And I want people who actually are racist to talk, so I know who I don't want to be friends with. If they're all keeping their racist opinions to themselves, I might waste a bunch of time being their friends. And I can't correct them when they're wrong if they don't expose their opinions.
And what about having an argument? Someone could accuse you of a crime if they misinterpret what you say. That's the real problem here. You can say something with no hateful intent, but people can interpret it with vigorous hate. It's a really stupid law.
I have several friends who I know hold some less-than-sociable opinions, and they do tend to keep them to themselves.
I don't quite know how to frame what I'm about to say, but I feel it's equally dickish to think that becoming someone's friend is a "waste of time" just because you don't agree with their opinion.
It's an extreme example, yet an unfortunate practical one today.
However, the difficult part is two-fold. One how to define the line of unacceptability (for example, calling for actionable violence against someone) and how to enforce that line and keep it steadfast (unwavering in the face of both antagonists --the ones for more control as well as the absolutists).
It's more important and wide than "I don't want to be their friends"...
How can you attack ideas if they aren't brought out into the open? How can you convince the racist? Or the people that have those thoughts but don't mention them?
They corner stone of freedom is discussing ideas.
I want the most vile pieces of shit to have their chance to speak... so that I can talk to them. I can talk to those who will listen. I will combat their ideas.
Cowards hide from ideas and words. It takes strength to fight them head on and out in the open.
If I point out that the vast majority of criminals are men, that is simple fact. If I suggest it might be because of something related to being male, few would call that hate speech and few would bring up alternatives such as bias in the legal system. Only when I get to the point of saying all males should be treated as criminals will I get significant push back of people saying that I'm wrong.
Now, replace gender with some other demographic, and people become much more hostile to my points, and I am considered to be dancing much closer to the line of hate speech.
What about if I have legitimate criticism? There are many legitimate criticisms of some sects of different religions. If I happen to speak to broadly, say using Christian or Protestant when I'm really talking about Calvinist, should that really count as hate speech? Or should someone ask if I'm really generalizing the larger group and give me a chance to qualify which subsection I'm speaking about?
While this idea is admirable, fascist/Nazi dialogue has shown again and again that fascists are not interested in "fair" debate. All they want is a larger audience so they can pass on their views -- and look at America. Do you really think that the hundreds of thousands of people debating Richard Spencer[0], Steve Bannon[1] and Milo Yiannopoulos[2] has stopped the spread?
No! In fact, it has enabled them to spread their sources of propaganda further into the world. Now even centrist friends of mine are linking to Breitbart as if it is a valid source of information[3]. Some viruses and infections you can only kill through isolation. Fascism is one of them.
[0]: In case that you have any doubt that Spencer is a Nazi:
Instead of asking how we can make reparations for slavery, colonialism, and
Apartheid or how we can equalize academic scores and incomes, we should
instead be asking questions like, "Does human civilization actually need the
Black race?" "Is Black genocide right?" and, if it is, "What would be
the best and easiest way to dispose of them?" With starting points
like this, wisdom is sure to flourish, enlightenment to dawn.
-- Richard Spencer, "Is Black Genocide Right?" (2012)
[1]: Bannon has voiced support for UKIP and Front National. The former is an close offshoot of Britain First, one of whom murdered a British politician a year or so ago (He had a golden eagle statue and a shrine to Nazi literature). The latter was literally founded by a member of the SS, Pierre Bousquet. FN has also been known to murder French politicians. (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Steve_Bannon)
You attack ideas by suffocating them, not by repeating them. Children learn words by hearing them spoken. Nothing more needs to happen; the brain is quite good at drawing the intended implications out. To promote an idea, you need only put it in people's heads over and over again.
The major problem with hate speech laws is trying to separate propaganda from education or intellectual discussion from dogmatic bigotry. It is trivial to mask one as the other and vice versa. And while an honest and critical person can make a good distinction in narrow contexts, nobody has been able to do it effectively on a cultural scale.
As far as I can tell, that's not true of the German law in question, though if you think it is true of that law (not some abstract hypothetical “hate speech” law straw man), please explain how, citing the relevant provisions of the law and explaining how they produce the unequal results that concern you.
For example, Canada's hate speech law: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-73.html#h-...
Section 318 says that you can't incite genocide. Fair enough right?
Section 319 says that you can't say things that willfully promotes hatred against an identifiable group. (Unless those things happen to be true, or even if you reasonably believed them to be true. Or if it was a private conversation. Or the things you're saying are in the public interest.)
This means it's actually really hard to convict someone of hate speech, at least in Canada. Under section 318, you have to get the governor general's approval to even bring the case.
I can't comment on the German law since I don't know German, but I'd imagine it's similar in nature.
Not at all. This forces Twitter to remove things that could be hate speech within 24 hours or face a fine. If they remove things that are not hate speech for being hate speech they don't get a fine. Of course they'll remove as many things as possible. That's the problem with the new german law.
I keep seeing this statement, but all i can think is:
Fuck, i wish i was lucky enough to have so few racists around me to be able to think i can spare the time and mental health for additional ones.
Good for you, be glad you apparently have few to none racists around you, so you don't know what it's like when there's tons of them and they all talk unhindered.
Edit: LMAO, i do wonder what kind of people i managed to upset with this.
Do you use fascist techniques like criminalizing speech to stop the spread of fascist ideas? Or do you simply hope fascist ideas don't take hold?
The former is a scary slippery slope but Germany doesn't have a great track record with the latter.
If you resort to fascist techniques, then fascist ideas clearly have taken hold.
The fascist kind of suppressing (usually disagreements with the establishment or status quo) speech usually ends in violence and revolution.
"Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant."
(from Karl Popper, more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance)
I myself do not like the law because it places the responsibility of deletion into the hands of the platforms, which is IMO something that a court of law should decide. If a court is too slow maybe they need to establish a new branch of justice for things like this and actually employ more people.
It seems that by the time Popper's argumentkicks in, the offending speech needs to come very close to the "incitement of violence" standard that everyone already agrees is not protected by free speech.
Popper's argument would also have force in brainwashing type situations like the Jonestown cult. But any action taken against such groups can be based in terms of the rights of individual members to hear people other than the preacher, not on the silencing the preacher.
If you were in a restaurant in 1930s Vienna surrounded by great art, music and intellectuals you may have been forgiven for thinking that wonderful setting would continue on forever. Unfortunately, a short time later millions we're dying on a continent engulfed in war.
When the stock market is up we think it'll keep going up. When we have peace we can't imagine war. History is not a straight line and destructive ideas can still take hold in the wrong conditions.
“Criminalizing speech” by itself isn't a particularly fascist technique, since it's been done by movements all over the political spectrum, starting long before fascism. Fascism (in the broad sense) isn't really defined much by technique (you could perhaps credit Naziism or Italian Fascism specifically with some techniques, like the distinct propaganda approach of the Nazis, but even that isn't as distinguishing as the ideological goals of the movement.)
Two societies chose different paths, each--in my opinion--appropriate for their circumstances. In America, we have the First Amendment. In Germany, they have Volksverhetzung [1]. The problem is Twitter, Facebook, et al think shipping information across borders is the same as shipping boxes.
(Besides, banning libel and true threats is also criminalization of speech. That's not fascism, is it?)
i wonder... is that actually something that works? or does it just mean fascist ideas gain a more polite presentation?
fascism == authoritarianism && nationalism && racism
Censorship is done by authoritarians of all stripes.
Free speech exists to protect speech when fascists take hold. It's why no matter who is president of the US, we can spew all the hate we want. Unlike in germany where speech is dependent on who is in charge. If fascists take over and then decide anti-fascist speech is hate speech, then germans are screwed. Whereas in america, if fascists take over, they are screwed because we have free speech in america.
> The former is a scary slippery slope but Germany doesn't have a great track record with the latter.
Germany doesn't have a good track record because they always had "hate speech" laws. Hitler was able to censor everything because the german government always had the the power to censor "hate speech".
Hitler would never had been able to do what he did if the german government didn't have powers to shut down all political parties and censor all "hate speech".
Imagine if we had a culture of censorship in the US and hate speech was banned. Then trump become president and his government decides anything critical of trump is hate speech.
haters can spread hate with near impunity because someone else is paying the price if they don't act fast enough to remove it
Multiculturalism: can make people fear for their lives.
People are only allowed to express their fears about one of those issues, and the government decides which of those fears is valid. This is despite the fact that both racism and multiculturalism can make people fear for their lives. That's utterly dystopian.
In general with social media moderating, I'm very much against harassment but I believe people should be able to freely express their beliefs. If you're not following a person who you disagree with, what does it hurt?
A belief in the inferiority of another race isn't political, it's something else. I don't know what, but discriminatory and bigoted beliefs don't belong in political discussions or any discussions about how we govern ourselves or organize society.
Are you saying that it's beyond the pale to even have a conversation about diversity and immigration policy? Are you assuming that an inflow of people from anywhere in the world is always good or neutral?
Second you are right. Beliefs about differences between races aren't political. They are scientific. These are scientific question that are completely beyond politics. Your morality or political opinions have no impact on the truth value of scientific claims. Censoring things does not make them untrue.
The law applies only to a narrowly defined class of hate speech. Statements that fall under the definition have always been illegal. People always ran the risk of prosecution when calling for genocide etc.
As such, nobody's freedom of speech is more limited today than it was a week ago. What the law tries to accomplish is similar to the DMCA, i. e. to force companies to take steps to address criminal activity on their platforms when such is reported.
I know there are many who disagree with laws limiting hate speech. But this is not that debate.
The thing is that (despite the reporting in the English-language media), it's not actually a hate speech law [1]. The problem is that social media companies are being deputized as enforcers of parts of the penal code without proper qualifications, safeguards, or ways to appeal (unlike real courts).
> As such, nobody's freedom of speech is more limited today than it was a week ago.
Yes, it is. Speech cannot only be constrained through legislating what types of speech are legal, but also through creating enforcement mechanisms that encourage platforms to be overzealous in what they don't allow.
[1] The whole terminology does not really make sense in the context of German law. Not to mention that even in the broadest sense, it's inaccurate, as the law also applies to things such as illegal pornography and threats (regardless of motivation).
Germany is considering a stable, open, democratic, peaceful, constructive and successful country. There are any number of rankings/scoring regarding freedom of the press and of expression, resilience to corruption, democracy, economic opportunity etc in which Germany scores better than the US.
These are laws passed by the national parliament, elected to represent its constituents. The law is subject to approval by not only the national courts, but the European Court of Justice, and the European Court of Human Rights.
To somehow consider it a grave injustice when Twitter is now required to act when they are informed of activity considered illegal in that jurisdiction is ridiculous. Because presumably you're doing so out of some understanding of "democracy". Yet you are ignoring quite a bit of the local democracy that lead to this.
It would be better if they could just reliably block the account from reaching German users only, while other users would continue reading the tweets. It, of course, is impossible unless Germany implements a country-wide firewall, the way China did.
I don't think it's likely, though. The point of actions like this is not to strictly eliminate any last vestige of hate speech. It is to send a message, so that other would-be-satirists could reconsider starting an account that breaks the law, and that other international companies which deal with UGC knew what to expect, and took preventive measures.
I found Steven Crowder's arguments here to really challenge my thoughts on what is free speech and what is hate speech. Give that a watch if you have the time.
What is commonly called "hate speech" in the English-language media is §130 (1) of the penal code (part of the set of "Volksverhetzung" offenses). It's a poor fit because:
* The law can in principle apply to any identifiable subgroup of the population or any individual as a member of such a subgroup. Subgroups defined by their ethnic characteristics or religious beliefs are listed as examples, but the list is not exhaustive (though of course the group of Bavarian vintage car collectors is unlikely to be a target).
* It's not related to the motives of the speakers. It's about the effects the speech creates, specifically threats against the public peace, such as incitement to and encouragement of violence (unlike in America, incitement of lawless action need not be imminent) or creating an atmosphere through slander where members of a subgroup have reason to not feel safe anymore. If you want an example or why, look up what Julius Streicher was convicted of in Nuremberg and how it contributed to the Holocaust.
As a counterpoint, imagine you are a minority (if you are not already a minority), and further imagine that someone uses speech that has, in the past, been used to incite violence; or speech that is similar (dog-whistle) to that which incites violence.
Plus, you didn't read the last sentence: "There is debate to be had on hate speech. This is not that debate".
This seems like another assault on free speech to me and there is a danger in limiting the online Overton Window to a massive bland snooze fest.
The current joy of the internet is being able to read all sorts of perspectives from 'sensible' to radical and I really hope that continues...I worry for all the citizen journalists and investigators who have been so magnificent in the current western 'glasnost' era online...
Context is that Facebook has been ignoring illegal* content on their site and generally made an ass out of german law enforcement, so they got a law to rein them in.
*illegal: libel, Volksverhetzung (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volksverhetzung), supporting illegal organizations (eg. advertising IS beheading videos), calls on people to commit crimes, child porn, porn without consent
That just doesn't apply here. This Free Speech never existed in the Germany I grew up in and it's not something that I ever felt needed. The incident here is a mistake, a strange overreaction - maybe even by Twitter? - and hopefully will be corrected promptly.
So while I understand that you might be unfamiliar with the underlying laws in Germany: I wouldn't want to trade them in.
Edit: I fully support the restriction of Free Speech and prosecution of hate speech. I'm not a fan of the new 'delete content online' NetzDG thing
An important argument for free speech is that while it does little harm for people to merely say say bad stuff, restricting it does a lot of harm because of snowball effects. If speech act looks just barely be illegal, then it is much easier and safer to just condemn it than to figure out if it really meets the standard.
That is if you dispose of free speech as a principle, then you should expect suppression of even speech you think is tolerable. And if you believe that is pie-in-the-sky theory, then you are seeing evidence to the contrary here.
'Free Expression' is the equivalent euro terminology as I understand it. I'm a Brit living in the US so I think I understand your German perspective but don't understand you supporting the restriction of Free Speech/Expression...
Read §1(3).
https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/netzdg/BJNR335210017.html...
[0] http://revisionisthistory.com/episodes/10-the-satire-paradox [1] https://blog.simonsays.ai/satire-paradox-with-malcolm-gladwe...
Banning messages via NetzDG is on message basis, that means single tweets get removed.
Here a whole account got banned which is twitter SOP when accounts violate their TOS.
Because the new NetzDG came into effect this month now every media in germany is confused. Seems like the international ones follow suit.
Also the Titanic account (the satire account) got - wrongly - banned some time before so it propably was some kind of repeat offender thing
And that is a _good_ thing.
While I think it's never inappropriate to punch a Nazi (self avowed variety anyway), I'm definitely on the side of letting Nazis have free speech. It's best when the cockroaches are scurrying around in public, rather than hiding in the wood work. And as it turns out, the U.S. has a long history of fascists engaged in crimes, theft and murder, and have plotted the overthrow of the government - same as Germany where these ideas are illegal.
So which method actually inhibits Nazis? Neither. But at least one is cheaper, and at least with one you've got an example that most every one else, not merely just the government, will point to as what not to be. Unless you wanna get punched.
^ see what I did there? One will say I support censorship, other will say it was sarcasm, another will stay silent.