Germany Acts to Tame Facebook, Learning from Its Own History of Hate • Hacker News Board

Re: Germany Acts to Tame Facebook, Learning from Its Own History of Hate

#201

Post by js8 » Tue, May 22, 2018, 10:46 AM UTC

KozmoNau7 wrote: post #186

js8 wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Because such public speeches lead directly to violence against minorities. What do you mean by "lead"? Do you consider the people who cause such violence as being not responsible for their own actions? Let's take an example. A person A says that there should be violence against person C. Then, person B commits violence against person C. I totally agree that society should persecute person B, but I don't see why per…

If person A can be determined (with a high degree of certainty) to have incited the actions of person B, preferably in a court of law, then yes they are also responsible, even more so if they directly commanded person B to commit acts of violence on person C. Also, if a person directly calls to action against specific groups (eg. "we must throw out all immigrants right now! The police and courts are useless, we have…

"then yes they are also responsible, even more so if they directly commanded person B to commit acts of violence on person C"

If person A commanded (or otherwise extorted) person B to act, then it's a different situation. And it's already covered in laws against threatening and extortion.

I am asking about situation where person B can, with reason, and on their own will, ignore the pleading of person A for violence. Or what if there is no person B? Should we punish person A regardless?

"Like I've said before, freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences."

I strongly disagree, and I think it's misunderstanding of concept of free speech. The act of speech must be without consequence, if it's to be free.

People often give an example of somebody saying something to their employer and the employer firing them for that. This is a limitation of free speech.

Before making that argument, you should consider that in the communist regimes (such in Czech Republic), dissidents were often suppressed by being fired from their job. You're effectively saying that it was morally acceptable, and I disagree.

Re: Germany Acts to Tame Facebook, Learning from Its Own History of Hate

#202

Post by js8 » Tue, May 22, 2018, 10:49 AM UTC

KozmoNau7 wrote: post #194

Fins wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that's not the question. The question is who decides, and how, what speech should have (negative) consequences. If I am reading you correctly, you are saying that you will provide consequences to those who you deem to be calling for something you do not agree with. Another one of the most important aspect of the free society is the rule of law. Not vigilante justice.

Ideally, the rule of law decides. Unfortunately it very often is susceptible to political and economic influences. And the courts are not in the streets, where the attacks happen. Far too often the police turn a blind eye to right wing incitement and violence (due to a large number of sympathizers in the police), so sometimes direct action is the only way to show fascists and other hatemongers the error of their ways…

"sometimes direct action is the only way to show fascists and other hatemongers the error of their ways"

Unfortunately, the actual history shows that doesn't show them the error, but is more likely to increase the resentment and resistance.

Re: Germany Acts to Tame Facebook, Learning from Its Own History of Hate

#203

Post by jk2323 » Tue, May 22, 2018, 10:50 AM UTC

KozmoNau7 wrote: post #177

jk2323 wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"30 days blocks are handed out solely by Facebook's own hand. It has nothing to do with this law." It was agreed on with the ruling junta and the "Antonio Amadeus foundation" is intermingling with this. "You're linking to Breitbart and similar sites. " For all things claimed you can find other sources, I used the first google result. You can find them also in your beloved Spiegel. Do you want to see her picture where…

Why don't you find some real and credible sources, instead of random Google hits. You can find support for absolutely anything on the internet, but that does not make it objectively true. Your whole shtick of calling the sitting government a "junta" and calling Merkel a stasi agent (with absolutely no credible proof to show for it). I don't even particularly like Merkel, although I will admit she is a very talented p…

"with absolutely no credible proof to show for it"

You know who this is? https://antilobby.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/merkel_im.jpg?...

This is former Stasi agent and current chancellor of Germany in front of the house of former dissident Havelman in East Berlin. Merkel herself forbid the publication of this picture due to "privacy rights". Please not that YOU CAN ONLY HAVE RIGHTS ON YOUR OWN PICTURE!

Another dubious source: http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/vorab/a-377389.html

Re: Germany Acts to Tame Facebook, Learning from Its Own History of Hate

#204

Post by KozmoNau7 » Tue, May 22, 2018, 12:06 PM UTC

js8 wrote: post #202

KozmoNau7 wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ideally, the rule of law decides. Unfortunately it very often is susceptible to political and economic influences. And the courts are not in the streets, where the attacks happen. Far too often the police turn a blind eye to right wing incitement and violence (due to a large number of sympathizers in the police), so sometimes direct action is the only way to show fascists and other hatemongers the error of their ways…

"sometimes direct action is the only way to show fascists and other hatemongers the error of their ways" Unfortunately, the actual history shows that doesn't show them the error, but is more likely to increase the resentment and resistance.

Unfortunately, direct and sometimes violent action is the only language fascists seem to understand.

Re: Germany Acts to Tame Facebook, Learning from Its Own History of Hate

#205

Post by KozmoNau7 » Tue, May 22, 2018, 12:31 PM UTC

js8 wrote: post #201

KozmoNau7 wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If person A can be determined (with a high degree of certainty) to have incited the actions of person B, preferably in a court of law, then yes they are also responsible, even more so if they directly commanded person B to commit acts of violence on person C. Also, if a person directly calls to action against specific groups (eg. "we must throw out all immigrants right now! The police and courts are useless, we have…

"then yes they are also responsible, even more so if they directly commanded person B to commit acts of violence on person C" If person A commanded (or otherwise extorted) person B to act, then it's a different situation. And it's already covered in laws against threatening and extortion. I am asking about situation where person B can, with reason, and on their own will, ignore the pleading of person A for violence.…

>"I am asking about situation where person B can, with reason, and on their own will, ignore the pleading of person A for violence. Or what if there is no person B? Should we punish person A regardless?"

That is ideally for the courts to decide, whether A's utterances and calls for action can reasonably be said to have incited B's actions. Obviously B bears the primary responsibility, but A can also be culpable, especially if they have knowledge that their words are very likely to spur people like B into action.

>"The act of speech must be without consequence, if it's to be free."

No. Even in the US ("LAND OF THE FREE RAH RAH RAH HOME OF THE BRAVE U S A U S A U S A"), freedom of speech is not absolute. There are laws against libel and slander, for good reason.

If you walk up to your employer and call them a fascist limp-dicked low-paying money-grubbing shitstain, what do you think will happen? Do you think you'll just keep your job, keep working as if nothing happened? Do you think they'll just ignore that and act as if nothing had happened?

What if you do the same thing by posting it publicly on the internet or in a newspaper? Do you expect there to be no consequences?

In other words, freedom of speech means that you are free to express yourself, with no threat of censorship. It does not absolve you from responsibility for what you said. Stand by what you say, take responsibility.

Re: Germany Acts to Tame Facebook, Learning from Its Own History of Hate

#206

Post by KozmoNau7 » Tue, May 22, 2018, 12:35 PM UTC

Andre_Wanglin wrote: post #196

KozmoNau7 wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can hate as much as you want, in private. Germans are very adamant about the protection of privacy. The problem starts if you go around in public, making hateful speeches that incite violence.

That sounds like a great way to protect those who commit acts worthy of hate from any public remonstration.

You are absolutely and perfectly allowed to speak out in public against such people. But you must be prepared to take responsibility if your speech is worded to spur people into violent action and to incite hateful action.

The court of public opinion is notoriously fickle. Rousing hate in the masses is not a reliable tactic, and often backfires.

Re: Germany Acts to Tame Facebook, Learning from Its Own History of Hate

#207

Post by KozmoNau7 » Tue, May 22, 2018, 12:37 PM UTC

jk2323 wrote: post #199

detaro wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's funny then that the left-wing parties disagree with so much of Merkels policy then, especially in the core areas of left-wing politics. Reforming Hartz4 and the pension system, that'd be a left-wing dream. A left-wing dream certainly isn't a government with Horst Seehofer responsible for the interior and "Heimat", or Jens Spahn for Health. Not all they do is clear right-wing (how could it be in a coalition with…

[flagged]

That is an extremely odd and disturbing bizarro world you seem to live in.

Re: Germany Acts to Tame Facebook, Learning from Its Own History of Hate

#208

Post by KozmoNau7 » Tue, May 22, 2018, 12:40 PM UTC

jk2323 wrote: post #203

KozmoNau7 wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why don't you find some real and credible sources, instead of random Google hits. You can find support for absolutely anything on the internet, but that does not make it objectively true. Your whole shtick of calling the sitting government a "junta" and calling Merkel a stasi agent (with absolutely no credible proof to show for it). I don't even particularly like Merkel, although I will admit she is a very talented p…

"with absolutely no credible proof to show for it" You know who this is? https://antilobby.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/merkel_im.jpg?... This is former Stasi agent and current chancellor of Germany in front of the house of former dissident Havelman in East Berlin. Merkel herself forbid the publication of this picture due to "privacy rights". Please not that YOU CAN ONLY HAVE RIGHTS ON YOUR OWN PICTURE! Another dubiou…

It's a picture of a woman. How do you know it's Merkel? How do you know it's even a Stasi agent?

Where is your credible proof? This is all idle speculation.

Re: Germany Acts to Tame Facebook, Learning from Its Own History of Hate

#209

Post by KozmoNau7 » Tue, May 22, 2018, 12:48 PM UTC

lopmotr wrote: post #200

KozmoNau7 wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We've now wandered way too far off from the original topic. The simple truth is, if you go visit a country, you do a bit of preparation before you go. That includes any local laws and customs that may differ from those in your home country, in order to avoid trouble. You wouldn't try to bring a pocket knife on a flight, would you? Like me, you probably disagree with the security theater that has been put in place, bu…

I'm not saying ignorance is an excuse for breaking the law. If you find yourself repeating a claim, you're probably not understanding the other person. I'm saying the law in Germany is unjust. I have sympathy for the person who was locked up for 3 months for making a friendly joke. I would also have sympathy for the mother of a tree cutter who was killed because he didn't prepare two escape routes like he should have…

>"I'm saying the law in Germany is unjust"

That doesn't matter in this context. When you visit a country, you respect their laws, no matter how unjust they may be.

However, you will find very few people who would agree with you that it is unjust for someone to face consequences for directly and provocatively insulting a policeman with his country's greatest shame in recorded history.

>"locked up for 3 months for making a friendly joke"

Shouting "heil Hitler!" at a German -- especially if it's an authority figure -- is not "a friendly joke". It's a grave insult. If you do not understand why that is, I would suggest you spend a little time researching 20th century history.

Your example with the tree cutter is false equivalence. In his case, it would be a tragedy, which could have been prevented through the use of specialized knowledge. Maybe he didn't know, maybe he was forgetful, maybe he was simply negligent.

If you wanted to make the cases more equivalent, a better example would if he climbed to the top of a very tall tree, and then sawed over the branch he was sitting on. Clearly stupid and with absolutely no common sense.

Re: Germany Acts to Tame Facebook, Learning from Its Own History of Hate

#210

Post by DanBC » Tue, May 22, 2018, 12:55 PM UTC

lopmotr wrote: post #200

KozmoNau7 wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We've now wandered way too far off from the original topic. The simple truth is, if you go visit a country, you do a bit of preparation before you go. That includes any local laws and customs that may differ from those in your home country, in order to avoid trouble. You wouldn't try to bring a pocket knife on a flight, would you? Like me, you probably disagree with the security theater that has been put in place, bu…

I'm not saying ignorance is an excuse for breaking the law. If you find yourself repeating a claim, you're probably not understanding the other person. I'm saying the law in Germany is unjust. I have sympathy for the person who was locked up for 3 months for making a friendly joke. I would also have sympathy for the mother of a tree cutter who was killed because he didn't prepare two escape routes like he should have…

You said this:

> I used to have a nazi symbol on my car just to rile people up

You can't then complain that people get riled up. It was your intention to provoke them; they were provoked; and now you suffer the consequences for provoking them.

If you don't wish to suffer those consequences you have the freedom to not behave like a fucking idiot.