5 ms·

That term 'hate speech' - what does it actually mean? This seems like another assault on free speech to me and there is a danger in limiting the online Overton

That term 'hate speech' - what does it actually mean? This seems like another assault on free speech to me and there is a danger in limiting the online Overton Window to a massive bland snooze fest. The current joy of the internet is being able to read all sorts of perspectives from 'sensible' to radical and I really hope that continues...I worry for all the citizen journalists and investigators who have been so magnificent in the current western 'glasnost' era online... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window

darklajid 9y ago
Free Speech (using capitals for a reason) is a US centric concept whenever it comes up here and you're from SF (according to Twitter). That just doesn't apply here. This Free Speech never existed in the Germany I grew up in and it's not something that I ever felt needed. The incident here is a mistake, a strange overreaction - maybe even by Twitter? - and hopefully will be corrected promptly. So while I understand that you might be unfamiliar with the underlying laws in Germany: I wouldn't want to trade them in. Edit: I fully support the restriction of Free Speech and prosecution of hate speech. I'm not a fan of the new 'delete content online' NetzDG thing
- olivermarks 9y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_10_of_the_European_Convention_on_Human_Rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_10_of_the_European_Con... 'Free Expression' is the equivalent euro terminology as I understand it. I'm a Brit living in the US so I think I understand your German perspective but don't understand you supporting the restriction of Free Speech/Expression...
  - darklajid 9y ago
    That link's number 2 seems to apply (and explicitly talks about restrictions)? 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. For the hate speech law [√] prescribed by law [√] in the interests of national security [√] in the interests of public safety You can disagree whether the lower two points apply - I'll argue that these are the reasons behind the law in the first place - but the first one is quite clear I think. Freedom of Expression within boundaries. Restricted Freedom of Expression?
    - olivermarks 9y ago
      I'd argue free expression has been the difference between the western world and more oppressive regimes speakers corner London and Hamburg in 1966, a bit like pre internet Facebook ranting... https://youtu.be/XGzmRhfef7w https://youtu.be/XGzmRhfef7w
- adrianratnapala 9y ago
  I think you are seeing played out in practice why the US is right and Germany is wrong about this. An important argument for free speech is that while it does little harm for people to merely say say bad stuff, restricting it does a lot of harm because of snowball effects. If speech act looks just barely be illegal, then it is much easier and safer to just condemn it than to figure out if it really meets the standard. That is if you dispose of free speech as a principle, then you should expect suppression of even speech you think is tolerable. And if you believe that is pie-in-the-sky theory, then you are seeing evidence to the contrary here.
Grollicus 9y ago
'hate speech' is an oversimplification chosen by the media. The law acually forces large social media companies in germany to remove illegal* content from their site within one week. Context is that Facebook has been ignoring illegal* content on their site and generally made an ass out of german law enforcement, so they got a law to rein them in. *illegal: libel, Volksverhetzung (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volksverhetzung https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volksverhetzung), supporting illegal organizations (eg. advertising IS beheading videos), calls on people to commit crimes, child porn, porn without consent
- sintaxi 9y ago
  Are you saying facebook is ignoring court orders from the German authorities to have content removed?
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - Mithaldu 9y ago
    No, they ignored a law the government made generally without stating penalties. Now the govt was forced to spell out penalties.
- norikki 9y ago
  According to that wikipedia article, the German law translates Volksverhetzung into English as "incitement to hatred". So no, saying that Germany has banned 'hate speech' is not an oversimplification chosen by the media. You are intentionally conflating politically incorrect opinions about immigration (aka 'hate speech') with child porn and violent threats.
  - germanier 9y ago
    Volksverhetzung is very precisely defined by decades of legal precedent and much narrower than what an English speaker would think of when hearing "hate speech". Just because translations made for the convenience of non-German speakers chose a specific translation doesn't mean that it captures the meaning with all attached connotations well. Two examples (without saying anything about the validity of the claim): "Recent immigrations are responsible for violent crime including rape. To protect our people we need to reform our immigration policy" – absolutely fine. "Gang-raping immigrants are roaming our streets. We need to wipe them out before it's too late" is not. You are not helping political discourse with the latter either.
Mithaldu 9y ago
> That term 'hate speech' - what does it actually mean? Read §1(3). https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/netzdg/BJNR335210017.html#BJNR335210017BJNE000100000 https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/netzdg/BJNR335210017.html...
- olivermarks 9y ago
  §1(3) - " Illegal contents are contents within the meaning of paragraph 1, which constitute the offense of §§ 86, 86a, 89a, 91, 100a, 111, 126, 129 to 129b, 130, 131, 140, 166, 184b in connection with 184d 185 to 187, 201a, 241 or 269 of the Criminal Code and are not justified."
  - Mithaldu 9y ago
    And now you know.

darklajid 9y ago

Free Speech (using capitals for a reason) is a US centric concept whenever it comes up here and you're from SF (according to Twitter). That just doesn't apply here. This Free Speech never existed in the Germany I grew up in and it's not something that I ever felt needed. The incident here is a mistake, a strange overreaction - maybe even by Twitter? - and hopefully will be corrected promptly. So while I understand that you might be unfamiliar with the underlying laws in Germany: I wouldn't want to trade them in. Edit: I fully support the restriction of Free Speech and prosecution of hate speech. I'm not a fan of the new 'delete content online' NetzDG thing

olivermarks 9y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_10_of_the_European_Convention_on_Human_Rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_10_of_the_European_Con... 'Free Expression' is the equivalent euro terminology as I understand it. I'm a Brit living in the US so I think I understand your German perspective but don't understand you supporting the restriction of Free Speech/Expression...
- darklajid 9y ago
  That link's number 2 seems to apply (and explicitly talks about restrictions)? 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. For the hate speech law [√] prescribed by law [√] in the interests of national security [√] in the interests of public safety You can disagree whether the lower two points apply - I'll argue that these are the reasons behind the law in the first place - but the first one is quite clear I think. Freedom of Expression within boundaries. Restricted Freedom of Expression?
  - olivermarks 9y ago
    I'd argue free expression has been the difference between the western world and more oppressive regimes speakers corner London and Hamburg in 1966, a bit like pre internet Facebook ranting... https://youtu.be/XGzmRhfef7w https://youtu.be/XGzmRhfef7w
adrianratnapala 9y ago
I think you are seeing played out in practice why the US is right and Germany is wrong about this. An important argument for free speech is that while it does little harm for people to merely say say bad stuff, restricting it does a lot of harm because of snowball effects. If speech act looks just barely be illegal, then it is much easier and safer to just condemn it than to figure out if it really meets the standard. That is if you dispose of free speech as a principle, then you should expect suppression of even speech you think is tolerable. And if you believe that is pie-in-the-sky theory, then you are seeing evidence to the contrary here.

Grollicus 9y ago

'hate speech' is an oversimplification chosen by the media. The law acually forces large social media companies in germany to remove illegal* content from their site within one week. Context is that Facebook has been ignoring illegal* content on their site and generally made an ass out of german law enforcement, so they got a law to rein them in. *illegal: libel, Volksverhetzung (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volksverhetzung https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volksverhetzung), supporting illegal organizations (eg. advertising IS beheading videos), calls on people to commit crimes, child porn, porn without consent

sintaxi 9y ago
Are you saying facebook is ignoring court orders from the German authorities to have content removed?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- Mithaldu 9y ago
  No, they ignored a law the government made generally without stating penalties. Now the govt was forced to spell out penalties.
norikki 9y ago
According to that wikipedia article, the German law translates Volksverhetzung into English as "incitement to hatred". So no, saying that Germany has banned 'hate speech' is not an oversimplification chosen by the media. You are intentionally conflating politically incorrect opinions about immigration (aka 'hate speech') with child porn and violent threats.
- germanier 9y ago
  Volksverhetzung is very precisely defined by decades of legal precedent and much narrower than what an English speaker would think of when hearing "hate speech". Just because translations made for the convenience of non-German speakers chose a specific translation doesn't mean that it captures the meaning with all attached connotations well. Two examples (without saying anything about the validity of the claim): "Recent immigrations are responsible for violent crime including rape. To protect our people we need to reform our immigration policy" – absolutely fine. "Gang-raping immigrants are roaming our streets. We need to wipe them out before it's too late" is not. You are not helping political discourse with the latter either.

Mithaldu 9y ago

> That term 'hate speech' - what does it actually mean? Read §1(3). https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/netzdg/BJNR335210017.html#BJNR335210017BJNE000100000 https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/netzdg/BJNR335210017.html...

olivermarks 9y ago
§1(3) - " Illegal contents are contents within the meaning of paragraph 1, which constitute the offense of §§ 86, 86a, 89a, 91, 100a, 111, 126, 129 to 129b, 130, 131, 140, 166, 184b in connection with 184d 185 to 187, 201a, 241 or 269 of the Criminal Code and are not justified."
- Mithaldu 9y ago
  And now you know.