“Holocaust denial, incitement of hatred, as well as racist and anti-Semitic speech are all illegal under German law.”
Holocaust denial is a fairly straightforward concept, as is anti-Semitic speech, but “incitement of hatred” and “racist” speech are much less clearly definable concepts. Who gets to decide what is “incitement of hatred” and “racism”? Why, the nameless Facebook censors profiled in this article, all of whom no doubt have a far-Left point of view.
For years, Islamic and Leftist groups have insisted that any analysis of how Islamic jihadis use the texts and teachings of Islam to incite violence and hatred was itself “incitement of hatred.” Now the other shoe has dropped: Facebook and other hard-Left social media outlets are blocking what they consider to be “incitement of hatred,” with no notice, no appeal, and no recourse.
Consequently, referrals from Facebook to Jihad Watch dropped by 90% in mid-February, and never recovered. Reporting on jihad activity is not in any genuine sense “incitement of hatred,” but the Left says it is, and so that is the end of the matter.
Meanwhile, Facebook has repeatedly assured the Pakistani government that it will enforce Sharia blasphemy laws:
Pakistan: Facebook helping Pakistani officials remove “blasphemous” content March 8, 2017
Pakistani government: Facebook heeded its demand and has removed 85% of “blasphemous” material March 27, 2017
Facebook VP travels to Pakistan to assure government it will remove “anti-Islam” material July 11, 2017
Many people will no doubt respond to this article that it doesn’t matter: they avoid Facebook, and everyone else should as well. That’s fine, but Facebook still has a massive international clientele, giving it extraordinary power over the means of communication. And it is, under the guise of policing “hate speech,” steadily choking out all voices that don’t toe the far-Left line.
This is extremely important, as the freedom of speech is indispensable to the freedom of society in general. But since the Left controls so much of the means of communication, it has gotten scant notice. Most people do not realize how far advanced the war against the freedom of speech really is. I lay it all out in my new book The Complete Infidel’s Guide to Free Speech (and Its Enemies).
“‘No more faith in humanity’: A day in the life of Berlin Facebook moderators,” The Local, July 11, 2017 (thanks to M.):
For the first time, Facebook opened up its Berlin centre for deleting hateful or violent content, providing journalists with a glimpse into the workers’ everyday dealings with decapitation videos, racist propaganda and child pornography.
“I still remember the first beheading video – I turned it off, went outside and wept a little bit,” said one female employee.
But she said that this was her only breakdown, because the first time she was unprepared.
“Now we’re so used to it, that it’s not so horrible anymore,” the 28-year-old explained.
This was the first time that journalists were allowed to speak with three workers at Facebook’s deletion centre, though they were not allowed to give their names so as to protect their identities.
In total, 650 people work in this multifaceted operation to examine and delete posts which could be considered illegal, or against Facebook’s own rules.
They alert Facebook when they believe that someone could harm themselves or others. These workers have already been able to prevent suicides through subsequent contact with police, they say.
One of their least stressful tasks is also to verify the authenticity of accounts.
Facebook is now facing increased pressure from the German government to crack down on hate speech, after the Bundestag (German parliament) recently passed a law to fine social media companies up to €50 million for not swiftly removing illegal content.
The legislation – one of the toughest in the world – came amid a rise in racist content posted online, often in response to the refugee crisis, which has brought in around one million asylum seekers since 2015.
Holocaust denial, incitement of hatred, as well as racist and anti-Semitic speech are all illegal under German law.
But opponents of the so-called “hate speech law” have cautioned that the fines could stifle free speech, with social networks opting to delete rather than thoroughly vet content out of fear of being punished. Facebook itself condemned the law before its passage for allowing the state to “pass on its own failures and responsibilities to private companies”….
“We feel good about what we do. When I can save someone from seeing something through my work, then I find that really good,” she said, adding that if she had kids, she also would not want them to stumble upon certain content….
Mike9a says
Communism reincarnated
gravenimage says
Facebook censor: “When I can save someone from seeing something, I find that really good”
…………………….
Right–because saving people from “seeing something” is what media is all about.
Good lord…
James Pierce says
The latest brought to you by the tolerant, progressive, diversity loving liberals
Joe says
Actually, Robert I think part of this is wrong: “Holocaust denial is a fairly straightforward concept, as is anti-Semitic speech, but “incitement of hatred” and “racist” speech are much less clearly definable concepts.”
It is right that holocaust denial is a straightforward concept. The part that is wrong is that anti-Semitic speech is clearly defined. It isn’t. It’s just as hard to define as hate speech in general.
Anti-Semitic speech is by definition none other than ‘hate speech’ when the presumed target of the hate are Jews. So it makes no sense that ‘hate speech’ be poorly defined and anti-Semitic speech not poorly defined also.
What we can probably agree on is that in practice, the Left will have double-standards for anti-Semitic speech than for ‘Islamophobic’ hate speech. For example one will be free to criticize the Torah without limit, but not the Quran, and ‘truth’ will be no defense for criticizing the Quran.
jim patterson says
very correct and very well stated.
Voytek Gagalka says
“…if she had kids, she also would not want them to stumble upon certain content….”
So, according with that statement, they now engage in policy to treat all of us as “kids” required to be censor “for our own good.” Protecting REAL kids is OK; but to extend definition for “kids” for entire adult population is entirely different thing! We know already how governmental bureaucratic idiots have had defined plenty of adult male hijra invaders as so called “unaccompanied minors” with dire consequences of all. “Kids,” indeed…
AT says
“…if she had kids, she also would not want them to stumble upon certain content….”
Curious, as Facebook doesn’t seem to allow children (under 13) to use Facebook…
From https://www.facebook.com/legal/terms:
4. Registration and Account Security
Facebook users provide their real names and information, and we need your help to keep it that way. Here are some commitments you make to us relating to registering and maintaining the security of your account:
[…]
5. You will not use Facebook if you are under 13.
Jon Sobieski says
Holocaust denial and antisemitism should not be restricted. Why do Jews get privileged status? All these carveouts in hate speech laws make freedom of speech meaningless.
b.a. freeman says
freedom of speech? not in eurabia!
RonaldB says
“Holocaust denial and antisemitism should not be restricted.”
You are correct. Also, a private entity like Facebook, though very huge, should be free to restrict its own content.
The alternative is to go to the government to enforce freedom of speech. We’re seeing how that is turning out. Facebook follows a profit like a dog follows a scent of fresh liver, but the threat of millions of dollars at a pop by the German government is what’s really motivating Facebooks systematic drive on speech content.
Turning to government to enforce free speech is like employing Baxter to bring the murder rate down. I’ve sorry that anti-Jihadis, of which I count myself one, find it inconvenient that the private service they employ uses rules they don’t like. But to being them to the government is like taking one small teaspoon of arsenic to cure a headache.
Joe says
RonaldB said: “Also, a private entity like Facebook, though very huge, should be free to restrict its own content.”
This is very questionable Ronald, especially when the entity gets so large. Would it be OK with you if a telephone company had software automatically analyzing your telephone conversation in real time for hate speech, and shutting down your conversation if it found hate speech?
Would it be OK with you if, while the telephone company insisted on proceeding, that the government prevented the telephone company from doing this?
When something becomes so big that it becomes like a utility, there is a case for curtailing some of its freedom.
RonaldB says
Well, I think you’re confounding several different concepts.
The telephone company used to be a government-restricted monopoly. You had no choice but to go through the one phone company, by government mandate, so it made sense to apply constitutional rights to your phone service.
Now, there is no government monopoly on either phone service or social networking. So, for your convenience because you think Facebook is too large to exist unregulated, you want the government to jump in and enforce your preferences. Of course, you open the way for the government to enforce the jihadist preferences as well, if they have more pull with the regulatory agency than you do.
I love all the free marketers who immediately want the government to jump in on private suppliers, just because it’s more convenient…for the moment. You want government, which is trampling on free speech in England, Germany, Austria, Netherlands, France, to jump in and guarantee you can say what you want specifically on Facebook.
I understand the rapaciousness of Zuckerberg and his morals-free approach to business. But if you want to make information available, save your pressure on government to guarantee that information channels are available to all providers, whether you agree with them or not. A good place to begin would be to get the US government to take back control of domain name assignments on the internet. The Obama administration, as part of its all-but-open campaign to abolish constitutional freedoms, Internet name assignments are now made by ICANN, a non-profit corporation not subject to free speech guarantees.
The same government that can jump in and made the companies act more conveniently for you can jump in later, and make things harder or impossible for you.
And to answer your question, if the phone company interfered with my conversations in any way, I would immediately change phone companies. I’m now with Metro PCS because it’s the cheapest, but have my choice of AT&T, Verizon, t-Mobile, Sprint, GoSmart, MetroPCS, and probably several others I haven’t bothered to look up. So, in what do I have more confidence in: my ability to get a response from a government bureaucrat whom I hope will give the phone company grief over interfering with my calls, or my ability to change phone companies in response to inferior service?
John A. Marre says
Facebook is participating in the Islamisation of this country, and is therefore a traitor organization.
Mike says
Great jobs for ex-STASI personnel!
nicu says
very well – Merkel is a former Stasi informer — and a Muslim and lefftie lover !
East Germans say that much is like it was before and they did not go on the streets for that !
clap says
Wasn’t there an episode of South Park like this?
R Cole says
Don’t forget Angela Merkel grew up under communism. How old was she when the wall finally came down?
The whole communist party line was always about the greater good. Likely few thought it was bad, to inform on their neighbor and see them jailed for the expression of ideas that were not allowed.
::
Merkel’s leading the way in Europe in terms of censorship.
When you look at what’s going on Germany with the migrants, it’s sickening. Women being raped, hospital staff being physically assaulted and spat at by those with social diseases. In hospitals, female staff must be accompanied by a male in the evenings. People being robbed and attacked in the streets.
The biggest problem for Merkel must be how do you control the message. Especially with social media, where the people determine the message through sharing.
For those who envision communist rule for Europe and the world under some kind of socialist globalism, this must be a nightmare. That Germans can share their experiences, give a daily account of their problems with the migrants. They effectively create their own news, that rivals the ‘Migrants Welcome’ state message.
Reporters are easy to control, they could lose their job or worse access.
A Communist Prop
Merkel formed a panel to censor social media and reports on the migrants. To demonstrate how closely linked it was to the world she once knew behind the Wall, it was to be run by an ex-Stasi officer [turned SJW], in the very same building of the East German secret police headquarters.
The Maintainance of the Greater Good.
The German press even ran a story suggesting that Putin, himself, might be behind the migrants’ rape and assaults on German women. [The whole Russian conspiracy theory – spun in Germany shortly after Obama paid Merkel a visit on Hillary losing.]
Further, when the women were assaulted and raped on New Year’s Eve, in Cologne, those women who came forward and spoke to the press were called racists. Even though the woman was a victim of sexual assault and we hear all these things about the rights of women and feminism, when she’s called a racist or accused of engaging in hate speech, for reporting an assault, no one supports her.
The German rape victim is singled out for demoralization. A lesson to all others, who would share accounts of their negative experiences with the Merkel’s migrants.
The million of so migrants Merkel brought in are clearly out of control, but how do you control what millions of Germans think, and get re-elected. That is to label, assaults on children in schools and at the pools, and women on streets and on the way home, as hate speech and xenophobia. Censorship of reality – for Merkel’s greater good.
Under international pressure or shame, Merkel uttered a few words, in respect to the NYE Cologne victims […kinda], but she had already ordered the German police to stand down when it came to criminal migrants. The crime statistics should say there was no significant rise in crime.
::
A Recipe for Disaster
[No doubt her migrant criminals will form part of migrant quotas, to be shipped to EU destinations]
That’s why much of the former Eastern Bloc is ignoring Merkel’s/EU refugee plans. To them it’s not political correctness, it’s the communist party line. Where many believe, that more than anything, the control of speech is what devastated their nations. The life blood of a country is its ideas.
The mass migration is about subsidized diversity, which only the richer nations can afford. Imagine millions of Islamic immigrants pouring into Poland or Hungary. Most of whom will reject integration but expect generous entitlements in state welfare and family reunification rights. It would surely devastate these nations struggling to get a foothold outside of the controlled communist economy. And let’s face it, who’s going care about Poland or Hungary if their economies lay in ruin?
Polish officials on German TV discussing migration Crisis and Merkel
https://youtu.be/rr6ZWF371Po
::
Merkel Uber Alles
Merkel made the decision alone to open her country’s doors, and with the chaos that followed, she’s now in the process of bringing everyone else in line with her decision. To do this the Germans must be brought to heel and Facebook has been co-opted to help.
::
With the Pakistan blasphemy laws enforced on Facebook, it’s becoming more synonymous with creepy. You wonder what wouldn’t Zuckerberg agree to do? Perhaps for him, beheadings for apostasy is not an issue.