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

261–270 of 284 posts

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

#261

Post by gurkendoktor »

kadenshep wrote: post #256
raisspen wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or you could take the route which others have taken, and show them why their ideas are wrong through your actions. There are plenty of examples of extremists being converted through friendship.

>and show them why their ideas are wrong through your actions. Why are you assuming these people are rational actors?

They don't need to be rational for it to work. They can both either become more rational over time, or you can influence them in irrational ways. Both often go together hand-in-hand in good diplomacy (e.g. letting the other save face even if they don't "deserve it").

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

#262

Post by yakitori »

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.

> Or do you simply hope fascist ideas don't take hold?

Free speech exists to protect speech when fascists take hold. It's why no matter who is president of the US, we can spew all the hate we want. Unlike in germany where speech is dependent on who is in charge. If fascists take over and then decide anti-fascist speech is hate speech, then germans are screwed. Whereas in america, if fascists take over, they are screwed because we have free speech in america.

> The former is a scary slippery slope but Germany doesn't have a great track record with the latter.

Germany doesn't have a good track record because they always had "hate speech" laws. Hitler was able to censor everything because the german government always had the the power to censor "hate speech".

Hitler would never had been able to do what he did if the german government didn't have powers to shut down all political parties and censor all "hate speech".

Imagine if we had a culture of censorship in the US and hate speech was banned. Then trump become president and his government decides anything critical of trump is hate speech.

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

#263

Post by adrianratnapala »

darklajid wrote: post #153
olivermarks wrote: post #70

That term 'hate speech' - what does it actually mean? This seems like another assault on free speech to me and there is a danger in limiting the online Overton Window to a massive bland snooze fest. The current joy of the internet is being able to read all sorts of perspectives from 'sensible' to radical and I really hope that continues...I worry for all the citizen journalists and investigators who have been so magn…

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…

I think you are seeing played out in practice why the US is right and Germany is wrong about this.

An important argument for free speech is that while it does little harm for people to merely say say bad stuff, restricting it does a lot of harm because of snowball effects. If speech act looks just barely be illegal, then it is much easier and safer to just condemn it than to figure out if it really meets the standard.

That is if you dispose of free speech as a principle, then you should expect suppression of even speech you think is tolerable. And if you believe that is pie-in-the-sky theory, then you are seeing evidence to the contrary here.

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

#264

Post by nailer »

everdev wrote: post #254
nailer wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's much better to say "I'm afraid for the safety and lack of equality and freedom for gay people if being gay is illegal." By focusing on Muslims, you're making it personal and ignoring many non-Muslim countries and religions which have anti-gay beliefs. No, you're avoiding the root causes because you're afraid to address them, which in turns harms gay people, women, ex-Muslims, atheists and other victims of Isla…

Or, simply confronting violence against gays includes Islam-related violence against gays. I'm simply not excluding other violence against gays from my outrage. Rather than saying "Islam is bad", it might be better to say "I don't like X about Islam because Y." If you are more specific and give a reason, it's easier for people to hear you. But yes, taking the person out of it does make it easier for people to hear yo…

http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religi... , it's around a thousand Muslims each in 20+ countries.

I wouldn't hesitate to 'Nazism is bad' or 'Communism is bad' or 'Fascism is bad' - and saying 'I don't like X about fascism' doesn't really make the same point.

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

#265

Post by nailer »

everdev wrote: post #258
nailer wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hey there. I can see that we're going to disagree about this, but thanks for your reply and acknowledging my point re: disliking Islam not being racist. I see your point about history, but to me religion is separate because it's not an intrinsic value, whereas the others are. Re: the Philipines I think the people should give up conservative Catholicism much like people should give up Islam. But it's cool, I think we…

I used to think so too about religion. But now I've met some people who believe their religion is bigger than them as an individual. Renouncing it is simply not something they believe they have the power or right to do. Other times, they're born into a religious community and renouncing a religion means losing their community, which can feel like dying or worse. In Muslim majority countries, I can imagine there is a…

Sure, and the threat of losing a community applies to many extreme groups. I don't see how it changes anything or means they're something we don't have to worry about.

The false idea that religion is intrinsic is used to silence and justify violently attacking people that criticise religion, particularly Islam.

But let's agree to stop messaging each other. This is a waste of time - it's a shit ideology and I honestly feel no need to justify disliking it. You feel that Islam being a religion makes it exempt. I get that, I just disagree.

Additionally, someone keeps angrily downvoting anything I write here - even basic stuff like 'Islam isn't a race' - and I fear for the health of my HN account!

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

#266

Post by nailer »

everdev wrote: post #183
nailer wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Wouldn't that be racist against people who like stuffed crust pizza?

(Correcting self as you mentioned later)

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

#267

Post by Grollicus »

seertaak wrote: post #238
Grollicus wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The planet where 'having a debate about immigration' and calling for 'the trains [to auschwitz]' for immigrants are two different things.

Additionally, the AfD (who are the ones complaining about censorship all the times) don't actually want to have any debate at all, because they kinda have no content. They just play the fear of the masses and want to display themselfes as victims of the majority or whoever.

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

#268

Post by drb91 »

drb91 wrote: post #35
MikkoFinell wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fascists aren't what they used to be. They used to be a far-right fringe, but fascism lately is more of a thing on the left.

This is crap and a lazy claim. In the US, for instance, fascist tactics from democrats appear to originate from neo-liberals (Clinton, Obama) rather than leftists (Warren, Sanders, Stein). If you squint, you can see that capitalism and regulatory capture have always been core to fascism. Neither are leftist values at all. If you're obliquely referring to, err, recent "PC" culture, that seems to share a lot more with…

Note, i do realize Stein is not a democrat, but leftist she is.

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

#269

Post by drb91 »

krona wrote: post #84
MikkoFinell wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fascists aren't what they used to be. They used to be a far-right fringe, but fascism lately is more of a thing on the left.

If you're interested in developing that line of thought, I suggest reading Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning which is well researched and deeply insightful.

Thank you for the recommendation! It seems like a much better illustration than I’ve seen before of this direction of argument.

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

#270

Post by adrianratnapala »

wnkrshm wrote: post #170
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…

But does Popper's standard apply to anything in contemporary Germany? Does AfD come even close to "denouncing all argument;". I mean beyond the mere fact that, like all politicians, they like to talk in meaningless ways.

It seems that by the time Popper's argumentkicks in, the offending speech needs to come very close to the "incitement of violence" standard that everyone already agrees is not protected by free speech.

Popper's argument would also have force in brainwashing type situations like the Jonestown cult. But any action taken against such groups can be based in terms of the rights of individual members to hear people other than the preacher, not on the silencing the preacher.

Post reply on HN