-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Germany warns Facebook of penalties over online hate speech
- Thread starter Dram
- Start date
- Status
Familienoberhauptvogel
Banned
Good don't give them a platform.
They expect them to obey the local law. Facebook will no doubt claim that they only have to follow Irish law.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
This is a horrible idea.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
There is no local law on the internet. Other countries shouldnt be subjugated to Germany's censorship.
And what is Germany going to define as hate speech?
Their right to be forgotten is already nonsense and affecting other counties that don't subscribe to Europe's restrictive laws
NYCmetsfan
Banned
This isnt going to only affect deplorables.
And this isnt about harassment which I'd have no problem enforcing
Yes there is. Germany can block facebook if it so desires.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
That sounds a lot like China and Turkey
Are Americans to be held to German law standards?
I mean I know Europeans don't seem to have a problem with giving up speech rights but with the way your politics are going the people writing there rules soon aren't going to be targeting the right?
Are we gonna ban pro Palestinian speech? Questioning of Western intetventions? attacks on political leaders? Criticism of church's and religion? Leak reporting? Where does this hate speech law get drawn in the future after we've given this power up?
This is why you dont give up freedoms like speech for political expediency.
Obviously I wish we lived in a world where hate speech was not an issue but I don't think this is a good way to tackle it. People will find a way to communicate what they want to. As things like the Trump campaign are showing, (thinly) coded language can be very unifying, and sites that are somewhat off the mainstream (4chan / Reddit) thrive as echo chambers for what is most certainly hatred in a barely disguised form.
SporeCrawler
Member
There is because a. things on the internet do have effect on territories of certain countries and b. company officials and assets can be on territories of said countries.
Also there is comprehensive court cases about what "hate speech" is under german law. Its not like germany knows no freedom of speech in its constitution either.
Germans are to be held to American standards too if you actually have business in America.
This is about death threats and hate against immigrants, where Facebook does shit about it. But yeah, freedom of speech, right?
And Maas just suggested "counterspeech" where victims can speak out against the hate, instead of looking for some real solution. But well, it's Heiko Maas.
And Maas just suggested "counterspeech" where victims can speak out against the hate, instead of looking for some real solution. But well, it's Heiko Maas.
Why do people always come with the the slippery slope arguments with this. Hate speech is very well defined in German law. No, it won't lead to the dictatorial freedom-infringing madness you think it would.
I'm not quite sure if you understand the particular issue at hand. Either way, other countries are not subjugate to German law.
Why don't you look up the long history of German law regarding the issues at hand then?
So this is actually all about 'Evil EU' and 'Freedom!!!' for you. Glad you made your intentions obvious.
Familienoberhauptvogel
Banned
Hate Speech has been prohibited for a good part of a century, you can still do all of the above.
Which would be the correct approach is Germany feels as though facebook is not a good platform for Germans to be on. It's not... fining a website. Germany is no more special than any other country in the world - which means that it would be legitimate for like, Yemen to fine Facebook if their citizens starting talking shit about Yemeni food or something. If Yemen doesn't want an international platform available in their country, then it's their prerogative to ban said website. It's not up to Facebook to adhere to the nuanced laws of every country it's accessible from.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Because that's the essence of free speech.
Hate speech ain't free speech.
I do love people from a country that passed the Patriot Act without anyone giving a shit trying to school anyone about freedom of any kind though.
SporeCrawler
Member
Blocking Facebook would probably be hard. There was a law that allowed authorities to block child pornography but it was repealed due to concerns regarding certain constitutional rights (in particular the freedom to communicate). And this was child pornography not negligent moderating of website consent.
actually any corporation can get fined from any government of any country if said corporation has business in said country or if said country is actually effected by a conduct of said corporation.
The US just fined Deutsche Bank billions of dollars.
The thing is that a country like Yemen probably is not a significant market for Facebook while a country like Germany most certainly is.
because they can make those words into law?
Hate speech isn't free speech? I'm not a fan of hate speech, but I don't know what makes it not fall under the umbrella of things that would be protected under universal 'free speech' laws.
The reality is, we just don't have complete free speech - not anywhere. The level of freeness depends on the country, but in most places, threatening to kill politicians isn't covered under acceptable free speech, for example.
So if Person X said this
"I will kill you and your family and I hope all the fucking people in your house die."
Or
"Let's meet tomorrow to kill Syrian refugees in Leipzig"
Then you think that's fine because of free speech?
At the same time, I cannot post dick pics on Facebook. Where's the free speech?
Many definitions of free speech exclude (certain forms of) hate speech. The US is certainly the outlier here.
The question is whether Facebook is only subjugate to Irish law (due to EU), which is clearly different from and completely unrelated to the Deutsche Bank case.
Free speech (or speaking whatever you want as you seem to think it means) doesn't give leave of consequences of such speech
Familienoberhauptvogel
Banned
Why so binary? Also Facebook has assets in germany
NYCmetsfan
Banned
The patriot act didn't ban any speech
And what makes you think I support the patriot act wholesale? I don't.
And again does german hate speech law have an incitement or fighting words requirement? Because unless something is inciting and threatening violence imminently than it shouldn't be subject to the government censoring it.
We can socially censor it. But let's not give the state power because it will surely eventually turn to speech you inevitably want protected
It does from government censoring. Not social opprobrium
That's what that phrase means.
Unilaterally? If a US politician says they think x should happen to y because they did z, that wouldn't (and shouldn't) be characterized as "US warns y that because of z they'll be hit with x!"
NYCmetsfan
Banned
That's incitement and fighting words. Not hate speech.
Hate speech is "i hate ____ they're all horrible"
Regardless of how you define it or what you think it should apply to, free speech absolutely gives you leave of legal consequences imposed by a government.
ReplacementPelican
Member
And as you've consistently been reminded, Germany and other counties have very well definied boundaries of hate speech and have not collapsed into a government censored hellhole where you can't criticise the government.
I hate to seem disrespectful but you're coming across as very paranoid about people which you put in power and who have checks and balances against them. Also, if a government is going to turn tyrannical and suppress speech, the last thing they're going to care about is pre-existing law.
This is a sensible step in line with Germany's already pre-established and functional law.
SporeCrawler
Member
In civil and criminal cases lex loci delicti would apply so irish (as its the place where facebook omitted to act) and germany (as its the place where the "damage" was done) is possible
But for this specific issue... I dont think there is a harmonized EU regulation regarding "fining corporations for omitting hate speech erasure". so if germany makes that into a law they could write in that they have jurisdiction in case they are effected.
no they need to pass the german parliament of course. but if that happens and its not unconstitutional then yes germany would be able to
But that's what this is also about here. It's all been grouped together these days in Germany, and Facebook isn't doing anything about the cases I mentioned either.
CRIMES PREVENTION ACT 1916 SECT 1
Name of Act
1 Name of Act
This Act may be cited as the Crimes Prevention Act 1916 .
2 Inciting to crimes
If any person incites to, urges, aids, or encourages the commission of crimes or the carrying on of any operations for or by the commission of crimes that person shall be guilty of an offence against this Act.
3 Printing or publishing writing inciting to crimes
If any person prints or publishes any writing which incites to, urges, aids, or encourages the commission of crimes or the carrying on of any operations for or by the commission of crimes, such person shall be guilty of an offence against this Act, and shall be liable to imprisonment for any term not exceeding six months or to a penalty not exceeding 1 penalty unit.
ANTI-DISCRIMINATION ACT 1977 SECT 20D
20D Offence of serious racial vilification
(1) A person shall not, by a public act, incite hatred towards, serious contempt for, or severe ridicule of, a person or group of persons on the ground of the race of the person or members of the group by means which include:
(a) threatening physical harm towards, or towards any property of, the person or group of persons, or
(b) inciting others to threaten physical harm towards, or towards any property of, the person or group of persons.
I don't understand your point. That is obviously a legal restriction on free speech. Whether it's a justified one or not is a discussion that can be had but it is objectively a restriction.
SolidusDave
Member
Oh this explains so much. No wonder US gaffers side each time with the people calling for killing all immigrants etc. - They don't know what hate speech is actually defined as in Europe...
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Don't be obtuse. Europe conflates the two and then pretends were stupid not to understand that we do. And that's not what your arguing. You should read some SCOTUS opinions if you want to understand why hate speech is by and large protected in the US.
And no I'm not siding with those people. I'm arguing Facebook shouldn't be required to police speech by government fiat.
I think so. Free speech, or protected speech, is speech free of any ability for the government to punish. In Germany hate speech isn't free speech.
The Spoony Hou
Member
That's a good idea, but it's likely facebook will prefer to leave Germany than clean itself or pay fines.
Facebook should be consistent. Either you censor or not. So far they tried to abide to the laws or claimed they have a lot of people behind it, working on that. Yet they're more likely to delete a dickpic or a breastpic than people rooting for genocide.
I honestly don't like the trend of closed content system that censor, also see: App Store.
If Michelangelo was alive now and would post a painting with breasts to Instagram, it would be deleted
I honestly don't like the trend of closed content system that censor, also see: App Store.
If Michelangelo was alive now and would post a painting with breasts to Instagram, it would be deleted
The patriot act has nothing to do with speech, it has to do with warrant-less searches.. but I fail to see the logic in if we violate one right, then we should be okay with violating all other rights. As for hate speech not being free speech.. it most certainly is free speech, but there are boundaries.
You cannot blackmail someone, and you cannot threaten someone. However, when it comes to expressing an opinion, that is your right, no matter how vile or hateful it is.
Familienoberhauptvogel
Banned
So for instance "In my opinion you should be beat up" would be free speech but "I'm going to beat you up" is a threat? One implies the same as the other which is specific yet one of them is enshrined in the holy free speech moniker.
They don't imply the same thing though. A fantasy isn't the same thing as a promise.
Expressing an opinion that something "should" happen, and outright threatening to do something to someone are not "implying" the same thing.
If someone said in their opinion they believe someone should beat up the Donald Trump, would you treat that the same as someone threatening Donald Trump? If so then that's a hell off a positions to hold where virtually half of the internet would be subject to arrest.
I take personal offense to the suggestion that nobody gave a shit. A ton of us fucking did.
- Status