4 ms·

...authorities were treating linksunten.indymedia.org as an "association" rather than a news outlet, which would help officials get around constitutional protec

...authorities were treating linksunten.indymedia.org as an "association" rather than a news outlet, which would help officials get around constitutional protections on freedom of expression. [...] The anonymous threat to police - called "bulls" in Germany - led officials to determine that the site had become a "lawless realm," and, for now at least, the authorities have ended it. Which I find pretty concerning. "Don't say anything nasty about the state or the police, or we will shut you down" Isn't a message I was expecting to hear from a European Government.

mikejb 9y ago
There's a difference between saying 'anything nasty' and calling for physical action against individuals. Content on that page called for violence against individuals, including members of the police. I'm not saying I disagree with your argument, but "don't say anything nasty" doesn't represent the facts accurately.
- DarkKomunalec 9y ago
  > calling for physical action against individuals They weren't raided for making true threats, but for letting the site become a "lawless realm" and/or for "sowing hate against different opinions and representatives of the country", charges so vague they could apply to almost any online forum or uppity news site.
  - sgc 9y ago
    I agree that it is disconcerting that it was easier to make these vague charges effective than to charge them with inciting to violence or something similar. It appears to call for a refinement of legislation and perhaps general sentiment of the courts (which is often an extension of that of current culture).
  - dublinclontarf 9y ago
    Germany does not have the protections of free speech that the US has. "Hate speech" is a real thing there that will land you in jail.
    - dom0 9y ago
      > "Hate speech" is a real thing there that will land you in jail. This is wildly inaccurate. In Germany there are mainly three kinds of speech punishable by law: (1) Defamation (2) Volksverhetzung ("all jews must die") (3) Incitement (there are two different kinds of this, one where a specific person is incited to do something criminal, and the other where you publicly instigate a group to do something criminal) It is quite clear that these don't nearly cover everything that may be commonly considered "hate speech".
aedron 9y ago
Apparently the fact that the site had administrators (i.e. more than one) made it an association. By that definition a newspaper, TV network and anything else are associations too I guess?
- jacquesm 9y ago
  By that definition almost anything is an association.
  - yorwba 9y ago
    According to http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/vereinsg/__2.html http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/vereinsg/__2.html (my translation, emphasis mine, legalese is hard): (1) A Verein is regardless of the legal form any association formed voluntarily by a multitude of natural or legal persons over a longer timespan for a common purpose, subject to organized decision-making. (2) Vereine are not 1. political parties as defined by article 21 of the Grundgesetz [essentially the constitution] 2. parliamentary groups of the Bundestag and and the parliaments of federated states EDIT: banning a Verein is regulated by http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/vereinsg/__3.html http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/vereinsg/__3.html (1) A Verein may only be treated as banned (article 9 par. 2 of the Grundgesetz), if the banning agency determines that its purpose or its actions run counter to the criminal law or that it is directed against the constitutional order or the ideal of peaceful exchange between the peoples [Gedanke der Völkerverständigung; let me know if you have a better translation] ; the declaration is to order the dissolution of the Verein (ban). The ban is usually to involve the seizure of [a bunch of stuff I'm too lazy to translate]
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- wongarsu 9y ago
  The association part is a red herring. Of course a group of administrators is an association, just like CNN also happens to be (part of) a company. The important thing he is saying is that they treat them as if they weren't also a news outlet. I find that decision questionable, and I expect an interesting court case centered around the question which kinds of websites qualify as news outlets and which don't.
rbehrends 9y ago
> Which I find pretty concerning. "Don't say anything nasty about the state or the police, or we will shut you down" Isn't a message I was expecting to hear from a European Government. If you look at the legal basis they used, you will find that the organization was actually banned as (inter alia) being a criminal conspiracy with the goal of facilitating the commission of criminal offenses (and in particular, violent crimes). Searches found knives, truncheons, and other weapons [1]. [1] http://www.n-tv.de/politik/De-Maiziere-verbietet-linksunten-indymedia-article20000560.html http://www.n-tv.de/politik/De-Maiziere-verbietet-linksunten-... (in German).

mikejb 9y ago

There's a difference between saying 'anything nasty' and calling for physical action against individuals. Content on that page called for violence against individuals, including members of the police. I'm not saying I disagree with your argument, but "don't say anything nasty" doesn't represent the facts accurately.

DarkKomunalec 9y ago
> calling for physical action against individuals They weren't raided for making true threats, but for letting the site become a "lawless realm" and/or for "sowing hate against different opinions and representatives of the country", charges so vague they could apply to almost any online forum or uppity news site.
- sgc 9y ago
  I agree that it is disconcerting that it was easier to make these vague charges effective than to charge them with inciting to violence or something similar. It appears to call for a refinement of legislation and perhaps general sentiment of the courts (which is often an extension of that of current culture).
- dublinclontarf 9y ago
  Germany does not have the protections of free speech that the US has. "Hate speech" is a real thing there that will land you in jail.
  - dom0 9y ago
    > "Hate speech" is a real thing there that will land you in jail. This is wildly inaccurate. In Germany there are mainly three kinds of speech punishable by law: (1) Defamation (2) Volksverhetzung ("all jews must die") (3) Incitement (there are two different kinds of this, one where a specific person is incited to do something criminal, and the other where you publicly instigate a group to do something criminal) It is quite clear that these don't nearly cover everything that may be commonly considered "hate speech".

aedron 9y ago

Apparently the fact that the site had administrators (i.e. more than one) made it an association. By that definition a newspaper, TV network and anything else are associations too I guess?

jacquesm 9y ago
By that definition almost anything is an association.
- yorwba 9y ago
  According to http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/vereinsg/__2.html http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/vereinsg/__2.html (my translation, emphasis mine, legalese is hard): (1) A Verein is regardless of the legal form any association formed voluntarily by a multitude of natural or legal persons over a longer timespan for a common purpose, subject to organized decision-making. (2) Vereine are not 1. political parties as defined by article 21 of the Grundgesetz [essentially the constitution] 2. parliamentary groups of the Bundestag and and the parliaments of federated states EDIT: banning a Verein is regulated by http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/vereinsg/__3.html http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/vereinsg/__3.html (1) A Verein may only be treated as banned (article 9 par. 2 of the Grundgesetz), if the banning agency determines that its purpose or its actions run counter to the criminal law or that it is directed against the constitutional order or the ideal of peaceful exchange between the peoples [Gedanke der Völkerverständigung; let me know if you have a better translation] ; the declaration is to order the dissolution of the Verein (ban). The ban is usually to involve the seizure of [a bunch of stuff I'm too lazy to translate]
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
wongarsu 9y ago
The association part is a red herring. Of course a group of administrators is an association, just like CNN also happens to be (part of) a company. The important thing he is saying is that they treat them as if they weren't also a news outlet. I find that decision questionable, and I expect an interesting court case centered around the question which kinds of websites qualify as news outlets and which don't.

rbehrends 9y ago

> Which I find pretty concerning. "Don't say anything nasty about the state or the police, or we will shut you down" Isn't a message I was expecting to hear from a European Government. If you look at the legal basis they used, you will find that the organization was actually banned as (inter alia) being a criminal conspiracy with the goal of facilitating the commission of criminal offenses (and in particular, violent crimes). Searches found knives, truncheons, and other weapons [1]. [1] http://www.n-tv.de/politik/De-Maiziere-verbietet-linksunten-indymedia-article20000560.html http://www.n-tv.de/politik/De-Maiziere-verbietet-linksunten-... (in German).