18 ms·
Germany raided 83 homes in coordinated raids against online hate speech
- s9w 6y agoGerman sources have more info [0]. Among others, one guy was targeted because he linked a verboten music video. Another one because endorsed crimes. [0]: https://polizei.news/2020/11/03/aktionstag-gegen-hasspostings-83-wohnungen-und-andere-objekte-durchsucht/ https://polizei.news/2020/11/03/aktionstag-gegen-hassposting...
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- OptionX 6y agoSo we're sending police at the homes of people that say stuff we don't like on the internet? Is this the official, government endorsed, swatting?
- floatingatoll 6y agoGermany has been arresting people for violating their laws against hate speech for 75 years. It’s unsurprising, yet comforting, to find out that they do so when the violations are committed online.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- jeffreyrogers 6y agoI don't find it comforting, but to each his own.
- varjag 6y agoIt wasn't a law 76 years ago yet, but not sure you'd have preferred that Germany.
- jeffreyrogers 6y agoThere are more than two options.
- wwwwwwwww 6y ago75 years? More like 90 years. What do you think the first thing was the Nazis did when they got into power? Exactly: make the opinion of the opposition illegal. We didn't learn anything.
- colejohnson66 6y agoGermany’s laws are very clear that any form of endorsement of Naziism (or any hate speech) is illegal. It has been since the end of WWII. From the US, it looks ridiculous because most of that would be protected by the First Amendment. But in Germany, they really don’t want another Hitler.
- _red 6y ago>they really don’t want another Hitler why did Hitler appear in the first place? was it because thats just how germans are...or was there some other reason?
- notfromhere 6y agoIf you give extremism a platform, it will spread.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- Moway 6y ago>why did Hitler appear in the first place? Because they didn't have laws against hate speech, of course. Oh wait... they did: https://www.jta.org/2020/09/03/opinion/former-aclu-president-says-censoring-hate-speech-can-backfire-just-like-it-did-in-nazi-germany https://www.jta.org/2020/09/03/opinion/former-aclu-president...
- throwaway2048 6y agoHowever the Weimar Republic was extremely politically weak and refused to enforce them.
- Moway 6y agoFrom the link: >There were dozens of prosecutions, including successful prosecutions, against Nazis — including Julius Streicher, the publisher of Der Sturmer. And it just became a propaganda platform for the Nazis. It got all kinds of attention they otherwise would not have received, and sympathy they otherwise would not have received.
- Certhas 6y agoNo we don't. The law is against insulting people, not against "saying stuff we don't like on the internet". The laws predate the internet by decades. The freedom to express your opinion is constitutionally protected, this does not cover all speech acts, in Germany and everywhere (see slander laws). Courts protect this constitutional guarantee, as several recent cases showed. Vigorously enforcing laws against insults and other speech acts that are hostile towards constructive discourse seems to me to be the only way forward when it comes to restoring a semblance of sanity to societal conversation. The social networks by themselves have proven to be utterly incapable of doing so. The most comprehensive survey on various freedoms in the World that I know of ranks Germany at 94, ahead of France at 90 and the US at 86. (100 is the perfect score) https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world-2018-table-cou https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world-2018-table-cou... Freedom of speech is also a guaranteed right in the German constitution, as it is in the European Convention on Human Rights and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. In every jurisdiction there are limits to the freedom of speech. This applies to the US as well as everywhere else: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...
- xupybd 6y agoI'm not sure how insulting people can be a crime?
- claudiawerner 6y ago> So we're sending police at the homes of people that say stuff we don't like on the internet? Merely describing it as "stuff we don't like" is either inaccurate or reductionist, in the same way murder could be described as "actions we don't like", or a threatening letter is "some scribbles we don't like", or child pornography is "some movies we don't like". The German law may be vague (I don't know), but the bar seems to be higher than "stuff we don't like". Whether it should be censored is a good question, but it does nobody any good to be reductionist about the content of the speech.
- hoot 6y agoYeah but murder is a very concrete action, while an insult is subjective.
- claudiawerner 6y agoWhat does 'subjective' mean in this context? That its effects can't be examined? In at least a subset of circumstances, they can be (unless having or not having, say, PTSD, is 'subjective'). Psychological evaluations in the legal system are much like physiological ones. Let's say somebody has a sensetive finger, and breaking it causes extreme pain, according to that person. Assuming something like the eggshell skull rule still holds, should we dismiss his complaint or treat it as lesser because his pain is 'subjective'? All harms are subjective, and not all actions result in equal harm to the victim. A concert pianist is arguably harmed more by having his fingers broken than an English teacher is. A professor once said he'd rather someone break his leg instead of a student falsely accuse him of sexual assault.
- wwwwwwwww 6y agoThat's Germany. You think we didn't learn anything from our two dicatorships in the past century? You are correct!
- nodesocket 6y agoGermany has very different freedom of speech laws than the US. Personally I think the US has it right. You can’t claim free speech but then selectively decide what’s acceptable, politically correct, or moral. It’s a slippery slope.
- veddox 6y agoIt is a tough line to walk. However, having seen in our own and other countries’ histories what happens when hatred is allowed to spread unchecked, we have decided that it‘s more important to slightly restrict one right (within tight bounds) than to risk that abusers of that right destroy the very democracy that gave it to them.
- veddox 6y agoWell, the thing is, in Germany we‘ve experienced first hand what happens when hatred goes rampant - when criticism turns to ostracism, hateful words to hateful deeds, inflammatory speeches to flame-filled cities. And I‘m not just talking about Hitler and the Holocaust. Elected representatives of the people, from village mayors to members of parliament, are giving up their office because they can no longer bear the barrage of abuse and intimidation thrown at them. What starts online doesn‘t stay online. The current mayor of Cologne was stabbed the night before her election, a top Hessian state official shot dead in his own garden. Democracy cannot survive indefinitely under an atmosphere of fear and hatred. If you want more examples, look at the end of the Roman republic, the Weimar republic, the pre-Civil-War United States. Free speech is a precious right. But if you abuse this right to undermine the very democracy that gives it to you, you have thereby forfeited it.
- zekki 6y agoPerfectly said!
- AareyBaba 6y ago"In order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance" - Karl Popper https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
- veddox 6y agoWe have the concept of the defensive democracy („wehrhafte Demokratie“), which is basically that.
- leetcrew 6y agothe roman republic is an odd example to bring up. "hate" as we understand it today had very little to do with the transition to empire. it was much more an outcome of internal squabbles among elites and the failure to separate military and political power. ironically, the assassination of caesar may well have hastened the fall of the republic. > Free speech is a precious right. But if you abuse this right to undermine the very democracy that gives it to you, you have thereby forfeited it. also, what? we can debate the value of free speech, but it doesn't seem like much of a right if it can be lost so easily.
- CyberRabbi 6y agoThis is the government enforcing the law. If these laws had been in place 100 years ago, maybe my family would still be in Germany.
- Moway 6y agoBut they have been in place 100 years ago (before the Nazis came to power). How did that work out? https://www.jta.org/2020/09/03/opinion/former-aclu-president-says-censoring-hate-speech-can-backfire-just-like-it-did-in-nazi-germany https://www.jta.org/2020/09/03/opinion/former-aclu-president...
- hoot 6y agoI wonder if the Nazis used the laws to work in their favor and grow in power. If no one could insult the Nazi party then it would be easier for them to grow in power because they could just censor opposing views via the laws.
- ummonk 6y agoThe Weimar Republic has hate speech laws and attempted to enforce them against Nazis. It merely drove more support to the Nazis.
- CyberRabbi 6y agoThat... sounds like a Nazi talking point... do you have evidence of that claim?
- ummonk 6y agoDon't have a primary source offhand, but here is one researcher for example: https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/copenhagen-speech-violence https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/copenhagen-speech-v... "Contrary to what most people think, Germany did have hate-speech laws that were applied quite frequently. The assertion that Nazi propaganda played a significant role in mobilizing anti-Jewish sentiment is irrefutable. But to claim that the Holocaust could have been prevented if only anti-Semitic speech had been banned has little basis in reality. Leading Nazis, including Joseph Goebbels, Theodor Fritsch, and Julius Streicher, were all prosecuted for anti-Semitic speech. And rather than deterring them, the many court cases served as effective public relations machinery for the Nazis, affording them a level of attention that they never would have received in a climate of a free and open debate."
- oh_sigh 6y ago"stuff we don't like on the internet" is a very broad class of speech, far broader than the German law attempts to control. We would really need to see examples of what the hate speech actually is that caused these people to get raided. Was it that the earth is flat? Was it that they believe Angela Merkel is incompetent? Was it that they want all Syrians and Jews to be rounded up and murdered?
- justicezyx 6y agoChina raided millions of Uygurs, now German is doing this in a smaller scale...
- j-pb 6y agoAh yes the good old "Fascism and fighting Fascists are exactly the same thing!" fallacy. These raids were against right wing extremists inciting violence against minorities and denying the holocaust, which as the astute reader may see is not that equivalent to the Uygur genocide. FYI I've insulted plenty of female german politicians for their shitty policies during my day, and I've never even received so much as a report. You know why? Because everything except being a literal Nazi is fair game here in Germany.
- justicezyx 6y agoI mean, Chinese government had equally convincing argument as yours... Let's not pretend that government is not erected to rule and oppress...
- CyberRabbi 6y agoExactly. Anti-fascism is not fascism. Fascism is evil and must be suppressed at any cost if we want to live in a peaceful society. Only a fascist would believe otherwise.
- iaw 6y agoFor context, in Germany displaying a swastika or endorsing Naziism has been illegal (with some exceptions) since around right after WWII. They take their hate speech pretty seriously.
- tmalsburg2 6y agoDisplaying a swastika is not illegal in Germany. It's only illegal if you use it for nazi propaganda purposes. Stop spreading misinformation. Relevant quote [1]: "Whoever domestically disseminates or produces ... the contents of which are intended to further the aims of a former National Socialist organization ... shall be punished ..." [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strafgesetzbuch_section_86a#Symbols_affected https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strafgesetzbuch_section_86a#Sy...
- happytoexplain 6y agoThis is a weirdly hostile attack. I assumed that's what the parent meant, but still, you're right that it's important to remember that things like educational contexts exist.
- leetcrew 6y agoto be fair, it seems like this is a recent relaxation of the rules? https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-45142651 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-45142651
- tmalsburg2 6y agoNo, the "total ban" mentioned in the BBC article existed only in the context of video games. Displaying the swastika has been allowed for many purposes for quite a while.
- oezi 6y agoSorry but your quote is just not correct. You are mixing sentences from two sections of illegal things. It is illegal to sell swastika stickers in Germany even if you don't engage in any propaganda. You would need to have clear context that critizes the prohibited parties (e.g. swastika thrown into a trash can).
- dennnis 6y agoTerrifying implications
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- jdkee 6y agoThank goodness we Americans have the First Amendment in our Bill of Rights.
- wwwwwwwww 6y agoYes. And a big reason I am considering to move to the US. Germany (and most of Europe) is getting more and more scary.
- zekki 6y agoWell, in the US, you're likely to get shot, stabbed, or beaten up. "Scary" is relative here. Words aren't scary, getting shot at by criminals is. Oh and wait until you have an encounter with the Police in the US. There is a lot to take for-granted in Europe and Germany. Oh and 2 weeks vacation, typically well over 40 hours, and typically less concern over your work related stress.
- zekki 6y agoThe big question is can free speech go too far? If I threaten to murder your family and "in my opinion" accuse you of horrible crimes--again in my opinion. When does it go too far. I am US Citizen living in Germany for over a year now, and I appreciate these laws.
- MrMember 6y agoThreats of imminent violence are illegal in the US. False accusations fall under libel laws and are a lot murkier.
- veddox 6y agoWe have the Fifth Article of our Grundgesetz. The difference lies in how Germans and Americans understand „freedom“. Americans have an ultraliberal, individualistic definition of the concept; Germans are more ready to restrict an individual‘s freedom to protect others‘.
- 6y ago
- nikolay 6y agoI cannot believe that we went to a point where people will be censored for what they say without directly or indirectly harming anyone - except only the people who want to live with the illusion that everybody loves them! Being raised in a Commie country, this brings back memories... but it's even worse! People back then openly shared thoughts only in circles of trust. Personally, I'd rather allow people to say their hatred openly so that I know what they think rather than policing only their verbal output and disguise their thought process, which I only care about as that could lead to actions and harm! In fact, this censorship can only make people who have those destructive thoughts and ideas to do real harm more united as they now feel persecuted! P.S. I didn't know there are so many censorships fans on HN!
- cblconfederate 6y agoThere is no free speech movement in europe. With UK gone , only France maybe advocates a radical version of laisez faire , but its hitting deaf ears in europe apparently. Germany is generally the most proactive in promoting EU wide regulation that limits speech.
- nikolay 6y agoWe're no longer humans, but ostriches shoving our heads into the sand. I think it's priceless to know exactly what people think of me, and not twist their arms and tongues, and then get a knife in my back once of a sudden. Everything could be qualified as hate speech... unless it's politically-correct hate speech, like, the hatred against single white heteresoxual men, who are openly being vilified nowadays.
- 08-15 6y agoAmazing, how far we've come. Thirty years ago, this was possible only in East Germany, the self-proclaimed German Democratic Republic.