6 ms·

I think a lot of people, myself included, think that Germany often goes overboard when it comes to censoring things. While I totally understand why they do this

I think a lot of people, myself included, think that Germany often goes overboard when it comes to censoring things. While I totally understand why they do this, I sense they have an incredibly high false-positive rate and people rightfully fear that the system can be abused. Edit: This is in response to this quote "For anyone talking about the freedom of speech here..." and not a commentary about this specific instance.

donohoe 5y ago
I think a lot of people, myself included, do not think that Germany often goes overboard when it comes to censoring things. From my limited time in Germany, and from my few German friends, I do not believe there is a "high false-positive rate" and they do not "rightfully fear that the system can be abused". Any system can be abused, but they are not in "fear" of that. They generally support the idea that Nazi ideals need to be curtailed given the atrocities committed to millions of people. Obviously, and as indicated, this is my very small circle of acquaintances. Hardly a national poll.
- disgu 5y ago
  They've literally raided someone's home because he called a politician a dick. Raided his home, took all his devices and whatnot. It's completely out of control. Once you create a list of things that can and cannot be said you have that list on hand. You might have the best intentions about what's on that list but it's better to not have that list at all because it's completely subjective what should and should not be on that list.
  - sofixa 5y ago
    "They". Again, governments are not monolithic entities! It was a local politician abusing his power who is being investigated for that power. It has nothing to do with banning hateful imagery.
- BitwiseFool 5y ago
  As a point of order, I may be lumping all German national censorship into the same bucket. When I perceive that Germany goes overboard with censorship, I mean things like banning Command and Conquer because it 'glorifies war' and then allowing it to be sold once the publisher changed some file assets so the fictional characters were cyborgs instead of people: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Command_%26_Conquer:_Generals#Ban_in_Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Command_%26_Conquer:_Generals#... While this isn't a specific case of censoring something glorifying or endorsing Nazism directly, they think that their own citizens cannot see such material out of fear that it will inspire people to become militaristic. While the goal of being anti-war and anti-nazi is noble and worthwhile, a lot of things get swept up in the effort to curtail as much of it as possible.
  - rerx 5y ago
    Note that the ban was for sales to minors (under the age of 18) not to all citizens. It also disallowed advertisement, of course, so probably there was a noticeable impact on sales. It probably didn't stop teenagers from getting the game anyhow as piracy was rampant those days and being "on the index" made it extra attractive to many. The situation has improved a lot these days after an amendment in 2003. There is an industry board (USK) giving age recommendations (0+, 6+, 12+, 16+, 18+) and if a game has been rated 18+, shops will not sell it to minors. Importantly, if a game has been rated by this board, it can no longer be put onto the index maintained by that Federal Review Board for Media Harmful to Minors. So the far-reaching restrictions against advertisement no longer apply.
- tablespoon 5y ago
  > Any system can be abused, but they are not in "fear" of that. They generally support the idea that Nazi ideals need to be curtailed given the atrocities committed to millions of people. Also, I think many people, Americans in particular, overestimate the ability of "market systems" (i.e. "the marketplace of ideas) to self-regulate or the desirability of the results of that self-regulation. It's one thing to let Nazis march down the street in Illinois, where they are a small group of pariahs with no hope of power; it's quite another to let them march down a street in a place where they've had power and used it to bad ends (and can be assumed to have significant residual support).
  - wongarsu 5y ago
    Even more, those laws were enacted when Nazis being celebrated for marching down the streets was a recent memory. A strong statement "we have a new constitution, you aren't allowed to show support for Nazis or organizations working against the constitution" was perfectly reasonable at the time.
zasdffaa 5y ago
> ...I sense... That is not enough to base a post on.
- gameman144 5y ago
  Wait, what? Where is this rigorous standard for what constitutes an acceptable post, which excludes personal conclusions? There's a restaurant down the street from me that's real trash. I sense that it's not doing well, since it's always empty. Do I need to go run a survey before I could share that?
  - a_shovel 5y ago
    One important difference is that, even when you don't specifically claim so, one can assume that you have been to the restaurant down the street enough times to observe a trend, whereas BitwiseFool's post seems to be pure speculation from an outsider's perspective.
    - BitwiseFool 5y ago
      >"whereas BitwiseFool's post seems to be pure speculation from an outsider's perspective." Yes, that is indeed what it is. I wasn't using weasel words to claim my assertion was based on empirical evidence. I'm just sharing my own perception and I'm a little bothered by the implication that I somehow have to provide citations in order to simply share my perspective.
      - zasdffaa 5y ago
        You don't say if you'd been to that country, or experienced anything relevant that you presented, or anything to explain why you felt this way. As such, you give me nothing to ponder on nor any reason to agree with you (or even disagree). NB: don't take it personally or feel bad, it's just a random interweb guy's disagreement!
      - lamontcg 5y ago
        You are actually explicitly using weasel words. You've made a really strong claim that they have an "incredibly high false positive rate". Then you've just thrown "I sense" in front of it all to make it okay that you're basing that on zero evidence. If you think they've got an "incredibly" high false positive rate you should go do the work to have some kind of factual evidence to base that on.
mindslight 5y ago
So maybe let's discuss specific examples where these laws go overboard, instead of alluding to hypothetical arguments while the concrete symbol under discussion directly supports genocide? I'm an American and generally free speech / free communications absolutist, but it's weird to be taking issue with this in the existing context of Germany. From my own American perspective, I also consider the zwastika to be in a similar boat as the swastika. The free speech angle merely means that my personal judgement will inform my personal relations, rather than the boot of the state being involved.

donohoe 5y ago

I think a lot of people, myself included, do not think that Germany often goes overboard when it comes to censoring things. From my limited time in Germany, and from my few German friends, I do not believe there is a "high false-positive rate" and they do not "rightfully fear that the system can be abused". Any system can be abused, but they are not in "fear" of that. They generally support the idea that Nazi ideals need to be curtailed given the atrocities committed to millions of people. Obviously, and as indicated, this is my very small circle of acquaintances. Hardly a national poll.

disgu 5y ago
They've literally raided someone's home because he called a politician a dick. Raided his home, took all his devices and whatnot. It's completely out of control. Once you create a list of things that can and cannot be said you have that list on hand. You might have the best intentions about what's on that list but it's better to not have that list at all because it's completely subjective what should and should not be on that list.
- sofixa 5y ago
  "They". Again, governments are not monolithic entities! It was a local politician abusing his power who is being investigated for that power. It has nothing to do with banning hateful imagery.
BitwiseFool 5y ago
As a point of order, I may be lumping all German national censorship into the same bucket. When I perceive that Germany goes overboard with censorship, I mean things like banning Command and Conquer because it 'glorifies war' and then allowing it to be sold once the publisher changed some file assets so the fictional characters were cyborgs instead of people: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Command_%26_Conquer:_Generals#Ban_in_Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Command_%26_Conquer:_Generals#... While this isn't a specific case of censoring something glorifying or endorsing Nazism directly, they think that their own citizens cannot see such material out of fear that it will inspire people to become militaristic. While the goal of being anti-war and anti-nazi is noble and worthwhile, a lot of things get swept up in the effort to curtail as much of it as possible.
- rerx 5y ago
  Note that the ban was for sales to minors (under the age of 18) not to all citizens. It also disallowed advertisement, of course, so probably there was a noticeable impact on sales. It probably didn't stop teenagers from getting the game anyhow as piracy was rampant those days and being "on the index" made it extra attractive to many. The situation has improved a lot these days after an amendment in 2003. There is an industry board (USK) giving age recommendations (0+, 6+, 12+, 16+, 18+) and if a game has been rated 18+, shops will not sell it to minors. Importantly, if a game has been rated by this board, it can no longer be put onto the index maintained by that Federal Review Board for Media Harmful to Minors. So the far-reaching restrictions against advertisement no longer apply.
tablespoon 5y ago
> Any system can be abused, but they are not in "fear" of that. They generally support the idea that Nazi ideals need to be curtailed given the atrocities committed to millions of people. Also, I think many people, Americans in particular, overestimate the ability of "market systems" (i.e. "the marketplace of ideas) to self-regulate or the desirability of the results of that self-regulation. It's one thing to let Nazis march down the street in Illinois, where they are a small group of pariahs with no hope of power; it's quite another to let them march down a street in a place where they've had power and used it to bad ends (and can be assumed to have significant residual support).
- wongarsu 5y ago
  Even more, those laws were enacted when Nazis being celebrated for marching down the streets was a recent memory. A strong statement "we have a new constitution, you aren't allowed to show support for Nazis or organizations working against the constitution" was perfectly reasonable at the time.

zasdffaa 5y ago

> ...I sense... That is not enough to base a post on.

gameman144 5y ago
Wait, what? Where is this rigorous standard for what constitutes an acceptable post, which excludes personal conclusions? There's a restaurant down the street from me that's real trash. I sense that it's not doing well, since it's always empty. Do I need to go run a survey before I could share that?
- a_shovel 5y ago
  One important difference is that, even when you don't specifically claim so, one can assume that you have been to the restaurant down the street enough times to observe a trend, whereas BitwiseFool's post seems to be pure speculation from an outsider's perspective.
  - BitwiseFool 5y ago
    >"whereas BitwiseFool's post seems to be pure speculation from an outsider's perspective." Yes, that is indeed what it is. I wasn't using weasel words to claim my assertion was based on empirical evidence. I'm just sharing my own perception and I'm a little bothered by the implication that I somehow have to provide citations in order to simply share my perspective.
    - zasdffaa 5y ago
      You don't say if you'd been to that country, or experienced anything relevant that you presented, or anything to explain why you felt this way. As such, you give me nothing to ponder on nor any reason to agree with you (or even disagree). NB: don't take it personally or feel bad, it's just a random interweb guy's disagreement!
    - lamontcg 5y ago
      You are actually explicitly using weasel words. You've made a really strong claim that they have an "incredibly high false positive rate". Then you've just thrown "I sense" in front of it all to make it okay that you're basing that on zero evidence. If you think they've got an "incredibly" high false positive rate you should go do the work to have some kind of factual evidence to base that on.

mindslight 5y ago

So maybe let's discuss specific examples where these laws go overboard, instead of alluding to hypothetical arguments while the concrete symbol under discussion directly supports genocide? I'm an American and generally free speech / free communications absolutist, but it's weird to be taking issue with this in the existing context of Germany. From my own American perspective, I also consider the zwastika to be in a similar boat as the swastika. The free speech angle merely means that my personal judgement will inform my personal relations, rather than the boot of the state being involved.