For The Second Time In A Week, German Hate Speech Laws Results In Deletion Of Innocent Speech
from the hate-speech-law-takes-on-law-of-unintended-consequences;-loses-immediately dept
It's going to be a fun few months for German government officials as they run from one embarrassing fire to the next, hoping to keep their newly-minted "hate speech" law from being scrapped for sheer ineptitude.
The law went live January 1st, promising hefty fines for social media companies if they don't remove poorly-defined "hate speech" fast enough. This has resulted in exactly the sort of side effects the law's critics promised. The only remarkable thing is how fast the side effects have presented themselves.
Within 72 hours of the law's debut, a satirical post mocking a German's politician's bigoted words was deleted by Twitter in an apparently proactive move. The 24-hour window for content removal is backed by €50m fines for each violation. Given the amount of money on the line, it's no surprise social media companies are trying to stay ahead of Germany's government when it comes to regulating speech. It's also no surprise Twitter, et al are relying heavily on users to help narrow down which questionable posts it should be looking at.
You can already see where this is headed. For the second time in less than a week, Twitter has pulled the trigger on an innocent tweet. And, again, the entity whose tweet has been deleted is big enough to attract the attention of German lawmakers.
Germany signalled on Monday it was open to amending a controversial law combatting online hate speech as the justice minister fell victim to the rules he himself championed.
The move came after Twitter deleted a post by Heiko Maas dating back to 2010 before he was appointed justice minister, in which he called a fellow politician "an idiot".
The post was deleted after Twitter received several complaints, fuelling a simmering row over the new regulation which critics say stifle freedom of speech.
Proponents of laws targeting speech tend to believe the law will operate in a pristine vacuum where only the purest of intentions will be honored. Anyone operating outside of this mindset knows exactly how speech-targeting laws work in real life: exactly like this, where an internet dogpile resulted in the deletion of a tweet that didn't even meet the expansive definitions of hate speech handed down by the German government.
As a result of multiple, high-profile false positives, many German politicians are now complaining about the law and demanding it be altered or struck down. But even with political sentiment swiftly turning against the just-enacted law, the German government will apparently take a wait-and-see approach to touching up the law.
Government spokesman Steffen Seibert said an evaluation would be carried out within six months to examine how well the new law was working.
The way things are going, it's doubtful the law will make it six weeks before being clawed back for a rewrite.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: censorship, free speech, germany, hate speech, heiko maas
Companies: twitter
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Best learning tool ever
Too much to hope that this will help stop SESTA here in the States?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Best learning tool ever
It will be roundly ignored. If not ignored, dismissed as an anomaly, or because "now we know better, we'll get it right this time!" Because we're smarter than our ignorant ancestors, yo. There's all kinds of historic evidence that this is what happens, thus Techdirt being able to predict.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Best learning tool ever
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Best learning tool ever
Except that we already knew that it couldn't work - Berlusconi was elected three times over 14 years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What's the loss in this 7 year old "tweet"? -- And out of HOW MANY MILLION REMARKS MADE THIS YEAR?
Next, at least show NEW loss. This appears to be targeted searching back -- SEVEN YEARS -- for purpose of "proving" the point -- which Techdirt happily re-writes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What's the loss in this 7 year old "tweet"? -- And out of HOW MANY MILLION REMARKS MADE THIS YEAR?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What's the loss in this 7 year old "tweet"? -- And out of HOW MANY MILLION REMARKS MADE THIS YEAR?
If calling a politician an idiot is hate speech and enough to get your posts deleted, then we might as well declare saying anything bad about anyone is now hate speech.
Because really, if "Politician is an idiot" is hate speech, how is "Politician sucks at their job" not hate speech to?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What's the loss in this 7 year old "tweet"? -- And out of HOW MANY MILLION REMARKS MADE THIS YEAR?
Ironic he doesn't scream about that kind of hate speech.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's not irony
If it is the same person 'ironic' would not be the correct word, 'hypocritical' would be. 'I'm allowed to insult you all, but insults by other people should be a bannable offense!'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What's the loss in this 7 year old "tweet"? -- And out of HOW MANY MILLION REMARKS MADE THIS YEAR?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What's the loss in this 7 year old "tweet"? -- And out of HOW MANY MILLION REMARKS MADE THIS YEAR?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What's the loss in this 7 year old "tweet"? -- And out of HOW MANY MILLION REMARKS MADE THIS YEAR?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It was Twitter which "didn't even meet the expansive definitions of hate speech".
Using your own "one instance condemns" standard and noting that it's Twitter TWICE NOW, then clearly Twitter is engaged in a pattern of falsehoods trying to reverse the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It was Twitter which "didn't even meet the expansive definitions of hate speech".
But the law puts the onus on Twitter, et al, to remove content, within 24hrs of posting, not governmental complaint. It also, incorrectly, in my opinion, targets not only companies, are able to afford to fight this in court, but also individual employees, which cannot. It is, in my opinion, a bad law, simply on the merits of its fine structure and lack of due process; and in the words of Abraham Lincon: "The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly." Strict enforcement of this law is showing its true colors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It was Twitter which "didn't even meet the expansive definitions of hate speech".
Newsflash: German authorities deliver 1 trillion euro fine because Youtube could not get rid of its obnoxious users fast enough. TREEELLION.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It was Twitter which "didn't even meet the expansive definitions of hate speech".
But just because a bad law gets passed and bad things happen as a result to prove everyone who was against it right, doesn't mean those people deliberately engineered those events.
Correlation does not equal causation, or something like that. Also Occam's Razor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It was Twitter which "didn't even meet the expansive definitions of hate speech".
I agree there's nothing wrong with hiding the spam you vomit so readily.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Need this for Trumpie
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
proper tucked?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I mean, we are talking about a man who wants to open up libel laws while whining and moaning about everyone under the sun...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Forsooth! Re-tweeteth not fine musings of Churchill,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But was the politicians account deleted?
Twitter should simply start deleting German accounts. Find a bad word. A snarky phrase. A rude analogy comparing someone's face with their interchangeable ass. Go back to their very beginning. In fact, go through their published anything, facebook, texts, websites, website comments.
Delete! For the win.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That would do it
The move came after Twitter deleted a post by Heiko Maas dating back to 2010 before he was appointed justice minister, in which he called a fellow politician "an idiot".
It was all fun and games until they realized that oh yeah, it can be used against them, and now suddenly they care.
Ideally they'd scrap the entire thing, but I can't help but suspect the 'six month review' is, like Jeffrey Nonken notes, a hope that no more high profile(read: famous person and/or politician) cases will draw attention to how bad it is so that it can stay on the books.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's working just as planned.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes and no I imagine. Companies being forced to remove stuff on the flimsiest accusation to avoid ruinous fines? Yeah, pretty sure that was intended.
High-profile cases coming so soon after the law is put into place, bringing attention to it and opposition given who is being targeted? That I imagine they would rather not have happened.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Think of the children.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If it wasn't for Islam, there would be no such law...
the larger application is to begin the process of silencing speech altogether, to consolidate the power of the EU technocrats.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If it wasn't for Islam, there would be no such law...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Censorship - How To Do It
Other name calling comments can be published IF THEY ARE EXPLAINED. Example: "Trump is a criminal because he supports the crimes against the Palestinians executed by the Israeli government. His support was indicated in his recognition of the desire of Israel to move its capital to Jerusalem. " [ regardless of whether or not such a comment is factual or logical. ] In the explanation, the commentator will be offering and exposing hiser ( his or her ) supposed logic, which is open toward other people's logic. Such commentary will then convince or be convinced in the forum of "debate".
You will still be "censoring" but your censorship will be allowing "freedom of expression of rational ideas" , of "political commentary" , of "ideas of language and logic". Yes, you will be censoring only sexually vulgar expressions.
Essentially, describing a person "as acting in a criminal manner indicated by "such and such" is not "name calling". Name calling is the act of putting a label on something without rationalizing it.
Calling someone a "war hawk" is name calling. Saying that someone is a "war hawk BECAUSE they have advocated bombing or using military force to stop ISIS or Assad " is a rationalization; an explanation for the label, the name, the adjective: "war hawkish". Such a label AND its rationalization can be argued against. It also exposes the commentator 's logic or lack of logic to criticisms of other people in the world. The commentator can be praised , or embarrassed by his lack of logic. People can learn from such commentary.
Can I get a subscription to articles that are published by Freedom of the Press Foundation?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Censorship - How To Do It
State clearly that sexually, vulgar name calling comments will not be published. That way, you will not be wasting time and space(money) on such comments.
Other name calling comments can be published IF THEY ARE EXPLAINED. Example: "Trump is a criminal because he supports the crimes against the Palestinians executed by the Israeli government. His support was indicated in his recognition of the desire of Israel to move its capital to Jerusalem. " [ regardless of whether or not such a comment is factual or logical. ] In the explanation, the commentator will be offering and exposing hiser ( his or her ) supposed logic, which is open toward other people's logic. Such commentary will then convince or be convinced in the forum of "debate".
You will still be "censoring" but your censorship will be allowing "freedom of expression of rational ideas" , of "political commentary" , of "ideas of language and logic". Yes, you will be censoring only sexually vulgar expressions.
Essentially, describing a person "as acting in a criminal manner indicated by "such and such" is not "name calling". Name calling is the act of putting a label on something without rationalizing it.
Calling someone a "war hawk" is name calling. Saying that someone is a "war hawk BECAUSE they have advocated bombing or using military force to stop ISIS or Assad " is a rationalization; an explanation for the label, the name, the adjective: "war hawkish". Such a label AND its rationalization can be argued against. It also exposes the commentator 's logic or lack of logic to criticisms of other people in the world. The commentator can be praised , or embarrassed by his lack of logic. People can learn from such commentary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]