The "Church" of Scientology is not recognized as such in Germany. Scientology is no religion here.
-
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
The "Church" of Scientology is not recognized as such in Germany. Scientology is no religion here.
"This isn't a perfect solution for this complicated issue. Our solution is better!" *points at the absolute dumpster fire that is US-American politics* "You should do what we do instead! It just works!"
I guess those requests will kept handled like they already are so it would be:
1) A jugde determines if there is a violation
2) Judges
3) Doesn't matter for the request
4) They would get fined if they do not delete those public message or (worst case scenario) have to withdraw from the german market
We're not talking about 100ish takedown requests a day. More like ... dunno ... 2 a week?
Edit: propably more than 2 a week. But still definately not enough that it would require an automated report system like youtube copyright infringement stuff
Another thread about German hate speech laws, with the same old predictable slippery slope arguments. It's like the Norwegian prison or Anders Behring Breivik threads. Nothing new under the sun.
The American people have been getting their freedoms stripped for years now. The oft-touted "freedom of speech" is the proverbial wool in front of your collective eyes.
The American people have been getting their freedoms stripped for years now. The oft-touted "freedom of speech" is the proverbial wool in front of your collective eyes.
Aye, especially when that freedom is used to bereft others of their freedoms. You'd think one could live in a society where you don't have to be exposed to hatred and hate speech. But that's a freedom that doesn't exist in the US because "Muh free speech"
There's a difference between hating Scientology and hating Scientologists.
Obviously it would not be okay to say, "All Scientoligists should die!"
SilentRacoon
Member
This is a way of attacking bad ideas, or do you think being able to reply to a white supremacist "you are a bigot piece of shit" would bring fruitful results? The only way to tackle those abhorrent ideologies is to shun them away from society.
Sorry to do this, but your post is actually a good example of somebody misunderstanding the first amendment.
You are absolutely right that Twitter, for example, can ban or delete whatever it wants. It's a private company running a private service. Who gets to post there and what they're allowed to say is up to Twitter.
The US government would absolutely NOT be allowed to do what Germany is doing. As soon as the US government starts levying fines for permitting certain kinds of speech, the ACLU would file suit within the hour, an injunction would come down an hour after that, and the government would lose a series of unanimous rulings as long as it persisted in appealing. This would be an open-and-shut first amendment violation as soon as the government got involved.
Edit: I see now you're arguing on the basis of international law as opposed to US constitutional law. As others have pointed out, Americans enjoy stronger free speech rights under the US constitution than do folks in most other countries.
Fudgepuppy
Banned
I could definitely see this backfiring, with people bombing sites with hate speech so that they will eventually get fined.
Could also backfire for smaller companies if they get bombarded with hate speech. Then you might have a support crew of like 10-20 people who have to get it all removed before they get heavily fined.
Can probably be fine tuned and adjusted to accommodate for these situations, but y'know. Good thing in the end if properly introduced.
Could also backfire for smaller companies if they get bombarded with hate speech. Then you might have a support crew of like 10-20 people who have to get it all removed before they get heavily fined.
Can probably be fine tuned and adjusted to accommodate for these situations, but y'know. Good thing in the end if properly introduced.
guggnichso
Banned
No, it doesn't. It never did.
Oh, we don't?
SuperDowns
Banned
Go Germany, get involved!
Fudgepuppy
Banned
But, how will they actually enforce it? Are they going to send an international fine to a company like Voat, that doesn't have any servers in Germany?
guggnichso
Banned
The law exists for decades already. We already saw "about that".
As an American myself I can say no, not really.
Stallion Dan
Member
So does Germany gets its own, seperate versions of Facebook and Twitter.
Germany cannot police someone in the US posting something, then someone in Germany reads it.
Germany cannot police someone in the US posting something, then someone in Germany reads it.
How so?
Killa Sasa
Member
Bingo bango. Critical to this is an engaged and critical thinking electorate, but I would venture it's been a force for far more good than bad.
I believe what Germany is saying is that yes they can. Somebody in America posts something hateful on Twitter. Somebody else reports it. If Twitter doesn't remove the offending post, German fines Twitter.
You're right of course that Germany has no jurisdiction over the guy in America, but it claims jurisdiction over Twitter, which provides its product in Germany to Germans.
Pankratous
Member
> Make law to fine Facebook 50 million if they don't remove hate speech
> Flood Facebook with hate speech at a degree it simply cannot be moderated
> Germany richest country in world by 2020
> Flood Facebook with hate speech at a degree it simply cannot be moderated
> Germany richest country in world by 2020
Stallion Dan
Member
Does it provide its product in Germany though, or are Germans accessing the product internationally? If the latter (no German servers for example) then it falls on Germany to censor what its citizens can access, or else let them expose themselves.
EternalDarko
Member
I like Germany a lot. I've been going over to Munich recently for my job and will likely be doing it more frequently if this project kicks off fully...great people.
The same way they enforce copyright violation takedowns, I guess.
These services already have system in place to remove/block access to content that falls foul of local regulations outside the US, there's no new technical challenge here.
chromatic9
Member
Yes they have very sophisticated measures.
Still a bit doubtful of how they can correctly gather it all. Wonder if it will block parts out entirely to be safe.
kiunchbb
www.dictionary.com
You made it sound like going to court is like going to convenience store, this is something only big company like facebook or twitter can afford. This could be harmful for startup with new idea that want to launch their own social media website/app, they will not have resources to deal with internet trolls.
I guess they can bypass this by blocking german IP until they have the funding.
nitekrawlwer
Member
I'm always so jealous when I read about countries doing stuff about hate speech. We can't' do this kind of stuff in America. The slopes are really slippery here.
As I posted before, services like Twitter and Facebook already take requests from foreign governments to remove or geoblock content that would never be removed in the US all the time. Smaller services just fly under the radar, basically. Same thing as copyright infringement takedowns.
Germany proved scientology was a scam and pyramid scheme in court using scientology's own words and deeds.
Not a religion. A privately owned business.
benjipwns
Banned
is it a slippery slope if it's something that's already happened?
nitekrawlwer
Member
Yes. All implementations of such ideas are not created equal.
nitekrawlwer
Member
To act as if changing who is and who isn't considered undesirable or the standards by which we make that distinction or judgement wouldn't be making a huge difference just seems disingenuous.
HoodWinked
Member
this is stupid basically it needs to be overly aggressive to catch all. also what if just one post isn't removed within the 24 hours does that mean thats 50 million euro?
this just seems like a way for Germany to extract tax dollars from american companies.
this just seems like a way for Germany to extract tax dollars from american companies.
nitekrawlwer
Member
Laws actually make quite a few distinctions. We even have multiple levels of judiciaries to interpret said distinctions.
I argue that many European nations are more civilized than ours for the same reason you think it would make our nation less civilized.
My desire to actually do something about hate speech has existed well before this Republican administration and will exist long after. I will always be wistful for that day. Irrespective of how you think I should feel about it.
PdotMichael
Banned
Poor Facebook.
Angelus Errare
Banned
Given how much Americans invoke "freedom of speech" to incidents that have nothing to do with the first amendment? No, I don't think we do.
benjipwns
Banned
Interesting to be wistful of days that your fellow humans were to be thrown in cages or murdered for issuing or publishing statements that the powerful doesn't approve of because we yet again found a distinction in the "no law" clarity. But I guess that's civilization.
I like the idea of filtering hate speech, but I'm not sure about this. I believe this just gives trolls a powerful tool. Facebook, twitter, etc already has tons of bots. What to stop bots spewing out hateful messages just to trigger investigation. Or people reporting even the slightest thing that offend them.
I'd be surprised if this sticks...
I'd be surprised if this sticks...
Some people are confused about it. Some people aren't. I think it's like most issues in that way.
Red Arremer
Member
By the way, here's a great video about the difference between freedom of speech and "freedom of speech".
A lot of Americans seem to think that ANYTHING that somehow prevents them from saying something is an infringement on free speech.
That "freedom of speech" means "freedom of any consequence", instead of meaning that they can express themselves without the government interfering. In particular this is in regards to protection of your right to express disagreement with the government, its policies, personnel within it, etc. - that's what the intention behind it is.
There always have been exceptions to the right to free speech. For instance, inciting to violence or other crimes generally is illegal. So are libel/slander. Stuff like that.
Now, a lot of "freedom of speech activists" seem to think that any sort of repercussion from people or organizations that do not represent the government is censorship and curtailing their freedom of speech. For instance universities creating safe spaces for minorities, or Twitter banning Milo Yiannopoulos, or Facebook removing anti-semitic posts, even down to people simply blocking others on Twitter, people getting fired from their workplace for expressing bigotry on social media, or whatnot. And of course, this also includes criticism of their opinions and statements.
Essentially, they seem to think that "freedom of speech" means "freedom to be an asshole to anyone without any repercussions" social or otherwise.
A lot of Americans seem to think that ANYTHING that somehow prevents them from saying something is an infringement on free speech.
That "freedom of speech" means "freedom of any consequence", instead of meaning that they can express themselves without the government interfering. In particular this is in regards to protection of your right to express disagreement with the government, its policies, personnel within it, etc. - that's what the intention behind it is.
There always have been exceptions to the right to free speech. For instance, inciting to violence or other crimes generally is illegal. So are libel/slander. Stuff like that.
Now, a lot of "freedom of speech activists" seem to think that any sort of repercussion from people or organizations that do not represent the government is censorship and curtailing their freedom of speech. For instance universities creating safe spaces for minorities, or Twitter banning Milo Yiannopoulos, or Facebook removing anti-semitic posts, even down to people simply blocking others on Twitter, people getting fired from their workplace for expressing bigotry on social media, or whatnot. And of course, this also includes criticism of their opinions and statements.
Essentially, they seem to think that "freedom of speech" means "freedom to be an asshole to anyone without any repercussions" social or otherwise.
Again, sure, some people think that.
That doesn't mean that "Americans" feel that way.
Red Arremer
Member
I would argue this is a lot more common as a belief in America than, say, most European countries.
Based on?
Though I agree that the American and European ideas of freedom of speech have basic differences.
benjipwns
Banned
But this is a case where the state wants to suppress rights not complaints about "freedom from private repercussions", it just wants to outsource the policing of the state's TOS to the private companies since they have the money for the fines and it's prohibitive for the state to actually go after the users.
- Status