CadetMahoney
Member
I just hope identical vile comments on youtube and reddit originating from Germany get the same treatment, they'll have 24 hours to remove them and such.
-
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 plans to fine social media sites that do not remove reported hate speech
- Thread starter Xando
- Start date
- Status
Of course, otherwise, how can you have openly racist cunts in power.
Depending on the depiction of course but in general yes
Poltergust
Member
I don't think 1 person = "segment of the population" in any reasonable way.
Kill Your Masters
Member
So how does that work out for you so far? Considering your current president got his win partially thanks to hate speech.
Considering Neo Nazis are in control on the US and the Patriot Act is a thing, you're way way way way more fucked.
Always cute seeing Americans touting "freedom of speech above all" and allowing shit like the Patriot Act to stand. Seems like the only freedom that matters is the freedom of saying that certain races should die. Truly an amazing freedom the people of Germany are barred from. I weep for that loss.
theignoramus
Member
Bad ideas were "out in the open" and Nazi Germany went on to inflict some of the greatest slaughters in human history. I think the Germans know perfectly well what the hell it is theyre doing when they put limits on "free speech"
Pretty sure nobody here is a lawyer with special knowledge on yet to be made german free speech laws.
But since this is aimed at Facebook and Twitter and other social medias not to restrict free speech but enforcing their reporting systems when for example death threats are made, thats a question that doesnt matter anyway. But it seems this is to difficult to understand since people are just jumping in this thread and are thinking that a generel censorship is about to be implaced.
To bad that people cant just read the first post.
No, it wouldn't.
As a public company, just curious, at what point would it even be viable for Twitter anr Facebook to continue in the German markets. 50 million Euro fines. How much advertising revenue do you think they generate from Germany?
On the one hand, private companies have no right to give you a soapbox to stand on to espouse hate, on the other, who denotes what hate speech and inflammatory speech is? Things effect us all differently. All you do is allow elected leaders to determine what you can or cannot say. Will one day they elevate calling someone a fatass hate speech? Just curious. Will insults eventually be elevated to hate speech. There is a very fine line between criticizing a religion without it being hate speech against that religion. It is what it is though. If the German people want this, more power to them. I am just glad Canada has far less restrictive society than Germany which even homeschooling is barely allowed, where violent games are banned, etc. We don't have complete free speech like the US but it is still good enough.
On the one hand, private companies have no right to give you a soapbox to stand on to espouse hate, on the other, who denotes what hate speech and inflammatory speech is? Things effect us all differently. All you do is allow elected leaders to determine what you can or cannot say. Will one day they elevate calling someone a fatass hate speech? Just curious. Will insults eventually be elevated to hate speech. There is a very fine line between criticizing a religion without it being hate speech against that religion. It is what it is though. If the German people want this, more power to them. I am just glad Canada has far less restrictive society than Germany which even homeschooling is barely allowed, where violent games are banned, etc. We don't have complete free speech like the US but it is still good enough.
perfectchaos007
Member
Oh wow facebook is actually going to be forced to have some openness. Since its inception Facebook has made it almost impossible to contact someone within the company. Everything has been "FAQ" answered to this point
theignoramus
Member
Gee, I wonder what was the main impetus behind this centuries old racial animus towards non-Whites? Say it with me everyone: HATE. SPEECH.
Muffin1611
Banned
You guys are caving to a whole lot of other bullshit, kinda hypocritical to attack a law that could have worked against that bullshit, no?
LOOOL
The European Union is a 500 million person market with high Internet penetration and a court system that tends to support rulings that local laws apply to any company active in the EU. That is why they do tend to fall in line with these laws.
DiipuSurotu
Banned
Meanwhile the US is presided by Donald Trump, while Germany and France are doing a decent job at keeping people like Le Pen and co. in check.
Don't worry, our racist in chief would never go for it.
He would have never been elected if he wasn't able to run a platform on hate and being a gross piece of shit in general.
theignoramus
Member
There was some fuckery in Canada with the Conservatives trying to make explicit links between the political BDS movement and anti-semitic hate speech.
Theres room for hate speech laws to be manipulated and twisted by a party with malicious intentions, but thats what federal judges and high courts are for.
Yeah, makes me feel a bit conflicted. But doing nothing has been horrible, so...
Audioboxer
Member
Like Prohibition, the results can be all over the place when attempted.
I still think the best disinfectant on private services is THEM adhering to their T&C and employing moderators. Reporting and account bans can handle shit, or it should be able to if services take it seriously.
Leave violent threats to the police/government, sure, as a route to a crime where someone might get hurt requires police.
Speech in general under government control, very slippery slope. At least right now it seems the fines will be for the social media platforms, not the government being authoritarian out the wazoo and reeling in citizens to fine them. The issue though is always going to be "law breaking posts". Outside of calls to violence and threats aimed at someone, where do the goalposts keep going to? I'm sure the fundamentalist Christians/Catholics or whoever else would love it to be a law-breaking post to ridicule and satirize Jesus. Hence, slippery slope if things get out of control.
I still think the best disinfectant on private services is THEM adhering to their T&C and employing moderators. Reporting and account bans can handle shit, or it should be able to if services take it seriously.
Leave violent threats to the police/government, sure, as a route to a crime where someone might get hurt requires police.
Speech in general under government control, very slippery slope. At least right now it seems the fines will be for the social media platforms, not the government being authoritarian out the wazoo and reeling in citizens to fine them. The issue though is always going to be "law breaking posts". Outside of calls to violence and threats aimed at someone, where do the goalposts keep going to? I'm sure the fundamentalist Christians/Catholics or whoever else would love it to be a law-breaking post to ridicule and satirize Jesus. Hence, slippery slope if things get out of control.
FunkyPajamas
Member
Good. Let's get the ball rolling on this. Hate speech needs to deal with the consequences until it goes away.
Messofanego
Banned
Hateful insults could be considered hate speech if you're targeting a certain group, yeah.
Hate speech is usually against people, no? How would criticism of a religion fall under hate speech? Unless if you're saying people who follow a certain religion should act in a certain way that is harmful.
Have you checked your country's hate speech laws? Seems about the same in restrictions. There's even provisions for hurt feelings and dignity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_Canada
Section 318 prescribes imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years for anyone who advocates genocide. The Code defines genocide as the destruction of an "identifiable group." The Code defines an "identifiable group" as "any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation."
Section 319 prescribes penalties from a fine to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years for anyone who incites hatred against any identifiable group.
Section 320 allows a judge to confiscate publications which appear to be hate propaganda.
The provincial and territorial human rights acts usually have provisions similar to these provisions (Section 12 of Prince Edward Island's Human Rights Act):
(1) No person shall publish, display or broadcast, or permit to be published, displayed or broadcast on lands or premises, or in a newspaper or through a radio or television broadcasting station or by means of any other medium, any notice, sign, symbol, implement or other representation indicating discrimination or an intention to discriminate against any person or class of persons.
(2) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to interfere with the free expression of opinion upon any subject in speech or in writing.
The Ontario Human Rights Code forbids discrimination upon various grounds which depend upon the circumstances.[35] An adjudicator may order inter alia a respondent: to pay monetary compensation to the complainant "including compensation for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect"; to make restitution to the complainant "including restitution for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect"; and to do anything that will rectify the respondent's violation of the Code. The majority of cases concerning violations of the Code are heard by the quasi-judicial Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.
Nunavut's Human Rights Act 2003[17] allows its adjudicator to order inter alia compensation "for injury to dignity, feelings or self-respect" and "for any malice or recklessness", and to order an apology.
The Northwest Territories' Human Rights Act[18] prohibits discrimination on the common grounds and on "social condition". The section regarding publication (s.13) explicitly forbids any means of expression that "is likely to expose any individual or class of individuals to hatred or contempt". The adjudicator may order inter alia a respondent "to pay to a complainant an amount that the adjudicator considers appropriate to compensate that complainant for injury to dignity, feelings and self respect". If the adjudicator finds that the respondent "acted wilfully or maliciously", or that the respondent repeatedly contravened the Act, the adjudicator may order the respondent to pay an amount not exceeding $10,000 as exemplary or punitive damages".
British Columbia is unique in no longer having a human rights commission. Complaints can be filed directly with the province's human rights tribunal. Under British Columbia's Human Rights Code,[20] an adjudicator must order a violator to cease contravening the Code, and may order inter alia that the violator pay to the complainant an amount that the adjudicator considers appropriate "for injury to dignity, feelings and self respect or to any of them".
Section 319 prescribes penalties from a fine to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years for anyone who incites hatred against any identifiable group.
Section 320 allows a judge to confiscate publications which appear to be hate propaganda.
The provincial and territorial human rights acts usually have provisions similar to these provisions (Section 12 of Prince Edward Island's Human Rights Act):
(1) No person shall publish, display or broadcast, or permit to be published, displayed or broadcast on lands or premises, or in a newspaper or through a radio or television broadcasting station or by means of any other medium, any notice, sign, symbol, implement or other representation indicating discrimination or an intention to discriminate against any person or class of persons.
(2) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to interfere with the free expression of opinion upon any subject in speech or in writing.
The Ontario Human Rights Code forbids discrimination upon various grounds which depend upon the circumstances.[35] An adjudicator may order inter alia a respondent: to pay monetary compensation to the complainant "including compensation for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect"; to make restitution to the complainant "including restitution for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect"; and to do anything that will rectify the respondent's violation of the Code. The majority of cases concerning violations of the Code are heard by the quasi-judicial Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.
Nunavut's Human Rights Act 2003[17] allows its adjudicator to order inter alia compensation "for injury to dignity, feelings or self-respect" and "for any malice or recklessness", and to order an apology.
The Northwest Territories' Human Rights Act[18] prohibits discrimination on the common grounds and on "social condition". The section regarding publication (s.13) explicitly forbids any means of expression that "is likely to expose any individual or class of individuals to hatred or contempt". The adjudicator may order inter alia a respondent "to pay to a complainant an amount that the adjudicator considers appropriate to compensate that complainant for injury to dignity, feelings and self respect". If the adjudicator finds that the respondent "acted wilfully or maliciously", or that the respondent repeatedly contravened the Act, the adjudicator may order the respondent to pay an amount not exceeding $10,000 as exemplary or punitive damages".
British Columbia is unique in no longer having a human rights commission. Complaints can be filed directly with the province's human rights tribunal. Under British Columbia's Human Rights Code,[20] an adjudicator must order a violator to cease contravening the Code, and may order inter alia that the violator pay to the complainant an amount that the adjudicator considers appropriate "for injury to dignity, feelings and self respect or to any of them".
Oh, individual persons already do get prosecuted for spreading hate speech on social media. Our existing laws cover that. A prominent recent example would be Lutz Bachmann, (one of the?) the founder(s) of the PEGIDA movement.
http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/...lt-strafe-wegen-volksverhetzung-14552268.html
http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deuts...lksverhetzung-9600-euro-zahlen-a-1123765.html
(Sources in German)
Hephaestus
Member
So could a group like Scientology use this law to report any post that criticizes them?
Muffin1611
Banned
No. Valid criticism isn't the same as unfounded hatred.
You don't know what you're talking about.
Sigh.
It doesn't even have to be valid criticism. This is strictly about hate speech and harassment.
"Hate speech is speech that offends, threatens, or insults groups, based on race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, disability, or other traits."
Criticism and general disdain would not count.
Shadow Puppetry
Member
Take a lesson, Facebook.
Yeah we'll see about that, bud.
hate speech has literally nothing in common with critizing someone / something
Is this satire?
Yes. Absolutely. If that included any holocaust denial, anti-semitism or racism. Like about zero reports on Scientology.
victreeb3l
Member
Good.
Muffin1611
Banned
No we won't, we had time to "see about that" for decades now in Germany, I'm not aware of any abuse of said laws.
German laws aren't written so stupid that you can pervert them like that, and judges sure as hell aren't stupid enough to go along with it.
True.
The entrance of Trump shows that if a new ruler is malevolent, it really doesn't matter if there are existing hate speech laws or not. If Obama had explicility outlawed bans, he would have undone them.
Hephaestus
Member
This is the part I dont understand, Scientology is a "religion" Criticism and general disdain could offend and insult the group.
So criticizing and general disdain for race, color and sexual orientation is ok?
Muffin1611
Banned
Dude, religion has an ideology behind it, that very well can be criticized. As well as practices of said religion.
Race and sexual orientation is just who you are. It's a big difference.
It's not "expanding" government power, it makes decades old laws apply better on a rather new medium. Nothing more.
George Washington
Member
I cannot support this proposal . More things need consideration.
My issues:
1. How would it be determined when there is a violation? Edit: (not being subjective)
2. Who would keep track of this? If it is left up to algorithms, what would you do with the false flags?
3. What about server location? How would the law apply if the servers are not within Germany?
4. What would happen if these companies decided to pull out instead of complying?
I understand what they are trying to do but it is almost impossible to enforce something like this on the internet. For example, there could be (there probably are) bots that engage in this. Why should the social media company pay the fine for not being able to keep up with bots?
My issues:
1. How would it be determined when there is a violation? Edit: (not being subjective)
2. Who would keep track of this? If it is left up to algorithms, what would you do with the false flags?
3. What about server location? How would the law apply if the servers are not within Germany?
4. What would happen if these companies decided to pull out instead of complying?
I understand what they are trying to do but it is almost impossible to enforce something like this on the internet. For example, there could be (there probably are) bots that engage in this. Why should the social media company pay the fine for not being able to keep up with bots?
- Status