If you resort to fascist techniques, then fascist ideas clearly have taken hold.
The fascist kind of suppressing (usually disagreements with the establishment or status quo) speech usually ends in violence and revolution.
"Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant."
(from Karl Popper, more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance)
I myself do not like the law because it places the responsibility of deletion into the hands of the platforms, which is IMO something that a court of law should decide. If a court is too slow maybe they need to establish a new branch of justice for things like this and actually employ more people.
It seems that by the time Popper's argumentkicks in, the offending speech needs to come very close to the "incitement of violence" standard that everyone already agrees is not protected by free speech.
Popper's argument would also have force in brainwashing type situations like the Jonestown cult. But any action taken against such groups can be based in terms of the rights of individual members to hear people other than the preacher, not on the silencing the preacher.
The FDP, CSU, AfD and indeed large parts of the CDU want to have a debate about immigration. The CSU represents around half of Bayern, some 6 million people. The FDP, CDU, and AfD together represent 56% of the votes in the last election.
Even prominent voices on the left want a debate: Sigmar Gabriel, who until recently was head of the SPD, wants to have a debate. Sahra Wagenknecht of die Linke also wants to have a debate. Heck, there's even a prominent green politician, Boris Palmer, who wants to have debate.
So: what planet are you living on?
> Additionally, there is no debate if you call for violence against minorities.
On this we agree :)
Additionally, the AfD (who are the ones complaining about censorship all the times) don't actually want to have any debate at all, because they kinda have no content. They just play the fear of the masses and want to display themselfes as victims of the majority or whoever.
Weren't they already in concentration camps? https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2015/01/31/germany-housin...
A majority deciding something doesn't make it just, as you as a fellow German should know best.
Do you mean would I want to see 'violent american black rap lyrics' banned? Depends on what is said I guess? If theres a song about 'kill all the jews' we've had enough of that shit here 70 years ago.
Generally german courts are very narrow about what is Volksverhetzung. If you run afoul of it you are very far away from any sensible discussion. The law is basically "don't (1)incite violence (2)against Minorities in a way that is (3)able to disturb the public peace". These three things are impossible to do without generally being a dangerous ass. We don't want people like that.
you had a military dictatorship. it couldn't be opposed or contested by anyone, because you and/or your family would just be killed.
german citizens couldn't stop the killing any more than russians could stop millions from being killed.
that was the fundamental problem. dictators do as they please. criminalizing the speech of random bob under a democratic government isn't doing much of anything, and these laws mean nothing to a dictator.
what actually matters is having a democratic government that is beholden to the citizenry. if anything this speech criminalization is a theater of sorts that makes you less safe.
Military Dictatorships don't suddenly appear out of nothing. My grandparents' generation chose to actively look away because they thought it won't get "that bad". They might have told themselfes they didn't know better - you know, afterwards - but you can't remove 6 million people out of a country of maybe 60 million and no one notices shit.
Well, it did get bad, and then some. We know that now, we can now look back and see how it began. It began with social insecurity and propaganda (populism). We can't fight social insecurity but we can fight propaganda and that is why we have § 130 Volksverhetzung.
i'm honestly not even sure what this means. could you rephrase?
> Military Dictatorships don't suddenly appear out of nothing.
sure. they usually seize power, though not always. and they tend to follow some kind of instability. after ww1 germany was in terrible shape. blockades during the war contributed to hunderds of thousands of people starving to death. the economy was in the gutter, inflation was out of control - before they got it under control 1 us dollar was equal to 4 trillion german marks. there was violence in the streets between political parties. the reichstag fire. concentration camps started with political opponents. the night of long knives was all about murdering political opponents and even allies who were deemed too influential and thus a risk.
being so absurdly reductive to just say 'hate speech' is primarily or even secondarily responsible for the formation of military dictatorships seems almost insulting. it's theater, an appeasement of sensibilities that leaves people more vulnerable to repeating the past than rational assessment of history.
Removal from the general population was an overt policy (and overtly not all that different than what the Western allies did with suspect populations identified by ethnicity.) The actual conditions to which Jews and others were removed, even prior to the implementation of extermination, was not overt.
No one was trying to conceal the removal of disfavored segments from the general population.
That is not correct. Most Jews in Germany were sent to work camps and used as slave labour for local factories. Check out this response: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3mnglz/did_t...
Generally Germany knew, or at least had an idea that something was wrong. Everyone who tells you differently is selling you an agenda.
Meaning if there's american rap song about killing people, do germans ban it? These violent lyrics seem to fall under the law as you described.
Also, are violent american rap songs banned (in practice) in germany? Do germans have this same negative attitude to american "thugs"?
Songs about killing minorities might be banned, but then it's still about context. Artists generally have a lot of room and when they write stuff like that theres usually satire in play. Which would propably be okay. I don't know about any artists that got hit with Volksverhetzung.
On the other hand, I'd expect Songs about killing to get hit by youth protection laws which means they can't be played on the radio, can't be advertised and can't be sold to minors.
Many american rap songs do just exactly this, and it's not satirical. Sometimes rap songs do mentioning killing jews specifically although it is relatively rare. Most of the time it talks about killing other black people, which falls under the second part of the law you describe. Do Germans make a big deal about this? I'm not german, I'm just trying to understand the viewpoint.
Also, do germans find american thugs in low regard? One can argue they can be just as dangerous.
To be hit with Volksverhetzung you need to meet all three criteria. If you have musicians that do, they better not play a gig in germany or they might stay here for a while longer. When not talking about Nazism (they have proven 3, so the bar is a little lower) to hit (3) you need to build some movement. Maybe found a local KKK? Generally there needs to be a bit more than just talk.
> Also, do germans find american thugs in low regard? One can argue they can be just as dangerous.
The average german propably doesn't care much about them. Some teenagers propably liked their idealized lifestyle. But they've propably grown out of that by now. I don't know what modern day teenagers like anymore =)
We don't really have gangs and they are propably seen more as a social problem than one for law enforcement. A symptom of the huge inequality / divide in american society.
Which American rap songs, specifically, have incited riots or similarly drastically disturbed the peace, in Germany or elsewhere?
Maybe you could get rid of it by having better ideas?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/russian-prop...
Checking in from the US, where that mindset transcends age groups and economic status.
Even comfortable old folks, for example, can be convinced that aggressiveness is required.
If you were in a restaurant in 1930s Vienna surrounded by great art, music and intellectuals you may have been forgiven for thinking that wonderful setting would continue on forever. Unfortunately, a short time later millions we're dying on a continent engulfed in war.
When the stock market is up we think it'll keep going up. When we have peace we can't imagine war. History is not a straight line and destructive ideas can still take hold in the wrong conditions.
It's well documented, and covered in most of the histories regarding the rise of Nazism, that a not insignificant part of why the party was able to gain traction was that there was already an environment of political violence and suppression. The SPD, KPD, and Freikorps were fighting in the streets well before the Nazis were relevant (the 20s. The fighting dates back to the end of WW1 and through the Weimar period).
There was similar violence in Austria at the time including a small civil war in the mid 30s, probably not what one would call a great and peacful environment for appreciating art and music.
If Nazi propaganda might have any noticeable success in today's Germany (or US, or wherever), it's not because of some crackpots from stormfront; they are a consequence, not the cause. The cause should be addressed instead, first by assuming its existence. (No, I'm not going to discuss any probable causes here; I'm trying to show the logic, not to make a political case.)
That's not really accurate; the Nazis got power not by outright winning a democratic election, but because the various other parties were more concerned about each other than the Nazis, and thus more willing to tolerate a Nazi-coalition government than to form a coalition against the Nazis; the Nazis never were elected to power on their own before seizing power; they actually lost a large number of seats in the election preceding their coalition government from the preceding election (after which no government was formed), and even in that preceding election they had only around 1/3 of the seats.
Nazis didn't come to power because a receptive populace gave them a mandate, they came to power becausea large enough minority of the more numerous elected not-Nazis were more afraid of each other than the Nazis.
That wasn't exactly irrational, the Nazis were not the first or only party in Germany to be engaging in widespread violence. The Communists, for example, were a real and actual threat. Mass street violence and assassinations were common in Weimar Germany even when the Nazis were nobodies.
Nor did I say that it was (at least, based on information available at the time; it may have been strictly irrational in rational choice terms, where rationality implies optimality based on the actual future consequences and not merely anticipated ones.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_presidential_election,_...
The Nazis lied and cheated and murdered their way to power, make no mistake about it. And that was kind of like an onion, too, in that every layer of the Nazi apparatus deceived lower layers.
Apart from the intrinsic importance of things like poverty and unemployment simply because they hurt people no matter how people to react to it, what turned some people into sociopaths (and why it didn't others) is useful to know to prevent more coming into existence, and to leave the ones who aren't beyond the point of return a way out -- but it's also a destructive red herring when dealing with those who are beyond the point of return. They are eating chalk and holding up people who delivered themselves as hostages unto them, so you can have empathy they can only feign and use; and the question is, at what point does the tragedy of their hostages outweigh the tragedy of who they and their hostages will trample on, forever, if given half a chance.
I know it's cold and kind of heartless, but for many people who turns abuser after having been abused, you will also find those who have been abused even more, but did not turn to abusing others. It's not either person's fault or credit, but I can't cater to the first while ignoring the second. Insofar it's a zero-sum choice (and that's not generally the case, mind you, but it's also not never the case), I made my choice. Sometimes, the wheel that squeaks the loudest shouldn't get the grease, but simply should get replaced by a better or even no wheel.
The Nazis also lied and cheated and murdered, but it wasn't necessary for their rise to power; until they went about abolishing democratic institutions altogether, they could have worked entirely with above-the-board means.
So you may claim, and I disagree. Importantly, "they could have" != "they did".
of course we somehow manage to always blame the masses or the populists, but they rarely are the ones initiating the cycle
Nazism and other German nationalist movements were repressed early on by (generally communist) mob violence and later on by the state. That led directly to the rise of brownshirts (to counter the mob) and the radicalization of the Nazis - when people see that their belief system as being oppressed by the law, some of them conclude that when legitimate paths to power are denied, violence is justified.
The Coming of the Third Reich by Richard J Evans covers the rise of the Nazis in great detail, and it didn't happen because Nazis were going around with hate speech.
This has been one of the many justifications for free speech for a long time. In general, I think the "but Nazis!" argument against free speech should be viewed with immense suspicion - it basically boils down to a pretty serious antidemocratic sentiment; you can't let people talk, because then they might convince the plebs to vote for Nazis.
Look at it from an outside view. Tibet was taken over by China and they are intentionally flooding it with Chinese immigrants. The goal is to destroy Tibetan culture and eventually assimilate or replace the Tibetan people. Liberals seem pretty upset by this and even consider it literal genocide. If a Tibetan is angry at Chinese immigrants and says something insulting to them, is that hate speech?
What does this matter at all? How does the GDP of Germany change anything? If Germany was poor it would be different?
>Germans do not find themselves in the same predicament as Tibetans, by any stretch of the imagination.
How exactly is that? It looks like exactly the same thing to me. The native population is being completely replaced with immigrants. It's a tragedy.
If it were poor and were being coercively restructured by some outside hegemonic power (as many argue Tibet is) then yes of course that would make a difference.
The native population is being completely replaced with immigrants.
Germany's immigrant population is 10-12%, and last time I looked everyone in the German government was German. It's impossible to take your hyperbole seriously.
I don't think the outside power is relevant to the argument. The effect is the same whoever does it. To some conservative rural German, the government may very well seem like an outside hegemonic power.
As far as economic success being relevant. Tibet's economy is growing rapidly. Eventually they will be as rich as Germany today. Yet their population will be almost completely replaced and their culture gone. Economic success doesn't make up for it.
>Germany's immigrant population is 10-12%
40% of German under 5's are immigrants (http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/09/21/germany-40-percen...). They have a 2-3 times higher fertility rate than the native population. And the rate of immigration keeps increasing and is already unsustainably high. Germans will be a tiny minority of Germany in just 2 generations.
I can't help counterfactual perceptions.
40% of German under 5's are immigrants (http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/09/21/germany-40-percen...). They have a 2-3 times higher fertility rate than the native population. And the rate of immigration keeps increasing and is already unsustainably high. Germans will be a tiny minority of Germany in just 2 generations.
Breitbart is one of the poorest sources you could possibly cite and you do your credibility no favors. Some immigrants have higher fertility, but it's a distribution, not a monolith. Also, immigrant fertility tends to revert to the local mean within a couple of generations as fertility is inversely correlated with economic stability, which is why it's lower in the recipient population to start with.
Your idea that Germans will be a tiny minority of Germany's population within 2 generations is laughable. socioeconomic behaviors do not generally follow the exponential trends you imagine, but are often better mapped by a sigmoid function. I strongly suggest you try reading a textbook on demographics instead of getting your analysis from Breitbart.
>Some immigrants have higher fertility, but it's a distribution, not a monolith.
The distribution is irrelevant. On average they have 3 to 4 kids per coupe and natives have less than 2.
>immigrant fertility tends to revert to the local mean within a couple of generations
By then it will be far too late.
>immigrant fertility tends to revert to the local mean within a couple of generations as fertility is inversely correlated with economic stability
Religious minorities tend to have much higher fertility rates even within first world countries. Look at Mormons or Orthodox jews. Poverty is not sufficient to explain the high Muslim birth rate. And it's high even among the second generation.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/02/world/europe/germany-twit...
> In a tweet on Sunday, the lawmaker, Beatrix von Storch, questioned the decision by the police in the western city of Cologne to put out a message in Arabic, as part of a multilingual campaign to promote the theme of this year’s New Year’s Eve festivities: “Celebrate — with respect.” The message was also posted in English, French and Persian. The festivities in Cologne, in Germany’s most populous state, North Rhine-Westphalia, draw thousands every year.
> “What the hell is wrong with this country? Why is the official page of police in NRW tweeting in Arabic,” Ms. von Storch wrote on Dec. 31. “Are they seeking to appease the barbaric, Muslim, rapist hordes of men?”
> Her comments were particularly provocative because Cologne was the site of a rampage on New Year’s Eve 2015, in which hundreds of men groped, assaulted, harassed or robbed women. Many of the men were asylum-seekers or other immigrants, and the attacks on women fueled criticism by the Alternative for Germany, which argued that Ms. Merkel should not have opened Germany’s doors to so many foreigners.
> Facebook later removed that post, Ms. von Storch told her followers. She vowed not to be silenced by the new law, but to continue to “call out problems by name.” She went on to insist that the young men who had sexually harassed German women were “not Protestant Swedes, not Catholic Poles, not Orthodox Russians, not Jewish Israelis and not Buddhist Thais. The overwhelming majority of them are young Muslim men for whom women and followers of other faiths are second-class citizens.”
It seems to me that, in context, this is an inflammatory statement, and somewhat a silly one (why does that mean they shouldn't put it out in Arabic?), but given that she was commenting on a situation that did literally involve rapist hordes of men who happened to be Muslim, I have trouble accepting that a country could justifiably declare that speech illegal. It's even more disturbing to me given that she's apparently a prominent politician and the government is looking into charging her for this statement.
Where did you see this? From what I can tell, the government (public prosecutors) only said they received a bunch of complaints. Nowhere did I see they were looking into charging her - nor would that be possible without lifting her immunity.
> Prosecutors must now decide whether there is sufficient evidence of criminal action to open a formal investigation that could lead to charges, Mr. Willuhn said. But before that step can be taken, Germany’s Parliament would have to lift immunity.
From the article I linked above.
"German atheist runs afoul of country's rarely enforced blasphemy laws after he was fined €500 for driving around with anti-Christian slogans on his car"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/121...
No... But thats pretty bullish of you.
Or 00’s Tripoli with free healthcare and education ...
“Criminalizing speech” by itself isn't a particularly fascist technique, since it's been done by movements all over the political spectrum, starting long before fascism. Fascism (in the broad sense) isn't really defined much by technique (you could perhaps credit Naziism or Italian Fascism specifically with some techniques, like the distinct propaganda approach of the Nazis, but even that isn't as distinguishing as the ideological goals of the movement.)
Two societies chose different paths, each--in my opinion--appropriate for their circumstances. In America, we have the First Amendment. In Germany, they have Volksverhetzung [1]. The problem is Twitter, Facebook, et al think shipping information across borders is the same as shipping boxes.
(Besides, banning libel and true threats is also criminalization of speech. That's not fascism, is it?)
i wonder... is that actually something that works? or does it just mean fascist ideas gain a more polite presentation?
it seems to me it would do the opposite. it simply requires that one pursue the same goal in a more polite manner, to avoid being put in prison for one's words. ideas and intents can be rendered in a vast array of ways.
> By criminalizing specific icons of hate, you can rob those who would build a following from using them as a rallying point.
i don't see how. all this means is that people will use allusions, metaphors or otherwise use substitutes for that 'icon', whatever it is. or even just endorse similar policies, concepts or other things. or instead of being against x, they'll be for y. etc.
the real way to "stop" ideas (rather, the way to sway the majority of people) is showing why an idea isn't great and presenting a better idea. with logic and reason.
It's one thing for someone to say 'really, I think out_group_X bears liability for certain faults of society,' which is unpleasant to hear but not directly threatening insofar as it's refutable. It's another to be at the locus of a mob with people stating their intention to kill you in the immediate or near future.
there isn't an either/or situation... people are both. and people must obviously be sufficiently rational, a sufficient amount of the time, because civilization exists and society progresses.
you don't get to the moon and back if your species is nothing but bloody barbarians.
> incitement
this discussion seems to veer all over the place. fascism, hate speech, incitement, etc. are all different things, but also have a variety of definitions; often so fuzzily defined that two identical acts could be read differently by two different judges.
'hate speech' (whatever that really means) is largely legal in the US, but incitement that demonstrates imminent harm is not.
even with legal hate speech, the US isn't a genocidal warzone. because that's not how genocide works.
I'm not sure what point the rest of your comment is seeking to make, other than that you don't like my point of view.
> I'm not sure what point the rest of your comment is seeking to make, other than that you don't like my point of view.
you blithely inserted another concept to the thread, which is what prompted my comment. your point of view isn't clear enough for me to have formed much of an opinion.
The vast majority of people are not pure rationalists, and a good many of them (though I don't know exactly what proportion) are easily swayed by emotional stimuli rather than logic and reason alone. If you place all your reliance on logic and reason then you are likely to experience an unpleasant surprise because it's possible for bad actors to shape the behavior of large numbers of people in non-rational ways.
Logic and reason work on you. I'm saying that you are overestimating their persuasive power because of an (apparent) assumption that either they work equally well on everyone else, or that irrational people are generally incompetent. Sadly, neither is true. Think of religious fundamentalists whose core premises may seem irrational to you but who are nevertheless competent to act in the world and impact others, eg through terrorism.
there are extremely few people who exhibit chronic irrational behavior. of those who do, many tend to be institutionalized due to (at least in part) their mental health needs.
being rational doesn't mean you're a cold vulkan logician, and it doesn't mean you're always 'correct' or free of faulty reasoning or other issues. people don't usually get math problems wrong due to irrationality, for example. the average healthy person has their moments, but over time behaves rationally.
i'm not suggesting every single person that exists will be swayed by your reasoning. mostly because to properly sway your most ardent of opponents takes a lot of work, as you usually have to start at a low level, defining terms, identifying assumptions, establish a foundation you can both agree upon, and then build up. (this assumes your reasoning is solid in the first place.)
we can observe the world as a whole: the world is getting better all the time. there is less violence in the world than now than at any point in recorded history (see Pinker; The Better Angels of Our Nature). extreme poverty is much less common than it used to be. there are pockets of conflict, but the world isn't submerged in an eternal sea of chaos.
religious fundamentalists aren't necessarily irrational. many are highly educated and fully functional people, some with phds. if you actually talk to such people, you'll generally find they're operating with different axioms than you are.
to me, i almost feel that you're trying to rationalize grounds for conflict and justify the avoidance of dialogue. if you caricature people you disagree with as emotional animals that simply can't be reasoned with... what does this imply about your options for engaging with them? what does this imply about their options for engaging with you?
fascism == authoritarianism && nationalism && racism
Censorship is done by authoritarians of all stripes.
Free speech exists to protect speech when fascists take hold. It's why no matter who is president of the US, we can spew all the hate we want. Unlike in germany where speech is dependent on who is in charge. If fascists take over and then decide anti-fascist speech is hate speech, then germans are screwed. Whereas in america, if fascists take over, they are screwed because we have free speech in america.
> The former is a scary slippery slope but Germany doesn't have a great track record with the latter.
Germany doesn't have a good track record because they always had "hate speech" laws. Hitler was able to censor everything because the german government always had the the power to censor "hate speech".
Hitler would never had been able to do what he did if the german government didn't have powers to shut down all political parties and censor all "hate speech".
Imagine if we had a culture of censorship in the US and hate speech was banned. Then trump become president and his government decides anything critical of trump is hate speech.
haters can spread hate with near impunity because someone else is paying the price if they don't act fast enough to remove it
When even the taking of life doesn’t have uniform laws applicable in all cases, why make blanket rulings on speech?
Why stifle discussion like this? Don’t let HN become like Reddit where the downvote button is basically “I don’t like this.”
The fact is that the US is the perfect counterpoint to the, frankly tired, slippery slope arguments made by the far left of the Bay. And I enjoy seeing them try to explain it.
The outrage powering the likes of the AFD is partially due to hundreds robbed of their ability to articulate their opinions while being declared non existent or terrorists by media campaigns. The dschinn is out of the lamp and all of polishing and rubbing wont house him again.
All that remains is housing this political opinions in a party that slowly civilizes them - by taking them serious where they have a base and taking them apart, where science can come to the rescue. Until recently the left had for uncomfortable questions no decent answer except loud screams.
A recent article here on HN, which explained why cultures with entrenched polygamy are prone to more instability. Instead of taking this and running with it, trying to stabilize North africa and taking a teeth from the racists- the usual subjects where found and rallied against.
This sort of laws do not protect civilization, they hide a problem, and prevent its resolution in debate. Not accepting cultures who obviously are erroding democratic societys (like runaway exponential captialism or islam/ extremist christianity) has nothing to do with racism or foreignfear. Its valid critique- and a society should be allowed to demand the removal of commendments/indoctrinations of cultures who have such a history. The stomach can not be allowed to dissolve itself. To clarify, the member of the culture is still part of the society and citizen, in my eyes -unless he explicitly chooses his believe over his citizenship - and a "paradise" on earth exists. Then he/she/it is free to migrate to whatever statefull-dystopia or tax-free-heaven promises ascension.
If you squint, you can see that capitalism and regulatory capture have always been core to fascism. Neither are leftist values at all.
If you're obliquely referring to, err, recent "PC" culture, that seems to share a lot more with puritan culture than a form of government.
Do you use fascist techniques like criminalizing speech to stop the spread of fascist ideas? Or do you simply hope fascist ideas don't take hold?
The former is a scary slippery slope but Germany doesn't have a great track record with the latter.