Support NeoGAF

[User Name Here]

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote separately, also for four justices, but on this point the opinions agreed:

A law found to discriminate based on viewpoint is an “egregious form of content discrimination,” which is “presumptively unconstitutional.” … A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all. The First Amendment does not entrust that power to the government’s benevolence. Instead, our reliance must be on the substantial safeguards of free and open discussion in a democratic society.

So Germany, how often has this actually happened to you? How were your hate speech laws used against dissenting or minority views? Views that i'm assuming weren't really hateful or threatning.

 

[Alanae]

How do you humanly filter through 510,000 comments every minute to know if there's a illegal thing in there?
Hint: it isn't humanly possible.
So why should you expect something that is not humanly possible from a company?

Thinking about it logically for a second.
how many of those 500k posts will be seen by more than 10 people? how many of them will be seen by more than 100 people, 1000, 10000?
The amount of posts that actually end up being seen by a significant amount of people and thus end up actually being successful spreading of hate that people will care about is going be much less than that 500k.
By further narrowing that number down through use of word detection, the report feature and whatever other tricks the smart people that work in those companies who are already quite good at analyzing large amounts of information I'm sure they'll be able to find a way.
It's just that until now they haven't had any reason to actually seriously bother

 

[MatrixMan.EXE]

Twitter sweating.

 

[WorriedCitizen]

Then you should have no problem listing these similarities because otherwise

I have literally no idea what the fuck you're talking about. Germany is ranked 13th on the Democracy Index and scored 95/100 on the Freedom House Index. Your comparison to the GDR is absurd to say the least.

To make one thing clear: I'm not comparing the political system. GDR was a totalitarian socialist dictatorship. Modern Germany (and by extension the EU as a whole) is on the way to become a authoritarian neo liberal oligarchy with a few remains of social democracy sprinkled on top to make people keep their feet still.

Where i see similarities is in the ever increasing trend of mechanisms that shape public opinion and keep people in line with the government such as propaganda, surveillance, fear mongering, cooptation and denounciation.

News and coverage on public broadcasting and mainstream media is more and more opinion then information. And not any opinion but opinion that's in line with whatever the government does. The 2015 refugee crisis exposed this in a very dramatic way and yesterdays almost neglect or side note reporting about the NetzDG is only the latest example. Anyone still remember the other surveillance laws that passed just a week earlier? Where was the outcry? Our justice minister step by step puts a system into place that would make Stasi jeleaous. But hey, it's for a noble cause, right? Fight against the right wing and terrorism. Remember what the propaganda denomination for the inner German border was? Antifascist protection wall... Sounds familiar to me!

Another striking similarity is the ever more prevalent moral high horsing and patronization by the elites of society, politics and media. This one really gives me the creeps. Please go on youtube and watch some episodes of "Der schwarze Kanal" from GDR television and tell me the lecturing tone isn't similar to what certain politicians and "TV personalities" let off today.

Now about the political landscape. GDR had one unified party and a few puppet parties. We arn't there yet but certainly feels like the differences between the parties erode more and more. Angela Merkel did a great job to make left green positions her own. Anything even left now that gay marriage has been dealt with? The lefts and the greens on the other hand get caught parroting neo liberal positions like the fairytale about skilled workers. Living in Thuringia under red green government i could sing you a song about it. Some notable exceptions like Sarah Wagenknecht or Oskar Lafontaine but they are few of the oldschoolers that still hang around.

What realistic options do we have for the next election? It's either EU Angela or EU Martin. Talking about EU, here is a another similarity. GDR left a lot of it's sovereignty to Moscow. Modern Germany let itself governern from Brussels in large parts.
As for your democracy index, it's ultimately useless when the standards are so low. Explain to me one thing: How come the government in this supposedly so democratic country can push through a constitutional change in 48 hours without any public debatte yet an undeniably defacto authoritarian regime like Turkey lets its people vote about constitutional change?

You are falling for a meme my friend, the same meme that brought freedom and democracy to places like Iraq, Afghanistan or Syria.

 

[Muffin1611]

So Germany, how often has this actually happened to you? How were your hate speech laws used against dissenting or minority views? Views that i'm assuming weren't really hateful or threatning.

I tried to find cases like this several times when talking about the general law against hate speech in the past. Besides critic against the possibility for it alledgedly being there, I haven't found a case in that non-hate speech was censored yet to this day.

 

[felipeko]

Thinking about it logically for a second.
how many of those 500k posts will be seen by more than 10 people? how many of them will be seen by more than 100 people, 1000, 10000?
The amount of posts that actually end up being seen by a significant amount of people and thus end up actually being successful spreading of hate that people will care about is going be much less than that 500k.
By further narrowing that number down through use of word detection, the report feature and whatever other tricks the smart people that work in those companies who are already quite good at analyzing large amounts of information I'm sure they'll be able to find a way.
It's just that until now they haven't had any reason to actually seriously bother

Even if you could do that (the law does not care about how many views a post has), this still leaves a lot of room for problems. Hate speech is still ill defined, words change meaning all the time. You will delete a political post just because it happens to 'insult the state'? What does that even mean?
If Facebook is liable to any post that slips through the crack, they will not think twice on having a very, very sensible filter, and deleting everything that goes through it. And they would be right in doing so.

And then you have other platforms, like Periscope, Twitch, Youtube Live... We don't even have machine learning that understand voice recognition very well, how do you filter then?

You have to think of this as government effectively using companies to censure the internet. While i do understand that it today it may censure just the right amount of hate speech, it is very hard to keep up with language and peoples feeling. What today will stop hate speech, it may stop rightful protests against government in the future.

Like i said before, there's way more sensible ways you could've make a law that targets hate speech on those platforms. Making a law that just tax companies into making judgement and removal of posts is recipe for disaster. That's why free countries have a Justice System separated from the Executive in the first place, so one cannot abuse its power.

 

[ClosingADoor]

Even if you could do that (the law does not care about how many views a post has), this still leaves a lot of room for problems. Hate speech is still ill defined, words change meaning all the time. You will delete a political post just because it happens to 'insult the state'? What does that even mean?
If Facebook is liable to any post that slips through the crack, they will not think twice on having a very, very sensible filter, and deleting everything that goes through it. And they would be right in doing so.

And then you have other platforms, like Periscope, Twitch, Youtube Live... We don't even have machine learning that understand voice recognition very well, how do you filter then?

You have to think of this as government effectively using companies to censure the internet. While i do understand that it today it may censure just the right amount of hate speech, it is very hard to keep up with language and peoples feeling. What today will stop hate speech, it may stop rightful protests against government in the future.

Like i said before, there's way more sensible ways you could've make a law that targets hate speech on those platforms. Making a law that just tax companies into making judgement and removal of posts is recipe for disaster. That's why free countries have a Justice System separated from the Executive in the first place, so one cannot abuse its power.

How much of that content is reported? They need to remove it within 24 hours after being reported if the case is clear. If it is unclear, they have a week to make a decision.

This is not a tax, stop saying it is a tax. A fine is not a tax. Free countries ask their citizens and companies to take responsibility for what they do and allow all the time, just like is being done here.

Can you point me to the more sensible ways they could implement that would fix the issue? Because I have yet to see it. And the social media companies themselves had over a year to figure it out and came up with nothing.

Where i see similarities is in the ever increasing trend of mechanisms that shape public opinion and keep people in line with the government such as propaganda, surveillance, fear mongering, cooptation and denounciation.

You talk about the government shaping a narrative here. And while I agree to some extend that public broadcasters and such should be a bit more neutral instead of trying to set an agenda, also consider that when we don't set laws for this stuff, it will have impact on peoples freedom. If we allow the current way social media works with hate speech, harassment, etc, to continue, that would also silence voices. A ton of people are being harassed, bullied, lies being spread about them, etc. And that is also limiting their freedoms.

I'm not going into the EU stuff and "memes" or whatever that is supposed to mean, because it is clearly off topic and will only shift the focus of the discussion.

 

[User Name Here]

I tried to find cases like this several times when talking about the general law against hate speech in the past. Besides critic against the possibility for it alledgedly being there, I haven't found a case in that non-hate speech was censored yet to this day.

Hmmmm... isn't that interesting. I wonder what justice Kennedy would think about that.

 

[Mahadev]

To make one thing clear: I'm not comparing the political system. GDR was a totalitarian socialist dictatorship. Modern Germany (and by extension the EU as a whole) is on the way to become a authoritarian neo liberal oligarchy with a few remains of social democracy sprinkled on top to make people keep their feet still.

Where i see similarities is in the ever increasing trend of mechanisms that shape public opinion and keep people in line with the government such as propaganda, surveillance, fear mongering, cooptation and denounciation.

News and coverage on public broadcasting and mainstream media is more and more opinion then information. And not any opinion but opinion that's in line with whatever the government does. The 2015 refugee crisis exposed this in a very dramatic way and yesterdays almost neglect or side note reporting about the NetzDG is only the latest example. Anyone still remember the other surveillance laws that passed just a week earlier? Where was the outcry? Our justice minister step by step puts a system into place that would make Stasi jeleaous. But hey, it's for a noble cause, right? Fight against the right wing and terrorism. Remember what the propaganda denomination for the inner German border was? Antifascist protection wall... Sounds familiar to me!

Another striking similarity is the ever more prevalent moral high horsing and patronization by the elites of society, politics and media. This one really gives me the creeps. Please go on youtube and watch some episodes of "Der schwarze Kanal" from GDR television and tell me the lecturing tone isn't similar to what certain politicians and "TV personalities" let off today.

Now about the political landscape. GDR had one unified party and a few puppet parties. We arn't there yet but certainly feels like the differences between the parties erode more and more. Angela Merkel did a great job to make left green positions her own. Anything even left now that gay marriage has been dealt with? The lefts and the greens on the other hand get caught parroting neo liberal positions like the fairytale about skilled workers. Living in Thuringia under red green government i could sing you a song about it. Some notable exceptions like Sarah Wagenknecht or Oskar Lafontaine but they are few of the oldschoolers that still hang around.

What realistic options do we have for the next election? It's either EU Angela or EU Martin. Talking about EU, here is a another similarity. GDR left a lot of it's sovereignty to Moscow. Modern Germany let itself governern from Brussels in large parts.
As for your democracy index, it's ultimately useless when the standards are so low. Explain to me one thing: How come the government in this supposedly so democratic country can push through a constitutional change in 48 hours without any public debatte yet an undeniably defacto authoritarian regime like Turkey lets its people vote about constitutional change?

You are falling for a meme my friend, the same meme that brought freedom and democracy to places like Iraq, Afghanistan or Syria.

What a great post, you just described a shitload of Western counties. What gets to me is the vast hypocrisy of the ruling class and in extension the West lecturing people about morality, democracy and fairness. This world is going to hell and MANY people here are acting holier than thou because they support the lesser of two evils while still supporting, well, evil.

What should also be mentioned is that Brussels acts as a front. They use it to pass neoliberal legislation throught EU's undemocratic procedures and then blame a faceless EU about it when there's any backlash. In fact EU is so purposely convoluted that 99% of the time people don't even know what was decided until it's too late. In other news TTIP is back on the table. yay

You talk about the government shaping a narrative here. And while I agree to some extend that public broadcasters and such should be a bit more neutral instead of trying to set an agenda, also consider that when we don't set laws for this stuff, it will have impact on peoples freedom. If we allow the current way social media works with hate speech, harassment, etc, to continue, that would also silence voices. A ton of people are being harassed, bullied, lies being spread about them, etc. And that is also limiting their freedoms.

Yes, of course, because what better way to ensure freedom than using censorship? War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength. Censorship btw that has worked so great in Europe, no far-right there whatsoever.

 

[ClosingADoor]

Yes, of course, because what better way to ensure freedom than using censorship? War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength. Censorship btw that has worked so great in Europe, no far-right there whatsoever.

The aim of the law is not censorship. The laws already exist and they have not censored much as far as I know, unless you want the freedom to say the Holocaust didn't happen or something like that. But it is not being applied online on social media like it should, and instead of going after each individual user they will make social media companies accountable for it. Otherwise it sadly would be totally unmanageable. They gave these companies over a year to self regulate, but they didn't. So what should the government do? Sit back and do nothing, or force them to do something? I choose the latter.

Unless (Western) Germany was a dictatorship over the past few decades while these laws already applied, I don't see why you think it would suddenly become one now.

If you disagree that people need to be protected from hate speech, harassment and defamation, then that is another discussion.

What a great post, you just described a shitload of Western counties. What gets to me is the vast hypocrisy of the ruling class and in extension the West lecturing people about morality, democracy and fairness. This world is going to hell and MANY people here are acting holier than thou because they support the lesser of two evils while still supporting, well, evil.

What should also be mentioned is that Brussels acts as a front. They use it to pass neoliberal legislation throught EU's undemocratic procedures and then blame a faceless EU about it when there's any backlash. In fact EU is so purposely convoluted that 99% of the time people don't even know what was decided until it's too late. In other news TTIP is back on the table. yay.

This has nothing to do with the topic at hand, but alright. The EU is a lot more transparent then you might think. You vote for it, they publish everything online, discussion are open, etc, etc. Just because the media chooses not to report on everything, doesn't mean the information isn't there.

The problem is indeed that a lot of countries hide behind the EU and blame it for troubles they themselves create. We have seen this time and time again with England for example, where they constantly pointed at the EU for being "forced" to do stuff, but didn't take the opportunity to veto things. So blame your own governments, not the EU.

You are just going through some anti-EU talking points there that have been debunked over and over again. If you have specific problems with the EU, that is fine. I got my share of them as well, because it is far from perfect. But it is not undemocratic.

 

[slit]

To make one thing clear: I'm not comparing the political system. GDR was a totalitarian socialist dictatorship. Modern Germany (and by extension the EU as a whole) is on the way to become a authoritarian neo liberal oligarchy with a few remains of social democracy sprinkled on top to make people keep their feet still.

Where i see similarities is in the ever increasing trend of mechanisms that shape public opinion and keep people in line with the government such as propaganda, surveillance, fear mongering, cooptation and denounciation.

News and coverage on public broadcasting and mainstream media is more and more opinion then information. And not any opinion but opinion that's in line with whatever the government does. The 2015 refugee crisis exposed this in a very dramatic way and yesterdays almost neglect or side note reporting about the NetzDG is only the latest example. Anyone still remember the other surveillance laws that passed just a week earlier? Where was the outcry? Our justice minister step by step puts a system into place that would make Stasi jeleaous. But hey, it's for a noble cause, right? Fight against the right wing and terrorism. Remember what the propaganda denomination for the inner German border was? Antifascist protection wall... Sounds familiar to me!

Another striking similarity is the ever more prevalent moral high horsing and patronization by the elites of society, politics and media. This one really gives me the creeps. Please go on youtube and watch some episodes of "Der schwarze Kanal" from GDR television and tell me the lecturing tone isn't similar to what certain politicians and "TV personalities" let off today.

Now about the political landscape. GDR had one unified party and a few puppet parties. We arn't there yet but certainly feels like the differences between the parties erode more and more. Angela Merkel did a great job to make left green positions her own. Anything even left now that gay marriage has been dealt with? The lefts and the greens on the other hand get caught parroting neo liberal positions like the fairytale about skilled workers. Living in Thuringia under red green government i could sing you a song about it. Some notable exceptions like Sarah Wagenknecht or Oskar Lafontaine but they are few of the oldschoolers that still hang around.

What realistic options do we have for the next election? It's either EU Angela or EU Martin. Talking about EU, here is a another similarity. GDR left a lot of it's sovereignty to Moscow. Modern Germany let itself governern from Brussels in large parts.
As for your democracy index, it's ultimately useless when the standards are so low. Explain to me one thing: How come the government in this supposedly so democratic country can push through a constitutional change in 48 hours without any public debatte yet an undeniably defacto authoritarian regime like Turkey lets its people vote about constitutional change?

You are falling for a meme my friend, the same meme that brought freedom and democracy to places like Iraq, Afghanistan or Syria.

Wow, you really hit on it. Excellent post.

 

[Mahadev]

The aim of the law is not censorship. The laws already exist and they have not censored much as far as I know, unless you want the freedom to say the Holocaust didn't happen or something like that. But it is not being applied online on social media like it should, and instead of going after each individual user they will make social media companies accountable for it. Otherwise it sadly would be totally unmanageable. They gave these companies over a year to self regulate, but they didn't. So what should the government do? Sit back and do nothing, or force them to do something? I choose the latter.

Unless (Western) Germany was a dictatorship over the past few decades while these laws already applied, I don't see why you think it would suddenly become one now.

If you disagree that people need to be protected from hate speech, harassment and defamation, then that is another discussion.

You must not have read a lot of history because the way I read it every single time a government legislated against allowing citizens or the press from voicing their opinions with vague laws that can easily be used to ban speech which goes against the official narrative they have ALWAYS exploited the situation. Always.

The way I see it, this fake news bullshit narrative that was basically manufactured by US corporate media just a year ago and now governments are legislating against is nothing but a ploy to control the flow of information on the internet. They use some bad cases of clear propaganda sites to ban everything that doesn't agree with the official narrative shaped by the ruling class.

Well, call me crazy but I'd rather have "fake news" than government and corporations deciding what's fake news. Who the fuck gave them the moral authority to judge what's fake news, they've been drowning us in propaganda and lies since we were born and they'll decide what's fake? No thanks.

This has nothing to do with the topic at hand, but alright. The EU is a lot more transparent then you might think. You vote for it, they publish everything online, discussion are open, etc, etc. Just because the media chooses not to report on everything, doesn't mean the information isn't there.

The problem is indeed that a lot of countries hide behind the EU and blame it for troubles they themselves create. We have seen this time and time again with England for example, where they constantly pointed at the EU for being "forced" to do stuff, but didn't take the opportunity to veto things. So blame your own governments, not the EU.

You are just going through some anti-EU talking points there that have been debunked over and over again.

My arguments about the EU have never be debunked in this forum. EU has undemocratic organizations and procedures like the European Council and the Eurogroup that basically make all the important decisions in EU while using the European Parliament as a front to pretend they're democratic that passes a couple of pro-consumer laws every few months that are heavily advertised by systemic media to remind people how great they are. The last one was about the roaming charges iirc.

And I wasn't talking about that kind of transparency. I'm talking about transparency from a citizen's pov. Mass media rarely cover what EU decides, citizens have no one to protest against and the governments blame the EU to avoid losing political points. There's no goddamn accountability in that joke of a union, it's so easy to shift the blame and make unpopular decisions without anyone noticing that they do it all the time.

 

[Muffin1611]

Conspiracy nuts in full force here. Typical EU pushing neoliberal and undemocratic agenda conspiracy plus now fake news are a conspiracy too? This is so sad it makes me laugh.

That Russia is using fake news to influence citizens is well documented and agreed on by the intelligence community.

In the EU citizens are much better protected from companies than almost everywhere else.

But sure, y'all got it all figured out.

 

[Stallion Dan]

The fake news thing sounds especially great, it hard to fix racism in people, but banning fake news at least helps prevent the stupid from spreading.

 

[Buckle]

Sounds awesome.

Fine em until they learn to get their shit together.

 

[Bitch Pudding]

As many said before, this law isn't new, what's new is that social media has to comply now, too.

As a direct result of this law, Germany lacks TV stations like Fox news or die-hard rightwing tabloids like Daily Mail, where freedom of speech is exploited to dull the public opinion - rather successfully, if you look who's currently running the United States.

 

[Buckle]

Really wish we had this sort of thing in the US.

Seems like it could do some decent damage to the right and all the insane propaganda bullshit they spread.

 

[Mahadev]

Conspiracy nuts in full force here. Typical EU pushing neoliberal and undemocratic agenda conspiracy plus now fake news are a conspiracy too? This is so sad it makes me laugh.

That Russia is using fake news to influence citizens is well documented and agreed on by the intelligence community.

In the EU citizens are much better protected from companies than almost everywhere else.

But sure, y'all got it all figured out.

Great argument there buddy, you labeled everything I said as a conspiracy theory even though they're just observations and opinion and that's it. The European Council and The Eurogroup are undemocratic because representatives of representatives decide behind closed doors the future of EU, this isn't a damn conspiracy theory.

Thanks for proving my point that people shouldn't have the power to define what's fake news and then ban it by defining everything I said as a conspiracy theory which you used to dismiss everything I said.

 

[Xando]

Great argument there buddy, you labeled everything I said as a conspiracy theory even though they're just observations and opinion and that's it. The European Council and The Eurogroup are undemocratic because representatives of representatives decide behind closed doors the future of EU, this isn't a damn conspiracy theory.

Thanks for proving my point that people shouldn't have the power to define what's fake news and then ban it by defining everything I said as a conspiracy theory which you used to dismiss everything I said.

You do realize the EC and EG are elected heads of states and finance ministers right?

Either you don’t know what you’re talking about or you’re trying to create a false picture about the EU.

 

[PhantomX1313]

Does this also applies on trump

 

[orochi91]

The fake news thing sounds especially great, it hard to fix racism in people, but banning fake news at least helps prevent the stupid from spreading.

+1

Agreed, wholeheartedly.

 

[Muffin1611]

Great argument there buddy, you labeled everything I said as a conspiracy theory even though they're just observations and opinion and that's it. The European Council and The Eurogroup are undemocratic because representatives of representatives decide behind closed doors the future of EU, this isn't a damn conspiracy theory.

Thanks for proving my point that people shouldn't have the power to define what's fake news and then ban it by defining everything I said as a conspiracy theory which you used to dismiss everything I said.

This behind closed door shit is a conspiracy, yes. They're as transparent as possible, and you can find pretty much everything relevant on their website.

And using representatives is undemocratic now? I will contradict nobody who says the process is too bureaucratic and needs some revisions, but jumping to the EU as a whole is undemocratic and a neoliberal conspiracy trying to let companies prey on its citizens is fucking laughable.

You also didn't adress your claim about fake news being refuted, since it's well proven and documented. But hey, I know why you didn't.

And this claim about governments always abusing laws to censor citizens in an unfair way as being inevitable is just as funny when we have Germany as prime example that it can work.

The reason I gave you only a few minutes of my time to answer your post is because I don't see how I can even begin to have an honest discussion with you when you make such outlandish claims that are easily disproven. Like the fake news thing.

That's all from me.

You do realize the EC and EG are elected heads of states and finance ministers right?

Either you don't know what you're talking about or you're trying to create a false picture about the EU.

Yeah. I wouldn't call his "observations and opinions" anything else than just false.

 

[EloKa]

The European Council and The Eurogroup are undemocratic because representatives of representatives decide behind closed doors the future of EU, this isn't a damn conspiracy theory.

The European Council consists of ministers from the corresponding national levels. You vote indirect for these positions.
Then we have the European Parlament where you personally vote for. It doesn't get much more democratic than this.

it's easy to yell "not a conspiracy theory! not a puppet!" if you ignore all facts and just go with the few details that might support your prejudice.

 

[ClosingADoor]

You must not have read a lot of history because the way I read it every single time a government legislated against allowing citizens or the press from voicing their opinions with vague laws that can easily be used to ban speech which goes against the official narrative they have ALWAYS exploited the situation. Always.

The way I see it, this fake news bullshit narrative that was basically manufactured by US corporate media just a year ago and now governments are legislating against is nothing but a ploy to control the flow of information on the internet. They use some bad cases of clear propaganda sites to ban everything that doesn't agree with the official narrative shaped by the ruling class.

Well, call me crazy but I'd rather have "fake news" than government and corporations deciding what's fake news. Who the fuck gave them the moral authority to judge what's fake news, they've been drowning us in propaganda and lies since we were born and they'll decide what's fake? No thanks.

There are no new laws about what to say. Those have already been defined and have been for decades. Those have not turned Germany into a dictatorship or has created problems with censorship. The new measures are taken so those same laws are applied online.

The term "fake news" does not exist in this law. Can you point me to the element within the law that will forbid you from sharing or talking about issues you want and are afraid you can not anymore because of this law?

My arguments about the EU have never be debunked in this forum. EU has undemocratic organizations and procedures like the European Council and the Eurogroup that basically make all the important decisions in EU while using the European Parliament as a front to pretend they're democratic that passes a couple of pro-consumer laws every few months that are heavily advertised by systemic media to remind people how great they are. The last one was about the roaming charges iirc.

And I wasn't talking about that kind of transparency. I'm talking about transparency from a citizen's pov. Mass media rarely cover what EU decides, citizens have no one to protest against and the governments blame the EU to avoid losing political points. There's no goddamn accountability in that joke of a union, it's so easy to shift the blame and make unpopular decisions without anyone noticing that they do it all the time.

The people within those groups are either elected by the people of Europe, are ministers or officials that your elected government assigns, or are other officials elected by yourself on a national level that then perform a function within the EU. Unless you want to elect every single person working for the government, there is nothing undemocratic about this.

That the mass media doesn't cover what the EU decides is not the EUs fault. They publish everything on their websites and share it. The EU can't and shouldn't force the media to cover this.

Citizens have every normal way of protesting. Lawsuits can be filed, protests can be had, new people can be elected at the next election. Just like you have no direct say in your national politics after an election, you have no direct say in EU politics. This is not undemocratic.

The union is accountable to its people. There are elections for it. That they make unpopular decisions does not mean they are not democratic or unaccountable. Your government makes unpopular decisions all the time probably, yet would you argue that the German government is undemocratic because it does something unpopular?

 

[Roland1979]

Is it so difficult to grasp that the exact law with a few words exchanged could be arbitrarely applied to blasphemy or any kind of political dissent?

Slippery slope argument.

 

[Shadowhelper]

This is probably one of the most important issues facing the west right now. How the media is getting completely out of control, especially new media. Brainwashing people with lies.

With so much fake news and hate speech media, anyone can see the media needs some regulation. But its extremely difficult to see how you can regulate the media. Make it non profit like health care? How would that work?

This seems like the best solution. Just fine organisations that indulge in hate speech and fake news. Europe obviously has a big problem with rising facist hate movements, mostly aimed at attacking Muslims. Germany knows all about such groups. Full credit to Germany to be the one to lead the way.

End of the day the semantics aren't that important. What is hate speech is always going to be contextual. There is never going to be one holistic definition that gets it all. And if the price of having minorities be safe from vile harassment and abuse is sometimes we get it wrong, then that is fine. But it's pretty easy to see which organisations peddle lies and hate. I don't really buy the slippery slope argument.

 

[WorriedCitizen]

Slippery slope argument.

It's not. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/11/pakistan-man-sentenced-to-death-for-blasphemy-on-facebook

 

[ClosingADoor]

It's not. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/11/pakistan-man-sentenced-to-death-for-blasphemy-on-facebook

Yes, let's compare the German justice system to Pakistan...

Better not make laws against theft, we might end up cutting their hands off!

 

[Muffin1611]

It's not. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/11/pakistan-man-sentenced-to-death-for-blasphemy-on-facebook

This is another point on your list of ridiculous comparisons. Congrats.

 

[old]

These companies make enough money to hire the moderators. They just don't want to because they'd rather pocket the money.

Make them spend the money.

 

[WorriedCitizen]

This is another point on your list of ridiculous comparisons. Congrats.

Renate Künast (Grüne) warnte davor, dass Deutschland mit dem Gesetz weltweit ein Muster vorgebe. Deutschland habe Vorbildfunktion, gerade bei der Abwägung von Meinungsfreiheit und Persönlichkeitsverletzungen, es würden auch nicht-demokratische Staaten zuschauen.

If even Renate Künast, one of the often mentioned victims of fake news in regards to this law ,has to say this then my opinion can't be that ridiculous.

 

[ClosingADoor]

If even Renate Künast, one of the often mentioned victims of fake news in regards to this law ,has to say this then my opinion can't be that ridiculous.

What does this have to do with Pakistan sentencing someone to death or you thinking suddenly everyone will be fined for blasphemy?

 

[Muffin1611]

If even Renate Künast, one of the often mentioned victims of fake news in regards to this law ,has to say this then my opinion can't be that ridiculous.

Saying the law must be handled carefully and revised if it comes to misuse isn't ridiculous, no.

Comparing it with blasphemy laws in Pakistan which can sentence people to death is really, really ridiculous.

 

[WorriedCitizen]

Are you guys really that dense? I'm not talking about Germany implementing Pakistan style blasphemy laws. I'm talking about countries like Pakistan taking note how to implement a legal framework to curb stomp freedom of expression.

 

[ClosingADoor]

Are you guys really that dense? I'm not talking about Germany implementing Pakistan style blasphemy laws. I'm talking about countries like Pakistan taking note how to implement a legal framework to curb stomp freedom of expression.

What does this have to do with Germany though? Any country can already do that if they want to.

Should we stop making laws because other countries might make laws that do bad things?

 

[WorriedCitizen]

Should we stop making laws because other countries might make laws that do bad things?

If our laws are bad to begin with most certainly.

 

[ClosingADoor]

If our laws are bad to begin with most certainly.

But that this law is bad to being with is your opinion. And one that is not shared by everyone, as seen in this thread for example.

And it is very strange to stop making laws, because another country might make a bad law. If that other country wants to do that, nothing is stopping them anyway. Germany has zero responsibility for what Pakistan makes a law in their country.

 

[WorriedCitizen]

But that this law is bad to being with is your opinion. And one that is not shared by everyone, as seen in this thread for example.

And neither am i alone with with my opinion.

https://deklaration-fuer-meinungsfreiheit.de/

 

[Kill Your Masters]

Are you guys really that dense? I'm not talking about Germany implementing Pakistan style blasphemy laws. I'm talking about countries like Pakistan taking note how to implement a legal framework to curb stomp freedom of expression.

You don't give enough credit to other states to implement such laws by themselves. Like they already do. No need to look at Germany. Plenty of Germans need to stop putting this country on some sort of pedestal of self righteousness and moral compass to the rest of the world that is now supposedly failing and will put the rest of the earth on a downward spiral.

This law is not the death bringer of civilisations you make it out to be. Künast is full of it herself on this one. She needs to get of that high horse. Plenty of bad countries already have worse laws that others can copy.

You overestimate the importance of German values and underestimate authoritarian states that will create worse laws with more Draconian measures.

Besides, I'm betting this will be half assed and just like the Mietpreis Bremse for example, only be a law on paper.

 

[ClosingADoor]

And neither am i alone with with my opinion.

https://deklaration-fuer-meinungsfreiheit.de/

Yes, we know. Some organisations are against it. This has been said multiple times in this thread. Other people are in favor. That is how laws are made.

But that does not mean that applying this new law will suddenly mean other countries make bad laws, or that Germany is turning into a dictatorship as some in this thread seem to fear.

It is about applying already existing laws to social media. Do you have a problem with that part, of do you think that enforcing those laws in this way (by giving more pressure to Facebook, Google, etc) is bad?

 

[WorriedCitizen]

It is about applying already existing laws to social media. Do you have a problem with that part, of do you think that enforcing those laws in this way (by giving more pressure to Facebook, Google, etc) is bad?

I have a problem with the privatization of state monopoly on force, erosion of separation of powers, privacy issues aswell as rubbery definitions that leave a lot of room for arbitrariness. I highly doubt for instance that fake news spread by mainstream tabloids or politicians will be targeted by it.

I'm afraid the law will far overshoot its goal, lead to a censorship wave and once the framework is in place will be arbitrarely extended in the future. Furthermore i doubt the sincerity of its intentions, which is exposed for instance by the paragraph regarding copyright violations, which has nothing whatsoever to do with hate speech and fake news.

 

[ClosingADoor]

I have a problem with the privatization of state monopoly on force, erosion of separation of powers, privacy issues aswell as rubbery definitions that leave a lot of room for arbitrariness. I highly doubt for instance that fake news spread by mainstream tabloids or politicians will be targeted by it.

I'm afraid the law will far overshoot its goal, lead to a censorship wave and once the framework is in place will be arbitrarely extended in the future. Furthermore i doubt the sincerity of its intentions, which is exposed for instance by the paragraph regarding copyright violations, which has nothing whatsoever to do with hate speech and fake news.

But... fake news is now also not targeted by it? Unless the specific thing is already in violation of current laws. There is no part of the law that says "fake news". If there is, please point me to it.

People really seem to get hung up over the "fake news" angle, while that is about spreading stories that are clear slander and such.

So it seems you have no problems with the current laws that are already being applied and have existed for some time. Only with how they are going to enforce this online through this law. But what exactly is the alternative? Do you think it is better to go after every individual and then overload the justice system with that? Should we just ignore all the hate speech, harassment, calls for violence and more online?