21–30 of 229 posts
I find it interesting that platforms are liable for hosting hate speech, but individual users are not liable for creating it. It's also interesting that Human Rights Watch has come out against the German law: https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/02/14/germany-flawed-social-me...
"Germany, home to a tough new online hate speech law", anybody have the definition of hate speech according to this law? This article has a lot of information but a cogent definition of hate speech is not given.
There are no easy definitions for everything, the world is complex, deal with it. It is the same, for example, with pornography. One and the same image might either be pornography or a work of art, one and the same image might either be a holiday picture from the beach or child pornography, and you would be unable to tell the difference just from looking at the images. In some situations it is just more practical to…
What even is this article? There is nothing substantive here. Like many other mainstream tech articles these days, this reeks of mass-media narrative control. I just wonder if it's the clicks that drive these or if there are other actors behind the scenes encouraging the deluge of anti-FB, anti-Goog, anti-Twitter, etc articles. Maybe I'm viewing this too broadly, but I get an icky feeling of intentional furor constru…
I find it interesting that platforms are liable for hosting hate speech, but individual users are not liable for creating it. It's also interesting that Human Rights Watch has come out against the German law: https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/02/14/germany-flawed-social-me...
Why do you think the users are not liable for creating it?
Still, the scale of the two issues - prosecutions vs platform censorship basically implies that most of the things being censored do not rise to that level of illegality.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are no easy definitions for everything, the world is complex, deal with it. It is the same, for example, with pornography. One and the same image might either be pornography or a work of art, one and the same image might either be a holiday picture from the beach or child pornography, and you would be unable to tell the difference just from looking at the images. In some situations it is just more practical to…
Actually Germany has a pretty clear definition and precedent of this and it is certainly nowhere near to being congruent with what Americans call hate speech. This likely makes the translation "hate speech" a factual error .
I find it interesting that platforms are liable for hosting hate speech, but individual users are not liable for creating it. It's also interesting that Human Rights Watch has come out against the German law: https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/02/14/germany-flawed-social-me...
NetzDG only regulates how platforms that get a lot of complaints about content that is already illegal under existing criminal code have to handle and report those complaints.
"Germany, home to a tough new online hate speech law", anybody have the definition of hate speech according to this law? This article has a lot of information but a cogent definition of hate speech is not given.
There's no new "hate speech law". There's only new law that punishes sites for failing to remove content that was already illegal. For this they have up to 24 hours, or a week if it is a more complex matter. That article generally misrepresents German laws, making them seem more draconian than they actually are. For instance displaying a Swastika is perfectly legal if you don't "objectively" use it to "promote (the)…
Yet the chilling effects are real, leading to silly examples of censorship. Particularly in new mediums such as video games - most famously Wolfenstein 3D. The Bundesprüfstelle für jugendgefährdende Medien (BPjM) / Jugendschutzgesetz (JuSchG) has made some questionable decisions in the past.
I agree that "hate speech" has a different connotation than Volksverhetzung (particularly in this day and age), and it's a bit more nuances than the article presents it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's no new "hate speech law". There's only new law that punishes sites for failing to remove content that was already illegal. For this they have up to 24 hours, or a week if it is a more complex matter. That article generally misrepresents German laws, making them seem more draconian than they actually are. For instance displaying a Swastika is perfectly legal if you don't "objectively" use it to "promote (the)…
> For instance displaying a Swastika is perfectly legal if you don't "objectively" use it to "promote (the) national socialism". Yet the chilling effects are real, leading to silly examples of censorship. Particularly in new mediums such as video games - most famously Wolfenstein 3D. The Bundesprüfstelle für jugendgefährdende Medien (BPjM) / Jugendschutzgesetz (JuSchG) has made some questionable decisions in the past…
"Germany, home to a tough new online hate speech law", anybody have the definition of hate speech according to this law? This article has a lot of information but a cogent definition of hate speech is not given.
The NetzDG (which the article is about) exhaustively lists applicable statutes. Among them is Volksverhetzung, which is what is referred to here as hate speech, which is wildly inaccurate. Algolia says: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13039422#13043027 Here is the full text of the law in question: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/netzdg/BJNR335210017.html (and here is a legally non-binding English translation:…
Reading the translation I have a couple questions. Is the same punishment given whether it is "hate" or "violence"? (I assume not)
What is Germany's definition of "hate"? Is it just up to the court to decide if something is considered hate?
"Germany, home to a tough new online hate speech law", anybody have the definition of hate speech according to this law? This article has a lot of information but a cogent definition of hate speech is not given.
There's no new "hate speech law". There's only new law that punishes sites for failing to remove content that was already illegal. For this they have up to 24 hours, or a week if it is a more complex matter. That article generally misrepresents German laws, making them seem more draconian than they actually are. For instance displaying a Swastika is perfectly legal if you don't "objectively" use it to "promote (the)…
It seems that only applies if your work falls clearly within a few categories of exceptions. For example, Wolfenstein, a game about a Jewish commando fighting against the Nazis, was censored in Germany to comply with the law.
> "In Germany, we've removed all Nazi symbols and references. Unlike films and other works of art, video games in Germany are forbidden to use such symbols and references as they are classified in Germany as toys and not media art." The illegal display of Nazi imagery is punishable by three years in prison in Germany. (http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-27488254)
Even "Maus: A Survivor's Tale" struggled to be published uncensored. They eventually succeeded in convincing the culture ministry to allow publication, but it's not enough to be anti-Nazi.