
Facebook, Google, Twitter agree to delete hate speech in 24 hours: Germany - emgoldstein
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-internet-idUSKBN0TY27R20151215
======
rm_-rf_slash
If it's speech condoning or encouraging harm against others, then it should be
removed. But if people are just voicing their opinions, even hateful opinions,
then it doesn't take a genius to figure out that banning such speech makes the
sentiment run deeper, and only offloads it to even less "tolerant" parts of
the web, like 4chan.

~~~
ianferrel
What about: "The US and Western Europe should attack ISIS soldiers", or
"Convicted murderers should be executed by the state". Both of those
statements are condoning and encouraging harming others. Should they be
removed?

Can you not see the impossibility of regulating which speech is justified, and
which is not?

~~~
illumen
Yes, it's not impossible. It happens all the time already.

The HN system which allowed people to downvote you is limiting your speech.
Facebook removing posts about sex is limiting your free speech.

I find it really perverse that people are ok with banning people talking about
sex, but are fine with them calling for murder.

Take a guess which society has tens of thousands of murders, and millions in
prison? The one that takes away free speech about sex, but protects people
calling to kill immigrants.

~~~
isolate
It's not limiting free speech unless the government is asking for or
compelling it.

[https://xkcd.com/1357/](https://xkcd.com/1357/)

~~~
nokcha
>It's not limiting free speech unless the government is asking for or
compelling it.

The First Amendment applies only to the government, but the principle of
freedom of speech is broader. Large corporations, especially those that
effectively operate as common carriers (e.g., ISPs), are rightfully criticized
if they block speech due to its viewpoint. Facebook has a legal right to
censor speech on its own website, but others have the right to criticize
Facebook for doing so, and the principle of freedom of speech is a valid
reason for such criticism.

~~~
CM30
So at what point does a private business become a 'common carrier'? Because
pretty much everyone agrees a business can chuck someone off the premises for
just about any reason, and most internet forums and communities end up being
more about 'what the owner wants to allow' rather than anything else.

Do you suddenly lose the right to tell people what they're allowed to say or
do if your community becomes popular? How about if it's the leading resource
in a field of study, or half the population end up using it?

Because this is what's bugging me about these arguments. Why can a community
like a forum, mailing list, Usenet group, Slack group or subreddit choose what
people can say and block comments for any reason, but say, Facebook gets
criticised for the same thing? They're all communities, they're all privately
owned...

------
empressplay
The title of this article needs to be changed. There is a world of difference
between "anti-immigrant comments" and hate speech that incites violence (which
is what's really being discussed here.) @dang

~~~
illumen
Yes, why was the title changed to "anti-immigrant" rather than the more
accurate "hate speech" that the original article uses?

Facebook previously would allow hate speech(like calling for violence), but
take down comments by people talking about sex.

------
ferrari8608
I don't understand how deleting an online record of hate speech and threats of
violence is going to do anything to help solve any problems. It will make the
net look prettier, but the people who would post such things will still be
there thinking and feeling exactly as they do now.

~~~
jacobolus
Post-WWII Germany has had strict controls on public hate speech of all types,
as a legacy of national shame/disgust about the Holocaust. I’m all for free
speech, but I can’t really blame them for exercising caution, all things
considered.

~~~
legulere
The law against it actually already existed previous to WWII, starting with
1871. But it wasn't strongly enforced, and worded not clear enough.

------
DominikR
They are now introducing "hate-crimes" here in the EU. This punishes there
mere act of publicly saying or writing a hateful comment. (non threatening,
non endorsing or inciting criminal acts)

If people take offence, you will be persecuted. So it's a great law to further
tighten the control over what can be discussed and what can't.

And if that wasn't enough, our government now allows NGO's and other non state
organisations to police Facebook and other social media to prevent and contain
types of thoughtcrime that haven't been yet criminalised.

No approval from a court needed, some privately funded NGO will in future
decide for us.

~~~
illumen
Which law precisely are you talking about? Racist hate speech was already
illegal in Germany.

I'm genuinely interested if you could link to something describing what you
are talking about.

~~~
DominikR
Example (sorry, it's in German):

[https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volksverhetzung](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volksverhetzung)

The second item of StGb 130 (updated in 2015) is interesting here:

die Menschenwürde anderer dadurch angreift, dass er eine vorbezeichnete
Gruppe, Teile der Bevölkerung oder einen Einzelnen wegen seiner Zugehörigkeit
zu einer vorbezeichneten Gruppe oder zu einem Teil der Bevölkerung beschimpft,
böswillig verächtlich macht oder verleumdet,

It states that if you attack/insult the dignity of a person or group with a
statement, you are a to be punished.

This part in specific: "oder zu einem Teil der Bevölkerung beschimpft" -> or
some group within the population without further specification.

So if a prosecutor feels like it he/she might persecute you for insulting for
example Feminists.

Compare this with the version of the same law from 1871:

„Wer in einer den öffentlichen Frieden gefährdenden Weise verschiedene Klassen
der Bevölkerung zu Gewaltthätigkeiten gegen einander öffentlich anreizt, wird
mit Geldstrafe bis zu zweihundert Thalern oder mit Gefängniß bis zu zwei
Jahren bestraft.

Seems more reasonable to me, only inciting violence is criminalised here.

------
merpnderp
Don't like what someone is saying? Point out why they're wrong, but don't send
guys with guns (the police) to force them to shut up. That's far more
unethical than anything anyone could say.

------
trav4225
Free speech, European style.

~~~
Tomte
Free speech, the correct way. In my opinion, of course.

(The following is not so much directed at you; I don't know you, after all.
It's just that I need to rant, as always when Americans lecture us on free
speech. "You" is not the personal you, but "you Americans on web forums")

Don't mistake your version of free speech for a canonical implementation.

Keep your hate speech and school shootings, be proud of it, and bury your
dead.

We just happen to live in peace and don't need or want your constant
superiority complex in our face.

Just remember, after WWII you had a wonderful opportunity to force your free
speech on us. You deliberately chose to force something else on us. And had it
written in our constitution. Because Nazis. Now don't you dare blame us for
having it. You wanted us to not extend free speech to Nazis. You wanted us to
defend our new constitution.

You don't get to come back after seventy-five years and ask us to please be
nicer to Nazis. And Scientology. And whatnot.

Have you noticed how wherever you engage in nation building, you never
implement your political system? How come? Isn't your system perfect? Maybe
it's only for the enlightened American people and other peoples are too
backwards and savage for that?

Okay, maybe Puerto Rico, which is almost an American state. They have your
system, as well. Except... all their political organs serve at the US
congress' pleasure. Very colonial.

It's great that you identify with your system. Really. But please enjoy it.
Feel free to tell us how much you enjoy it. But stop disparaging others who
disagree.

~~~
eropple
Thank you for writing this (and I say that as an American). We as a country
are are gargantuan hypocrites about this whole thing; the idea of free speech
in our Constitution--to say nothing of plenty of other privileges that we
pretend are rights--is one of many things we _don 't_ pass on to the people we
claim hegemony over.

We are tremendously bad at owning our shit. I wish we were better.

~~~
cgriswald
As a human...

The GP was just as condescending as the GGP. His rush to stereotype Americans
was largely comical. He makes it quite clear at the beginning that his buttons
were simply (and easily) pushed; and this his rant was justified in his eyes.
He simply emoted all over this thread to the benefit of no one but himself.

It is not my status as an American that I defend or his status as a German(?)
that I attack when I point out the hypocrisy or limits in his version of free
speech. Nor does my acknoledgement of those limits imply I am not familiar
with the history and hypocrisy of the United States and its voracious appetite
for hegemony, empire building, and oppression of peoples (including the
restriction or punishment of ostensibly free speech) both within and without
its borders.

This entire thread reads like a bunch of petulant children pointing fingers.
Neither side defends the merits of their version of free speech nor makes
salient points about the others' version of free speech; leading to no greater
understanding and apparently prompting people to take sides in a conflict that
doesn't even have to exist.

------
legulere
I think it's a really good idea to read the wikipedia article about the law
this is based on:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volksverhetzung](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volksverhetzung)

It makes some things clear, what is allowed, what isn't and why.

------
jqm
I don't follow the topic closely but it seems there would be a difference
between "hate speech" and not wanting large numbers of immigrants from a poor
violent region immigrating into one's society. I suspect the second is
sometimes confused with the first, maybe on occasion deliberately by policy
makers or others with an agenda.

~~~
illumen
The title used here on HN is inaccurate, and not what was used in the article.
It's not what is actually happening either.

People can still say they don't want immigrants.

What they can't do is ask people to burn down houses where they live or do
'vigilante justice' on them. These are actual things that people have asked
others to do, and actually done.

Facebook previously limited speech for things like sex, but was ok with
keeping up criminal posts calling for murder.

