Live data from Hacker News

In Germany, online hate speech has real world consequences

economist.com

51–60 of 198 posts

Re: In Germany, online hate speech has real world consequences

#52
post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There was no need for this new internet censorship law at all, for they could've just started applying existing hate speech laws. The new law (NetzDG, roughly "network enforcement act" [1]) was intended to facilitate applying existing laws against illegal content, by mandating that every site with > 2 million users needs to have a clear procedure for reporting illegal content. Unfortunately, there are only fines fo…

>Unfortunately, there are only fines for failing to delete obviously illegal content This is not the case, there is no fine for failing to delete obviously illegal content.

This is correct and unfortunately it has been twisted so much through public debate that nobody believes it. The fines are for systematically ignoring that law, not for singular mistakes they make.

Re: In Germany, online hate speech has real world consequences

#53
post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By any normal definition these aren't criminal cases. People don't end up losing jobs, going behind bars, gaining criminal records. They usually won't even lose their accounts; certainly the law doesn't suggest that. They simply cannot spread hate-speech. The actual effects of this law in terms of possibly useful message lost are minuscule compared to the real culprits of goverment-enforced speech restrictions: namel…

> By any normal definition these aren't criminal cases. It is a decision made to limit your constitutional freedoms due to legal obligations towards the public. That is very much the definition of a criminal case. > People don't end up losing jobs, going behind bars, gaining criminal records. Parking in the wrong spot also doesn't lead to any of that, but it's still a criminal case. > They simply cannot spread hate-s…

> Parking in the wrong spot also doesn't lead to any of that, but it's still a criminal case.

It is not, it is an administrative offence.

Re: In Germany, online hate speech has real world consequences

#55
post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There was no need for this new internet censorship law at all, for they could've just started applying existing hate speech laws. The new law (NetzDG, roughly "network enforcement act" [1]) was intended to facilitate applying existing laws against illegal content, by mandating that every site with > 2 million users needs to have a clear procedure for reporting illegal content. Unfortunately, there are only fines fo…

>Unfortunately, there are only fines for failing to delete obviously illegal content This is not the case, there is no fine for failing to delete obviously illegal content.

Okay, rereading the law, the fine is for not making a process available that guarantees (among other things) that obviously illegal content is deleted or locked within 24 hours unless a different deadline has been negotiated for that specific content.

The effect is the same: the easiest way to implement the requirements in the law is to default to deletion.

Re: In Germany, online hate speech has real world consequences

#56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> By any normal definition these aren't criminal cases. It is a decision made to limit your constitutional freedoms due to legal obligations towards the public. That is very much the definition of a criminal case. > People don't end up losing jobs, going behind bars, gaining criminal records. Parking in the wrong spot also doesn't lead to any of that, but it's still a criminal case. > They simply cannot spread hate-s…

>It is a decision made to limit your constitutional freedoms Just because your Facebook post is deleted does not mean your constitional right to free speech is limited.

Correct. Which is why you might want to read the full context of this discussion, which should then tell you that this is not about "Facebook just deleting a post", but about the state systematically incentivising Facebook to act in such a way that if the state itself acted in that way, that would obviously be a violation of your constitutional freedoms. Indirect action through a private entity does not make otherwise unconstitutional things constitutional.

Re: In Germany, online hate speech has real world consequences

#57
post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> By any normal definition these aren't criminal cases. It is a decision made to limit your constitutional freedoms due to legal obligations towards the public. That is very much the definition of a criminal case. > People don't end up losing jobs, going behind bars, gaining criminal records. Parking in the wrong spot also doesn't lead to any of that, but it's still a criminal case. > They simply cannot spread hate-s…

> Parking in the wrong spot also doesn't lead to any of that, but it's still a criminal case. It is not, it is an administrative offence.

Which is, in the broad sense, a subcategory of criminal law (as opposed to civil law).

Re: In Germany, online hate speech has real world consequences

#58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

... and therefore they should be the ones that decide the case?! I'm not sure I follow. Every large corporation makes money off people using their services for illegal purposes, that's not exactly a reason to give them powers to decide legal cases against their customers, is it?

>powers to decide legal cases against their customers Facebook is free to do whatever they want on their platform. There are no legal cases involved.

Which is why noone said there was. This is what is known as an analogy.
Post reply on HN