7 ms·

> For example, Germany's "incitement of popular hatred" [3] can be used to prevent newspapers from advancing the argument that migrants are disproportionately l

by pluma 9y ago

> For example, Germany's "incitement of popular hatred" [3] can be used to prevent newspapers from advancing the argument that migrants are disproportionately likely to commit crimes. Bull. Shit. Tabloids still run ridiculously xenophobic and bigoted headlines in Germany even if we're not quite at the level as e.g. UK tabloids. Saying "there's a correlation between the refugee crisis and a rise in crimes" is protected speech in Germany. Saying "those donkey fuckers crossing our borders must be shot on sight and their children too" is hate speech. We're talking about the kind of statements that get showcased on sites like this: https://perlen-aus-freital.tumblr.com https://perlen-aus-freital.tumblr.com In the US it's acceptable for politicians calling for undesirables like Snowden or Assange to be murdered. In Germany this kind of rhetoric would land you in jail for inciting violence and instigating criminal behavior. Also in Germany it's forbidden to bring weapons (including "defensive weapons" like shields or gasmasks) to demonstrations. In the US you have neo-nazis and antifa running into each other with riot gear and bashing each others' heads in with lengths of wood. Not to mention paramilitaries parading in camouflage with military-looking gear and firearms. Incidentally, German riot police doesn't use military equipment and actual violent protests are usually confined to anarchists using improvised weapons to cause property damage. > Since there is no truth defense against hate speech accusations Again, bullshit. If you use Nazi symbology, loudly shout "gas the jews" and do the salute, you know what you're doing. Stop pretending we're talking about scientific discourse here. This isn't about some economist or sociologist publishing troubling research findings or level-headed reporting on anything of the sort. This is about bigots venting their hatred and tabloids abusing scare tactics to sell more copies.

msla 9y ago
> Again, bullshit. If you use Nazi symbology, loudly shout "gas the jews" and do the salute, you know what you're doing. If you say that's all that gets called "hate speech" you're being deliberately dishonest. > Stop pretending we're talking about scientific discourse here. I don't have to pretend.
splintercell 9y ago
> Saying "there's a correlation between the refugee crisis and a rise in crimes" is protected speech in Germany. Saying "those donkey fuckers crossing our borders must be shot on sight and their children too" is hate speech. Which part of that offensive statement is 'hate speech': a) Donkey Fucker b) must be shot on sight c) [their children] must be shot on sight In US, a) cannot be restricted by the govt. b) and c) can be, provided the govt prove that it was the same thing as asking your right hand to pull the trigger (as it's a clear and present danger). Moreover, if someone does shoot kids and immigrants, and it was shown that this someone was motivated by your statements, then you can be sued under a civil lawsuit for millions by the family of the people who died. > In Germany this kind of rhetoric would land you in jail for inciting violence and instigating criminal behavior. In US too, inciting violence and instigating criminal behavior could land you in jail, except American definition of 'inciting violence and instigating criminal behavior' is a lot different than European definition. A politician calling drone attacks on Snowden or Assange isn't 'inciting violence and instigating criminal behavior' in US. A politician picking up the phone and asking his brother who is a drone operator to do a drone attack on Assange or Snowden, would be.
- pluma 9y ago
  I was paraphrasing actual comments made in German that constitute hate speech. "Donkey fucker" is a racial slur. Most of the racial slurs used in these comments don't translate well, e.g. "oil eye". It's in the same register of language as the n-word in English. It may not come across that well in English but there's a direct call to action: "shoot them and their children", basically. It's not specifically directed at anyone. Charitably it could be read as "we should enact policies so soldiers do this" but less charitably it's directly calling for people to go out and shoot other people -- which is inciting violence. I'm fairly certain going on national TV and offering a significant monetary reward to anyone who murders Snowden/Assange/Trump would be illegal even in the US. The only difference is that Germany doesn't require a tangible reward for that to be illegal. But hey, what do I know, it's not like the US is at risk of bringing lynchings back or something. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching_in_the_United_States#Appearance_of_nooses_in_2017 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching_in_the_United_States#... EDIT: Oh, and the obvious difference: aside from a strict loyalty to international Human Rights, the German constitution centers around the idea of the indelibility of human dignity. Dehumanizing people is always unconstitutional and promoting hatred around racial identity or ethnic background is almost always dehumanizing.

by pluma 9y ago

msla 9y ago

> Again, bullshit. If you use Nazi symbology, loudly shout "gas the jews" and do the salute, you know what you're doing. If you say that's all that gets called "hate speech" you're being deliberately dishonest. > Stop pretending we're talking about scientific discourse here. I don't have to pretend.

splintercell 9y ago

> Saying "there's a correlation between the refugee crisis and a rise in crimes" is protected speech in Germany. Saying "those donkey fuckers crossing our borders must be shot on sight and their children too" is hate speech. Which part of that offensive statement is 'hate speech': a) Donkey Fucker b) must be shot on sight c) [their children] must be shot on sight In US, a) cannot be restricted by the govt. b) and c) can be, provided the govt prove that it was the same thing as asking your right hand to pull the trigger (as it's a clear and present danger). Moreover, if someone does shoot kids and immigrants, and it was shown that this someone was motivated by your statements, then you can be sued under a civil lawsuit for millions by the family of the people who died. > In Germany this kind of rhetoric would land you in jail for inciting violence and instigating criminal behavior. In US too, inciting violence and instigating criminal behavior could land you in jail, except American definition of 'inciting violence and instigating criminal behavior' is a lot different than European definition. A politician calling drone attacks on Snowden or Assange isn't 'inciting violence and instigating criminal behavior' in US. A politician picking up the phone and asking his brother who is a drone operator to do a drone attack on Assange or Snowden, would be.

pluma 9y ago
I was paraphrasing actual comments made in German that constitute hate speech. "Donkey fucker" is a racial slur. Most of the racial slurs used in these comments don't translate well, e.g. "oil eye". It's in the same register of language as the n-word in English. It may not come across that well in English but there's a direct call to action: "shoot them and their children", basically. It's not specifically directed at anyone. Charitably it could be read as "we should enact policies so soldiers do this" but less charitably it's directly calling for people to go out and shoot other people -- which is inciting violence. I'm fairly certain going on national TV and offering a significant monetary reward to anyone who murders Snowden/Assange/Trump would be illegal even in the US. The only difference is that Germany doesn't require a tangible reward for that to be illegal. But hey, what do I know, it's not like the US is at risk of bringing lynchings back or something. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching_in_the_United_States#Appearance_of_nooses_in_2017 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching_in_the_United_States#... EDIT: Oh, and the obvious difference: aside from a strict loyalty to international Human Rights, the German constitution centers around the idea of the indelibility of human dignity. Dehumanizing people is always unconstitutional and promoting hatred around racial identity or ethnic background is almost always dehumanizing.