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

In Germany, online hate speech has real world consequences

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 198 posts

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

#91

Post by pluma »

robbiep wrote: post #82
b6 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is inciting people to violence really anything other than expressing the opinion that violence is a good idea, and trying to persuade others to agree? Expressing any opinion should be allowed, and trying to persuade anyone of anything should be allowed.

Is it right that in civil society someone stands on a soapbox and calls for violence against a person or people? Witness Pres. Trump at his rallies. Not illegal but Really, telling a mob to punch someone is pretty off colour and not the sort of thing that we should be promoting. There are ways to express your opinion on any issue that don’t lead to vilification and potential or actual harm. So I disagree. It isn’t ri…

Freedom of expression is meaningless unless you have the social/political power to back that expression up.

If Joe Blow tweets "kill the kikes", nobody cares.

If someone with millions of devout followers says the same, there will eventually be blood.

Or in your case, if a person with influence tells their fan club to harass someone, the victim may suffer actual mental health issues when enough of them act on it.

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

#92

Post by zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC »

hardwires wrote: post #78
Tomte wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would have no problem with them deciding it‘s not worth the trouble and banning German users. I have a problem with how they want to make money here, but illegally. And yes, I want rules to be decided democratically. Not by „what does hardwires think about it?“.

>> I would have no problem with them deciding it‘s not worth the trouble and banning German users. Why should they ban them? They should allow access from all countries. Would you argue that Twitter and Facebook should help enforce all the customs of countries like Iran or North Korea by banning its users? Just get out of the way! >> I have a problem with how they want to make money here, but illegally. They aren't m…

> If they did, law enforcement could stop them and there wouldn't have been a need for this new law.

So? Now, there is a law, and so what was legal before is not anymore. That is the point of creating new laws.

> They can still make money off a German audience without any business presence in Germany. Legally, from the US.

Where you are acting from does not have any influence on legality. If Germany has a law that makes what someone does in the US illegal, then it's illegal. Acting from the US only limits enforcability. If Facebook has no presence or business in Germany, Germany cannot do anything to enforce that law against Facebook. But it seems like Facebook is of the opinion that they have enough Business in Germany that it's worth for them to comply with the laws to be able to keep that business.

> Advertisers don't all discriminate.

Well, but most advertisers that want to advertise to a German audience are from Germany. If you want to be paid by advertisers from Germany, you better follow German laws, or Germany will seize the funds your German advertisers are paying you to pay fines or other debts that you owe in Germany.

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

#93

Post by blablabla123 »

funkythings wrote: post #6

This comment vastly understates the effects of this law. Social Media companies are scared af to be fined by the German government, so the filters are so strong, that it targets the wrong people. A couple of comedians and satire magazines have been hit, left leaning people as well as right leaning people alike. In general, I don't think it's a good idea for the government to decide what I can post on social media or…

Yeah, obviously the law is not well designed and at least in some aspects redundant. I mean there was this popular Heise case (the German publisher) where it was clearly stated that Heise is responsible if people do violations against the Hate Speech law.

On the other hand the law got there because sites like Facebook - and yes also Heise - do a questionable job at handling racist content. And there are tools beyond filters, e.g. user ratings, real names on social platforms etc etc I mean even Facebook themselves are stating that even Fakenews (which is not necessarily racist or so) poses a problem to our society. I mean...HN has such a simple solution for this, the rating button, why is Facebook not able to come up with something comparable?

And yes... the article above states that such posts correlate with physical violence. The state kind of pulled the emergency brake.

> "kill all .. they are ..."), ... The internet is one of the last places

> where people have some sort of freedom of opinion/listening to

> different opinions

This is not an opinion. This is a request or a command. Sorry, writing this ethically a complete no go.

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

#94

Post by candiodari »

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC wrote: post #21
CaptainZapp wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's my understanding that you can thank Facebook for that law. Unless it hits their bottom line (or shows naked female breasts) it was nearly impossible to get a post deleted, even if it was clearly illegal. While it's unfortunate that such a relatively crude law was implemented it's at the end a reaction to the general, ultralibertarian "we don't give a fuck, unless it really hurts" attitude coming out of Silicon V…

None of that is a reason to make a law that has a private company decide what are in effect criminal cases against citizens. The minister responsible at some point made the completely idiotic remark that that is the right way to go because Facebook and the like are making a lot of money, so they also should be responsible for these costs. It seems like you can be a minister in Germany and never have heard of this con…

Unfortunately government making laws boils, when examining this closely, comes down to lawyers making laws. That is the most common job and education in congress, and parliaments in Europe are no different, even stronger. Second is economics.

What you won't find is engineers, of any kind, developers, or any kind of practical education.

Which means laws very often ignore practical considerations as to how they were applied. An example often given is equality between men and women. Since 1980s and up to 2005 in various countries laws were passed that married and unmarried couples are equal before the law. Including of course same sex couples, or "couples" involving more than 2 people. I'm not complaining about that concept, but it's implementation is emblematic of just how bad governments are.

However ...

1) Okay, they're equal. So when are 2 or more people a couple ? Not specified, of course (courts seem to have settled on when you share address for a given amount of time you're married. So Good News (tm) ! You were legally married if you had a roommate in college).

2) Related. When are people not a couple anymore ? Not specified.

3) What if these people separate ? Are the any obligations ? Not specified.

4) What if people are living together and one, unbeknownst to the other, incurs a great debt ? Can that debt be held against the other (like for married couples) ? Unspecified.

5) What about shared ownership ? What about registering a property/house in both their names ? Unspecified.

6) Does entering in a couple relationship (as in living at the same address for a while) give raise to obligations in case of separation ? What about kids, adopted or otherwise ? Does one party owe the other alimony if they separate in less than amicable circumstances ? Unspecified.

7) What about all of tenancy law, family law, contract law, ... all of which applies ("applied") differently to couples and separate individuals ? A million questions. All of which are unspecified. What if 3 people are living together and one adopts a kid ? Do all 3 have custody now ? How about separation ?

Congress, however, merely wanted to look good voting a very generic law into existence. There was close to zero consideration of how that affected all existing systems, and even when problems became apparent, no reaction from parliament.

And if it's this bad for things that are directly in the domain of lawyers themselves, you can imagine just how bad it is for things they don't understand.

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

#95

Post by zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC »

hardwires wrote: post #87
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You want your German Extrawurst. Now, that is an interesting interpretation of the rule of law if I have ever seen one! So, in your opinion, having to follow the laws of a country you visit or that you do business in is somehow illegitimate because it's an Extrawurst? Is it your expectation that the US will apply German law to you when you visit the US? > These are not German companies, they don't need to operate o…

>> Now, that is an interesting interpretation of the rule of law if I have ever seen one! That isn't an "interpretation of the rule of law", that's a response to the bold statement that "We really need to teach [...] all those companies some manners and respect for our society". Yes, we can introduce all sorts of stupid laws to make foreign companies do as we please or have them leave. No, we're not "teaching" them "…

> Clearly whatever they did was legal in however way they operate "in Germany", or there would have been a German court case.

Actually, what they did was not legal. Not appearing in court when a judge orders you to is not legal. It just so happens that it's not enforcable when the person ordered to appear happens to be in a different country. In order to limit the negative effects of this illegal behaviour, now more of their behaviour has been made illegal in such a way that if they don't follow those rules, it can actually be enforced.

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

#96

Post by yodsanklai »

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC wrote: post #17
sdrothrock wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> basically it means I can't say "kill all the jews/muslims, they are filthy swines" Do you know how strict those laws are? I mean, you just said that, albeit in a quotation, so I imagine that at least is out of the scope of the law? Or would it be something that got you in trouble if someone reported it?

No, only if it's a danger to "public peace", and that is actually taken pretty seriously. Citing it as an example is no problem at all, you can even say something like that in first person if it is satire or provocative art. Unless you make it clear that you actually want people to seriously think that jews/muslims are subhuman and should be killed, chances are very slim that you would be convicted for that.

> you can even say something like that in first person if it is satire or provocative art

I can give you a counter-example (although in France where we have similar laws). Patrick Sebastien, who is a well-known French humorist has been convicted for exactly that (he impersonated Jean-Marie Le Pen, far right politician, in a satire song "casser du noir").

Sorry but I can only find a reference to a French article http://www.liberation.fr/medias/1996/03/13/patrick-sebastien...

The judges concluded that this was indeed an incitation to racial hatred, which is illegal in France.

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

#97

Post by insickness »

pluma wrote: post #32
jack9 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Neither category is less real. I think the context is that "real world" is supposed to mean it has a physical effect. The implication is that physical crimes are legitimately categorized crimes and speech crimes are not exactly legitimate (according to where you say words, they might be criminal). I believe that some words that make someone/some group possibly feel bad (intrinsically, not just to libel), are not a…

That's the massive understanding I see when people who don't live in Germany complain about German censorship of speech: It's not about feelings. It's about shaping other people's opinions. If someone says "jack9 is a kiddy fiddler" the damage is not that it might make jack9 upset, the damage is that others might think it's true and take actions that harm him. If someone says "kill the kikes" the damage is not that J…

In the US there is a fear of government taking too much of a role in "shaping the people's opinions." While your argument makes sense in combating xenophobia, it seems these controls are authoritarian in that you're still allowing the government--and individuals within government--to exercise such control over non-government individuals.

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

#98

Post by coldtea »

thesimon wrote: post #48
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC wrote: post #42

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.

No, it just means that the "constitutional right to free speech" is limited and antiquated, and the modern means of speech, in the modern places where people gather to hear one another (social media), are censored without problem...

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

#99

Post by germanier »

yodsanklai wrote: post #96
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, only if it's a danger to "public peace", and that is actually taken pretty seriously. Citing it as an example is no problem at all, you can even say something like that in first person if it is satire or provocative art. Unless you make it clear that you actually want people to seriously think that jews/muslims are subhuman and should be killed, chances are very slim that you would be convicted for that.

> you can even say something like that in first person if it is satire or provocative art I can give you a counter-example (although in France where we have similar laws). Patrick Sebastien, who is a well-known French humorist has been convicted for exactly that (he impersonated Jean-Marie Le Pen, far right politician, in a satire song "casser du noir"). Sorry but I can only find a reference to a French article http:…

French and German law are similar but not equal and this falls clearly in to the allowed territory in Germany.

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

#100

Post by geococcyxc »

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC wrote: post #90
geococcyxc wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is at least wrong in Germany, they are handled by different courts, will not show up on criminal record etc., it's more like a civil case, but with the government. Though of course you could park your car so horribly that it might get to be one, there's criminal neglect.

Erm ... in which sense exactly is an Ordnungswidrigkeitenverfahren like a Zivilprozess? How are the courts different? Also, yes, "but with the government" is exactly what makes it a criminal case!? See also: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordnungswidrigkeit https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strafrecht_(Deutschland)

Sorry, I was wrong about the courts, but at first it is not even handled by a court or prosecutor at all, only by the administration. If the potential fine is not accepted it then indeed goes to criminal court.
Post reply on HN