proscribing shouting "FIRE" in a theatre when there is none is just as much a muzzle.

- - - Updated - - -

Because each of us is only responsible for our own actions. If I am responsible for your actions, who is responsible for mine? It's a logical fallacy to say that one person can be at fault for another person's actions.

If that were the case, it would be totally fine for you to organize a hitman to kill somebody, because you are not responsible for their actions. In practice, however, you would be charged as an accessory to the murder (and thus be eligible for the death penalty in some states of the USA).

[Tijuana]

It's a bit hypocritical being lecture to on basic human rights from a citizen of a nation that holds people indefinitely without due process (Guantanimo), kills their own civilians without trial in drone strikes and spies on its citizens (like most western nations).

Not even brining up the facts that you can be fired for being gay in certain states or don't have access to healthcare without facing massive financial losses, to name but two social issues. What happened to "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."?

"Something something US handled a tricky situation in a way I disagree with something something US is bad for killing a terrorist wanted by all global law enforcement agencies something something, now this means free speech is magically no longer a basic human right."

Duly noted.

- - - Updated - - -

Your govermnet did just as much as the German Criminal Code does to prevent people from denying the holocaust when they passed that law. Your law proscribing shouting "FIRE" in a theatre when there is none is just as much a muzzle.

- - - Updated - - -



If that were the case, it would be totally fine for you to organize a hitman to kill somebody, because you are not responsible for their actions. In practice, however, you would be charged as an accessory to the murder (and thus be eligible for the death penalty in some states of the USA).

No, that would make me responsible for directly asking another person to harm a third party. That is not the same thing, in any way, as banning opinion based speech because you disagree with it, or you think a third party MIGHT agree with it so much, that they then commit a crime nobody asked them to.

Is Europe really that far gone, that they legit can't identify what is free speech, and what is literally asking a person to murder another person, by using their mouth?

[Butler to Baby Sloths]

"Something something US handled a tricky situation in a way I disagree with something something US is bad for killing a terrorist wanted by all global law enforcement agencies something something, now this means free speech is magically no longer a basic human right."

Duly noted.

Obama was clearly expressing himself freely under the first amendment when he circumvented due process and the constitution when he ordered the assassination of a US citizen and his son.

[Mistame]

Except they're not. That's the hilarious point you people keep missing. Enough people within society have gotten together and agreed that certain opinions are detrimental, rather than beneficial to freedom and a healthy society and those offending opinions are banned. Yeah they can't change what's in your head, but they can, with the force of social backing and the government, punish you for expressing those thoughts.

And the point you're clearly missing is that free will, free thought and free speech are innate rights. And while it may not be the case in some countries, in the US, the rights of the individual trumps collectivist notions of a "healthy society", etc.

Yes. Religion is not a free pass to be ignorant.

Maybe not in Germany.

Boarding schools you couldn't leave. Prisons for the ignorant to prevent them from spreading their ignorance and falsehoods to others. Personally though, I think they should be well taken care of. We're not going to win over the willfully ignorant by literally beating them into submission. These reeducation camps should be fairly nice places much like modern colleges where there are plenty of books to read, space to move about, hot food to eat but at the end of the day, unable to leave. People who refused to attend classes and learn would still be taken care of, just simply not allowed to leave.

Holy fascist drivel, Batman.

The monopolization on the use of force.

Oh my. Government exists at the consent of the people.

but we don't put muzzles on people before they enter a theatre to keep them from yelling fire

Not sure what delusional nonsense is running around the minds of these people. This thread topic is stupid and I honestly have to question the intelligence and sanity of those who support this type of garbage.

[Butler to Baby Sloths]

No, that would make me responsible for directly asking another person to harm a third party. That is not the same thing, in any way, as banning opinion based speech because you disagree with it, or you think a third party MIGHT agree with it so much, that they then commit a crime nobody asked them to.

Didn't you read the section of the criminal code that I linked at the beginning of the thread? That's EXACTLY what Article 130 prohibits.

[ifrah]

Next stop: The China model, where everything not in line with the current political agenda is censored out, shut down, put behind bars or just magically disappeared.

Yes, I know it's far, far away, but I don't like where all this is going.

[taliey]

Man I've heard so much tolerance of intolerance is tolerance over the years. Never ceases to amaze me.

[Serpha]

Only someone who doesn't have a clue how it feels to be discriminated against or be the victim of a hate crime could consider this a negative thing.

Boohoo, somebody hates me...must punish him.