6 ms·

Germany’s balancing act: Fighting online hate while protecting free speech

1 points by Quanttek 6y ago

foolzcrow 6y ago
Free speech is a fundamental human right. Hate speech is a way to abridge free speech. To be free you must take the good with the bad.
raxxorrax 6y ago
This is a horseshit article. To connect the murder of Lübcke to hate speech... > For decades now, incitement to hatred against national, religious, ethnic or racial groups has been illegal in Germany This also applies if to you if you call someone a fascist, which can have legal consequences. Just to your information. > Forged in the late 1950s, Germany’s robust hate speech laws were a direct response to the country’s experience with Nazism Legislation crafted from a national trauma might not be the best template. It had reason though. Reasons that aren't applicable to the current situation. > authoritarianism was partly made possible by the fact that it was legal to use incendiary propaganda That was countered by schooling critical thinking, which does indeed paste a large warning sign on this novel. It also was meant to shield people with differing opinions. Most internet moderators would not be able to adhere to such rules. Not even judges can do that if we are honest. > Renate Künast, a former national minister and one of the country’s most prominent politicians, has gone on a crusade to expose the failings of current legislation, after she became the target of online hate. Public figures need to be able to deal with it and that does mean rising above it. She means well, but has the wrong approach. Many targets wouldn't even want the state involved because of negative secondary effects. > One of the key obstacles holding victims back from retaliating is that they have to advance the costs of legal proceedings Great analysis, it is a problem with judicative in nearly every country. Completely unjust. I would think that would apply to important rights violations instead of being called names on the internet. > A blueprint for authoritarian regimes? Yes, authoritarian regimes have an even larger problem with freedom of speech compared to German politicians, even if it doesn't feel that way. > It took less than two weeks after Berlin passed NetzDG back in 2017 for Russia to follow suit and approve its own hate speech bill. ... not only Russia. And yes, that is on western 'leaders' intimidated by Twatter. It was so predictable that a believe in any excuse is difficult. > The signal Germany sent with NetzDG was that cracking down hard on illegal online content was the right approach I am so proud of my country that it inspired dictorships everywhere. The Nazis weren't even enough for one century and they still make the exact same mistakes again. Insanity... > how to police online hate speech Teach people how to disengage. If it is personal, the solution would not be found online. Some people might find themselves encouraged because of the necessary resistance to these policy ideas. > All are paying close attention to how Berlin is handling the delicate balancing act Then everyone is making a huge mistake. Especially with its history Germany cannot act differently with international observers. It takes some critical thinking to understand why that is. Would make for an interesting article, politico. In the end it won't even work but you still get the negative effects. It should be obvious by now.

1 points by Quanttek 6y ago

Free speech is a fundamental human right. Hate speech is a way to abridge free speech. To be free you must take the good with the bad.

raxxorrax 6y ago

This is a horseshit article. To connect the murder of Lübcke to hate speech... > For decades now, incitement to hatred against national, religious, ethnic or racial groups has been illegal in Germany This also applies if to you if you call someone a fascist, which can have legal consequences. Just to your information. > Forged in the late 1950s, Germany’s robust hate speech laws were a direct response to the country’s experience with Nazism Legislation crafted from a national trauma might not be the best template. It had reason though. Reasons that aren't applicable to the current situation. > authoritarianism was partly made possible by the fact that it was legal to use incendiary propaganda That was countered by schooling critical thinking, which does indeed paste a large warning sign on this novel. It also was meant to shield people with differing opinions. Most internet moderators would not be able to adhere to such rules. Not even judges can do that if we are honest. > Renate Künast, a former national minister and one of the country’s most prominent politicians, has gone on a crusade to expose the failings of current legislation, after she became the target of online hate. Public figures need to be able to deal with it and that does mean rising above it. She means well, but has the wrong approach. Many targets wouldn't even want the state involved because of negative secondary effects. > One of the key obstacles holding victims back from retaliating is that they have to advance the costs of legal proceedings Great analysis, it is a problem with judicative in nearly every country. Completely unjust. I would think that would apply to important rights violations instead of being called names on the internet. > A blueprint for authoritarian regimes? Yes, authoritarian regimes have an even larger problem with freedom of speech compared to German politicians, even if it doesn't feel that way. > It took less than two weeks after Berlin passed NetzDG back in 2017 for Russia to follow suit and approve its own hate speech bill. ... not only Russia. And yes, that is on western 'leaders' intimidated by Twatter. It was so predictable that a believe in any excuse is difficult. > The signal Germany sent with NetzDG was that cracking down hard on illegal online content was the right approach I am so proud of my country that it inspired dictorships everywhere. The Nazis weren't even enough for one century and they still make the exact same mistakes again. Insanity... > how to police online hate speech Teach people how to disengage. If it is personal, the solution would not be found online. Some people might find themselves encouraged because of the necessary resistance to these policy ideas. > All are paying close attention to how Berlin is handling the delicate balancing act Then everyone is making a huge mistake. Especially with its history Germany cannot act differently with international observers. It takes some critical thinking to understand why that is. Would make for an interesting article, politico. In the end it won't even work but you still get the negative effects. It should be obvious by now.