
German hate speech law tested as Twitter blocks satire account - mh-cx
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-hatecrime/german-hate-speech-law-tested-as-twitter-blocks-satire-account-idUSKBN1ES1AT
======
danschumann
The problem with hate speech laws are, it means you can't insult everyone
equally. If you call someone stupid, they could accuse you of a crime, but
you're not calling them stupid because of their race.

And I want people who actually are racist to talk, so I know who I don't want
to be friends with. If they're all keeping their racist opinions to
themselves, I might waste a bunch of time being their friends. And I can't
correct them when they're wrong if they don't expose their opinions.

And what about having an argument? Someone could accuse you of a crime if they
misinterpret what you say. That's the real problem here. You can say something
with no hateful intent, but people can interpret it with vigorous hate. It's a
really stupid law.

~~~
King-Aaron
> If they're all keeping their racist opinions to themselves, I might waste a
> bunch of time being their friends

I have several friends who I know hold some less-than-sociable opinions, and
they do tend to keep them to themselves.

I don't quite know how to frame what I'm about to say, but I feel it's equally
dickish to think that becoming someone's friend is a "waste of time" just
because you don't agree with their opinion.

~~~
Tactic
To be fair being racist is more than an opinion, it demonstrates your
character. It reveals part of who you are and the framework with which you
deal with the world. I agree that it is valuable knowledge in determining who
you want to create lasting bonds with.

~~~
gspetr
I'll agree with the latter assertion (framework), but not with the former
(character). People tend to default to conformism when they don't know any
better.

By that standard the older the man, the worse he is and you'll arrive at the
conclusion that nearly everyone flawed character in the olden days when racism
was mainstream.

But we need not even go any further than Charles Darwin:

"The variability or diversity of the mental faculties in men of the same race,
not to mention the greater differences between the men of distinct races, is
so notorious that not a word need here be said."

"Nor is the difference slight in moral disposition between a barbarian, such
as the man described by the old navigator Byron, who dashed his child on the
rocks for dropping a basket of sea urchins, and a Howard or Clarkson; and in
intellect, between a savage who uses hardly any abstract terms, and a Newton
or Shakspeare. Differences of this kind between the highest men of the highest
races and the lowest savages, are connected by the finest graduations."

[http://heretical.com/darwin/darwin4.html](http://heretical.com/darwin/darwin4.html)

Sources cited at the bottom of that page.

------
olivermarks
That term 'hate speech' \- what does it actually mean?

This seems like another assault on free speech to me and there is a danger in
limiting the online Overton Window to a massive bland snooze fest.

The current joy of the internet is being able to read all sorts of
perspectives from 'sensible' to radical and I really hope that continues...I
worry for all the citizen journalists and investigators who have been so
magnificent in the current western 'glasnost' era online...

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

~~~
Grollicus
'hate speech' is an oversimplification chosen by the media. The law acually
forces large social media companies in germany to remove illegal* content from
their site within one week.

Context is that Facebook has been ignoring illegal* content on their site and
generally made an ass out of german law enforcement, so they got a law to rein
them in.

*illegal: libel, Volksverhetzung ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volksverhetzung](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volksverhetzung)), supporting illegal organizations (eg. advertising IS beheading videos), calls on people to commit crimes, child porn, porn without consent

~~~
sintaxi
Are you saying facebook is ignoring court orders from the German authorities
to have content removed?

~~~
Mithaldu
No, they ignored a law the government made generally without stating
penalties. Now the govt was forced to spell out penalties.

------
everdev
This is exactly the moral dilemma with free speech vs hate speech.

Do you use fascist techniques like criminalizing speech to stop the spread of
fascist ideas? Or do you simply hope fascist ideas don't take hold?

The former is a scary slippery slope but Germany doesn't have a great track
record with the latter.

~~~
dilap
There's no dilema. It's just an excuse for control. Letting Nazis speak will
not actually convert modern society into Nazis.

~~~
everdev
It happened 70 years ago. Obama has a good line, something similar to:

If you were in a restaurant in 1930s Vienna surrounded by great art, music and
intellectuals you may have been forgiven for thinking that wonderful setting
would continue on forever. Unfortunately, a short time later millions we're
dying on a continent engulfed in war.

When the stock market is up we think it'll keep going up. When we have peace
we can't imagine war. History is not a straight line and destructive ideas can
still take hold in the wrong conditions.

~~~
nine_k
It would be naive to ascribe Nazi propaganda _alone_ the role of the fire
starter in WWII. The problem is that the Nazi propaganda fell on ears that
eagerly wanted to believe it, so the Nazi leader was _democratically elected_
before he seized the absolute power.

If Nazi propaganda might have any noticeable success in today's Germany (or
US, or wherever), it's not because of some crackpots from stormfront; they are
a consequence, not the cause. The cause should be addressed instead, first by
assuming its existence. (No, I'm not going to discuss any probable causes
here; I'm trying to show the logic, not to make a political case.)

~~~
dragonwriter
> The problem is that the Nazi propaganda fell on ears that eagerly wanted to
> believe it, so the Nazi leader was democratically elected before he seized
> the absolute power.

That's not really accurate; the Nazis got power not by outright winning a
democratic election, but because the various other parties were more concerned
about each other than the Nazis, and thus more willing to tolerate a Nazi-
coalition government than to form a coalition against the Nazis; the Nazis
never were elected to power on their own before seizing power; they actually
_lost_ a large number of seats in the election preceding their coalition
government from the preceding election (after which no government was formed),
and even in that preceding election they had only around 1/3 of the seats.

Nazis didn't come to power because a receptive populace gave them a mandate,
they came to power becausea large enough minority of the more numerous elected
not-Nazis were more afraid of each other than the Nazis.

~~~
Amezarak
> more afraid of each other than the Nazis.

That wasn't exactly irrational, the Nazis were not the first or only party in
Germany to be engaging in widespread violence. The Communists, for example,
were a real and actual threat. Mass street violence and assassinations were
common in Weimar Germany even when the Nazis were nobodies.

~~~
dragonwriter
> That wasn't exactly irrational

Nor did I say that it was (at least, based on information available at the
time; it may have been strictly irrational in rational choice terms, where
rationality implies optimality based on the actual future consequences and not
merely anticipated ones.)

------
shaki-dora
That's obviously stupid. But it's day two, and Twitter is likely to get their
procedures in order, just like they (and Facebook etc) have previously done
when implementing their own content policies.

The law applies only to a narrowly defined class of hate speech. Statements
that fall under the definition have always been illegal. People always ran the
risk of prosecution when calling for genocide etc.

As such, nobody's freedom of speech is more limited today than it was a week
ago. What the law tries to accomplish is similar to the DMCA, i. e. to force
companies to take steps to address criminal activity on their platforms when
such is reported.

I know there are many who disagree with laws limiting hate speech. But this is
not that debate.

~~~
nsnick
Twitter should not enforce ridiculous German laws. The tech companies need to
call the bluff of countries that demand censorship.

~~~
shaki-dora
That's such a juvenile reaction...

Germany is considering a stable, open, democratic, peaceful, constructive and
successful country. There are any number of rankings/scoring regarding freedom
of the press and of expression, resilience to corruption, democracy, economic
opportunity etc in which Germany scores better than the US.

These are laws passed by the national parliament, elected to represent its
constituents. The law is subject to approval by not only the national courts,
but the European Court of Justice, and the European Court of Human Rights.

To somehow consider it a grave injustice when Twitter is now required to act
when they are informed of activity considered illegal in that jurisdiction is
ridiculous. Because presumably you're doing so out of some understanding of
"democracy". Yet you are ignoring quite a bit of the local democracy that lead
to this.

~~~
Amezarak
> There are any number of rankings/scoring regarding freedom of the press and
> of expression, resilience to corruption, democracy, economic opportunity etc
> in which Germany scores better than the US.

One of the reasons people regard these rankings as a total joke is exactly
because of incidents like this - Twitter being forced to delete satirical
tweets.

More broadly, I think most people would agree that beyond the extremes (say,
US vs North Korea), the precise rankings of countries on these metrics are
based on questionable methodologies with vague priors and are generated
largely by politically motivated organizations.

~~~
Daishiman
> One of the reasons people regard these rankings as a total joke is exactly
> because of incidents like this - Twitter being forced to delete satirical
> tweets.

I'm sorry but in the extensive travels of tons of people who've been around
the world, those rankings are usually right on the money. It is obvious to
most people who've been around that Germany or Norway have much greater levels
of freedom of expression than Venezuela, as a rather trivial example.

~~~
Amezarak
That's what I said - at the extremes, it's obvious that Germany is more free
than Venezuela, but when you start comparing first-world countries, or even
whether one undeveloped country is worse than another, it gets a lot murkier.

------
Grollicus
LOL they managed to get reuters.

Banning messages via NetzDG is on message basis, that means single tweets get
removed.

Here a whole account got banned which is twitter SOP when accounts violate
their TOS.

Because the new NetzDG came into effect this month now every media in germany
is confused. Seems like the international ones follow suit.

Also the Titanic account (the satire account) got - wrongly - banned some time
before so it propably was some kind of repeat offender thing

~~~
blowski
I think the article is saying Twitter banned the account at least partly as a
consequence of the legislation, because they were worried about being fined.

~~~
Grollicus
That does not make sense whatsoever. They should have just hidden the tweet
then. They have built technology for that - I have seen some tweets that got
banned because of the NetzDG. The law is very controversal and is making waves
in germany. This article just chose a terribly example - but then again thats
propably iconic for most of the fears about this law.

------
cmurf
Twitter's TOS cannot be taken seriously when it comes to abusive speech. They
apply their rules arbitrarily.

While I think it's never inappropriate to punch a Nazi (self avowed variety
anyway), I'm definitely on the side of letting Nazis have free speech. It's
best when the cockroaches are scurrying around in public, rather than hiding
in the wood work. And as it turns out, the U.S. has a long history of fascists
engaged in crimes, theft and murder, and have plotted the overthrow of the
government - same as Germany where these ideas are illegal.

So which method actually inhibits Nazis? Neither. But at least one is cheaper,
and at least with one you've got an example that most every one else, not
merely just the government, will point to as what not to be. Unless you wanna
get punched.

------
blattimwind
The NetzDG in its current form is a disgrace for the state of law. I think an
improvement in this area would be needed, but the NetzDG law is mind-boggingly
stupid and inaccurately formulated.

------
nwatson
Whether the satirical Twitter account should be shut down or not ... satire's
not very effective per Malcolm Gladwell's "Revisionist History" podcast at [0]
(automated lossy transcript at [1]) ... targets of the satire often find the
satire humorous themselves, and can find enough "truth" in exaggerated
viewpoints to reinforce those views rather than call them into question.

[0] [http://revisionisthistory.com/episodes/10-the-satire-
paradox](http://revisionisthistory.com/episodes/10-the-satire-paradox) [1]
[https://blog.simonsays.ai/satire-paradox-with-malcolm-
gladwe...](https://blog.simonsays.ai/satire-paradox-with-malcolm-
gladwell-s2-e10-revisionist-history-podcast-transcript-37119b0bf8ae)

~~~
AndrewUnmuted
Whether or not speech is effective at achieving its ultimate goal is an
entirely irrelevant issue here. "Hate Speech" is extremely ineffective at
promoting hate, but here we are.

~~~
randyrand
Hate speech does not refer to spreading hate, really. It's just a misnomer.

------
akerro
Ha, great!

^ see what I did there? One will say I support censorship, other will say it
was sarcasm, another will stay silent.

------
yoz-y
Wait but... isn't this journal considered "newsworthy" and thus able to
publish whatever they want? There is at least one person out there publishing
hate speech in a non-satirical way and getting away with it on an almost daily
basis.

------
theafroc
Free speech doesn’t mean the right to be on twitter

------
singularity2001
Is there a social media in Germany that does not censor?

------
randyrand
I'm so very glad the USA founders made the first amendment. Other countries
are not as lucky as we are.

~~~
sabertoothed
You do understand that there is no 100% free speech in the US either, right?
Or in any other country for that matter.

And that is a _good_ thing.

------
aceofspad4s
Heh, I still can't believe they have "outlawed racism". That's like outlawing
any other political opinion. How is that possible?

~~~
Frondo
Racism is not a political opinion. Political opinions are along the lines of
"are my taxes too high" or "do we spend more on parks or on police".

A belief in the inferiority of another race isn't political, it's something
else. I don't know what, but discriminatory and bigoted beliefs don't belong
in political discussions or any discussions about how we govern ourselves or
organize society.

~~~
aceofspad4s
Racism does not have to be about "the inferiority of another race". Racism can
be "I don't think it's good for the economy that so many people from outside
are coming" or "this culture is completely incompatible with ours and I don't
want these people here". It's a pretty lax word. By outlawing "racism" you're
outlawing discourse.

~~~
everdev
Anti-Immigration != Racism

Saying you don't want immigration isn't racist if it applies to more than just
immigration from certain racial groups.

However, her tweet was not about that. She called out Muslims as having
certain behaviors which is clearly racist.

~~~
kofejnik
the left are constantly calling out Christians for certain behaviors, is this
racist?

~~~
everdev
If you try to define all Christians as X, you're probably mistaken.

If it's a negative definition designed to insult then it's probably
discrimination.

The whole point of being anti racism, anti religious discrimination etc., is
that race and religion are not good qualifiers for making assumptions or
decisions.

~~~
nailer
The parent asked you if disliking Christianity was racist, not if it was
religious discrimination. Please answer them.

If, say PEW Research asks a statistically significant portion of people who
identify themselves one way, and a large amount of them self declare they have
awful views, is reporting this bad because it's 'negative'?

~~~
everdev
No, it's perfectly fine to have an opinion about an ideology, like: "I don't
believe in the Bible/Christianity, etc.". A statement like that only makes a
judgement about yourself which is of course your right.

If you dislike something, there's usually a fear underneath that. People who
dislike Christianity on a deeper level are probably afraid that if everyone
was Christian X would happen. Sometimes that's realistic, sometimes it's not,
but expressing your fear is OK and usually helps people understand you better
than if you simply say "I don't like X type of people".

When you switch your focus to a group of human beings and say "I don't believe
Christians are...", you're judging others. When we judge others we're probably
bias in some way because none of us have enough accurate information to
uniformly judge the millions of unique people that identify with a race or
religion.

Just saying "I" first doesn't mean you can then say whatever you want. If the
target of your judgements is a person or group of people, you're probably not
being honest with yourself about what you're uncomfortable with and projecting
your fears onto a group of people. That's typically what racism is about.

Instead, it's usually more accurate to express your fears about a particular
non-human target (like a law, behavior, etc.) and leave people out of it.

~~~
nailer
Addressing some weird off topic bits:

\- Not believing in the bible is different from saying Christianity is
harmful.

\- I agree it sounds harsh to say one dislikes Scientologists or Muslims or
Stuffed crust pizza lovers. However that doesn't address the fact that you
implied doing one of these was racist, when none of these are races and all
are beliefs.

And responding to the point you made:

> When we judge others we're probably bias in some way because none of us have
> enough accurate information to uniformly judge the millions of unique people
> that identify with a race or religion.

Many seperate, independent groups have surveyed significant portions of
Muslims across the world and found consistent and disturbing results.

Do we mean every individual person? No, to measure things we need to paint
broad brush strokes.

\- No sensible adult would think that a group has a hive mind.

\- Nearly all would (and should) be concerned if most members of a group
wanted to make being gay illegal (amongst other issues).

~~~
everdev
You're right, discrimination against a religious group is not racism. I don't
know the exact word, maybe bigoted?

To follow my own advice: I feel scared when a judgement is made about a group
of people because I'm scared of examples in history where races, religions,
genders, nationalities or sexual orientations were judged as a group with
disturbing consequences. I feel scared when people project their fears onto
other groups because I'm scared of how they might act on those fears against
innocent people. I'm scared that I can't really know or trust someone who
isn't honest with themselves about what they're afraid of. I feel sad when
people have to deal with judgements against them based on how they were born
or raised because it doesn't seem fair or kind to me. I feel angry when people
focus on the behavior of one group when other groups also have that behavior
because it feels hypocritical to me to not also stand up to the other groups.
I feel sad when people make judgements about a group of people based on what
other people have said or reported because I've gained friendships with people
who I used to judge but who I've now learned to approach with curiosity. I
feel scared when people make judgements about individuals based on polls
because I've seen examples of inaccurate polling and how the phrasing of a
question can significantly change the results of a poll and I feel scared
because I've never been asked to participate in a poll and I wouldn't want to
be judged based on assumptions people might have about attributes that I was
born or raised with but don't fully define me like my nationality, gender,
religion, etc. I feel scared when people assume that people who identify with
a group agree with everything that group says or does because I know that's
not true for me and I can't recall meeting anyone who always agrees with any
other person or leader and I'm scared that they'll judge me not based on my
beliefs but on what they assume my beliefs to be. I feel ignored when people
paint me with broad brush strokes because I view myself as an individual and
I'm scared that if you're ignoring my individuality by putting me in a box
that you don't care about me as a person.

I agree that it's faster to make assumptions about people and statistically
you might be right about some of those assumptions. But, my fear is that
history is not kind when people start judging other races, religions,
political affiliations, genders, etc.

So, in the sense that it sounds like you feel scared about safety for gays
because of laws or cultural beliefs that being gay is a crime, I would agree
with you and I share that same fear for their safety and freedom. And if you
choose to promote gay tolerance in the Philippines because you think it's most
needed there, great -- that's your personal way of acting on your fear. But
that sounds a lot different to me than "An independent survey says that most
Muslims have disturbing beliefs." or "Muslims believe in anti-gay policies." I
feel more comfortable saying: "Gay equality is important to me and I'm willing
to try to protect them against people who make threats against their safety,
so I'm going to the Philippines to try to make the biggest impact I can
there.".

So, I guess my question to you is if safety for gays is so important to you,
why not promote standing up to anyone who discriminates gays and leave the
door open to standing up to a non-Muslim anti-gay person as well?

As a US citizen it was unfortunately not that long ago when a group of men
brutally murdered a young boy for being gay. And growing up in high school,
"gay" or "faggot" was the most vicious insult against another male. For me, I
see disturbing bias against gays right here at home, even today. So,
unfortunately I see anti-gay behavior as a human problem that spans cultures
and religions.

~~~
nailer
Hey there. I can see that we're going to disagree about this, but thanks for
your reply and acknowledging my point re: disliking Islam not being racist. I
see your point about history, but to me religion is separate because it's not
an intrinsic value, whereas the others are. Re: the Philipines I think the
people should give up conservative Catholicism much like people should give up
Islam.

But it's cool, I think we have a pretty clear idea of where the other person
stands.

Thanks for the polite response and have a lovely evening.

~~~
everdev
I used to think so too about religion.

But now I've met some people who believe their religion is bigger than them as
an individual. Renouncing it is simply not something they believe they have
the power or right to do. Other times, they're born into a religious community
and renouncing a religion means losing their community, which can feel like
dying or worse. In Muslim majority countries, I can imagine there is a
powerful force of not wanting to feel ostracized.

~~~
nailer
Sure, and the threat of losing a community applies to many extreme groups. I
don't see how it changes anything or means they're something we don't have to
worry about.

The false idea that religion is intrinsic is used to silence and justify
violently attacking people that criticise religion, particularly Islam.

But let's agree to stop messaging each other. This is a waste of time - it's a
shit ideology and I honestly feel no need to justify disliking it. You feel
that Islam being a religion makes it exempt. I get that, I just disagree.

Additionally, someone keeps angrily downvoting anything I write here - even
basic stuff like 'Islam isn't a race' \- and I fear for the health of my HN
account!

~~~
everdev
Sorry, wasn't me down voting. I actually really appreciated the dialogue.

------
marcoperaza
Show me a committee you think qualified to determine what is hate speech, and
I will show you a group fallen men, like the rest of us, who will ultimately
abuse their power for political ends.

~~~
icebraining
Of course, the same is true for any power that any group (or individual) might
have. You need something more to distinguish this particular case.

~~~
marcoperaza
Censorship attacks the very ability to question the actions of those with
power.

