German police raid 36 homes over hateful postings on social media

[Grimreaper]

Yes I believe there should be a fine line between speech that is unpopular and people don't like and speech that preaches hate and encourages violence. I also don't mean comedy shows or art specifically where people pay for the experience.

But if you are some random jackass that feels the need to hide behind a screen name to shout whatever racist hateful, violent bullshit towards the general public. I have no problem with them tracking you down and lassoing your ass in cuffs and putting you before a judge if your bullshit causes HARM absolutely.

I'm confused now, should i be allowed to tell a racist joke in my own home or not? More importantly, should you be allowed to laugh at it or not? What if i create a private facebook group with 4 of my friends, and i tell the same joke there? and they press Like on it? Is it not the exact same thing?

[derpkitteh]

No in my example "kill whitey" is absolutely NOT ok to shout or say. I don't care what race it is, and I don't need to speak for them but people can speak up WITH each other and go you know what, that shit is NOT OK.

I also think people should be able to say whatever they want, but there is a time and place, and maybe audience. The general public does not have to put up with your bullshit when you decide to abuse your freedom on the backs of how they have to live, and it's for no other reason than WHO they are, not anything they have actually done.


As for corporations to have liberty over government of the people, EH, NO!

on public space, they should be able to say what they want. if someone says "kill whitey" and gets punched in the mouth for it, that's not technically infringing on their freedom of speech, but i would honestly make it an infringement if i had control of the law.

public space should be an open place where anyone can speak whatever they want, no matter how vile or hateful.

and it's just like private property. i'm not saying corporations should be able to tell you what to do in your personal life. but if you're on their land, or using their service to say what you are, they do have a right to stop you.

[Kiri]

nothing is gained by it. it's terrible, i hate it.

but it's about what is lost when it's taken away. where do they stop once they start taking away the racist's rights? they don't. that's their in, and once they have an in they will take and take until they are in full control.

they are not to be trusted. so we have to deal with distasteful things to keep them at bay.

But isn't Germany an example why that does not necessarily happen? The law has been in place for decades and no one tried to do anything like that. Well I guess someone might have tried at one point, but none succeeded. Plus, such things are not necessarily just distasteful. There is always a chance that a mob of people shouting that might one day start killing. That is what happened in Germany. Hating on people was perfectly fine and sanctioned and eventually you did have murder and mayhem. That is the reason why we have those laws in the first place.

[Doctor Amadeus]

People who are in power abuse power, as someone who as argued that point many times you think you would understand that.

I do understand, and you are correct, which is why there should always be a process for when things go wrong and human objectivity can not be counted on. This is also why whether it is one or more or even the majority, there has to be the guiding values and principles that are binded to all.

Nothing is perfect, and we are not, and it isn't as if a piece of paper has to mean anything either, it is the spirit of those ideas that are laid out of a deceleration and reminder, so that people can debate, and disagree strongly.

That is the essence of freedom of speech and expression.


But hatred, calls to violence, that is action, which is not simply speech alone, or an idea, that is a reality, a motive, that comes to life, and while free to express, we also have the freedom to shut that shit down and stop it.

[Krigaren]

Update from New York Times:

Correction: June 20, 2017

An earlier version of the headline for this article misstated the actions taken by the German authorities. They raided the homes of 36 people; they did not arrest 36 people.

Even though the OP states that the homes were raided and doesn't make the claim that anyone was arrested, it seems like it might be important to officially point this out.

[Doctor Amadeus]

I'm confused now, should i be allowed to tell a racist joke in my own home or not? More importantly, should you be allowed to laugh at it or not? What if i create a private facebook group with 4 of my friends, and i tell the same joke there? and they press Like on it? Is it not the exact same thing?

Yep, you should for sure be able to tell a racist joke, in your own home, however the internet while being accessed from your home, where it actually exist is not!

If you create a private facebook group with you and friends, just like a night club and comedians, yep, you should be free to do that, and that would be the limit to where I would follow the OP's ideas in Germany.

But I am not confusing that, for some bullshit where it's not private those trailing in are in no way given a choice, and there really is not context. Private time and life and property or business fine.

[Ravingmad]

Im glad this is happening. People were/are hidding behind their computer for so long, sending hateful comments or ideas that are just a poison to society and people's mind ("Its on the Internet, so its true!"). Most people that caused mass killing (shooting in school, mosque, etc) usually started their hatred on social media. Maybe this is not the case for those raid, but I see it as prevention and sending a message to the "social haters".

Thumbs Up, honestly.

[Doctor Amadeus]

on public space, they should be able to say what they want. if someone says "kill whitey" and gets punched in the mouth for it, that's not technically infringing on their freedom of speech, but i would honestly make it an infringement if i had control of the law.

public space should be an open place where anyone can speak whatever they want, no matter how vile or hateful.

and it's just like private property. i'm not saying corporations should be able to tell you what to do in your personal life. but if you're on their land, or using their service to say what you are, they do have a right to stop you.

I get what you are saying and I do agree with some but not most, and I do think a business that operates in the public, through the public, isn't exactly free range, sure people can be free to choose to participate.

But there are some limits to where even private property, no longer really is private in the most strict sense of the word, they become part of the society and public.

[StayTuned]

No small question you're asking and attempt to answer yourself. Europe was fine 30 years ago, when we had a sustainable amount of immigrants. Now please don't argue with all the technology we have achieved since as if we wouldn't have cellphones without immigration.

I don't argue what ifs, because we cannot know. There is no way (ever) to know what would have happened in the past 30 years if we didn't have immigrants coming to Europe/ inner European immigration. All I know is that 30 years ago, the average German had 29.485 DM per year. In 2001 it was 55.216 DM. Even considering inflation, that's very low. I also know that 30 years ago, Berlin still had a huge freaking wall dividing the whole of Germany.

Helmut Kohl championed the European thought, from then on I saw Europe and Germany prosper each day a bit more.

The turnaround (IF there was one) was just some 2/3 years ago, after the first refugee waves hit and we had populists coming to power, dividing us yet again (good bye Britain).

That you consider Europe have never been in a better state is very baffling. Heard it elsewhere recently, well I'm not French or British. Nor German, but I'll take that as you consider it great that common people get raided for having an opinion. In what's left of Europe.

Please, I am honestly trying to have a decent discussion with you. Do not be that intellectually dishonest to believe that you'll get raided just for having an opinion. You will not. When your opinion becomes incitement of hatred, you'll get problems in Germany because our laws are sometimes just especially designed to prevent things spiraling out of control like in:

Which year exactly? Besides 1936?

Yea, like in 1936. Great year for Germany. The Oranienburg camp was rebuilt in 1936 and named Sachsenhausen. Buchenwald was built just outside the city of Weimar in 1937, and its first prisoners were transferred there from Sachsenhausen. No people in the world were more patriotic than the Germans in 1936 and no other world leader had the total dedication to his country that Hitler had. In all their patriotism they decided it's cool to imprison everyone who was against their ideologies, no matter what they said, thinking it was enough.

Great sentence you finish with, except that you can't show to any nazis who promote violence. Neo-Nazis are not nazis.

Neo-Nazis are certainly not Nazis. They are the new age Nazis. I do not want to discuss what's better, the pest or the cholera. Both ideologies are toxic and dangerous, unless you want to actually tell me that the oldschool Nazis were some sort of Samaritans. They only killed like, how many million Jews again?

[Grimreaper]

But hatred, calls to violence, that is action, which is not simply speech alone, or an idea, that is a reality, a motive, that comes to life, and while free to express, we also have the freedom to shut that shit down and stop it.

What about posting statistics and facts based on etnicity and religion?

Example: "100% of all rapes in our capitol so far this year has been commited by immigrants or refugees. Is this acceptable?"

Simply posting that on facebook nowadays is considered a crime in several countries, even when the data behind the statistics have already been published by the gouvernment. Because guess what, it incites hatred to a specific group.

[Knolan]

Im glad this is happening. People were/are hidding behind their computer for so long, sending hateful comments or ideas that are just a poison to society and people's mind ("Its on the Internet, so its true!"). Most people that caused mass killing (shooting in school, mosque, etc) usually started their hatred on social media. Maybe this is not the case for those raid, but I see it as prevention and sending a message to the "social haters".

Thumbs Up, honestly.

I would hold my judgment until we can actually see what they posted, the problem with hate speech laws is that they are very loose on what can be considered hate speech.

Also, the fact that they vent on social media tells you nothing, people will just vent on anonymous forums / via tor and will still do their mass shootings. You are basically hiding a symptom instead of treating the disease.

[Deleted]

someone who wanna try to take freedom from someone, don't deserve freedom as well.

Treat your surroundings like the way you want to live.

[derpkitteh]

But isn't Germany an example why that does not necessarily happen? The law has been in place for decades and no one tried to do anything like that. Well I guess someone might have tried at one point, but none succeeded. Plus, such things are not necessarily just distasteful. There is always a chance that a mob of people shouting that might one day start killing. That is what happened in Germany. Hating on people was perfectly fine and sanctioned and eventually you did have murder and mayhem. That is the reason why we have those laws in the first place.

it's not a fast process. it might not even happen.

but that's putting too much faith in your government. that's being too trusting. it's rolling over and exposing your belly to a predator and trusting it not to strike. governments should never be given the benefit of the doubt, they should always be held in suspicion.

[StayTuned]

What about posting statistics and facts based on etnicity and religion?

Example: "100% of all rapes in our capitol so far this year has been commited by immigrants or refugees. Is this acceptable?"

Simply posting that on facebook nowadays is considered a crime in several countries, even when the data behind the statistics have already been published by the gouvernment. Because guess what, it incites hatred to a specific group.

No, inciting hatred would be to add a "We need to act NOW and burn them all alive".

Just posting what you said will draw out all sorts of weird people, but the law will not bother with you.

[LaplaceNoMa]

The sweet 1984.

[Deleted]

Thought is not being policed. Publicly espousing harmful comments is.



Try shouting racist comments in the US at the top of your lungs. Or 'fire'.




But you say it has always been that way, how can it be new?
Anyway, you clearly love to generalize and lop everyone into one basket. Just look at what you say about riots - some people identifying as far left riot, so that immediately has to apply to everyone seen as liberal. Sure. Come, give me statistics and evidence to back up your claims that every single comment made exhibits hate of white men or whatever. I will be waiting on that, because I want to see how you would want to prove such a thing.

However, I will give you one thing though.
"- Will use physical and lethal force to enforce their regulations/laws/opinions on the populace." That is partially correct. Liberal governments will use physical and lethal force to enforce laws at the very least. Because that is what every government does. Though it is funny that you would equate the police stopping an armed robbery or something to be Nazilike or Islamist.

https://wifewithapurpose.com/2017/05...people-killed/ - Colleges teaching that people with white skin color are evil and are the reason why people are getting killed



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmlIJ0mUXKU - University Professor reveals a female Muslim's true intentions in a Q&A session which is to round up all Jews and move them all to one spot to easily exterminate them all.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RC-Cqkq6zWc&t=1s - BLM Activist being allowed to spew racism towards white people and tells white people that they should kill themselves.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1G9Rgq3edy8&t=40s - Ben Shapiro debates liberal who believes that freedom of speech shouldn't be allowed and that people shouldn't be allowed to say what they want.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEGN9GBC1Dg&t=130s - Documentary showing the emasculation of Sweden and how it's slowly being turned into a feminist only country.

Also followed by this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvOfBv9JGXc this video is about feminists in Sweden claiming that men driving in cars is now sexist.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11Wb1QCSuMg - Ben Shapiro responds to a leftist who calls freedom "cute", quote, "cute".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mApfngf_gl4 - Liberal states his "facts" to Ben Shapiro and demands that he complies with them with no debate, he debates it anyway.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QyHdqlgbvy4&t=188s - Milo Yiannopoulos on the topic of female Muslim feminists and their scarcity in the world.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ue05foVmajI - General behavior of a SJW liberal when faced with something they dislike, which pretty much sums it all up for us.

You asked for evidence and statistics, I've given you evidence and statistics.

These videos go through bit by bit the evidence of such behavior and the statistics of how often it happens in current society.

Try again.

Oh and another video that I remember at the top of my head: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTl2pMFWj6I

British Muslims saying they're going to take over and that they hate us all.

[Deleted]

What about posting statistics and facts based on etnicity and religion?

Example: "100% of all rapes in our capitol so far this year has been commited by immigrants or refugees. Is this acceptable?"

Simply posting that on facebook nowadays is considered a crime in several countries, even when the data behind the statistics have already been published by the gouvernment. Because guess what, it incites hatred to a specific group.

I am coming up short in my google search for anyone being arrested for just sharing facts, mind linking me to these cases?

[Doctor Amadeus]

What about posting statistics and facts based on etnicity and religion?

Example: "100% of all rapes in our capitol so far this year has been commited by immigrants or refugees. Is this acceptable?"

Simply posting that on facebook nowadays is considered a crime in several countries, even when the data behind the statistics have already been published by the gouvernment. Because guess what, it incites hatred to a specific group.

If it is a bullshit statistic or something that is fake unverified nonsense taken way out of text for the purposes of hate?


Well I suppose that would depend, if it's true and can be verified, and depending on where it is like the other speech, sure, I guess facts or statistics in and of themselves whether you agree or find them offensive or not isn't always the same thing, as the former.

So that is why I say it depends.


As for if it causes harm or not, that isn't always so clear, because that isn't even depend on intent.

If the over all effect of every time you go out in public everybody wants to say kill you, and burn everything down to the ground or whatever, granted this is an extreme hypothetical, but I would say like say and pandemic, or virus, or whatever that causes HARM, even if it's not even your fault.


Then yeah better make some reasonable and logical policy to deal with that.

[Destump]

Things like this make me think more and more that germany is not fit to lead the EU, or tell any other country what to do.

[Krigaren]

What about posting statistics and facts based on etnicity and religion?

Example: "100% of all rapes in our capitol so far this year has been commited by immigrants or refugees. Is this acceptable?"

Simply posting that on facebook nowadays is considered a crime in several countries, even when the data behind the statistics have already been published by the gouvernment. Because guess what, it incites hatred to a specific group.

I can't speak for those governments, but my guess is that it's a difference in distinction and motive.

The government can release a crime statistics report, and I'm sure anyone doing a research paper, or writing an article on crime can use and cite that statistic as relevant data.

However, someone posting it on Facebook doesn't have an un-biased motive for sharing a statistic like that. Uncle Bob's motive isn't neutral discussion or dissemination of the information; instead, he's more than likely using the statistic as a prop for political rhetoric, which has the intent to incite more negative attitudes against immigrants.

- - - Updated - - -

The sweet 1984.

1984 involves state surveillance, and control of people's thoughts and actions.

Spewing threats, and attempting to incite hate/violence in widely accessible public forum and having the police investigate you as a result isn't remotely the same thing.