6 ms·

Germany has some of harshest anti free speech law, where you can go to prison for denying Holocaust

by dmode 6y ago

tannhaeuser 6y ago
Germany also limits free speech under other provisions such as incitement and slander under criminal law, and subsequent compensation for libel under civil law. For all I know, the US also has strong legislation against complicit behavior for harboring acts of terrorism and/or treachery.
the_french 6y ago
a law which was democratically approved, with public oversight, a mechanism for undoing it and not at the whim of private shareholders.
- syshum 6y ago
  Personally I think such massive changes in society should not be down to either private company tyranny nor tyranny of the majority in a "democratically approved" why, i.e 50.000009% "ruling" over 49.999991% of the people. In the US to undue the 1st amendment it would take not only a super majority of both houses congress, but then it would take 3/4 of all state legislatures to ratify the change. This is far more stringent of a requirement than is simply majority. Republican forms of government, ones with lots distributed power, are far far far better than democracies
  - shripadk 6y ago
    Exactly right. There are already properly defined rules and regulations in the Constitution of every country. These rules and regulations have been implemented by elected representatives of the people of those countries. If there is anything lacking it should be done through legislation legally. Not through private companies deciding on their own whims and fancies. Which is why GDPR exists isn't it? Every country can frame it's own rules. Private companies must abide by those rules. Neither should they be allowed to create rules for their platforms beyond what is defined in the Constitution of the countries they operate in. Restricting speech by private companies must be made illegal. If someone says or does something wrong on social media there is recourse for it already defined by the law. Any content removal should be in the hands of the users of the platform (similar to GDPR) or the elected Government. Private companies must only be allowed to remove content that has been explicitly defined as illegal in the constitution of the particular country. For everything else they can enjoy immunity from being liable for whatever is posted on their platform. Liability is always with the end user of their services. That way, there won't be any extra burden on these private companies to moderate content.
  - jahaja 6y ago
    > down to either private company tyranny Wow! Have you abandoned your staunch Libertarianism as soon as it didn't match the general reactionary winds of the day? What a surprise!
- psychoslave 6y ago
  Law apply to everybody on the territory relevant for its jurisdiction. Regardless of whether you use public services and benefit from its administration, you are expected to obey to it. If you don’t use a private service, you don’t have obey to their term of service, and law might even grants you ability to forbid private companies to exploit data related to you in their services. The real problem here is not some private services chose what is or what is not available in their services. The core issue is their monopolistic position on information infrastructure. To some degree, people are responsible for not using decentralizing services, and for that, shame on people. On the other hand, when people are not educated to actively defend themselves against mass manipulation, it’s no wonder they end up trapped in that kind of "free" services. Of course, any form of political power that is not based on maximizing people auto-determination will precisely want easily manipulable people. Neither these private companies nor political parties that now fake to be outraged by censure of opinion want auto-determined people able to share anything that might look like a menace to the centralized institutions they have in their hands.
- dmode 6y ago
  That was my point. Free speech is not absolute. It has limitations everywhere. I think people have conflated three problems - 1) Tech monopoly on the internet and 2) Whether free speech is absolute and 3) Does free speech apply to tech companies. In a vacuum, there are different solutions for each. For example, you would break up tech monopoly, but that has nothing to do with free speech. But rather because it prevents competition. For free speech and its applicability, it is ok to legislate and define what it is, like Germany does. But I don't really hear a call for that
shripadk 6y ago
You aren't getting it. Free speech and subsequent limitations of such free speech must and must be decided by elected representatives. Not by private companies. In this case Germany has every damn right to frame such laws. They are a Sovereign Nation. The people of Germany have empowered their Government through their constitution. Twitter/Facebook/Google et all are not Sovereign States. They haven't been elected by anyone. Their rules cannot override the laws of the State. They cannot frame rules that go against the laws of the State. They have to work within the ambit of the laws defined by the State. The power to frame such laws is in the hands of the legislature given by the people of the State. I never gave any powers to Facebook/Twitter/Google et all to regulate my speech as guaranteed by my Constitution (which is the Constitution of India). They cannot bring in First Amendment arguments of the United States to counter the Free Speech as defined in the Indian Constitution. It simply does not work that way. ---- Rate limited so replying to qwytw as s/he raises a very important point: > I don't see how this would be fundamentally different from, for example, requiring newspapers to publish every letter their receive irregardless of their editorial stance. You are talking about curation not about banning/removal. Billions of tweets are sent to Twitter every day. But only few make it to the top of the trends. No one has a problem with curation. We have a problem with banning of our content just because Twitter feels it is problematic. Not because it is explicitly defined in the Constitution as being problematic. Let us assume that you send a letter to a Newspaper to publish in editorial and you include swear words in it (Let us assume "orange haired buffoon" is a swear word. Because you are upset with Trump you call him an "orange haired buffoon" in your letter). The Newspaper won't publish it. That is perfectly fine. They won't punish you for it. Probably will make a paper rocket out of your letter and throw it around in the office. But if you send a violent threat in the letter (calling for assassination of Trump), they'll contact Police/FBI/CIA and hand them over your letter. Easy to grok? Now let us compare that to Twitter. Twitter will read your tweet with swear words in it (Trump is a orange haired buffoon). It will immediately remove it and warn you of consequences of tweeting something like that again else face a 7 day suspension (with a subsequent warning of 30 day, 1 year and permanent suspension if you repeat it again and again). Already there is a big difference between how the Newspaper company handled your letter vs how Twitter handled your tweet. Twitter is regulating speech here. It has decided that "orange haired buffoon" constitutes a violation of someone else's rights. You might have said "orange haired buffoon" in jest. The person receiving your tweet might also have gotten a good chuckle out of it. But Twitter decides nope. You do not have the right to use "orange haired buffoon" on our platform else you'll be kicked out. Even if you and your friend whom you are tweeting at swear at each other in real life, you can't do that on Twitter. Do you see how quickly this degenerates to suspending/banning for ridiculous things? Which is why content removal/moderation must be only for those things that are clearly defined as illegal by the State. For everything else, the platform already has Section 230. They can enjoy not being liable for anything that is posted on their platforms. If I am a social media platform, why would I go out of my way to provide an imperfect implementation of speech regulation and waste my time on that aspect when I already have safeguards of Section 230? Wouldn't it be better if this is legally defined in the Constitution of the country where the user is from? That way there is consistency between platforms. If I go to Parler, Facebook, Twitter, Google or any other platform I will be following the same rules (as defined by law) instead of reading the fine print of every service to see if I am in violation of any of their ridiculous rules/regulations.
eunos 6y ago
The point is that the legislature/sovereign should be the sole arbiter not a private company especially not under their jurisdiction.

Germany has some of harshest anti free speech law, where you can go to prison for denying Holocaust

by dmode 6y ago

Germany has some of harshest anti free speech law, where you can go to prison for denying Holocaust

Germany also limits free speech under other provisions such as incitement and slander under criminal law, and subsequent compensation for libel under civil law. For all I know, the US also has strong legislation against complicit behavior for harboring acts of terrorism and/or treachery.

the_french 6y ago

a law which was democratically approved, with public oversight, a mechanism for undoing it and not at the whim of private shareholders.

syshum 6y ago
Personally I think such massive changes in society should not be down to either private company tyranny nor tyranny of the majority in a "democratically approved" why, i.e 50.000009% "ruling" over 49.999991% of the people. In the US to undue the 1st amendment it would take not only a super majority of both houses congress, but then it would take 3/4 of all state legislatures to ratify the change. This is far more stringent of a requirement than is simply majority. Republican forms of government, ones with lots distributed power, are far far far better than democracies
- shripadk 6y ago
  Exactly right. There are already properly defined rules and regulations in the Constitution of every country. These rules and regulations have been implemented by elected representatives of the people of those countries. If there is anything lacking it should be done through legislation legally. Not through private companies deciding on their own whims and fancies. Which is why GDPR exists isn't it? Every country can frame it's own rules. Private companies must abide by those rules. Neither should they be allowed to create rules for their platforms beyond what is defined in the Constitution of the countries they operate in. Restricting speech by private companies must be made illegal. If someone says or does something wrong on social media there is recourse for it already defined by the law. Any content removal should be in the hands of the users of the platform (similar to GDPR) or the elected Government. Private companies must only be allowed to remove content that has been explicitly defined as illegal in the constitution of the particular country. For everything else they can enjoy immunity from being liable for whatever is posted on their platform. Liability is always with the end user of their services. That way, there won't be any extra burden on these private companies to moderate content.
- jahaja 6y ago
  > down to either private company tyranny Wow! Have you abandoned your staunch Libertarianism as soon as it didn't match the general reactionary winds of the day? What a surprise!
psychoslave 6y ago
Law apply to everybody on the territory relevant for its jurisdiction. Regardless of whether you use public services and benefit from its administration, you are expected to obey to it. If you don’t use a private service, you don’t have obey to their term of service, and law might even grants you ability to forbid private companies to exploit data related to you in their services. The real problem here is not some private services chose what is or what is not available in their services. The core issue is their monopolistic position on information infrastructure. To some degree, people are responsible for not using decentralizing services, and for that, shame on people. On the other hand, when people are not educated to actively defend themselves against mass manipulation, it’s no wonder they end up trapped in that kind of "free" services. Of course, any form of political power that is not based on maximizing people auto-determination will precisely want easily manipulable people. Neither these private companies nor political parties that now fake to be outraged by censure of opinion want auto-determined people able to share anything that might look like a menace to the centralized institutions they have in their hands.
dmode 6y ago
That was my point. Free speech is not absolute. It has limitations everywhere. I think people have conflated three problems - 1) Tech monopoly on the internet and 2) Whether free speech is absolute and 3) Does free speech apply to tech companies. In a vacuum, there are different solutions for each. For example, you would break up tech monopoly, but that has nothing to do with free speech. But rather because it prevents competition. For free speech and its applicability, it is ok to legislate and define what it is, like Germany does. But I don't really hear a call for that

shripadk 6y ago

You aren't getting it. Free speech and subsequent limitations of such free speech must and must be decided by elected representatives. Not by private companies. In this case Germany has every damn right to frame such laws. They are a Sovereign Nation. The people of Germany have empowered their Government through their constitution. Twitter/Facebook/Google et all are not Sovereign States. They haven't been elected by anyone. Their rules cannot override the laws of the State. They cannot frame rules that go against the laws of the State. They have to work within the ambit of the laws defined by the State. The power to frame such laws is in the hands of the legislature given by the people of the State. I never gave any powers to Facebook/Twitter/Google et all to regulate my speech as guaranteed by my Constitution (which is the Constitution of India). They cannot bring in First Amendment arguments of the United States to counter the Free Speech as defined in the Indian Constitution. It simply does not work that way. ---- Rate limited so replying to qwytw as s/he raises a very important point: > I don't see how this would be fundamentally different from, for example, requiring newspapers to publish every letter their receive irregardless of their editorial stance. You are talking about curation not about banning/removal. Billions of tweets are sent to Twitter every day. But only few make it to the top of the trends. No one has a problem with curation. We have a problem with banning of our content just because Twitter feels it is problematic. Not because it is explicitly defined in the Constitution as being problematic. Let us assume that you send a letter to a Newspaper to publish in editorial and you include swear words in it (Let us assume "orange haired buffoon" is a swear word. Because you are upset with Trump you call him an "orange haired buffoon" in your letter). The Newspaper won't publish it. That is perfectly fine. They won't punish you for it. Probably will make a paper rocket out of your letter and throw it around in the office. But if you send a violent threat in the letter (calling for assassination of Trump), they'll contact Police/FBI/CIA and hand them over your letter. Easy to grok? Now let us compare that to Twitter. Twitter will read your tweet with swear words in it (Trump is a orange haired buffoon). It will immediately remove it and warn you of consequences of tweeting something like that again else face a 7 day suspension (with a subsequent warning of 30 day, 1 year and permanent suspension if you repeat it again and again). Already there is a big difference between how the Newspaper company handled your letter vs how Twitter handled your tweet. Twitter is regulating speech here. It has decided that "orange haired buffoon" constitutes a violation of someone else's rights. You might have said "orange haired buffoon" in jest. The person receiving your tweet might also have gotten a good chuckle out of it. But Twitter decides nope. You do not have the right to use "orange haired buffoon" on our platform else you'll be kicked out. Even if you and your friend whom you are tweeting at swear at each other in real life, you can't do that on Twitter. Do you see how quickly this degenerates to suspending/banning for ridiculous things? Which is why content removal/moderation must be only for those things that are clearly defined as illegal by the State. For everything else, the platform already has Section 230. They can enjoy not being liable for anything that is posted on their platforms. If I am a social media platform, why would I go out of my way to provide an imperfect implementation of speech regulation and waste my time on that aspect when I already have safeguards of Section 230? Wouldn't it be better if this is legally defined in the Constitution of the country where the user is from? That way there is consistency between platforms. If I go to Parler, Facebook, Twitter, Google or any other platform I will be following the same rules (as defined by law) instead of reading the fine print of every service to see if I am in violation of any of their ridiculous rules/regulations.

eunos 6y ago

The point is that the legislature/sovereign should be the sole arbiter not a private company especially not under their jurisdiction.