Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×
Facebook Privacy Social Networks News Technology Your Rights Online

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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Mark Zuckerberg Confronts 'Hate Speech' In Germany And At Facebook

Comments Filter:
  • Slippery Slope (Score:5, Insightful)

    by PeteJanda ( 1481299 ) on Saturday February 27, 2016 @04:39PM (#51599941)
    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,").
    • by Zeio ( 325157 )

      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, Insightful)

      by Dutchmaan ( 442553 )

      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)

        by PeteJanda ( 1481299 ) on Saturday February 27, 2016 @08:26PM (#51601153)
        Dutch - A few things you should consider processing through that sanctimonious noggin of yours: 1. The quoted text is meant to be an example of content that could be caught up in Facebook's filter, despite its being fair / appropriate discourse on the subject. 2. Replace "Middle Eastern immigrants" with "polka-dotted spaghetti monster immigrants", and the core issue would still be the same: too few resources in terms of housing, law enforcement and social resources are creating a nightmare for the indigenous population. If you want to fund and house millions of people, be my guest. But don't expect everyone to share your brave altruism, and pretty-please-with-sugar-on-top don't try to force your altruism on everyone. 3. People are waking up to being silenced by accusations of racism, phobia, etc.and, candidly, are ceasing to care. You and your ilk have been carpet bombing the world with such (typically mindless) ad hominem attacks, and the efficacy of the attacks has waned. Go shovel that sht elsewhere.
        • 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)

            by ruir ( 2709173 )
            While ironic or not, I also share his sentiments; and to further add to the question: the problem of that people is not the magical/cursed land where they live, but their culture. They cannot fled from themselves. Opening the floodgates here just means Europe will become another middle east. The system they pretend to mooch on is also supposed to work because people basically lend/pooled money to it in order to support themselves in illness and old age, and has simply not the resources to be (ab)used and le
            • 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:Slippery Slope (Score:5, Informative)

      by jbmartin6 ( 1232050 ) on Saturday February 27, 2016 @05:07PM (#51600113)
      Why does he have to define it? It's a question of German law, not Facebook's opinion. By all means review the relevant German laws and legal precedents if you are really that curious.
      • 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.

    • 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.

      • by MrL0G1C ( 867445 )

        or telling people to fuck off and die burning in a fire,

        Lets leave the bible out of this please.

    • Re:Slippery Slope (Score:5, Informative)

      by hey! ( 33014 ) on Saturday February 27, 2016 @05:49PM (#51600357) Homepage Journal

      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)

        by Beeftopia ( 1846720 ) on Saturday February 27, 2016 @06:31PM (#51600599)

        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.

        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.

        • by hey! ( 33014 )

          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)

            by cyberchondriac ( 456626 ) on Saturday February 27, 2016 @07:38PM (#51600963) Journal

            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.

            • by Boronx ( 228853 )

              The majority of terrorist attacks in the United States are carried out by right wing fanatics.

      • by s.petry ( 762400 )

        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:Slippery Slope (Score:5, Insightful)

      by myowntrueself ( 607117 ) on Saturday February 27, 2016 @05:55PM (#51600395)

      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)

        by starless ( 60879 ) on Saturday February 27, 2016 @06:00PM (#51600437)

        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?

        • 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.

      • by Boronx ( 228853 )

        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.

        • 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'.

          • yes, their personal issue is homophobia. they should learn to live and let live and not judge other people
      • "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."
        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
      • 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.

    • 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.

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      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.

      • by Mashiki ( 184564 )

        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.

        • 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

    • by unami ( 1042872 ) on Saturday February 27, 2016 @06:28PM (#51600579)
      "anti hate speech" laws are nothing new in germany, there's already lots of definition, legal precedents, etc. go look it up. if that differs from the american definition of free speech, facebook is free to stop it's operation in germany or even go to court and try changing those laws.
    • Summarizing : calling to violence against a volk in general e.g. "I hate all jew and they should be killed" is hate speech. Google Volksverhetzung for example. Another example is to "libel", if it is the correct term, a volk and/or spreading falsehood. E.g. gas chamber never existed, e.g. jew are drinking blood of christian babies. Now you may not like such laws, but I would like to remind that they were imposed by allies after WW2, and never removed. But yes hate speech is pretty much defined. See parapgr
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by reboot246 ( 623534 )
      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. I can believe either case.
      • 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...

    • by jez9999 ( 618189 )

      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.

      • 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)

        by serviscope_minor ( 664417 ) on Sunday February 28, 2016 @10:42AM (#51602843) Journal

        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.

    • We've already got precedent for this with R v Elliot. Disagreeing with someone on the internet is harassment, hate speech, and cyber-violence.

    • 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.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 27, 2016 @04:39PM (#51599945)

    Apparently, "I don't want criminals running around assulting women" is hate speech. Screw you Cuckerberg.

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      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)

        by Anonymous Coward

        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.

      • 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.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 27, 2016 @04:50PM (#51600013)

      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....

      • by Etcetera ( 14711 )

        .... 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.)

  • Canceled because our Facebook group was deleted.

  • 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.
       

  • Given that he supports hate of all things that aren't politically correct, wouldn't that make Zuckerberg the bigot?

  • by PapayaSF ( 721268 ) on Saturday February 27, 2016 @05:05PM (#51600105) Journal

    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?

    • > If you say: "Kill gays," it's hate speech

      If a Muslim says: "Kill gays" is that hate speech?

    • If that isn't enough to frighten you

      Be afraid! What are you, Fox News?

  • 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

  • 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?

    • by Boronx ( 228853 )

      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.

      • > 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.

  • To satisfy everyone, Zuckerberg should spin off a facebook.gr for Germany only. Applying German law to everyone on the planet hasn't worked out very well in the past, and won't work out to well this time either. No matter what his goal is, how soon will it be before US citizens who are violating Germany hate speech laws are censored? Are these "100 German employees" he's hiring going to geolocate each user before removing posts / banning users / notifying German authorities? What kind of precedent will this
  • by 7-Vodka ( 195504 ) on Saturday February 27, 2016 @07:38PM (#51600961) Journal

    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)

    by qbast ( 1265706 ) on Saturday February 27, 2016 @07:53PM (#51601039)
    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
    • by rxmd ( 205533 )

      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:

      • the main problem on New Year's Eve in Cologne was (a) inadequate policing near the cathedral where the assaults happened, and (b) that the police tried to cover this up in their initial report. Cologne police already has a bad reputation for cover-ups and various incidents, there have been calls for police reform in Cologne for a while now.
      • as for the "media being silent for a week": New Year's Eve was a Thursday; Friday January 1 was a public holiday, followed by a weekend,
  • 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

  • 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.

"The Avis WIZARD decides if you get to drive a car. Your head won't touch the pillow of a Sheraton unless their computer says it's okay." -- Arthur Miller

Working...