[faag39]

I live in the EU where there's no freedom of speech and Google and the rest of tech companies are already being told about what they have to censor. I don't see how this is anything new. It's only in the news because it's China.

[wildebaard]

What makes you say there is no freedom of speech in the EU? I also live there but I do not experience it like that.

[pjc50]

Of course this is nonsense. It's not completely unconstrained speech, but freedom of expression is right there in ECHR.

" Article 10 – Freedom of expression

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary."

[dekhn]

it's not free speech if you constrain it in the ways that clause 2 does (protection of health or morals).

[yAnonymous]

German here. Our government has pressured Facebook to allow private corporations (that of course are close to the government) to delete Facebook content -posts and pages with millions of followers- for political reasons as they see fit.

The legal process was completely removed. They use this to help their election campaigns by branding government critical content as extremist and having it removed without due process.

You'd think that when they remove content like that, they'd report the offenders to legal authorities -because after all, they are only allowed to remove content that is clearly illegal- but in most cases they don't. They just want the content gone and move on, which makes it very clear that this is just a censorship tool and their generous interpretation of illegal hate speech wouldn't hold up in any court.

[wildebaard]

Well, if the definition of free speech is 'it should be allowed on Facebook' then that's a horrible definition :)

It does point toward a bigger issue, where Facebook is used and trusted by so many users that they do not access alternative sources of information.

[yAnonymous]

No. The companies involved (Arvato/Bertelsmann) get to make their own rules. Facebook doesn't even have a say in this, although they're paying for it as required by the law. They were threatened with fines in the millions (up to 50 mil) if they didn't comply.

The situation is absurd. Facebook is legally required to pay for censorship by companies with close ties to the government.

[wildebaard]

If I understand you correctly, this censorship only applies to Facebook. If that's correct, then I still do not agree with the statement 'there is no free speech' unless Facebook is your/the sole source of information. However, I do agree that it's problematic.

[undreren]

Source?

[yAnonymous]

https://www.arvato.com/en/about/press/2018/facebook-and-arva...

Directly from the devil himself.

Arvato belongs to Bertelsmann. Here's a German article about how close they are to the government.

https://www.heise.de/tp/features/Lobbyismus-Koenig-Bertelsma...

[faag39]

Saying something racist, homophobic, denying the holocaust, etc. can very well have you fined or even land you in prison.

[zapita]

Ah, you mean there is free speech and also reasonably scoped restrictions on hate speech. I’m okay with that. Do you have an example to share that shows how that is a bad thing in practice? Because I’n having trouble finding one.

[yAnonymous]

See my other post. Hate speech laws are actively used in Germany to manipulate political campaigns. The legal process has been removed and private organizations close to the government get to decide what's hate speech and what's not.

And that's exactly the problem with it: It cannot be clearly defined and everyone is offended by different things, which makes it a perfect tool to censor just about everything you want.

[zapita]

Do you have an example to share? The comment I’m replying to is pretty specific about topics: homophobia and denying the holocaust. Do you feel those are reasonable things to include in a hate speech regulations?

[yAnonymous]

>Do you have an example to share?

Government critical pages with millions of followers were deleted, playing directly in the hands of the (re-elected) government.

I don't want to be the judge of what's reasonable and what's not. As you see, having any kind of hate speech laws can and will be abused and end in censorship and stupid political games, as almost anything can be labelled as hate speech. It only depends on the perspective.

Personally, I'd go with the American model of anything goes. I don't think it's great, but it's better than this. Hate speech laws don't change anything - there will always be people who say something stupid or something you don't like. I prefer offensive people any day to people who deliberately misinterpret things and paint themselves or others as victims to discredit their opponents.

[faag36]

If you have "hate speech regulations", then you don't have free speech. It doesn't matter if you think that's good or bad for you or for others.

[batty_alex]

Consider this perspective: that's protecting the freedoms of the people that are hurt by that kind of hate speech.

[lnsru]

Sadly I cannot downvote this couple hours fresh troll account:-(