Germany Threatens To Fine Facebook Over Hate Speech (go.com) 321
An anonymous reader quotes a report from ABC News: German officials are stepping up their criticism of Facebook, saying the social network is doing too little to stop hate speech and could face stiff fines unless it deletes illegal content faster. In an interview published Friday, Justice Minister Heiko Maas said his ministry was checking whether it would be possible to make social networking sites legally liable for illegal posts. Germany has seen a sharp increase in vitriolic posts on social media in recent years amid a heated public debate over the influx of more than a million migrants since the start of 2015. The country has laws against speech deemed to be racist, defamatory or inciting violence -- a response to Germany's Nazi legacy. But authorities have struggled with the deluge of often anonymous postings on foreign-owned websites. Thomas Oppermann, a senior lawmaker in Maas' Social Democratic Party, told German weekly Der Spiegel that dominant social media sites like Facebook could be required to delete illegal posts within 24 hours or face fines up to 500,000 euros ($522,000). Facebook also could be compelled to distribute corrections that reach the same number of people as the original post, Oppermann suggested, something traditional media companies in Germany are already required to do.
Germany has way more problems than Facebook (Score:4, Insightful)
All the influx of refugee's from Syria is causing a rebellion of the German people. Repressing it won't solve it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You are not allowed to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater. Neither are you allowed to call for violence and crimes against others. There is a distinct difference between free speech and publishing opinions and instigating hate and crimes.
Banning speech as it is done in very select cases in Germany is key to keeping public peace. This also means that statements such as "The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way." are ignorant and ethical
Yelling "Fire" IS LEGAL (Score:4, Informative)
This oft-cited sentiment [wikipedia.org] was first verbalized by a Supreme Court Justice in 1919. The case [wikipedia.org] was not about any actual fire or theater, but about a man distributing leaflets and otherwise agitating against World War I draft. The protester was trying to defend his speech by the First Amendment and failed.
As later anti-draft protests — and the legal reaction to them [wikipedia.org] — made clear, such speech is now not only legal, but commendable [washington.edu].
As the 1919 case I cited above makes regretfully if abundantly obvious, the difference is not at all "distinct", and the country's top legal minds can very well err on the side of oppression. That later-amended decision passed by SCOTUS unanimously...
Even today, a sizable portion of Americans — plenty of lawyers among them — would consider Donald Trump's speech "hateful" and "inflammatory", making it most tempting for the party at the helm of the Executive branch to prosecute him, thus helping their own candidate win. Do you really want a country like that? Oh, wait.... You probably do...
Re: (Score:2)
This also means that statements such as "The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way." are ignorant and ethically wrong,
Why would that be ethically wrong?
Re: (Score:3)
The solution really is simple. Don't make the 'illegal speech' something to censor, but make it something to prosecute. That way Facebook will be subpoenaed (or however the proper spelling of that is) for the RL information of the people spreading hate speech, they will refuse to divulge the details of anyone that turns out not to be from Germany, and the German government gets the rest.
This is what we in my country call 'freedom under responsibility' - in short you're free to say whatever you want, but if
Re: (Score:3)
I think that preventing out-and-out hoaxers from hijacking a platform (like facebook) that many (stupid) people lend unthinking credence to is good thing. It only muddies the waters.
I also think that preventing rabble-rousers and deliberate hate-speech merchants from doing the same can't hurt either.
If people want to claim something as a fact, they should bring proof. If they can't, they should preface their claim with "I believe this is the case: ... " and
Re: Germany has way more problems than Facebook (Score:5, Insightful)
Smart people IGNORE the speech they do not like. Snowflakes try to force others into silence ----.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The problem runs much deeper.
There is an increasing number of people who are losing out in the general development today. The refugees are just the tip of the iceberg, they're noticeable but by far not the biggest problem here.
But yes, people see these refugees and now they become the embodiment of the problems. To explain it to US readers, they're basically becoming Germany's Mexicans.
Re:Germany has way more problems than Facebook (Score:4, Insightful)
Except the refugees ARE the problem.
Here in Sweden we haven't got enough taxation to cover spending of the government or the municipalities right now and even then it's about 44% of GDP.
An immigrant family with two children can receive $3000 / month AFTER TAXES with no work whatsoever.
How many such families do you think it's ok to bring into Sweden?
Germany grant more welfare than the US and Sweden grant more than Germany. That's why they come here. Too leech. Within the last day or two I heard about a teacher who had got his teeth punched out because the teacher was talking to a woman who was his wife. That's what you get with Muslims. Everyone else is no problem culturally but Muslims are and will be because their vile hate-ideology doesn't want them to adjust or accept our ways.
Mexicans into the US would if not completely at-least to a higher degree be work immigration whereas our immigration are refugee/sponge immigration and Muslim colonization. The Mexicans unlikely will destroy the culture of the US I guess (vote democrats?), the Muslims will definitely destroy our culture.
You can't compare the two.
Also the number of refugees who came to Sweden was like 35 times as many / capita as to the US so yeah.. there's a volume difference. But the US system have a stronger freedom and democracy and robustness / conservatism in the system and have lower welfare and likely don't even open up for the trash we get here. Your system is better suited for it and you still don't bring in even close to as many.
(Also US and allies like Saudi-Arabia and Turkey is what support the rebels and religious extremism in Syria and Iraq and it's the US who got rid of Gadaffi and Hussein and want to get rid of Assad too. You're part of the reason the genuine refugees even exist.)
Re:Germany has way more problems than Facebook (Score:4, Insightful)
Sweden should take ten times as may refugees as Saudi Arabia.
Oh wait, it already did. When the first one landed.
Re: (Score:3)
Wait, Saudi Arabia took in one tenth of a refugee? How does that work?
Re: (Score:2)
Do you really think those refugees, who used to live in fairly metropolitan areas and why ran from the extremists, won't want to integrate and get jobs?
You have been reading too much fake news.
Re: (Score:2)
All "refugees" aren't refugees.
All "refugees" doesn't come from metropolitan areas.
All "refugees" doesn't come from Syria and Iraq.
Whatever amount of Muslims doesn't want to assimilate.
Even if they want to get a job plenty don't have the educational standard of a Swede and even if they did they would be culturally disabled.
You are fake news.
Re: (Score:2)
And you are convinced that there is no way to detect the bad ones, and no way for the good ones to fully assimilate? Literally the only solution is to keep inferior people out?
Re: (Score:2)
And you are convinced that there is no way to detect the bad ones
Didnt you argue against extreme vetting in the case of the U.S.? Why yes, yes you did.
I believe you called it racist.
Re: (Score:2)
I was thinking more about the usual police and immigration system methods, nothing special.
Extreme vetting as proposed in the US is racist, I stand by that.
Re: (Score:2)
So what do you do about the no-go areas?
And, in the US, are you OK with the border patrol being allowed to enforce the law? Or do you stand behind the current situation of executive mandate forbidding that?
Re: (Score:2)
We don't have no-go areas. You have been on the fake news again.
I don't know what you are on about in the US, you will have to be more specific.
Re:Germany has way more problems than Facebook (Score:4, Informative)
Right. There are not any no-go areas in western Europe. It's all just hysterical bullshit from the alt-right.
Re: (Score:2)
Can you please link us to this magical solution that detects 100% of the bad ones and has a 0% false positive rate?
Re: (Score:2)
It's the same one that detects 100% of criminals in the general population.
Re: (Score:2)
Ahh, so wait and see who does and who doesn't.
Somehow I don't like that plan for suicide bombers.
Re: (Score:3)
Since most of the terrorism is carried out by people born in the European countries being attacked, perhaps we should just kick everyone out. Or if it's only Islamic terrorism, develop a blood test for Islam and then send everyone who matches back to Mecca. Or some crazy shit, I loose track of what the latest "this is nothing like the 1940s, honest" scheme is.
Re: (Score:2)
Somehow I knew this would come down to the oppression of the poor white man. Care to double down and throw in some white genocide?
Re: (Score:2)
Or as I saw someone put it once:
"Here is a bowl of M&Ms. I have poisoned two of them. Would you like one?"
Re: (Score:2)
The Mexicans unlikely will destroy the culture of the US I guess (vote democrats?),
Mexicans have traditionally voted Republican, because of their strong Catholic tendencies. But as they are generally against priests raping children like most of the rest of the world, they have become a bit less likely to vote in that direction.
the Muslims will definitely destroy our culture.
I hate to agree, but I do. Their religion instructs them not to respect any laws but those of their religion, which winds up translating into theocracy. The whole point of the USA is to not be one of those, which I think is a big part of why more of them don't come
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
BUT YOU CAN'T OFFER THAT FOR THE WHOLE FUCKING WORLD IN A NATIONAL SYSTEM AND STILL MAINTAIN A GOOD LIVING STANDARD YOURSELF!
The tragedy of the uncommons. Social justice is a wonderful idea, but the devil is in the details. If the OTHER countries in the Levant (Saudi Arabia / Iran as the big actors) would take significant refugees and place them in an environment that is more akin to their home culture (i.e., Islam of various flavors) then the burdens on the western social democracies would be reasonable. They don't and the burdens aren't reasonable.
And if you think this is bad, wait another 20 years for the environment in th
Re:Germany has way more problems than Facebook (Score:4, Insightful)
The hard-working blue-collar engine of the economy? Good for y'all! Have they started opening up good Syrian restaurants, yet?
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
1) They don't know the law.
2) Even if they did, many of them don't agree with it because infidels are wrong.
3) They contain a disproportionate number of military age men. It's a fact the world over that they are much more likely to commit crimes, especially violent ones.
4) Many of them owe money to traffickers, which means they will resort to anything to pay it back. Alternatively, they can be coerced.
I'd say your assertion is
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually the government is quite popular and Merkel is going for a 4th term. It's because they managed the refugees. Mandatory German lessons, set then up with some prospects, made sure they were distributed reasonably.
People are happy that Germany did it's bit too help when others, including the counties directly responsible for the crisis, did almost nothing.
Re: Germany has way more problems than Facebook (Score:2, Informative)
They didn't manage shit. They still can't figure out what to do with all these people. The reason merkel is still here is that there was no alternative. About 40% of germans didn't even bother to vote last time. It won't help to shut people up, it'll only make them angry.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually the government is quite popular and Merkel is going for a 4th term. It's because they managed the refugees. Mandatory German lessons, set then up with some prospects, made sure they were distributed reasonably.
People are happy that Germany did it's bit too help when others, including the counties directly responsible for the crisis, did almost nothing.
Don't confuse slashdotters with facts.
Doesn't matter that crime statistics show that refugees are not more likely to commit crimes than citizens. Doesn't matter that immigrants have been shown to bring a net profit to social services because they pay more than they take. Doesn't matter that they take labour that citizens do not want to take and have been shown to be a net benefit to the market. Doesn't matter that these are the educated liberals of Syria that are extremely helpful in identifying ISIS collab
Re: (Score:3)
Actually the government is quite popular and Merkel is going for a 4th term.
German Chancellor Angela Merkelâ(TM)s popularity has fallen to its lowest point in half a decade [newsweek.com]
If Merkel wins a fourth term it will because there is no credible opposition.
Re: (Score:3)
True, but from your link:
the Christian Democrats are still the most trusted party to handle the refugee crisis
She is actually doing very well on that particular issue. It's domestic security that is concerning people, and the attacks have all been by people born in or living in Germany for a very long time. The German people are able to understand that the refugees are getting away from those same extremists, and can actually help with the problem.
It's amazing how determined they are not to fall for populist rhetoric on this issue, and how well the average German seems to understand the iss
Re:Germany has way more problems than Facebook (Score:4, Insightful)
and the attacks have all been by people born in or living in Germany for a very long time.
You don't get problematic second-generation immigrants (admittedly somewhat of a misnomer, but that's how it's commonly called) without having unproblematic first generation immigrants first.
Merkel has good approval ratings (Score:4, Interesting)
She's number 4 on the list of most popular politicians in Germany. Her party is still 14 percentage points in front of every other party. 50% think she is doing a good job.(Source) [forschungsgruppe.de] Yes, there is a vocal minority that hates her and calls the media "Lügenpresse" or lying press and vote for the new right-wight populist party "AfD"(12%) but far more people either support Merkel's party (36%) or center to left-wing parties (22%+10%+10%). And this isn't just MSM, many of the federal states of Germany had elections this year and while AfD had impressive gains, it is nowhere near a majority anywhere.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I know what I'd like to ban - fyuckwads who can't use apostrophe's.
'Shit, you've got me doing it now. It's infectiou's!
Re:Germany has way more problems than Facebook (Score:4, Funny)
If only Germany had a strong nationalist leader to remedy the problem of foreigners infecting the pure German people! #MGGA!
Wait a minute.. that seems weirdly familiar, but I don't remember why...
Re:LOL Germany (Score:4, Insightful)
Protip, German cluetards: Quite aside from the personal liberty issue you're blowing so badly here, it's always better to let the crazies sing, dance, speechify, and wear silly outfits. This way everyone knows who they are and you don't end up getting blindsided by some bastard(s) percolating in their own repressed hate for just a little too long.
Yeah, right. Except, that's what we did in the 1920s: Lete everybody say everything they want. And that allowed extremists like Hitler to amass a strong following and take over the government and transform the Weimar Republic into the Third Reich.
You know, there's a reason we changed our laws after WWI and then again after WWII: We learnt from our mistakes and are trying to not repeat them. Letting hate speech go unchecked is NOT the way to a less extrem society.
Re: (Score:3)
Except, that's what we did in the 1920s: Lete everybody say everything they want. And that allowed extremists like Hitler to amass a strong following and take over the government and transform the Weimar Republic into the Third Reich.
I guess you missed the memo about the Nazis using the court system of the Weimar Republic as a huge propaganda vehicle. The Weimar Republic had hate speech laws [bostonglobe.com]. The Wiemar Republic prosecuted various high ranking Nazis for hate speech against Jews and other minorities. And the Nazis won big as a result.
Researching my book "The Tyranny of Silence: How One Cartoon Ignited a Global Debate on the Future of Free Speech," I looked into the status of free speech in Weimar Germany. To my surprise, I found that Weimar Germany had hate speech laws, and that they were applied against anti-Semites like Julius Streicher, the publisher of the Nazi newspaper Der Sturmer; Joseph Goebbels, Hitler's minister of propaganda; and Theodor Fritsch,a journalist and publisher of anti-Semitic propaganda. Streicher was sent to jail twice, and Goebbels lost every case that Bernhard Weiss, the deputy police chief of Berlin (and frequent target of anti-Semitic vilification), brought against him for defamation.
Further, this aid was quite material. It was these repeated, petty, ineffectual persecutions that brought the Nazis to the public eye and transformed them from some Bavarian gang to a national movement in Ge
Analogues (Score:4, Insightful)
What if we made homeowners responsible for hateful graffiti scrawled on their house? Or pubs and cafes liable for what is discussed there?
Re: Analogues (Score:2, Insightful)
Graffiti is by definition against the wishes of the home owner, it's vandalism. If the owner allowed people to paint on their walls, and was indifferent to any hate speech written there, it would be a closer analogy. And if a pub was being used as a meeting place for racists and xenophobes, and they were broadcasting their hatred to other pub visitors, and the publicans did nothing about it for long periods of time, you can bet your ass they would be held responsible.
What make it possibly for Germany to find Facebook (Score:2, Insightful)
.. in the first place?
It's an American country.
What happen if Facebook simply says "fuck off"?
Now the EU are banning (?) negative speak about refugees from the parties.
But how is that even the problem? The problem is that our traitor government let these people in in the first place. We don't want them here. That's the scenario. Why are they brought in? EU, Germany and Sweden are the enemies of the European peoples and democracy.
Re: (Score:2)
Umm, Germany is a German country.
Re: (Score:3)
It's an American country.
I assume you mean company? But it's not. The parent company is, but it has subsidiaries all over the world.
What happen if Facebook simply says "fuck off"?
Then the German police will raid Facebook's German offices.
We don't want them here.
Speak for yourself. I'm only here because enough people did not have your shitty attitude to my great grandparents who were also refugees from persecution.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They still want to sell ads to German companies and to German customers. They also want to get paid for these ads. Volkswagen is a German company, but they still need to abide American laws while selling cars in the US. They could let their American subsidy go bankrupt and stop selling cars instead of paying the fine. But instead they will pay the fine and keep their access to the US market, because this is likely going to pay off in the long term. The same is likely true for Facebook. They don't like to em
Re: (Score:2)
They don't like to employ a lot of people to check posts that were flagged for hatespeech because that takes a lot of time and reduces the amounts of ads they can sell to racists. But if they have to choose between operating slightly less profitable in Germany or not at all, they will likely go for slightly less profitable.
Clearly they need to obey the laws of the countries where they do business, and facebook.de needs to comply. However, they may not need to hire additional staff if they simply automatically delete any flagged post containing certain words; that would mean they only have to check ones that are flagged but do not contain the auto-delete words.Sure it would probably result in deletion of non-offensive material as well but it would be cheaper than adding staff.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Look the definition of censure, Herr Comrade
It clearly is censorship but that is the current German law. Views on freedom of speech differ by country.
Re: (Score:2)
Simple solution, close the German offices...
Out of interest, are you American? I ask, because there's a certain group of Americans here who seem to assume that anything that isn't America is tiny. Germany has an economy about 1/4 of the size of the US. That is an immmense amount of business. I'm not sure Facebook's shareholders would consider it a good solution. That makes it not simple.
Re: (Score:2)
As much as I do not enjoy facebook malevolence, I am also not particularly fond of each little nazi country trying to legislate the Internet, or worse yet, the latest global brouhaha/propaganda about malicious/fake/illegal content in facebook.
The truth is the powers that be want to control information, and many good people in the establishment is not at ease people only see and believe what they want "in facebook".
Wake up and smell the coffee,
Re: (Score:2)
They can do business with Germans without actually being in Germany. There are literally Germans all over the planet, so it should be no trouble finding employees who speak the language regardless of where they would like to operate their German sales office. Then Germany will have to go after each individual German (or German company) which does business with Facebook, and/or ban access to their domain.
This is the mechanism by which the internet routes around censorship. If Facebook doesn't do this, that's
Re: (Score:2)
WHY? Why in the fuck would a company be that fucking stupid? What would that gain them except subjection to STUPID laws like this one? Look, I hate Facebook with a vengeance. I wish it would die. But how could any company be that stupid?
/|\ DeVry MBA (Score:4, Insightful)
Why does any multinational do it? Because they have to have a registered presence in a country to do business there.
This wouldn't apply if you're selling knitted toilet roll covers via spamazon and turning over 50 bucks a year in Portugal.
Re: (Score:2)
Because they have to have a registered presence in a country to do business there.
Well the odd thing is Facebook is an Internet company, so it would seem strange to have to "register" in Germany before Germans can visit your site, sign up for an account, and see ads.
Of course, every country has their own interpretation of how laws on the Internet work, and we've seen the United States go after overseas companies for stuff like online gambling (though I think they only nailed some executives when they traveled to the US).
Re: (Score:2)
WHY? Why in the fuck would a company be that fucking stupid? What would that gain them except subjection to STUPID laws like this one? Look, I hate Facebook with a vengeance. I wish it would die. But how could any company be that stupid?
Complying with local business registration laws aside, there are advantages to having subsidiaries. For example, it allows companies to decide where profits are booked rather than having all of the money flow back to the US; it also affords them legal protections offered to local firms and can separate liability form the parent and the local company. For companies that sell hard goods it also allows them to setup different warranty schemes and not have to honor a warranty world wide. Complying with local la
Re: (Score:2)
Did your grandparents have the same shitty attitude as the current crop of "refugees"? Or did they fit in and pull their weight?
Re: (Score:2)
Did your grandparents have the same shitty attitude as the current crop of "refugees"? Or did they fit in and pull their weight?
Great grandparents.
Fit in? No, not especially. My great grandmother had passable English at best, and very heavily accented, from what little I remember of her. I believ my greatgrandfather did better in that regard, but I don't think either of them would have spent much time if any hanging around the natives. And, pull their weight how? It's not like they arrived with jobs lined u
Re: (Score:2)
Then the German police will raid Facebook's German offices.
Just close them down and ignore the Germans?
Speak for yourself.
As for volumes I'm speaking for the majority even in Sweden and I of course also speak for the majority of the Europeans.
I'm only here because enough people did not have your shitty attitude to my great grandparents who were also refugees from persecution.
My opinion doesn't even matter since the ruling elite is possibly even beyond the EU but if nothing else there and that's law which become superior to Swedish law and even if that wasn't the case Sweden is a consensus democrature where established media and the political elite holds hands and go their own way and don't listen to the people but r
Re: (Score:2)
It is your voice that is mostly ignored.
Are you even reading what you are writing? Because
So you aren't speaking for the majority in Sweden after all. Who exactly gives you the mandate to speak for the majority of the Europeans then?
The last time
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently not, otherwise idiots like you would be the government.
Then I have the same right to speak for the people of Europe and say "fuck you". Just because.
Re: (Score:2)
What make it possibly for Germany to find Facebook in the first place?
Assuming you mean "fine", then if Facebook operates as a business in Germany, then the German state can most certainly take punitive measures against it.
It's an American country.
I feel safe in saying that Facebook is not a country.
What happen if Facebook simply says "fuck off"?
The same as if any other German company refuses to follow German law. Of cause, if they aren't in Germany as a legal entity, then Germany has options via the EU courts, or they can choose to simply block access to Facebook similar to how they already block access to other websites deemed to be illegal.
Now the EU are banning (?) negative speak about refugees from the parties.
The
Re:Analogues (Score:4, Interesting)
What if we made homeowners responsible for hateful graffiti scrawled on their house?
Actually we do that already. Go outside and paint "Fuck you" on the side of your house and see how far you get. You'll probably end up fighting a court case based on some local council ordinance vs a constitutional amendment.
Re: (Score:2)
Not comparable (Score:2)
Facebook is the publisher. Facebook get a reports like *ALL* media , and has to take it down , like a DMCA in the US for comparison, or be liable. And if you find the law bad, well remembe
Re: (Score:2)
And if you find the law bad, well remember it was set by the allies and forced onto the german. Germany cannot really remove it if they wanted, as they would get pretty much all EU countries angry and possibly be accused of wanting to go nazi again.
They don't want to change it. These laws give them more power and they're not about to give that up.
Re: (Score:2)
If certain people are regularly shouting "Kill all the sand n*ggers/infidels/etc!!" in your establishment and you do nothing to stop them but happily keep serving them drinks, then yes, absolutely.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually in many places homeowners are responsible, to the extent that it someone defaces their house with something illegal they need to clean it off. Obviously a lot of leeway is given because they are the victim of a crime.
In this case these social media sites do remove this kind of material under their own rules, just not fast enough to satisfy the law. Being businesses that make money from people posting stuff, they are considered to have some responsibility to reactively police it.
Re: (Score:2)
What, like Uber is responsible if people use it to meet up for a shag?
https://slashdot.org/comments.... [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Do you know anything about legal liability? Anything at all? Because I can explain the difference between these two things, but I'm not wasting my time if you won't understand it.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would old carpet be a crime? Disgusting, yes. Perhaps felonious bad taste, but a real criminal act?
I don't think so.....
Re: (Score:2)
I'm surprised it's not the reverse. (Score:2)
Seriously online companies need to start charging Germany for all the nanny sitting they require for their citizens, Basically cancel all outstanding lawsuits and give them 10 millions dollars. They just might break even.
I don't even like Facebook. But it's still like.... oh a company is making money... lets sue. Almost as bad as my home state of California.
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously online companies need to start charging Germany...
Or they can simply leave and not do business there. But oh no, they're not going to leave a market a third the size of the US. They just want to sell their crap there but not have to deal with the pesky local laws.
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously the government need to start charging the American citizens with more taxes for all the nanny sitting they are required to carry out, Basically cancel all outstanding lawsuits and give them 100 billions dollars. They just might break even.
I don't even like the Federal government. But it's still like.... oh they fought a small war in some country named "I-rack"... lets sue. Almost as bad as my home state of South Sudan.
This is what your post is going to sound like to the majority of Europeans, I bet. They have a different viewpoint of how government / company balances work, and if I may say so, they enjoy a vastly higher standard of living for far lower costs because of it. If you, or Facebook for that matter, are not willing to respect that, you are always free to leave Germany - whereas, if I may point out, you are never free to leave the US's sphere of influence (unless you deal exclusively with North Korea and Russia
Re: (Score:2)
I don't even like Facebook. But it's still like.... oh a company is making money... lets sue. Almost as bad as my home state of California.
As Margaret Thatcher once said; "Socialism is great until you run out of other people's money."
Strat
Pull a Streetview (Score:2)
Ah, Deutschland! (Score:2, Insightful)
Having failed to force the sun to shine at night and the wind to blow constantly all the time, the German legal system is trying to force people to like a vast swarm of insurgents who arrived without visas and who are getting away with Allah knows what.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
However, the predicted cringe wave
Do you mean crime wave? Because there's been plenty of that. They're filling up the prisons. Also, maybe you think a massive, public, sexual assault on women on New Year's Eve is normal and unrelated to immigration.
total Islamification of Germany/Europe has completely failed to emerge
It wasn't predicted to happen overnight, but saying "completely failed to emerge" is bullshit. It's already starting to happen in the spots they congregate to. They aren't integrating. Even Merkel knew [youtube.com] that in 2010 before she opened up the floodgates.
Interested in the results of this (Score:2)
Interested in the results of this. Yesterday I reported a Facebook post that said "someone has to assassinate [American politician] ..". Today got a replay from the Facebook moderators that this was an okey dokey message. Well then..
The goiddam comments are bullshit ... (Score:2)
... it's German law and fuck the rest of you.
Germany Threatens To Fine FB Over Hate Speech (Score:2)
Re: Double standards (Score:2, Insightful)
Because Americans already dug their own hole by willingly submitting to the "free speech at any price" philosophy, whereas most other Western nations take a more pragmatic approach of limiting people's speech when it impinges on other's right to exist.
Re: (Score:2)
Because Americans already dug their own hole by willingly submitting to the "free speech at any price" philosophy, whereas most other Western nations take a more pragmatic approach of limiting people's speech when it impinges on other's right to exist.
We have freedom of expression. Particular statements can still be illegal. You do not have the freedom to incite the commission of a [specific] crime, for example. You do have the freedom to opine that thing should not be a crime, and explain why so that we can all see how deep the crazy goes. This permits the nutters to come out into the light where they are easier to spot, so they can be followed back to the holes they live in and the rocks they live under.
What we do have here in the USA is universal free
Re: (Score:2)
First of all, if Facebook refuses to follow directions by a given country's government that government is fully entitled to demand Facebook banned on all ISPs in the country.
Secondly, the US did EXACTLY THAT with Volkswagen and their emission tests, and everyone agreed Volkswagen were in the wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
That's different. VW are an old economy company. Facezuck are disruptive unicorns, and they have apps!
Re: (Score:2)
Why? They are making good money in Germany and racists are a small minority. They would still make a lot of money, even if they have to remove these posts.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Dude, if you think what comes out of Bruxelles is "leftist", you might want to watch out, you're about to fall off the right end of the political spectrum.
Re: (Score:3)
Dude, if you think what comes out of Bruxelles is "leftist", you might want to watch out, you're about to fall off the right end of the political spectrum.
I think you and OP are confusing 'Left-Right' with 'more-authoritarian/less-authoritarian'. Either can be very authoritarian. Left at it's extreme is Marxist/socialist/communist and Right at it's extreme is fascist/dictatorship.
It's like a set of railroad tracks. One rail is Left, the other Right, and stretch from anarchy to authoritarian.
Strat
Re: (Score:2)
US Politics is when judged against the more centerist European Politics VERY right wing.
It's only 'centrist' to those whose ideological 'center' is more Left. It's a matter of personal perceptions of the individual being asked and/or stating his opinion.
Strat
Re: (Score:3)
Bullshit (Score:3)
Sorry, but that is just plain bullshit. You fully allowed to criticize migrants and immigration in Germany. What is not allowed is to incite hatred or violence against them and Jailterm based on this law rarely happens.
Re: (Score:3)
Well your citations totally convinced me.
Re: (Score:2)
Person A says something, judge rules it illegal according to the law
Person B says the same thing, does a judge have to rule on it again, or will precedent suffice?
Persons C through X says the same thing, or strongly related thing....
Re: (Score:2)
TFA says often anonymous postings. Maybe facebook, etc, should change their T&Cs so that if a post is found to be offensive that any right to anonymity is lost and it will then next to the (possibly redacted) post display: username, IP address, etc. This brings it more in line with somebody saying something in a pub/where-ever: the speaker might offend but his face is visible to everyone in the room; the result is that people will moderate what they say.
There does need to be protection to stop exposure