Germany said on Tuesday that Facebook, Google and Twitter have agreed to delete hate speech from their websites within 24 hours. Do you think hate speech can be clearly and objectively identified?
Fuck your free speech rights. Your constitution belongs in a museum!!
Great call!! Delete hate speech! Easy to find, just look for the childish attacks against others...
Nice suppression of the first amendment
They better not start this shit in the states.
Is this same bullshit you can qualify under "I don't explain pornography but I know it when I see it" speech is supposed to be free. Whose to say what constitutes hate speech? I think it's dangerous to give anyone that kind of power!
I sure recognize it.
No matter what is said, someone will be offended. Or at least say they are.
No it can't. Criticising Islam is said to be hateful by some, but really is criticising barbaric beliefs that they choose to believe.
I've seen pictures on Facebook that are worse than any "hate speech" they seriously need to look at some of them and not rely on people to report them because they won't. I follow one group on Twitter I mistakenly thought were anti-political party. But they turned out to be very pro NRA. I'm about to unfollow them. I seriously suck at the political followers. I end up with the nutjobs 🙈🙈
I think hate speech can be clearly defined by the companies who wish to take action against it. In the end, online companies are not required to host any content you post and they have every right to delete anything you post. It is part of their terms that you agree to. So they can define hate speech however which way they want to and remove the content accordingly. I know that for me, hate speech has to do with making specific calls for violence against a group of people based off of such things as race, political affiliation, nationality, religion, sex, sexual orientation, and so on.
very true - a slippery slope. and these are privately held companies - they should be able to choose what they allow on their forums...or not. sounds like the companies "agreed" rather than "forced"...
This is why Merkel was named Time's 'Man of the Year'.
Free speech just went straight down the shitter
Germany has a history of intruding upon free speech and still do. If you say anything good about the Nazi Party, you can be put in jail. I do not agree with the Nazi ideology, but I believe that EVERYONE should have free speech, regardless of how outrageous it seems.
Well there goes the comments section on Fox News...
But seriously, censorship is never a path to go down.
Stupid Germans. Buncha Neo-Nazi pricks!
No. I saw a re-post of a "Merry Christmas" message that had been deleted the previous day. Nothing hateful about that.
That's intruding on free speech
No, as it's just a vague excuse to suppress speech that is disliked by government.
No. So it will be okay to say you are a fan of ISIS, but wrong to say anything bad about ISIS? Bullcrap!!
I expect they will delete whatever THEY deem to be hate speech. Do you think this will be an objective decision by Facebook or others like them?
Hate Speech laws are tyranny and absolutely absurd policy. But this is voluntary and I don't have a problem with it
I hate niggers is hate speech, but I think some black people are idiots is not. Know the difference
N----s = "Nazis". Yeah, I don't like Germans, either. Except Heidi Klum.
No. Who gets to define what is "hate speech"? The government, the individual, or the social media company?
If a private company wishes to remove those comments from its website it should be allowed to do so. Just because Facebook won't allow you to say it doesn't mean that you are not allowed to say it.
If you say that you hate hate speech and the people that speak it, is that hate speech?
Most of what falls out of Trumps Mouth qualifies especially if you're Mexican, Muslim or a Woman
Your comment is exactly the reason this is such a terrible thing. A handful of people who likely share your sentiment will be able to control and dictate what is and what is not hate speech. We all have different opinions and reasons behind our beliefs and the freedom to express them on the largest social media platforms in the world should not be given to only one side. That will take us down a very dangerous road.
Agree... I support his right to say the moronic things that falls out of his mouth
I am appalled that he has gained a great deal of Republican Following compared to the other Repub candidates..
I was just defining what I feel is hate speach...
If you don't like it, don't look at it. Crying hate speech does nothing but make you look weak.
I got blocked from posting any comments today on FB because I posted something similar to what Trump said about not allowing Muslims to come here until we can properly vet them.
I guess they felt that was hate speech. No first amendment for me.
You have a first amendment, what it seems you don't have is the right to force a private company to broadcast whatever you want.
As long as the "speech" doesn't effect you, its not "hate speech" - true story
Germany doesn't have a first amendment.
This is the problem with the modern "anti PC" movement. They think free speech means the right to not only say what they want but to compel others to listen.
If I lend you a podium and subsequently don't like what you're saying (for any reason), I can take my podium back. You're still free to say it, but I'm under no obligation to assist you with that. That's all this is. (And people call my generation entitled).
What is this, 1984?
That similar programs like that since the 50's
The question still stands.
It's because of Nazism
How very Orwellian of them
They been doing that since the 50's.
Germans like rules. They like making them, following them, and punishing people who don't. What the rules actually are doesn't matter.
First amendment, this can't fly in America
The programs used to say these things are owned by corporations so they have the power to remove any postings or hateful speech they so choose because it is well within their power. Don't confuse your keyboard for your voice.
War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.
Not when everybody is offended by something different. One way to make everybody happy is to remove anything that is potentially offensive. So, remove everything!
...oh wait, no that won't work.
Yes it will...just anything YOU post
I don't get it. Did this offend you?
I'm not surprised, & I support the German government. For decades the Germans have been doing a brutal crackdown on hate speech linked to the Nazi Party
Definitely. And I think SoH should do the same
Agreed, tons of SoH comments are pure trolling or simply hateful garbage that disrupts and discourages it from being a medium where you can learn from another person's perspective.
*cringe* Fuck off commie
Anything criticizing feminism = hate speech
Saying burn the Jews and hang the gays = hate speech.
Saying I hate Cheetos to someone that loves them= hate speech.
If I say "I hate hate speech" - is that hate speech? Is there a list of the acceptable things to hate?
I guess Germany is going to define free speech as what they accept now. Sad day for freedom of speech. I also don't get how that would work.
Yeah, it's @therealdonaldtrump...
Let's start by defining terms- Wikipedia has a concise, accessible definition of hate speech that we can probably all work from. It is as follows: Hate speech, outside the law, is speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as gender, ethnic origin, religion, race, disability, or sexual orientation.
In law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group.
I think we can absolutely use the definition to identify inappropriate hate-speech content.
I see a number of comments discussing free speech, and how a policy like this would be a violation of our First Amendment rights. It struck me that many people seem to be unaware of the many established limits that exist on our right of Free Speech, so to help us all get on the same page, here they are:
Advocacy of or incitement to use force is not protected when it is intended to imminently incite violence. (Schenck v. US, 1919-- amended by Brandenburg v. Ohio, 1969).
There is no constitutional value in statements of false fact, which include libel and slander (Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 1974)
Public obscenity is limited under the Miller test (Miller v. California, 1973) and Child Pornography is always prohibited (NY v. Ferber, 1982)
Speech intended to invoke fighting or inflict severe emotional distress is unprotected (Chaplinsky v. NH, 1942) although satire of public figures is a noted exception (Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, 1988).
Threats are prohibited, though if they are understood to be hyperbolic under a standard of reasonability, they may be exempt from punishment (Watts v. US, 196
copyrights and trademarks limit the use of speech owned by others, based on intellectual property rights
commercial speech has diminished protections (false advertising may be punished, and misleading advertising is prohibited) (Peel v. Attorney Reg. & Discip. Comm'n, 1990)
Finally, in instances where the Government acts as an employer, educator, regulator of airwaves, subsidizer, speaker, regulator of the bar, controller of the military, prison warden, and regulator of immigration, there are numerous existing exceptions to free speech:
Speech which has even the potential to disrupt the work place must pass the Pickering test (Pickering v. Board of Education, 1968).
Rules shielding listeners from offensive expression govern the airwaves, but thus far, SCOTUS has declined to apply this limitation to the internet, preferring to give the internet the full protections granted to print media (Reno v. ACLU, 1997).
In schools, disruptive speech is prohibited (Tinker v. Des Moines School Dist., 1969); Morse v. Frederick, 2007; Bethel School District no. 403 v. Fraser, 1968; Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 1988). This includes speech about drugs, vulgar and offensive language, and restrictions on school newspapers.
There are rules of ethical conducts and professional guidelines which govern lawyers, which limit their free speech (Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada, 1991).
Speech of military officers is broadly restricted (Parker v. Lang, 1974).
There is a broad limitations on the free speech rights of inmates, detainees, and parolees (Thornburgh v. Abbot, 1989).
Finally, the government may ban non-citizens from entering the country based on their speech (but they may not criminally punish a non-citizen for speech that would be protected if uttered by a citizen) (Bridges v. Wixon, 1945; Kleindienst v. Mandel, 1972).
That's not Germany's laws sooo..
I know that, I'm just saying he's citing all these cases but they don't even pertain to Germany..
The information I have provided is an effort to contextualize and inform the numerous comments about how instituting a similar process here would (or wouldn't) impact first amendment rights.
Personally, I believe there is merit to social media companies evaluating and removing reported hate speech. We live in a world where hate speech on the Internet can lead to doxxing and turn into physical violence very rapidly.
To another point- though I hope you're merely attempting to make an academic point, I would ask, for the benefit of all SOH users, that we not resort to using hate speech and inappropriate slurs as part of this discourse.
Oh ok my bad.
You make a good point about the context of this policy being the nation of Germany. As a member of the EU, they have ratified this statement of free speech rights:
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.
2. The freedom and pluralism of the media shall be respected.
With exemptions for:
Insult ( though satire and similar forms of art enjoy more freedom but have to respect human dignity (Article 1 of the Basic law).
Malicious gossip and Defamation and Defamation (Utterances about facts (opposed to personal judgement) are allowed if they are true and can be proven.)
Membership in or support of banned political parties (currently the SRP and the KPD)
Dissemination so of means of propaganda for unconstitutional organizations
Use if symbols of unconstitutional organizations (such as the swastika)
Disparagement of the federal president or the state and its symbols
Insult to organs and representatives of foreign states
Rewarding and Approving Crimes
Casting False Suspicion
Insulting of Faiths, Religious Societies and Organizations Dedicated to a Philosophy of Life if they could disturb public peace
Dissemination of Pornographic Writings
And Dissemination of Pornographic Writings
Germany turning into China?
Maybe not always, when it is merely close to the line between bad taste and hatefulness, but yes when it advocates or incites violence against individuals or groups.
I think Jim Crrow showed us how racism and hate can be masked with code words.
They are so fucking stupid. Its a impossible task but good for the media i suppose.
I don't think it would be easy and I don't think it's likely those defining it would agree on a definition. It's not as objective as one may think.
Can it be? Yes
Will it be? We will have to wait-and-see.