6 ms·

That's obviously stupid. But it's day two, and Twitter is likely to get their procedures in order, just like they (and Facebook etc) have previously done when i

That's obviously stupid. But it's day two, and Twitter is likely to get their procedures in order, just like they (and Facebook etc) have previously done when implementing their own content policies. The law applies only to a narrowly defined class of hate speech. Statements that fall under the definition have always been illegal. People always ran the risk of prosecution when calling for genocide etc. As such, nobody's freedom of speech is more limited today than it was a week ago. What the law tries to accomplish is similar to the DMCA, i. e. to force companies to take steps to address criminal activity on their platforms when such is reported. I know there are many who disagree with laws limiting hate speech. But this is not that debate.

nsnick 9y ago
Twitter should not enforce ridiculous German laws. The tech companies need to call the bluff of countries that demand censorship.
- rimliu 9y ago
  So you say thech companies are above the law? What could go wrong…
  - nsnick 9y ago
    Certainly not. Germany can block twitter, but I don't think the German people will accept that. Countries that love censorship need to realize that if they want to be part of the global discourse, they need to be part of all of the global discourse.
    - somenewacc 9y ago
      I'm not sure that calls for genocide are part of the global discourse.
      - abiox 9y ago
        this seems like a red herring or something... are 'calls for genocide' actually a thing worth caring about? is there a legitimate possibility that, say, bob goes on twitter and says 'kill all romanians!' and suddenly there's a genocide of romanians? it's doesn't make sense. i mean, i get that it's attempting to appeal to one's aversion to a very bad idea, but random bob can't cause a genocide. a strong dictatorship a la hitler or stalin on the other hand... well, that's a much bigger problem than trying to regulate mean words.
        anigbrowl 9y ago
        are 'calls for genocide' actually a thing worth caring about? If you're a member of the subject group, then they most certainly are. Instead of constructing silly examples, let me suggest you look into the history of ethnic cleansing in Yugoslavia or Hutu-Tutsi animus in Rwanda.
        abiox 9y ago
        military or organized physical violence is not the same as a random yokel saying dumb things on the internet. invoking real world violence as a stand-in for which one calibrates their regard for a person's tweets seems more like an emotional appeal rather than a logical dialog.
        anigbrowl 9y ago
        The internet is a great organizing tool, and you have no way to know whether any given comment is random or coordinated.
        abiox 9y ago
        seems like a nonsequitur; either way, if a bad guy wants to throw away opsec and publicly document information for a court to use as evidence... well, i guess it's nice that they're making policework much easier.
      - 9y ago
  - abiox 9y ago
    if the law states that companies are deputized to act as police and enforce the law of the land, then i guess they have to comply. do the companies engaging in policing actions receive the same protections and considerations as actual police and government officials when it comes to legal issues involved with the act of law enforcement? i feel it's better that the state should be expected to take responsibility for and enforce it's own laws.
    - shaki-dora 9y ago
      Companies aren't "deputised". They are just required to follow laws. It's nothing new, nor limited to Germany, nor nefarious: US companies are routinely required to cooperate with the government. When they submit tax information, have the foodstuffs they sell inspected for contamination, when they ask for your driver's license before selling you alcohol or when they put a "you must be this tall" cardboard cutout at the roller-coster's entrance.
      - abiox 9y ago
        what i mean is: if a law just says 'people can't say mean words', is every private company expected to thereafter analyze all words that exist on it's platform (be it twitter, or sms text, or gmail, etc) make a determination as to whether those words violate the law, and are then expected to take some action, based on it's assessment that a crime or civil offense has been committed? that's what i mean by deputized. if the law doesn't say the company is required to take an action, the company should be mostly indifferent to the law's interaction with third parties. further, it's a bit silly for a law to say that a company should make assessments of criminality or civil offenses, especially if they aren't provided the same legal privileges that police receive for doing the same thing.
- shaki-dora 9y ago
  That's such a juvenile reaction... Germany is considering a stable, open, democratic, peaceful, constructive and successful country. There are any number of rankings/scoring regarding freedom of the press and of expression, resilience to corruption, democracy, economic opportunity etc in which Germany scores better than the US. These are laws passed by the national parliament, elected to represent its constituents. The law is subject to approval by not only the national courts, but the European Court of Justice, and the European Court of Human Rights. To somehow consider it a grave injustice when Twitter is now required to act when they are informed of activity considered illegal in that jurisdiction is ridiculous. Because presumably you're doing so out of some understanding of "democracy". Yet you are ignoring quite a bit of the local democracy that lead to this.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - creaghpatr 9y ago
    >That's such a juvenile reaction... Ban this user for ageism /s
  - sheepmullet 9y ago
    > Germany is considering a stable, open, democratic, peaceful, constructive and successful country. The German people have always had a strong authoritarian "we know best" streak and it has caused a lot of problems in the past. Hence why the peoples of other nations are much more concerned by Germany trying to dictate what constitutes free speech on the internet than they are by a few tweets.
  - Amezarak 9y ago
    > There are any number of rankings/scoring regarding freedom of the press and of expression, resilience to corruption, democracy, economic opportunity etc in which Germany scores better than the US. One of the reasons people regard these rankings as a total joke is exactly because of incidents like this - Twitter being forced to delete satirical tweets. More broadly, I think most people would agree that beyond the extremes (say, US vs North Korea), the precise rankings of countries on these metrics are based on questionable methodologies with vague priors and are generated largely by politically motivated organizations.
- nine_k 9y ago
  Twitter, if it wants to continue operating in Germany without facing lawsuits / prosecution, has to bow to German law. It would be better if they could just reliably block the account from reaching German users only, while other users would continue reading the tweets. It, of course, is impossible unless Germany implements a country-wide firewall, the way China did. I don't think it's likely, though. The point of actions like this is not to strictly eliminate any last vestige of hate speech. It is to send a message, so that other would-be-satirists could reconsider starting an account that breaks the law, and that other international companies which deal with UGC knew what to expect, and took preventive measures.
  - synotna 9y ago
    Reddit does geofence some subreddits in at least Germany, returning status code 451
    - germanier 9y ago
      Which they are not forced to do as there is no such law that binds foreign companies that would apply to those subreddits. They preemptively blocked it completely after they received a letter with some questions by a German government agency that was thinking about including a subreddit into an official block list used by (voluntary to use) youth-protection software or Google. Even if it had been included in the list, it would have been accessible from Germany.
mentos 9y ago
Hate Speech Isn't Real | Change My Mind: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0hPd2gMlGw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0hPd2gMlGw I found Steven Crowder's arguments here to really challenge my thoughts on what is free speech and what is hate speech. Give that a watch if you have the time.
- csours 9y ago
  The video seems to make the point that there isn't a satisfying legal definition of hate speech (I haven't watched the whole thing). As a counterpoint, imagine you are a minority (if you are not already a minority), and further imagine that someone uses speech that has, in the past, been used to incite violence; or speech that is similar (dog-whistle) to that which incites violence.
  - nailer 9y ago
    Inciting violence is already illegal. Additionally, some protected classes are ideas (religion, usually implemented as being a member of a major religion) rather than intrinsic values (which I believe do deserve some degree of protection). The protection of religion comes from sectarian violence, but this is better covered by other laws, and disliking a particular spiritual belief is no different from disliking any other belief. You're free to call me a taig and papist, show Sinead O'Connor ripping up a picture of the pope, or exhibit Serrano's 'Piss Christ'. I'm free to laugh, realise that O'Connor was making an incredibly accurate complaint about the church's abuses, and pay for tickets (Serrano's an excellent photographer, I've not seen his sculpture first hand) accordingly.
  - barsonme 9y ago
    There are already laws against speech that incites violence as well as laws against violence, no?
- shaki-dora 9y ago
  I have my doubts that any new thoughts on the subject that merit consideration would first appear on Youtube... Plus, you didn't read the last sentence: "There is debate to be had on hate speech. This is not that debate".
rbehrends 9y ago
> The law applies only to a narrowly defined class of hate speech. The thing is that (despite the reporting in the English-language media), it's not actually a hate speech law [1]. The problem is that social media companies are being deputized as enforcers of parts of the penal code without proper qualifications, safeguards, or ways to appeal (unlike real courts). > As such, nobody's freedom of speech is more limited today than it was a week ago. Yes, it is. Speech cannot only be constrained through legislating what types of speech are legal, but also through creating enforcement mechanisms that encourage platforms to be overzealous in what they don't allow. [1] The whole terminology does not really make sense in the context of German law. Not to mention that even in the broadest sense, it's inaccurate, as the law also applies to things such as illegal pornography and threats (regardless of motivation).

nsnick 9y ago

Twitter should not enforce ridiculous German laws. The tech companies need to call the bluff of countries that demand censorship.

rimliu 9y ago
So you say thech companies are above the law? What could go wrong…
- nsnick 9y ago
  Certainly not. Germany can block twitter, but I don't think the German people will accept that. Countries that love censorship need to realize that if they want to be part of the global discourse, they need to be part of all of the global discourse.
  - somenewacc 9y ago
    I'm not sure that calls for genocide are part of the global discourse.
    - abiox 9y ago
      this seems like a red herring or something... are 'calls for genocide' actually a thing worth caring about? is there a legitimate possibility that, say, bob goes on twitter and says 'kill all romanians!' and suddenly there's a genocide of romanians? it's doesn't make sense. i mean, i get that it's attempting to appeal to one's aversion to a very bad idea, but random bob can't cause a genocide. a strong dictatorship a la hitler or stalin on the other hand... well, that's a much bigger problem than trying to regulate mean words.
      - anigbrowl 9y ago
        are 'calls for genocide' actually a thing worth caring about? If you're a member of the subject group, then they most certainly are. Instead of constructing silly examples, let me suggest you look into the history of ethnic cleansing in Yugoslavia or Hutu-Tutsi animus in Rwanda.
        abiox 9y ago
        military or organized physical violence is not the same as a random yokel saying dumb things on the internet. invoking real world violence as a stand-in for which one calibrates their regard for a person's tweets seems more like an emotional appeal rather than a logical dialog.
        anigbrowl 9y ago
        The internet is a great organizing tool, and you have no way to know whether any given comment is random or coordinated.
        abiox 9y ago
        seems like a nonsequitur; either way, if a bad guy wants to throw away opsec and publicly document information for a court to use as evidence... well, i guess it's nice that they're making policework much easier.
    - 9y ago
- abiox 9y ago
  if the law states that companies are deputized to act as police and enforce the law of the land, then i guess they have to comply. do the companies engaging in policing actions receive the same protections and considerations as actual police and government officials when it comes to legal issues involved with the act of law enforcement? i feel it's better that the state should be expected to take responsibility for and enforce it's own laws.
  - shaki-dora 9y ago
    Companies aren't "deputised". They are just required to follow laws. It's nothing new, nor limited to Germany, nor nefarious: US companies are routinely required to cooperate with the government. When they submit tax information, have the foodstuffs they sell inspected for contamination, when they ask for your driver's license before selling you alcohol or when they put a "you must be this tall" cardboard cutout at the roller-coster's entrance.
    - abiox 9y ago
      what i mean is: if a law just says 'people can't say mean words', is every private company expected to thereafter analyze all words that exist on it's platform (be it twitter, or sms text, or gmail, etc) make a determination as to whether those words violate the law, and are then expected to take some action, based on it's assessment that a crime or civil offense has been committed? that's what i mean by deputized. if the law doesn't say the company is required to take an action, the company should be mostly indifferent to the law's interaction with third parties. further, it's a bit silly for a law to say that a company should make assessments of criminality or civil offenses, especially if they aren't provided the same legal privileges that police receive for doing the same thing.
shaki-dora 9y ago
That's such a juvenile reaction... Germany is considering a stable, open, democratic, peaceful, constructive and successful country. There are any number of rankings/scoring regarding freedom of the press and of expression, resilience to corruption, democracy, economic opportunity etc in which Germany scores better than the US. These are laws passed by the national parliament, elected to represent its constituents. The law is subject to approval by not only the national courts, but the European Court of Justice, and the European Court of Human Rights. To somehow consider it a grave injustice when Twitter is now required to act when they are informed of activity considered illegal in that jurisdiction is ridiculous. Because presumably you're doing so out of some understanding of "democracy". Yet you are ignoring quite a bit of the local democracy that lead to this.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- creaghpatr 9y ago
  >That's such a juvenile reaction... Ban this user for ageism /s
- sheepmullet 9y ago
  > Germany is considering a stable, open, democratic, peaceful, constructive and successful country. The German people have always had a strong authoritarian "we know best" streak and it has caused a lot of problems in the past. Hence why the peoples of other nations are much more concerned by Germany trying to dictate what constitutes free speech on the internet than they are by a few tweets.
- Amezarak 9y ago
  > There are any number of rankings/scoring regarding freedom of the press and of expression, resilience to corruption, democracy, economic opportunity etc in which Germany scores better than the US. One of the reasons people regard these rankings as a total joke is exactly because of incidents like this - Twitter being forced to delete satirical tweets. More broadly, I think most people would agree that beyond the extremes (say, US vs North Korea), the precise rankings of countries on these metrics are based on questionable methodologies with vague priors and are generated largely by politically motivated organizations.
nine_k 9y ago
Twitter, if it wants to continue operating in Germany without facing lawsuits / prosecution, has to bow to German law. It would be better if they could just reliably block the account from reaching German users only, while other users would continue reading the tweets. It, of course, is impossible unless Germany implements a country-wide firewall, the way China did. I don't think it's likely, though. The point of actions like this is not to strictly eliminate any last vestige of hate speech. It is to send a message, so that other would-be-satirists could reconsider starting an account that breaks the law, and that other international companies which deal with UGC knew what to expect, and took preventive measures.
- synotna 9y ago
  Reddit does geofence some subreddits in at least Germany, returning status code 451
  - germanier 9y ago
    Which they are not forced to do as there is no such law that binds foreign companies that would apply to those subreddits. They preemptively blocked it completely after they received a letter with some questions by a German government agency that was thinking about including a subreddit into an official block list used by (voluntary to use) youth-protection software or Google. Even if it had been included in the list, it would have been accessible from Germany.

mentos 9y ago

Hate Speech Isn't Real | Change My Mind: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0hPd2gMlGw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0hPd2gMlGw I found Steven Crowder's arguments here to really challenge my thoughts on what is free speech and what is hate speech. Give that a watch if you have the time.

csours 9y ago
The video seems to make the point that there isn't a satisfying legal definition of hate speech (I haven't watched the whole thing). As a counterpoint, imagine you are a minority (if you are not already a minority), and further imagine that someone uses speech that has, in the past, been used to incite violence; or speech that is similar (dog-whistle) to that which incites violence.
- nailer 9y ago
  Inciting violence is already illegal. Additionally, some protected classes are ideas (religion, usually implemented as being a member of a major religion) rather than intrinsic values (which I believe do deserve some degree of protection). The protection of religion comes from sectarian violence, but this is better covered by other laws, and disliking a particular spiritual belief is no different from disliking any other belief. You're free to call me a taig and papist, show Sinead O'Connor ripping up a picture of the pope, or exhibit Serrano's 'Piss Christ'. I'm free to laugh, realise that O'Connor was making an incredibly accurate complaint about the church's abuses, and pay for tickets (Serrano's an excellent photographer, I've not seen his sculpture first hand) accordingly.
- barsonme 9y ago
  There are already laws against speech that incites violence as well as laws against violence, no?
shaki-dora 9y ago
I have my doubts that any new thoughts on the subject that merit consideration would first appear on Youtube... Plus, you didn't read the last sentence: "There is debate to be had on hate speech. This is not that debate".

rbehrends 9y ago

> The law applies only to a narrowly defined class of hate speech. The thing is that (despite the reporting in the English-language media), it's not actually a hate speech law [1]. The problem is that social media companies are being deputized as enforcers of parts of the penal code without proper qualifications, safeguards, or ways to appeal (unlike real courts). > As such, nobody's freedom of speech is more limited today than it was a week ago. Yes, it is. Speech cannot only be constrained through legislating what types of speech are legal, but also through creating enforcement mechanisms that encourage platforms to be overzealous in what they don't allow. [1] The whole terminology does not really make sense in the context of German law. Not to mention that even in the broadest sense, it's inaccurate, as the law also applies to things such as illegal pornography and threats (regardless of motivation).