4 ms·

The above article isn't very elaborate on that, but the heise one[0] cites the judges: 'Es bedürfe "einer umfassenden Würdigung und Abwägung der wechselseitige

by corty 5y ago

The above article isn't very elaborate on that, but the heise one[0] cites the judges: 'Es bedürfe "einer umfassenden Würdigung und Abwägung der wechselseitigen Interessen", insbesondere der "kollidierenden Grundrechte", betonen die Richter: "Auf Seiten der Nutzer die Meinungsäußerungsfreiheit, auf Seiten der Beklagten vor allem die Berufsausübungsfreiheit."' roughly: 'One needs "a comprehensive judgement and weighing of mutual interest", especially of the "colliding basic rights", as the judges emphasize: "on the users' side freedom of expression, on the side of the defendant [FB] freedom of trade and profession". This is a high standard that needs quite some text and elaboration to fulfil, not at all doable by form letter. 'Im Sinne des Interessenausgleichs müsste sich Facebook aber verpflichten, den Nutzer "über die Entfernung eines Beitrags zumindest nachträglich und über eine beabsichtigte Sperrung seines Nutzerkontos vorab zu informieren, ihm den Grund dafür mitzuteilen und eine Möglichkeit zur Gegenäußerung einzuräumen, an die sich eine Neubescheidung anschließt".' roughly: 'However, in the way of balancing interests, Facebook has to pledge to "inform [the user] about removal of a post at least after the fact and about planned blocking of an account before the fact, to name the reason thereof and offer an opportunity to issue an opposing statement, which is followed by a subsequent further decision and information.".' So they are relatively explicit in how Facebook must do things and that they cannot just file the opposing statement to the recycle bin. Facebook's lawyer called this "completely impractical" (but of course he would...) because of the hundreds of daily cases. [0] https://www.heise.de/news/BGH-Facebook-muss-geloeschte-Hassrede-wieder-freischalten-6150978.html https://www.heise.de/news/BGH-Facebook-muss-geloeschte-Hassr... Oh, and btw., the court that decided this is the highest regular court in Germany, setting a binding precedent for all other German courts. There are many more cases than just those two, all the others you just don't read about because everyone knows that lower courts' decisions aren't that important and frequently overturned. So even if it was just about 2 posts, this decision is important and will shape all future cases.

Vespasian 5y ago
If Facebook wants to own the public forum they have to manage it as well. Their power comes with responsibilities to keep it lawsful for all participants. That means removing unlawful speech while at the same time allowing lawful speech. It's only logical that conflicts needs to be settled in a similar fashion as they are in other similar situations in the offline world. For western democracies that usually means some sort of due process and unbiased weighing of facts with a decision that adheres to the existing standards in that society. Facebook would like to do everything automatically of course but with great power comes great responsibility. I predict that sooner or later the regular court system will be responsible for those cases and Facebook will be happy to make money by providing the tech platform.
- corty 5y ago
  Regular courts are already responsible. They can and do order illegal content to be removed, accounts blocked and users punished. Some new legislation in Germany requires Facebook to also proactively remove posts from users that have been reported and are "obviously" illegal, even without waiting for a court order. But Facebook goes even beyond that and uses standards that are stricter than current laws, and processes that are simpler, harsher and stricter than the usual court proceedings. The court judgement in the article limited that practice a bit. You may be right in that the legislation described in the second paragraph requiring Facebook to be proactive may be expanded. I do find this tendency unfortunate, because free speech is put in the hands of a private for-profit entity that is by law required to be very quick about its judgements.

by corty 5y ago

Vespasian 5y ago

If Facebook wants to own the public forum they have to manage it as well. Their power comes with responsibilities to keep it lawsful for all participants. That means removing unlawful speech while at the same time allowing lawful speech. It's only logical that conflicts needs to be settled in a similar fashion as they are in other similar situations in the offline world. For western democracies that usually means some sort of due process and unbiased weighing of facts with a decision that adheres to the existing standards in that society. Facebook would like to do everything automatically of course but with great power comes great responsibility. I predict that sooner or later the regular court system will be responsible for those cases and Facebook will be happy to make money by providing the tech platform.

corty 5y ago
Regular courts are already responsible. They can and do order illegal content to be removed, accounts blocked and users punished. Some new legislation in Germany requires Facebook to also proactively remove posts from users that have been reported and are "obviously" illegal, even without waiting for a court order. But Facebook goes even beyond that and uses standards that are stricter than current laws, and processes that are simpler, harsher and stricter than the usual court proceedings. The court judgement in the article limited that practice a bit. You may be right in that the legislation described in the second paragraph requiring Facebook to be proactive may be expanded. I do find this tendency unfortunate, because free speech is put in the hands of a private for-profit entity that is by law required to be very quick about its judgements.