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

171–180 of 198 posts

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

#171

Post by anigbrowl »

hardwires wrote: post #116
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 ma…

>> So? Now, there is a law, and so what was legal before is not anymore. That's my whole point, it was legal before and they weren't "making money illegally" (as the parent claimed), hence my the need for new laws. >> 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. It's not illegal in the US , from which they ar…

It's not illegal in the US, from which they are operating. That's what matters.

Yes, they chose that tradeoff over leaving the market

They don't want to leave the market because the market is where the revenue stream originates. Markets are local; the location of the HQ is irrelevant.

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

#172

Post by zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC »

anigbrowl wrote: post #160
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Which speech acts are likely to incur legal sanction, exactly? This is not about legal legal sanction, but about de-facto legal sanction. By definition, Facebook is only exercising its property rights. But that doesn't change the fact that they do limit perfectly legal speech as a result of a law that forces them to decide whether a given speech act is illegal, thus putting them in the de-facto role of a court, jus…

It seems to me that Facebook is in the business of publishing people's comments and pictures on its platform in order to profit by displaying advertising next to them. As a publisher in the German market, it can be held to the same standard as any other publisher. You complain that the people making the decisions have no clue of the law, but nothing stops Facebook hiring German staff with the requisite legal knowledg…

> It seems to me that Facebook is in the business of publishing people's comments and pictures on its platform in order to profit by displaying advertising next to them. As a publisher in the German market, it can be held to the same standard as any other publisher.

Well, I am not sure I complete agree (it is obviously substantially different from traditional publishers, but at the same time it's substantially different from mere printers or telcos, so I don't think it's an obvious classification), but sure, let's say that is the case.

> You complain that the people making the decisions have no clue of the law, but nothing stops Facebook hiring German staff with the requisite legal knowledge to discharge that obligation, or alternatively declining to accept connections from German IP addresses.

Which doesn't change that they in fact don't, because they have no incentive to, and that this is the behaviour that is to be expected given the incentives created by the law. The law does not create an incentive for legally educated decisions that preserve constitutional rights, the law creates an incentive to remove illegal content. The state can not hide behind private entities by pretending that the incentives it creates have nothing to do with how those private entities act. Facebook is not bound by the constitution, so they have no reason to hire legal experts to make these decisions, they will simply follow the law. It's the responsibility of the state to not incentivise private entites to violate constitutional freedoms, not the other way around.

> Now that I have answered your points, please do me the courtesy of answering the question I posed above instead of deflecting it.

I don't think I have deflected any question, rather your questions were missing the point. I don't agree with a private corporation deciding what for all intents and purposes are criminal cases and limiting constitutional freedoms based on incentives created by a questionable law. None of that implies that anyone has in fact declared Facebook a court or that Volksverhetzung should not be prosecuted--it simply means that Facebook is not the entity that should be incentivised by the state to make decisions that limit constitutional freedoms that would be obviously inacceptable if the state made those decisions itself.

If you think there still is an unanswered question, please let me know what it is.

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

#173

Post by zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC »

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #169
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK, so what is unclear about my words then?

Nothing. I just don't agree that if " it quacks like a criminal case, it walks like a criminal case, therefore, it is a criminal case ", because is handled by Facebook and not by a court. What's Facebook going to do? Fine you? Sentence you to Community Service? Send you to jail? Maybe the crux of the matter is that I don't believe people have a constitutional right to be able to post to on Facebook.

> What's Facebook going to do? Fine you? Sentence you to Community Service? Send you to jail?

Limit your ability to speak in public.

> Maybe the crux of the matter is that I don't believe people have a constitutional right to be able to post to on Facebook.

That is correct. But you have a constitutional right that the state does not prevent you from speaking in public (with relatively narrow exceptions), which includes the right that the state does not pressure/incentivise other people or corporations to limit your ability to speak in public. The fact that Facebook is allowed to prevent you from speaking does not mean that the state is allowed to tell them to stop you from speaking.

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

#174

Post by anigbrowl »

Yetanfou wrote: post #31

For those of you who read German the following article sheds a revealing perspective on the effects of these new laws: https://motherboard.vice.com/de/article/kznxz3/vom-netzdg-zu... The leading paragraph claims that "Trolls and right-wing activists conspire through pr0gramm, Discord and Twitter to 'turn the law against hate speech' into its opposite: a tool to denounce left-wingers, women and migrants." In other wor…

This shows the incredible myopia of these activists

Or they knew that perfectly well but considered it a small problem relative to the harm they seek to prevent. Everything comes with a downside risk, but pointing out the fact of its existence tells you little about the scale of its severity..

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

#175

Post by anigbrowl »

b6 wrote: post #77
robbiep wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you not think there might be a difference between expressing an opinion and inciting people to violence?

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.

Really? You're fine with saying that people of this or that demographic subgroup should be systematically exterminated? We've already been down that road once with rather tragic consequences.

It's true, I'm advocating some limits on people's freedoms. I don't think people should enjoy the freedom to launch campaigns of genocide, for example.

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

#176

Post by TheSpiceIsLife »

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC wrote: post #173
TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing. I just don't agree that if " it quacks like a criminal case, it walks like a criminal case, therefore, it is a criminal case ", because is handled by Facebook and not by a court. What's Facebook going to do? Fine you? Sentence you to Community Service? Send you to jail? Maybe the crux of the matter is that I don't believe people have a constitutional right to be able to post to on Facebook.

> What's Facebook going to do? Fine you? Sentence you to Community Service? Send you to jail? Limit your ability to speak in public. > Maybe the crux of the matter is that I don't believe people have a constitutional right to be able to post to on Facebook. That is correct. But you have a constitutional right that the state does not prevent you from speaking in public (with relatively narrow exceptions), which includ…

I'm glad we agree as to where we disagree, thank you for being reasonable and civil.

> Limit your ability to speak in public.

I disagree. I don't believe Facebook constitutes public speech. I'm open to be being persuaded though.

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

#177

Post by anigbrowl »

b6 wrote: post #86
pluma wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you think anything is worth defending at all cost , that should give you pause. You seem to understand that speech can persuade people of wrong things. Do you think it's possible you've been wrongly persuaded to hold the belief that free speech trumps all? Maybe the same people that persuade you that you need free speech above all are also those that have the most to gain from being able to persuade you freely of…

> If you think incitement should not be a crime and likely think libel and slander should not be a crime, where do you draw the line if fee speech trumps all? What about lying under oath? I don't think libel and slander should not be crimes, I don't think lying under oath should not be a crime. I believe in freedom of expression. I especially encourage those people with the absolute worst most harmful ideas to speak…

I especially encourage those people with the absolute worst most harmful ideas to speak often and loudly and publicly, so that everyone has a chance to hear their ideas and think about them and come to understand for themselves how bad they are.

But history is replete with examples of people not doing that, and instead going ahead and implementing the really terrible idea. The Holocaust. The Killing Fields. The Rwandan genocide.

Neo Nazis, please, have a rally and explain to everyone in your own words that you latch onto pathetic ideas of racial superiority for lack of any accomplishments of your own to be proud of.

Some neo-nazis in the UK yesterday attempted to perform a 'citizen's arrest on the mayor of London', complaining about his being a Muslim and saying rude things about Donald Trump. Eventually the police showed up, declined to assist, and they were laughed out of the room.

It wasn't realized until later that they'd brought along a mobile gallows and parked it outside. I'll give you three guesses as to what they planned to do with it had they been successful in laying hands upon him.

Do you find it hard to refute somebody's argument? Do you not trust people to sort out good ideas from bad themselves? The solution to bad speech is more speech.

No, not really, and I'm not so sure about that. We don't live in a society of angels and educating everyone to think in enlightened terms is a slow and uncertain process. I don't like any sort of state coercion and would prefer to see prison abolished too, but I do not fool myself that crime would cease to exist if I could force that outcome. Consider Graham's law from economics, which holds that bad money drives out good; a small number of bad actors can undermine the reliability of the economy for all participants.

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

#178

Post by Mithaldu »

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #176
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What's Facebook going to do? Fine you? Sentence you to Community Service? Send you to jail? Limit your ability to speak in public. > Maybe the crux of the matter is that I don't believe people have a constitutional right to be able to post to on Facebook. That is correct. But you have a constitutional right that the state does not prevent you from speaking in public (with relatively narrow exceptions), which includ…

I'm glad we agree as to where we disagree, thank you for being reasonable and civil. > Limit your ability to speak in public. I disagree. I don't believe Facebook constitutes public speech. I'm open to be being persuaded though.

I don't think it even matters whether it is public speech or not.

The constitution guarantees free speech only insofar it is not limited by "provisions of general laws, in provisions for the protection of young persons, and in the right to personal honour".

And http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_stg... sets forth some pretty serious limitations.

Nowhere is it mentioned whether any of this happens in private or in public.

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

#179

Post by zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC »

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #176
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What's Facebook going to do? Fine you? Sentence you to Community Service? Send you to jail? Limit your ability to speak in public. > Maybe the crux of the matter is that I don't believe people have a constitutional right to be able to post to on Facebook. That is correct. But you have a constitutional right that the state does not prevent you from speaking in public (with relatively narrow exceptions), which includ…

I'm glad we agree as to where we disagree, thank you for being reasonable and civil. > Limit your ability to speak in public. I disagree. I don't believe Facebook constitutes public speech. I'm open to be being persuaded though.

Well, limit your ability to speak in private then? That only makes it even more of a constitutional headache!? Freedom of speech is not something that is limited to the public space, but rather public space is where there is most limitation to what you you can say, simply because of the greater potential impact, private speech is way more protected (including things like privacy of mail and telecommunication).

I mean, not that I agree, this law is obviously targeted towards public speech, but I still wonder why you think targeting private speech would make it less of a problem?!

Public speech (the legal concept) does not require that you have an audience of millions, it simply means that you are speaking to an audience of people who are not in some way personal acquaintances.

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

#180

Post by TheSpiceIsLife »

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC wrote: post #179
TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm glad we agree as to where we disagree, thank you for being reasonable and civil. > Limit your ability to speak in public. I disagree. I don't believe Facebook constitutes public speech. I'm open to be being persuaded though.

Well, limit your ability to speak in private then? That only makes it even more of a constitutional headache!? Freedom of speech is not something that is limited to the public space, but rather public space is where there is most limitation to what you you can say, simply because of the greater potential impact, private speech is way more protected (including things like privacy of mail and telecommunication). I mean…

Because limitations imposed on a medium such as Facebook doesn't limit my ability to speak in private. That's how I see it.

It could be argued that Facebook should be infrastructure.

Post reply on HN