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

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

#181

Post by mc32 » Thu, Jan 04, 2018, 5:09 AM UTC

labster wrote: post #179

mc32 wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 absoluti…

The internet is a terrible safety valve to vent at, because it's too easy to pretend what you say doesn't have consequences. One tweet by a dude having a bad day can help normalize stereotyping to 50 people. And there's always that other guy who takes things too far. I know that people might intend Twitter or blogs to be for friends, but it's mass media nonetheless.

See, philosophically stereotyping doesn't have to be a "bad thing". When I went to school there we "polack" jokes, blond/e jokes, yo mamma jokes, etc. They were not "mean" or meant to denigrate people. They were ways to "break the ice" as it were. But nowadays people are super sensitive, unless it's a majority or almost majority population, or it has power, unless it has power but it's also seen as being singled out by another more powerful player... it's become tragically political.

I know some foreign parents who have a preference for their home country and will tell their kids that from their home country is better than from neighboring but "rival" country. In a way this is stereotyping --but I'm seeing you say these parents should not talk to their kids about having some favoritism to their home country because this kind of connection building can "stereotype" the people from their (ancestral) neighboring country.

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

#182

Post by Amezarak » Thu, Jan 04, 2018, 5:10 AM UTC

Daishiman wrote: post #175

Amezarak wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There are any number of rankings/scoring regarding freedom of the press and of expression, resilience to corruption, democracy, economic opportunity etc in which Germany scores better than the US. One of the reasons people regard these rankings as a total joke is exactly because of incidents like this - Twitter being forced to delete satirical tweets. More broadly, I think most people would agree that beyond the ex…

> One of the reasons people regard these rankings as a total joke is exactly because of incidents like this - Twitter being forced to delete satirical tweets. I'm sorry but in the extensive travels of tons of people who've been around the world, those rankings are usually right on the money. It is obvious to most people who've been around that Germany or Norway have much greater levels of freedom of expression than V…

That's what I said - at the extremes, it's obvious that Germany is more free than Venezuela, but when you start comparing first-world countries, or even whether one undeveloped country is worse than another, it gets a lot murkier.

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

#183

Post by everdev » Thu, Jan 04, 2018, 5:18 AM UTC

nailer wrote: post #109

kofejnik wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the left are constantly calling out Christians for certain behaviors, is this racist?

I dislike stuffed crust pizzas, which are also not a race, but I imagine everdev considers that racist too.

You can hate whatever pizza you want

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

#184

Post by everdev » Thu, Jan 04, 2018, 5:24 AM UTC

kofejnik wrote: post #89

everdev wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anti-Immigration != Racism Saying you don't want immigration isn't racist if it applies to more than just immigration from certain racial groups. However, her tweet was not about that. She called out Muslims as having certain behaviors which is clearly racist.

the left are constantly calling out Christians for certain behaviors, is this racist?

If you try to define all Christians as X, you're probably mistaken.

If it's a negative definition designed to insult then it's probably discrimination.

The whole point of being anti racism, anti religious discrimination etc., is that race and religion are not good qualifiers for making assumptions or decisions.

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

#185

Post by everdev » Thu, Jan 04, 2018, 5:26 AM UTC

icebraining wrote: post #79

everdev wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't have a right to threaten people. Racism had clear threatening implications.

So does communism, or really any other political ideology that implies an upheaval of people's lives, no?

Yeah, you shouldn't be allowed to threaten someone based on their political beliefs either.

Or just don't threaten people period.

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

#186

Post by abiox » Thu, Jan 04, 2018, 5:27 AM UTC

Frondo wrote: post #127

abiox wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Because it forces the rotten core of the ideas to the forefront. it seems to me it would do the opposite. it simply requires that one pursue the same goal in a more polite manner, to avoid being put in prison for one's words. ideas and intents can be rendered in a vast array of ways. > By criminalizing specific icons of hate, you can rob those who would build a following from using them as a rallying point. i don't…

Bigotry is not a reasonable attitude, and you can't reason someone out of an attitude they didn't reason themselves into in the first place.

> Bigotry is not a reasonable attitude, and you can't reason someone out of an attitude they didn't reason themselves into in the first place.

you don't need to convince every single person. that's unrealistic for basically any position.

it also seems to me that 'bigot' is on the road to becoming a thought-terminating cliche (if it isn't that already). it's seems like a label some slap on others they disagree with so that they can 'free themselves' of understanding the mechanics of the other position; even as doing so provides the tools to better counteract it.

some people do (poorly) 'reason' themselves into bad ideas, even 'the good guys'. often it's because of bad or incomplete data, incorrect assumptions, or one of the increasingly well known logical fallacies we see on a site like yourlogicalfallacyis.com.

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

#187

Post by racer-v » Thu, Jan 04, 2018, 5:36 AM UTC

srdev wrote: post #163

racer-v wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But that doesn't explain its popularity; other ideas are simpler than fascism and don't spread. Fascist leaders gain an audience because they address concerns which their opponents (liberal globalists) won't bring up, for fear of alienating their own support base. Fascism may not be the right solution, but dismissing its supporters as too simple-minded to understand complex ideas doesn't help advance a better alternative.

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

#188

Post by yorwba » Thu, Jan 04, 2018, 5:36 AM UTC

hateduser2 wrote: post #161

dragonwriter wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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!

There are actually several different laws involved here. The newest one is the NetzDG [1] (network enforcement act), that requires all reports of illegal content to be checked within 24 hours. The incentive structure is messed up because there are fines for failure to delete illegal content, but none for unjustified deletion. So the barrier was shifted from "obviously illegal" to "not obviously legal". The quotes in the Reuters article are all about that aspect of the law and of Twitter's enforcement.

The other laws that are involved here have been essentially unchanged for a long time and are not really controversial. They are just a bit more subtle than a random Twitter censor is going to appreciate, because they are intended for consideration by a judge. Under these laws, you can absolutely insult everyone equally, and Volksverhetzung is equally illegal, no matter which group it is directed against.

Edit: [1] The German text of the NetzDG is here: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/netzdg/BJNR335210017.html

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

#189

Post by fao_ » Thu, Jan 04, 2018, 6:11 AM UTC

wernercd wrote: post #166

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…

> 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.

While this idea is admirable, fascist/Nazi dialogue has shown again and again that fascists are not interested in "fair" debate. All they want is a larger audience so they can pass on their views -- and look at America. Do you really think that the hundreds of thousands of people debating Richard Spencer[0], Steve Bannon[1] and Milo Yiannopoulos[2] has stopped the spread?

No! In fact, it has enabled them to spread their sources of propaganda further into the world. Now even centrist friends of mine are linking to Breitbart as if it is a valid source of information[3]. Some viruses and infections you can only kill through isolation. Fascism is one of them.

[0]: In case that you have any doubt that Spencer is a Nazi:

  Instead of asking how we can make reparations for slavery, colonialism, and 
  Apartheid or how we can equalize academic scores and incomes, we should
  instead be asking questions like, "Does human civilization actually need the
  Black race?" "Is Black genocide right?" and, if it is, "What would be
  the best and easiest way to dispose of them?" With starting points
  like this, wisdom is sure to flourish, enlightenment to dawn.
  -- Richard Spencer, "Is Black Genocide Right?" (2012)

(https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Richard_Spencer)

[1]: Bannon has voiced support for UKIP and Front National. The former is an close offshoot of Britain First, one of whom murdered a British politician a year or so ago (He had a golden eagle statue and a shrine to Nazi literature). The latter was literally founded by a member of the SS, Pierre Bousquet. FN has also been known to murder French politicians. (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Steve_Bannon)

[2]: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Milo_Yiannopoulos

[3]: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Breitbart.com

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

#190

Post by echlebek » Thu, Jan 04, 2018, 6:25 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…

This is not true. Hate speech laws are designed to address speech that promotes violence against identifiable groups of people.

For example, Canada's hate speech law: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-73.html#h-...

Section 318 says that you can't incite genocide. Fair enough right?

Section 319 says that you can't say things that willfully promotes hatred against an identifiable group. (Unless those things happen to be true, or even if you reasonably believed them to be true. Or if it was a private conversation. Or the things you're saying are in the public interest.)

This means it's actually really hard to convict someone of hate speech, at least in Canada. Under section 318, you have to get the governor general's approval to even bring the case.

I can't comment on the German law since I don't know German, but I'd imagine it's similar in nature.