-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Angela Merkel criticizes lack of hate speech laws in the US, doesn't want onus put on tech companies
- Thread starter Bad Advice
- Start date
That's only valid as long as it's not the actual government who's doing the hate speech.
Plus, it's about all we can do. The First Amendment gives very wide latitude to people being able to speak without government censorship, even hate speech. We're already at a disadvantage compared to somewhere like Germany because literally the very first amendment of our Constitution prevents us from doing anything about it. As such, all we can do is work to shut down the private platforms that allow that speech to spread. We know we have a problem and many of us want to do better, but unless you can convince 2/3 of Congress and 37 states to modify the First Amendment, putting pressure on private companies is the only option we have.
Do you want to argue that Twitter should operate under the same framework as the 1st amendment? Just curious
I just assume its deliberate. Not even trying to give anybody defending this dude in any way, shape or form the benefit of the doubt.
I guess I understand where she's coming from. But our government is the one inciting the violence in the first place. :/
The US will never have hate speech laws or strong regulation of speech as the 1st amendment is one of the strongest & most upheld laws in the world. So Merkel is wrong here: it is not the responsibility of lawmakers to regulate speech and Social Networks are 100% within their right to regulate actions taken on their own networks.
But this is a part of policy & law that Germany & US completely differ on.
But this is a part of policy & law that Germany & US completely differ on.
The difference is you can in Germany:
Volksverhetzung - Wikipedia
I echo the sentiments that this is tone deaf and a bad moment to say this.
I am not with you on this.
On its face, 'freedom of speech' means that all speech is protected and the state should not censor or punish you for what you say. The state should make as few exceptions to this rule as possible.
I am glad to see that it is the tech private entities censoring Trump and not the state. Twitter had a greater right to operate their site at arm's length from government control. If the state has the power to compel Twitter to ban Trump I can tell you that is a sword that cuts both ways.
Yeah this is fundamentally what all these boil down to eh?
Exemptions for the powerful
Yep. In this case why shouldn't the private company be doing this? Everyone accepted the same ToS.
The difference is you can in Germany:
Volksverhetzung - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
I echo the sentiments that this is tone deaf and a bad moment to say this.
Of course, but as you point out, pretty pointless thing when talking about something being done to an American by an America based company, or arguing for the American company to be forced to operate under the strict rules of the American 1st amendment which says slurring is legal baby.
We aren't misinterpreting her words.
She misread the situation said something dumb that isn't practical or real and wants to have discussion outside the actual bubble of events that happened.
Even if part of the spoke person's words are valid they mean jack when the senate would never pass real legislation that would've stopped or minimized what happened.
I'm also sick of arguments turning this event in to free speech. The potus incited a riot his speech isn't protected nor innocent. Twitter has no obligation to support such speech when they could be legally exposed. Trump crossed that line for them and they decided they didn't want the jazz. Anything else is misrepresenting what's going on for the benefit of a bullshit angle.
Doesn't the 1st amendment specifically say the congress shall pass no laws regulating free speech?
I think it is a US unique situation where the congress cannot do it and that's why the companies have to step in.
I think it is a US unique situation where the congress cannot do it and that's why the companies have to step in.
These two replies together substantiate what mine would be. She's off base in these circumstances and the context.
Swing and a miss.
I mean...it always cuts both ways. If CEO shareholders decide to go the other direction, it's just as much a shitfest no?
Years of people complaining Twitter isn't doing anything. They finally act in the last week of the presidency and now all of a sudden relying on the moral compass of big tech's shareholders is the better alternative?
Her perspective is valid but she's also wrong, and she's wrong to be wading in. While theoretical govt oversight over social media is worth debating, Twitter has the right to enforce their rules for any of the users on their platform, there was plenty of warning and the President's free speech is 100% not being stifled.
Republicans would love for "Twitter bans Trump" to become an ongoing story and distraction for the media and their base. Statements like this from world leaders gives them oxygen to keep doing that.
Republicans would love for "Twitter bans Trump" to become an ongoing story and distraction for the media and their base. Statements like this from world leaders gives them oxygen to keep doing that.
I think the main problem is the fundamental difference between how Americans' view of the role of the government versus Europeans' view might be. Americans can't expect the government to fairly decided what speech should be allowed or disallowed on the internet or in general. If the Trump administration had that power things would have been much worse.
Basically. You'd have to amend the constitution to redefine the 1st at this point. SCOTUS basically only sees fighting words or words that directly create false panic as able to be limited. And there is no way the court would change that without an amendment on the books. Which ironically is something Biden's DOJ will probably look into with Trump. It's just now this DOJ says Trump is above the law.
I think that's a very fair opinion. But is handing power and expecting private entities to handle speech not a similar double-edged sword? I'm not being facetious, I'm genuinely curious as I haven't fully thought out the implications of both. If we believe deplatforming works, are we agreeing that people like Jack Dorsey, Mark Zuckerberg, etc. are effectively in control of what we say and how we think? Is that better or worse than the government? On the flip side, private power allows for the owners of free speech to be fractured, and not unified, like a government entity. But are we adequately prepared to defend against a free speech monopolist?
It makes sense for a democratic government to try and deplatform discrimination/hate groups and facist ideology. There are good reasons for wanting to regulate hate-speech, given where it can lead. Kind if weird for people look to the corporations to sort this shit out, as if they had any moral obligation other than lining their pockets.
I assume most of the drive-by-posts were a reaction to the original thread title, and not the idea of regulating discrimination and hate speech?
I mean its illegal in many places for businesses to discriminate when offering goods and services, why is okay for people to discriminate using those goods or services?
I assume most of the drive-by-posts were a reaction to the original thread title, and not the idea of regulating discrimination and hate speech?
I mean its illegal in many places for businesses to discriminate when offering goods and services, why is okay for people to discriminate using those goods or services?
She's right, governments should establish laws and regulations on speech, not leave it to the whims of private groups that may or may not listen to whoever they want. governments at least should be more responsive to people.
with that said, im not going to complain about what happening, happening.
with that said, im not going to complain about what happening, happening.
The President decided on his own to use a non-governmental third party publication service, Twitter, for his official communications. That was his decision, and unprecedented. Most Presidents do things like press releases and press conferences for official communications. Obama used Twitter to supplement his public communications. He didn't use Twitter as the primary method of communicating to the public, unlike Trump.
If you use a non-government service to publish and disseminate your communications, you should expect that service from time to time to make its own decisions in its own best interests, which may not align to yours, especially if you are posting arguably inflammatory, discriminatory, hateful, or otherwise criminal statements. Any reasonable person should know that and expect it.
If you submit a letter to the newspaper, they are not obligated to print it.
If you use a non-government service to publish and disseminate your communications, you should expect that service from time to time to make its own decisions in its own best interests, which may not align to yours, especially if you are posting arguably inflammatory, discriminatory, hateful, or otherwise criminal statements. Any reasonable person should know that and expect it.
If you submit a letter to the newspaper, they are not obligated to print it.
I do agree that there should be hate speech amendment, but that's impossible in the current climate we are in. The tech giants did the right thing by imposing their own policies. They are on the right side of history. The question is, what happens if they were on the wrong side of of history? What happened to Trump and his mob was fully deserved but it really demonstrated how powerful these platforms are. In fact because of Trump's ban, we haven't heard any of his awful takes. Which I think a lot of us enjoy. But it's too much power for private companies to have IMO. The problem with this take is that timing is just wrong. Drawing the line because the Trump got banned is beyond stupid.
Free speech in the US =/= free speech in Germany or the EU. What she's saying is that the regulation of hate speech and incitement of violence should be done by the law, not private corporations. Last year, Germany has passed a hate speech bill to combat hate speech on social media websites, and the government wants to further crack down on online hate speech and extremism. This is something the US should do as there are no hate speech laws in the US, that's basically what she's saying. Considering it took Twitter four years and a terrorist attack to act, I would say she's right...
Oh, okay, we should just do nothing then and be glad Silicon Valley finally acted after four years of this. Let's all cross our fingers and hope someone who isn't actually an idiot doesn't create a fresh platform that actually succeeds.
'Outside the actual bubble'. As if this is an isolated incident and can never happen again. Structural changes need to be made.
Except who cares... the 1st amendment will never change, ever. Period, it might as well be etched in unbreakable stone, so these observations that are not looking at it through how speech operates in the US is worthless, and a waste of time.
Twitter shouldn't have banned him, the government should have passed speech restriction laws is worthless because the 1st amendment let's to be an open white supremacist and call for the extermination of all non white races while dressed in full Nazi garb, while handing out copies of Mein Kampf, and as long as you're not directly threatening to ethnic cleanse Sam your black neighbour, and as long as you are not one private property, the US 1st amendment says carry on have a good day.
Applying government speech laws to Twitter would widen what could be said on the platform not narrow.
Like Twitter operates closer to how speech laws work in other countries.
That power goes both ways.
The fact that Trump had, for the last several years, a megaphone pointed to the entire world, where he could just tap in and say whatever he wanted, that is also too much power.
For anyone under the mistaken impression that there's no laws in the U.S. that regulate free speech, you might want to read up on how the SCOTUS HAS put some (very specific!) limitations on speech.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action
IMO - there's a case to be made that Trump's speech prior to the riot would fall under Imminent Lawless Action.
There are certainly some that have suggested Trump has opened himself up to legal liability here. However, DoJ says the president can't be prosecuted. He's above the law. So knowing that, what remedy is there?
I agree that this argument is rather pointless in regards to the U.S. currently. I'd argue that Merkel isn't advocating for the U.S. to change, she's arguing that the EU's approach is superior and laying out why.
Prosecute him when he's out of office. It's not impossible, but it's a HUUGGGEEE reach and unprecedented in this country. How the fallout from this event continues will determine if there's any political capital / will to see it done.
I assume that's exactly her point. The US should also have these laws and Trumps hate speech should be forbidden because of these and not by a corporate decision.
She's saying:
a) US needs to change its constitution to allow single legal definition of when/why free speech is limited or even punished
b) that corporations shouldn't be individually making these decisions as they might each take different views, etc where you get one platform if banning someone like Trump and another not
c) that the issue here was Twitter took the decision based on their own vs Twitter banning him to uphold laws placed up them
I don't see her misunderstanding situation at all here.
Free market/corporations making these decisions because of lack of governmental laws is a workaround to the problem and less ideal in her view.
I don't disagree, although I suspect actually making such fundamental changes would be very hard to impossible.
TBH of late I've been feeling the "new world/old world" dynamic is flipping with US increasingly looking constrained with world's oldest written constitution while other countries are able to make more sweeping changes (although big changes are always hard culturally).
a) US needs to change its constitution to allow single legal definition of when/why free speech is limited or even punished
b) that corporations shouldn't be individually making these decisions as they might each take different views, etc where you get one platform if banning someone like Trump and another not
c) that the issue here was Twitter took the decision based on their own vs Twitter banning him to uphold laws placed up them
I don't see her misunderstanding situation at all here.
Free market/corporations making these decisions because of lack of governmental laws is a workaround to the problem and less ideal in her view.
I don't disagree, although I suspect actually making such fundamental changes would be very hard to impossible.
TBH of late I've been feeling the "new world/old world" dynamic is flipping with US increasingly looking constrained with world's oldest written constitution while other countries are able to make more sweeping changes (although big changes are always hard culturally).
Schneck v US was overturned by later court cases. Current precedent is that are almost no governmental limitations on speech.
In this case it is better that the power lies with the Twitter CEO rather than the state. You may not like the decisions the CEO makes but at least those decisions are made autonomously. You only have to look at China to see what state controlled censorship looks like.
I would hope not because then they'll begin extending it to ERA and at that point you may as well just throw the forum rules out the window.
But the crisis is now. Waiting until he's out of office doesn't really help much. Especially given he's angling to maintain his power indefinitely.
I actually think there will be efforts to prosecute him when he's out of office if he doesn't pardon himself. But there had to be a way to act now. Not in 2+ weeks.
She is absolutely right, what are you guys smoking? You hoped for 4 years some billionaire would do the right thing instead of having laws that prevented certain people from practicing hate speech regardless of what said billionaire thinks about.
It should not be in the power of tech billionaires to lead the charge on public discussions, that should be the job of lawmakers.
As soon as Trump spread lies on social media and harassed people online or talk shit about storming the capitol his account should have been locked by law, not by the whim of a tech company.
It should not be in the power of tech billionaires to lead the charge on public discussions, that should be the job of lawmakers.
As soon as Trump spread lies on social media and harassed people online or talk shit about storming the capitol his account should have been locked by law, not by the whim of a tech company.
I 100% agree.
this is similar to how in Canada, we needed the government to force people to wear masks while in grocery stores instead of leaving it up to the individual stores to enforce it.
this is similar to how in Canada, we needed the government to force people to wear masks while in grocery stores instead of leaving it up to the individual stores to enforce it.
I do wish she would hold off on takes like this until we get Trump out of office. Right now the republicans are looking for any out, and jumping on the Big Tech is limiting free speech train is their next big move.
The US still needs to come up with better social media regulations that comply with the 1st amendment. It's desperately needed. But until we do, what happened is the best we got.
It's my understanding that Brandenburg vs. Ohio is the current law of the land, which does establish the "clear and present danger" standard. It's a very specific (and hard to prove) limit, but it's a limit.
