back to article Time's up: Grace period for Germany's internet hate speech law ends

The grace period for tech firms failing to meet Germany's strict new hate speech law has ended. The network enforcement act – Netzwerkdurchsetzungsgesetz, or NetzDG if that doesn't roll off the tongue for you – was passed by the government back in June. It gives companies with more than 2 million users just 24 hours to remove …

  1. Stevie Silver badge

    Bah!

    I was going to post on how this is a very difficult issue on which to bring any impartiality, but as a non-German speaker I'm distracted by the perception that "Netzwerkdurchsetzungsgesetz" looks like it should be stenciled on the side of some unfeasible-looking late WWII-era aircraft, tank or flying tank.

    Sorry to be so juvenile. I have no idea what to do about hate speech on (anti)social media.

    It *is* personally disturbing that the international public rhetoric sounds so much like that being tossed around in the mid-thirties. Are we collectively *that* ready for another global ding-dong that as soon as the surviving generations who remember the last one are almost all dead we are itching for another go?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Bah!

      "barbaric, gang-raping hordes of Muslim men"

      Surely that's covered under fair comment on factual local events?

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Year%27s_Eve_sexual_assaults_in_Germany

      1. bombastic bob Silver badge
        Big Brother

        Re: Bah!

        "barbaric, gang-raping hordes of Muslim men"

        Surely that's covered under fair comment on factual local events?

        And I bet if you take out the word 'Muslim' it would be acceptable. *sigh*.

        A few years ago there was a case where a couple of soldiers STOPPED an Afghani soldier from RAPING A BOY on a U.S. military base.

        https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/world/asia/us-soldiers-told-to-ignore-afghan-allies-abuse-of-boys.html

        "American soldiers and Marines have been instructed not to intervene" "not even when their Afghan allies have abused boys on military bases"

        "The policy of instructing soldiers to ignore child sexual abuse by their Afghan allies is coming under new scrutiny, particularly as it emerges that service members like Captain Quinn have faced discipline, even career ruin, for disobeying it."

        (yes it's a New York Times link, so you can assume THIS REALLY HAPPENED)

        So when someone in Germany comments on "barbaric, gang-raping hordes of Muslim men", I have a proclivity towards BELIEVING IT IS TRUE based on actual EVIDENCE of similar *kinds* of abusive action by a significant number Moslems. IGNORING the facts on this, in the name of POLITICAL CORRECTNESS (and some new FASCIST law that apparently restricts free speech on that basis - and I deliberately use the word FASCIST because I *KNOW* it will *STING*) simply because some poor SJW might feel bad and decide call it 'racist'. When it's NOT. Islam is a RELIGION, not a RACE. And certain practitioners of that religion do things that the rest of the world _SHOULD_ consider HEINOUS.

        And NOT being able to talk about it honestly in a public forum because of anti-free-speech laws is JUST AS HEINOUS.

        1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

          Re: Bah!

          "And NOT being able to talk about it honestly in a public forum because of anti-free-speech laws is JUST AS HEINOUS."

          No one is not talking about it, but the language used can be polite and factual or it can be inflammatory. Which would you chose, you ignorant fucking bastard[1]

          [1] One of those three words definitely applies, another probably applies and the third, well I have no idea whether your parents were married or not. Of course, I could have been more polite and said the same thing.

          1. bombastic bob Silver badge
            Flame

            Re: Bah!

            "but the language used can be polite and factual or it can be inflammatory"

            I prefer _INFLAMMATORY_. It's more fun.

            And that would be MISTER "ignorant fucking bastard".

            1. Someone Else Silver badge

              @ bombastic bob -- Re: Bah!

              And that would be MISTER "ignorant fucking bastard".

              Really? How do we know you're not some 14 year-old girl up in her room?

              1. sprograms

                Re: @ bombastic bob -- Bah!

                Oh, so now you're attacking its preferred gender identity? /sarc

              2. bombastic bob Silver badge
                Trollface

                Re: @ bombastic bob -- Bah!

                " How do we know you're not some 14 year-old girl up in her room?"

                because this isn't a 4-chan inspired fantasy?

          2. Matthew Taylor

            Re: Bah!

            "No one is not talking about it, but the language used can be polite and factual or it can be inflammatory. Which would you chose, you ignorant fucking bastard[1]"

            Whichever way he chooses to express his views, perhaps he doesn't need his door kicked in at 6am by the police for choosing it.

            In my experience such polite, factual discussions tend to end with no resolution, other than recognising that it is "a difficult, sensitive issue". Hands are thoroughly wrung, and pained expressions displayed on earnest faces. And the no-go areas continue to spread, and women continue to be raped in Sweden, and Germany. In my view, our polite and factual discussions are merely pretending to address this issue.

        2. Someone Else Silver badge
          Facepalm

          Re: Bah!

          Brilliant, Bob...just fuckin' brilliant! The reductio ad absurdum exhibited in yet another frothing blather that passes as a post of yours is simply beyond belief.

          Oh, I'm sorry! I used Big Words, and in a furrin' language to boot. Assuming you can read stuff from a dictionary, let me help you...

          Definition of reductio ad absurdum

          1 : disproof of a proposition by showing an absurdity to which it leads when carried to its logical conclusion

          2 : the carrying of something to an absurd extreme

        3. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Bah!

          "A few years ago there was a case"

          Apparently that's why terrorists always wear robes. Goats and young boys can hear zips!

        4. Shaha Alam

          Re: Bah!

          i'm not going to dispute your claim. but in general, the [over]use of CAPS is inversely proportional to the quality and intellectual consistency of someone's response, imo.

          1. TheVogon Silver badge

            Re: Bah!

            "the [over]use of CAPS is inversely proportional to the quality and intellectual consistency of someone's response, imo."

            Quite. As per the common use for headlines in "newspapers" for the retarded. Intelligent writers tend to use all caps VERY sparingly!

      2. Shadowmanx2012
        Big Brother

        Re: Bah!

        Surely that's covered under fair comment on factual local events?

        Yes, but like the War it is not to be mentioned!

        1. bombastic bob Silver badge
          Unhappy

          Re: Bah!

          "like the War it is not to be mentioned!"

          I think I'll mention it.

          http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/07/11/more-than-2000-men-reportedly-sexually-assaulted-1200-german-women-on-new-years-eve.html

          Apparently new year's eve in 2016 (just 2 years ago) involved a large number of rapes, apparently as alleged by "Beatrix von Storch" in the "at issue" tweet, in which ACTUAL! BARBARIC! GANG-RAPING! HORDES! actually HAPPENED.

          but yeah, relevant commentary on REAL events, when the politically-correct-of-the-day classes are involved, is "hate speech" (according to the SJWs).

          1. Someone Else Silver badge

            Re: Are you kidding me?!?

            http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/07/11/more-than-2000-men-reportedly-sexually-assaulted-1200-german-women-on-new-years-eve.html

            Fox Noise er..."news"? is theis the same Fox "news" that has claimed:

            • GREG GUTFELD: Says Ted Kennedy met "with the KGB in order to beat Ronald Reagan in 1984."
            • NEWT GINGRICH: Democratic National Committee staffer Seth Rich "apparently was assassinated at 4 in the morning, having given WikiLeaks something like 53,000 emails and 17,000 attachments. ... It turns out, it wasn’t the Russians."
            • BILL O'REILLY: Says Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland "voted, so the folks know, in Washington, D.C., to keep guns away from private citizens."
            • LAURA INGRAHAM: "The 90 percent statistic of supporting background checks, that's been debunked."
            • ERIC BOLLING: "In countries where there are higher, more strict gun laws, there is more gun violence.":
            • SANDRA SMITH: "Almost 95 percent of all (Planned Parenthood) pregnancy services were abortions."

            And on and on. Note that all the quotes have been <proven> to be false and were known to be false at the time they were made.

            Perhaps, Bob, you need a source that, you know, has actual facts before you write. As a wise man has said, "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."

            1. bombastic bob Silver badge
              Trollface

              Re: Are you kidding me?!?

              re: anti-fox-news-rant

              I wasn't even trying to troll you but you bit the fox news link anyway, hook line and sinker! Nice job!

              Not surprisingly, it distracted you from the point, that 2 years ago there WERE gangs of barbaric Islamic men raping women in Germany. But it was fun to watch you respond anyway.

            2. Mark 85 Silver badge

              Re: Are you kidding me?!?

              Let's remember that Fox doesn't have an FCC "news" license but an "entertainment" license. At least one of their news opinion stars was a comedian before working there. I'll leave it to the reader to discern which one.

            3. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Are you kidding me?!?

              "Perhaps, Bob, you need a source that, you know, has actual facts before you write"

              In this case it's accurate. See the Wikipedia article referenced above.

      3. Jonathan Schwatrz
        Facepalm

        Re: AC Re: Bah!

        ".....Surely that's covered under fair comment on factual local events?...." No, it's not as it implies all Muslim men in Germany are part of rapist gangs, whereas the reality of the Cologne events were that a small number of the Muslim men in Germany were involved. Now, if she had argued that Islamic societal norms and teachings encourages the abuse of women then she might have had more of a debatable point, but the blanket statement is wrong.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: AC Bah!

          "whereas the reality of the Cologne events were that a small number of the Muslim men in Germany were involved."

          Circa 2000 in one incident isn't a "small number".

          1. Jonathan Schwatrz
            Facepalm

            Re: AC Re: AC Bah!

            ".....Circa 2000 in one incident isn't a "small number"." True, as a single incident it is a very worrying number and does indicate there was (and probably still is) a worrying tendency towards sexual violence amongst younger male Muslim immigrants in Germany. But, seeing as there are approximately 5 million Muslims in Germany, about 6.1% of the general population, it would seem unfair to say all German Muslims can be called rapists based on the actions of 0.04% of their number. By comparison, the BNP managed to get 1.9% of the popular vote in the 2010 UK General Election, but I bet you wouldn't describe the 2010 British population as 100% Fascist based on the nutty beliefs and actions of those 1.9%, would you?

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: AC AC Bah!

              "it would seem unfair to say all German Muslims can be called rapists "

              She didn't say all Muslims. She referred to a muslim hordes and 2000 seems to cover that.

              "based on the actions of 0.04% of their number."

              Well yes if it had been a comment on demographics it might have been more accurate if she qualified it as "arab muslim men". However as a general comment it did unfortunately reflect reality.

    2. Dan 55 Silver badge

      Re: Bah!

      I have no idea what to do about hate speech on (anti)social media.

      I guess we could learn from Germany, since they have a few years experience on fighting hate speech on all kinds of media.

    3. bombastic bob Silver badge
      Unhappy

      Re: Bah!

      "I have no idea what to do about hate speech on (anti)social media."

      how about 'go elsewhere'? or 'do not read it' ?

      But, 'control freaks' will always be compelled to control others... and SJWs (in particular, those behind anti-free-speech laws) are nothing _BUT_ 'control freaks'.

    4. Triumphantape

      Re: Bah!

      I too was fascinated by "Netzwerkdurchsetzungsgesetz", seemingly a noise that would be made if you happened to German and stubbed your toe.

      Also, I'm not apologizing for my juvenile sense of humor.

    5. ecofeco Silver badge

      Re: Bah!

      It *is* personally disturbing that the international public rhetoric sounds so much like that being tossed around in the mid-thirties. Are we collectively *that* ready for another global ding-dong that as soon as the surviving generations who remember the last one are almost all dead we are itching for another go?

      Glad I'm not the only one who thinks this way. The amount of on-line comments supporting Nazi's right to free speech is... fucking scary.

      1. Jonathan Schwatrz
        Stop

        Re: ecofeco Re: Bah!

        ".....The amount of on-line comments supporting Nazi's right to free speech is... fucking scary." <Sigh> No, we are not all raving "Nazis" just because we question why only "Nazis" seem to be targeted by many of these censoring laws. IMHO, in this case, Beatrix von Storch's comment is obviously incorrect as it tars all Muslim men with the same brush based on the actions of a minority. But the rush to silence "Nazis" is worrying given how the governments of Europe have been half-heartedly chasing the social media giants for years to get them to remove Islamic extremist material and posts, including stuff that broke existing incitement laws, yet they are falling over themselves to shut down "Nazis" at top speed. We are not supporting "Nazis", we are questioning why free speech is being selectively applied. The obvious answer is that there is a political bent to all this - the "Nazis" threaten the established governments of Europe, as shown by the rise of so many Right-leaning (and even outright Right-extreme) groups across Europe, therefore they must be silenced. If you cannot debate something as obviously silly as Beatrix von Storch's comment then it is either because you are not smart or you believe the people are simply not smart enough to make their own minds up and need to be "managed for their own good"- that is the type of totalitarianism which "anti-fascists" claim they want to avoid, but which history shows us is the result of such controls. And using laws to silence political opponents is a slippery slope. You either defend everyone's right to free speech inside the law or you are not defending free speech.

    6. Mark 85 Silver badge

      @Stevie -- Re: Bah!

      It *is* personally disturbing that the international public rhetoric sounds so much like that being tossed around in the mid-thirties. Are we collectively *that* ready for another global ding-dong that as soon as the surviving generations who remember the last one are almost all dead we are itching for another go?

      Indeed, it appears that the political winds are blowing in that direction lately. Not just in the US but in most of Europe also. Is there another one coming? Possibly with purges based on religion (sounds familiar) as well as ideology. These are indeed scary times with certain leaders provoking other leaders and much hatred running amok.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    It's not new year till September in the Islamic calendar.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      "It's not new year till September in the Islamic calendar."

      And I'm guessing it's also not the 21st century for about another 1000 years...

      1. Ken Hagan Gold badge

        Why guess? Wikipedia will tell you more than you want to know about the Islamic calendar.

        1. bombastic bob Silver badge
          Meh

          "Wikipedia will tell you more than you want to know about the Islamic calendar"

          *zing* (/me makes motion over the top of my head, in reference to "this guy didn't get it" or else he posted that as a way of acting a bit clueless for humor, not sure which)

          I think the "another 1000 years" reference was a snide reference to the backwards thinking related to 'establishing a caliphate' and the way much of Islam treats their women (and children), and christians, and homosexuals, and basically anyone who isn't a Moslem, etc.

          At least, that's how _I_ saw it (and it was funny, because it was based on the truth)

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Well this could get messy...

    You don't need to look too far into the example set by Muhammad to find a license for barbarism and questionable (shall we say) views on women & their capacity to have a say over their own reproductive systems.

    And if Islam preaches the example of Muhammad, and Muslims are a collection of people that practice Islam, then it is hard to find a factual issue with the tweet; although it is provocatively phrased.

    So I guess we're into the realm of deciding whether there is a delta between what people believe is correct, and what the religion they follow says is correct. Which is fine in most religions, but for Islam in particular, moderates are quite hard to come by. You appear to either believe in Islam in it's entirety, or you do not at all.

    So who is the arbiter of this problem? What if an offensive remark is truthful, nevertheless. Should this be removed? Does this not open the door to intolerance of free speech and give another weapon of censorship to people keen to mute anyone and everyone who shine a light on medieval practices.

    AC for reasons of self preservation on this particular topic.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Well this could get messy...

      Could you substitute Mohammed with God / Christ and replace much of the hated of women with (anything other than straight male) and change Islam to Judaism / Christianity.

      Thanks...

      "Which is fine in most religions, but for Islam in particular, moderates are quite hard to come by.You appear to either believe in Islam in it's entirety, or you do not at all."

      Get out more....you may be surprised. I know many that you would class as moderate, heck one even puts up Christmas trees.

      There are nasty bigots in most religions, no need to single out Islam.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Well this could get messy...

        > "Could you substitute Mohammed with God / Christ..."

        No.

      2. Yes Me Silver badge
        IT Angle

        Re: Well this could get messy...

        There are nasty bigots in most religions, no need to single out X.
        That's the whole point, of course. And it doesn't need to be a religion; any type of human group you care to mention would fit - nationality, gender, skin colour, language, political party...

        There are nasty bigots using most programming languages, no need to single out Pythonistas.

      3. Matthew Taylor

        Re: Well this could get messy...

        "Could you substitute Mohammed with God / Christ and replace much of the hated of women with (anything other than straight male) and change Islam to Judaism / Christianity."

        No, you couldn't. Not even remotely. And if you disagree, I would ask you to name a state run under Islamic law that allows the freedoms we enjoy in the (nominally Judaeo-Christian) West. Our way of life doesn't just happen naturally, it has been fought for, and refined over hundreds of years, by argument and bloodshed - and we have reached this current pinnacle not in spite of Christianity, but precisely because of it. It is a truly precious thing, so naturally, it is taken for granted and devalued.

        "Get out more....you may be surprised. I know many that you would class as moderate, heck one even puts up Christmas trees."

        I'm sure that's true, I know many myself. However that is beside the point. If you went to Saudi Arabia, Iran, or Pakistan you would also meet many excellent people. Friendly, reasonable people who you or I would be proud to call friends. Yet Iran hangs homosexuals from cranes, and Saudi Arabia chops hands and heads off.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Well this could get messy...

          "Yet Iran hangs homosexuals from cranes, and Saudi Arabia chops hands and heads off."

          Isn't that what Trump said Mike Pence wanted to do. There are many people in the USA who think that hanging members of the LGBT community is too good for them. USA executes people or incarcerates them without trial. Is that much better?

          1. Matthew Taylor

            Re: Well this could get messy...

            "Isn't that what Trump said Mike Pence wanted to do."

            No it isn't. And even if it were - how many people have been executed for being gay in the USA in the last 50 years? Even IF Mike Pence yearned to string up some gay people (which I'm certain he does not) - he COULD not do it, even as president, because of the robust system of government and the rule of law we have developed in the west. Contrast that to Saudi Arabia, where the Koran wielding Sultan's word is the whole of the law.

            "USA executes people or incarcerates them without trial. Is that much better?"

            For murder, rape, and things like that. Not for being gay. Don't get me wrong, I hold no brief for the US prison system, but are you seriously equating Western judicial system with that of Saudi Arabia?

        2. nijam

          Re: Well this could get messy...

          > ...and we have reached this current pinnacle not in spite of Christianity, but precisely because of it

          Quite the opposite, the freedoms we enjoy now are very much associated with the waning of religion in general, and Christianity in particular. Look no further than fundamentalists in the USA for a hint...

        3. Tom 38 Silver badge

          Re: Well this could get messy...

          Our way of life doesn't just happen naturally, it has been fought for, and refined over hundreds of years, by argument and bloodshed - and we have reached this current pinnacle not in spite of Christianity, but precisely because of it. It is a truly precious thing, so naturally, it is taken for granted and devalued.

          What a load of bollocks. We don't live in the "Judaeo-Christian" West, we live in the post Enlightment West, which came out of a gradual and increasing irrelevance of the church.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Well this could get messy...

      He was a paedophile, he married a six year old (Aisha) and consummated the marriage when she was nine.

      I defy anyone to condone that behaviour on a developing child. I also question alternative views that contest she had reached puberty as even that would be wrong.

      Regardless, all of this removes us from the real issue of why there are some people determined to induce hate between different people whether that be religion, race or colour. That's the question that needs answering because the people feeding it put it into the mainstream press on an almost daily basis.

      1. gnasher729 Silver badge

        Re: Well this could get messy...

        "He was a paedophile, he married a six year old (Aisha) and consummated the marriage when she was nine."

        Actually, that seems to have been debunked.

        Mohammed married a female whose age wasn't recorded - as was quite common 1400 years or so ago. Then curious people tried to figure out her age based on any mentionings of her relative to historic events. Which is a bit difficult; I think the birth date of Jesus has an error of up to nine years (and he was definitely not born in 1BC or 1AD).

        Due to these calculations, it seems her age at the time of marriage was anywhere from 6 to 19 years. But no matter what attitudes were in these days, there would have been comments at the time of marriage if Mohammed had married a six year old girl, and there are none reported. Even in those days, people would have thought of marrying a six year old as ridiculous at best.

        1. This post has been deleted by its author

          1. fishman

            Re: Well this could get messy...

            "So, for centuries, your run-of-the-mill Muslims were quite happy worshipping their guy who had been shagging a nine or ten year old. "

            Plenty of Christians were standing behind Roy Moore, the Alabama senate candidate, when it became known that he had chased after a 14 year old girl when he was in his 30's. And it wasn't entirely that they didn't believe the girl - some didn't have any problem with the age difference.

            1. GrumpenKraut Silver badge

              Re: Well this could get messy...

              > Plenty of Christians were standing behind Roy Moore, [...]

              Rather "Christians", fucking bigots in my book.

              Morbidly entertaining how people can ignore rather vicious actions because "he's one of us".

            2. bombastic bob Silver badge
              Devil

              Re: Well this could get messy...

              there's a *HUGE* difference between Mohammed marrying Aisha at 6 and "consummating" at age 9, and Roy Moore's alleged 'chasing after' a 14 year old girl. The definition of pedophila as a psychological disorder, for example, refers to "below the age of puberty", whereas 'chasing after' a teenager is NOT considered a psychological disorder - in fact, in SOME cultures, it's considered "normal". [of course in western nations it's considered "cradle robbing" but that particular distinction is a social issue that's been decided by courts and legislatures, and is NOT considered a psychological disorder - just creepy].

              And don't forget Roy Moore lost the election, kicking and screaming all the way down. When faced with two obvious bad choices, between 'bad' and 'worse', voters held their noses and did what they had to. But I admit I woul have preferred to see Senator Roy Moore rather than "that other guy" simply because "that other guy" is going to be a pain in the ass obstructionist for the next 2 years...

              [so consider any vote "for" Roy Moore was more likely a vote "against the Demo-Rat"]

              1. Tom 38 Silver badge
                Facepalm

                Re: Well this could get messy...

                there's a *HUGE* difference between Mohammed marrying Aisha at 6 and "consummating" at age 9, and Roy Moore's alleged 'chasing after' a 14 year old girl.

                Yeah, one's got the wrong religion and color skin, amirite?

                But I admit I woul have preferred to see Senator Roy Moore rather than "that other guy" simply because "that other guy" is going to be a pain in the ass obstructionist

                Ahh, I see, it's not religion or color, Mohammed must be a Democrat..

                Better to have an alleged ("I don't recall going out with her, but if I did, I asked her mom first", eww) child molester than a Democrat, explains why your country is morally bankrupt and becoming increasingly irrelevant internationally.

              2. DavCrav Silver badge

                Re: Well this could get messy...

                "But I admit I woul have preferred to see Senator Roy Moore rather than "that other guy" simply because "that other guy" is going to be a pain in the ass obstructionist for the next 2 years..."

                Yes, because Republicans have not been obstructionist for nearly a year now.

                1. strum Silver badge

                  Re: Well this could get messy...

                  >Yes, because Republicans have not been obstructionist for nearly a year now.

                  More like nine years.

          2. This post has been deleted by its author

          3. Jonathan Richards 1

            Re: Well this could get messy...

            OT, I think, but Muslims do not worship the prophet Mohammed, (which is why the 19th century term "Mohammedan" is now disused), rather he is believed to be a prophet of God, not (as Jesus of Nazereth is believed to be by Christians) God incarnate.

            1. Jonathan Schwatrz

              Re: Jonathan Richards 1 Re: Well this could get messy...

              ".....but Muslims do not worship the prophet Mohammed....." Well, IMHO, that in itself is an interesting bit of schizoid behavior in Islam. Islam proclaims idolism is "wrong" yet Muslims idolise the Koran so much that they threaten death to anyone that mistreats their sacred book. They also make the same threats against those that "demean" Mohammed, even having laws in Islamic countries to punish those that blaspheme (teddybear namers included).

              And it is not just "the backwards hordes in the 'Stans. Several years ago we hosted a party. I had a copy of the Koran (an English translation) on my study bookshelf, to which two interesting objections were raised by one of my Muslim guests, a neurosurgeon who was born in the US, went to US schools and graduated from a top US college. The first objection was that the Koran should not be shelved with "common books" such as Western history pieces as that was "disrespectful". The second was that my desk faced the shelves and so the soles of my shoes were pointing at the Koran whenever I sat at my desk - this was, apparently, also "disrespectful". Yet when we discussed the matter he denied that Islam idolized the Koran!

              So, no, Muslims do - by their actions - worship Mohammed, and also idolize the Koran.

        2. Ken Hagan Gold badge

          Re: Well this could get messy...

          There are well-documented cases in Medieval Christian Europe of marriages being *arranged* at such a young age and several cases where the ceremony was performed (sometimes by proxy, so the children involved had no say in the matter whatsoever) but it was considered unacceptable to consummate the union until puberty, and poor taste even then not to wait a few more years for concern over the health of the girl.

          Whether similar practices existed lower down in the social strata, I have no idea.

          1. Matthew Taylor

            Re: Well this could get messy...

            "There are well-documented cases in Medieval Christian Europe of marriages being *arranged* at such a young age "

            The key word there is "Medieval". Times change, Christianity has moved with the times - Islam, not so much.

        3. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Well this could get messy...

          "Actually, that seems to have been debunked"

          Nope - the majority of Muslim scripture supports that this was the case. Unless of course the Koran is not true...

          "Even in those days, people would have thought of marrying a six year old as ridiculous at best."

          Not in the Muslim world unfortunately. In Sudan for instance girls can legally marry at 10!

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Well this could get messy...

            are you suggesting the quran mentions aisha's age? it doesnt even mention muhammads age.

      2. King Jack
        Meh

        Re: why there are some people determined to induce hate between different people

        It is a way of control and recruitment. Get people angry and reason flies out of the window. They pick a side, any side and are willing to do anything for their side to win. As the group grows and gets powerful it becomes appealing to more people, as being on the 'winning' side is good even if the reasons are bad.

    3. Warm Braw Silver badge

      Re: So who is the arbiter of this problem?

      Presumably, the same people who are the arbiter of problem in other media: the courts.

      There isn't a special law for content on the Internet - the same rules on content would apply to a book or newspaper and in that case a publisher takes an informed view before publication of whether the content is likely to be legal.

      The only difference here is that the publisher's attention is being drawn to potentially illegal content ex post facto and they then get to make exactly the same judgment as a publisher in another medium. It's up to the publisher* to decide whether they want to make a free-speech argument for some specific content.

      *Yes, Twitter, Facebook, et al, don't want to be regarded as publishers, precisely because of the liability that implies, but this law is pretty much pushing them down that road. Not before time, in my view, and not in enough places, but it's a start.

      1. Frank Fisher

        Re: So who is the arbiter of this problem?

        So when Facebook or Twitter decide you're a racist, who do you appeal to? With a *court*, you have a right of appeal, and fixed definitions to unpick. What do you have with Twitter and FB?

        Governments are intentionally offshoring their censorship so they can squeal "oh no, we're not censors.... " And also so they don't have to have untidy and public debates in parliament regarding which 15% of their populations they're going to gag.

        1. Warm Braw Silver badge

          Re: So who is the arbiter of this problem?

          So when Facebook or Twitter decide you're a racist, who do you appeal to?

          If Simon & Schuster, to take a current example, decide your book isn't worth publishing, who do you appeal to? [Hint: you don't, you try to find another publisher, if you can].

          Regardless of what you are proposing to say, free speech does not mean you are entitled to a platform (either your own, or someone else's).

  4. tiggity Silver badge

    I for one

    Would not like to be an arbiter on what is the fine line between hate speech vs fair comment / free speech.

    Banning certain views (even if the intent is admirable and the views to be banned are truly vile) sets up a slippery slope in which free speech rights get slowly chipped away.

    It's also open to orchestrated abuse, people can be targeted even if their comments are on the acceptable side of the line to the majority of viewers , the social media companies could be overwhelmed with hate speech complaints, and instead of using human s to check a tweet / comment / video just tearing down content regardless on an automated basis as its easier, faster and cheaper than lots of humans.

    There may be unwanted side effects, if 2M user is limit it kicks in, the extremists could just use non mainstream social media, create their own twitter etc equivalents and be as nasty as they wanted in < 2M numbers .. and in their own little bubble would be less exposed to the dissenting views that they would get on FB, Twitter etc.

  5. tiggity Silver badge

    Region based?

    I assume it is region filtered (after all , cannot have 1 country legal system (that is not the legal system of country the social media companies are based) blocking what the rest of the word sees.

    Otherwise any random country can start banning posts on whatever criteria they find offensive be it abortion. LGBT, womens rights, Trump, particular religion(s) etc.

  6. hatti

    IMHO

    Biggest problem with hate speech is where the line is and who gets to decide.

    One persons hate speech is another persons free and fair comment.

    1. a_yank_lurker Silver badge

      Re: IMHO

      Bingo, the problem is the vagueness of any definition.

      It seems legislating against 'hate speech' is often an attempt to control the debate on an issue. Also, there seems to be a tendency to towards bad manners and incivility all around and not just online.

      1. Yes Me Silver badge

        Re: IMHO

        the problem is the vagueness of any definition
        I think Germany has some very clear experience in this area. Yes, like pornography, there is no indisputable line, which is why some kind of judicial review is need for disputed cases, but that doesn't mean that a civilised country should just allow everything.

        1. nijam

          Re: IMHO

          > I think Germany has some very clear experience in this area

          I'm not sure if you mean recently, or in the 1930s.

  7. Frank Fisher

    C'mon Reg...

    1) Islam isn't a race, so how can she have been suspended for a racist tweet?

    2) There's no such thing as "hate speech", only free speech a Lefty wants to ban.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: C'mon Reg...

      "1) Islam isn't a race, so how can she have been suspended for a racist tweet?"

      Ditto Jewish isn't a race (for instance there are black Ethiopian Jews) but they commonly get away with that one too.

      1. This post has been deleted by its author

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: C'mon Reg...

          "There are Kenyan Jews too"

          Yep, the award for worst human rights abuser in the Middle East is generally won by Israel. And they are up against some pretty stiff competition!

          1. DavCrav Silver badge

            Re: C'mon Reg...

            "Yep, the award for worst human rights abuser in the Middle East is generally won by Israel. And they are up against some pretty stiff competition!"

            Is it really? Is it won by Israel in any competition run by people who aren't anti-Semitic? Because I'm pretty sure Syria would win.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: C'mon Reg...

              "Is it won by Israel in any competition run by people who aren't anti-Semitic? Because I'm pretty sure Syria would win."

              I think it would be a close call - mustard gas versus deliberate use of White Phosphorous on civilians? Deliberately bombing hospitals versus deliberately bombing UN compounds full of women and children and deliberately shooting unarmed children? Dropping barrel bombs versus an official policy of using civilians as human shields? A dictatorship versus an apartheid state with right of return laws that apply only to white Jews, etc. etc.

            2. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: C'mon Reg...

              >> Is it won by Israel in any competition run by people who aren't anti-Semitic?

              But - erm - the current population of Israel is mostly European in genetic origin. The only real Semites there are the indigenous population of Palestinians!

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: C'mon Reg...

                >> The only real Semites there are the indigenous population of Palestinians!

                Not to mention that criticism of Israel's human rights record is not anti Semitism anyway. That's just a standard dirt throwing deflection technique of Israel's apologists. They have a paid program for people to post pro Israel propaganda - and even have a Hebrew word that describes the lies in question - hasbara!

              2. Jonathan Schwatrz

                Re: AC Re: C'mon Reg...

                "....the current population of Israel is mostly European in genetic origin...." Really? You want to pretend there were no Jews in Israel before 1948? The intermixing with Europeans was because many Jews were forced out of historic Palestine by the Muslims, not because their ancestors did not originate in Israel. On the other hand, the majority of Arab Palestinians have genetic markers showing their ancestors originated in North Africa, Saudi Arabia and Mesopotamia. The influx of modern-day Arabs into the area is actually easy to demonstrate by the fact the preponderance of common surnames amongst the Palestinian Arabs are actually of North African heritage.

                "....the indigenous population of Palestinians!" There is no such race as "Palestinians" and no such country as "Palestine". The area covered by historic Roman Palestine included Lebanon, parts of modern Syria and Iraq, and all of modern Jordan. The indigenous people that lived in that area were a host of religions including Jews and Christians, and has been ruled over by many peoples, from the Canaanites to the British Empire. There were zero Muslims and virtually zero Arabs in Roman Palestine as Islam simply didn't exist in the time when the region was originally called Palestine, and the Arabs and Islam didn't arrive in the region in numbers until Mo started his push out of the deserts of what we call Saudi Arabia today. Indeed, as late as the 1931 census of Palestine the local Muslims were insistent they be classified as "Southern Syrians" rather than "Palestinians", as also recorded by the League of Nations (previous incarnation of the UN) in 1926. Ironically, under the UN Partition Plan for Mandate Palestine, the Jewish authorities were referred to as the Jewish Agency For Palestine as they were just as "Palestinian" as the Arabs. Funnier still, the local Arabs can't even use the name "Palestine" in their own language as Arabic doesn't have a hard P, they have to use "Falestin". a corruption of the old Philistines. The creation of the "Palestinian People" was simply a propaganda ploy of the PLO and the KGB, one you seem to have fallen for hook, line and sinker.

                1. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: AC C'mon Reg...

                  You want to pretend there were no Jews in Israel before 1948?"

                  He did say mostly. We do know that the population of Palestine was less than 5% Jewish in the late 19th century. This is recent invasion by people who largely have no connection to the region. Prior to their forced expulsion, the Palestinian people had lived there for circa 1200 years.

                  "Palestinian Arabs are actually of North African heritage."

                  But still have more semitic heritage than the average Israeli!

                  "There is no such race as "Palestinians" and no such country as "Palestine"."

                  There is an ethnic group called Palestinians and Palestine is named twice in the Balfour Declaration so it was widely recognised. You are just recycling Israeli propaganda.

                  1. Jonathan Schwatrz
                    FAIL

                    Re: AC Re: AC C'mon Reg...

                    "....We do know that the population of Palestine was less than 5% Jewish in the late 19th century....." Not surprising given that the Jews had been driven out in large numbers by the oppression of the Muslim Empire.The British census figures for 1922, which are thought to be the most exact available given the corrupt and indifferent nature of the Ottoman administration, have the Jews at about 11% of the population for Mandatory Palestine. Please note that was just after 73% of Mandatory Palestine was given to the Muslim Arabs as Transjordan. Please note that Jews were forbidden from buying land in Transjordan as it was meant to be land for the Muslim Arabs only, despite there having been Jews resident in the area known as Transjordan for thousands of years. The Jordanians ethnically-cleansed and expelled their remaining Jews in 1948.

                    ".....This is recent invasion by people who largely have no connection to the region....." Firstly, Islam and the Arabs are not native to the region, it was an invading socio-religious empire. Secondly, the 1931 British census showed the Jewish population having grown over 100% in size but only to 16% of the population due to the large number of Arabs that had also "invaded" the area even after the Ottomans had been defeated in the Great War.

                    ".....But still have more semitic heritage than the average Israeli!....'" Quite simply that statement is male bovine manure. Genetic studies of the Arabs worldwide, under the supervision of the Arabs in Dubai, shows two things. Firstly, the Arabs as a people have some of the highest levels of genetic disorders of any people. Secondly, those same genetic flaws are just as endemic in the Arabs in "Palestine" as they are in other Arab countries, proving that their ancestors originated from Saudi Arabia. So the majority of Arab "Palestinians" had ancestors that were not native to the region at all and were actually the "invaders" you mentioned as people "who largely have no connection to the region".

                    ".....There is an ethnic group called Palestinians...." All people living in the area known as Palestine were referred to as "Palestinians", including many Jews and Christians from Syria and Lebanon, and even ex-pat Brits from the armed services that settled there post-1918. They were all "Palestinians" before the PLO hijacked the term. The Arabs in Mandate Palestine actually wanted to be called "South Syrians" for political reasons, then switched their tune after they lost in 1948.

                    ".....and Palestine is named twice in the Balfour Declaration....." The general area of Palestine, including modern-day Israel and Jordan, parts of Syria and the Lebanon, not the specific fake state as you pretend.

                    ".....You are just recycling Israeli propaganda." I am stating easily demonstrable and historical facts, it is you that is posting political whimsy. If you think my points are false then please provide some form of counter rather than just whining.

                    BTW, even Hamas has a problem sticking with the "Palestinian" schpiel.

                    1. Anonymous Coward
                      Anonymous Coward

                      Re: AC AC C'mon Reg...

                      "Not surprising given that the Jews had been driven out in large numbers by the oppression of the Muslim Empire."

                      "Firstly, Islam and the Arabs are not native to the region, it was an invading socio-religious empire."

                      That was over 1200 years ago and of little relevance to 20th century events. The Palestinians were the clearly the overwhelming majority indigenous population up until the recent invasion of Europeans.

                      "Firstly, the Arabs as a people have some of the highest levels of genetic disorders of any people. Secondly, those same genetic flaws are just as endemic in the Arabs in "Palestine" as they are in other Arab countries, proving that their ancestors originated from Saudi Arabia."

                      But as I said - the Palestinians still have more Semitic ancestry than the average Israeli - who are mostly European in origin. And more to the point they were living there - and were then kicked out by invading Europeans with mostly no connection whatsoever to Palestine.

                      "All people living in the area known as Palestine were referred to as "Palestinians",

                      The vast majority of whom are and were a specific ethnic group.

                      "The general area of Palestine, including modern-day Israel and Jordan, parts of Syria and the Lebanon, not the specific fake state as you pretend."

                      Palestine existed as a defined and widely recognised region for many centuries until it was invaded by Europeans. In fact there are ancient Egyptian references to it that predate the original state of Israel! (Not to be confused with the borders of 1967 which is Palestine after the creation of Israel as defined under international law and as confirmed by numerous UN votes.)

                      "I am stating easily demonstrable and historical facts"

                      Well no because as I have demonstrated they are largely misleading propaganda / attempts to deflect from the accurate points made with FUD.

                      "BTW, even Hamas has a problem"

                      I have little interest in what Hamas might say. Whatever the Palestinians might want to identify themselves as doesn't detract from the fact the they were the indigenous population of the region and were largely removed by force, their land and property stolen, and are now suffering under an occupying genocidal Israeli regime. And if you want to post videos, this one is quite educational on the subject: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0K8LkCOB4ts

                      1. Jonathan Schwatrz
                        FAIL

                        Re: AC Re: AC AC C'mon Reg...

                        "....That was over 1200 years ago and of little relevance to 20th century events....." Ah, so only the periods you want to consider are the periods that should be discussed? If you only want to consider "relevant" periods then nothing could be more relevant than the current control of Israel and the West bank by the Jews! Thanks, you just approved Trump's moving of the US embassy to Jerusalem as it is very obvious that Israel and the Jews are in control of Jerusalem. I bet that makes you choke on your double-whipped, two-pump vanilla, wheatgerm latte.

                        "....the Palestinians still have more Semitic ancestry than the average Israeli...." So you can read the words stating that the Arabs themselves have diagnosed the genetic markers of Palestinian Arabs as showing the majority have Saudi heritage, yet you somehow still manage to deny that and magically twist it to "Semitic" as making them "Palestinian"! Wow, you really are desperate to deny that the Arabs did not originate in Palestine!

                        "....and were then kicked out by invading Europeans....." HA! Your knowledge of modern history appears to be obfuscated by your having your head up your anus. In 1948, the UN Partition Plan gave the Jews and Arabs of Palestine designated areas of the Palestine Mandate to live in. The Jews accepted their much smaller portion and were willing to live alongside the Muslim (and Christian) Arabs in peace, but the Muslim Arab leaders - especially their imams - rejected the solution because they hated the idea of a Jewish homeland. Consequently, the Palestinian Jews got the legal and recognized state of Israel, and the Palestinian Arabs forfeited their right to a state. The surrounding Muslim Arab countries then attacked the embryonic state of Israel, not the other way round. Try more historical reading.

                        ".....Well no because as I have demonstrated they are largely misleading propaganda / attempts to deflect from the accurate points made with FUD....." You have demonstrated nothing of the sort. All you have done is re-inforce the inaccuracy of your own claims.

                        ".....I have little interest in what Hamas might say...." What, aren't they "Palestinian" enough for you, or is it just because it blew a massive hole in your silliness?

                        ".....Whatever the Palestinians might want to identify themselves as....." But you insisted they must be called and are the only ones that should be allowed to call themselves "Palestinians"!?!

                        ".....doesn't detract from the fact the they were the indigenous population of the region....." Despite the Arabs' own genetic research showing the majority of Palestinian Arabs actually came from Saudi.

                        ".....and were largely removed by force....." Actually, the majority of "Palestinian" refugees in 1948 never even saw an Israeli soldier, being ordered to get out of the way of the invading Arab armies by their own leaders. They willingly left assuming they could return and plunder the homes and lands of their Jewish neighbours after the Arabs promised they would drive the Jews into the sea.

                        ".....their land and property stolen....." You mean like the 850,000 Jews driven out of Arab countries post-1948? Or the Jews driven out of the West Bank and East Jerusalem by the Jordanians?

                        "......and are now suffering under an occupying genocidal Israeli regime." HA! The Arab Palestinians that stayed in Israel and became Israeli citizens have better rights and standard of living than the Arab Palestinians that fled to their brother Arabs. The ones that fled were deliberately not integrated by their fellow Arabs, they were kept in shabby refugee camps to be used as political pawns. The Palestinian Arabs in the West Bank have better rights and protections under Israeli law than they have in any of their surrounding Arab countries, where their brothers even deny them the full right to work!

                        ".... And if you want to post videos...." I posted links to historical articles, you shrieked "propaganda" and then immediately posted a work of fiction. No doubt it is the same standard as the rest of Arab propaganda with clips lifted from other wars around the World, as shown here, here and here.

      2. Alumoi

        Re: C'mon Reg...

        Ditto Jewish isn't a race (for instance there are black Ethiopian Jews) but they commonly get away with that one too.

        And we all know why but can't comment on that so we won't be labeled as Nazis/extremists/racists.

    2. tiggity Silver badge

      Re: C'mon Reg...

      @ Frank Fisher

      "There's no such thing as "hate speech", only free speech a Lefty wants to ban"

      I would not say the German govt is particularly "Lefty" - they tick the boxes on most right wing approaches IMHO (though I'm looking at that from perspective of a UK working class background & aware that to some people right wingers such as Thatcher & Blair* are probably regarded as "Lefty")

      *Blair arguably got away with right wing policies Thatcher could only have dreamed of, Blair govt massively expanded PFI, basically privatising huge swathes of UK infrastructure & services that had historically been council / state owned, his party might have had a red rose symbol but he was not "Lefty" in many peoples view.

      1. GrumpenKraut Silver badge

        Re: C'mon Reg...

        > I would not say the German govt is particularly "Lefty" [...]

        The whole "left" versus "right" dichotomy has pretty much no meaning anymore (sans maybe the extreme left or right; the nutty territories).

        Using left/right to mean anything at all is _especially_ problematic in discussions with someone from another nation. Extreme example: Americans insinuating that the Democrats are some sort of communists (I am totally not looking at "Big John", honest!).

    3. Swiss Anton

      Re: C'mon Reg...

      "There's no such thing as "hate speech", only free speech a Lefty wants to ban."

      Sticks and stones will break my bones, but names will never hurt me.

      A truth I had learnt by the time I was five years old.

      1. Stevie Silver badge

        Re: C'mon Reg...

        "There's no such thing as "hate speech", only free speech a Lefty wants to ban."

        Sticks and stones will break my bones, but names will never hurt me.

        A truth I had learnt by the time I was five years old.

        In a world where denunciation is tantamount to proof, words certainly can hurt one. Just ask Garrison Keeler.

        Just before Xmas some girl on Twitter hinted broadly that I was a child molester because she didn't like what I was saying; which was that people should be careful before assuming an accusation - against a person I didn't know - of sexual harassment was proof of the crime, and that this was a corrosive attitude to have lose in society. The irony was palpable.

    4. Sam Therapy

      Re: C'mon Reg...

      The Nazis (the real German ones, that is) were pretty enthusiastic about shutting up people, as were the US government during the McCarthy era.

      Hardly lefties, by any stretch of the imagination.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: C'mon Reg...

        "Hardly lefties, by any stretch of the imagination."

        The Nazis were the German socialist party.

        1. Voyna i Mor Silver badge

          Re: C'mon Reg...

          "The Nazis were the German socialist party."

          There is a book you ought to read: The History of Germany Since 1789 by Golo Mann. You could also read The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, by Shirer. You are wrong on all counts.

          Once you've done that, if you continue to parrot such ridiculous lies, we'll know you are in bad faith. Except of course we won't because you're AC.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: C'mon Reg...

            "There is a book you ought to read:"

            There is basic history you need to read. The Nazi name comes from the German for The National Socialist German Workers' Party

            1. spacecadet66

              Re: C'mon Reg...

              This nonsense again...yeah, that was the name. Congratulations, Sherlock Holmes, you're the first to hear about this.

            2. Shaha Alam

              Re: C'mon Reg...

              and the official name for north korea is Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

              funny thing about political party names, they're mostly about propaganda. its in their policies where you decide which way they lean on various political issues.

              long story short, nazis were facists. which is about as extreme right wing as is possible to get.

              1. Jonathan Schwatrz
                FAIL

                Re: Shaha Alam Re: C'mon Reg...

                "....funny thing about political party names, they're mostly about propaganda....." Yes, and the whole "Palestinian" myth was a fabrication created by the KGB and the PLO as a propaganda ploy. Oh, you didn't know that? This is my surprised face, honest.

                ".....nazis were facists....." <Sigh> Back to the "you're not a socialist unless I say you're a socialist" historical revisioning? Go read up on Benito Mussolini, father of Fascism, and you'll discover his socialist roots. Oh, and by the way, the father of "Palestinian" Arab nationalism, Amin al-Husseini, was a buddy of Hitler's, recruited Muslims for the SS and was very keen on the Holocaust. Just saying, seeing as you seem so quick to throw around the "Nazi" tag.

                1. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: Shaha Alam C'mon Reg...

                  "and the whole "Palestinian" myth was a fabrication created by the KGB"

                  What myth would that be? That the Palestinians were the overwhelming indigenous population of Palestine for hundreds of years until expelled by largely European invaders is a matter of extremely well documented history.

                  1. Jonathan Schwatrz
                    Stop

                    Re: AC Re: Shaha Alam C'mon Reg...

                    "What myth would that be?....." That the Arabs in Israel and the West Bank are somehow the only indigenous people of the area due to being descendants of an historic people called the "Palestinians". The real Palestinians were all people of all faiths and ethnic groups living in Mandatory Palestine, which included plenty of Jews. Islam dates from around 610AD, whereas Jews have been living in the area of Mandatory Palestine for over 3000 years, long before the Arabs invaded and long before Islam even existed. That is historical fact.

                    1. This post has been deleted by its author

                    2. Anonymous Coward
                      Anonymous Coward

                      Re: AC Shaha Alam C'mon Reg...

                      >> That the Arabs in Israel and the West Bank are somehow the only indigenous people

                      Indigenous means "typical of the region". Up until the late 19th century the Jewish population of Palestine was less than 5%. The point is not to claim that there were not a few people of various faiths, but to make expressly clear that the Palestinians were long term residents of the region who were removed by force and dispossessed.

                      >> Jews have been living in the area of Mandatory Palestine for over 3000 years, long before the Arabs

                      So by your logic because some distant unknown relative might have lived somewhere then gives us the right to dispossess the indigenous population? - so maybe we can all go reclaim the trees in Africa and kick out the current population as we all originated there many thousands of years ago?

                      1. Jonathan Schwatrz
                        FAIL

                        Re: AC Re: AC Shaha Alam C'mon Reg...

                        "Indigenous means "typical of the region"....." For over 3000 years continually, Jews have been typical of the region. You are stubbornly trying to deny an historical fact.

                        ".....Up until the late 19th century the Jewish population of Palestine was less than 5%...." And we know you cherry-picked that period because it was when Jewish residency was lowest due to many Jews having been driven out of the area by Arab invaders. If you insist on cherry-picking periods I can simply respond that pre-610AD there were 0% of Muslims anywhere, so by your logic all Muslims are not actually indigenous to anywhere and are invaders wherever they have gone.

                        "....Palestinians were long term residents of the region who were removed by force and dispossessed....." Which not only describes the Jews before the arrival of Islam, but also the Jews ethnically-cleansed from the West Bank and surrounding Arab Muslim states post-1948. Please do continue to make my arguments for me, it's almost like you're a fish committing suicide by gun in a barrel.

                        "....So by your logic because some distant unknown relative might have lived somewhere then gives us the right to dispossess the indigenous population?...." That is very amusing given that your whole argument is based on saying the Jews were not there in the majority in the period you cherry-picked! Would you care to shoot yourself in the other fin?

            3. Voyna i Mor Silver badge

              Re: C'mon Reg...

              "There is basic history you need to read. The Nazi name comes from the German for The National Socialist German Workers' Party"

              You (assuming you are the original anonymous coward) said the Nazis were the German Socialist Party. You and your mate can downvote me if you like but you are simply wrong. The NSDAP was a small left wing party that Hitler took over and rapidly took far right. The left wing parties in the Reichstag were the Communists and the Social Democrats. I actually cited two books, one by a German and one by an American, which explain this. You refer to "basic history" because, of course, you have no credible sources. You assume that people can't be bothered to do the research and discover that you are bending the truth a great deal.

              Hitler left the word "Socialist" in his party in order to keep working class votes. The socialist policies in his manifesto, of course, he ditched the moment he became Chancellor. The actual socialists in Germany he sent to concentration camps. But that's boring old history by boring old historians, not your world of alternative (or AfD?) facts.

              1. Jonathan Schwatrz
                FAIL

                Re: Voyna i Mor Re: C'mon Reg...

                ".....The socialist policies in his manifesto, of course, he ditched the moment he became Chancellor....." Mor(e) male bovine manure. As early as 1927, long after he had taken control of the NSDAP, Hitler said in a speech:".... “We are socialists. We are the enemies of today’s capitalist system of exploitation … and we are determined to destroy this system under all conditions...."

                After he became Chancellor, Hitler instituted some very socialist policies:

                1. Nationalisation of education, transportation and healthcare.

                2. Employment for all through national building projects such as the autobahns.

                3. Strict gun control.

                4. Accused the major religions such as the Catholic church of being "right-wing" and seeking to "control the people".

                5. Blamed all the economic woes from losing the Great War on the rich "1%", who just happened to be mainly Jewish in Germany at the time.

                If you were actually capable of some independent research I think you'd find those type of policies were and still are common amongst socialists.

              2. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: C'mon Reg...

                >> The NSDAP was a small left wing party

                So as was accurately stated - the Nazis were indeed the German socialist party. LOL @ you just proved the OP correct.

          2. Jonathan Schwatrz
            FAIL

            Re: Voyna i Mor Re: C'mon Reg...

            ".....if you continue to parrot such ridiculous lies, we'll know you are in bad faith....." Ah, you appear to be one of the rank-and-file Lefties I mentioned earlier, still unable to reconcile the socialist roots of fascism. Your "you're only a socialist if you fit my definition of socialism" revisionism does not match up with historic fact.

        2. spacecadet66

          Re: C'mon Reg...

          Nope. Maybe go to the library and ask if they have any history books of the 30s with lots of pictures.

        3. Jonathan Schwatrz
          Go

          Re: AC Re: C'mon Reg...

          ".....The Nazis were the German socialist party." Factually correct, something that seems to have escaped the down-voters. The Nazis were the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei" (English: National-Socialist German Workers' Party). Indeed, the model for Adolf's Nazis was the success of Benito Mussolini in Italy, Mussolini having been the leading light of the Italian Socialist Party. The modern Left likes to pretend ignorance on those facts, though it may not be pretend by the majority of rank-and-file Lefties as they do seem to be a bit short on historic education.

    5. Yes Me Silver badge
      Flame

      Re: C'mon Reg...

      How you got any up votes beats me:

      1) Islam isn't a race, so how can she have been suspended for a racist tweet?
      That really is nit-picking; the law seems to be about hate speech in general, not racism.
      2) There's no such thing as "hate speech", only free speech a Lefty wants to ban.
      Rubbish. As others have pointed out, the German government, and the parliament that passed this law some time ago, are hardly left wing. Hate speech can come from left or right; it's speech or writing that incites hatred or prejudice. Historically it's probably been used more by the left than the right in the last 100 years, when you include the Soviet Union and the Peoples' Republic of China; but basically it's used by all kinds of rabble-rousers.

  8. GrumpenKraut Silver badge
    Meh

    Undecided about this specific post

    As far as I have seen, it is just a document of the (ahem) not so intellectual way of thinking you find plenty in the AfD. Also somewhat disgusting. I'd rather had it kept for everyone to see.

    It may even re-appear, as it may not be enough to be "inciting hatred" as required by the law. This could get interesting...

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Undecided about this specific post

      I've read posts/comments that I find terribly distasteful, but I'd rather see those posts than have them blocked. I think it is extremely important that freedom of speech reigns, because it is damned near impossible, or absolutely impossible, to filter reasonably. Where does one start to filter for hate speech and where does one stop? The only thing I would even begin to suggest is that when lies are told that can be corrected with facts, but then there's interpretation so even that can be a murky situation.

  9. Not also known as SC

    What's new?

    I believe that the Germans have some quite strict rules about what can be said in their country. As I understand it the swastika is banned and displaying one or making Nazi era salutes could end up with jail time. Isn't this just an extension of existing German laws into cyberspace?

    1. Handle123456

      Re: What's new?

      Could. Unless you are a dark skinned muslim. In that case you can march the streets giving the nazi salute all day long.

  10. This post has been deleted by a moderator

    1. Yes Me Silver badge
      Facepalm

      Why Arabic?

      Actually her question is a very valid question: Exactly WHY is an official German police site tweeting in Arabic?
      Perhaps because Germany has been good enough to host a large number of Arabic-speaking refugees from war zones and wants to make them feel welcome? It's well established that countries that make refugees feel welcome and respect their culture do better at integrating them into society.

      1. This post has been deleted by its author

      2. TheMeerkat

        Re: Why Arabic?

        No, it is not “well established”. Don’t peddle your wishful thinking as fact.

    2. davenewman

      Quanta linguas fala o senhor?

      Germans are proud of the number of languages they speak. So a police service will be quite proud of sending out messages in several languages spoken in their town. After German, Turkish and English there are quite a few spoken in the big cities. But as different cities have different populations, the chosen languages will be different in each town.

      It is only in parts of the UK and the USA that I find people proud of only speaking one language.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Quanta linguas fala o senhor?

        Yeah, and it isn't English.

      2. This post has been deleted by its author

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Quanta linguas fala o senhor?

        "It is only in parts of the UK and the USA that I find people proud of only speaking one language."

        English is the universal language of business, navigation and diplomacy. There is no need to learn anything else.

    3. Phil W

      "If they tweeted in German *and* English I would understand"

      Then consider enhancing your understanding by bothering to check the facts. A quick look at that Twitter account by clicking the tweet linked in the article will tell you that they did Tweet the same message with the same picture in German, English, French and Arabic, in that order from first to last.

      The fact they they tweeted it in four languages with Arabic being the fourth to be posted also speaks to the context of the tweet from the politician who was banned. She most certainly saw and knew full well that it had been tweeted in multiple languages so her response was clearly an opportunistic snipe at Muslims not a critical comment on the Police tweeting in other languages.

    4. spacecadet66

      Why do official agencies in, say, California, communicate in Spanish? Because it's the first language of a significant number of people who live there. Where I live, there are large Portuguese and Brazilian populations, and you _do_ see government documents in Portuguese.

      HTH, but I bet you already knew that somehow.

  11. IGnatius T Foobar
    WTF?

    An inconvenient truth

    One cannot argue with the facts. When a particular demographic is provably responsible for the vast majority of a particular type of crime, calling it out as such is, quite simply, speaking the truth.

    Also there is no such thing as "hate speech". That is a moniker coined by the enemies of civilization to justify limiting free speech.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: An inconvenient truth

      The inconvenient truth is that the demographic responsible for most crime is poor young people, religion and ethnic background barely come in to it.

      PS: Free speech in all civilised countries has always been limited, because the universal right to free expression has always been considered in relation to the other universal rights. Since WWII Germany in particular has heavily restricted speech that glorifies Nazis or denies the holocaust.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: An inconvenient truth

        "religion and ethnic background barely come in to it."

        Not true. Certain ethnic backgrounds are far more likely to commit say muggings and knife crime than others of the same economic status.

  12. danielanthony

    Publishers?

    Like how BT doesn't monitor my phone calls and remove nasty words, I thought social networks were operating under the same laws. Because, if they remove offensive material, does that mean that everything which remains is ok by FaceBook & Twitter standards? What if I disagree with what they consider to be ok? Can I go to court and sue the companies rather than the individual who posted the material I find offensive? I think Mark Zuckerburg has more dollars to squeeze than some 13-year-old internet troll.

    1. Phil W

      Re: Publishers?

      "Like how BT doesn't monitor my phone calls and remove nasty words, I thought social networks were operating under the same laws."

      No? What gave you that idea and why would it even make sense? A telephone call is a private conversation between individuals, a Facebook post or Tweet is a publicly published statement which has more in common with say an advertisement taken out in a newspaper than it does with a phone call.

      Private messages on social media platforms maybe regulated under some of the same laws as phone calls, in the sense that if you harrass someone repeatedly with phone calls or IMs you can be prosecuted in the same way.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Publishers?

        "A telephone call is a private conversation between individuals, a Facebook post or Tweet is a publicly published statement which has more in common with say an advertisement taken out in a newspaper than it does with a phone call."

        If only more people understood this then perhaps they'd be more selective about what they post.

      2. Triumphantape

        Re: Publishers?

        "No? What gave you that idea and why would it even make sense?"

        It makes sense when you start communicating in what you think is a private mode.

        it also makes sense in that she stated what is well known to be a fact, the sex crimes are majority "Asian" men in Europe.

        In the USA they neatly dodged any obligations of privacy or freespeech via legislation.

        If a private company offers a service they are not bound by the same "freedom of speech" rules that the government is.

        Very simply, the thing you state "makes no sense" actually does make sense, both public and private comments should stand unless they are calling for violence.

        1. strum Silver badge

          Re: Publishers?

          >it also makes sense in that she stated what is well known to be a fact, the sex crimes are majority "Asian" men in Europe.

          Except it's not a fact. By some considerable margin, most sex crimes in Europe are committed by Europeans. (It's the newsworthy ones that somehow seem to attract immigrants).

    2. nijam

      Re: Publishers?

      > Like how BT doesn't monitor my phone calls and remove nasty words, I thought social networks were operating under the same laws...

      Actually a better analogy would be making bus companies legally responsible for the offence caused by any graffiti on their bus shelters.

      1. Voyna i Mor Silver badge

        Re: Publishers?

        "Actually a better analogy would be making bus companies legally responsible for the offence caused by any graffiti on their bus shelters."

        A terrible analogy, because they are responsible for what is written on buses, and most bus companies do not own the bus shelters. Councils do, and they are supposed to remove offensive graffiti.

  13. Triumphantape

    IMO

    I'm reminded of a poem that starts with "First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—

    Because I was not a Socialist." only this time it's forms of communication.

    So, the modern version would be "first they came for the hate speech and I did nothing".

    Read the poem if you don't get where I am coming from.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...#The_text

    What starts as something reasonable soon becomes something else entirely, this seems to be a common thread in human history.

    1. Holtsmark

      Re: IMO

      The way I understand this new law, it is NOT about going after the posters themselves, but rather to hold the "publishers" of said posts accountable for them. The idea appears to be to apply similar rules to the publishers as the rules that currently apply to newspapers (if you earn your living from publishing falsehoods and hate speech, then we will hold you economically accountable for this). I know that this may sound strange to an English public, that knows nothing but newspapers publishing lies and falsehoods with no repercussions, but this is how things are dealt with in the rest of the western world.

      Seeing the amount of damage done by "social media" lately, I believe that I can live with this.

      Without the echo-chamber of today's internet, I believe self-radicalisation to be much less likely, possibly preventing types like mr. Brevik from being triggered. It is, as always, a fine balance, and Germany is struggling to find it.

      That said, I feel that there is a somewhat unsavory tendency in German politics to try to use the law to go after perceived nazism. They spent decades trying to get the NPD, and now they use similar tactics against the AFD. The efforts against the NPD were squashed in courts multiple times due to incompatibility with the constitution (too many informers inside the NPD).

      In one way, German politicians are stuck between a rock and a hard place. With Germany's past, theyy face criticism when they are lenient with right wing demagogery, and they face criticism when they try to do something about it.

      1. Handle123456

        Re: IMO

        The idea is to outsource censorship.

  14. Winkypop Silver badge
    Trollface

    If you say "Netzwerkdurchsetzungsgesetz" 3 times....

    .... a troll will appear!

  15. Louis Schreurs BEng

    The Bob

    Peoples, let's not vote AT ALL on Bob's posts

  16. sloshnmosh

    Pythonistas

    "There are nasty bigots using most programming languages, no need to single out Pythonistas."

    http://samshadwell.me/TrumpScript/

  17. TheMeerkat

    Police state run by Twitter

    Looks like now social networks are policing what democratically elected MPs are allowed to say and what is not allowed.

  18. Jove Bronze badge

    The trouble is that this can quiet easily be subverted for use as a means of suppression descent, open discussion, and propagation of activist dogma - sounds more like the old East German order is getting the upper hand.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019