Turn on thread page Beta

Germany wants Facebook to remove posts that contain incitement to hatred watch

    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by napkinsquirrel)
    So there's absolutely no way that these laws will be changed or overwritten from now until the end of time? There's no way that a liberal agenda could add to these laws to further stifle political criticism? The judicial system isn't set in stone and when it boils down to it you still have a human being making a decision to prosecute somebody.
    You seem to be confused. You asked who had the authority to decide what hate speech was, and claimed to have absolute free speech. The post you quoted is just making it clear who has that authority, and highlighting that your freedom of speech is not in fact absolute.

    At no point was it suggested that these laws are immutable, nor is that particularly relevant to your original question.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by napkinsquirrel)
    None of which fall under the label of criticism of political discourse or social commentary.
    So you agree that freedom-of-speech is not 'absolute'; that it must be regulated according to certain criteria, and that in the interest of fairness any such regulation can only be the purview of a body which is notionally impartial—to wit, the judiciary—lest all and sundry fall prey to hate-mongering, character-assassination, unsubstantiated accusations and the dissemination of privileged or sensitive information which runs contrary to both sovereign and individual interests, however ostensibly 'satirical'.

    I'm glad we're on the same page.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ManifoldManifest)
    You seem to be confused. You asked who had the authority to decide what hate speech was, and claimed to have absolute free speech. The post you quoted is just making it clear who has that authority, and highlighting that your freedom of speech is not in fact absolute.

    At no point was it suggested that these laws are immutable, nor is that particularly relevant to your original question.
    I concede that it's not absolute but in the context of social media, any isolated post, comment or literature should be fair game.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by napkinsquirrel)
    I concede that it's not absolute but in the context of social media, any isolated post, comment or literature should be fair game.
    So you think that, over a medium which can command an audience of millions, a person should be able to say things they cannot say to an audience of three in person? You haven't thought this through, have you?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    So you think that, over a medium which can command an audience of millions, a person should be able to say things they cannot say to an audience of three in person? You haven't thought this through, have you?
    Disregarding the legal context and in a purely speculative way, why not?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by napkinsquirrel)
    Disregarding the legal context and in a purely speculative way, why not?
    I don't even understand what you are saying, but it doesn't seem very sensible to allow people the right to incite hatred among an audience of millions while not allowing them to do it among an audience of three.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bill_Gates)
    Sounds like a good policy.
    (Original post by queen-bee)
    I agree
    So, we have established that Germany isn't really seeking to silence mere criticism and dissent, but is trying to protect people from incitement to hate.

    Given that you two were responding to the policy that has turned out not to be true, you are, presumably, in favour of a heavy-handed central authority that controls the expressed views of its citizens? You will also be entirely happy, one presumes, for another government to suppress the views of people expressing support for the migrants.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Horribly misleading title from the OP. I am fully for freedom of speech, but this is just silly.

    Huge difference between say:
    "I think letting in so many refugees at once poses a severe monetary strain and will cause logistical and security issues"
    and
    "Bloody dirty brown ragheads should be taken out, shot and should have their carcasses put in pugs and dumped back in their **** stained desert they call home. White Power!!"

    The second has been Illegal in Europe for a long time. They're not changing anything, they're just telling facebook to step it up when enforcing their own guidelines.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    I don't even understand what you are saying, but it doesn't seem very sensible to allow people the right to incite hatred among an audience of millions while not allowing them to do it among an audience of three.
    As a disclaimer, the context of what I'm going to say next is one where we live in a society with no laws curbing speech and only moral guidelines to decide what we should and shouldn't say. This is nothing to do with having absolute right to free speech

    What defines what we should and shouldn't say? The line between what defines "hate speech" and legitimate criticism seems rather blurry to me; the whole topic seems very subjective.

    Germany's law might say that inciting hatred entails saying "death to all Muslims" or "everyone from Syria smells like a goat", but the next day, something like the Charlie Hebdo comics could fall under that very same category of inciting hatred. With the advent of social media and widespread liberal petitioning, there does seem to be a trend towards banning anything that could be deemed offensive. So please tell me; what stops certain elements from eventually eroding right to legitimate criticism?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    "Abusive conteby" is not the same as "criticising immigration". Not sure I agree with them, but you are being disingenuous.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by napkinsquirrel)
    ; what stops certain elements from eventually eroding right to legitimate criticism?
    You have disclaimed away all laws and left only morals, so nothing in your utopia. One man's moral imperative - to stone a woman for adultery, for instance - is another's barbarism.

    In the real world, laws - as you have been told (and ignored) many times - protect and control our behaviour.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    You have disclaimed away all laws and left only morals, so nothing in your utopia. One man's moral imperative - to stone a woman for adultery, for instance - is another's barbarism.

    In the real world, laws - as you have been told (and ignored) many times - protect and control our behaviour.
    But you have to admit that laws are not absolute and are subject to change; to say that laws aren't subject to change is ridiculous. What if the laws of the land regarding speech no longer pertain to my protection and are now distinctly removing my right to express my opinion as could quite feasibly become the case in the next few years. What if the clickbait thread title was in fact true, and criticism of immigration really did warrant prosecution? Is that situation actually that far removed becoming reality in the future?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bill_Gates)
    Sounds like a good policy. UK should take many more desperate refugees fleeing a war torn country constantly being bombarded by foreign countries and Assad.
    immigrants, not refugees.
    When they leave first safe country (Italy, Serbia, Turkey) they stop being refugees, they become migrants.
    And no, UK shouldn't really accept any more migrants
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by napkinsquirrel)
    But you have to admit that laws are not absolute and are subject to change; to say that laws aren't subject to change is ridiculous. What if the laws of the land regarding speech no longer pertain to my protection and are now distinctly removing my right to express my opinion as could quite feasibly become the case in the next few years. What if the clickbait thread title was in fact true, and criticism of immigration really did warrant prosecution? Is that situation actually that far removed becoming reality in the future?
    You are getting lost in a miasma of hypothetical dreams. neither laws nor morals are static, obviously. I think it is impossible that a British or German government will, in your lifetime, bring in laws forbidding criticism of the government's immigration policy.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    You are getting lost in a miasma of hypothetical dreams. neither laws nor morals are static, obviously. I think it is impossible that a British or German government will, in your lifetime, bring in laws forbidding criticism of the government's immigration policy.
    I suppose my overreaching point to all this is that any small incursion into taking away people's ability to hate on one another, regardless of how asinine, will eventually give a mandate for liberal elements of government to eventually curb free speech.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by napkinsquirrel)
    I suppose my overreaching point to all this is that any small incursion into taking away people's ability to hate on one another, regardless of how asinine, will eventually give a mandate for liberal elements of government to eventually curb free speech.
    So we can conclude from this that you would never report to the police anyone who threatened to, or incited someone else to, hurt your mother, sister or child?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    So we can conclude from this that you would never report to the police anyone who threatened to, or incited someone else to, hurt your mother, sister or child?
    Hmm good point. There's a difference between a plausible threat and an insult though.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by napkinsquirrel)
    Hmm good point. There's a difference between a plausible threat and an insult though.
    Yes but I am confident the courts can differentiate which of the following is which:

    Kill the migrants!

    Migrants smell!

    We are going to knock a few migrant heads in. The bus will be at the corner of Station Road and High Street at 9am

    The PM is a fool for allowing all these people in to the country
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    So, we have established that Germany isn't really seeking to silence mere criticism and dissent, but is trying to protect people from incitement to hate.

    Given that you two were responding to the policy that has turned out not to be true, you are, presumably, in favour of a heavy-handed central authority that controls the expressed views of its citizens? You will also be entirely happy, one presumes, for another government to suppress the views of people expressing support for the migrants.
    (Original post by simon_g)
    immigrants, not refugees.
    When they leave first safe country (Italy, Serbia, Turkey) they stop being refugees, they become migrants.
    And no, UK shouldn't really accept any more migrants
    Let them all flood in. Only the elites know what's best for Europe.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bill_Gates)
    Let them all flood in. Only the elites know what's best for Europe.
    How does that answer my question, which was about government control of the expression of opinion?
 
 
 
Poll
Is the Big Bang theory correct?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.