GERMANY: Neo-Nazi Party Tests New Hate Speech Laws, Immediately Zapped By Facebook And Twitter

CNN reports:

Germany’s tough new social media law appears to be working: A far-right member of parliament had her Twitter account suspended shortly after posting an anti-Muslim message.

Under a law that took full effect in Germany on Monday, Twitter, Facebook and other social media companies can be fined as much as €50 million ($60 million) if they fail to remove hate speech and fake news posts quickly.

Companies now have 24 hours to remove posts that breach German law after they are flagged by users. The law came into force in October, but the government gave companies three months to adjust to the new rules.

In a tweet posted on New Year’s Eve, Beatrix von Storch accused police of appeasing “barbaric, gang-raping Muslim hordes of men” after they tweeted a New Year message in Arabic, as well as German, English and French.

The Independent reports:

German police have asked prosecutors to investigate a far-right lawmaker for possible incitement to hatred, after she criticised a police force for tweeting in Arabic “to appease the barbaric, Muslim, rapist hordes of men”.

Prosecutors in NRW must first decide whether they should deal with the police complaint against von Storch, or transfer the case to Berlin authorities where her constituency is.

If prosecutors deem there is sufficient grounds to launch an official criminal investigation against von Storch, they would first have to ask parliament to suspend her immunity before proceeding with a case.

Euronews reports:

Von Storch’s boss, AfD leader Alice Weidel has been scathing about social media censorship, and backed Von Storch with a post of her own.

“The year begins with the censorship law and the submission of our authorities to the imported, marauding, graying, flogging, knife-stabbing migrant mobs, which we should get used to,” she posted on her Facebook page.

Once her 12-hour ban was lifted, Von Storch went back on the offensive. “Facebook has also censored me. That is the end of the constitutional state,” she said.

As I have previously reported, Weidel is a homocon and is raising two children with her partner. Von Storch is the granddaughter of Adolf Hitler’s finance minister, Lutz Graf Schwerin von Krosigk.

  • Paula

    Beatrix, I don’t think you really understand anything that is happening here.

  • John Davis

    Oh, could we have laws like that in the USA? I wish ! But then there’s all that First Amendment garbage about free speech as a right.. Imagine silencing one man in our White House’s Twitter account. Oh the humanity !!

    • Mikey

      Well, if those that run Twitter and Facebook actually had a conscience, they could make similar rules for their apps, and being non-governmental entities would not actually fall under the 1st amendment.

      • Taylor Bixler

        @jack follows Thernovich, proud boys founder Gavin McInnes, and Stefan Molyneux. Twitter will never face up to this in the US.

      • John Davis

        Yes, and in light of Jan 2 Tweet from that man in our White House..he has clearly “violated terms of service” on Twitter. He should be banned for “threatening physical harm”. Simple as that, but will Twitter take action? NO!

  • Tomcat

    At least Germany is trying to stop the NAZI party, looks like it will just have to stay in the USA.

    • JWC

      ironic , it the fact that at one time the US delivered Germany from the Nazi ..My goodness how the tables have turned

      • gaycuckhubby

        I’d rather be a refugees living in the United States than one in Germany. Just saying

        • JWC

          ya and a 70 year difference social structures

        • JCF

          Still true in 2018, but I’m not sure for much longer (w/ Drumpf’s judicial appointees taking over).

        • Dakrat

          Seems like a strange comment. I’m sure you personally would rather.

  • KnownDonorDad

    Boy, did her granddad get off easy. Quick wiki’ing:

    Krosigk was put on trial at Nuremberg, along with other leading members of the Nazi government. At the conclusion of the Ministries Trial in 1949 he was found guilty of laundering property stolen from Nazi victims and financing the concentration camps, and sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment. However, he was released during an amnesty in 1951.

    • greenmanTN

      Thanks for looking it up.

    • Andymac3

      The amnesty refers to the program of denazification, launched after the end of the Second World War and was solidified by the Potsdam Agreement.

      The term denazification was first coined as a legal term in 1943 in the Pentagon, intended to be applied in a narrow sense with reference to the post-war German legal system. Soon afterward, it took on the more general meaning.

      Very soon after the program started, due to the emergence of the Cold War, the western powers and the United States in particular began to lose interest in the program, and it was carried out in an increasingly lenient and lukewarm way until being officially abolished in 1951. The American government soon came to view the program as ineffective and counterproductive.

  • Bluto

    I was taught to never hit a lady. Fortunately, this nazi is no lady.

  • Lazycrockett

    and somehow over here nazi are free to roam on social media.

    • Bambino

      And on the street with their tiki torches.

  • That_Looks_Delicious

    Oh, she has a pedigree.

    • TuuxKabin

      Did someone knit it for her? /s

  • Ben in Oakland

    “Von Storch is the granddaughter of Adolf Hitler’s finance minister, Lutz Graf Schwerin von Krosigk.”
    That statement has absolutely no place in the article. and believe me, I am not fond of Nazis.

    • Mikey

      It does bear some weight here, as it directly relates to her own political/social beliefs. It merits mentioning.

    • Bambino

      Something about a rotten apple that does not fall far from the tree.

    • Nic Peterson

      Hatred of others is normally learned in the home. It appears that her family might have had a history hating others as a business model.

    • Strepsi

      If she held moderate views, it would maybe not be relevant. If she were highly progressive it would be ironically relevant. As he was a Nazi and she is a Nazi, it’s directly relevant.

    • Bunter

      It does because in recent years, some parts of the old German aristocracy that has been affiliated with nazis in the 1930s is suddenly raising their ugly head again, after 70 years of silence. She is not the only one who is involved in Germany’s alt right.

  • Johannes Stier

    She also complains that she was restricted in her work as a MP. As if being able to tweet has anything to do with this job.

  • Taylor Bixler
  • Professor Barnhardt

    Just because it’s a new year doesn’t mean that Eugene Delgaudio has gone away. He’s retweeting this:

    https://twitter.com/SLandinSoCal/status/948006515750797312

    • That_Looks_Delicious

      The Spanish have a saying: Cada loco con su tema.

      • Jonathan Smith

        To each his own theme

        • That_Looks_Delicious

          Eugene is very consistent in his.

        • The Spanish have a saying: _Cada loco con su tema._

          Each nutcase on his own high horse.

    • Taylor Bixler

      Yournewswire. LOL Trumpists believe anything.
      https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/YourNewsWire

    • RaygunsGoZap

      Her twitter feed is gross

      • Taylor Bixler

        That account has been outed for being a bot or Kremlin troll
        https://twitter.com/conspirator0/status/924766033235271680

        • There are a LOT of trollish bots out there. Twitter doesn’t seem to care.

          • Taylor Bixler

            Trump seem particularly fond of this rusky account. This was the account that posted the train hitting CNN way back when.

    • greenmanTN

      Eugene, you never write, you never call. I thought what we had was special!

      https://www.all4women.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/17/hair-647×395.jpg

      • I was doubtful there would ever be a men’s hairstyle worse than the mullet, but the man-bun managed the feat.

        • Joseph Miceli

          I just want to sneak up on him with a pair of scissors and …”snip!”

        • djcoastermark

          To bring up an old line, At least a man bun is good for something. It can be used as a handle when the guy is going dow, um, well, you get the idea.

      • boobert

        I’m working on my man bun, lol. I haven’t had a haircut since the moron got elected. Six more months and it should cover a slight bald spot.

        • greenmanTN

          I had a (very short) ponytail in the late 80s.

          • boobert

            I’m at shoulder length now. Hubby and family hate it. The more they bitch, the longer it gets! lol

          • djcoastermark

            Just tell them it’s for Locks of Love. My dad did that and it shut everyone up while his hair grew. ( I don’t know much about the organization, but it seems they have done some good)

          • zhera

            I donated hair to them last May. 😀

          • sfbob

            I had a very long ponytail in the early 70s.

    • greenmanTN

      Some instruction would have been nice, though I seemed to get the hang of it pretty quickly.

    • JT

      I wish that had been done in my school. Desks would have levitated all around.

    • Silver Badger

      On the face of the post, it does not pass the smell test. A lie is a lie is a lie.

    • JoeMyGod

      “Your News Wire” is a fake site run by married British homocons.

      • Lars Littlefield

        My Last Good Nerve is a real thing and YNW is working it hard.

    • Joseph Miceli

      I’ve been trying to get banned! We’ll see how long it takes.

    • stuckinthewoods

      Delgaudio still must be making money on it. The latest 990 I see (2015) has revenue at $1.5M, with salary at $142,912
      http://990s.foundationcenter.org/990_pdf_archive/521/521112449/521112449_201512_990O.pdf

    • Andymac3

      oh boo hoo, I was blocked from viewing @SlandinSoCal and I’ve never even seen that account before. /s

  • VodkaAndPolitics

    Does this law apply to our hate speech tweeting President?!

    • Tomcat

      In Germany it does.

  • Sporkfighter

    So . . . will this law require Twitter to block Dump’s tweets in Germany? What do you think his reaction will be? Stroke? Heart attack?

    • Bambino

      He will take one of each please.

    • That_Looks_Delicious

      That would be so awesome! How would that work? Would people in other countries still be able to see his tweets? Asking for 316 million friends.

    • Gustav2

      Please…Trump and the Deplorables would scream how anti-American and PC those European Liberal Fascists were and wallow it it like happy pigs.

      • That_Looks_Delicious

        Is he still “golfing”?

        • Gustav2

          I thought he was being used to hunt truffles in West Palm.

    • Strepsi

      Twitter itself should have suspended his account over a year ago for violating its own terms of service.

      • Sporkfighter

        Yeah, but that’s not gonna happen.

    • ChrisMorley

      It’s a German law for Germans. So No.

      • Sporkfighter

        Germany may well see it as violating German law if it appears in Germany.

  • Boreal

    We could have a functioning FCC and be cracking down on hate speech and hate groups if only people had voted, or not voted for fascism here but hey at least we avoided her emails.

  • Leo

    This board has discussed the rise of prominent gay Nazi’s/Fascists quite frequently recently so I don’t need to revisit – was trying to find some really good links interviewing some in Europe but you can look to Joe’s tags for them from the past few months. Vice in particular has done great coverage.

  • MichaelJ

    O/T “In The Fade” is a very good, if very upsetting, German film about a German woman, played by Diane Kruger, whose son and Kurdish husband are killed by neo-Nazis. How the trial of the neo-Nazis plays is conducted is quite different than what happens in the U.S.

  • JT
  • Natty Enquirer

    Seems like a good idea, huh? It is, until the bad guys are in charge and then it’s your speech they are censoring. Open discourse is the hallmark of a liberal civil society, not censorship.

    • Strepsi

      Nowhere is speech totally free, not even in the U.S. which has assault and libel and slander laws. I agree that limitations should be minimal, but surely inciting violence against an identifiable minority (as we have here in Canada) is within that minimum.

      Also, good for them for putting the onus on Facebook and Google to remove items that contravene the law, those companies easily have the legal department resources to do so.

      • ECarpenter

        If they have to staff up and reduce their profits a little – how is that a bad thing? They benefit enormously from being based in liberal Western democracies, so they need to help preserve liberal Western democracies.

    • gaycuckhubby

      Nazi sympathizing troll!
      s/

    • Reality.Bites

      The bad guys ARE in charge and it’s your country’s unique tolerance of hate speech that put them there.

  • WombspaceOxygenator

    Only the Left should have freedom of speech. Everyone else should be left to die in concentration camps! The refugees are the rightful owners of Germany, not its people who were born there. She should be deported to where she came from and her children gassed in giant dutch ovens along with anyone who isn’t Muslim, Brownskinned, gay, feminist or rapist.

  • Jarle Tveitan

    Thing is, this law will likely be used against legitimate critisism of islam as well.

    • Barry William Teske

      Let the testing begin.
      Better be replicable.

  • greenmanTN

    The left has no problem calling out Muslim terrorists. We just don’t want to reduce a large and diverse group to “those people,” as if they are one monolithic block.

    • Jean-Marc in Canada

      ^^^THIS^^^

    • safari

      Trump supporters, though.

      • greenmanTN

        My rule of thumb is that if you can culture it in a Petri dish it ain’t culture.

    • Paul

      It would help if local police forces actually listened when members of the muslim community share concerns about people being radicalised.

      Both the Manchester bomber and one of the men who was involved in the London Bridge attack had been reported multiple times by other Muslims.

  • JWC

    Altough hate speech of this caliber should be stopped its does start a possible slippery slope as to “free speech”

    • Strepsi

      Not really, when it is in the legal system that’s the job of judges, interpreting the law.

      • JWC

        and Trump appoint the judges… oh nothing can go wrong

        • Strepsi

          true, the amount of elected judges is a HUGE problem in the U.S., and the small size and appointed nature of Supreme Court another. I quite like the absolutism of the U.S. when it comes to free speech, just have to realize it’s unique among countries that way.

          • JWC

            very and under certain circumstances like freedom of the press and other freedoms can be revoked by the powers that be

    • Reality.Bites

      Remember something – the United States got everything wrong about democracy.

      Stop presuming to think you are anything but a cautionary tale.

      • Lars Littlefield

        Kinda like your life? OK. Got it 🙂

    • ECarpenter

      The Germans had very hard lessons in what happens when you allow right wingers to demonize everyone in a particular religion. Claiming that all Muslim men are rapists is demonizing Muslims using the same techniques the Nazis used to demonized the Jews, and that didn’t turn out well.

      There have always been limits on free speech – this is no different than libel and slander laws, really. Because all Muslim men are NOT rapists – that’s libelous speech.

      • JWC

        Canada does NOT tolerate hate speech Even Americans who have publically engaged i hate speech can be denied entry

        • ECarpenter

          Exactly, That’s not a “slippery slope” to doing away with free speech.

          • gaycuckhubby

            Well, ANY restriction of speech is in some way doing away with “free speech”.
            The question is how you define free speech

          • ECarpenter

            And when “free speech” conflicts with the rights of minorities to live peacefully in civil society, which right takes precedence? If you are afraid of being attacked in the street or denied work or shelter because you are a Muslim living in a country which allows you to be demonized, and so you have been demonized and are no longer seen as a real person, your civil rights are not being protected.

            Germans understand this. The neo-nazis understand this too, which is why they are crying “free speech” so loudly. They are trying to drown out the cries of the muslims who are being beaten and raped by their fellow neo-nazis.

          • All rights have limits. It’s been a matter of defining where those limits are — since societies don’t hold still, that process needs to be reevaluated periodically.

  • gaycuckhubby

    Anyone know what constitutes hate speech under the law?

    • safari

      It would seem awfully subjective I would think

    • Taylor Bixler
      • gaycuckhubby

        public incitement to crime,” “violation of intimate privacy by taking photographs,” defamation, “treasonous forgery”, forming criminal or terrorist organizations, and “dissemination of depictions of violence.”

        Which ones did she break?

        • Taylor Bixler

          It does say “Those sections of the Code include”
          My German is rusty so not going to read the whole Code atm.

          • Bunter

            The new law only enforces that the already existing German laws against hate speach, stalking etc can be enforced on social media with a non-german location.

            So you would have to translate the whole German law.

  • Lazycrockett
  • Dayglo

    Beatrix, do as the Russians did and pay Mr. Zuckerberg up front. Once your deutschmarks clear, he’ll let you post anything … no questions asked. Also, have you tried Fox News? They’ll broadcast all sorts of drivel providing it’s hateful and inaccurate. Good luck!

  • justmeeeee

    I hate her hair.

  • safari

    Between Donald’s tweets and our trolls today, something might be happening

    • That_Looks_Delicious

      There is buzz going around Twitter of some big shoe about to drop, but I’ve been disappointed by false Twitter hopes too many times to get excited.

  • Halou
  • safari

    It looks like the City wasn’t kind to Miranda

  • gaycuckhubby

    It appears that the European Commission is against these new laws. I think with good reason.

    • Bunter

      As I told you before, these are not new laws. They have been in effect since after WW” and probably been installed by the US government themselves. They were installed to protect Germany from a new rise of fascism and that worked pretty well, without any censorship.

      The only exception were social media were the law couldn’t be enforced due to unlear legal situations and the fact that facebook is located in the US.

      The new law just makes sure that German law is restored.

  • Harveyrabbit

    Beatrix von Storch and Canada’s bigoted, tRump worshiping, failed prime ministerial candidate Kelly Leitch, separated at birth.

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/cab4e144a9797aa5f3ba8977387067b5ccaec2dee93a57b1cfa433e769fe1f52.png

    • Barry William Teske

      Worst drag ever!

  • There is one weakness to this law, and it’s the fact baked into both Twitter and Facebook that they don’t have anywhere near enough active moderation and administration of their content. So they both depend on automated systems. 1000 people complain about a post and call it racist or hate-speech, and a person can find themselves banned.

    The Nazis and radical rightists have already been using this to silence progressive voices on social media. They’ll mass and hound someone using the most vile and nasty ways possible…and then when the victim says “fuck you, you goddamned Nazi”, the troll swarms mass-report the victim and suddenly they’re the ones in cyber-detention or expelled.

    • gaycuckhubby

      Not a fan of the government requiring third parties to enforce censorship under penalty of law.

      • I don’t have a problem with banning some forms of hate-speech. It’s actually kinda of nice when there’s a rule saying, “Sorry, no Nazis.”

        The alternative is what we’ve seen happen on social media: The absolute most radical, violent fringe of discourse is normalized. People are more easily radicalized. And then some fucker shows up at a pizza parlor looking to kill the people he’s been told are peddling children.

        Or a monster like Trump is elected president. Because the despicable has been normalized as just another side of a quasi-debate.

        I do have a problem with a gov’t requiring a 3rd party already notoriously bad at moderating their own content to do so. Because the innocent often end up harmed worse than the hatemongers. There are ways to do it right, but none of them are free or cheap.

        • Friday’s_cat

          IDK, the government requires auto makers to install seat belts and airbags neither system is cheap.

        • JCF

          Thank you.

      • Strepsi

        Huh? Of course they should be! You’d prefer the alternative (that the GOP is working towards) that third party private corporations are NOT bound by the law?

      • Publius

        I think there’s a tendency to over-legislate for the sake of keeping in the public’s good graces. Government wants to be seen as doing something, so they’ll evaluate a good idea polished with good intentions, and then decide it shall be the law. Indeed not every good idea deserves a law, even if the intentions are good, and even if the law successfully rights the wrongs the law addresses.

        People saying mean, even fucked up things, is bad and hurtful. But the government casually carving out an exception to free speech, and deputizing the private sector to snuff out meanness, are activities that all go overboard.

        We can’t expect the reduction of hate speech by the the government declaring: “Let there be no more hate speech.” No, restoring decency and mutual respect is something the government cannot do — that’s to be done at the most basic levels of personal intercommunication, such as right here.

        • Bunter

          Don’t be ridiculous. The hate speech laws are not against “mean things”. That is covered by libel laws (individual libel).

          Hate speech is prohibited because it is sedition and threatens public peace and democracy by raising one group of society against another. This can only be influenced by government, not on a personal level.

          I just don’t get how you weren’t taught that in school in 7th grade.

          • Publius

            I wasn’t taught that in 7th grade because nobody is taught that in 7th grade in America. The idea of hate speech as distinct from free speech is an invention in this country that has no basis in law, the constitution, or prevailing jurisprudence. Hate speech is a thing, legally, in some European countries, but not here.

          • Bunter

            Ok then I don’t get why you don’t have that type of law. It’s just mind boggling to me. It’s like you wouldn’t have a law against theft or blackmail.

          • Publius

            As a dual Spanish-American citizen, I get it. Usually when I have these discussions in the context of EU law, I tend to understand that censorship of extremist ideologies in Europe has a place to some extent, both by tradition and on a constitutional basis. But as an American, I don’t generally support the concept because we have never established a constitutional basis.

            I think a reasonable workaround might be private social media companies enforcing their own policies — on their own. Facebook and Twitter, to some extent, have expressed interest in doing so.

          • Bunter

            It’s like with gun law in the US, it just seems insanely dangerous to the rest of the world.
            Because fascism threatens the democracy, it’s also the democracy’s duty to prevent it.

      • Karl Dubhe 2

        I’d say that German’s earned an exception to that rule. In one hell of a big way.

      • Bunter

        These are the normal German hate speech laws that are active everywhere (media, street), apart from US run social media.
        It’s not censorship, it’s a safety device against fascism and was build into the law as such after WW2. It worked pretty well for many decades.
        The fact that it couldn’t be used on facebook and twitter because these were US providers under US law is one reason for the relatively sudeen increase of fascism in Germany.

        • Publius

          No, it’s quite literally censorship. But given Germany’s special circumstance as a post-fascist country, I think there’s a general consensus that censorship of Nazism and other types of extremism is generally acceptable there.

          • Bunter

            It is not censorship. With that logic, banning pedophilia or other harmful texts and behaviours would be censorship.

          • Publius

            You don’t get to evade the definition of censorship simply because you think a particular application of censorship is morally justifiable. It’s censorship.

          • Bunter

            So you get to define it? 😀

    • -M-

      There’s no reason ‘machine learning’ or other algorithms can’t help distinguish legitimate reports the same way they can help detect hate speech. The companies have just been lazy and cheap. Used together I think the two types of filtering should triage the accounts in need of review pretty effectively, especially if they’d start mapping and monitoring the troll networks.

    • Charles Nelson

      It’s amazing how fast a couple of $60 million fines will get them motivated!

      • ECarpenter

        Suddenly it’s cheaper to staff up and behave like good citizens.

  • DaddyRay
  • DaddyRay
  • DaddyRay

    Breaking Orin Hatch not seeking reelection

  • Taylor Bixler

    Seems like US social media companies may have in part brought this on themselves by agreeing to do certain things with online content in Germany, and apparently failing to follow through.
    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-internet/facebook-google-twitter-agree-to-delete-hate-speech-in-24-hours-germany-idUSKBN0TY27R20151215

  • That_Looks_Delicious

    European news are reporting that the Köln police have brought charges against von Storch, so it would seem it’s not going to Berlin.

    • gaycuckhubby

      Wait, they’re bringing criminal charges against her for this tweet?

      • That_Looks_Delicious

        Apparently so, but I can’t read German so I’m relying on Spanish & Italian news sources. This story has made the rounds of the euro news.

        • gaycuckhubby

          In my mind it is disturbing that a person should be arrested for writing a few sentences where no one was threatened.

          • That_Looks_Delicious

            I believe the punishment if she is convicted will just be a fine, not arrest.

            Germany’s hate speech laws are quite old and date back to the end of WW2, unlike some other countries that have enacted them more recently.

          • gaycuckhubby

            At least it’s not jail time, but still makes me very uneasy

          • ECarpenter

            If you watch your facts and don’t spread lies, you can rest easy. This is anti-troll legislation, and it only affects those who spread malicious lies.

          • gaycuckhubby

            So the Govt will be playing fact checker with punishment of law?
            And they find you by having anonymous citizens reporting you to a third party?
            What could go wrong?

          • ECarpenter

            @gaycuckhubby – What is going wrong now? Violence against Muslims, abuse of Muslims and refusal of public services to Muslims have all been consistently increasing in those countries where right wingers constantly libel all Muslims. And we have seen, historically, where that often leads if it is unchecked.

            So the question is not rights vs no rights, the question is which rights take precedence when they conflict? And the right to live without violent attack and without prejudicial treatment in civil society takes precedence over the right to spread lies, in my opinion.

          • ECarpenter

            When you claim that all muslim men are rapists, you endanger all muslims and encourage violence against all muslims. That’s been demonstrated again and again.

          • -M-

            It’s also fair to hold government officials to a higher standard than johann q public.

          • Jean-Marc in Canada

            AKA incitement to do harm.

          • Bunter

            Are you seriously defending von Storch? Her party is organising anti-gay marches like the ones in France, her party leaders have praised the German Whremacht (Nazi army), they are pretty close to holocaust denial. I’m beginning to seriously doubt your motivation.

  • ECarpenter

    The right to free speech has never included false speech which is intended to cause harm.

    Crying “muslims are rapists” in an ignorant population is no different from crying “fire” in a crowded theater – innocent people will be hurt or killed as a consequence.

    It’s all well and good to say “no, they should be free to say anything, and then others are free to challenge it” – we know from a great many studies of how human minds work that the original false statement will stay and be believed by the majority of people even after they hear all the facts disproving it. This is where liberal ideals and progressive policies break down, and it is why the Right is winning the propaganda war they are waging against us. Humans, as a species, are not particularly rational thinkers. Even the most rational among us are only logical and rational a small fraction of the time. We all have hard-wired ways of thinking that require vigilance to protect against.

    • gaycuckhubby

      Okay, but we here consistently say that Catholics are rapists or conservative Christians are sexual offenders. If the same rules applied here than half of us would have huge fines leveled against us.

      • ECarpenter

        Yes, that’s true. And it would be justifiable. Whenever people lie about other people in order to cause them harm, they should be stopped if possible.

        The libel and slander laws already punish those who smear other people’s reputation with no evidence to back up the smears. Why should social media be exempt from that limit on absolute free speech? We see the damage it has done all around us.

        • gaycuckhubby

          Well, I stand by the right of commentators in saying what they wanted in to and criticizing whomever they like as long as they do not call for specific violent Acts on specific people.

          • Friday’s_cat

            Words have consequences and it’s German law Von Storch broke. Like a drunk making a decision to dive she is responsible for what ever fate befalls her.

          • ECarpenter

            @gaycuckhubby – Then you defend libel and slander? Really? You think everyone has the right to assert that you are a rapist, with no legal recourse available to you for clearing your reputation?

            Would it be ok with you if I commented on everything you posted here with “gaycuckhubby is a known rapist, if you know his contact information please post it, the police are looking for him”? That doesn’t call for a specific violent act against you, so it’s fine, right?

          • gaycuckhubby

            I defend libel and slander as constitutional as defined by our SCOTUS… meaning if stated in broad terms it’s not punishable.

            If you found my real name and accused me of rape I could press charges. But if you said “cuckolds are rapists” than that is legal.

          • ECarpenter

            You didn’t answer my original question. And I’ll modify it a little to take into account your last post. Would it be ok with you if I commented “gaycuckhubby is suspected of being a known rapist, if you have his contact information please post it here so the police can interrogate him” after your posts? That’s less terrible, morally, than claiming that all muslim men are rapists.

            And that’s why, in Germany, it is not legal to slander or libel an entire group of people. They have extended those protections to whole groups because of their history, where Germans demonized groups successfully through campaigns of libel and slander, allowing them to then murder those groups without causing uproar in the German population which believed the libels and slanders.

            We should learn from German history too, since our very own right wing is following the path the Germans followed in the 1920s and 1930s. The U.S. Constitution is not a perfect document, and has to be amended now and then.

          • gaycuckhubby

            Ok. From now on if anyone makes any assertions against any group of people or any individual persons that is not completely 100% factual or accurate I expect you to be on here calling them out. Anyone who says that all Catholic priests rape children, anyone who says that all Christians are bigots, anyone who says that all Republicans want to kill you, anyone who says that Donald Trump is a child molester, I expect u to report them to disqus. And expect them to be suspended

          • ECarpenter

            @gaycuckhubby – you defend people who call all muslims rapists and attack me for pointing out that that kind of behavior leads to very bad results, as the Germans know all too well.

            Why do you think this behavior is ok? Why does it upset you so much to think that the German government is trying to bring malicious lying trolls under control, trolls who have been stirring up hatred and violence across the western world for the last several years?

            What dog do you have in this race?

          • gaycuckhubby

            It’s abstract, I admit. But I am nervous about govts regulating speech… some of my fav queer authors/activists/people have said things that are problematic. (Ex. Dan Savage)
            It’s hard to defend speech that I personally abhore. But I think it’s worthwhile. That’s why I support the ACLU so strongly

          • ECarpenter

            @gaycuckhubby And that is one of the reasons the right wingers are winning their propaganda war. They attack us with lies knowing that we will defend their “right to lie”.

            We need, at the very least, independent fact checking that will go out with every malicious tweet or facebook post if the tweets and facebook posts themselves continue to be spewed out. I’d like to see those who lie in order to damage or harm people punished, if they can’t be stopped.

            And if Dan Savage (who I regularly read) spreads a nasty and untrue lie about any group of people which encourages violence towards them, he too deserves to have to face consequences for doing so. I don’t remember him ever doing that, but no one should be exempt from those consequences.

            At some point we all have to collectively say “We won’t have this any more. Tell the truth, have an opinion about what the facts mean, but don’t make false claims. “

          • gaycuckhubby

            He said the Green party candidate for an election should be dragged behind a truck by a noose and said the only good Republican was a dead Republican.
            He also said black people were responsible for Prop 8 passing before the numbers were analized and showed that wasnt correct.

            He has apologized and has changed some of his rhetoric. That’s good enough for me. Im glad his voice isnt silenced.

          • Bunter

            You don’t get it (or don’t you want to get it?) – the hate speach is unlawful in specific situations, i.e. when it is systematically used to endanger groups of the population or cause social upheaval that endagers the democracy.

            It’s not any comedian saying anything “mean” about any group. It’s unlawful when it’s systematic and potentially destabilizing or threatening. The moment why the comedian calls for a genocide and people in his audience stand up and do it.

            So long as catholic priests are not threated by systematic physical attacks on the street or by calls for kicking them out of the country, criticising the catholic church is ok.

      • Taylor Bixler

        Perhaps a distinction without a difference, but seems like Disqus is who would be fined if “offending” content were not removed under German law. It is Twitter not the tweeter who faces fines.

      • But Catholics are rapists. I am Roman Catholic. I have no delusions about my church. We have objective proof Catholics are rapists. Reality is.
        Some troll’s cue to say NOT ALL CATHOLICS.

  • JCF

    “Von Storch is the granddaughter of Adolf Hitler’s finance minister, Lutz Graf Schwerin von Krosigk.”

    Oh, Deutschland. Sometimes you are really Unter Alles…

    [But I approve of your hate speech laws. There I said it. Allowing this BS perpetuates future cohorts of Nazis.]

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e0bda988c6472e4d2d9b723c8d3dc3536e74424426ae83e9e596669d72dd5928.jpg

    • Bunter

      The hate speech and nati-nazi laws were always in effect after WW2, only on facebook and twitter, they couldn’t be enforced until now.

  • RedRider67

    Nazi whore. Hope she chokes on her own nonsense.

  • gregalan

    The crapple didn’t fall far from the tree, apparently.