Left party spokeswoman Petra Sitte argued that the legislation essentially puts private companies in the role of judges who would have to make snap judgments about what sort of speech is allowed. She also worried that the rules could be used against no hate speech.
"Legal content will be deleted in large-scale fashion," Sitte said. "It doesn't take much imagination to envision how this could be misused to silence, for instance, activists against far-right extremism."

damn lefty.



http://www.dw.com/en/german-justice-minister-defends-controversial-anti-hate-speech-legislation/a-38900261

for the bigger picture.

https://euobserver.com/foreign/137521

This post was edited by Knaapie on Jun 22 2017 06:59pm

look at that, my state is one of only two that didn't make the list...
so please don't just copy it, link me the source that says someone "got raided for calling someone else gay"... wait, i haven't checked your president's latest tweets yet... did he?!



thanks for sharing, but i'm really interested in the raid that allegedly happened because "some dude called someone else gay"...

you not only conveniently left out the part that this individual already has a criminal record concerning harrassment, you also failed to mention that suggestions to gay people about "hanging themselves" were just one thing amongst others (at least according to a legitimate newspaper, not your tabloid: http://www.sueddeutsche.de/muenchen/facebook-razzia-bei-jaehrigem-muenchner-wegen-homophober-hasskommentare-1.3552847 ), that lead to two of his mobile phones being confiscated. i'm not sure about specifics concerning the rest, but i'm pretty sure that it takes more than just posting one random disgusting homophobic slur to have the police take your phone away. just a brief look into gersub and some common sense would tell you that...

and this is by far the lowest hanging fruit amongst the 36 cases, as you surely will admit... but hey, "nazi thought police" against free speech, right?

Yeah as expected, that one post does't make you a criminal, there has to be something else as well.. that why you can go on with your bold and seeking conflict
/e The thing is though... how the law can be used is still a valid argument. It can be used to silence ppl, to pressure past criminals, to make a civilization less free.

At the time we live in though, it might not be too bad, to have some sort of quality standard on the media we consume. (it should ofc not been made easy to criminalize citizens, the responsibility should be more with social media companies)

This post was edited by Knaapie on Jun 22 2017 07:18pm

seriously, i'm the perfect example - just look how often that 4chan muppet "reported, btw" me for my "homophobic", "anti-semitic" (believe me, german authorities are particularly touchy about that one), "bigoted", and "racist" posts - and somehow i keep getting away with it...

Trump is the first pro-lgbt president to be sworn into office, not really sure what you are on about

in the süddeutsche article you linked, I couldnt find any part that mentions the suspect having posted anything else online than the "they should all hang themselves" comment. according to your article, his criminal track record consists of intimidation and property damage crimes. nothing that justifies him being targeted in a raid that was about hate crimes. so in fact, your article confirms that he was raided for the gay comment, and no other incidents of hate speech.






it might be the lowest hanging fruit, but that doesnt change the fact that this is an alarming case. a guy posts a tasteless comment about gays online and police raid his home and confiscate his cellphones - I mean... come on.

when it comes to right-wing propaganda and slogans, you and like-minded people always support resisting even the slightest of shifts of what is considered "acceptable". you always say (in german) "wehret den anfängen". (roughly translates to english as "nip it in the bud")
but when law enforcement is shifting the boundaries of free speech, this doesnt worry you one bit? no "nip it in the bud" in that case?

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Jun 22 2017 07:24pm

hes bout dah


http://forums.d2jsp.org/topic.php?t=75018691&f=205&p=509519356

ah, more alternative facts... i think you mean he's the first president who at least on paper supports gay marriage at the time he was sworn into office, right? that would be correct, even though his religious liberty executive order makes discrimination against gay americans easier...
but anyway, i wasn't trying to suggest that trump was anti lgbt, no. what i'm saying is that your comment is so factually wrong and misrepresenting the actual events, that it might as well be one of emperor trump's typical tweets. hope that clarifies it.



reading can be hard sometimes, let me help:

- "Razzia bei 23-jährigem Münchner wegen homophober Hasskommentare" <- that's plural. if it was just one comment, the correct headline would have been "[...] wegen homophoben hasskommentars".
- "Der Mann hatte [...] unter anderem Schwule aufgefordert, sich umzubringen." <- "unter anderem" translates to "amongst other things" and implies he did more than just that.



you seriously think that's all that happened? "a guy posts a tasteless comment about gays online" - and the police raid his home? why haven't there been tens of thousands of such raids - if you honestly think this is the standard. i refuse to believe that you can possibly be naive enough to think that's the whole story. i mean... "come on".

that being said, IF that turns out to be true though, IF he really (against what the article, of what we can both agree on is a serious newspaper, suggests) just posted one disgusting comment and not more / even worse, IF his harrassment / intimidation (not sure what the proper term here is as they didn't specify what he was charged for) criminal record has nothing to do with him showing patterns of anti social and possibly threatening behaviour (it's not far fetched, please look up §241 StGB before you dismiss the point), IF your version (that to me looks like a desperate attempt to play down what he did) turns out to be true... then i'm 100% with you. in that case it's not a good thing they took his phones away to investigate (let's stay clear about what actually happened, i've read things as ridiculous as "someone in germany called a muslim gay and got arrested for it") - that alone would certainly not justify it.

don't worry, if they start harrassing you afd'ler simply for disagreeing with merkel's refugee policy (something you don't have to associate yourself with known racists and neo nazis for btw), for saying you don't want muslims in germany, for saying immigrants take away our jobs and women, or anything along those lines, i will be with you, warning "wehret den anfängen" - because as much as i'm disgusted by that kind of simplistic and bigoted rhetoric, those are things that obviously shouldn't (and won't) be illegal and punishable by law to say - that's something a stable democracy like ours has to and will endure...

but that's not what's happening here, i think it's just another case of right wing panic, pretending to protect the very important freedom of speech, when in fact it's just about sympathising with the majority of authors in this case.
i mean, if you're honest and realistic about this, just look at how long they've been trying to outright ban NPD and how the BVerfG denied them over and over again. and i'm obviously not saying that because i have any sympathy for those idiots or because i think our judges have, but because it shows they will value our constitution and out freedom higher than what the majority of germans might regard as inconvenient, extremist, or just politically incorrect. should we stay vigilant nevertheless, should we criticise actually dangerous developments (like maas' latest initiative)? absolutely. but please spare me the selective slippery slope rhetoric when it so obviously just serves as an excuse...

How do you think his religious liberty executive order makes discrimination against gay Americans easier?

What actions do you believe someone must previously commit that justifies raiding their house once they say something mean online?

the first quote is from the article headline. I really dont think that the journalist who wrote that paid attention to the subtle difference the singular or plural would make in that case. in particular since the whole raid fits perfectly into the narrative that the süddeutsche believes in and wants to spread. (for the non-germans: the "süddeutsche zeitung" is the german equivalent of the new york times...)

the second quote could be read the way you do, as indicating that "suggesting to them to hang themselves" was one among several actionable comments the suspect posted. but it can also be read in the line of "he posted several bad comments, and the one where he suggested to them to hang themselves was the one where he crossed the line", which would imply that this comment was the main reason for the raid of his home.

fact is, we dont know for sure what/how much "bad bad stuff" he posted. the article that you linked contains no conclusive proof one way or the other. you stated that his comment being just "one thing among others" was asserted by the article, which is wrong. I overinterpreted the article a bit too much in my desired direction and read it as asserting that his hang themselves comment was the only reason for the raid. which is also wrong. we simply dont know for sure, and the article is ambiguous enough to be read either way.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Jun 22 2017 10:19pm