5 ms·

Yeah, Germany has the best laws regarding speech: https://www.courthousenews.com/german-nationalist-wins-injunction-against-facebook/ https://www.courthousenews

by vadfa 5y ago

Yeah, Germany has the best laws regarding speech: https://www.courthousenews.com/german-nationalist-wins-injunction-against-facebook/ https://www.courthousenews.com/german-nationalist-wins-injun...

noduerme 5y ago
I say this as a Jew... I never thought it was a good idea to criminalize nazi or antisemitic speech in Germany. Ultimately any speech ban will be turned against the people who think they're doing good by enforcing it. Having said that, her speech is banned and her accuser's speech is banned, and this may be better overall than the situation in America where everyone is a fucking edgelord in their spare time.
- vadfa 5y ago
  So impeding the speech of two people is a better outcome than impeding the speech of none? I don't get it. >the situation in America where everyone is a fucking edgelord in their spare time So don't read them, as easy as that.
  - hnbad 5y ago
    I'm just going to leave this here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P55t6eryY3g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P55t6eryY3g
  - noduerme 5y ago
    > So impeding the speech of two people is a better outcome than impeding the speech of none? I don't get it. I mean, it's not a better strategy and it's not right - what I'm trying to say is that impeding one person's speech leads to impeding another person's speech, and that's how you end up with totalitarianism, regardless of who's in control. The trouble is that whoever speaks loudest never respects the mechanism that allowed them to speak in the first place, or extends that right to anyone else. So as to what leads to a better outcome, I'd say the results aren't in yet.
  - gherkinnn 5y ago
    > So don't read them, as easy as that. If only I knew the content of something before I read it. I would have to limit my internet use to Signal conversations with my dog to avoid most of tech’s poison machine.
    - vadfa 5y ago
      That is a good idea, it is what I did. I don't visit any social networks, I don't read the news, and I stop talking to those who send me information that I'm not interested in.
      - soco 5y ago
        Yet here you are commenting along everybody else on HN. Unfortunately real world situations are not that black and white so they cannot be solved with such black and white solutions...
  - rexreed 5y ago
    > So don't read them, as easy as that. Hate speech and radicalizing speech isn't meant for those that aren't reading or listening to that speech, but rather to motivate those who do listen to act out the things that the speakers are saying. The speakers hide behind "I didn't do anything, I just said something" and count on those who take their words into their heart and convert them into action. This is the danger of hate speech. It's not enough for good people to just ignore. It requires more effort to prevent the talking from being doing. If the term "hate speech" doesn't sit well, I prefer to use the term "rhetorical violence". Basically, rhetorical violence is speech using the imagery and terminology of violence intended to inspire violent thoughts in others. The video posted below by another commenter shows how radicalizing speech is used to motivate others to commit acts that the speaker themselves would not commit or would claim not to support. In essence, the speakers are claiming the rights to rhetorical violence while being disconnected from actual violence that the speech might incite, inspire, or support.
    - vadfa 5y ago
      We already have laws against violence.
      - rexreed 5y ago
        We also have laws against threatening violence.
      - csee 5y ago
        Reality doesn't fit so neatly into these categories that you're trying to construct, where speech is perfectly harmless unless it's direct incitement to violence and then suddenly it's harmful. That might be how the legal system works but it's not how reality works. Motivating radicals and spewing racism might not be direct incitement to violence, but history shows that it can have significant negative consequences. The causal pathway is usually non-linear and hard to attribute. But, behind many genocides is racial hate speech that's been allowed to fester for years. Behind many lone wolf terrorist attacks is propaganda, even if nobody directly incited it. I'm not arguing for or against any specific hate speech law here. Just trying to point out there's a grey area that your categorical thinking isn't good at addressing.
- newaccount74 5y ago
  I say this as an Austrian... the fact that Nazi ideology and symbols are forbidden in our country is a godsend. We have a small but persistent problem with militant far-right Nazi sympathisers, and the "Verbotsgesetz" is an invaluable tool in dealing with them. The law is extremely clear, nobody breaks it accidentally, and it makes sure that dangerous extremists are taken seriously by the police. A couple of times a year the police discovers illegal weapon and ammo stashes when investigating Neonazis. These guys are dangerous, and pretending it's just about "free speech" is stupid.
hnbad 5y ago
Calling her a Nazi or fascist would have been fine as that's understood as an expression of opinion, calling her a swine is clearly an insult and insulting someone is a crime under civil law (not sure how this translates to the US but it's not something the police will arrest you for but something the insulted party can take you to court over). There's a common misconception in Germany that there is a law about "Beamtenbeleidigung" (insult of a public official) but the truth is that public officials have no special protection in that regard per se, it's just usually easier for them to sue people (esp. when you insult a police officer as they're literally the police). There are some caveats when insulting government officials, especially foreign government officials, but insulting a Nazi politician on Facebook is not any different from insulting a celebrity on Facebook. The problem with social media is that it can be difficult to find out who to sue and compelling a foreign company to release the likely incomplete information they have on a user in an attempt to identify them isn't great. I'm not saying the law in question (NetzDG, requiring social media companies to block such content in Germany) is a good solution to this problem but it's certainly not the worst. If anything, the problem with NetzDG is that it allows users who are able to avoid revealing their identity unambiguously to engage in Holocaust denialism or Volksverhetzung[0] and have their posts still be visible with a proxy if blocked (allowing Nazi groups to organize and operate hidden in plain sight) or when the content is deleted for those crimes to just be swept under the rug and make it harder to report to the actual authorities rather than the social media company. Social media companies like Twitter have also made it nearly impossible to report ToS violations in Germany as the report button immediately funnels you into NetzDG technicalities users aren't meant to understand like which specific law you believe the offending post violates. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volksverhetzung https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volksverhetzung
germanier 5y ago
On the other hand, there are numerous cases where Facebook has been compelled by German courts to restore posts they have deleted under their content policy to protect the user's free speech rights. Something like that is unthinkable in the US.

by vadfa 5y ago

Yeah, Germany has the best laws regarding speech: https://www.courthousenews.com/german-nationalist-wins-injunction-against-facebook/ https://www.courthousenews.com/german-nationalist-wins-injun...

noduerme 5y ago

I say this as a Jew... I never thought it was a good idea to criminalize nazi or antisemitic speech in Germany. Ultimately any speech ban will be turned against the people who think they're doing good by enforcing it. Having said that, her speech is banned and her accuser's speech is banned, and this may be better overall than the situation in America where everyone is a fucking edgelord in their spare time.

vadfa 5y ago
So impeding the speech of two people is a better outcome than impeding the speech of none? I don't get it. >the situation in America where everyone is a fucking edgelord in their spare time So don't read them, as easy as that.
- hnbad 5y ago
  I'm just going to leave this here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P55t6eryY3g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P55t6eryY3g
- noduerme 5y ago
  > So impeding the speech of two people is a better outcome than impeding the speech of none? I don't get it. I mean, it's not a better strategy and it's not right - what I'm trying to say is that impeding one person's speech leads to impeding another person's speech, and that's how you end up with totalitarianism, regardless of who's in control. The trouble is that whoever speaks loudest never respects the mechanism that allowed them to speak in the first place, or extends that right to anyone else. So as to what leads to a better outcome, I'd say the results aren't in yet.
- gherkinnn 5y ago
  > So don't read them, as easy as that. If only I knew the content of something before I read it. I would have to limit my internet use to Signal conversations with my dog to avoid most of tech’s poison machine.
  - vadfa 5y ago
    That is a good idea, it is what I did. I don't visit any social networks, I don't read the news, and I stop talking to those who send me information that I'm not interested in.
    - soco 5y ago
      Yet here you are commenting along everybody else on HN. Unfortunately real world situations are not that black and white so they cannot be solved with such black and white solutions...
- rexreed 5y ago
  > So don't read them, as easy as that. Hate speech and radicalizing speech isn't meant for those that aren't reading or listening to that speech, but rather to motivate those who do listen to act out the things that the speakers are saying. The speakers hide behind "I didn't do anything, I just said something" and count on those who take their words into their heart and convert them into action. This is the danger of hate speech. It's not enough for good people to just ignore. It requires more effort to prevent the talking from being doing. If the term "hate speech" doesn't sit well, I prefer to use the term "rhetorical violence". Basically, rhetorical violence is speech using the imagery and terminology of violence intended to inspire violent thoughts in others. The video posted below by another commenter shows how radicalizing speech is used to motivate others to commit acts that the speaker themselves would not commit or would claim not to support. In essence, the speakers are claiming the rights to rhetorical violence while being disconnected from actual violence that the speech might incite, inspire, or support.
  - vadfa 5y ago
    We already have laws against violence.
    - rexreed 5y ago
      We also have laws against threatening violence.
    - csee 5y ago
      Reality doesn't fit so neatly into these categories that you're trying to construct, where speech is perfectly harmless unless it's direct incitement to violence and then suddenly it's harmful. That might be how the legal system works but it's not how reality works. Motivating radicals and spewing racism might not be direct incitement to violence, but history shows that it can have significant negative consequences. The causal pathway is usually non-linear and hard to attribute. But, behind many genocides is racial hate speech that's been allowed to fester for years. Behind many lone wolf terrorist attacks is propaganda, even if nobody directly incited it. I'm not arguing for or against any specific hate speech law here. Just trying to point out there's a grey area that your categorical thinking isn't good at addressing.
newaccount74 5y ago
I say this as an Austrian... the fact that Nazi ideology and symbols are forbidden in our country is a godsend. We have a small but persistent problem with militant far-right Nazi sympathisers, and the "Verbotsgesetz" is an invaluable tool in dealing with them. The law is extremely clear, nobody breaks it accidentally, and it makes sure that dangerous extremists are taken seriously by the police. A couple of times a year the police discovers illegal weapon and ammo stashes when investigating Neonazis. These guys are dangerous, and pretending it's just about "free speech" is stupid.

hnbad 5y ago

Calling her a Nazi or fascist would have been fine as that's understood as an expression of opinion, calling her a swine is clearly an insult and insulting someone is a crime under civil law (not sure how this translates to the US but it's not something the police will arrest you for but something the insulted party can take you to court over). There's a common misconception in Germany that there is a law about "Beamtenbeleidigung" (insult of a public official) but the truth is that public officials have no special protection in that regard per se, it's just usually easier for them to sue people (esp. when you insult a police officer as they're literally the police). There are some caveats when insulting government officials, especially foreign government officials, but insulting a Nazi politician on Facebook is not any different from insulting a celebrity on Facebook. The problem with social media is that it can be difficult to find out who to sue and compelling a foreign company to release the likely incomplete information they have on a user in an attempt to identify them isn't great. I'm not saying the law in question (NetzDG, requiring social media companies to block such content in Germany) is a good solution to this problem but it's certainly not the worst. If anything, the problem with NetzDG is that it allows users who are able to avoid revealing their identity unambiguously to engage in Holocaust denialism or Volksverhetzung[0] and have their posts still be visible with a proxy if blocked (allowing Nazi groups to organize and operate hidden in plain sight) or when the content is deleted for those crimes to just be swept under the rug and make it harder to report to the actual authorities rather than the social media company. Social media companies like Twitter have also made it nearly impossible to report ToS violations in Germany as the report button immediately funnels you into NetzDG technicalities users aren't meant to understand like which specific law you believe the offending post violates. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volksverhetzung https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volksverhetzung

germanier 5y ago

On the other hand, there are numerous cases where Facebook has been compelled by German courts to restore posts they have deleted under their content policy to protect the user's free speech rights. Something like that is unthinkable in the US.