German hate speech law tested as Twitter blocks satire account • Hacker News Board

Re: German hate speech law tested as Twitter blocks satire account

#161

Post by hateduser2 » Thu, Jan 04, 2018, 3:24 AM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #119

danschumann wrote: post #57

The problem with hate speech laws are, it means you can't insult everyone equally. If you call someone stupid, they could accuse you of a crime, but you're not calling them stupid because of their race. And I want people who actually are racist to talk, so I know who I don't want to be friends with. If they're all keeping their racist opinions to themselves, I might waste a bunch of time being their friends. And I ca…

> The problem with hate speech laws are, it means you can't insult everyone equally. As far as I can tell, that's not true of the German law in question, though if you think it is true of that law (not some abstract hypothetical “hate speech” law straw man), please explain how, citing the relevant provisions of the law and explaining how they produce the unequal results that concern you.

There are lots of quotes in the OP article that side with GP. Without having done research myself I think it’s plausibly true and the article is full of quotes that suggest this is the case. Your tone is hostile and that makes me disinclined to take your view. Overall I would side with GP over you and I’d hope other users who haven’t done research themselves would too. Don’t let your biases inform your opinions!

Re: German hate speech law tested as Twitter blocks satire account

#162

Post by Houshalter » Thu, Jan 04, 2018, 3:28 AM UTC

anigbrowl wrote: post #151

Houshalter wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Comparing a weak country that has been overrun by a much stronger one What does this matter at all? How does the GDP of Germany change anything? If Germany was poor it would be different? >Germans do not find themselves in the same predicament as Tibetans, by any stretch of the imagination. How exactly is that? It looks like exactly the same thing to me. The native population is being completely replaced with immigr…

What does this matter at all? How does the GDP of Germany change anything? If Germany was poor it would be different? If it were poor and were being coercively restructured by some outside hegemonic power (as many argue Tibet is) then yes of course that would make a difference. The native population is being completely replaced with immigrants. Germany's immigrant population is 10-12%, and last time I looked everyone…

>If it were poor and were being coercively restructured by some outside hegemonic power

I don't think the outside power is relevant to the argument. The effect is the same whoever does it. To some conservative rural German, the government may very well seem like an outside hegemonic power.

As far as economic success being relevant. Tibet's economy is growing rapidly. Eventually they will be as rich as Germany today. Yet their population will be almost completely replaced and their culture gone. Economic success doesn't make up for it.

>Germany's immigrant population is 10-12%

40% of German under 5's are immigrants (http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/09/21/germany-40-percen...). They have a 2-3 times higher fertility rate than the native population. And the rate of immigration keeps increasing and is already unsustainably high. Germans will be a tiny minority of Germany in just 2 generations.

Re: German hate speech law tested as Twitter blocks satire account

#163

Post by srdev » Thu, Jan 04, 2018, 3:45 AM UTC

racer-v wrote: post #160

squarefoot wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It depends on whom they talk to. Adult informed people will easily ignore their nonsense, while youngsters will very often be attracted by the Nazi/Fascist false sense of strength because in their still young minds aggressiveness equals strength. Fascism is coming back in some parts of Europe and we won't get rid of it by simply asking politely to go away.

Fascism is coming back in some parts of Europe and we won't get rid of it by simply asking politely to go away. Maybe you could get rid of it by having better ideas?

Ideas like fascism rarely spread because they’re better. They’re simpler which makes them more appealing. Better ideas also tend to be less appealing on the face of things because they’re more complex.

Re: German hate speech law tested as Twitter blocks satire account

#164

Post by stronglikedan » Thu, Jan 04, 2018, 3:58 AM UTC

Razengan wrote: post #77

everdev wrote: post #8

This is exactly the moral dilemma with free speech vs hate speech. Do you use fascist techniques like criminalizing speech to stop the spread of fascist ideas? Or do you simply hope fascist ideas don't take hold? The former is a scary slippery slope but Germany doesn't have a great track record with the latter.

> the moral dilemma Why is it so hard to codify “Don’t be a dick to anyone” into a law? (non-rhetorical question)

The short answer: because "be(ing) a dick" is highly subjective.

Re: German hate speech law tested as Twitter blocks satire account

#165

Post by gehwartzen » Thu, Jan 04, 2018, 3:59 AM UTC

mithr wrote: post #17

aceofspad4s wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Racism does not have to be about "the inferiority of another race". Racism can be "I don't think it's good for the economy that so many people from outside are coming" or "this culture is completely incompatible with ours and I don't want these people here". It's a pretty lax word. By outlawing "racism" you're outlawing discourse.

This is not true; as in, racism has a clear dictionary definition as "Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior." (Source: Oxford English Dictionary https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/racism )

How is "race" defined?

Re: German hate speech law tested as Twitter blocks satire account

#166

Post by wernercd » Thu, Jan 04, 2018, 4:07 AM UTC

danschumann wrote: post #57

The problem with hate speech laws are, it means you can't insult everyone equally. If you call someone stupid, they could accuse you of a crime, but you're not calling them stupid because of their race. And I want people who actually are racist to talk, so I know who I don't want to be friends with. If they're all keeping their racist opinions to themselves, I might waste a bunch of time being their friends. And I ca…

> I want people who actually are racist to talk, so I know who I don't want to be friends with.

It's more important and wide than "I don't want to be their friends"...

How can you attack ideas if they aren't brought out into the open? How can you convince the racist? Or the people that have those thoughts but don't mention them?

They corner stone of freedom is discussing ideas.

I want the most vile pieces of shit to have their chance to speak... so that I can talk to them. I can talk to those who will listen. I will combat their ideas.

Cowards hide from ideas and words. It takes strength to fight them head on and out in the open.

Re: German hate speech law tested as Twitter blocks satire account

#167

Post by King-Aaron » Thu, Jan 04, 2018, 4:08 AM UTC

danschumann wrote: post #57

The problem with hate speech laws are, it means you can't insult everyone equally. If you call someone stupid, they could accuse you of a crime, but you're not calling them stupid because of their race. And I want people who actually are racist to talk, so I know who I don't want to be friends with. If they're all keeping their racist opinions to themselves, I might waste a bunch of time being their friends. And I ca…

> If they're all keeping their racist opinions to themselves, I might waste a bunch of time being their friends

I have several friends who I know hold some less-than-sociable opinions, and they do tend to keep them to themselves.

I don't quite know how to frame what I'm about to say, but I feel it's equally dickish to think that becoming someone's friend is a "waste of time" just because you don't agree with their opinion.

Re: German hate speech law tested as Twitter blocks satire account

#168

Post by darklajid » Thu, Jan 04, 2018, 4:11 AM UTC

olivermarks wrote: post #158

darklajid wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Free Speech (using capitals for a reason) is a US centric concept whenever it comes up here and you're from SF (according to Twitter). That just doesn't apply here. This Free Speech never existed in the Germany I grew up in and it's not something that I ever felt needed. The incident here is a mistake, a strange overreaction - maybe even by Twitter? - and hopefully will be corrected promptly. So while I understand th…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_10_of_the_European_Con... 'Free Expression' is the equivalent euro terminology as I understand it. I'm a Brit living in the US so I think I understand your German perspective but don't understand you supporting the restriction of Free Speech/Expression...

That link's number 2 seems to apply (and explicitly talks about restrictions)?

The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

For the hate speech law

[√] prescribed by law

[√] in the interests of national security

[√] in the interests of public safety

You can disagree whether the lower two points apply - I'll argue that these are the reasons behind the law in the first place - but the first one is quite clear I think.

Freedom of Expression within boundaries. Restricted Freedom of Expression?

Re: German hate speech law tested as Twitter blocks satire account

#169

Post by mc32 » Thu, Jan 04, 2018, 4:21 AM UTC

King-Aaron wrote: post #167

danschumann wrote: post #57

The problem with hate speech laws are, it means you can't insult everyone equally. If you call someone stupid, they could accuse you of a crime, but you're not calling them stupid because of their race. And I want people who actually are racist to talk, so I know who I don't want to be friends with. If they're all keeping their racist opinions to themselves, I might waste a bunch of time being their friends. And I ca…

> If they're all keeping their racist opinions to themselves, I might waste a bunch of time being their friends I have several friends who I know hold some less-than-sociable opinions, and they do tend to keep them to themselves. I don't quite know how to frame what I'm about to say, but I feel it's equally dickish to think that becoming someone's friend is a "waste of time" just because you don't agree with their op…

I think there is something to the idea of "safety valve". That is allow some venting in order to prevent full-blown animus.

However, the difficult part is two-fold. One how to define the line of unacceptability (for example, calling for actionable violence against someone) and how to enforce that line and keep it steadfast (unwavering in the face of both antagonists --the ones for more control as well as the absolutists).

Re: German hate speech law tested as Twitter blocks satire account

#170

Post by wnkrshm » Thu, Jan 04, 2018, 4:27 AM UTC

everdev wrote: post #8

This is exactly the moral dilemma with free speech vs hate speech. Do you use fascist techniques like criminalizing speech to stop the spread of fascist ideas? Or do you simply hope fascist ideas don't take hold? The former is a scary slippery slope but Germany doesn't have a great track record with the latter.

There is a philosophical argument to be made that absolute tolerance leads to the abolishment of tolerance:

"Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant."

(from Karl Popper, more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance)

I myself do not like the law because it places the responsibility of deletion into the hands of the platforms, which is IMO something that a court of law should decide. If a court is too slow maybe they need to establish a new branch of justice for things like this and actually employ more people.