Twitter sued in Germany over antisemitic posts

[NatMorton]

Let me direct you back to the actual path, namely that this issue is not about what is tweeted in the US by US citizens and has no repercussions on whatever the US deigns to be covered by "free speech",

That is not the "actual path." It's a line of discussion you wish to have.

As you will surely be reminded if you look again at what forum you're in.

In which context you'll probably also agree that Germany, for very obvious historical reasons, has a higher sensitivity towards Jew-hating blatherings than the US deems appropriate as cause for curbing speech.

I understand the motivation for the law; that motivation does not, however, alleviate the concerns I have with such laws. Good intentions are not enough.

Just as much as every country can handle the concept of free speech by its own laws (as you already point out), the wisdom of "interference" in that concept is also not for any other country to decide upon.

Rubbish. I can opine on laws here, in Germany, Indonesia, or any other nation on the planet if I wish. This is a discussion forum: we discuss.

Be that the US superimposing its take on others (which it doesn't) or any European country, let alone all of them, superimposing its/their take on the US (which isn't happening either).

The "US" isn't "superimposing." I, not "the US," am saying government censorship of speech -- even when well intentioned -- is a bad idea.

 

[j brown's body]

A dodge, and I think we see who's having problems with the facts. To news search on that title. The book as been free available in some public school libraries.


There we differ greatly. That is pornographic.


You keep dodging the issue. It's whether others can assign that to my child or whether my tax dollars should fund that promotion of that material.


I'm glad to see you have some standards. What do you think a school should do if a teacher assigned to a group fourth graders?

I don't have a problem "dodging" a rhetorical question. Being available in a library is not the same as a teacher passing it out as part of a lesson.

It doesn't meet the definition of pornography.

I have never suggested the book be assigned, not would I support it being assigned certainly not without parents being notified.

I am sympathetic to your view about the government banning speech on social media. However, the business itself should have standards and ban hate speech and outright lies/conspiracy theories. Its a tough job, but it is something traditional media always did, and for a very good reason.

Those who want to post hate speech and lies should be perfectly free to create their own outlet for their views. But social media should not promote it.

There are a number of ways the government can creep into banning free speech, and we see that playing out in many red states.

As far as Germany goes, banning hate speech about group that that were victims of genocide in that country and surrounding area is not entirely unwarranted.

 

[j brown's body]

A few years ago, I was watching an Iranian film and the bonus disc had an interview with the director and he was, obviously, asked about free speech. He said that, unlike in the United States, in their culture, there are some things people just don't say. I have some sympathy for that sentiment. We Americans often think of free speech as an important right, which it is, but we also think of it as a license to be reckless and irresponsible - adolescent (I think of a America as being in a perpetual state of adolescence). I wish we could grow up and add an element of responsibility to our freedoms.

On of the definitions of poronography is :the depiction of acts in a sensational manner so as to arouse a quick intense emotional reaction." I argue that hate speech fits this definition of pornography more than "Gender Queer" does.

 

[NatMorton]

I don't have a problem "dodging" a rhetorical question.

The question wasn't rhetorical, and ironically enough, labeling it so is itself a dodge.

Being available in a library is not the same as a teacher passing it out as part of a lesson.

Without adult supervision, it's even worse.

It doesn't meet the definition of pornography.

A cartoon of someone receiving a blow job is not pornographic? Good lord.

I have never suggested the book be assigned, not would I support it being assigned certainly not without parents being notified.

Careful; someone might call you a book-banner.

I am sympathetic to your view about the government banning speech on social media. However, the business itself should have standards and ban hate speech and outright lies/conspiracy theories. Its a tough job, but it is something traditional media always did, and for a very good reason.

The trouble with that is it assumes there's an objective standard for lies. There isn't, and there will be those who exploit the ambiguity by wielding state power to silence their opposition. Think about the debate at the start of COVID. The lab-leak theory was considered a lie at first, and now it's at least a credible possibility. The challenging the efficacy of masks, lockdown, and vaccines were similarly thought to be "lying," but time has proven at least some of those concerns to be of value.

IMO, the idea of giving the party in power -- either party -- the authority to define what lies cannot be spoken is an absurd concentration of authority.

Those who want to post hate speech and lies should be perfectly free to create their own outlet for their views. But social media should not promote it.

You're conflating issues as so many have done here. No one is arguing that Twitter should be compelled to host hate speech. It's a private platform, and they can ban hate speech if they wish.

We are discussing whether a government should have the authority to fine or imprison you for engaging in hate speech in any medium. That is a fundamentally different issue.

There are a number of ways the government can creep into banning free speech, and we see that playing out in many red states.

Let's assume you're correct; do you support their right to do that?

As far as Germany goes, banning hate speech about group that that were victims of genocide in that country and surrounding area is not entirely unwarranted.

Again, agree with the sentiment, but not the law.

 

[Chagos]

That is not the "actual path." It's a line of discussion you wish to have.


I understand the motivation for the law; that motivation does not, however, alleviate the concerns I have with such laws. Good intentions are not enough.


Rubbish. I can opine on laws here, in Germany, Indonesia, or any other nation on the planet if I wish. This is a discussion forum: we discuss.


The "US" isn't "superimposing." I, not "the US," am saying government censorship of speech -- even when well intentioned -- is a bad idea.

You can opine whatever you wish, it changes nothing in what I posted.

 

[CaughtInThe]

i guess all the Nazis and Nazi supporters are gonna have to continue to spew Nazism and Nazism support here in the good ole USoA.

 

[j brown's body]

The question wasn't rhetorical, and ironically enough, labeling it so is itself a dodge.


Without adult supervision, it's even worse.


A cartoon of someone receiving a blow job is not pornographic? Good lord.


Careful; someone might call you a book-banner.


The trouble with that is it assumes there's an objective standard for lies. There isn't, and there will be those who exploit the ambiguity by wielding state power to silence their opposition. Think about the debate at the start of COVID. The lab-leak theory was considered a lie at first, and now it's at least a credible possibility. The challenging the efficacy of masks, lockdown, and vaccines were similarly thought to be "lying," but time has proven at least some of those concerns to be of value.

IMO, the idea of giving the party in power -- either party -- the authority to define what lies cannot be spoken is an absurd concentration of authority.



You're conflating issues as so many have done here. No one is arguing that Twitter should be compelled to host hate speech. It's a private platform, and they can ban hate speech if they wish.

We are discussing whether a government should have the authority to fine or imprison you for engaging in hate speech in any medium. That is a fundamentally different issue.


Let's assume you're correct; do you support their right to do that?


Again, agree with the sentiment, but not the law.

I believe I answered your question: a teacher should have approval from parents before assigning such a book.

I trust my kids. So should parents.

I am not conflating the issue. Twitter should ban such speech without government coercion.

Achieving an objective standard for lies is indeed difficult (hate speech, not so much), but it is incumbent on social media companies to do it. Achieving an objective standard of pornography is also difficult, but you have no problem doing it.

If it isn't intended to titillate or excite, it doesn't meet the definition of pornography, and I don't believe the picture of the blow job in the book is intended to do that.

I oppose political interference in education. That opposition extends to them banning thought in class and books in the library.

If social media would be responsible, the government couldn't interfere. But don't kid yourself, an oppressive government can use freedom of speech on social media to oppress people just as easily as if they banned speech on social media. Here is an example, and it is not unusual.

We live in a new world. Freedom of speech on social media will not save us or protect us.

"Rappler journalists believed fake grass-roots social media campaigners were calling for the prosecution of those who opposed the Duterte regime, including senator Leila de Lima who criticized extrajudicial killings linked to the drug war. “They were three steps used against de Lima, attacking her credibility, violently denigrating her as a sexual object, and spreading viral hashtags,” Ressa told the media. Lima was arrested in 2017 on drug-related charges and imprisoned.

By 2019, Facebook had removed a social media network in the Philippines for ‘coordinated inauthentic behavior’ and, according to Reuters, took the unusual step of linking it to a businessman who said he had managed Duterte’s online election campaign.

Like Leila de Lima, Ressa is also facing prison - more than 60 years behind bars if she is convicted on all of the charges against her. While incumbent president Rodrigo Duterte stepped down in 2022, Duterte’s daughter, Sara Duterte, teamed up with Bongbong Marcos. They won the vice presidency and presidency respectively, ensuring the Duterte family’s power base remains strong in the Philippines."

Maria Ressa: The Journalist Exposing Social Media ‘Weaponization’

Maria Ressa: The Journalist Exposing Social Media ‘Weaponization’

spyscape.com

 

[NatMorton]

I believe I answered your question: a teacher should have approval from parents before assigning such a book.

I trust my kids. So should parents.

That is reckless. We don't even trust kids to open a bank account without parental oversight. Legally speaking, they're not deemed to be of sound mind.

I am not conflating the issue. Twitter should ban such speech without government coercion.

Yes, you are. You're arguing that Twitter should ban (or be able to ban) hate speech against nobody. No one here is saying they should be prohibited form doing so.

The issues is whether government should be able to punish such speech, no matter where it's made or who makes it. You're simply not speaking to the issue at hand.

Achieving an objective standard for lies is indeed difficult (hate speech, not so much), but it is incumbent on social media companies to do it. Achieving an objective standard of pornography is also difficult, but you have no problem doing it.

I would actually say the reverse. Some lies can be objectively proven as lies; e.g. the assertion the sun rises in the west can be proven wrong.

Hate speech is far harder to define. Take the example of the new Pride flag images being arranged to form a swastika. Is that done because someone hates gay people? Or is it done as commentary on LGBTQ+ social policy being overly authoritarian? Without other evidence you can't really prove hate as the motivation without being a mind-reader.

 

[j brown's body]

That is reckless. We don't even trust kids to open a bank account without parental oversight. Legally speaking, they're not deemed to be of sound mind.


Yes, you are. You're arguing that Twitter should ban (or be able to ban) hate speech against nobody. No one here is saying they should be prohibited form doing so.

The issues is whether government should be able to punish such speech, no matter where it's made or who makes it. You're simply not speaking to the issue at hand.


I would actually say the reverse. Some lies can be objectively proven as lies; e.g. the assertion the sun rises in the west can be proven wrong.

Hate speech is far harder to define. Take the example of the new Pride flag images being arranged to form a swastika. Is that done because someone hates gay people? Or is it done as commentary on LGBTQ+ social policy being overly authoritarian? Without other evidence you can't really prove hate as the motivation without being a mind-reader.

First, let's not panic. I have seen no evidence that a single child has been harmed by exposure to one of these books in school library. However, I do understand that they can be helpful to a teen who is gay or trans and wants to find some solace in their condition. The issue, to me, is a one of panic by parents who simply do not trust their kids or want to stop them from realize their true selves.

Secondly, let's not be naive. Kids see just as much graphic sex and violence and hate speech on the internet.

So for the most part, I see the book banning thing as a bogus issue.

I understand that hate speech and lies can be hard to define, but again, so can porno, but you seem sure that you know it when you see it. Can you have it both ways?

I see you have ignored my example of government using free speech to oppress people.

 

[jonny5]

They probably should not offer their services in Germany or the EU if they agree to abide by their laws or speech codes. Perhaps Germans who want to view Twitter can use VPNs.

Makes sense to me. Why does twitter even have offices in Germany? They probably need a datacenter somewhere in Europe, but seems like it could be anywhere.

 

[joluoto]

Makes sense to me. Why does twitter even have offices in Germany? They probably need a datacenter somewhere in Europe, but seems like it could be anywhere.

They used to have a Berlin office until 2017, they don't anymore. Their European HQ is in Dublin. They are selling advertisement spots to German advertisers, so they are very much in business in Germany.

 

[jonny5]

They used to have a Berlin office until 2017, they don't anymore. Their European HQ is in Dublin. They are selling advertisement spots to German advertisers, so they are very much in business in Germany.

They arent really in business in Germany any more than a german website would be in business in the US if I paid to access it. Could I sue a german website in the US if it had content that violated US law? That seems crazy.

 

[joluoto]

They arent really in business in Germany any more than a german website would be in business in the US if I paid to access it. Could I sue a german website in the US if it had content that violated US law? That seems crazy.

If that German website is selling advertisement spots to US companies it's definitely in business in the US. And yes, if a German website breaks US law, and you are wronged by it, then you can sue it in the US.

 

[jonny5]

If that German website is selling advertisement spots to US companies it's definitely in business in the US. And yes, if a German website breaks US law, and you are wronged by it, then you can sue it in the US.

I dont believe it. Is there any precedence for such a thing?

 

[Chagos]

They used to have a Berlin office until 2017, they don't anymore. Their European HQ is in Dublin. They are selling advertisement spots to German advertisers, so they are very much in business in Germany.

Yeah, tax reasons.

Ireland is a haven.

 

[NatMorton]

First, let's not panic. I have seen no evidence that a single child has been harmed by exposure to one of these books in school library. However, I do understand that they can be helpful to a teen who is gay or trans and wants to find some solace in their condition. The issue, to me, is a one of panic by parents who simply do not trust their kids or want to stop them from realize their true selves.

Secondly, let's not be naive. Kids see just as much graphic sex and violence and hate speech on the internet.

So for the most part, I see the book banning thing as a bogus issue.

I understand that hate speech and lies can be hard to define, but again, so can porno, but you seem sure that you know it when you see it. Can you have it both ways?

I see you have ignored my example of government using free speech to oppress people.

BTW, thought I mention that I received notice the image I posted from "Gender Queer" was removed by the moderators from this thread. In other words, it's deemed unaccepted for the adults here on DP, but somehow you're okay with it being shown to minors. Something you may want to consider.