3 ms·

That is a valid criticism, and I agree. At the same time, due to the reach of social media and the possible implications and the timely manner in which action s

by V__ 4y ago

That is a valid criticism, and I agree. At the same time, due to the reach of social media and the possible implications and the timely manner in which action should be taken, I think there has to be a system with some middle ground. Maybe, forcing platforms to hide the content for some period of time and establishing a new court which only handles these cases, so a quick judgement can be made. But it's a really hard problem to solve.

DocTomoe 4y ago
Even hiding potentially illegal speech (if you believe such a thing should exist) for some time creates considerable potential of abuse. A group of malicious political actors could still suppress opinions and thus make it appear that there is a public consensus on the opposing opinion. Especially with a state which has deliberately unclear and flexible (in the sense of 'rubber', not 'agile') laws, this is too big a risk. For example, right now it appears to be illegal to use the letter Z as a symbol in Germany, because some people think that this somehow glorifies/justifies the illegal war of aggression against Ukraine, which is illegal in itself. (No such provision seem to exist against glorifying/justifying the illegal wars of aggressions which "NATO partners" have staged). So, if we think we need to ban free speech, the strictest controls need to be set up to prevent abuse, and that includes: 1. after a report, a judge ordering a post to be taken down (this could be done by an "Einstweilige Verfügung" until a final verdict can be made) 2. clear guidelines which speech is illegal enough to justify this strong response, defined in a way that does not allow for a slow and secret extension over time. Beware of rubber vocabularies like 'Hate Speech', which can be anything. While we are at it, get rid of 'illegal speech' laws that only make speech illegal when a sufficiently large number (how many?) of other people (that may then decide to become violent) may find offensive (looking at you, blasphemy) 3. Sensible instruments to punish people and/or organisations who abuse this process. 4. These blocking cases need to be publicly documented to avoid "things just disappearing". Anything less than that, and we really cannot claim to be any better than the many autocratic regimes who ignore human rights.
- V__ 4y ago
  > potentially illegal speech (if you believe such a thing should exist) Child pornography, calls to violence etc. I think anybody agrees that, to some degree, things have to be banned. > (No such provision seem to exist against glorifying/justifying the illegal wars of aggressions which "NATO partners" have staged). The main reason no such provision exists is that there simply is no widespread movement to glorify, for example the Iraq war. > the strictest controls need to be set up to prevent abuse Absolutely. I just hope some solution can be found, which actually works, because you can only through so many judges against bots, foreign actors etc.
  - DocTomoe 4y ago
    I really wish you had not brought up Child pornography. CP material is not speech, much like criminalised drugs are not. Hypothetically, the idea that CP media possession should be decriminalised, or what material should constitute (or not constitute) CP to begin with, or how to tackle the problem of child abuse (both generally and specifically when it comes to CP media production). And in fact, none of those opinions would be "criminal". Still, bringing up CP often is unhealthy for a discussion. Too often it is the way of the political scoundrel, the wannabe-strongman, to throw the "think of the children" card (and then abuse the powers grabbed with that argument against unrelated activities). > The main reason no such provision exists is that there simply is no widespread movement to glorify, for example the Iraq war. There has been actual attempts to prosecute the Schröder government for preparation of and participation in a war of aggression (against Serbia), which was then cancelled out because "t'was a righteous war". Note how the law does not distinguish between 'righteous' and 'criminal' wars of aggression. > Absolutely. I just hope some solution can be found, which actually works, because you can only through so many judges against bots, foreign actors etc. We are not that far away from each other. We just disagree who the real danger, the real enemy is: bots and foreign actors (by the way: Freedom of speech also protects their freedom of speech, even the watered-down "freedom of opinion" of the Grundgesetz is not limited to 'Germans only'), or a - in the future potentially tyrannic - federal government. Given our history, I tend to see the danger at home, not abroad.
  - modo_mario 4y ago

by V__ 4y ago

DocTomoe 4y ago

Even hiding potentially illegal speech (if you believe such a thing should exist) for some time creates considerable potential of abuse. A group of malicious political actors could still suppress opinions and thus make it appear that there is a public consensus on the opposing opinion. Especially with a state which has deliberately unclear and flexible (in the sense of 'rubber', not 'agile') laws, this is too big a risk. For example, right now it appears to be illegal to use the letter Z as a symbol in Germany, because some people think that this somehow glorifies/justifies the illegal war of aggression against Ukraine, which is illegal in itself. (No such provision seem to exist against glorifying/justifying the illegal wars of aggressions which "NATO partners" have staged). So, if we think we need to ban free speech, the strictest controls need to be set up to prevent abuse, and that includes: 1. after a report, a judge ordering a post to be taken down (this could be done by an "Einstweilige Verfügung" until a final verdict can be made) 2. clear guidelines which speech is illegal enough to justify this strong response, defined in a way that does not allow for a slow and secret extension over time. Beware of rubber vocabularies like 'Hate Speech', which can be anything. While we are at it, get rid of 'illegal speech' laws that only make speech illegal when a sufficiently large number (how many?) of other people (that may then decide to become violent) may find offensive (looking at you, blasphemy) 3. Sensible instruments to punish people and/or organisations who abuse this process. 4. These blocking cases need to be publicly documented to avoid "things just disappearing". Anything less than that, and we really cannot claim to be any better than the many autocratic regimes who ignore human rights.

V__ 4y ago
> potentially illegal speech (if you believe such a thing should exist) Child pornography, calls to violence etc. I think anybody agrees that, to some degree, things have to be banned. > (No such provision seem to exist against glorifying/justifying the illegal wars of aggressions which "NATO partners" have staged). The main reason no such provision exists is that there simply is no widespread movement to glorify, for example the Iraq war. > the strictest controls need to be set up to prevent abuse Absolutely. I just hope some solution can be found, which actually works, because you can only through so many judges against bots, foreign actors etc.
- DocTomoe 4y ago
  I really wish you had not brought up Child pornography. CP material is not speech, much like criminalised drugs are not. Hypothetically, the idea that CP media possession should be decriminalised, or what material should constitute (or not constitute) CP to begin with, or how to tackle the problem of child abuse (both generally and specifically when it comes to CP media production). And in fact, none of those opinions would be "criminal". Still, bringing up CP often is unhealthy for a discussion. Too often it is the way of the political scoundrel, the wannabe-strongman, to throw the "think of the children" card (and then abuse the powers grabbed with that argument against unrelated activities). > The main reason no such provision exists is that there simply is no widespread movement to glorify, for example the Iraq war. There has been actual attempts to prosecute the Schröder government for preparation of and participation in a war of aggression (against Serbia), which was then cancelled out because "t'was a righteous war". Note how the law does not distinguish between 'righteous' and 'criminal' wars of aggression. > Absolutely. I just hope some solution can be found, which actually works, because you can only through so many judges against bots, foreign actors etc. We are not that far away from each other. We just disagree who the real danger, the real enemy is: bots and foreign actors (by the way: Freedom of speech also protects their freedom of speech, even the watered-down "freedom of opinion" of the Grundgesetz is not limited to 'Germans only'), or a - in the future potentially tyrannic - federal government. Given our history, I tend to see the danger at home, not abroad.
- modo_mario 4y ago