Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

German hate speech law tested as Twitter blocks satire account

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 284 posts

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

#231

Post by baud147258 »

fao_ wrote: post #189
wernercd wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> FN has also been known to murder French politicians.

Do you have any sources on that? With all the things the media in France is saying about the FN, I don't think they would have missed something so important.

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

#232

Post by Grollicus »

seertaak wrote: post #225
Grollicus wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually you should look at the flip side of the coin: We - Germans - just decided that letting Nazis not speak their hurtful lies harms nothing of value.

I think the issue -- as some people see it -- is that it is possible to, in effect, suppress a debate about certain contentious issues. There is a rhetorical device by which statements critical of, say, uncontrolled immigration, are linked to extremists and nazis, from which there's only a small hop to hate speech (so ban).

There is nothing contentious to debate about. Additionally, there is no debate if you call for violence against minorities.

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

#233

Post by mc32 »

averagewall wrote: post #193
mc32 wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Sure, that kind of stereotyping by parents teaching their children to be bigots is probably harmful overall! Harmful neighbor country rivalries last centuries, probably because of just this kind of reinforcement. Then every now and then you get a Kosovo or a holocaust.

I think those are misattributions. Civil wars break out both among same ethnic groups as well as different ethnic groups.

Wars can then force people to see other stereotypes as characteristics of bad things. Kind of like the caricatures of Nazis and Japanese Imperialists. When Japan went into Nanking, they didn't need some psychological trick to enable them to go on their campaign any more than the US or USSR needed psychological tricks to bomb Dresden or East Berlin.

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

#234

Post by insickness »

mbid wrote: post #208
Grollicus wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually you should look at the flip side of the coin: We - Germans - just decided that letting Nazis not speak their hurtful lies harms nothing of value.

Actually you should look at the flip side of the coin: We - Germans - just decided that letting Nazis not speak their hurtful lies harms nothing of value. A majority deciding something doesn't make it just, as you as a fellow German should know best.

Agreed. His implication was that their vote carried some moral relevance. Two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner is not moral justification.

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

#235

Post by germanier »

seertaak wrote: post #222
germanier wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Volksverhetzung is very precisely defined by decades of legal precedent and much narrower than what an English speaker would think of when hearing "hate speech". Just because translations made for the convenience of non-German speakers chose a specific translation doesn't mean that it captures the meaning with all attached connotations well. Two examples (without saying anything about the validity of the claim): " Re…

If you remove the second sentence in your example of Volksverhetzung, do you think it would still qualify?

No, even with the second sentence it is still borderline. According to regular case law of the Federal Constitutional Court the most charitable interpretation needs to be taken. Without the second sentence this is a factual statement (even though extremely worded, it has happened at least once on New Year's Eve 2016) and transports a political statement. No court would do anything about that.

Twitter has nonetheless removed a very similarly worded tweet by a member of parliament.

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

#236

Post by seertaak »

germanier wrote: post #235
seertaak wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you remove the second sentence in your example of Volksverhetzung, do you think it would still qualify?

No, even with the second sentence it is still borderline. According to regular case law of the Federal Constitutional Court the most charitable interpretation needs to be taken. Without the second sentence this is a factual statement (even though extremely worded, it has happened at least once on New Year's Eve 2016) and transports a political statement. No court would do anything about that. Twitter has nonetheless…

> No, even with the second sentence it is still borderline.

I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean. In your previous post, you said the two sentences were not fine (i.e. they did qualify as Volksverhetzung). But now I understand you're saying the opposite? Or did you want to say "... even without..."?

> Twitter has nonetheless removed a very similarly worded tweet by a member of parliament.

This is what I was getting at; for anyone else reading, an AfD parliamentarian is under investigation after 100 odd denunciations for a tweet very similar to the first sentence, i.e. she said something like "Gang-raping immigrants are roaming our streets". She did not -- at least as far as I'm aware -- call for any violence towards, instead, she was opposed to official tweets from the police being communicated in Arabic.

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

#237

Post by Houshalter »

vk23 wrote: post #206
Houshalter wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First of all muslims aren't really a "race". Debates about race are completely irrelevant, they are criticizing islamic culture and religion. No one would care about someone mocking christian beliefs of culture. Second you are right. Beliefs about differences between races aren't political. They are scientific. These are scientific question that are completely beyond politics. Your morality or political opinions have…

The whole "islamic culture" thing is just a populist move. In the end they dont care if the refugees are islamic or christian (there are actually a lot of christian people in the arabic speaking region) Also they are constantly talking about saving the german/north european culture/people. This is more about race and racism than anything else. Regarding the second part: Its obviously true that there is a scientific b…

>In the end they dont care if the refugees are islamic or christian (there are actually a lot of christian people in the arabic speaking region)

Yes they do. Even Trump has supported increasing Christian refugees. Although religion is far from the only important factor to Western culture.

>Also they are constantly talking about saving the german/north european culture/people. This is more about race and racism than anything else.

I fail to see how wanting to preserve your race is racism. I like my own people and want to see them continue. It doesn't mean I literally hate and oppose other peoples.

And I really do think you underestimate the cultural aspect of it. If they were brown skinned but otherwise culturally indistinguishable from Europeans, I think far fewer people would care. Labeling your opponents "racists" is just a convenient way of dismissing their concerns.

>Its obviously true that there is a scientific base to racial questions but discussions about it are rarely based on scientific research.

That's more of an issue that average people don't know how to do scientific research or think scientifically. I think they intuitively see things like "hey this group of people seems to do way worse" and "the mainstream oppression narrative doesn't really make sense." Without having the knowledge to dig up the actual statistics and figures to prove that.

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

#238

Post by seertaak »

Grollicus wrote: post #232
seertaak wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the issue -- as some people see it -- is that it is possible to, in effect, suppress a debate about certain contentious issues. There is a rhetorical device by which statements critical of, say, uncontrolled immigration, are linked to extremists and nazis, from which there's only a small hop to hate speech (so ban).

There is nothing contentious to debate about. Additionally, there is no debate if you call for violence against minorities.

> There is nothing contentious to debate about.

The FDP, CSU, AfD and indeed large parts of the CDU want to have a debate about immigration. The CSU represents around half of Bayern, some 6 million people. The FDP, CDU, and AfD together represent 56% of the votes in the last election.

Even prominent voices on the left want a debate: Sigmar Gabriel, who until recently was head of the SPD, wants to have a debate. Sahra Wagenknecht of die Linke also wants to have a debate. Heck, there's even a prominent green politician, Boris Palmer, who wants to have debate.

So: what planet are you living on?

> Additionally, there is no debate if you call for violence against minorities.

On this we agree :)

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

#239

Post by Houshalter »

anigbrowl wrote: post #202
Houshalter wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.…

To some conservative rural German, the government may very well seem like an outside hegemonic power. I can't help counterfactual perceptions. 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…

The source may be biased but does that make them wrong? They are just reporting data from German statistics. Which I would have referenced directly but unfortunately it's in German. I wasn't able to find any data or claims that contradict this though.

>Some immigrants have higher fertility, but it's a distribution, not a monolith.

The distribution is irrelevant. On average they have 3 to 4 kids per coupe and natives have less than 2.

>immigrant fertility tends to revert to the local mean within a couple of generations

By then it will be far too late.

>immigrant fertility tends to revert to the local mean within a couple of generations as fertility is inversely correlated with economic stability

Religious minorities tend to have much higher fertility rates even within first world countries. Look at Mormons or Orthodox jews. Poverty is not sufficient to explain the high Muslim birth rate. And it's high even among the second generation.

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

#240

Post by nailer »

everdev wrote: post #230
nailer wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn't that be racist against stuffed crust pizza? Why one idea and not the other? Are we allowed to dislike Christianity? Scientology? Libertarianism? Socialism? Capitalism? Cutting off dogs tails? If so, what makes Islam non dislikeable? Are you aware of the many ex Muslims and the harassment they receive? The people who've criticised Islam and been killed for it? Do you think declaring Islam non dislikeable help…

When you focus on certain groups you're probably missing the point. There are Christian parents who have banned their child from returning home when they renounced religion. And there are many Muslims who accept people after they renounce Islam. Instead, probably better to say: When people harass someone who doesn't agree with them, I feel afraid for that person's safety. That's not racist and still honors your fear.…

Focusing on ideas is necessary to deal with the problem. By ignoring it, you're missing the point.

You seem to think I'm focusing on people, but: a person who believes in the idea of Islam is a Muslim, is the same way a person who believes in communism is a communist and a person who believes in fascism is a fascist. There is little difference between saying a bad idea is bad versus saying supporters of a bad idea are bad for supporting it.

Surveying Muslims worldwide and asking them if, for example, they think being gay should be illegal, and reporting what they say, is not bias, it is fact.

You're promoting bias by suggesting we ignore those results.

And again, because you haven't responded: Islam isn't a race. If we can be racist aginst Islam, can we be racist against people who like stuffed crust pizza?

Post reply on HN