-
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
An abjectly pointless call because you literally can't have hate speech laws in the us, those were ruled unconstitutional.
She might as well be saying Trump shouldn't have been banned from twitter instead the government should have amended their constitution to force Twitter to ban Trump... which lol is like saying the government should immediately start using teleporters so we don't need airplanes anymore in terms of useful calls for action.
She' s talking about an American company taking action against an American person in America so who fucking cares about how it's done in Germany, when it's impossible to do it like that in the united States.
Last edited:
It's always interesting to see seemingly smart people step in shit. I get what she is saying about gov't cracking down on hate speech but criticizing Twitters action is juicy red meat for hate groups and is being upvoted and echoed in all the wrong places today.
That's ideal. But that's not really how it works. First, even if you could prosecute the president, it would take years to go through the process. If you involve the government restricting rights, it will require the government going through due process through the course of a conviction. One could argue that maybe a court would allow an account to be restricted through a trial, but he has unlimited resources and is the president. Not a stretch that he'd find a judge that would allow him to maintain his accounts.
The other issue is that the current legal reality is that a president can't be prosecuted. So the government wouldn't be able to step in the first place. What she's asking for are likely multiple Constitutional amendments to fix this, which have zero shot of happening.
Also I don't know how anyone can say with a straight face that Twitter and other Social Media platforms haven't bent over backwards to PROTECT Trump and other conservatives free speech when it comes to violating their rules.
Either you want elected officials to be above the law or not.
Either you want elected officials to be above the law or not.
I didn't say we should do nothing. I just think the reaction is totally made from hindsight and with out practicality. This country and tech giants can come up with a framework to deal with hate speech especially of this kind. Whether it pans out to the point sctous lets it fly or it has any real power would definitely be my beef.
I never said it couldn't happen again but talking about reforming such things to distract from what really happened just shows where her head is at. She could've made these comments well before the 6th, that response comes off as deflection.
excelsiorlef hits the nail on the head why trying to deal with the problem isn't easy it's equally as bad as saying we need to fix the 2nd amendment, well big fucking duh got a way though, nope didn't think so.
I think the issue here is that people, including Merkel, are treating this idea as a simple solution America could just do. It betrays a lack of understanding of just how foundational the constitution is.
Like, I agree with the idea in principle. We SHOULD have stronger laws against violent and inciteful speech. Problem is we ALSO live in a country where 74 million people just voted to reelect this man and would likely make it impossible to legislate against him or his clones.
Within the confines of American law, this is an aspirational solution to a very real problem that needed to be addressed, like, yesterday.
Well, that's a problem the US could solve it it really wanted. In a lot of countries President can and are prosecuted and have to akt according the law... how fucked up is it actually that one guy is above that? Lol.
She is 100% correct.
To those opposing what exactly did you think of the fact that twitter only banned him at the end of his presidency? The fact that they made as much money out of him until it was untenable to keep him? They knew it was a couple of weeks until they were going to ban him anyway!
You think this is acceptable? Businesses will follow money not ToS!
Orrrr maybe we should have a law that would stop him being on any platform?
To those opposing what exactly did you think of the fact that twitter only banned him at the end of his presidency? The fact that they made as much money out of him until it was untenable to keep him? They knew it was a couple of weeks until they were going to ban him anyway!
You think this is acceptable? Businesses will follow money not ToS!
Orrrr maybe we should have a law that would stop him being on any platform?
It's very fucked. And that's why we have to operate in this shitty reality.
I don't think I've ever seen so many people miss the point in one thread.
Merkel isn't arguing that Twitter shouldn't have banned Trump; she's saying that the decision never should have been theirs to begin with. There should have been legislation targeting hate speech on social media platforms that would have operated to force Twitter's hand lest they face criminal sanction.
Some people have mentioned in this thread that the Constitution prevents such legislation from existing. This argument misses the point since your Constitution is, indeed, a part of your system of laws, and it's equally valid to frame this criticism as being about the absence of legislation as it is to frame it as being about a flawed Constitution. It is worth noting that many countries interpret "freedom of speech" (or its analogues, like freedom of expression) in such a way that allows them to regulate hate speech.
Merkel isn't arguing that Twitter shouldn't have banned Trump; she's saying that the decision never should have been theirs to begin with. There should have been legislation targeting hate speech on social media platforms that would have operated to force Twitter's hand lest they face criminal sanction.
Some people have mentioned in this thread that the Constitution prevents such legislation from existing. This argument misses the point since your Constitution is, indeed, a part of your system of laws, and it's equally valid to frame this criticism as being about the absence of legislation as it is to frame it as being about a flawed Constitution. It is worth noting that many countries interpret "freedom of speech" (or its analogues, like freedom of expression) in such a way that allows them to regulate hate speech.
It's literally the only alternative in the US... any application of American speech laws to Twitter only widens what you can say on Twitter. A twitter that must full on follow the US 1st amendment would expand white supremacists ability to organize and harass, I'd question if Twitter would even be allowed to remove doxxing tweets for example immediately.
"This fundamental right can be intervened in, but according to the law and within the framework defined by legislators — not according to a decision by the management of social media platforms ."
I don't even understand how this would be a good thing having the government decide what constitutes free speech.
I don't even understand how this would be a good thing having the government decide what constitutes free speech.
In the US it is the only option. There's no better or worse because only private companies can regulate speech to a narrow degree than what the 1st amendment says.
At what specifically? Do European countries have state control over what is on Twitter? Did they ban Trump in Europe?
Pretty sure you can kick someone out of your store for saying Heil Hitler
Germany:
Volksverhetzung, in English "incitement of the masses", "instigation of the people" (the official English translation of the German Criminal Code uses "incitement to hatred"[1][2]), is a concept in German criminal law that refers to incitement to hatred against segments of the population and refers to calls for violent or arbitrary measures against them, including assaults against the human dignity of others by insulting, maliciously maligning, or defaming segments of the population.[1][2][3]
It is often applied to, though not limited to, trials relating to Holocaust denial in Germany. The criminal code (Strafgesetzbuch) Chapter 7 (Offences against public order), Paragraph 130 (Incitement to hatred) of the Federal Republic of Germany defines when a person is guilty of Volksverhetzung.[1][2][3]
Volksverhetzung - Wikipedia
The constitution is fundamentally really difficult to change. With the level of polarization we have in the US, asking for changes on that level is a non-starter. We have to work within its constrains and develop new legislation to fix our issues. Winning the Senate helps, but with the fillibuster in place I'm not hopeful for huge laws getting passed. The republicans as always will refuse to cooperate, and our nation continues to slide further down the drain.
For the people criticizing Merkels timing: here in the Netherlands we also have our Trump like idiots who do everything they can to spread misinformation. And I wouldn't be surprised if our neighbors to the east have them as well. And now all of that has culminated in an insurrection. Fueled by the words of an authoritarian, white supremacist populist, who is trying to overthrow democracy. I feel it makes sense that this has the German head of state worried, and she talks about how this can combated and prevented. For very obvious reasons.
A Constitutional issue isn't the same thing as a regular law through legislation. Yes, sure criticism on how amendments have to happen, but that's it what it is. The standard to pass an amendment is nearly impossible now given how divided the country is. So the reality is that we have to work within the existing framework.
Like I said, there is real likelihood that Trump did expose himself to legal liability. This issue is that this Department of Justice says a president is above the law. And waiting until after doesn't solve much for the moment going on now as we speak.
We all know the issues with constitutional amendments. We really don't need her telling us that.
She's right but that's not happening in the us.
The state should have laws around hate speech and they should be the law on every platform and for everyone (especially people in power).
But i don't understand why she's saying this right now. Even with all 3 branches under democratic control things won't change. And she know this.
The state should have laws around hate speech and they should be the law on every platform and for everyone (especially people in power).
But i don't understand why she's saying this right now. Even with all 3 branches under democratic control things won't change. And she know this.
Good luck trying to get the United States President arrested while he's United States President
Works fine in various European countries, including Germany.
This is the United States. We've literally been unable to pass an Antilynching bill for literally over 100 years something that shouldn't even be controversial. Considering how radical people have gotten do you honestly think lawmakers could pass anything that would be seen as restricting free speech.Germany:
Volksverhetzung, in English "incitement of the masses", "instigation of the people" (the official English translation of the German Criminal Code uses "incitement to hatred"[1][2]), is a concept in German criminal law that refers to incitement to hatred against segments of the population and refers to calls for violent or arbitrary measures against them, including assaults against the human dignity of others by insulting, maliciously maligning, or defaming segments of the population.[1][2][3]
It is often applied to, though not limited to, trials relating to Holocaust denial in Germany. The criminal code (Strafgesetzbuch) Chapter 7 (Offences against public order), Paragraph 130 (Incitement to hatred) of the Federal Republic of Germany defines when a person is guilty of Volksverhetzung.[1][2][3]
Volksverhetzung - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
An important example: America is a country where, for years now, our Legislative body has been in a practical deadlock because one man, Mitch McConnell, who is not even the President, could simply block ANY legislation he didn't like from even hitting the President's desk.
It's stupid, it's trash, this should not be possible, it should be changed. We know that. We ALL know that.
But it also makes, "hey...have y'all maybe considered changing your constitution?" takes so wildly off the mark in addressing what the problem is.
It's stupid, it's trash, this should not be possible, it should be changed. We know that. We ALL know that.
But it also makes, "hey...have y'all maybe considered changing your constitution?" takes so wildly off the mark in addressing what the problem is.
TBH I doubt she thinks it can "just be done". However it's not her issue to fix it. It may seem irritating but she's pointing out the issue not providing answers; and I guess being critical it's not being done.
It may need workarounds short term, etc due to how hard it is (such as pushing corporations to regulate) but it's becoming essentially the view every western country I think that the 1st & 2nd amendments need to change, and unless there's a major sea change in a better direction post Trump if you're American I'd brace yourself to hear this or similar rhetoric increasingly if they continue to be abused as they have been and are being.
Twitter is indeed following the german hate-speech laws and is banning users and removing posts for the german user base if there's a violation.
Because of this there are several alt-right accounts that are not viewable if you switch your twitter account location to germany.
Every report gets also checked if it violates the Twitter ToS (resulting in a global ban) or if it violates the german laws (resulting in a germany-only ban):
So you agree exactly with Merkel.
How you don't realize this is annoying.
I just answered the question "how this would be a good thing having the government decide what constitutes free speech".
If the US is able to do this (and do this responsibly) is another question of course.
Like I said if her argument really is the United States Constitution's approach to free speech sucks America should change that! Then she might as well be saying The American Airlines system sucks America should install teleporters in everyone's homes.
The United States Constitution is by design nigh immalleable, it is a waste of everyone's time to talk about changing it, period.
It is especially a waste of time to suggest that is the better option than right now Twitter removing Trump.
Because only one can actually happen.
Yep, this doesn't compute with the law we have on hate-speech and how companies have to adhere to German law even if a foreigner views the post.
The criticism on twitter about Trumps ban is going the wrong way, if someone is critizicing twitter for the Trump ban, they should call out the company on all the other violent inciting tweets and posts from the rest of America and the world.
Trumps ban was a great win but seems hollow and a political move instead of TOS when you have so many awful people spouting hateful things on Twitter.
That's what she wants to happen in America as well. She's saying that the US should legislate hate speech instead of relying on the tech companies doing it themselves. Her mistake is assuming that a person has freedom of speech rights on a private platform. Twitter and the rest aren't the government, so no one's freedom of speech rights are being curtailed.
Brandenburg is, yes. The issue is that Brandenburg didn't create limitations; it instead removed almost every limitation. A fact that was later emphasized with Hess. Applications of Brandenburg are almost always about why the individual's hate or lawless speech was in fact protected.
So yes, there is barest of limitations in theory. But in execution, the difference between imminent action and actual action (or planning) is so small that the free speech violation is a moot point.
Trump might be the first (well known) dumbass to thread this speech limitation needle
This is literally not about freedom of speech. Why do so many people not understand what that means?
In principal I agree with her. In an ideal world, Twitter shouldn't need to do what it did as the government has properly regulated hate speech against any person including the president to open them up to prosecution. But in reality, and in "free speech at all costs" mentality of the US, it was the best thing for them to do.
But her main point still stands, the US needs better hate speech controls against their 1st amendment. Twitter wouldn't need to do anything if it was easier to prosecute someone for such speech, thus making people not want to post items that they can be prosecuted for.
But her main point still stands, the US needs better hate speech controls against their 1st amendment. Twitter wouldn't need to do anything if it was easier to prosecute someone for such speech, thus making people not want to post items that they can be prosecuted for.
Why would you like someone that voted against same sex marriage?
It's weird to have people claim that others' aren't paying attention because there is a clear claim in the article that Twitter should not have banned Trump, in fact it goes further and seems to claim that Twitter should not have been able to ban him unless the government said they could...
So again when people laugh at that, how is that not paying attention to what is being said.
So again when people laugh at that, how is that not paying attention to what is being said.
An alarming amount of posters here prefer to have rights be determined at the whim of billionaires instead of by governments.
That's pretty fucked up.
That's pretty fucked up.
It is. That's the new precedent that overturned the precedent set by Schneck v US
I understand the critisim and I even agree with it.
Essential she's suggesting that laws mandate the way social media restrict content. If those laws were in place DT woulda been blocked years prior to becoming president. However, the problem with her statment is that instituting laws control speech in the states is nearly impossible. This is obviously not the case in EU as their views of free speech is totally different. In other words, her ire should be directed to America's definition of free speech
Essential she's suggesting that laws mandate the way social media restrict content. If those laws were in place DT woulda been blocked years prior to becoming president. However, the problem with her statment is that instituting laws control speech in the states is nearly impossible. This is obviously not the case in EU as their views of free speech is totally different. In other words, her ire should be directed to America's definition of free speech
And this makes sense in context of some global discussion on free speech, not as a suggestion, as you agree, for what should have happened instead of Twitter taking it on themselves to ban Trump.
So I actually think her main point doesn't stand because it's entirely within the context of Twitter banning Trump here. Fundamentally all she is saying is Trump shouldn't have been banned by Twitter.... everything else is superfluous.
This is like when celebrities circle the wagon about "cancel culture" when another celebrity is accused of doing something heinous, even if they personally don't like that other celebrity. They think that if it happens to someone else, it will happen to them.