
In Germany, online hate speech has real world consequences - anigbrowl
https://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2018/01/daily-chart-8?fsrc=scn/tw/te/bl/ed/
======
funkythings
This comment vastly understates the effects of this law. Social Media
companies are scared af to be fined by the German government, so the filters
are so strong, that it targets the wrong people. A couple of comedians and
satire magazines have been hit, left leaning people as well as right leaning
people alike.

In general, I don't think it's a good idea for the government to decide what I
can post on social media or not. There are already laws against defamation and
"volksverhetzung" (sry I don't no the translation, basically it means I can't
say "kill all the jews/muslims, they are filthy swines"), so keep the internet
free from more regulation on speech. The internet is one of the last places
where people have some sort of freedom of opinion/listening to different
opinions, and our lawmakers make it more and more unfree.

~~~
sdrothrock
> basically it means I can't say "kill all the jews/muslims, they are filthy
> swines"

Do you know how strict those laws are? I mean, you just said that, albeit in a
quotation, so I imagine that at least is out of the scope of the law? Or would
it be something that got you in trouble if someone reported it?

~~~
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC
No, only if it's a danger to "public peace", and that is actually taken pretty
seriously. Citing it as an example is no problem at all, you can even say
something like that in first person if it is satire or provocative art. Unless
you make it clear that you actually want people to seriously think that
jews/muslims are subhuman and should be killed, chances are very slim that you
would be convicted for that.

~~~
yodsanklai
> you can even say something like that in first person if it is satire or
> provocative art

I can give you a counter-example (although in France where we have similar
laws). Patrick Sebastien, who is a well-known French humorist has been
convicted for exactly that (he impersonated Jean-Marie Le Pen, far right
politician, in a satire song "casser du noir").

Sorry but I can only find a reference to a French article
[http://www.liberation.fr/medias/1996/03/13/patrick-
sebastien...](http://www.liberation.fr/medias/1996/03/13/patrick-sebastien-
condamne-il-doit-verser-30-000-francs-pour-provocation-a-la-haine-raciale-
osons_165999)

The judges concluded that this was indeed an incitation to racial hatred,
which is illegal in France.

~~~
germanier
French and German law are similar but not equal and this falls clearly in to
the allowed territory in Germany.

------
The_suffocated
The paper can be downloaded from

[https://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=8201061010270271...](https://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=820106101027027100093065104126074122037089089042053026107097124081073127064017018108060016059063040047117002119077004085103076007082044064086005008086000121064100092030015033096112070030080089119095026113074126068090099117115122106127084072103124120120&EXT=pdf)

I have only skimmed through the paper, but I am a bit skeptical about their
conclusions. The authors first showed that the attacks-on-refugees time series
is strongly correlated to the anti-refugee-posts time series. This part is
very basic and is OK.

Then they tried to exhibit a causal relationship between the two series, and
it is the trend of posts that drives the trend of attacks but not the other
way around. This is where I have doubts. Apparently, the authors didn't try
something basic first --- like a Granger causality test --- but applied a
somewhat obscure regression procedure to establish causality.

This procedure, which they called a Bartik-type approach, was invented only in
1991. Now I'm not familiar enough with time series analysis to know the merits
of this Bartik-type approach and why Granger test is not useful in this case,
but from the graph in the Economist article, it seems that the trend of
attacks is leading the trend of posts, so I wonder if they were deliberately
omitting a Granger causality test that might refute their conclusions.

~~~
RasputinsBro
Just to point out that "Granger causality test" is a terrible name as is does
not really test causality, it tests correlations between time-lagged series;
time-lagged correlation is not causation.

It's just a popular correlation test in the field of autocorrelated time-
series.

------
TheSpiceIsLife
> New research suggests that this digital hatred is now spilling over into the
> real world.

I don't agree there is a distinction to be made here. The _real world_
subsumes social media. Certainly _violent crimes such as arson and assault_
are different, and more severe, than hateful or abusive posts or direct
messages. Neither category is less _real_.

~~~
jack9
> Neither category is less real.

I think the context is that "real world" is supposed to mean it has a physical
effect. The implication is that physical crimes are legitimately categorized
crimes and speech crimes are not exactly legitimate (according to where you
say words, they _might_ be criminal).

I believe that some words that make someone/some group _possibly_ feel bad
(intrinsically, not just to libel), are not a real harm that is in need of
remedy. Even if it is something that is _known_ to make someone feel bad, I
wouldn't consider it legitimate. It's always subjective and I don't subscribe
to that kind of only-use-doublespeak-watchdog thinking.

~~~
pluma
That's the massive understanding I see when people who don't live in Germany
complain about German censorship of speech:

It's not about feelings.

It's about shaping other people's opinions.

If someone says "jack9 is a kiddy fiddler" the damage is not that it might
make jack9 upset, the damage is that others might think it's true and take
actions that harm him.

If someone says "kill the kikes" the damage is not that Jewish people might be
upset, the damage is that others might agree and commit violence against
Jewish people.

It doesn't even have to be a convincing argument, it just has to give other
people the impression their hatred is socially acceptable and their violence
has public support.

Hate speech is like broken windows: the more a certain hateful sentiment is
tolerated in society, the more socially acceptable that sentiment becomes, the
more likely it becomes someone will act on it and that society will tolerate
those actions too.

Hitler's rise to power was not a coup d'etat. Hitler didn't overthrow the
government by killing generals and politicians and installing himself as
leader. Hitler rose to power by manipulating people's sentiments with
language. He created scapegoats and convinced people it's okay to channel
their hate and frustration towards those scapegoats. When the Nazis first
called for people to be killed or that their neighbors were inferior, few
thought they meant it, but saying it over and over normalised the idea. They
dehumanised their victims and their future enemies.

A lot of that rhetoric is normal in many places today and Trump's campaign
wasn't even a special example. The rhetoric after 9/11 made Germans feel icky
because it was so familiar but even then it wasn't new. Americans worry about
racism and sexism, Germans worry about xenophobia -- hatred of the foreign,
the different, the "other".

~~~
b6
> Hitler rose to power by manipulating people's sentiments with language. He
> created scapegoats and convinced people it's okay to channel their hate and
> frustration towards those scapegoats.

People should have the freedom to be persuaded to believe things that you
don't agree with. It's OK to have a "wrong" opinion. Let people say what they
want and believe what they want. I'm stunned that I still have to defend
freedom of expression.

~~~
pluma
If you think _anything_ is worth defending _at all cost_ , that should give
you pause.

You seem to understand that speech can persuade people of wrong things. Do you
think it's possible you've been wrongly persuaded to hold the belief that free
speech trumps all?

Maybe the same people that persuade you that you need free speech above all
are also those that have the most to gain from being able to persuade you
freely of whatever they want?

If you think incitement should not be a crime and likely think libel and
slander should not be a crime, where do you draw the line if fee speech trumps
all? What about lying under oath?

I'm going to guess (based on your name and the demographics of HN) you're
American. Your nation's history is entirely written by itself and its only
revolution was a secession which it was able to defeat.

Maybe your country just hasn't learned the lesson Germany has?

Just a thought: [https://thenib.com/the-good-war](https://thenib.com/the-good-
war)

~~~
b6
> If you think incitement should not be a crime and likely think libel and
> slander should not be a crime, where do you draw the line if fee speech
> trumps all? What about lying under oath?

I don't think libel and slander should not be crimes, I don't think lying
under oath should not be a crime. I believe in freedom of expression.

I especially encourage those people with the _absolute worst most harmful
ideas_ to speak often and loudly and publicly, so that everyone has a chance
to hear their ideas and think about them and come to understand for themselves
how bad they are.

Freedom of expression means I can sit back and let Westboro Baptist Church
explain to everyone what terrible people they are much more eloquently than I
could ever hope to do. Neo Nazis, please, have a rally and explain to everyone
in your own words that you latch onto pathetic ideas of racial superiority for
lack of any accomplishments of your own to be proud of.

Why do you want to restrict freedom of expression? Do you find it hard to
refute somebody's argument? Do you not trust people to sort out good ideas
from bad themselves? The solution to bad speech is more speech. I thought we'd
settled this decades ago.

~~~
anigbrowl
_I especially encourage those people with the absolute worst most harmful
ideas to speak often and loudly and publicly, so that everyone has a chance to
hear their ideas and think about them and come to understand for themselves
how bad they are._

But history is replete with examples of people _not_ doing that, and instead
going ahead and implementing the really terrible idea. The Holocaust. The
Killing Fields. The Rwandan genocide.

 _Neo Nazis, please, have a rally and explain to everyone in your own words
that you latch onto pathetic ideas of racial superiority for lack of any
accomplishments of your own to be proud of._

Some neo-nazis in the UK yesterday attempted to perform a 'citizen's arrest on
the mayor of London', complaining about his being a Muslim and saying rude
things about Donald Trump. Eventually the police showed up, declined to
assist, and they were laughed out of the room.

It wasn't realized until later that they'd brought along a mobile gallows and
parked it outside. I'll give you three guesses as to what they planned to do
with it had they been successful in laying hands upon him.

 _Do you find it hard to refute somebody 's argument? Do you not trust people
to sort out good ideas from bad themselves? The solution to bad speech is more
speech._

No, not really, and I'm not so sure about that. We don't live in a society of
angels and educating everyone to think in enlightened terms is a slow and
uncertain process. I don't like any sort of state coercion and would prefer to
see prison abolished too, but I do not fool myself that crime would cease to
exist if I could force that outcome. Consider Graham's law from economics,
which holds that bad money drives out good; a small number of bad actors can
undermine the reliability of the economy for all participants.

------
Yetanfou
For those of you who read German the following article sheds a revealing
perspective on the effects of these new laws:

[https://motherboard.vice.com/de/article/kznxz3/vom-netzdg-
zu...](https://motherboard.vice.com/de/article/kznxz3/vom-netzdg-zum-hetzdg-
wie-trolle-das-maas-gesetz-nutzen-um-politische-gegner-mundtot-zu-machen)

The leading paragraph claims that "Trolls and right-wing activists conspire
through pr0gramm, Discord and Twitter to 'turn the law against hate speech'
into its opposite: a tool to denounce left-wingers, women and migrants."

In other words, the opposite of "hate speech" is "left-wingers, women and
migrants" according to the writer of this article. This shows the incredible
myopia of these activists who have been warned time and again that those same
censorship laws they were pressing for and sponsoring could and would be
turned around to target their own political platforms. Unfortunately they did
not listen, often because they blocked or banned those who spoke out against
censorship as racists, xenophobes and more.

~~~
novalis78
Amen...and that's how Bismark's Prussian super government whose bureaucratic
super machine was the pride and glory of the Germans turned into Hitler's
nefarious totalitarian regime more or less overnight. The same tools that
ensure 'order and safety' become tools for 'suppression and conformity'. You
would think the Germans, if any, would have learnt what totalitarianism feels
like. But no, all they learned is that they just did not have the right
totalitarian tools in the first place. It must be a cultural/mentality thing.
Those who feel quite uncomfortable under such a system historically leave and
tend to end up in... the US.

------
tannhaeuser
A couple weeks ago there was this piece on leading German newspaper FAZ
showing where censorship-by-law of "hate speech" will lead to (reposting it
here).

[1]: [http://blogs.faz.net/deus/2017/12/18/erdogans-mob-und-
gruene...](http://blogs.faz.net/deus/2017/12/18/erdogans-mob-und-gruene..).
(in German)

[2]:
[https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&...](https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&..).

~~~
tannhaeuser
This just in:

[1]:
[http://www.faz.net/aktuell/gesellschaft/menschen/deutschland...](http://www.faz.net/aktuell/gesellschaft/menschen/deutschlands-
bekannteste-streetart-kuenstlerin-wird-von-facebook-zensiert-15398563.html)
(in German)

Links to Google's translation service appear broken for me, though.

------
tu7001
This is terrible, that censorship is a law in such big European country.

~~~
skocznymroczny
Soon coming to France, although there it's about fighting "fake news".

------
cryptozeus
In india you get arrested for social media post if its against political
figures and encourages hate

------
holydude
And imagine this spreads to the rest of the EU because Germany is the role
model for all others and we need to harmonize the laws and repress anyone that
feels like not liking this european (german) culture and way of thinking.

------
defkev
Just like the increase in migrant crimes has "real world consequences" in
Germany, including citizens voicing their opinions online, causing the
"government" to pass a law to outlaw just that...

Whats their next research paper about? Water is indeed wet?

------
tomohawk
This seems so ironic. The law seeks to limit disparagement of minorities by
painting a minority with a broad brush and not allowing them to have a voice.

