Germany’s history informs its current laws. That much is undeniable. But it doesn’t excuse the over-correction applied by legislators in hopes of heading off another Hitler. And it cert…
Okay. What are the others? The other example they listed was posting a racist cartoon, they didn’t go into any other details. You said they have no grasp, is there something I should read instead to get up to speed?
I’m comfortable saying that if you’re prosecuting 3,500 cases of online “hate speech” per year, and some examples among them include stuff that is horrifying if prosecuted, then the situation is bad. Right? Or, it sounds like you’re disagreeing with that, and saying that one was a penis but the other 3,499 were okay? Tell me.
The referenced video has other examples, like calling for the rape and murder of specific people, including one example where the person (a local politician) was actually murdered by a right-wing terrorist shortly after.
Right, the CBS transcript has a lot more information and balance about it.
I would still like to see a breakdown of how many of these were for what. Surely calling for someone’s rape or murder was already illegal, Nazi symbolism within Germany was already illegal, you could sue if someone was publishing false quotes by you, and so on. A lot of the examples they bring up seem sort of misleading, because they’re linking them with the controversial 2018 law, and sort of tangling up the issues of “we got a lot more aggressive with policing already-illegal online speech that probably should stay illegal” versus “we made all kinds of things that are what Lemmy moderators deal with every day, into police matters now.” It feels like it is from the cops’ point of view instead of the defendants’, leaving some pretty glaring unexplored questions, which was Techdirt’s point.
Like I say I would like to see the breakdown. I won’t say it is not 3,499 AfD trolls and 1 penis joke, but it does seem unlikely. Probably it’s not the inverse of that either, though, that’s a fair point.
I can’t say what those 3500 cases were. But when it comes to anti-semitism and racism, judges are more than happy to file search warrents for the police to act upon.
The other example they listed was posting a racist cartoon
which probably was enough for StGB 130 to apply.
then the situation is bad. Right?
oh, yeah it is bad. Twitter, Facebook and other social media are huge cesspools which spawn those cases; its “free speech” after all right? Even though its not without consequences.
is there something I should read instead to get up to speed?
It is a scientifically proven fact that a dehumanisation and increased verbal violence online reduces the barrier for people to commit actual violence against people.
I explicitly said that THIS one was not ok (Andy Grote is 1 pimmel) and that I agree that its an horrifying misuse of power.
Okay I failed to see the analog to Slashdot, as I’ve never used it.
Okay. What are the others? The other example they listed was posting a racist cartoon, they didn’t go into any other details. You said they have no grasp, is there something I should read instead to get up to speed?
I’m comfortable saying that if you’re prosecuting 3,500 cases of online “hate speech” per year, and some examples among them include stuff that is horrifying if prosecuted, then the situation is bad. Right? Or, it sounds like you’re disagreeing with that, and saying that one was a penis but the other 3,499 were okay? Tell me.
The referenced video has other examples, like calling for the rape and murder of specific people, including one example where the person (a local politician) was actually murdered by a right-wing terrorist shortly after.
Right, the CBS transcript has a lot more information and balance about it.
I would still like to see a breakdown of how many of these were for what. Surely calling for someone’s rape or murder was already illegal, Nazi symbolism within Germany was already illegal, you could sue if someone was publishing false quotes by you, and so on. A lot of the examples they bring up seem sort of misleading, because they’re linking them with the controversial 2018 law, and sort of tangling up the issues of “we got a lot more aggressive with policing already-illegal online speech that probably should stay illegal” versus “we made all kinds of things that are what Lemmy moderators deal with every day, into police matters now.” It feels like it is from the cops’ point of view instead of the defendants’, leaving some pretty glaring unexplored questions, which was Techdirt’s point.
Like I say I would like to see the breakdown. I won’t say it is not 3,499 AfD trolls and 1 penis joke, but it does seem unlikely. Probably it’s not the inverse of that either, though, that’s a fair point.
I can’t say what those 3500 cases were. But when it comes to anti-semitism and racism, judges are more than happy to file search warrents for the police to act upon.
which probably was enough for StGB 130 to apply.
oh, yeah it is bad. Twitter, Facebook and other social media are huge cesspools which spawn those cases; its “free speech” after all right? Even though its not without consequences.
i cannot give you anything. Sorry :/
BTW:
The mentioned case with a politician being called a dick was found illegal by the courts in the meantime: https://www.spiegel.de/panorama/justiz/hamburg-wohnungsdurchsuchung-wegen-pimmelgate-war-unrechtmaessig-a-de489269-6589-453f-896f-56e728128cea
It is a scientifically proven fact that a dehumanisation and increased verbal violence online reduces the barrier for people to commit actual violence against people.