1. Due to an update, many default preferences have changed.

    If you have any issues, such as unrequested email notifications or following threads you didn't want to follow, then check your setting here.
  2. Stop Scrolling! We changed our address to narutoforums.org

    Please add the URL to bookmarks on your PC and phone.

    More details can be found here. Feel free to ask any question.
  3. Give your waifu the ultimate gift - being crowned the most popular waifu on NF by helping her win in Senjou’s “NF Waifu Popilarity Contest”

    Feeling extra confident? You can now bet on your Waifu as well for fun forum prizes here

    Come on with everything your waifu does for, you should do this for your waifu.
  4. Impending Naruto Avenue Reorganisation!

    Want to learn more? Wish to chime in? Click here.
  5. Avatar upgrade for members!
    All normal members can now have 175x250 avatars.
    Read more about it here.
  6. "Are you a Messi or Ronaldo fanboy? Come and nominate them and more of your favorite players in NF's UEFA Champions League Awards!

    If your nominees win, you could win points for cool forum prizes!

    Click here to play :) .
  7. The latest NF Newsletter is out (October), read it here

Germany: Right-wing protesters try to storm justice ministry over 'hate speech law'

Discussion in 'The NF Covfefé' started by Saishin, May 19, 2017.

  1. Saishin Hajimemashite

    Messages:
    13,914
    Likes Received:
    189
    Trophy Points:
    64
    Reputation:
    Members of the right-wing Identitarian movement attempted to storm the German justice ministry in Berlin on Friday over a proposed law to fight hate speech on social media.

    About 50 people from the right-wing, anti-immigrant movement gathered before the justice ministry in the afternoon and then tried to force their way into the building, according to police.

    But officers were able to prevent them from doing so, arresting one person for violating assembly laws. Police said that the situation was under control by 2pm.

    Last August, Identitarians climbed the Brandenburg Gate and unfurled banners reading “secure borders - secure future”.

    The group wrote on their Facebook page that the demonstration on Friday was against Justice Minister Heiko Maas and his proposed law to make social media sites more consistently and quickly remove hate speech, which was being discussed on Friday by the German parliament (Bundestag).

    Maas has become a figure of hate for the far-right scene because of his tough stance against right-wing extremism.

    Maas’ proposal, dubbed the “hate speech law”, would force sites like Facebook and Twitter to delete overtly criminal content within 24 hours of it being flagged. For more complex cases, the sites would have seven days to do so.

    The websites would also have to designate a contact person in Germany with whom citizens and government agencies could be in contact.

    If companies do not set up “suitable procedures” to delete comments, Maas has explained, they would face fines of up to €50 million.

    A study by jugendschutz.net - which advocates for better online protections for children and teens - found that social networks generally have quite low quotas for removing flagged content. Facebook only deleted 30 percent of such comments, Twitter just 1 percent. YouTube had the best track record at 90 percent.

    But fringe groups like the Identitarians are far from the only ones opposed to the bill. Critics include trade associations, internet activists, journalists, NGOs, lawyers, and even members of the ruling coalition government that Maas represents.

    'Caution before speed'

    The main concern expressed by opponents is that the law would threaten freedom of expression, and would create the privatization of law enforcement.

    “I cannot understand how Facebook, for example, is qualified to check whether content is illegal,” said Bavarian economy minister Ilse Aigne of conservative coalition member the CSU.

    Others point out that the short deadlines and high fines may lead companies to remove content too hastily without thorough evaluation.

    “Caution must come before speed,” warned Alexander Rabe of the internet industry association eco. He added that it would be wrong to delete things that are dubious more quickly than it would take to legally examine them.

    German digital advocacy group Bitkom found in two legal assessments that Maas’ bill could violate both the German constitution as well as EU law. Under German law, the assessments concluded that the short time periods to delete comments compromise freedom of expression.

    One of the legal experts, Gerald Spindler of Göttingen University, said that on the EU policy side, the proposal would be problematic because the rules would extend to providers across the EU and beyond. This would contradict the principles of the Union’s e-commerce policies.

    The EU Commission has until the end of June to determine whether the law in fact is compatible with the Union’s laws. If the Commission does not object during this time, the proposal would get the green light.

    Bitkom also argues that Germany should not rush into implementing such a law that still raises so many questions. Maas is trying to push the law’s approval right before the Bundestag takes its summer break, and ahead of the national election in September.

    “The fight against hate speech and criminality on the internet is too important to be led by an overly hasty and poorly crafted law, which has no chance before a court,” said Bernhard Rohleder of Bitkom.

    But what then is the best way to deal with hateful content?

    Markus Beckedahl from digital rights platform Netzpolitik said that mass deletions are not the right solution. Hate speech posters only then learn to articulate their posts in ways that are not noticeably illegal.

    “That does not solve the problem,” Beckedahl said.

    Instead, he said such individuals should be brought more quickly to court.

    “That is the better form of deterrence.”

    warned
     
  2. Orochibuto Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    24,297
    Likes Received:
    302
    Trophy Points:
    84
    Reputation:
    Speech should never be limited, I agree with the righties on this one.
     
  3. afgpride Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    9,572
    Likes Received:
    1,918
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Reputation:
    Incitement of the People (Volksverhetzung) is defined by § 130 (Incitement to hatred) Section 1 of the Criminal Code:[1][2]

    Section 1[edit]
    Whosoever, in a manner capable of disturbing the public peace:

    1. incites hatred against a national, racial, religious group or a group defined by their ethnic origins, against segments of the population or individuals because of their belonging to one of the aforementioned groups or segments of the population or calls for violent or arbitrary measures against them; or
    2. assaults the human dignity of others by insulting, maliciously maligning an aforementioned group, segments of the population or individuals because of their belonging to one of the aforementioned groups or segments of the population, or defaming segments of the population,
    shall be liable to imprisonment from three months to five years.[1][2]



    Germoney's hate speech laws are draconian and an utter disgrace. This law will effectively thought police the internet.
     
  4. Le Male Absolu Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    15,682
    Likes Received:
    214
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Reputation:
    Limit freedom of speech will make far right stronger.
     
  5. baconbits Moderator

    Messages:
    15,409
    Likes Received:
    758
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Reputation:
    I actually disagree with them here. Here's why: Facebook has been acting like a media giant but complying with none of the rules. If CNN did a report and someone said something profane and they broadcast that CNN could face fines. Facebook allows its users to broadcast live murders and doesn't seem able to stop them. And nothing happens to them.

    Now I don't think racist remarks should be the target. And with that I agree with the far right because we all know that what becomes offensive will be a line that keeps moving in an attempt to shut down speech on the right. But at the same time you can't let groups that allow others to broadcast speech be under different rules depending on if they broadcast profanity over the net or the airwaves. There has to be a happy middle ground somewhere.
     
  6. Seto Kaiba God Hand Crusher

    Messages:
    44,341
    Likes Received:
    864
    Trophy Points:
    114
    Reputation:
    This right here is a fundamental lack of understanding of what the internet is versus broadcast television.

    The hosting site has little control over what individual users may post, contrast to CNN. What they can do is if possible, track down and cooperate with investigative efforts of law enforcement and take the video down as soon as it gets notice. Actually being able to prevent such videos being uploaded, and then penalizing them for failure to do so is retarded. It's just not feasible.
     
  7. Darkmatter Lion's Sin of Pride

    Messages:
    5,289
    Likes Received:
    381
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Reputation:
    Well, I don't really see the major difference between CNN's reporting and live broadcast murders on Facebook, because CNN has the authority to edit scenes when necessary (unless it's live) while Facebook doesn't have any power to even prevent such tragedy from airing on Facebook.
     
  8. Dragon D. Luffy #1 Most Competent Bacteriophage

    Messages:
    12,956
    Likes Received:
    911
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Reputation:
    Facebook is more powerful than most states on Earth.

    I see no problem in a state limiting their power.
     
  9. Seto Kaiba God Hand Crusher

    Messages:
    44,341
    Likes Received:
    864
    Trophy Points:
    114
    Reputation:
    Videos uploaded to Facebook also don't have the same immediate reach that a TV broadcast would. The most such sites can do is take down the videos as they are reported or taken notice of. The only other feasible solution is to remove the ability to upload videos entirely. That would not stop people from linking them though.
     
  10. Darkmatter Lion's Sin of Pride

    Messages:
    5,289
    Likes Received:
    381
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Reputation:
    That too.
    There would have to be some extremely advanced Algorithmic system that could detect Livestreamed videos and what it airs, but even then, I'd say it's better that someone watches a livestream and sees some suspicious activity going on to be reported to Facebook.
    But it's like you said: even if we get rid of the ability to livestream or upload, there's always linking videos.
     
  11. baconbits Moderator

    Messages:
    15,409
    Likes Received:
    758
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Reputation:
    That's actually not true. Facebook has said they have the ability to freeze any account with a single click. They could shut down a murder video, for example, before too many people saw it. I'm not saying they have the ability to stop people from doing anything but I do think they have some culpability in some people's ability to broadcast their atrocities to people outside of their immediate circle. Facebook can put a stop to that.
     
  12. Seto Kaiba God Hand Crusher

    Messages:
    44,341
    Likes Received:
    864
    Trophy Points:
    114
    Reputation:
    You have no idea how massive that site is do you?
     
  13. Darkmatter Lion's Sin of Pride

    Messages:
    5,289
    Likes Received:
    381
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Reputation:
    It's easier said than done. The issue is that you're implying that Facebook has the ability to see the future, which is simply an impossible task unless you have the ability to bend Space and Time.
    The only other solution (other than allowing people to watch such horrific Livestream so that they could report it to Facebook themselves) that you're probably thinking is a Time-delay Livestream (giving a time gap between what's aired on Facebook and what you're filming) with an Algorithmic system that could identify contents that are deemed inappropriate.
    But other than those two, there's really no other solutions to the problem you're addressing.
     
  14. wibisana still newbie

    Messages:
    9,941
    Likes Received:
    217
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Reputation:
    It is partly facebook fault
    1st their algorithm is designed to get as many view as posible, you dont need to click video and it automatically played and shared too.
    If 100 accidentally put the video too long in their screen facebook will count it as view and shared it further more

    So some unown poster could get bajillion view.

    In contrary youtube, even if you are friend or subscribed to someone but if you dont click it. The vid wont play.
    And if 100 people click it accidentally then someone report it, the vid will get taken down without shared further by system

    They wont change their system because their income is basically come from those fake quick view.
    If facebook act like youtube their video wont give them any revenue
     
  15. Orochibuto Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    24,297
    Likes Received:
    302
    Trophy Points:
    84
    Reputation:
    Hate speech laws are a disgrace, not only to social media. They shouldnt exist at all, be it TV or the internet.
     
  16. wibisana still newbie

    Messages:
    9,941
    Likes Received:
    217
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Reputation:
    What about genocide denial? Is it free speech or hate speech? Should it be allowed?
     
  17. Dragon D. Luffy #1 Most Competent Bacteriophage

    Messages:
    12,956
    Likes Received:
    911
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Reputation:
    Orichibuto has freedom of speech as his absolute #1 ideology. He will automatically disagree with any kind of limitation in it, regardless of reasons, consequences or context.

    If you asked him what is worse to kill every person on Earth or censor a newspaper he would say the later without thinking twice.
     
  18. Darkmatter Lion's Sin of Pride

    Messages:
    5,289
    Likes Received:
    381
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Reputation:
    Freedom of Speech doesn't equate to Freedom from Repercussion. You can claim to deny a Genocide, and you have that right to say such, but that doesn't mean your claim is immune from anything that's to come (i.e. Criticism).
    So to answer your question: It's technically "free speech".
     
    Last edited: May 21, 2017
  19. afgpride Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    9,572
    Likes Received:
    1,918
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Reputation:
    I draw the line at clear incitement to violence (ie; an extremist calling on his peers to wage jihad against infidels).

    As far as simply spewing hatred, or having reprehensible opinions that may offend a lot of people, criminalizing it is ridiculous.
     
  20. Orochibuto Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    24,297
    Likes Received:
    302
    Trophy Points:
    84
    Reputation:
    Yes, it is free speech too.

    A very stupid usage of it, but it is.

    Of course of you say stupid shit, you can get laughed at and your reputation ruined.

    But the government has no place in telling you what you can or can't say.
     
  21. Orochibuto Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    24,297
    Likes Received:
    302
    Trophy Points:
    84
    Reputation:
    Well, I hold presumption of innocence as a higher or equal ideology with free speech.

    There are likely more, but sleep depravation has my memory turned into a mess right now.

    But yeah, it is definitively one of my tops.

    Government imposed limitations, that is an important distinction to make. If it is a private limitation, I might be more lenient.
     
  22. Seto Kaiba God Hand Crusher

    Messages:
    44,341
    Likes Received:
    864
    Trophy Points:
    114
    Reputation:
    Limiting speech outside of the parameters afgpride brought up sets a bad precedent.
     
  23. Amol Chief of Wisdom

    Messages:
    11,145
    Likes Received:
    438
    Trophy Points:
    84
    Reputation:
    I am against giving so called Free Speech utterly completely free reign as I am against having Government crackdown on it.
    Both sides are utterly stupid and doesn't realize the harm they cause.
    Take Pizzagate for example. Alex Jones didn't actually tell anyone to attack that pizza shop. Does that make him blameless?
    Because right now he is protected by Free Speech .
    Don't tell me that it ruined his reputation and that is a punishment in itself because people with no reputation becomes President in this time and era.
    There should always the consequences to everything you do, even for your speech.
    Now real trouble is how to do that without turning your country into 1984 like state . I don't have that much understanding of law but people in law field does so they need to come up with something that can strike a balance in accountability and freedom. I know it is not an easy task but most important ones usually aren't.
     
  24. Unlosing Ranger Transcending Time

    Messages:
    5,243
    Likes Received:
    514
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Reputation:
    Latter*
    Freedom would inextricably be worth it over death.
    Demonizing that sort of viewpoint shows ignorance.
     
  25. Dragon D. Luffy #1 Most Competent Bacteriophage

    Messages:
    12,956
    Likes Received:
    911
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Reputation:
    There is a big difference between censorship and accountability.

    The former is letting a government official whether what you want to say is harmful or not. The latter is acknowledging a person calling for murder of gays in the internet is responsible for it if someone reads their post and decides to murder a gay.
     
  26. Dragon D. Luffy #1 Most Competent Bacteriophage

    Messages:
    12,956
    Likes Received:
    911
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Reputation:
    @Unlosing Ranger

    Depends of the freedom.

    If not being free is having to live under another flag but with the same rights I had before, then my life is more important.

    Just like freedom of speech, patriotism also isn't absolute.
     
  27. Orochibuto Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    24,297
    Likes Received:
    302
    Trophy Points:
    84
    Reputation:


    Then the stupid murderer is the guilty party.
     
  28. GaaraoftheDesert1 commemorating failure

    Messages:
    12,191
    Likes Received:
    109
    Trophy Points:
    64
    Reputation:
    If an innocent russian gets attacked in the US because of the CNN narrative, should CNN be shut down ?
    There should be no consequences for anyone... those "antifascist" ideas are the real fascist ones.
     
  29. Unlosing Ranger Transcending Time

    Messages:
    5,243
    Likes Received:
    514
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Reputation:
    The point is you don't have the same rights as before even with your own overblown example.
     
  30. Amol Chief of Wisdom

    Messages:
    11,145
    Likes Received:
    438
    Trophy Points:
    84
    Reputation:
    What CNN narrative?
    Is CNN telling that every single russian that is in america is a pedophile/terrorist etc ?
    Alex Jones named a place with child trafficking. Totally different thing .
    You tried and failed spectacularly. Make a valid equivalency argument next time.
    Rest of post is just you trying to be edgy.
     

Share This Page