Page 15 of 16 FirstFirst ... 513141516 LastLast
Results 421 to 450 of 468

Thread: More German Anti-Tech Lunacy

  1. #421
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post


    readnought can't read:
    Of course I saw this and I find it objectionable, which is why I brought it up. Just because autocompleted search queries aren't being considered libelous-until-proven-otherwise doesn't mean this "solution" isn't highly problematic. I find it objectionable that any machine-generated autocomplete queries could be considered libelous, as they are machine-generated.

    Quote Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro View Post
    Understanding fail. Google's defense was that they could not comply with such orders because the search suggestions were created automatically.

    That argument falls absolutely flat on its face, however, when one points out that they're already perfectly capable of removing certain search suggestions (hence the "torrents" example). Which means that their defense simply does not exist - they have the mechanism to prevent certain suggestions from appearing and they're already using that mechanism!.
    It shouldn't be this hard for you both to understand the distinction here. It's a pretty trivial matter to wholesale ban certain words like "torrent" from auto-complete. The combinations of words that could potentially offend someone is practically limitless.

    EX:



    Now, Angela Merkel isn't a Polish citizen. One of her grandfathers was a Pole. Still, she's not a Polish citizen and could be offended at such a suggestion. Are we expected to consider that something so innocent (and machine-generated by query aggregation) is potentially libelous?

  2. #422
    Wow and here I thought there was a distinction between mildly offensive such as "are you a pole?" and libellous as in "you're a criminal".
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  3. #423
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    It shouldn't be this hard for you both to understand the distinction here. It's a pretty trivial matter to wholesale ban certain words like "torrent" from auto-complete. The combinations of words that could potentially offend someone is practically limitless.
    The number illegal of sources are actually not limited on a few words. So actually it's not done by limiting "certain" words.

    On the other hand, the court has ruled that Google doesn't have to filter offensive combination before the according person asks Google to remove the combination.

    Actually much easier task then the first.
    "Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt

  4. #424
    Senior Member Flixy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    6,435
    Sounds a lot like the standard takedown notice procedure if you ask me.

  5. #425
    Surely Dread doesn't consider the Polish so offensive that he considers being consider one as libel?
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  6. #426
    Let sleeping tigers lie Khendraja'aro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    In the forests of the night
    Posts
    6,239
    Well, wouldn't surprise me, given the attitude which created this thread in the first place.
    When the stars threw down their spears
    And watered heaven with their tears:
    Did he smile his work to see?
    Did he who made the lamb make thee?

  7. #427
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Surely Dread doesn't consider the Polish so offensive that he considers being consider one as libel?
    I realize Dread tends to ask for it and I've gone off on him for things before, like in that Wisconsin union thread but the ceaseless baiting from you and Khend is starting to reach Kane/Tear levels though it is not yet that vitriolic even if Khend's working on it. No, being Polish isn't offensive or particularly libelous. That's the point, he needed something inaccurate that was inoffensive. He couldn't use the example raised earlier in the thread, the German politician's wife who was demanding the auto-complete stop linking her name with prostitute, because he needed something that couldn't reasonably be taken as defamatory.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  8. #428
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    No, being Polish isn't offensive or particularly libelous. That's the point
    Then the law he is ranting against doesn't change anything. If you're the type of person is going to get offended by being called polish, then it doesn't matter if there is a legal precedent for something unrelated. Libel laws are pretty straight forward, and this wouldn't qualify. Google already has a process for dealing with crazy/legal/dmca requests, which they have to deal with, with or without this interpretation of the law, and as such using an offensive example when the subject is libel examples....that's either being dishonest in trying to misdirect the discussion, or another example of dread needing to reference a dictionary.
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  9. #429
    Senior Member Flixy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    6,435
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    I realize Dread tends to ask for it and I've gone off on him for things before, like in that Wisconsin union thread but the ceaseless baiting from you and Khend is starting to reach Kane/Tear levels though it is not yet that vitriolic even if Khend's working on it. No, being Polish isn't offensive or particularly libelous. That's the point, he needed something inaccurate that was inoffensive. He couldn't use the example raised earlier in the thread, the German politician's wife who was demanding the auto-complete stop linking her name with prostitute, because he needed something that couldn't reasonably be taken as defamatory.
    So how is it a good example? Someone complains about this, Google says that's not defamatory, complainer can take that to court, and will lose since it isn't. Or in other cases, someone has a valid complaint, and Google removes it. Ignoring a takedown request simply makes you liable for the item you haven't removed - which means that if the original complaint was unfounded, you are still free to keep it. The same libel laws as always apply, you're just liable if you don't remove something that is not allowed under the law , after requested.

    I mean, this reasoning is like saying libel laws in general are stupid because I might complain if someone calls me Belgian while I'm Dutch - I could complain but the complaint gets me nowhere since it can't be reasonably taken as defamatory.
    Keep on keepin' the beat alive!

  10. #430
    Let sleeping tigers lie Khendraja'aro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    In the forests of the night
    Posts
    6,239
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    I realize Dread tends to ask for it and I've gone off on him for things before, like in that Wisconsin union thread but the ceaseless baiting from you and Khend is starting to reach Kane/Tear levels though it is not yet that vitriolic even if Khend's working on it. No, being Polish isn't offensive or particularly libelous. That's the point, he needed something inaccurate that was inoffensive. He couldn't use the example raised earlier in the thread, the German politician's wife who was demanding the auto-complete stop linking her name with prostitute, because he needed something that couldn't reasonably be taken as defamatory.
    Um, being labelled as a "prostitute" is neither harmless nor was it accurate. That's why his example fell flat on its face.
    When the stars threw down their spears
    And watered heaven with their tears:
    Did he smile his work to see?
    Did he who made the lamb make thee?

  11. #431
    Quote Originally Posted by Flixy View Post
    So how is it a good example? Someone complains about this, Google says that's not defamatory, complainer can take that to court, and will lose since it isn't. Or in other cases, someone has a valid complaint, and Google removes it. Ignoring a takedown request simply makes you liable for the item you haven't removed - which means that if the original complaint was unfounded, you are still free to keep it. The same libel laws as always apply, you're just liable if you don't remove something that is not allowed under the law , after requested.
    I expect Dread would spout off about tying up court-time, making Google waste a lot of money on lawyers defending itself, etc but frankly I don't much care. I gave my two cents on the topic when it was about that woman objecting to being linked with the "escort" rumors via auto-complete. I'm objecting to the belligerent baiting of some posters which has become more or less a constant over the last two years.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  12. #432
    Quote Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro View Post
    Um, being labelled as a "prostitute" is neither harmless nor was it accurate. That's why his example fell flat on its face.
    I think you need to take the time to reread my post. Just keep at it until you figure out why everything you said in this reply just repeats what I said.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  13. #433
    Let sleeping tigers lie Khendraja'aro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    In the forests of the night
    Posts
    6,239
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    I think you need to take the time to reread my post. Just keep at it until you figure out why everything you said in this reply just repeats what I said.
    Wait, weren't you just now the one to talk about "vitriolic"?

    It's always a good idea to give a holier-than-thou sermon which one doesn't intend to adhere to... and you also may need to partake of your own advice, by the way. You're not half as clever as you make yourself out to be.

    Again, your own words: "he needed something inaccurate that was inoffensive. He couldn't use the example raised earlier in the thread, the German politician's wife who was demanding the auto-complete stop linking her name with prostitute,"

    In order to create a proper example he'd needed to use something inaccurate and offensive (not inoffensive). Because that's what the law is about. It's about libel and slander. Last time I looked, the law didn't care about "inaccurate and inoffensive" because that does not fall under the purview of slander. He promptly failed to create such an example, using "polish" instead. Which then promptly raised the question whether he considered "polish" to be slanderous since we actually expected him to create a proper example (one being inaccurate and offensive).
    When the stars threw down their spears
    And watered heaven with their tears:
    Did he smile his work to see?
    Did he who made the lamb make thee?

  14. #434
    Senior Member Flixy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    6,435
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    I expect Dread would spout off about tying up court-time, making Google waste a lot of money on lawyers defending itself, etc but frankly I don't much care. I gave my two cents on the topic when it was about that woman objecting to being linked with the "escort" rumors via auto-complete. I'm objecting to the belligerent baiting of some posters which has become more or less a constant over the last two years.
    Fair enough, I agree with you how it was meant, I just don't get the point of it.

    Pre-empting spouting off about tying up court time, and making Google waste money on lawyers: if it's so obviously not offensive, it will probably not even make it to court, and be dismissed, and I'd like to think that in case of frivolous lawsuits you can claim back the legal expenses (don't know if that's the case over there). And if it's not so clearcut, well, that's what lawsuits are for, and the plaintiffs deserve their day in court, surely. Comparing to copyright takedown notices: if the alleged offender disagrees, the plaintiff has to prove the breach of copyright in court, if they can't they are liable for legal expenses.
    Keep on keepin' the beat alive!

  15. #435
    Quote Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro View Post
    Which then promptly raised the question whether he considered "polish" to be slanderous since we actually expected him to create a proper example (one being inaccurate and offensive).
    I think it's more likely that he picked a bad example reflecting his peculiar and highly slippery understanding of the problem than that he actually thinks Poles are scum. I for one did not expect him to pick a proper example if his point is that this sort of thing may create more lawsuits, well, he may be right, but I don't know how serious a problem that'd be. I expect people would get their just desserts in most frivolous lawsuits.
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  16. #436
    Quote Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro View Post
    In order to create a proper example he'd needed to use something inaccurate and offensive (not inoffensive). Because that's what the law is about. It's about libel and slander. Last time I looked, the law didn't care about "inaccurate and inoffensive" because that does not fall under the purview of slander. He promptly failed to create such an example, using "polish" instead. Which then promptly raised the question whether he considered "polish" to be slanderous since we actually expected him to create a proper example (one being inaccurate and offensive).
    He doesn't want regulations or court cases. If something was inaccurate and offensive then it might be legitimate libel which might mean he'd have to accept there was possibly reasonable cause for either. He maintains that auto-complete isn't making a claim of its own and anything which might actually be libel if it was a claim muddies the waters and leaves his contrived position less obviously correct. You're trying to conflate two different frames of reference.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  17. #437
    Mostly what Fuzzy said. Though I hardly think this is too contrived except in the literal sense. However...

    Quote Originally Posted by Flixy View Post
    Fair enough, I agree with you how it was meant, I just don't get the point of it.

    Pre-empting spouting off about tying up court time, and making Google waste money on lawyers: if it's so obviously not offensive, it will probably not even make it to court, and be dismissed, and I'd like to think that in case of frivolous lawsuits you can claim back the legal expenses (don't know if that's the case over there). And if it's not so clearcut, well, that's what lawsuits are for, and the plaintiffs deserve their day in court, surely. Comparing to copyright takedown notices: if the alleged offender disagrees, the plaintiff has to prove the breach of copyright in court, if they can't they are liable for legal expenses.
    I disagree here, and this is really a key problem I have with the legal climate this decision has manufactured. The take-down "solution" still leaves the door open to complaints based on snippets of text aggregated by machines. Just because a complaint can be easily dismissed doesn't mean it isn't a complete waste of resources (for the state and for private companies) to deal with them.

    There will always be people who will try to litigate over mostly-pathetic autocomplete suggestions. They will take search engine suggestions that offend them and claim they are libelous or defamatory. As Fuzzy predicted, I believe those claims will clog court systems and take up the resources of a company.

    However, I mainly worry that this judge has opened a legal door that could be used to harass companies who are far smaller/less profitable than Google. That kind of legal climate makes it difficult to develop new companies and information technologies, while giving incumbents (like Facebook, Google, etc) an unmerited advantage.

  18. #438
    Senior Member Flixy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    6,435
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    I disagree here, and this is really a key problem I have with the legal climate this decision has manufactured. The take-down "solution" still leaves the door open to complaints based on snippets of text aggregated by machines. Just because a complaint can be easily dismissed doesn't mean it isn't a complete waste of resources (for the state and for private companies) to deal with them.

    There will always be people who will try to litigate over mostly-pathetic autocomplete suggestions. They will take search engine suggestions that offend them and claim they are libelous or defamatory. As Fuzzy predicted, I believe those claims will clog court systems and take up the resources of a company.
    Of course, it will always lead to some extra resources needed on the legal end (though more clarity on the law also means less complex legal cases). But this argument can basically be made against any laws that allow companies to be sued...

    And hey, at least they won't be forced into legal battles about things like someone spilling hot coffee in their lap, so I guess Germany has to make up for that in other areas
    However, I mainly worry that this judge has opened a legal door that could be used to harass companies who are far smaller/less profitable than Google. That kind of legal climate makes it difficult to develop new companies and information technologies, while giving incumbents (like Facebook, Google, etc) an unmerited advantage.
    Hadn't thought of that - not sure if that's an accurate prediction or being overly scared.
    Keep on keepin' the beat alive!

  19. #439
    Quote Originally Posted by Flixy View Post
    And hey, at least they won't be forced into legal battles about things like someone spilling hot coffee in their lap, so I guess Germany has to make up for that in other areas
    We can still make a lot of laws like this before we reach Amerikan levels of lawsuit stupidity.
    "Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt

  20. #440
    While we may have plenty of stupid laws and lawsuits to complain about McDonalds hot coffee isn't one.

    http://web.archive.org/web/201204041...naldsfacts.htm
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  21. #441
    Senior Member Flixy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    6,435
    .. That doesn't change that if you buy coffee, you know it's hot, and frankly it's your own stupidity if you put it between your legs.

  22. #442
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    While we may have plenty of stupid laws and lawsuits to complain about McDonalds hot coffee isn't one.

    http://web.archive.org/web/201204041...naldsfacts.htm
    I read your source, I can't agree with it. It was her fault, coffee is supposed to be hot.
    "Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt

  23. #443
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    Beyond basically making Google Analytics illegal, Germany has recently gone after Facebook for having facial recognition software (as if they are the first to employ this technology) and Samsung for selling Galaxy tablets while patent disputes are outstanding.

    Granted, Apple may win a similar same distribution fight in the US. But the speed and vehemence with which German courts and "data protection" lunatics manage to stop new technologies is pretty stunning.
    Seemed appropriate to bump this thread, post-Snowden revelations about NSA data collection, 'new technologies', and privacy protections.


  24. #444
    Actually it reinforces the idea that government is usually out to abuse technology, not private companies making a photo-upload service.

    While I was away there was yet another outrage but I'm forgetting what it was.

    Oh right: http://www.dw.de/new-law-allows-germ...rds/a-16916923

  25. #445
    http://www.businessinsider.com/germa...gorithm-2014-9



    Someone in Charlottenburg once insisted to me that the ranking algorithms of Facebook and Google would lead to mass-racism and censorship and that algorithms should be a public utility, like listing the ingredients on a can of soup. I guess that argument hasn't really gone away.

    German justice minister Heiko Maas is calling on Google to become more transparent by disclosing exactly how it ranks search results.

    This, of course, will simply never happen. The algorithm is the heart of Google, the source of all its wealth and power as the planet's best index of knowledge. Google is just never going to give that up. CEO Larry Page will fight to the death.

    Nonetheless, in an interview with the Financial Times, Maas explains that Germany is unhappy with the search giant's actions in Europe and wants it to reveal the details of its search algorithm in the interests of consumer protection.

    Google Search remains the most important part of Google's business, with advertising on the platform forming the majority of its $60 billion in annual revenue. But now, Germany's government has escalated its antitrust case against the company by requesting that Google publishes how websites are ranked on Google Search.

    Google has apparently pushed back against the request, claiming that publishing the search engine algorithm would mean revealing its business secrets and opening up the service to exploitation by spammers.

    The EU has been working for four years to try to break up Google's dominance over web search in Europe. As The Wall Street Journal reports, Google handles over 90% of web searches in Europe, a larger percentage than its 68% share of the American search market. The EU has continually pushed Google to make concessions in the way it displays search results, the most notable of which is the "right to be forgotten" law that means private individuals in the EU can force Google to delist web pages about them. Last week the EU rejected a proposed compromise from Google, meaning that the company could still face a $6 billion fine.

    Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/germa...gorithm-2014-9

  26. #446
    While the US FCC moves to claim that the Internet is a utility, the Prussians make their own advances to nationalize the Internet.


    Berlin Weighs Possible Hit to U.S. Tech Firms
    Draft Web Law Could Exclude Some Companies From Germany’s Digital Economy

    By CHASE GUMMER
    Nov. 2, 2014 5:24 p.m. ET

    BERLIN—German politicians are debating a new Internet-security law that could exclude U.S. technology companies from Germany’s digital economy, a sign Berlin is beginning to press its commercial advantage after revelations of spying by the NSA.

    The draft law, which is still being hammered out, envisions new requirements like revealing source code or other proprietary data for companies that sell information technology to the German government or to private companies that are part of industries Berlin deems critical to the country’s security.

    Officials at many U.S. companies say they fear the sweeping language of the provisions will be used to prevent them from competing for technology contracts in Germany, where attitudes toward American companies have deteriorated since disclosures that the U.S. National Security Agency spied on German politicians.

    Germany, Europe’s largest market for information technology and telecommunications, generates roughly €138 billion ($173 billion) of business annually in the field, according to the German ministry of economics. The country is an important market for companies such as Oracle Corp. , Citrix Systems Inc., International Business Machines Corp. and Microsoft Corp.

    “We cannot afford to be open to attacks on our economy,” said Gerold Reichenbach, a Social Democrat in the German Parliament and member of Chancellor Angela Merkel ’s ruling coalition, defending the bill, which is widely expected to become law. He said the measure would “help prevent espionage, wherever it comes from.”

    Andreas Povel of the American Chamber of Commerce in Germany said that U.S. technology companies were finishing a position paper critical of the bill and warned that German politicians should think twice about “nationalizing” Internet security because “the country may fall technologically behind.”

    Politicians here are concerned about what they call “data sovereignty,” or the ability of Germans to control digital information in Germany. But several recent government decisions aimed at boosting data sovereignty have also squeezed U.S. technology companies.

    In April, after the German government failed to win assurances from Washington it wouldn’t spy on its ally, the German Interior Ministry issued a unilateral “no spy” order for public contracts, disqualifying IT companies that pass customer information to third parties or foreign governments.

    After Chancellor Merkel discovered her phone had been tapped by the U.S., Berlin tried and failed to get a no-spy agreement with Washington for the intelligence agencies, said Ben Scott, a former State Department official under Hillary Clinton. The unilateral no-spy order “was the only thing that drew blood,” he said.

    In May, German Economics Minister Sigmar Gabriel said he could imagine breaking up Google Inc. and regulating it like a utility because of its market dominance.

    A month later the government said it would end a contract with Verizon Communications Inc. because of concerns about network security, and phase out Verizon’s existing government contracts by 2015.

    Now the new bill under review would require additional certifications for companies that want to sell IT equipment or software for use in sectors of the economy deemed part of its “critical infrastructure.”

    This would include “any important area of the economy that can be hacked by a computer—basically everything from energy and transportation to public administration and finance,” said Hartmut Pohl, professor of computer science at the Bonn-Rhein-Sieg University of Applied Sciences.

    While the bill is at an early stage and has yet to reach Parliament, the draft has raised almost no criticism in Germany.

    One representative of a U.S. company in Berlin said Germany’s no-spy rule had already stopped the company from competing for government contracts. “The law gives so much authority to the government to regulate vast parts of the digital economy that there’s lots of potential for abuse,” said the person, a German national.

    The German government is also considering requiring that German Internet data be stored locally, to boost data sovereignty. This would pose significant challenges for international tech companies offering cloud-computing services, because their business models are based on moving data freely around the globe.

    Amazon.com Inc. said in October that it would open facilities in Germany for its cloud services, giving in to pressure from regulators and clients who fret about data security.

    Some tech-industry officials here say the winner could be Deutsche Telekom AG , the privatized former phone monopoly, in which the German government still holds a 32% stake. After the German government cut ties to Verizon in June, industry officials note that Deutsche Telekom, which owns a 67% stake in U.S. cellular service T-Mobile US Inc., picked up the contract.

    “Of course, Deutsche Telekom is trying to use the breach of faith since the NSA affair for its own interests,” said Konstantin von Notz, a member of Parliament from the opposition Green Party.

    Andreas Middel, a spokesman for Deutsche Telekom, said neither his company nor the German government was responsible for the “crisis of trust” and dismissed as “absurd” accusations that the draft aimed to exclude U.S. companies. “In the discussion about the German IT security law we need to remind ourselves of who caused this,” he said.

    The government earned roughly €453 million in 2013 from dividends on its Deutsche Telekom stake.

    The German Interior Ministry, whose officials wrote the first draft of the new law, has been a leading voice in the internal government debate for tougher technology standards. But IT specialists in other ministries have voiced frustration with the Interior Ministry’s efforts to exclude foreign technology companies, officials from several tech companies said.

    Interior Ministry spokesman Tobias Plate said his ministry wasn’t aware of such criticism.

    Some German companies with global operations, like their U.S. peers, say they are worried the government is pushing too hard for a national solution.

    “National solutions for cloud computing are the wrong path,” said Luka Mucic, chief financial officer of German software company SAP SE. “We must work with international partners like the U.S. and simplify the regulatory framework.”

    http://online.wsj.com/articles/berli...rms-1414967090

  27. #447
    How has it been so long?

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/german-...ech-1468429275

    Internet as record of Thoughtcrime.

    German Police Carry Out Nationwide Crackdown on Internet Hate Speech
    Police raid homes of 60 people suspected of being behind racist and xenophobic postings

    By Ruth Bender
    July 13, 2016 1:01 p.m. ET

    BERLIN—German police carried out a nationwide crackdown Wednesday on racist and xenophobic postings on the internet and social media that they say have surged since last year’s large influx of refugees into the country.

    In raids coordinated by the federal criminal police agency BKA, police across 14 states raided the homes of 60 people suspected of being behind the postings, which are illegal under German law. No arrests were made, the agency said.

    “Violence, including verbal violence, must be confronted with rigorous limits,” German Interior Minister Thomas de Maizière told reporters. The raids, he said, showed the government’s determination to identify and track down anyone who uses the internet and social media to propagate messages that violate the country’s legally established limits on free speech.

    In the Bavarian town of Kempten, authorities focused on 40 people who between July and November 2015 posted racist and anti-Semitic comments and remarks glorifying National Socialism, according to prosecutors.

    The statements, illegal under German law, were posted to a Facebook Inc. group made up of several hundred members across the country.

    In Berlin, police seized laptops, smartphones and hard drives in 11 homes of men aged 36-62 years. The men are suspected of spreading hate messages against refugees but weren't connected to each other.

    The interior ministry said the number of online hate messages it classified as right-wing had surged from 945 in 2014 to 2,853 in 2015, making up most of the politically-motivated hate messages online.

    Wednesday’s crackdown comes amid a surge of political violence in Germany. In 2015, authorities recorded 1,408 far-right acts of violence—a 42% increase from the previous year, according to official statistics. Crimes against shelters for refugees rose more than fivefold the same year, the figures show.

    After initially embracing the refugees who streamed into the country last year, German voters have begun to worry about their impact on their country’s famed political stability.

    An annual poll by the insurance group R+V released this week showed a steep rise in perceived insecurity in the country. The survey ranked “political extremism” as the public’s second most pressing concern after terrorism.

    Freedom of speech in Germany is more restricted than in the U.S. Public displays of Nazi and Communist symbols are banned and Holocaust denial is punishable by up to five years in prison. Inciting hatred or violence against anyone for their ethnic or religious identity is also a crime.

    But the BKA said the perceived anonymity of the online world was encouraging the airing of prejudiced views and that pervasive online hate speech was one factor fueling a revival of German far-right groups after years of decline.

    Germany’s domestic intelligence agency said the number of potentially violent right-wing extremists rose to 11,800 in 2015 from 1,300 the previous year.

    “Attacks on refugee shelters are often the result of a radicalization that also starts in social networks,” BKA chief Holger Münch said.

    German officials have pressured social network operators to better monitor their platforms for racist and bigoted comments. In December, Facebook, Google and Twitter Inc. promised to the German justice ministry to remove hate speech within 24 hours after notification.

    Germany’s interior and family ministries said Wednesday they would increase spending on programs to fight extremism, including early prevention initiatives in schools and on the street. The programs will span right-wing, left-wing and Islamist extremism, they said.

  28. #448
    Trump will fix all of this. His tweets say so.

  29. #449
    I wonder how many people complaining about arrests for hate speech would urge the same restraint when dealing with pro-ISIS sentiments.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  30. #450
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    I wonder how many people complaining about arrests for hate speech would urge the same restraint when dealing with pro-ISIS sentiments.
    Well, I have no opinion so far on the actions in Germany but I'm pretty sure I would object to local authorities trying to criminalize statements expressing political or spiritual support for ISIS here in the US.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •