It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Germany: Full Censorship Now Official Courts Rewrite History

page: 1
53
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+27 more 
posted on Oct, 21 2017 @ 07:56 PM
link   
So Germany has made it official for them to be able to censor any content from any social media platform so they can control political and cultural discourse in the name of "fighting hate". This new German law makes it so that all forms of public social platforms have to comply with this draconian German law, otherwise they would face hefty fines of up to "up to 50 million euros for not complying", or complying fast enough.



by Judith Bergman
October 21, 2017 at 5:00 am

Germany has made no secret of its desire to see its new law copied by the rest of the EU.

When employees of social media companies are appointed as the state's private thought police and given the power to shape the form of current political and cultural discourse by deciding who shall be allowed to speak and what to say, and who shall be shut down, free speech becomes nothing more than a fairy tale. Or is that perhaps the point?

Perhaps fighting "Islamophobia" is now a higher priority than fighting terrorism?

A new German law introducing state censorship on social media platforms came into effect on October 1, 2017. The new law requires social media platforms, such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, to censor their users on behalf of the German state. Social media companies are obliged to delete or block any online "criminal offenses" such as libel, slander, defamation or incitement, within 24 hours of receipt of a user complaint -- regardless of whether or the content is accurate or not. Social media companies receive seven days for more complicated cases. If they fail to do so, the German government can fine them up to 50 million euros for failing to comply with the law.

This state censorship makes free speech subject to the arbitrary decisions of corporate entities that are likely to censor more than absolutely necessary, rather than risk a crushing fine. When employees of social media companies are appointed as the state's private thought police and given the power to shape the form of current political and cultural discourse by deciding who shall be allowed to speak and what to say, and who shall be shut down, free speech becomes nothing more than a fairy tale. Or is that perhaps the point?
...

www.gatestoneinstitute.org...

Say goodbye to freedom of speech in Germany, but there are others wanting to do the same in other western nations, including in the U.S., as several social platforms have already engaged in a similar agenda to control political and cultural discourse on the internet.



+40 more 
posted on Oct, 21 2017 @ 07:59 PM
link   
That is why America's founding fathers were incredibly wise.

You can see what happens in a Europe that isn't protected by the Bill of Rights.

No freedom of speech, no guns and no protection.

edit on 2017/10/21 by Metallicus because: (no reason given)


+15 more 
posted on Oct, 21 2017 @ 08:05 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse




Drudge, Facebook, NYT readers could face libel suits for sharing 'fake news'-New Proposal To FEC
www.abovetopsecret.com...


Some leftist/libs are Hell bent for leather to get us there as well.



posted on Oct, 21 2017 @ 08:06 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse


such as libel, slander, defamation or incitement, within 24 hours of receipt of a user complaint -- regardless of whether or the content is accurate or not.


How can any of those things be “accurate”?

Libel, slander and defamation are by definition inaccurate.

& incitement is a crime...
Giving a platform to incitement should be also.



posted on Oct, 21 2017 @ 08:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Hazardous1408


Libel, slander and defamation are by definition inaccurate.


The piece you're quoting is talking about complaints of defamation, not the actual offence itself. The (German) website publishers are served with an injunction, which can be overturned in court.

The weird thing about libel laws in most of Europe (including the UK) is that there is a "reverse burden of proof" - the complainant is believed to have been wronged until the defendant proves otherwise (which is how you overturn the initial injunction).

Germany is an unusual jurisdiction for defamation, because it treats all defamation as a criminal offence, whereas most other places only treat it as a civil offence. Meaning, you can go to prison for libelling someone in Germany!

The extension of German defamation law to social media was always going to happen, and I'm only surprised that it appears to have taken as long as it has.



posted on Oct, 21 2017 @ 08:19 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Did Germany even have an official policy or constitutional right to free speech in the first place???

I'm not familiar with the way Germany handles speech issues personally.



posted on Oct, 21 2017 @ 08:22 PM
link   
they do not have freedom of speech in europe lol.
you go to jail for thought crimes. if you dare to question the official story of w2, they put you in jail.

once 'they' told me it is illegal to question w2, then as an intelligent libertarian, i have little choice but to question the events of w2 lol.

they want you to believe their verion of w2, and go to freakin jail if you ask, '0vens, really?'
edit on 21-10-2017 by dantanna because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2017 @ 08:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Did Germany even have an official policy or constitutional right to free speech in the first place???

I'm not familiar with the way Germany handles speech issues personally.


Germany is bound by the European Convention on Human Rights, which enshrines the right to freedom of expression (in Article 10).

It doesn't completely over-ride law made at the national level, but the two have to be compatible, and defendants can call on Art.10 on an individual basis -- although it's not a 'get out of jail free' card, you actually have to put some spadework into demonstrating why your right to express yourself overturns the offence you are charged with.

ETA: A couple of posters in the above have wrongly declared that there's no right to free speech in Europe. This is exactly wrong. It is in fact citizens of the USA that have no guarantee of free speech. The First Amendment only protects the press.
edit on 21-10-2017 by audubon because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2017 @ 08:29 PM
link   
All worldwide social media should ban the whole country of Germany from accesing their platforms... specially all political figures!

See how they like it!



posted on Oct, 21 2017 @ 08:30 PM
link   
a reply to: audubon

So basically as long as they give good reason and have good intent for this, whether or not that's actually true, they would still totally be within their legal power to censor these things without much anyone can do about it then, right??



posted on Oct, 21 2017 @ 08:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Metallicus
That is why America's founding fathers were incredibly wise.

You can see what happens in a Europe that isn't protected by the Bill of Rights.

No freedom of speech, no guns and no protection.


Dont really want 80m Germans running about in Europe with guns.



posted on Oct, 21 2017 @ 08:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Did Germany even have an official policy or constitutional right to free speech in the first place???

I'm not familiar with the way Germany handles speech issues personally.


Fight club rules.



posted on Oct, 21 2017 @ 08:33 PM
link   
All in all, sounds like Nazi's all over again with a twist. Maybe not exactly the same way but is intent on brainwashing and disallowing disagreement with the state.

I have noticed in my life (including myself) that attempts to free yourself from observed/perceived familial wrongs, people go too far in the opposite direction in an attempt to correct the problem.



posted on Oct, 21 2017 @ 08:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: EA006

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Did Germany even have an official policy or constitutional right to free speech in the first place???

I'm not familiar with the way Germany handles speech issues personally.


Fight club rules.


Huh??

You mean the first rule about Germany is you don't talk about Germany's policy's on speech???



posted on Oct, 21 2017 @ 08:36 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

If you would have told me a western democracy would do something like this 5 years ago, I would have called you crazy. Shocking



posted on Oct, 21 2017 @ 08:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: audubon

So basically as long as they give good reason and have good intent for this, whether or not that's actually true, they would still totally be within their legal power to censor these things without much anyone can do about it then, right??


Define "they". Define "censor."

The simple rule with defamation is not to get oneself swept up into some grand drama bout human rights, but to ask yourself "could I prove what I am stating, if someone demanded it? And have I been fair about the person I am talking about?"

There's a difference between fact and opinion. If you don't know that something is a fact, and it is damaging to another person, why would you even want to claim it was a fact in the first place?



posted on Oct, 21 2017 @ 08:38 PM
link   
a reply to: pavil

Why, it's along the same lines as what's been happening here in the US dealing with "hate Speech" laws.

Maybe not exactly the same, but similar.



posted on Oct, 21 2017 @ 08:40 PM
link   
a reply to: audubon

So you're saying it's nothing more than defamation of character/libel law stuff then???

Wasn't that already illegal though??



posted on Oct, 21 2017 @ 08:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: audubon

So you're saying it's nothing more than defamation of character/libel law stuff then???

Wasn't that already illegal though??


Yes, and yes. The source in the OP Is the Gatestone Institute, which is a serious source but a fairly biased one.

If you go back and look beyond the attention-grabbing phrases in the quoted excerpt, you'll see it's not a "state censorship" story at all.

The GI slaps that card boldly on the table, and then gradually withdraws it bit-by-bit in subsequent sentences, by redefining what it means by "state censorship." Sneaky!
edit on 21-10-2017 by audubon because: clarification



posted on Oct, 21 2017 @ 08:47 PM
link   
a reply to: audubon

Ok. That's pretty much what I was wondering.




new topics

top topics



 
53
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join