Mark Zuckerberg Confronts 'Hate Speech' In Germany And At Facebook (csmonitor.com) 347
Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg announced on Friday in Berlin that he recognized that Facebook needs to crack down more on "hate speech" against migrants. In September, Facebook announced that it would work with the German Justice Ministry to crack down on anti-migrant posts. Under German law, social media users who incite hatred or violence against an ethnic or religious group can be punished by up to three years in jail. "If people, using their own name, incite hatred against other people, not only the government has to act, but also Facebook should do something against those statements," German Chancellor Angela Merkel told the Rheinische Post. Facebook has been in discussions about privacy and hate speech with Germany for months. Last summer, it announced that it would conform to Germany's strict hate speech laws and attempt to take down racist posts within a day.
Slippery Slope (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
This guy Zuck really does think he is Time Lord Lord President and all moral decisions that end up on his desk he is the sole arbiter of what is right and wrong. The fact that people are thinking a certain way he does not care he is going to correct that thinking by censoring. Unreal. More like Pravda these days than Voice of America.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Unless you're Donald Trump and then apparently it's OK.
Re: (Score:3)
Suppose you arrive at a dinner you've been invited to, and when you sit down at the table you don't get any food. You say "I've been invited, so I should get fed." The host says, "Everybody who's been invited should get fed" and does nothing. That satisfies you, right?
Blacks have particularly serious problems with police misconduct, and so there is a reason to address their problems specifically.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Slippery Slope (Score:3, Informative)
Except Muslims. Muslims in Europe's first generation was in the 50s to work in the mining and construction industry as well as factories and the like. Forward 50 years (early 2000's) and the majority still hasn't integrated, the majority of male children born in the EU are named Muhammed, large portions of female children are in the "system" and instead of integrating they are opting to create Islam Sharia Law political parties with large cities now having politicians favoring Sharia Law and police no longe
Re: Slippery Slope (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
"Zuckerberg has resisted any kind of crackdown against hate speech before, the only reason he's doing it now is probably because Germany leaves him no option."
No - Option?
A damn billionaire has No - Option!!!???
What about not doing damn business in damn Germany if he is so damn in favor of damn free speech? Or is it that he's more in favor of damn money than he is in favor of damn free speech (even when talking about money that would make him just more billionaire on top of being already billionaire)?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I would say cut your statement in half... you don't NEED to say "I want the immigrants to go home."
If your issue is with resources, address the possible causes and solutions. You've already come to a conclusion (which is wanting immigrants to leave), and you just want a validated excuse to have achieve that end.
See what you're doing?
Some people are more subtle about their distaste for different races and cultures, some are more overt (sometimes it spills over into actual hate speech).. you're already ON th
Re:Slippery Slope (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Dutch - A few things you should consider processing through that sanctimonious noggin of yours:
I suggest you look up the word "irony"
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: Slippery Slope (Score:2)
These same arguments were used against Hindus and Sikhs when they first came here. The papers were full of stories of these nasty foreigners getting free everything. The Rivers of Blood speech that you righties love so much was primarily about Indian and Pakistani immigration. History just keeps repeating and while rich white men continue to dismantle all the things our grandparents fought for, useful idiots like yourself keep blaming poor brown people whose only crime is wanting a better life.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"The problem is that these men want welfare(like they had in Syria)"
Really..I'll bet you ANYTHING you don't even know how the Syrian government worked. You're just slapping a "wanting welfare" label onto an ethnic group you dislike so that you can validate your desire for ethnic cleansing.
"The problem with Muslims in Europe is that they think the world revolves around them and that they should be treated as kings"
As opposed to say, YOU... who sit in your ivory tower turning away people who genuinely need the help because you're scared that what they are trying to escape from will land at YOUR door. You want THEM to go back and fight a shitty war so that YOU can feel safe in your chair at home. You
Re: (Score:3)
Needing help and deserving help are two very different things. The perfect illustration of this is Al Wilson's "The Snake".
I'm proud of advancing arguments that protect my myself, my neighbors, and my country. People like you who claim I should endanger myself to help primitives in the name of a perverse moral code are disgusting.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: Slippery Slope (Score:2)
He's going to get a nasty shock when he gets to Britain and finds out that what he read in the Daily Mail was actually bollocks. He'd be better off going to Sweden.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, for me it seems that most of refugee-related destruction in Germany seems to come from Germans, who in certain areas set newly built refugee shelters on fire. In Hamburg, I live very close two container camps housing 850 mostly Syrian refugees. I've talked with several refugees, helped them find the right trains or groceries when they cannot read English or German. I haven't seen any "destruction", crime or even aggression from them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Slippery Slope (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I hate that stupid ass thieving magpie looking mutha fucka. Cracka ass cracka being all "Got yo nose, and ssn," can't buy threads just a busted ass gym rat costume like its national "Dress like you ain't a bitch" day all day erry day.
Fuckin white people. Prolly got a back yard full o maypoles and Santa marias and a Japanese stone garden made of little chunks of the Plymouth rock.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't be finicky. If you can't tell the difference between voicing your opinion in valid arguments or telling people to fuck off and die burning in a fire, you need your head examined.
Re: (Score:2)
Lets leave the bible out of this please.
Re:Slippery Slope (Score:5, Informative)
Here is what the American Bar Association says about "hate speech"; it's worth repeating:
Hate speech is speech that offends, threatens, or insults groups, based on race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, disability, or other traits. Should hate speech be discouraged? The answer is easy—of course! However, developing such policies runs the risk of limiting an individual’s ability to exercise free speech. When a conflict arises about which is more important—protecting community interests or safeguarding the rights of the individual—a balance must be found that protects the civil rights of all without limiting the civil liberties of the speaker.
Now in the US hate speech is usually protected under the First Amendment. The exceptions are when the speaker is intentionally inciting imminent lawless action [wikipedia.org], or uttering fighting words [wikipedia.org]. Fighting words are at present is something of a Constitutional moving target.
Hate speech can also be an aggravating factor in an ordinary crime. Think about the difference between burning a barrel of leaves on a neighbor's property, and burning a cross (if that neighbor is black). Physically these acts are not so different, but the nature of the crimes are very different. The intent of the cross burning is to frighten the neighbor, perhaps to force him to move away; it is in effect a crime against liberty.
Of course I'm talking about the US, and this situation is in Germany for historical and constitutional reasons takes a stronger stance against hate speech. There it is called Voksverhetzung [wikipedia.org]; there's a definition of Voksverthetzung in the Wikipedia article if you're interested in specifics. Clearly it's illegal to say many things in Germany that would be protected speech in the US (e.g. merely advocating violence against Jews as opposed to inciting it). But even in the US what Zuckerberg is doing would be perfectly legal; Facebook is a private vendor who sets its terms of service and if you don't like it, well, you can always post your updates over on Stormfront (which operates in the US because it's protected -- their server is in Texas apparently).
Zuckerberg can define "hate speech" any way he wants and enforce it in his TOS, as long as the stockholders don't rise up in revolt.
Re:Slippery Slope (Score:4, Interesting)
But... what if there is some unflattering FACT about a group that offends and insults most members of that group? Conversely, there may be flattering fact about a group that most members of the group find flattering.
There seem to be two kinds of people when it comes to social policy:
Group 1 first asks whether something is true, then may consider whether it's offensive.
Group 2 first asks whether something is offensive, then may consider whether it's true.
I was going to say "conservative" and "liberal" but it didn't quite seem to cover it.
Re: (Score:3)
But... what if there is some unflattering FACT about a group that offends and insults most members of that group? Conversely, there may be flattering fact about a group that most members of the group find flattering.
I'd be interested in examples of what you mean here.
I'll just remark that (a) offensive speech is, absent libel or incitement, perfectly legal in the US, but people don't have to listen to you or let you use their property as a forum for that speech; and (b) it's also quite possible to lie using facts by quoting them out of context. In fact that's how the most skillful liars work. But lying is generally protected speech unless it's libel or fraud, so you're safe there.
Re:Slippery Slope (Score:5, Interesting)
But... what if there is some unflattering FACT about a group that offends and insults most members of that group? Conversely, there may be flattering fact about a group that most members of the group find flattering.
I'd be interested in examples of what you mean here.
I'll just remark that (a) offensive speech is, absent libel or incitement, perfectly legal in the US, but people don't have to listen to you or let you use their property as a forum for that speech; and (b) it's also quite possible to lie using facts by quoting them out of context. In fact that's how the most skillful liars work. But lying is generally protected speech unless it's libel or fraud, so you're safe there.
1) The majority of organized terrorists operating in the world today, who have the largest organizations in terms of members and funding, and who have done the most damage in terms of cost (property) and lives, self-identify as muslims and explicitly act out in the name of Islam (ISIS, Al Qaeda, Al Shabab, Al Nusra Front, Boko Haram, etc..). 2) Asians tend to do really well in mathematics, and academia in general. You can also add slander to that list, BTW.
Re: (Score:3)
The majority of terrorist attacks in the United States are carried out by right wing fanatics.
Re: (Score:2)
People who repeat definitions offend me. Please remove yourself from the Internet and never ever publicly post anything again. Er.. wait.. perhaps my offense at you repeating a definition caused you to be offended. Now what? Yes, it's a slipper slope and the definition you provided should make that fact pretty clear.
The wording in the Constitution is very clear and very intentional. The fact that our Press is no longer free should tell you where we stand as a Country in terms of having a Government hon
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not sure you actually know what a dilemma is. I'm not saying you HAVE to choose between posting your views to Facebook OR Stormfront; I'm saying you can express opinions on Stormfront (and other websites) that would be prohibited by Facebook's "Community Standards" [note 1], and that the existence of sites like Stormfront is due to US constitutional protections for unpopular speech.
What this means is that Facebook's Community Standards aren't a civil liberties issue, not even in a "positive liberty" se
Re:Slippery Slope (Score:5, Insightful)
Dear Mark Z. - Please define "hate speech" and how you and / or Angela M.'s legions of government bureaucrats plan on not trampling all over legitimate free speech (e.g., "I disagree with Germany's immigration policy because it takes an unrealistic stance on available resources, and I want the immigrants to go home,").
These days the word 'hate' is being used in a massively exaggerated way, as is 'phobia'.
'hate' and 'phobia' are used to describe everything from disapproval through dislike and actual hate.
Eg 'homophobe' is used to describe people who, rather than fearing homosexuals, disapprove of it on moral grounds. These people do not fear homosexuals.
People who disapprove of mass immigration are described as 'race-haters'. These people do not hate people of other races.
This dilutes the value of the words 'hate' and 'phobia' so much that the abuse of these terms will have the reverse effect that their users would want.
Re:Slippery Slope (Score:5, Insightful)
These days the word 'hate' is being used in a massively exaggerated way, as is 'phobia'.
'hate' and 'phobia' are used to describe everything from disapproval through dislike and actual hate.
Eg 'homophobe' is used to describe people who, rather than fearing homosexuals, disapprove of it on moral grounds. These people do not fear homosexuals.
And calling molecules "hydrophobic" is similarly wrong.
They don't hate water, there is simply "an absence of attraction".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
So why do those politically correct SJW chemists have to bring hate into it?
Re: (Score:2)
And calling molecules "hydrophobic" is similarly wrong. They don't hate water, there is simply "an absence of attraction".
Phobia doesn't mean hate, it means fear of. Hydrophobes exhibit a repulsion towards water hence the term.
Re: (Score:2)
What's the moral question on gay sex? In all the years of debate, I've never seen anything other than "God said not to." Also some specious arguments that it leads to child rape and animal rape.
Re: (Score:2)
What's the moral question on gay sex? In all the years of debate, I've never seen anything other than "God said not to." Also some specious arguments that it leads to child rape and animal rape.
It doesn't really matter what the moral question is. That some people believe there is one is a personal issue for them to deal with.
But its not a phobia.
To call it 'homophobia' devalues 'phobia'.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
'hate' and 'phobia' are used to describe everything from disapproval through dislike and actual hate."
true to a degree but people hide their bigotry behind disapproval etc.
"Eg 'homophobe' is used to describe people who, rather than fearing homosexuals, disapprove of it on moral grounds. These people do not fear homosexuals." - no, that "moral" is judgemental abrahamic religious view point, why is it immoral to be ho
Re: (Score:2)
Eg 'homophobe' is used to describe people who, rather than fearing homosexuals, disapprove of it on moral grounds. These people do not fear homosexuals.
They do if they feel the need to act on their opinion. If you didn't feel threatened you wouldn't care either way. The fact some people get so uppity about it reveals that deep down, they are scared of something.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not the issue here. The issue is that there are actual virulent hate groups active on Facebook. And it's not a reasonably credible and well-mannerede discussion as your example, these groups bristle will full-on nazi-like racism and hatred, and in some cases direct calls to violent action.
Re: (Score:3)
"A lot of times, the members of these groups are net ragers"
Pull your head out of your ass. The real-life Nazis love the internet. They've been using it to reach out to sympathizers for a long time.
Re: (Score:3)
The type of speech being banned is clearly laid out in German law. It's incitement to violence, basically.
I don't support these laws, I'm just pointing out that the definition is well defined in Germany and has been tested in court.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure explains why people making statements that aren't an incitement to violence are being silenced then. The government fears people speaking out, and in turn are trying to silence their views.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. Germany has a lower bar for incitement of violence than tha US does. For example, it seems to be legal in the US to say "all jews should be killed", where as if you say "go and kill that jew over there", you've tipped over from protected speech to incitement of violence. In Germany the former qualifies, as do other things like saying "jews are terrible people (wouldn't it be nice if they all disappeared)".
The US definition of "incitement of violence" is not the only one.
Should I include a state
Re: (Score:2)
Great. Now please post the design specs so that a coder can put in place logic enforcing such well-defined German laws and case precedents.
Er, why? Any legal issues can be resolved by people, who are still far better at judging the nuances of human behaviour than any computer.
It's allready defined (Score:4, Informative)
those laws define hate speech (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Meanwhile it's okay with Zuckerberg and Merkel (and others of their ilk) that the immigrants can hate Europeans as much as they want. Both of them are too damned stupid to see what is actually happening. Either that or they're evil.
Or, Zuckerberg and Merkel know far more about all the issues involved than some guy who made his judgement based on a headline he read on the Internet one time...
Re: (Score:3)
WTF is "legitimate" free speech?
I think it is illegitimate for you to criticize any migrants. BOOM. I just destroyed your free speech.
There's no such thing as "legitimate" or "illegitimate" free speech because such terms are completely subjective. There's free speech or there isn't. Pick one.
Re: (Score:2)
WTF is "legitimate" free speech?
I think it is illegitimate for you to criticize any migrants. BOOM. I just destroyed your free speech.
There's no such thing as "legitimate" or "illegitimate" free speech because such terms are completely subjective. There's free speech or there isn't. Pick one.
Only if you are pretending to be a robot from the 1950's. Most of us humans can figure out the difference.
Re:Slippery Slope (Score:4, Informative)
WTF is "legitimate" free speech?
There are many things you can say which no one considers part of free speech, for example:
* Slander
* Libel
* Incitement to violence
* Fighting words
* Solicitation of murder
There are other things which are apparently considered legally free speech but many people think aren't such as:
* Using a limited liability entity to donate money to political campaigns
So, as always the world is subtle and nuanced.
Re: (Score:2)
We've already got precedent for this with R v Elliot. Disagreeing with someone on the internet is harassment, hate speech, and cyber-violence.
Re: Slippery Slope (Score:2)
Instead of asking what hate speech is you could just have googled it or checked Wikipedia. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik... [wikipedia.org]
BTW your first part of your statement is an opinion worth discussing. It is neutral and allows to investigate the subject. The second part is almost passive aggressive, as the people coming to Europe nowadays are refugees from a war zone (most of them). Therefore, sending them home is inhumane. Still it is not hate speech.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And who decides what hate speech is? (Score:4, Insightful)
Apparently, "I don't want criminals running around assulting women" is hate speech. Screw you Cuckerberg.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Some of the women that have been raped have apologized, so they obviously disagree with you. They recognize that the rape was the fault of society and not the victims that committed it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Some of the women that have been raped have apologized, so they obviously disagree with you. They recognize that the rape was the fault of society and not the victims that committed it.
9 out of 10 Women Raped by Muslims eventually understand that it was in fact their own fault that they were Raped because they were white and not wearing burkas.
They also learn to be grateful that they were only raped and not stoned as they should have been.
The remaining 1 out of 10 women are the ungrateful 9 year old wives of the rapists, who having only recently been sold into slavery by their Muslim parents aren't yet fully hip to the rules and their righteousness.
Re: (Score:2)
Some of the women that have been raped have apologized, so they obviously disagree with you. They recognize that the rape was the fault of society and not the victims that committed it.
This, succinctly, is the fundamental difference between the European and American worldviews.
Re:And who decides what hate speech is? (Score:4, Insightful)
Meanwhile, in Islamic countries, if you're an atheist, you're lucky you don't get stoned.
But in Europe, we're inviting millions of Islamics, and counter to a thousand years of History and common sense, we expect 3rd world people to become 1st worlders overnight and have our values.... and our birthrate is low low low (around 1.1 or less, historical replacement rate was 4 babies) and theirs is high.
Only "hate speechers" see the writing on the wall. Everyone is living a fantasy expecting these peopel to actually firm the foundation for the pyramid scheme that is our social security system....
Re: (Score:2)
.... and our birthrate is low low low (around 1.1 or less, historical replacement rate was 4 babies) and theirs is high.
Historic, yes. Modern replacement rate for a society with generally first-world medical access (including those who've emigrated to such a country) would be ~2.1.
Modern (native) European birth rates are around 1.4-1.7, depending on the country. If you want to see a country that's probably already in the death spiral, take a look at Japan. (Also, read any of Mark Steyn's books for more.)
Re: (Score:2)
I see no death spiral in Japan. They're adapting, in the way only a society with strong cohesion can.
They're adapting by inventing robots to do everything, but eventually the social safety net will have to give way. The trend is getting worse to, to the point that the birth rate might actually drop below 1.0, which is basically unheard of in any society that expects to still exist in 50 years.
Russia bad, but not anywhere near that. At this rate, China won't have to conquer the lands on either side of it, it'll just waltz over and settle the unoccupied space.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But in WESTERN Europe, we're inviting millions of Islamics, and counter to a thousand years of History and common sense, we expect 3rd world people to become 1st worlders overnight and have our values.... and our birthrate is low low low (around 1.1 or less, historical replacement rate was 4 babies) and theirs is high.
FTFY. I'm Hungarian you insensitive clod! At least my current government isn't merrily going along with the NWO drum beat.
Wow. The crazies really have come out on this story. I would love a little breakdown of all the anonymous cowards who post on stories compared to the signed in, usually rational folk.
Re: (Score:2)
New owners take note, this needs addressing.
The revolution will not be televised (Score:2)
Canceled because our Facebook group was deleted.
translation: will obey the law, will censor (Score:2)
wonder if he knows that, if one obeys the law in one country, and not obey the law in another, when one is doing business with both, one are engaging in a version of racist discrimination.
one either stand up for universal principles regardless of law, until one is forced , or one obey at will and renounce any notion of universal rights.
The SJW definition, not actual hate speech. (Score:2)
Given that he supports hate of all things that aren't politically correct, wouldn't that make Zuckerberg the bigot?
We know what this really means (Score:5, Insightful)
If you say: "Kill gays," it's hate speech, granted. But if you say: "It's a bad idea to let millions of Muslims into Europe, because their holy book instructs them to kill gays," somehow that is "hate speech" against Muslims. Even more idiotically, it's considered "racism" even though Islam is a religion and not a race.
The crackdown on "incorrect" thoughts is reaching absurdities. Criticize feminism on Twitter, and you'll get banned. [reason.com] They'll even suppress the protest hashtag #FreeStacy by disabling autocomplete for it. But somehow the hashtag #KillAllWhiteMen is nothing for the "Trust and Safety Council" to be concerned about. [twitter.com]
A 15-year-old student in the UK visited the UKIP website in class. His teachers then reported him to the police, who interrogated him for hours. [express.co.uk]
If that isn't enough to frighten you, here's some research about how easily Google could game elections by skewing search results in favor of one candidate or another, and how Facebook could do the same with targeted ads and by deciding what shows up on your wall. [aeon.co] And the leadership of both companies are Hillary fans. That doesn't mean that they'll do it, but they have the motive, means, and opportunity to do so. And how would we know if they had?
Re: (Score:2)
> If you say: "Kill gays," it's hate speech
If a Muslim says: "Kill gays" is that hate speech?
Re: (Score:3)
> If you say: "Kill gays," it's hate speech
If a Muslim says: "Kill gays" is that hate speech?
Apparently not in England [dailymail.co.uk] or Norway [cnsnews.com].
Re: (Score:2)
No, they're People of Color and are therefore exempt.
Re: (Score:2)
If that isn't enough to frighten you
Be afraid! What are you, Fox News?
Re:We know what this really means (Score:5, Informative)
So you're OK with Christians whose holy book advocates pedophilia and incest?
The Koran and Bible are quite different in many ways.
The Bible was written by dozens of people "inspired" by God, in a handful of languages, over hundreds of years. Very few read it in the original languages. The New Testament, centered on the pacifistic Jesus, largely supersedes* the Old. (*This is probably not the theologically-correct word, but you get my meaning.) There's lots of room for interpretation, and nearly all of the bad stuff that people cite is in the Old Testament, which very few Christians treat as central or equal to the New. (Many Bibles simply delete the entire Old Testament.)
The Koran is very different. It was (supposedly) dictated by Allah (who speaks a somewhat archaic Arabic) through Gabriel to Mohammad. Mohammad was very different from Jesus: not a pacifist but a caravan robber, murderer, and warlord. The copies of the Koran on Earth are "perfect" copies of Allah's copy in heaven. Muslims are expected to read it in the original Arabic. (Korans in translation are not "really" Korans in their view.) There is comparatively little room for interpretation.
The Koran itself is almost the opposite of the Bible: it's more peaceful in the beginning, and gets more violent later on, reflecting Mohammad's transformation from caravan robber to prophet to warlord. So you might notice that when Muslim apologists quote the Koran, they quote early passages, and when critics do, they quote later ones. But like the Bible, the latter parts are said to supersede (to some degree) the earlier parts.
In addition to the Koran being Allah's direct words, there's the problem of considering Muhammad "perfect" and a model for all Muslims: that gives you justification for child brides and cousin marriage (hence the well-documented negative eugenic effects of inbreeding in the Muslim world), slavery (ISIS has total theological justification for their sex slavery), hatred of Jews, death for gays, death for apostates, death for blasphemers, etc. And, of course, it's a central Islamic belief that Islam is destined to rule the world, with everyone else officially subjugated as second-class citizens, or converted, or killed. Which happens in every country ruled by Muslims.
You will find very little like that in the Bible, and very few Christians defend violence in the name of Jesus. But many Muslims all over the world are fine with religious violence. [thereligionofpeace.com] And mentioning these facts about Islam counts as "hate speech" in many European countries (not to mention Islamic ones)....
Re: (Score:2)
Re:We know what this really means (Score:4, Insightful)
Thank $diety, the younger generation of Americans brought up in a Muslim have a more balanced view of their religion.
One hopes, but the opposite seems to have happened in France, for example. The Muslims who immigrated in the '50s and '60s caused few problems, AFAIK. It's their grandkids who are burning cars and supporting ISIS. Assimilation there is not working as it's supposed to.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah...no. all you did was prove that you are very unfamiliar with BOTH books and with each religions theological teachings of the books.
And yet, nobody in this thread has presented any evidence regarding a single, specific error I have made. Just a bunch of handwaving about how wrong I am. Your argument would be more convincing with some evidence.
Re: (Score:2)
Quran
Quran (7:80-84) - "...For ye practice your lusts on men in preference to women: ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds.... And we rained down on them a shower (of brimstone)" - An account that is borrowed from the Biblical story of Sodom. Muslim scholars through the centuries have interpreted the "rain of stones" on the town as meaning that homosexuals should be stoned, since no other reason is given for the people's destruction. (The story is also repeated in suras 27 and29).
Quran (7:81) -
Is criticism of immigration policies "hate?" (Score:2)
Is it possible that some Germans have legitimate complaints?
Please watch this video:
Stunning video of crime in Berlin today
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9V96TPmAr8
Do Germans remember censorship imposed by Nazis? (Score:2)
This is not Germany's first rodeo when it comes to government imposed censorship.
I remember an a Nazi propaganda clip where smart young guy explains to an old dump guy why it is best to have the government decide what they can, and cannot, listen to on the radio.
History repeating?
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, they remember. German censorship is aimed at suppressing Nazi-like hate groups and has been around since the end of the war. At least those laws should be useful in breaking up Islamic hate groups, too.
This is not history repeating. There was no glorious period of free speech in Germany that's now coming to an end.
Re: (Score:2)
> German censorship is aimed at suppressing Nazi-like hate groups and has been around since the end of the war. At least those laws should be useful in breaking up Islamic hate groups, too.
"Censorship is for the public's own good!" That is exactly what the Nazis said. "You are too stupid to know what opinions to listen to, let the government decide for you." Right out of Goebbels' playbook.
This is most certainly history repeating.
Needs a facebook.gr (Score:2)
Free Speech vs Hate Speech (Score:4, Informative)
Here's the problem: Social Justice Warriors (SJW) always attack speech they don't agree by saying 'it's offensive', 'it's racist', 'it's the patriarchy', 'it's oppressive' or 'it's hate speech'.
To protect free speech one must protect the unpopular things said by unpopular people.
Nobody needs to defend the right of a popular person saying things nobody objects to.
I'm willing to go out on a limb and say that if you post anything negative about the invaders in Germany you get censored for 'hate speech' because it might incite violence. Meanwhile the uneducated and extremist fighting age men swarming into Germany, assaulting the natives, popping off guns in the streets, bring their criminality and incompatible culture to soak up the free benefits while Germany goes bankrupt. you better lock up your wives and lock up your husbands cos they raping everyone up in here.
Why now? (Score:5, Informative)
- during new year celebrations hordes of immigrants sexually assaulted German women in Cologne and other cities
- media kept it quiet for about a week. Hard to say if it was case of self-censorship or pressure from federal government
- after a week coverup finally failed due to increasing discussion of the events of Facebook. At that time German government have not managed to get Facebook to remove any mentions of cologne attacks
- apparently Facebook finally caved and will participate in future media blackouts when hordes of immigrants get violent next time. Merkel bet her career on 'success' of immigration plan and since she cannot actually prevent immigrants from assaulting, robbing and raping, the only way forward is to cover up everything. This could not work without compliance of social media
Re: (Score:3)
If you wonder why Facebook suddenly cracks down on unkind posts about immigrants, here is the reason: - during new year celebrations hordes of immigrants sexually assaulted German women in Cologne and other cities - media kept it quiet for about a week. Hard to say if it was case of self-censorship or pressure from federal government - after a week coverup finally failed due to increasing discussion of the events of Facebook. At that time German government have not managed to get Facebook to remove any mentions of cologne attacks - apparently Facebook finally caved and will participate in future media blackouts when hordes of immigrants get violent next time. Merkel bet her career on 'success' of immigration plan and since she cannot actually prevent immigrants from assaulting, robbing and raping, the only way forward is to cover up everything. This could not work without compliance of social media
Let's put some of that right:
Re: (Score:2)
US troops are not there to rob, or rape. What is there to rob in the worthless country of Afghanistan?
The US is there to help the Afghanistan people defend themselves against the terrorist Taliban.
Volksverhetzung Hate Speech (Score:2)
Hate Speech or Fighting Words is pretty much only limiting which words are "allowed" and which not. These concepts are not limiting what objectives are legal. In other words, "all bug ridden carriers of funny bears must be killed cruelsome" is NOT legal but "carriers of funny beards must be silenced" is legal under these concepts.
"Volksverhetzung" is a much broader definition because is also takes into consideration deeper motivations. Under these concepts it would be illegal to say "carriers of funny beard
This is nothing but a government cover up. (Score:2)
The German government does not want any discussion about their horrible mistake to take in so many Syrian refugees.
Under the guise of eliminating "hate speech" the German government has pressured social media to censor real information, and real discussion.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Why do you have to be a Neo-Nazi sympathizer... (Score:4, Insightful)
It didn't take centuries to call Christians to arms. The Christians have been constantly fighting Muslim invaders, but they were on the losing side for many centuries. Spain was completely Muslim, France was on its way to become Muslim too if it weren't for a lucky victory of Charles Martel. Italy was invaded, Rome was sacked. The Southern tip of Italy and Sicilia was Muslim territory for a few centuries. Italy was only made Muslim free in the 11th century, and only after the Muslims were kicked out of Italy, the crusades to the east started.
The Pope would really never call for a crusade to Levant when Rome was sacked. He would also not call for a crusade to Levant when North Western Europe is still fighting off their own Muslim invasions. He would also not call for a crusade to Levant when an important part of Italy is still a caliphate.
By thy way, the Muslims never stopped attacking European countries. They have been invading until the 18th/19th century. Even the US of A was attacked by Muslim pirates. It was just the collapse of the once mighty empire of the Ottomans that ended Islamic aspirations on European land. But slowly they are rebuilding their ideology. IS is just a symptom of a larger sentiment that Islam should rule the world.
What bothers me a lot is that the current political correct think that moderate Islam is the biggest enemy for radical Islam. But for 1400 years the vast majority of Muslims have been moderate. Yet radical Islam has been fighting, invading, killing, terrorizing people for 1400 years. If moderate Islam was really the weapon against radicalization, than their wouldn't have been radical Islam anymore.
Radical Christianity was countered by radical anti Christianity. The use of free speech to criticize the Christianity made way for the current left political elite. But this left political elite is now restricting free speech to protect radical Islam. They keep on calling everyone who doesn't agree with importing lots of people racist and xenophobe, until those who do not agree just accept that they are racist and side with the real racist, fascist right wing parties. Extreme political correctness leads to reactionary extremism. Free speech also includes the right to feel insulted, but not the right to physically hurt someone who insulted you. Because Muslims don't respect this type of Free speech, many artists are self censoring. Those who dare to criticize Islam through some form of art will have problems with radical Muslims (just look at the many examples in the last decades).
Re: (Score:2)
That's why we have the first amendment: the founders knew that freedom of speech is something that gets suppressed (because it is so powerful).
Re: (Score:2)
His response to people scrawling "All Lives Matter" was "All Opinions Matter". Facebook isn't interested in taking a stand on racism, in USA, Germany, or anywhere.
Nor should they.
--
https://technet.microsoft.com/... [microsoft.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think so.
It should be, but it's not.
Re: (Score:2)
Remember Buchenwald? Auschwitz? Maybe the refugees should expel the Germans. Or ... maybe a whole group isn't to blame for the actions of a few.
MOD PARENT UP! (Score:2)
Exactly when you want to stop the dissemination of real information, or squash civil opinions, or prevent real discussions, you do so under the guise of preventing hate speech.
Re: (Score:2)
"Hate speech" is a term used by lying governments, to cover their own ass.
When you want to stop the dissemination of real information, or squash civil opinions, or prevent real discussions, you do so under the guise of preventing hate speech.