Germany: Full Censorship Now Official Courts Rewrite History

Fake News, this cr*p, it’s all the same thing; same agenda.

a reply to: audubon

You should read it again...

or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press

Freedom of speech is clearly distinct from freedom of the press.

Well Seig freaking heil!
From Fascism to Communism in just 2 generations.
Poor German people keep getting yanked around for the last 150 years.
No sooner had they formed a Confederation than France, England and Russia decided they must be contained if not destroyed.

originally posted by: ErrorErrorError
Holocaust denial is a crime in Germany and has been since forever.
Is that full censorship aswell?
Good for the Germans

Far right wingers,or any hateful group for that matter, shouldn't have a platform to spread their fake propaganda.
They can always migrate to US where nazis have free speech and the current president thinks they are good people

Why exactly is Holocaust denial a crime.

Why can noone ask questions about an event that is clearly full of lies and omissions...and exaggerated numbers.

ANYTHING should be open to questioning...sounds like belief in the State and their versions are all that matter to you.

I will tell you this, all the censorship in the UNIVERSE is not going to stop all truths of exactly what has happened from being revealed.

And for those that lied about it all and continue to control and demonize every group of humans in one way or another...forget about being forgiven, nothing but full power truth is coming for you, and coming NOW.

originally posted by: audubon

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.

THIS..
I honestly didn't know about anything in a constitution of sorts but I had heard of European Convention on Human Rights. I imagined that there would be a case by case legal precedence in most Western European countries.

originally posted by: pavil
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

Well, check the source. Then search for an analysis of the law that is not produced by the Gatestone Institute. It might just smell a little different.

a reply to: darkbake

The problem is that it only takes one user of such platform to claim "that's libel/defamation" or that "it is fake news".

Just look at this website and some of the comments left by members who have claimed a thread was fake news simply because they didn't/don't want to accept what the thread is conveying. if it was up to certain people, only the news they want to see would be allowed in any social platform, and that's what Germany is doing.

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

Well, check the source. Then search for an analysis of the law that is not produced by the Gatestone Institute. It might just smell a little different.

Here is the official German article about this.

www.spiegel.de...

Here is a google translated version, of part of the original article which is in German.

...
The Network Enforcement Act (NetzDG) ​​will enter into force this Sunday - and is expected to affect more networks than expected. The colloquially Facebook-law work makes internet company guidelines for handling illegal content on their platforms.

According to SPIEGEL information, the Federal Office of Justice, which is to supervise the implementation of the law, is also quick to check networks such as Reddit and Tumblr as well as the Flickr photopile and Vimeo video portal to ensure compliance with legal requirements. The inspections begin in October.

The rules apply not only to the big platforms of Facebook, YouTube and Twitter. As of this Sunday, all platforms which the law defines as social networks regardless of their size must provide a contact person in Germany for user complaints and for investigators' inquiries. Recent queries must be answered within 48 hours. Otherwise there will be penalties.
...
In a second step, networks with more than two million registered users in Germany have to delete illegal content reported to them quickly. A transitional period will end on 1 January 2018. The Ministry of Justice is not yet aware of who is affected. On request, it is emphasized that most platforms did not publish user figures to Germany and that there are only estimates in public sources. "It is only after the BfJ's investigations have started that it will be possible to reach a definitive conclusion on this issue".

When fines are due and in what amount should be fixed for the entry into force of the law, but is still unclear. According to SPIEGEL information, the relevant guidelines still depend on the coordination between the ministries.

Google translation.

originally posted by: swedy13
a reply to: audubon

You should read it again...

or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press

Freedom of speech is clearly distinct from freedom of the press.

It covers MULTIPLE people and organizations according to the supreme court and its wording. i tprotect everyones speech against goverment oppression.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

And what Germany does will automatically be copied for the neighboring countries as they all are economically tied to Germany.

I've heard that from now on the government of the Netherlands has take on this law that they can look into what's up users any time they want so that they can intercept dangerous content.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

wow who would have thout after we and our allies saved europe from german leaders would fall for sam stupidity again.

originally posted by: swedy13
a reply to: audubon

You should read it again...

or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press

Freedom of speech is clearly distinct from freedom of the press.

That's the point I was making - only the press is really protected by the First Amendment. It's too fiddly a subject to go into in any great depth, so here's Wikipedia's summary of restrictions on free (personal) speech in the USA:

In the United States freedom of expression is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. There are several common law exceptions including obscenity,[214][215] defamation,[214][215] incitement to riot or imminent lawless action,[214][215] fighting words,[214] fraud, speech covered by copyright, and speech integral to criminal conduct; this is not to say that it is illegal, but just that either state governments or the federal government may make them illegal. There are federal criminal law statutory prohibitions covering all the common law exceptions other than defamation, of which there is civil law liability, as well as terrorist threats [216][217], making false statements in "matters within the jurisdiction" of the federal government,[218] spreading false and misleading information relating to death or injury of members of the US Military,[219][220] speech related to information decreed to be related to national security such as military and classified information,[221] false advertising,[215] perjury,[215] privileged communications, trade secrets,[222][223] copyright, and patents. There also exist so-called "gag orders" which prevent the recipient of search warrants[224] and certain court orders (such as those concerning national security letters,[225][226][227] subpoenas,[228] pen registers and trap and trace devices,[229][230] 18 U.S.C. § 2703(d) orders,[231][232] suspicious activity reports[233]) from revealing them. Most states and localities have many identical restrictions, as well as harassment, and time, place and manner restrictions. In addition, in California it is a crime to post a police officer's or public safety official's address or telephone number on the Internet for the purpose of obstruction of justice or retaliation for the exercise of official duties.[234][235]

So US citizens do not have the untrammelled right to free speech that they often claim to have. By contrast, as I said, the US press is almost completely unfettered, perhaps because trying to clamp down on the press would produce more of a backlash (what with them being the press, and all.)

Case in point: when Daniel Ellsberg leaked the Pentagon Papers to the New York Times, who got proseecuted? Ellsberg. The Government tried to get an injunction against the NYT but when the Supreme Court tossed it out, Nixon and Kissinger went home with their tails between their legs and did nothing further about it. On the other hand, the administration went after Ellsberg with a vengeance and he ended up facing a total of 115 years in prison!

originally posted by: audubon


That's the point I was making - only the press is really protected by the First Amendment. It's too fiddly a subject to go into in any great depth, so here's Wikipedia's summary of restrictions on free (personal) speech in the USA

Freedom of the press is not at all limited to the media, its a fundamental personal right available to every sort of publication (USSC Branzburg v. Hayes / Lovell v. City of Griffin).
Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press are two different rights, not one just for the people and one just for the media.

So US citizens do not have the untrammelled right to free speech that they often claim to have.

Its a reality of life, all freedoms granted to us are in the end restricted. This is neccessary because otherwise a society would not be able to function.
So while freedom of speech is not unrestricted in the US, its also less restricted than most.

Compare it do Germany if you like. Even before the insane law discussed in this thread, Germans did not enjoy freedom of speech comparable to the US.
Generally speaking, the German version of Freedom of Speech ends if and when it infringes other comparable rights.

It even says so in German Basic Law:
" Art. 5 (1) Every person shall have the right freely to express and disseminate his opinions in speech ... (2) These rights shall find their limits in the provisions of general laws, in provisions for the protection of young persons, and in the right to personal honour."

This provision results in a very constricted Interpretation of free speech. Sure, you can criticize the government all you want. As long as insult or slander anybody or attack their personal honor. Also, no seditionist speech whatsoever.
Speech capable of disturbing the public peace is banned.
If you incite hate against, berate publicly despise racial, religious, national or whatever minorities you'll get fined or sent to prison. The same is true for condoning nazi rule and/or denying their crimes.

I could go on but the point is, you dont have these kinds of the restrictions in the US. You can say whatever politically BS you want while in Germany the state (and even worse, the media and society) is more than willing to crucify you if you get out of line.
The most recent law this thread is about is just an half as*d attempt to make it easier to apply german free speech to the (german) Internet as well.
Its not a new interpreation of free speech in Germany. It has always been this way. And most frightening, the people agree or dont care.

a reply to: mightmight

Compare it do Germany if you like. Even before the insane law discussed in this thread, Germans did not enjoy freedom of speech comparable to the US. Generally speaking, the German version of Freedom of Speech ends if and when it infringes other comparable rights.

Well, I don't think the law we're discussing is that insane. It's just a different culture, where they have an ingrained sense of honour and respect. It's not for nothing that duelling was outlawed so recently in German history.

It's hard for anglophones to get a grip on. I think the nearest point of comparison (ironically, perhaps) is Britain's honours system. Being decorated by the monarch is a sort of "citizenship +".

If a US reader thinks of Jimmy Savile's comment that his knighthood "got [him] off the hook," they won't be far wrong. The more honorable someone is, the more dangerous it is to defame them, because they've got more credibility as a decent person - and an English court would recognise that. (Not sure about Scotland, but presumably similar).

The US with its lack of overt class structure is, I think, not easily able to perceive this sort of cultural hangover from the age of European chivalry. It's very strong in Germany still, where (e.g.) you can be expected to refer to medical doctors as "Herr Doctor (Surname)" and it can be looked upon as a grave piece of insolence to do otherwise. To a US reader, that probably seems bonkers. And to be fair, it is slightly bonkers - but "when in Rome..."

Its a different culture alright.
Germans as a whole a very subservient to authority and to the state. Always have been, really.
You are partially correct, this behaviour dates back to the middle ages but the reason why its still strong today is the lack of a lasting democratic revolution/reform until recently.
Through the ages, Germany has either been a fractured association of lesser German states or an Empire. There was an revolution in 1848 and a call for democratics rights, but it was put down by the prussian and austrian military. Only after the first world war there was a bief democratic period (15 years) and the Weimarer Republik as it was called ended when Adolf Hitler was namned (not eleceted) Chancellor. It took another world war and a total destruction of authority to finally install lasting democracy in Germany.
It worked - mostly because the US had and vested interest to keep Germany free and in line during the Cold War - but Germans never chose freedom. It was chosen for them and the old sentiments are still there.
Germans are still subservient to authority and most still trust the state to do the right thing. Way too many people in Germany dont understand the concept of individual rights as universal rights not dependent on the state at all. Worse, most would probably disagree with the idea. Too many cant fathom the ideas of freedoms protecting against the state, since the state is there to take care of the people. Worse, they dont even understand that they are not free.
If it comes down to it, they dont want freedom if it means giving up the state.

This is why laws like the one dicussed in this thread are so dangerous. Its not just a different culture. Its a lack of understanding and appreciating freedom. It's so easy to lose freedom if you dont fight for it. In Germany not enough are willing to until its too late. Same is true for most of Europe really.

The "Herr Doctor (Surname)" thingy is no longer true btw, At least for the most part. And its worse in Austria

a reply to: mightmight

The "Herr Doctor (Surname)" thingy is no longer true btw, At least for the most part.

Which is why I said "can be looked upon as a grave piece of insolence", rather than "will be looked upon as (etc)."

I think I'm probably right in presuming that the Germanic concept of honour was already a bit esoteric for ATS, never mind embarking on generational differences in approaches to pronouns and titles! Ain't nobody got time for that.



Besides which, I don't know enough about it to go beyond the most basic observations. As your very interesting post shows, there's a lot to be said on the subject. Once you pick at one part of it, you end up having to explain all sorts of related themes and concepts.

a reply to: audubon

I don't think you're making the point you think your making.

First, the press shares most common law speech restrictions. If they start inciting violence, they'll be in trouble too.

Second, the reason the government can build an individual better than the press isn't a rights issue but a money and power issue. Like it or not, corporations are a lot tougher to fight than isolated people.

Third, I like how you quote me without the actual first amendment text. Because it clearly called BS on this false distinction you have setup where the people's speech is somehow ignored. Again, the freedom of speech and freedom of the press are clearly distinct.

Finally, this started with you trying to make the point Germany is somehow more free than the U.S. in terms of speech. Pretty sure you're proving the reverse point. None of our speech codes are nearly as restrictive as these "guilty until proven otherwise" hate speech laws.

a reply to: yuppa

Yeah, I'm saying that as well. He was trying to make the point it ONLY protected the press, which is obviously inaccurate when you read the original text.

a reply to: swedy13

What you think about what I think is your problem, not mine.

I will comment on this, though:

Finally, this started with you trying to make the point Germany is somehow more free than the U.S. in terms of speech. Pretty sure you're proving the reverse point. None of our speech codes are nearly as restrictive as these "guilty until proven otherwise" hate speech laws.

What I said, and what you could go and check if you like, is that the people saying that there was no freedom of speech in Europe were wrong, because of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

I'll expand on that by explaining that Article 10 applies equally to the press and to the public, because the EU recognises that the press/public distinction is an artificial dichotomy. So there is no 'two-tier' freedom in Europe, but there is in the US. The USA's constitutional 'free speech' is a very poor relation to the constitutional 'freedom of the press'.

Case in point: If a European nation tried to introduce caged-off "free speech zones" where protesters could be corralled and safely ignored, there would be an outcry. In the US, it appears that no-one has batted any eyelid.

Besides which, 'hate speech' isn't - as you indicate that you believe -- the same thing as 'defamation'. The reverse burden of proof only applies to the latter (and it's a fairly sensible measure imho).

This will be good for me as I'm investing in decentralized news and other related cryptos that are going to push everything into the decentralized Internet of things. People will start to embrace block chain more and more because it will circumvent these stupid acts the government tries to do.