Germany: Full Censorship Now Official Courts Rewrite History

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

What the code actually says about, e.g., insulting religions is significantly different to the way you are representing it.

“Whosoever publicly or through dissemination of written materials (section 11(3)) defames the religion or ideology of others in a manner that is capable of disturbing the public peace, shall be liable to imprisonment not exceeding three years or a fine.”

"Defames" is not the same thing as "insults", and not all defamation is capable of disturbing the public peace.

And anyway, behaving in that way isn't an immediate prison sentence. You might get arrested, you might then get charged, you might be put on trial, and at the end of it you might be convicted. Germany's quite keen on due process.

The holocaust denial law is not one that has been widely adopted, except I think in France, but you can see why Germany has a very specific law about it.

a reply to: audubon

Chapter Eleven Crimes Which Relate to Religion And Philosophy of Life

Section 166 Insulting of Faiths, Religious Societies and Organizations Dedicated to a Philosophy of Life

(1) Whoever publicly or through dissemination of writings (Section 11 subsection (3)) insults the content of others’ religious faith or faith related to a philosophy of life in a manner that is capable of disturbing the public peace, shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than three years or a fine.

(2) Whoever publicly or through dissemination of writings (Section 11 subsection (3)) insults a church, other religious society, or organization dedicated to a philosophy of life located in Germany, or their institutions or customs in a manner that is capable of disturbing the public peace, shall be similarly punished.

Strafgesetzbuch

In regards to the OP, it seems like a simple enough solution. Social media providers can "take their ball and go home" so to speak. Just cut Germany off completely. They're private corporations, they dictate who can use their platform and how.

If the German people are as addicted to social media as people from the U.S., the necessary changes will be made or Germany will be exposed as the heavy-handed police state many espouse it to be.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

That source cites a translation. Here is another translation of the same bit of the same law.

Section 166
Defamation of religions, religious and ideological associations

(1) Whosoever publicly or through dissemination of written materials (section 11(3)) defames the religion or ideology of others in a manner that is capable of disturbing the public peace, shall be liable to imprisonment not exceeding three years or a fine.

(2) Whosoever publicly or through dissemination of written materials (section 11(3)) defames a church or other religious or ideological association within Germany, or their institutions or customs in a manner that is capable of disturbing the public peace, shall incur the same penalty.

Significantly, the above is a direct translation on behalf of the German Ministry of Justice, by a legal academic.

Here's some commentary on the situation, from the Journ al of German Law (PDF).

The existence of verbal abuse is decided on a case-by-case basis. However, certain guidelines may be defined: Breach of public peace requirements are met when an opinion is hostile to religious beliefs and is expressed with grossly disparaging character, form, and circumstances, such as when a statement contains the use of evil swearwords.21 The same rule must apply to the sexualized presentation of religious content and cultic actions. This is the most objectionable form of profanation of a saint who is holy to the believer, and thus sexualizing that saint constitutes an abuse. In contrast, with regard to content, the expression of a religion-critical opinion generally deserves the protection of the freedom of speech. Freedom of speech protections apply unless the factual substance of the criticism of a religious belief or a confessional community clearly stands back behind an obvious vilification.

The offence isn't a straightforward case of "be rude about a religion, go to jail". It's quite a bit weightier than that, as the bolded words attest. Like most jurisdictions, German justice doesn't waste time with trivial behaviour.

a reply to: audubon

The translation is done by the foreign ministry of justice. The have a section on defamation.

Breach of public peace requirements are met when an opinion is hostile to religious beliefs and is expressed with grossly disparaging character, form, and circumstances, such as when a statement contains the use of evil swearwords.

“Evil swear words”. Right.

originally posted by: audubon
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.

and

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.

It might be hard for others to grasp that calling someone an asshole or showing the middle finger in traffic can be fined. Freedom of speech do not cancle out personal rights. It´s not snowflakeish, it´s understood as being civil. Similar to the concept that spouting lies in public is not expressing the right to freedom of speech.

It´s, as with most things, a completly different concept in Europe and the USA. Libaralism is also not the same, it´s completly different. It would be nice if more American members would be cautious about such differences before they repeat the same old "no freedom of speech" and similar things. I wish they would leave behind the ignorant paroting and labeling to expand their horizont.

originally posted by: ATSAlex
All worldwide social media should ban the whole country of Germany from accesing their platforms... specially all political figures!

See how they like it!

As a german i can say:
What a wonderful dream that never will come true!

No more Trump rubbish that the MSM thinks it needs to report about, no more Facebook neonazi/feminists/political correctness and making money with useles stuff echo chambers. And maybe some of our people would find back to their real life if this self-exposer/spying platforms would extinct in germany. But we are lucky here, we don´t have that much social media users here. Accounts yes, 20 Millions for FB, for example.

I know people that opened accounts, because they wanted to see what the wonderful, useful thing with that platforms is. Used them once and never again, because most people realize that those platforms are senseless and worse. Let it be 5 millions that use that stuff here. Many of them because they are artists and it´s a good PR platform and you "just have to pay with your data" and not money. The only almost good reason to use those platforms, if you don´t care for your privacy and data.

Then you have the kids, i think this is the biggest group of social media users in germany. All in all it´s more the lower educated and those with endless time, that use social media in germany, according to several different studies. Simply because if you have a job, a girlfriend, wife, a family, maybe kids, people don´t have time to waste with that social media stuff. Newer studies say that those social media users are more stressed by their social media behaviour than, for example, air traffic controllers at their job. Who needs that if he isn´t a masochist but has a real life?

Don´t get me wrong, any attack on the freedom of speech is wrong!
But if it comes to ban foreign social media/spying platforms, it really doesn´t matter for me. Because those platforms are foreign companies. That spy on us! And don´t even pay taxes here!

And if it comes to freedom of speech in germany:
I could position myself now right in front of the cologne cathedral and could start to critize the politics, politicians, Merkel, our Army, whatever. If i don´t start to yell stuff like "Sieg Heil" i could do this for hours and go back home, not arrested or similiar. I could do this tomorrow again and would come back home, without problems. I don´t know on which secret lists that would put me, but if i wanted, i could say, loud in the public(using no bad language), what i think. If it is not Nazi stuff, but the ban on that came from the occupiers, because of re-educational measures, denazification stuff.

If the "Wahrheitsministerium´s" only targets are that sense- and useless spying and self-exposure platforms like Facebook and Co, it doesn´t affect average german citizens but only social media junkies, compulsive, pathological self exposers.

a reply to: mOjOm

I have never said the far right isn't a point of contention in the US.

The story I was referring to 100% left.

a reply to: verschickter

It might be hard for others to grasp that calling someone an asshole or showing the middle finger in traffic can be fined. Freedom of speech do not cancle out personal rights. It´s not snowflakeish, it´s understood as being civil. Similar to the concept that spouting lies in public is not expressing the right to freedom of speech.

It´s, as with most things, a completly different concept in Europe and the USA. Libaralism is also not the same, it´s completly different. It would be nice if more American members would be cautious about such differences before they repeat the same old "no freedom of speech" and similar things. I wish they would leave behind the ignorant paroting and labeling to expand their horizont.

Freedom of speech is the same concept worldwide. If you cannot call someone an asshole without fine you do not have free speech.

W W A NAZI D?

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: SR1TX

Put it this way they get a month's payed holidays at the end of each year with another months pay thrown in so they can go on a holiday with the money... That's just one of many freedoms enjoyed there.

There plenty more, read up on it you may be rather surprised.

My understanding of "freedom" is very different from yours. You literally cited an instance whereby a business owner must provide vacation to its workers as "freedom". My understanding of freedom, on the other hand, consists of being free from government overreach. One can always look for another job, but one cannot simply quit the government and get a new one so easily.

originally posted by: verschickter

originally posted by: audubon
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.

and

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.

It might be hard for others to grasp that calling someone an asshole or showing the middle finger in traffic can be fined. Freedom of speech do not cancle out personal rights. It´s not snowflakeish, it´s understood as being civil. Similar to the concept that spouting lies in public is not expressing the right to freedom of speech.

It´s, as with most things, a completly different concept in Europe and the USA. Libaralism is also not the same, it´s completly different. It would be nice if more American members would be cautious about such differences before they repeat the same old "no freedom of speech" and similar things. I wish they would leave behind the ignorant paroting and labeling to expand their horizont.

Freedom of speech--the freedom to openly express oneself--doesn't change in meaning respective of one's geographical location. It is universal. Furthermore, the moment one claims to be able to curb another's free expression on the premise of "being civil", one establishes the precedent of controlling another's behavior for purely subjective reasons. That is an anathema to personal freedoms.

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.

Really? Nazi Germany had a Bill of Rights? I call BS.

All this in Germany is still repercussions from World War II. You want to see what happens in a Europe that isn't protected by the Bill of Rights? Go read up on World War II.

a reply to: DerBeobachter

Ah the If it does not directly effect me(it will one day) It is alright by me mindset. One day they will come for you as well,and there will b eno one to speak out for you.

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.

Right, I am a lefty, but I keep on arguing with some of my more mainstream liberal friends that it is a dangerous historical slippery slope to walk down when we begin to try to control free speech. Some of my smartest friends are beginning to buy the argument that we need to regulate hate speech quote and quote.

The problem even here is that the definition of "racist" or "hate speech" keeps expanding WAY beyond the most basic definition, and encompasses everything from talking about illegal immigration to criticizing human rights in certain Islamic countries now.

I managed to get through to my roommate on this topic when I mentioned that now criticism of Israel is now being conflated with anti-semitism. In Germany that is being legislated. Here in the US the Israel lobby is factually trying right now to make the State Department's external facing definition, which is similar to Germany's, apply internally to domestic affairs and college campuses. We are already walking down the slippery slope.

originally posted by: verschickter

originally posted by: audubon
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.

and

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.

It might be hard for others to grasp that calling someone an asshole or showing the middle finger in traffic can be fined. Freedom of speech do not cancle out personal rights. It´s not snowflakeish, it´s understood as being civil. Similar to the concept that spouting lies in public is not expressing the right to freedom of speech.

It´s, as with most things, a completly different concept in Europe and the USA. Libaralism is also not the same, it´s completly different. It would be nice if more American members would be cautious about such differences before they repeat the same old "no freedom of speech" and similar things. I wish they would leave behind the ignorant paroting and labeling to expand their horizont.

I get that the laws and conceptions differ in Europe.

But, let's debate that and those conceptions.

It's not freedom of speech if only non-controversial speech is allowed. "You are free to be polite and say what is currently considered orthodox beliefs, and nothing else." At no point in history have people not been able to do exactly that. During the Inquisition you were "free" to agree with orthodoxy. You weren't free to disagree or say heretical things.

There's a real danger to human dialogue and understanding when historical ideas cannot be examined or critiqued, right or wrong. At many times in history governments or religions have tried to whitewash or change historical understandings to control the populace. By illegalizing debate of things such as the holocaust, you begin walking a dangerous slippery slope.

The law here in the US already prohibits incitements to violence or rioting, and I agree with that. Also, in civil court you can be sued for slander or defamation of character, i.e. false accusations of someone. I don't think people should be able to slander others. It's also illegal here to falsely claim something that may cause panic, for example falsely screaming "fire" or "bomb" in a public space. You also aren't allowed to sexually harass people.

I feel like these are pretty reasonable boundaries.

Beyond that though, we should be able to express ourselves.

The German controllers of Germany are still riding the gigantic guilt horse about WW2 and they are afraid to get off but more importantly they want to show the world that fascism will never, ever rise in Germany again. So any little sign that might lead to that will be jumped on. Don't of course tell them that was a tenet of fascism itself.
Add to that the Germans are looking over their shoulders all the time with a very large American military presence in their country to make sure fascism doesn't rise again.
OOps sorry, I meant the Americans are in Germany to protect them from Russian attack.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse
Fascism come again ... is anyone calling it conservative yet ?

originally posted by: Hazardous1408
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.

When exposing corruption of employees and organizations, the first line of defense by the guilty is to accuse the whistle-blower of libel, slander and defamation along with the threat of legal action. By the time the story reaches the newspapers and they have done their own investigations, that bluff is blown away.

Now that can be used by any business to complain about a bad review or rating. You could complain that a builder didn't completely finished a contract like installing new windows and not bothering to seal up the holes in the brickwork. They could claim that was libel, slander and defamation - unless you had photographs. Even then, these Internet companies now have to play Judge Judy.