9 ms·
> “Rich white males can murder and rape here and nobody cares! It’s about time the Office for the Protection of the Constitution sorted this out,” the post adds
by axiosgunnar 5y ago
> “Rich white males can murder and rape here and nobody cares! It’s about time the Office for the Protection of the Constitution sorted this out,” the post adds.
Imagine the post said that.
Nobody would have been blocked, and no lawsuit would need to be filed.
You know I am right, since about every other post on Twitter is like that, without any ban of course.
The question is, if censoring certain political views (albeit expressed a bit harshly of course) is the way our society should go.
- pjc50 5y agoReminder that the German constitution also includes a ban on certain kinds of political views for obvious historical reasons.
- formerly_proven 5y agoReminder that the German constitution contains no such thing.
- djbebs 5y agoIt absolutely does.
- formerly_proven 5y agoIt's not that long and written in pretty simple language, can you please point out where it bans certain kinds of political views?
- DisplayedPublic 5y agoArtikel 18 > Wer die Freiheit der Meinungsäußerung, insbesondere die Pressefreiheit (Artikel 5 Abs. 1), die Lehrfreiheit (Artikel 5 Abs. 3), die Versammlungsfreiheit (Artikel 8), die Vereinigungsfreiheit (Artikel 9), das Brief-, Post- und Fernmeldegeheimnis (Artikel 10), das Eigentum (Artikel 14) oder das Asylrecht (Artikel 16a) zum Kampfe gegen die freiheitliche demokratische Grundordnung mißbraucht, verwirkt diese Grundrechte. Die Verwirkung und ihr Ausmaß werden durch das Bundesverfassungsgericht ausgesprochen. Try to use your rights to abolish the democratic order and you lose them. That's indeed pretty simple language.
- adwn 5y ago> zum Kampfe gegen die freiheitliche demokratische Grundordnung That doesn't really fall under "certain kinds of political views", rather under "I'm going to stage a coup and turn Germany into a dictatorship". "Certain kinds of political views" is typically understood to mean opinions like "we need higher/lower taxes for the rich" or "men and women should/shouldn't have equal rights". That's not forbidden by the Grundgesetz, at least not for individuals.
- FeepingCreature 5y agoYeah this is "central example" vs "technical outlier example." Advocating or planning a coup is technically a political view that is being censored, but obviously it's not relevant to almost any political process in the country.
- realityking 5y agoGermany has prohibited and dissolved two political parties, the SRP (a successor to the NSDAP) and the KPD (communist part of Germany). They've also declared a 3rd one, the NPD, as unconstitutional but so inefficient that it doesn't need to be dissolved. They no longer receive government funding for elections. None of these parties were trying to stage a coup, they stood for elections like any other party. What they intended to do once they gained power is incompatible with "freiheitliche demokratische Grundordnung".
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- adwn 5y agoAnd which Artikel of the Grundgesetz would that be? Are you referring to Art. 9(2)?
- guerrilla 5y agoIncitement of the People (Volksverhetzung) is defined by § 130 (Incitement to hatred) Section 1 of the Criminal Code. [1] 1. https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stgb/__130.html https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stgb/__130.html
- est31 5y agoThat's not the constitution but the penal code.
- guerrilla 5y agoYes, it is, which is why I called it that and not the constitution.
- est31 5y agoThe claim was though that the constitution contains rules to ban political speech. Even if you see Volksverhetzung as political speech (just because it's uttered by politicians doesn't make it political), the rule banning it is not part of the constitution.
- guerrilla 5y agoThat's why I didn't claim it was. I was just providing information on where what the person was probably thinking of actually was.
- hansel_der 5y agoArt 21 (2) bans 'political organisations that work towards a disruption or removal of the liberal democratic order'. https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/gg/art_21.html https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/gg/art_21.html
- acatton 5y agoMaybe (even though some sibling-comments are saying it's not as clear as the parent implies). But the German constitution is overridden by the European Charter of Fundamental Rights if any article of the German constitution conflicts with it. And the article 11 of the the charter [1] basically gives a 1st amendment type of freedom of speech. [2] [1] https://fra.europa.eu/en/eu-charter/article/11-freedom-expression-and-information https://fra.europa.eu/en/eu-charter/article/11-freedom-expre... [2] 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...
- wongarsu 5y agoGermany only bans political views that oppose democracy. That's fine with the EU charter, which states "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, [...]"
- blueflow 5y agoThe views are not banned, just specific expressions of them.
- fidesomnes 5y agoaka we will imprison you if you disagree.
- ArnoVW 5y agoLaw is not symbolic logic. Language has semantics and is uttered in a societal context. The position of white males and immigrants are not equal. When people make statements about whites or males, it is generally not about all males. And no one in society is advocating that we "send back all whites". I imagine you are arguing sincerely, but I believe this type of situation is what is called 'whataboutism' or even false equivalency. As an neighbor of the Germans, I hold them in high regard. They have a very robust democracy, and as a nation are more principled than most. It took three wars but they learned their lesson. Hate leads to suffering and all that.
- mytailorisrich 5y agoThe position of all people is equal before the law. A statement therefore ought to be treated in the same way whether it targets group x or group y. > When people make statements about whites or males, it is generally not about all males. That's neither here nor there. This is to be interpreted based on the actual statement. "immigrants blah blah" targets immigrants as a group in the same way as "white males blah blah" targets white males as a group. If the rest of the statement is the same in both cases and unacceptable then both statements are equally unacceptable. axiosgunnar above has a point that the same statement targeting "white males" instead of immigrants would have been equally unacceptable, and would have fallen equally foul of the law.
- joshjdr 5y ago>The position of all people is equal before the law. A statement therefore ought to be treated in the same way whether it targets group x or group y. That might be a nice ideal, but just not true in practice or history. Like the law referenced in the article: >hate speech, which is banned under German law if it threatens the peace or incites violence against minority groups. “Minority group” =/= “Any group”
- mytailorisrich 5y ago> That might be a nice ideal, but just not true in practice or history. That's how it is in practice. Everyone's equal under the law. Specifically on these issues, all groups are equal (meaning all races, ethnicities, etc.) In Germany, and European countries in general, targeting groups based on race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, etc. is illegal. It does not matter whether a group is a "minority group", whatever that means (quite sensibly so, of course). For example, I believe that this German law is generally applicable: "Whosoever, in a manner capable of disturbing the public peace: 1. incites hatred against a national, racial, religious group or a group defined by their ethnic origins, against segments of the population or individuals because of their belonging to one of the aforementioned groups or segments of the population or calls for violent or arbitrary measures against them; or 2. assaults the human dignity of others by insulting, maliciously maligning an aforementioned group, segments of the population or individuals because of their belonging to one of the aforementioned groups or segments of the population, or defaming segments of the population, shall be liable to imprisonment from three months to five years." [1] > > hate speech, which is banned under German law if it threatens the peace or incites violence against minority groups. Based on the above, I think that the article has it wrong. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volksverhetzung https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volksverhetzung
- LadyCailin 5y agoWell, but you’re wrong. > Facebook has been suspending women for “hate speech” against men after posting variations of the phrase “men are scum”. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/dec/05/facebook-bans-women-posting-men-are-scum-harassment-scandals-comedian-marcia-belsky-abuse https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/dec/05/facebook-...
- busymom0 5y agoCanadian Lindsey Shepherd and Canadian feminist writer Meghan Murphy are examples of a woman being banned from Twitter for speaking out against "trans". Lindsey Shepherd was having some health issues related to her reproductive health to which Yaniv (who's a pedo but now identifies as trans) tweeted: > “at least my pussy is tight and not loose after pushing out a 10 pound baby.” Shepherd tweeted in response: > “This is how men who don’t have functional romantic relationships speak. But… I guess that’s kinda what you are!” Yaniv then responded with a comment that could have been in reference to Shepherd’s septate uterus, a reproductive condition that can cause higher rates of pregnancy loss: > “I heard @realDonaldTrump is building a wall inside of your uterus aka your ‘reproductive abnormality’ hopefully the walk works as intended,” Yaniv tweeted. Shepherd then said: > “At least I have a uterus, you fat ugly man, Of course, he thinks reproductive issues are something to be mocked.” This got Lindsey banned. I don't think any reasonable person would be okay with this standard. Similarly Meghan Murphy was banned for “men aren’t women.” https://nationalpost.com/news/free-speech-activist-lindsay-shepherd-on-her-twitter-ban-your-instincts-should-not-be-to-celebrate https://nationalpost.com/news/free-speech-activist-lindsay-s... Twitter and other Big Tech have built a victimhood hierarchy where based on how many oppression points you have based on your racial, sexual, identification etc, you have more power over others below you. If you are a white man, twitter gives you less oppression points than a white woman. But if you simply identify as trans, then you have more oppression points than the same white woman. The censorship debate always reminds me of the 2000s after 9/11 where anyone who opposed going to war in multiple foreign countries which had nothing to do with 9/11 were labelled "terrorist sympathizers". Taking advantage of this, they also passed a mass spying bill - the Patriot Act. Stating "man cannot be a woman" or "men shouldn't compete in women's sports" is considered transphobic in current climate. Regardless of which side of the Palestine-Israel conflict you fall one, either or both sides can be censored by labelling it as "anti-semitic" or "islamaphobic". Speaking out against the Patriot Act and forever wars would be (and was) labelled "unpatriotic" and "terrorist sympathizer" and censored. Speaking out against healthy living would be labelled "fat phobic". Or the opposite could also happen. All the groups which speak out against fat shaming could also get censored because it's dangerous to public health. The government and big tech would start censoring you for advertising soft drinks/chips and other junk food. Since all religions oppose gay marriage, when super religious are in power, they would censor LGBT content. Pro-choice would get censored for religious reasons and Pro-life would be censored for racism/dangerous or other reasons. Add to this, the absolute contradiction of their terms of service (as well as the Canadian Bill C-16) where it aims to stop discrimination against religion while also stopping discrimination against LGBT. Every religion from Hinduism to Islam to Christianity is against LGBT, abortion etc. How they plan on maintaining any neutrality is beyond me. And lord forbid when the pendulum swings in other direction and you get some super religious person in power. The only way to stop all this is to have absolute freedom of speech on tech platforms which should be classified as common carriers. We already have plenty of laws to take care of any immediate actions taken as a result of your speech.
- knolax 5y ago> Rich white males can murder and rape here and nobody cares! Vincent Chin's murderers didn't get any jail time. The woman who falsely accused Emmett Till is still alive and well. It took months of rioting for them to begin convicting people like Chauvin instead of just giving them paid vacations. I don't know the situation in Germany but at least in the US that statement isn't far from the truth.
- busymom0 5y agoSince we are comparing random events, I would mention: 1. Al Sharpton, from the famous Tawana Vicenia Brawley rape hoax where she accused four white men of raping and other crimes, has a MSNBC contract and is living life. 2. Tony Timpa, rich white male, pleaded for help more than 30 times and died - prosecutors dismissed charges against the officers after they were indicted by a Grand Jury. Then the officers returned back to work last year. https://heavy.com/news/2019/08/tony-timpa/ https://heavy.com/news/2019/08/tony-timpa/ This is not a race problem. It's bad people getting hired to become cops and then unions and prosecutors protecting them problem.
- nailer 5y agoagreed, but to add: it’s framed as a race problem because the media over proportionately report on interracial violence.
- hellgas00 5y agoDivide and conquer, as old as politics and war. In this case, populist resentment is the obstacle.
- fidesomnes 5y agoactually the media white washes black on white crimes, lightens pictures to make dark suspects look whiter, frequently refuses to show black perpetrators "for fear of raising stereotypes," and refuses to report on the extent of black on white crimes, for decades. This is documented by any cursory review of FBI crime statistics. You probably don't even know about the white girls raped killed and fed to alligators or tortured for days before being murdered. You probably don't even know the demographics of mass shooters which are surprise surprise, not good for your narrative.
- guerrilla 5y ago> Eschew flamebait. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents. [1] > Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity. [1] What would it take for people to be able to engage on topics like this civilly? Every single time something from the so-called culture war comes up, it immediately devolves into shit. 1. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- oytis 5y agoAFAIK Facebook moderators are explicitly taught that white men are a protected group. Not sure about rich white men.