Re: Start with CNN
They don't do Satire very well on that side of the pond.
Or bacon, or beer, or chocolate. They're world leading on hambeasts and starting wars in far away places, thought.
The German government has formally proposed fining Facebook and Twitter up to €50m ($53m) for failing to remove slanderous fake news and hate speech within 24 hours. A new bill introduced on Tuesday by interior minister Heiko Maas is designed to "combat hate crime and criminal offenses on social networks more effectively," …
i think you meant to say "rapist-god-emperor' also, veles, macedonia and paul horner are 2 examples which immediately spring to mind when the subject of fake news arises. and neither is associated with the dems and are but the tip of the iceberg. unfortunately, both sides of the political aisle are guilty of betraying the public trust, time and time again. admittedly, it'd be nice if the problem weren't compounded by admissions involving sexual predation, both committing and encouraging the acts, but that was too much to hope for.....
..is the problem. Most crap on facebook that resulted in me deleting my old profile (used mostly to share photos of hill walking trips, etc) was not written by any of the "friend list" individuals, but it was re-posted by the share or like options. In fact very little original materiel, only maybe the day's bowel movement times, was written by many of them.
That is why crap spreads so fast: most of the asshats on FB don't bother to check what it is, who posted it, or what it might result in. I know one guy who was 'liking' posted by the UK's far-right Britain First mob, when I pointed this out he was surprised and apologised for spreading it. Then about a month later back to his asshattery by re-posting stuff without checking or thinking...
>Speech that advocates the injury or death of others based on their racial
The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 inserted Section 4A into the Public Order Act 1986. That part prohibits anyone from causing alarm or distress. Section 4A states:
(1) A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he— (a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.
I still say it's censorship of free speech, there are circumstances where this legislation can be abused to suppress free speech.
I'm with Rowan Atkinson on this:
"it is the duty of a comedian to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable."
well given b is infinitely broad.
I mean, for example, observing that "simply removing your penis and saying you're a woman doesn't make you a woman." Is hate crime.
And that saying that maybe legal British residents should be the priority of care is also apparently possibly hate crime... I mean hate crime is overly broad and to be honest a non-sense.
"Speech that advocates the injury or death of others based on their racial background, religious beliefs, or sexual orientation" would be a good place to start.
That you got any downvotes is both stunning and appalling.
Why? I've received threats of violence and death based on all 3 (one of the "death threats" was only a technical death-threat, as in "I'll kill you you honky bastard"; probably not intended as a death threat but legally it is). So-called Christians who wanted me dead because I'm gay, gays who (before I came out to them) wanted me dead because I'm Christian...
Why is it "stunning and appalling" that someone should get downvotes for the posted comment?
What constitutes hate speech?
It surely has to take the scope of the speech into account?
If I were to declare that "All Irish are scum and should be rounded up & gassed." I would rightly be accused of hate speech. There's no way that argument could be defended.
On the other hand, if I said that "my Irish neighbour is a thieving wee gobshite who should be strung up" it may be slander and I could be sued for it, or it could be personal opinion based on fact. Either way, it's not broad enough to be "hate speech". IMO.
>If I were to declare that "All Irish are scum and should be rounded up & gassed." I would rightly be accused of hate speech. There's no way that argument could be defended.
I would defend your right to say that but also I would argue against you as I believe a person holding those views is bigoted and extreme. The worst thing would be to force it underground, let people say it in the open so it can be challenged.
>Personally I am sick and tired of hearing that "free speech" means I have to accept someone racially insulting someone else.
Personally I'm sick of hearing people telling me what I can't say, too many thinned skinned whiners in this world today who constantly bleat how unjust life is. Life is unfair, live with it and get on with it.
Or perhaps you would like a return to blasphemy laws where I'm stoned to death, imprisoned or burnt at the stake for criticising religion ?
If someone is allowed to advocate something then I should be able to disagree and argue against the issue irrespective of the topic.Hate laws tread on this most basic of human privileges, go and read the legislation.
"Personally I'm sick of hearing people telling me what I can't say, too many thinned skinned whiners in this world today who constantly bleat how unjust life is. Life is unfair, live with it and get on with it."
Life is unfair, live with it and get on with it.
"If this proposal about fake news were to be enacted, would Erdogan's German Facebook page consist of a lot of white space?"
Doubtful, but I do get the impression that the European leaders would be all too happy to keep sending fines his way. And after he paid the government then problem solved I guess.
If Germany demands the right to censor the internet due to German law ... then there are 190+ countries ready to line up to follow suit. You know how many crazy censorship laws there are out there?
Second point, define obvious. I'd like to see someone try to give a simple but accurate definition of what does and does not constitute obvious "defamation, slander, public prosecution, crimes, and threats" under German law. Shouldn't take more than a few pages to define, nor more than a few seconds for a support center drone to determine.
So who is next? China, Turkey, Thailand?
Second point, define obvious.
An example cited was that the German government issued a travel warning for Sweden which never happened.
I'm no fan of censorship but I understand the German legal and constitutional position on propaganda and hate speech and the law seems to fall within those bounds. It should also be noted that there are robust provisions for freedom of speech in general and satire in particular.
intentional defamation according to german law in one sentence: "Whosoever intentionally and knowingly asserts or disseminates an untrue fact related to another person, which may defame him or negatively affect public opinion about him or endanger his creditworthiness"
knowingly asserts or disseminates an untrue fact related to another person
Fact: "Something that has really occurred or is actually the case; something certainly known to be of this character; hence, a particular truth known by actual observation or authentic testimony, as opposed to what is merely inferred, or to a conjecture or fiction [OED]
Presumably the inscrutable German lawmakers have included a method to determine the difference between true truths and untrue truths... Or maybe not.
Re: Censoring is not the solution...
Only if it's done correctly (and who defines that? the biggest brown envelope recipient?).
In recent times wasn't there some well educated politcal twit (see what i did there) who used that as one of his catchphrases?
Yet still managing to give out the entirely "fake news" that some middle eastern country "had weapons of mass destruction they could ready for use within 45 mins" and then proceeding to bomb the fuck out of them?
Surely, if one is to be prosecuted for hate speech and fake news then we have a prime candidate there.
A fine f*****g example and leader there,not, and anyone wonders why there is so much hatred around the place?
Yet still managing to give out the entirely "fake news" that some middle eastern country "had weapons of mass destruction they could ready for use within 45 mins" and then proceeding to bomb the fuck out of them?Untrue truths? I wonder which the Iraqi populace would have preferred. Hate speech or having the fuck bombed out of them?
"When it comes to YouTube, it has a much firmer policy than Facebook or Twitter and will take content down very quickly and require users to argue their case for putting it back up."
Try telling that to all the people in the music industry who have ever tried to get YouTube to take down videos that are in breach of copyright. They appear to be happier to keep making their money from the ads they deliver with the content, irrespective of whether it is illegal or not.
Try telling that to all the people in the music industry who have ever tried to get YouTube to take down videos that are in breach of copyright.It is true that there are many musicians that would rather you never got to hear their music. Go figure!
OTOH there are many fine musicians who appreciate the exposure youtube provides and subsequent sales.
This post has been deleted by its author
This post has been deleted by its author
We have had this debate in Australia for a while and it is a non issue.
<quote>However, if some snowflake claims that my saying that the Quran is full of violence, misogyny, child marriage, and intolerance toward other religions threatens their "emotional safety" or is equivalent to "speech inciting violence," they should seek counseling.</q>
That claim would not stand up in court as the koran (and bible and, and ad nauseam) actually contains the items you mention.
It is how you say it. Make it a statement of fact and there is no case to answer. Make it an emotion ridden tirade and it is hate speech. It is quite simple. It comes down to "mind your manners in public". Use reason not rancour.
"That claim would not stand up in court as the koran (and bible and, and ad nauseam) actually contains the items you mention."
Your faith in courts is touching. Once the state passes a law against hurt feelings (i.e. branding free speech "hate speech"), the truth of a statement becomes irrelevant, only what emotional effect the statement has.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020