Angela Merkel attacks Twitter over Trump ban

[pamak]

The government is democraticly elected in Germany, Twitter is not. The US constitution is old, outdated and cant hold step with current tech. It leads directly into a dystopia, where Marc Zuckerberg and Jeff Beszos decide what people can say and what not.

It was not illegal to print more books. You can always ask the holder of the rights for the license. If you dont get the license you cant print.

And no, its lot per se illegal to fly nazi symbols.
Can be dine for reenactment, movies and art ect

But it is illegal per se to fly them in political speeches or protests. So no, exceptions for movies do not change my point. Americans will argue that powerful companies are also the result of democratic decisions in the market.

Anyway, I just describe the difference between the German and the American model, and I do believe that the US model provides perhaps the most secure free speech in the world. But I am okay with the idea that we may have to reexamine certain interpretations of the 1A if we see failures of the current system to spread speech that incites violence.

 

[Rostocker]

But it is illegal per se to fly them in political speeches or protests. So, no, exceptions for movies do not change the rule.

It is not illegal per se to fly them in political speeches or protests.

Nothing is "illegal per se". Germany is one of the most advanced democracies in the world. You think we have simplified tribal law or what?

It always depends on the context.

 

[SheWolf]

Merkel is Trumps main antagonist on the international stage for the last 4 years, so nobody can suspect her to just side with him for any sympathy.


https://www.ft.com/content/6146b352-6b40-48ef-b10b-a34ad585b91a

Angela Merkel, German chancellor, has sharply criticised Twitter’s decision to ban US president Donald Trump, calling it a “problematic” breach of the “fundamental right to free speech”. Twitter suspended Mr Trump’s account last week in the aftermath of the riots at the Capitol Building, citing “repeated and severe” violations of its civic integrity policies. Facebook has taken similar action. But Ms Merkel said through her spokesman that the US government should follow Germany’s lead in adopting laws that restrict online incitement, rather than leaving it up to platforms such as Twitter and Facebook to make up their own rules. The intervention highlights a key area of disagreement between the US and Europe on how to regulate social media platforms. The EU wants to give regulators more powers to force internet platforms such as Facebook or Twitter to remove illegal content. In the US, technology companies have traditionally been left to themselves to police their own sites, though momentum is gathering behind political moves to curtail their regulatory freedoms. Several members of Congress are working on bills which would limit the legal protections social media companies have from being sued for third-party content posted on their sites. Others are pushing for a new federal data privacy bill that could mirror the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation. Twitter’s share price fell more than 7 per cent on Monday to about $48, as investors were spooked by the renewed debate into the prospect of tighter social media regulation. Ms Merkel’s spokesman, Steffen Seibert, said free speech was a “fundamental right of vital importance” that could be restricted, “but only in accordance with the laws and within a framework defined by the legislator — not by the decision of the management of social media platforms”. He said for that reason the chancellor found it “problematic” that Mr Trump’s accounts had been indefinitely suspended.

The problem is that Trump is not apologetic, and he is still inciting violence and spreading lies. They are planning future attacks and rallies across America and at all 50 state capitols. America is in a dangerous place right now. It’s reasonable and fair for him to lose his account access for the time being. Passing laws and regulations is not a bad idea, but that will take time but America is in a national crisis right now.

 

[pamak]

It is not illegal per se to fly them in political speeches or protests.

Nothing is "illegal per se". Germany is one of the most advanced democracies in the world. You think we have simplified tribal law or what?

It always depends on the context.

Well, I have read otherwise and the fact that your first attempt was to actually mention reenactions and movies shows that you also understand the point I made and now you try to backtrack. If the context is political and in support of nazis it is illegal!

As I said, I just describe the difference between the German and the American model, and I do believe that the US model provides perhaps the most secure free speech in the world. But I am okay with the idea that we (in the US I mean) may have to reexamine certain interpretations of the 1A if we see failures of the current system to spread speech that incites violence.

 

[SheWolf]

No, its plain and simple that. Private companies have no right to decide about what can be said and what not.

In Germany Twitter and Facebook are constantly forced by courts to put comments back online.

Like what kind of comments? Do the courts think Germans should be allowed to openly plan insurrection against the German government? Do you think Isis should be allowed to post propaganda videos, spread lies, and call for terror attacks?

 

[SheWolf]

In America, Twitter banned Trump.

In America, he first amendment right to free speech only applies to government, aka, state actors. Twitter banning Trump has absolutely nothing to do with "the fundamental right to free speech" because twitter is not a state actor.

Therefore, Twitter did not violate the fundamental right to free speech by banning Trump, and nothing about the way Germany likes to do things changes that.

Think of Trump as a gay wedding cake that Twitter refuses to bake.

 

[SheWolf]

If private companies are abusing the special privileges afforded to them, then they lose their special privileges. Time to rethink Section 230.

Think of Trump as a gay wedding cake that Twitter doesn’t want to bake

 

[pamak]

It is not illegal per se to fly them in political speeches or protests.

Nothing is "illegal per se". Germany is one of the most advanced democracies in the world. You think we have simplified tribal law or what?

It always depends on the context.

And regarding the nazi symbols

Strafgesetzbuch section 86a - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The German Strafgesetzbuch (Criminal Code) in section § 86a outlaws "use of symbols of unconstitutional organizations" outside the contexts of "art or science, research or teaching". The law does not name the individual symbols to be outlawed, and there is no official exhaustive list. However, the law has primarily been used to outlaw Nazi, Communist, and Islamic extremist symbols. The law was adopted during the Cold War and notably affected the Communist Party of Germany, which was banned as unconstitutional in 1956, the Socialist Reich Party (banned in 1952) and several small far-right parties.

So, the only point that you can make is that the law does not explicitly mention the nazi symbols, but the interpretation of the law and its enforcement makes it pretty clear that my point stands! Yes, German is an advanced democracy but it does not change the fact that the US is more confident regarding the defense of freedom oof speech because the US never had the German experience of dictatorships!

 

[Rostocker]

Well, I have read otherwise and the fact that your first attempt was to actually mention reenactions and movies shows that you also understand the point I made and now you try to backtrack. If the context is political and in support of nazis it is illegal!

As I said, I just describe the difference between the German and the American model, and I do believe that the US model provides perhaps the most secure free speech in the world. But I am okay with the idea that we (in the US I mean) may have to reexamine certain interpretations of the 1A if we see failures of the current system to spread speech that incites violence.

I dont see that you have free speech over there when private clowns can ban entire political spectrums without any democratic legitimisation

 

[SheWolf]

That question is bigger than me, but with civilian discourse now occurring largely online, it makes no sense to continue giving a handful of companies unchecked power to decide what can and cannot be discussed.

That’s not what happened. They banned him for inciting violence. Twitter released an official statement on it and were concerned about the open planning of future attacks. This is not an issue of people saying the wrong things or having the wrong opinions. It’s a matter of preventing future violence. The FBI is on alert because of flyers on Twitter calling for massive state capitol rallies.

If the FBI gets involved, it’s not a matter of just having an unpopular opinion.

 

[Rostocker]

Like what kind of comments? Do the courts think Germans should be allowed to openly plan insurrection against the German government? Do you think Isis should be allowed to post propaganda videos, spread lies, and call for terror attacks?

Yes absolutely. That way ISIS can be tracked down. How you think we do that?

 

[SheWolf]

I dont see that you have free speech over there when private clowns can ban entire political spectrums without any democratic legitimisation

An entire political septum hasn’t been banned. Do you think this website oppresses your speech, because there are rules here and you will be banned if you break them.

 

[pamak]

I dont see that you have free speech over there when private clowns can ban entire political spectrums without any democratic legitimisation

If the political spectrum has enough numbers, it will find a way to spread their views in the market through other means. If they are on the fringe, then yes their views will spread within a very limited circle, but the same effect exists i Germany when the government decides to outlaw certain fringe political movements and restrict their message.

 

[SheWolf]

Yes absolutely. That way ISIS can be tracked down. How you think we do that?

They are not allowed to call for terror attacks according to Twitter rules. Calls for violence are censored, banned, or you’re required to delete them.

 

[Rostocker]

An entire political septum hasn’t been banned. Do you think this website oppresses your speech, because there are rules here and you will be banned if you break them.

Their rules, have to obey our laws.

In Germany was a case for example where a twitetr user posted anti migrant posts. It git deleted. The user went to court and Twitter was forced to reupload the post, pay the court fees and a penalty for 150.000 €.

The court looks at the post if its within the german law. If its within german law, twitter or FB get the hammer.

 

[SheWolf]

And gay people are free to make their own wedding cakes.

Think of Trump as a gay wedding cake Twitter doesn’t want to bake or endorse

 

[Rostocker]

They are not allowed to call for terror attacks according to Twitter rules. Calls for violence are censored, banned, or you’re required to delete them.

The iranian ayatollah regulary calls for terror aand violence on his twitter account.

 

[joko104]

The difference is one most exorbitantly gullible American "progressives" have been suckered into believing - and that is that corporate-fascism - ie "progressivism" is liberalism. In fact, progressivism is the diametric opposite of liberalism. The corporate-fascism of the conglomerate of the richest corporations on earth are not liberals, conservatives, socialists or communists. They are authoritarian corporate-fascist plutocrats.

The difference between European liberals is that they are liberal and do not worship the super rich corporations. American progressives are the anti-thesis of liberalism and are corporate-fascist authoritarians supporting plutocratic control over everyone and everything.

Personally, in my opinion the days of the USA being the dominate power in the world is over - and the USA will increasingly become less relevant and little more than a division of the West-East corporate conglomerate of the richest and most powerful monopoly to exist in the history of earth. The cause has been self indulgent reckless abandonment of all American principles on behalf of the secular religion of greed 24/7 marketed by the plutocrats via taking control of all information outlets - now for a total take over of the country.

To the extent those of the EU resist returning to being governed by the money-lords you have my congratulations and praise. Maybe at least you'll offer some resistance to being nothing but again the serfs, servants and slaves under the heel of the money-lords.

You should notice how most Democrats on the forum insist that the richest monopoly on earth can buy up all means to exercise fundamental rights - and by doing so erase those rights and even use propaganda - just like Hitler and Stalin did - to use control of all propaganda outlets to cause the riff raff to even demand elimination of human rights and for those who exercise any prohibited right to be destroyed. Liberal Democrats never worshipped mega billion dollar corporations. Nearly all progressive Democrats do - desperately, hysterically and fanatically.

 

[Logophile]

Think of Trump as a gay wedding cake that Twitter doesn’t want to bake

Zero correlation between the two. The baker never tried to prevent other bakers - of which there are many - to bake. He's just a guy with a little shop that said that it went against his grain in that instance. Big tech is the platform for millions and billions. Right now, until we get the monopoly business sorted out, big tech is the gateway for most of social media and internet use. Using your metaphor, in order for your couple to be able to find somebody that would bake for them, they would need to sneak past the baker's guard dog, duck under the baker's tables, sprint across his shop, and hope that they reach the back door and it's not locked. Otherwise, the baker's robot henchmen will throw them out the front door, and they have to try all over again. Thanks!!

 

[SheWolf]

Why is Ayatollah still allowed to spill his hate on twitter?

Read the rules. If he isn’t inciting violence or threatening people, he is most likely not violating the rules.

 

[Hatuey]

Yes absolutely. That way ISIS can be tracked down. How you think we do that?

... are we worried about losing sight of Donald Trump?

 

[Perotista]

Merkel is Trumps main antagonist on the international stage for the last 4 years, so nobody can suspect her to just side with him for any sympathy.


https://www.ft.com/content/6146b352-6b40-48ef-b10b-a34ad585b91a

Angela Merkel, German chancellor, has sharply criticised Twitter’s decision to ban US president Donald Trump, calling it a “problematic” breach of the “fundamental right to free speech”. Twitter suspended Mr Trump’s account last week in the aftermath of the riots at the Capitol Building, citing “repeated and severe” violations of its civic integrity policies. Facebook has taken similar action. But Ms Merkel said through her spokesman that the US government should follow Germany’s lead in adopting laws that restrict online incitement, rather than leaving it up to platforms such as Twitter and Facebook to make up their own rules. The intervention highlights a key area of disagreement between the US and Europe on how to regulate social media platforms. The EU wants to give regulators more powers to force internet platforms such as Facebook or Twitter to remove illegal content. In the US, technology companies have traditionally been left to themselves to police their own sites, though momentum is gathering behind political moves to curtail their regulatory freedoms. Several members of Congress are working on bills which would limit the legal protections social media companies have from being sued for third-party content posted on their sites. Others are pushing for a new federal data privacy bill that could mirror the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation. Twitter’s share price fell more than 7 per cent on Monday to about $48, as investors were spooked by the renewed debate into the prospect of tighter social media regulation. Ms Merkel’s spokesman, Steffen Seibert, said free speech was a “fundamental right of vital importance” that could be restricted, “but only in accordance with the laws and within a framework defined by the legislator — not by the decision of the management of social media platforms”. He said for that reason the chancellor found it “problematic” that Mr Trump’s accounts had been indefinitely suspended.

I have no problem with twitters ban. Trump broke some of twitters rules he agreed to when he signed up. All this other stuff is irrelevant. You try to break some of DP's rules and see what happens to you. Suspended or banned. Twitter is a private company, hence they can set their own rules and govern over their own platform basically as they see fit. Twitter isn't a government controlled entity. Hence the 1st amendment doesn't apply to a private enterprise.

If Trump wants to communicate with the public, like every other president before him, he can hold a press conference and it will be broadcast live. Trump's problem with that is there will be followup questions which he can't control. On twitter he could control everything he said with no questions asked. I just don't see this as a 1st amendment or free speech issue. There were rules Trump and everyone else on twitter that they had to follow. Break them, much like here on DP, you get banned.

 

[SheWolf]

Zero correlation between the two. The baker never tried to prevent other bakers - of which there are many - to bake. He's just a guy with a little shop that said that it went against his grain in that instance. Big tech is the platform for millions and billions. Right now, until we get the monopoly business sorted out, big tech is the gateway for most of social media and internet use. Using your metaphor, in order for your couple to be able to find somebody that would bake for them, they would need to sneak past the baker's guard dog, duck under the baker's tables, sprint across his shop, and hope that they reach the back door and it's not locked. Otherwise, the baker's robot henchmen will throw them out the front door, and they have to try all over again. Thanks!!

Funny. So you’re telling me I can find a restaurant that doesn’t enforce the no shirt no shoes no service rule, because eating without my shirt and shoes in a public restaurant is my right and the restaurant industry is constitutionally prevented from 100% enforcing any rules upon how the people eat?

 

[Kushinator]

I dont see that you have free speech over there when private clowns

The courts have sided with businesses ability to conduct business on their own behalf, just so long as it is doing so legally. In the U.S., we cannot create laws (realistically, as the fire in a crowded building example holds) to change the legality of business, on the basis of speech, to suit a political end.

As stated by another poster, under the guise of our constitution, we have not had the misfortune to fall under prey of dictatorships.

 

[SheWolf]

This thread is another example of how life long Republicans have flushed their principles and values down the toilet, because they love Trump.