10 ms·

German police raid homes over Facebook hate speech

40 points by vezycash 10y ago

venomsnake 10y ago
> In its press release, the BKA said that the operation carried out this week aims to combat a "strong rise in verbal radicalism." Raiding homes of people posting stupid private shit on the internet is also great way to get more physical radicalism.
- king_phil 10y ago
  It is more than stupid shit, it is illegal stupid shit. Please read (edit: replaced, was "the") the German legal code. From your argument it would be better not to pursue crime just because you might "(to) get more physical radicalism"? That is clearly not justice.
  - jklinger410 10y ago
    Laws are not moral and right just because they are laws.
    - Overtonwindow 10y ago
      Laws that oppress the free expression of ideas, which are not expressed to advocate direct or indirect harm or violence, are bad laws that should be broken.
      - lawless123 10y ago
        " and that most of the suspects were accused of posting anti-Semitic, xenophobic, and other extremist messages" Laws that stop this kind of "expression" have existed in Germany a while now, for historical reasons.
      - preetbhinder 10y ago
        I disagree, violence is not just physical, verbal abuse can be a form of violence as well. What kind of idea is public hate speech expressing? From the article, "Attacks on refugees are often the result of radicalization, which begins on social networks."
        strictnein 10y ago
        Attacks on free speech radicalize me. You don't restrict rights based on how others respond to people exercising those rights.
      - king_phil 10y ago
        I don't really think that calling to arms (in this case as self justice in combination with using Nazi symbols) is expression of free speech. It is totally okay that our understanding of free speech differs, but I just don't count that as free speech. And sympathizing with Nazis by using their symbols is not okay for me, too. I might be wrong, but in a lot of countries it might not be legal to call for self justice on a whole race.
  - frabbit 10y ago
    That's right. If it's the law then it must be right. It's a simple way of thinking that has worked out very well in many situations. Meanwhile: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/15/angela-merkel-agrees-prosecution-comedian-erdogan-poem https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/15/angela-merkel-...
    - king_phil 10y ago
      You forget that in Germany we have "Gewaltenteilung", meaning that legislation, judiciary and executive are separated. This is a concept that is fundamental to our country and culture. If the law is not okay it is not in the power of the executive to change, not enforce or bend it. There is a separate process for it that must be invoked. (In this case) there seems to be no critical mass that calls for changing this particular law. And you can rest assured that we have a very active public discussion about changes to the criminal code right now, with thousands of people actively participating. As you might be better informed the me, could you please cite at least one instance of what these people or people in similar cases said/wrote that should NOT the punishable, but is under current law? edit: citing the decision to allow prosecution of Böhmermann reveals how little you understand the German legal system. The article is misleading at best and not covering the legal grounds and background correctly at all.
      - frabbit 10y ago
        > could you please cite at least one instance of what these people or people in similar cases said/wrote that should NOT the punishable, but is under current law? If I am parsing what you wrote correctly then you are asking me to draw a distinction between different types of speech which should be allowed under law. I don't believe any should be restricted. That includes the classic "shouting `fire' in a crowded theatre" or making threats to someone. Certainly in both cases if actual physical or financial harm results then the speaker can be deemed to have caused harm and measures taken against them. But the outlawing and punishment of the act of speech in and of itself is illogical. In effect hate speech and other laws conflate locution, illocution and perlocution[1]. The effect on the discussion of ideas (e.g. the criticism of Erdogan) in a democracy strike me as obvious, so I won't go into them further. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illocutionary_act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illocutionary_act
  - brbsix 10y ago
    Some state intervention (e.g. drug prohibition) creates issues (in this case mass violations of civil liberties, militarization of police, vast numbers of incarcerated minorities, criminalization of medical conditions) that are measurably worse than the original problem it intended to solve. I don't know whether that's the case here, but it's worth asking. You'd better be certain that hate speech online is a serious enough problem that it is worth the cost, and you'd better have a good idea of what the cost will be.
  - angersock 10y ago
    Would you feel the same way were the ban on sodomy or support of gays?
    - lawless123 10y ago
      Do you feel all opinions on this are equal? That someone expressing misinformation about groups or calling for restrictions to their freedom is equivalent to someone expressing support for the same minorities?
      - angersock 10y ago
        I feel that whenever practices like this are made acceptable, invariably abuses follow. It is an accident of history that the people being picked on now are regarded as deserving. I'll pose my earlier question with a different group--how would you feel were this being done to conservative Christians or Muslims? Both groups express misinformation and sometimes call for restrictions on others (covering women in public, treatment of homosexuals, this sort of thing). We can't get everyone to get along. However, we can seek to eliminate state powers that are ripe for abuse.
        tremon 10y ago
        It is an accident of history that the people being picked on now are regarded as deserving. No, that's not an accident. It's an evolutionary necessity: https://www.myind.net/tolerance-intolerance-and-game-theory https://www.myind.net/tolerance-intolerance-and-game-theory
    - king_phil 10y ago
      If you could indicate using Nazi symbols and calling to arms and self justice is free speech I would be happy to discuss further. I have a bit of a doubt that you grasp what the charge is.
      - angersock 10y ago
        All of those are communicative in nature and do not involve the bodily injury of another human being--so yes, I think it's fair to consider them free speech. I am unfamiliar with German law, so if you would like to educate me on the nuances of the charge, I would appreciate it.
  - xiaoma 10y ago
    >"It is more than stupid shit, it is illegal stupid shit." Exactly. This is like how posting negative things about the communist party leadership in a wechat group can get your house raided. Break the law, and police might show up.
ythl 10y ago
Europe is so progressive. Protecting the "social climate" of the people through censorship and raids.
- arkitaip 10y ago
  What part of illegal did you not understand?
  - Overtonwindow 10y ago
    That's the whole point, it should not be illegal. Suppression of speech which does not explicitly advocate for violence is oppression. Plain and simple. You may disagree with the speech, it may be distasteful, hateful, or whatever, but no government should be allowed to oppress the free expression of ideas. You should have freedom of speech, not freedom from speech.
    - whamlastxmas 10y ago
      Freedom of speech to the extent that we have in the US is not very common. There are tons of laws in Germany specifically the limit free speech due to being very sensitive about Holocaust deniers and people who try to incite mass hatred. Even Canadian free speech laws are much more limited than the US. See the ridiculous "twitter harassment case" from last year/early this year.
      - xiaoma 10y ago
        China also does this. Certain beliefs about history simply aren't permitted. tldr; if you don't want police to raid, don't break the law.
      - guard-of-terra 10y ago
        Why is it okay to deny Armenian genocide then? Not that I like Armenians that much, but it kind of making no sense. Why not level the playing field by making other countries admit their genocides and crimes like Germany and Russia did?
emblem21 10y ago
The internationalist elite are trying to use the internet as a data-driven lawfare machine to augment their existing models of globalism. They believe that nationalism in any form whatsoever is a threat to the demand curve since nationalism eventually turns into mercantilism, which is the death knell of globalism, and thus, their ability to control the productive flows of billions of people with interest rates alone will be severely compromised. To their credit, I'd take a zero-tolerance policy, too, if my simple tool to steer globalized humanity was under assault... but the thing about suppressing nationalists is that the means of force doesn't inspire fear... it inspires envy. Just to give you back-room context of how such conversations can go: "Look at how the Jew suppresses us! We, too, should have weaponry and influence like that...!" Expressing concern that a Jewish cabal of bankers are using dirty tricks to suppress you and your loved ones... and then sending armed police forces to kick in your door for expressing that concern... doesn't exactly negate their concerns. In detail, what you are seeing the contention between the globalist model vs. a nationalist model. http://cultstate.com/challenging-the-profit-motives-of-globalism-versus-nationalism/ http://cultstate.com/challenging-the-profit-motives-of-globa...
- guard-of-terra 10y ago
  I think it's wrong that you focus on Jews or any fixed identity. Globalist elites are highly polymorphic and you can't peg them like that. Just leads to endless pointless discussions. Nevertheless, I have to share this experience: I was mildly left-liberal ten years ago, but now I'm heavily nationalistic. It's the only view point now that doesn't try to combat objective reality.
  - cloakandswagger 10y ago
    The focus on a fixed racial identity is actually really important. It's one thing to rebel against a nebulous "global elite" archetype; where the movement really gets legs is when it is attached to a concrete identifier. Whether the focus on Jews is accurate or not I cannot say, but it pairs well with other themes (over-representation of Jews in media/politics, USA's unwavering support for Israel) to create a compelling case for a conspiratorial "cabal"
mapleoin 10y ago
The problem I see with this is: how do they know someone is who they claim to be on Facebook? There's no indication in the article that they collaborated with Facebook and an ISP to link a user's post with their (possibly dynamic) IP address and home address. There's a big leap from "it appears someone posted hate speech using your facebook account" to "you are guilty of posting hate speech on facebook".
- yAnonymous 10y ago
  Facebook is readily complying with all of this, as they do in all countries with similar government censorship. They even gave a private company working for the German government access to delete Facebook posts as they see fit. http://www.theverge.com/2015/9/15/9329119/facebook-germany-hate-speech-xenophobia-migrant-refugee http://www.theverge.com/2015/9/15/9329119/facebook-germany-h... http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Facebook-Hasskommentare-werden-nun-in-Deutschland-geprueft-3071824.html http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Facebook-Hasskommenta... (German) It's not too far-fetched to assume that they have access to IPs.
elgabogringo 10y ago
Just a reminder that we are the only country with the first amendment and a constitutionally guaranteed right to free speech.
- DarkLinkXXXX 10y ago
  That is simply not true. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country Even China's constitution says "Citizens of the People's Republic of China enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of procession and of demonstration." Of course, that doesn't apply in practice, but that is my point. Just having an article in the constitution granting you a right does not guarantee that right in practice.
  - JoeAltmaier 10y ago
    Our constitution can be used in legal proceedings. Its not just empty promises. That's apparently quite different from most countries.
    - pjc50 10y ago
      As can the German constitution, and the European convention on human rights (which has its own free speech article).
      - dogma1138 10y ago
        >European convention on human rights (which has its own free speech article). You are referring to article 10 which comes with a very big caveat: The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary. Compare it to the 1st Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. So yes, the US is pretty much unique in the way it refers to freedom of speech both de jure and de facto. Article 10 pretty much says, yeah we respect the fact that in theory you should be able to say what you want, but make sure it doesn't offend anyone.
guard-of-terra 10y ago
> Operation targeted 60 people accused of posting far-right content to a private Facebook group Does "private" Facebook means what I think it means? I.e. outsiders won't see this at all? What's the problem there then? Next time they'll raid my bedroom because they don't like what goes on there? > most of the suspects were accused of posting... xenophobic... messages What's wrong in being xenophobic, from moral perspective? Is it now a requirement for me to avoid feeling emotions against people who I don't approve? > "strong rise in verbal radicalism" It's definitely easier to combat verbal xenophobes than real terrorists. First of all, they don't shoot back at you.
facepalm 10y ago
In the German newspapers I read it was reported that the statements in question were actual calls for violence, not merely hate speech (I guess "kill all xyz" vs "xyz are evil"). So the police statement is rather misleading. To be sure, some official institutions have been involved in questionable campaigns against "hate speech" recently, so perhaps they wanted to show that they are making progress. It seems likely to me that the raid was actually about real illegal activities, rather than hateful opinions. I think even in the US calling for somebodies death is not really protected by "free speech"? Nevertheless it is worrying that official institutions lent their name to the questionable campaign against hate speech. (Questionable because it was initiated by several people with a track record of hate speech, and because it seems to be designed to simply silence unwelcome opinions, as hate speech is not clearly defined by the campaigners).
javajosh 10y ago
Words are messages, and government always reserves the right to punish the use of some messages, and prevent them. And in this, it is a matter of degree, not kind. For hate speech in Germany, I firmly believe that the story should not end at "police raids" but rather at "and the neo-nazi was adopted by Syrian immigrants and shown great love and compassion, and he fell in love with a nice Syrian girl and they will be married in the fall." But that has more to do with what the punishment is. While I'm against hate speech laws in general because of the withering slippery-slope argument, Germany really is a special case because of the holocaust. Last but not least, this news article implies that we are being monitored. We might not trigger visible action, or any action, but our messages are running a gauntlet of predicates that, if any flip to "true" will get human eyeballs on our messages, which may yield humans wielding guns in our living rooms. Such is life.
hsod 10y ago
Hard to judge this without knowing specifically what was said, but it doesn't seem great. I don't believe that government forces should enter peoples homes and imprison them for expressing their opposition to immigration, which could easily be cast as "xenophobia".

40 points by vezycash 10y ago

> In its press release, the BKA said that the operation carried out this week aims to combat a "strong rise in verbal radicalism." Raiding homes of people posting stupid private shit on the internet is also great way to get more physical radicalism.

king_phil 10y ago
It is more than stupid shit, it is illegal stupid shit. Please read (edit: replaced, was "the") the German legal code. From your argument it would be better not to pursue crime just because you might "(to) get more physical radicalism"? That is clearly not justice.
- jklinger410 10y ago
  Laws are not moral and right just because they are laws.
  - Overtonwindow 10y ago
    Laws that oppress the free expression of ideas, which are not expressed to advocate direct or indirect harm or violence, are bad laws that should be broken.
    - lawless123 10y ago
      " and that most of the suspects were accused of posting anti-Semitic, xenophobic, and other extremist messages" Laws that stop this kind of "expression" have existed in Germany a while now, for historical reasons.
    - preetbhinder 10y ago
      I disagree, violence is not just physical, verbal abuse can be a form of violence as well. What kind of idea is public hate speech expressing? From the article, "Attacks on refugees are often the result of radicalization, which begins on social networks."
      - strictnein 10y ago
        Attacks on free speech radicalize me. You don't restrict rights based on how others respond to people exercising those rights.
    - king_phil 10y ago
      I don't really think that calling to arms (in this case as self justice in combination with using Nazi symbols) is expression of free speech. It is totally okay that our understanding of free speech differs, but I just don't count that as free speech. And sympathizing with Nazis by using their symbols is not okay for me, too. I might be wrong, but in a lot of countries it might not be legal to call for self justice on a whole race.
- frabbit 10y ago
  That's right. If it's the law then it must be right. It's a simple way of thinking that has worked out very well in many situations. Meanwhile: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/15/angela-merkel-agrees-prosecution-comedian-erdogan-poem https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/15/angela-merkel-...
  - king_phil 10y ago
    You forget that in Germany we have "Gewaltenteilung", meaning that legislation, judiciary and executive are separated. This is a concept that is fundamental to our country and culture. If the law is not okay it is not in the power of the executive to change, not enforce or bend it. There is a separate process for it that must be invoked. (In this case) there seems to be no critical mass that calls for changing this particular law. And you can rest assured that we have a very active public discussion about changes to the criminal code right now, with thousands of people actively participating. As you might be better informed the me, could you please cite at least one instance of what these people or people in similar cases said/wrote that should NOT the punishable, but is under current law? edit: citing the decision to allow prosecution of Böhmermann reveals how little you understand the German legal system. The article is misleading at best and not covering the legal grounds and background correctly at all.
    - frabbit 10y ago
      > could you please cite at least one instance of what these people or people in similar cases said/wrote that should NOT the punishable, but is under current law? If I am parsing what you wrote correctly then you are asking me to draw a distinction between different types of speech which should be allowed under law. I don't believe any should be restricted. That includes the classic "shouting `fire' in a crowded theatre" or making threats to someone. Certainly in both cases if actual physical or financial harm results then the speaker can be deemed to have caused harm and measures taken against them. But the outlawing and punishment of the act of speech in and of itself is illogical. In effect hate speech and other laws conflate locution, illocution and perlocution[1]. The effect on the discussion of ideas (e.g. the criticism of Erdogan) in a democracy strike me as obvious, so I won't go into them further. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illocutionary_act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illocutionary_act
- brbsix 10y ago
  Some state intervention (e.g. drug prohibition) creates issues (in this case mass violations of civil liberties, militarization of police, vast numbers of incarcerated minorities, criminalization of medical conditions) that are measurably worse than the original problem it intended to solve. I don't know whether that's the case here, but it's worth asking. You'd better be certain that hate speech online is a serious enough problem that it is worth the cost, and you'd better have a good idea of what the cost will be.
- angersock 10y ago
  Would you feel the same way were the ban on sodomy or support of gays?
  - lawless123 10y ago
    Do you feel all opinions on this are equal? That someone expressing misinformation about groups or calling for restrictions to their freedom is equivalent to someone expressing support for the same minorities?
    - angersock 10y ago
      I feel that whenever practices like this are made acceptable, invariably abuses follow. It is an accident of history that the people being picked on now are regarded as deserving. I'll pose my earlier question with a different group--how would you feel were this being done to conservative Christians or Muslims? Both groups express misinformation and sometimes call for restrictions on others (covering women in public, treatment of homosexuals, this sort of thing). We can't get everyone to get along. However, we can seek to eliminate state powers that are ripe for abuse.
      - tremon 10y ago
        It is an accident of history that the people being picked on now are regarded as deserving. No, that's not an accident. It's an evolutionary necessity: https://www.myind.net/tolerance-intolerance-and-game-theory https://www.myind.net/tolerance-intolerance-and-game-theory
  - king_phil 10y ago
    If you could indicate using Nazi symbols and calling to arms and self justice is free speech I would be happy to discuss further. I have a bit of a doubt that you grasp what the charge is.
    - angersock 10y ago
      All of those are communicative in nature and do not involve the bodily injury of another human being--so yes, I think it's fair to consider them free speech. I am unfamiliar with German law, so if you would like to educate me on the nuances of the charge, I would appreciate it.
- xiaoma 10y ago
  >"It is more than stupid shit, it is illegal stupid shit." Exactly. This is like how posting negative things about the communist party leadership in a wechat group can get your house raided. Break the law, and police might show up.

ythl 10y ago

Europe is so progressive. Protecting the "social climate" of the people through censorship and raids.

arkitaip 10y ago
What part of illegal did you not understand?
- Overtonwindow 10y ago
  That's the whole point, it should not be illegal. Suppression of speech which does not explicitly advocate for violence is oppression. Plain and simple. You may disagree with the speech, it may be distasteful, hateful, or whatever, but no government should be allowed to oppress the free expression of ideas. You should have freedom of speech, not freedom from speech.
  - whamlastxmas 10y ago
    Freedom of speech to the extent that we have in the US is not very common. There are tons of laws in Germany specifically the limit free speech due to being very sensitive about Holocaust deniers and people who try to incite mass hatred. Even Canadian free speech laws are much more limited than the US. See the ridiculous "twitter harassment case" from last year/early this year.
    - xiaoma 10y ago
      China also does this. Certain beliefs about history simply aren't permitted. tldr; if you don't want police to raid, don't break the law.
    - guard-of-terra 10y ago
      Why is it okay to deny Armenian genocide then? Not that I like Armenians that much, but it kind of making no sense. Why not level the playing field by making other countries admit their genocides and crimes like Germany and Russia did?

emblem21 10y ago

The internationalist elite are trying to use the internet as a data-driven lawfare machine to augment their existing models of globalism. They believe that nationalism in any form whatsoever is a threat to the demand curve since nationalism eventually turns into mercantilism, which is the death knell of globalism, and thus, their ability to control the productive flows of billions of people with interest rates alone will be severely compromised. To their credit, I'd take a zero-tolerance policy, too, if my simple tool to steer globalized humanity was under assault... but the thing about suppressing nationalists is that the means of force doesn't inspire fear... it inspires envy. Just to give you back-room context of how such conversations can go: "Look at how the Jew suppresses us! We, too, should have weaponry and influence like that...!" Expressing concern that a Jewish cabal of bankers are using dirty tricks to suppress you and your loved ones... and then sending armed police forces to kick in your door for expressing that concern... doesn't exactly negate their concerns. In detail, what you are seeing the contention between the globalist model vs. a nationalist model. http://cultstate.com/challenging-the-profit-motives-of-globalism-versus-nationalism/ http://cultstate.com/challenging-the-profit-motives-of-globa...

guard-of-terra 10y ago
I think it's wrong that you focus on Jews or any fixed identity. Globalist elites are highly polymorphic and you can't peg them like that. Just leads to endless pointless discussions. Nevertheless, I have to share this experience: I was mildly left-liberal ten years ago, but now I'm heavily nationalistic. It's the only view point now that doesn't try to combat objective reality.
- cloakandswagger 10y ago
  The focus on a fixed racial identity is actually really important. It's one thing to rebel against a nebulous "global elite" archetype; where the movement really gets legs is when it is attached to a concrete identifier. Whether the focus on Jews is accurate or not I cannot say, but it pairs well with other themes (over-representation of Jews in media/politics, USA's unwavering support for Israel) to create a compelling case for a conspiratorial "cabal"

mapleoin 10y ago

The problem I see with this is: how do they know someone is who they claim to be on Facebook? There's no indication in the article that they collaborated with Facebook and an ISP to link a user's post with their (possibly dynamic) IP address and home address. There's a big leap from "it appears someone posted hate speech using your facebook account" to "you are guilty of posting hate speech on facebook".

yAnonymous 10y ago
Facebook is readily complying with all of this, as they do in all countries with similar government censorship. They even gave a private company working for the German government access to delete Facebook posts as they see fit. http://www.theverge.com/2015/9/15/9329119/facebook-germany-hate-speech-xenophobia-migrant-refugee http://www.theverge.com/2015/9/15/9329119/facebook-germany-h... http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Facebook-Hasskommentare-werden-nun-in-Deutschland-geprueft-3071824.html http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Facebook-Hasskommenta... (German) It's not too far-fetched to assume that they have access to IPs.

elgabogringo 10y ago

Just a reminder that we are the only country with the first amendment and a constitutionally guaranteed right to free speech.

DarkLinkXXXX 10y ago
That is simply not true. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country Even China's constitution says "Citizens of the People's Republic of China enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of procession and of demonstration." Of course, that doesn't apply in practice, but that is my point. Just having an article in the constitution granting you a right does not guarantee that right in practice.
- JoeAltmaier 10y ago
  Our constitution can be used in legal proceedings. Its not just empty promises. That's apparently quite different from most countries.
  - pjc50 10y ago
    As can the German constitution, and the European convention on human rights (which has its own free speech article).
    - dogma1138 10y ago
      >European convention on human rights (which has its own free speech article). You are referring to article 10 which comes with a very big caveat: The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary. Compare it to the 1st Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. So yes, the US is pretty much unique in the way it refers to freedom of speech both de jure and de facto. Article 10 pretty much says, yeah we respect the fact that in theory you should be able to say what you want, but make sure it doesn't offend anyone.

guard-of-terra 10y ago

> Operation targeted 60 people accused of posting far-right content to a private Facebook group Does "private" Facebook means what I think it means? I.e. outsiders won't see this at all? What's the problem there then? Next time they'll raid my bedroom because they don't like what goes on there? > most of the suspects were accused of posting... xenophobic... messages What's wrong in being xenophobic, from moral perspective? Is it now a requirement for me to avoid feeling emotions against people who I don't approve? > "strong rise in verbal radicalism" It's definitely easier to combat verbal xenophobes than real terrorists. First of all, they don't shoot back at you.

facepalm 10y ago

In the German newspapers I read it was reported that the statements in question were actual calls for violence, not merely hate speech (I guess "kill all xyz" vs "xyz are evil"). So the police statement is rather misleading. To be sure, some official institutions have been involved in questionable campaigns against "hate speech" recently, so perhaps they wanted to show that they are making progress. It seems likely to me that the raid was actually about real illegal activities, rather than hateful opinions. I think even in the US calling for somebodies death is not really protected by "free speech"? Nevertheless it is worrying that official institutions lent their name to the questionable campaign against hate speech. (Questionable because it was initiated by several people with a track record of hate speech, and because it seems to be designed to simply silence unwelcome opinions, as hate speech is not clearly defined by the campaigners).

javajosh 10y ago

Words are messages, and government always reserves the right to punish the use of some messages, and prevent them. And in this, it is a matter of degree, not kind. For hate speech in Germany, I firmly believe that the story should not end at "police raids" but rather at "and the neo-nazi was adopted by Syrian immigrants and shown great love and compassion, and he fell in love with a nice Syrian girl and they will be married in the fall." But that has more to do with what the punishment is. While I'm against hate speech laws in general because of the withering slippery-slope argument, Germany really is a special case because of the holocaust. Last but not least, this news article implies that we are being monitored. We might not trigger visible action, or any action, but our messages are running a gauntlet of predicates that, if any flip to "true" will get human eyeballs on our messages, which may yield humans wielding guns in our living rooms. Such is life.

hsod 10y ago

Hard to judge this without knowing specifically what was said, but it doesn't seem great. I don't believe that government forces should enter peoples homes and imprison them for expressing their opposition to immigration, which could easily be cast as "xenophobia".