Germany and its approach to freedom of speech

[noname223]

There was this 60 minutes documentation of CBS about Germany and its approach to freedom of speech. It got a lot of coverage in Germany too. I read many right-wing outlets agreed with the critique and said we are too strict.

I once wrote the following in this forum.

"Personally I prefer the German approach compared to the US. In the USA you have legally more freedom to say anything. But many companies punish their staff when they misbehave. In Germany you have legally less freedom (example defamation I think) but the companies are less likely to punish their staff for public opinions."

Personally, I also consider it critical when German politicians sue citizens for minor "insults". Some politician use this as strategic weapon. And the same time we have an old time high of violence against local politician. To a point where barely anyone wants that job anymore. They get insulted verbally and they should be better protected. Especially, higher politician abused the right to sue.

Despite this criticism I am pretty glad that we in Germany have this approach compared to the US. I think US tech companies need to be better regulated in th EU. The US media ecosystem is toxic, full of garbage, corporate greed and misinformation. Most people cannot differentiate between fake news and correct news anymore. The better regulated approach also has flaws but if we look at the outcome Germany has less issues with fake news than the US. One has to compare German politics news shows with American ones. Most Germans are stunned when they watch them. The German shows are less emotional, less yellow press alike, more based on facts. We have public braoadcasting which avoid corporate logic of having to make money with news. Corporate news have a different logic. The monetary approach is often susceptible to shortterm profits, sensationalism, partisanship and greed. Americans are way too conspiracy minded. However, there were more true conspiracies in the US than in Germany after WW2. I think the monetary incentives are toxic to the US system. In Germany we also have a completely different financing of elections. In Germany the largest party spends roundabout 30 million Euros for their campaign. I think this shows how much waste and corruption there is in the US system.

 

[Carrot]

I wouldn't mind severe punishment for misinformation, lies and insults. There is no reason for insults. Make your point clearly and based on facts and then we can have a talk. In addition to that, everybody should be equal when it comes to law. Just my wishful thinking of a world that is unlikely to happen anytime soon, if at all.

Sorry if I didn't address your post too much, I'm tired.

 

[quins]

How do you feel about eugyppius?

 

[Endofpain]

Thisbis simply not true. Free speech should be limitless. and being from that area I can tell you, that people are indeed fired for expressing their opinion publicly by companies.

And german "politics" shows are full of propaganda and left biased

 

[darksouls]

There was this 60 minutes documentation of CBS about Germany and its approach to freedom of speech. It got a lot of coverage in Germany too. I read many right-wing outlets agreed with the critique and said we are too strict.

I once wrote the following in this forum.

"Personally I prefer the German approach compared to the US. In the USA you have legally more freedom to say anything. But many companies punish their staff when they misbehave. In Germany you have legally less freedom (example defamation I think) but the companies are less likely to punish their staff for public opinions."

Personally, I also consider it critical when German politicians sue citizens for minor "insults". Some politician use this as strategic weapon. And the same time we have an old time high of violence against local politician. To a point where barely anyone wants that job anymore. They get insulted verbally and they should be better protected. Especially, higher politician abused the right to sue.

Despite this criticism I am pretty glad that we in Germany have this approach compared to the US. I think US tech companies need to be better regulated in th EU. The US media ecosystem is toxic, full of garbage, corporate greed and misinformation. Most people cannot differentiate between fake news and correct news anymore. The better regulated approach also has flaws but if we look at the outcome Germany has less issues with fake news than the US. One has to compare German politics news shows with American ones. Most Germans are stunned when they watch them. The German shows are less emotional, less yellow press alike, more based on facts. We have public braoadcasting which avoid corporate logic of having to make money with news. Corporate news have a different logic. The monetary approach is often susceptible to shortterm profits, sensationalism, partisanship and greed. Americans are way too conspiracy minded. However, there were more true conspiracies in the US than in Germany after WW2. I think the monetary incentives are toxic to the US system. In Germany we also have a completely different financing of elections. In Germany the largest party spends roundabout 30 million Euros for their campaign. I think this shows how much waste and corruption there is in the US system.

your informations about Germany are wrong

 

[noname223]

your informations about Germany are wrong

I am German I am not ought to be a grammar nazi but "informations" seriously? (joking)

Thisbis simply not true. Free speech should be limitless. and being from that area I can tell you, that people are indeed fired for expressing their opinion publicly by companies.

And german "politics" shows are full of propaganda and left biased

Name me a country with limitless free speech.

 

[Endofpain]

I am German I am not ought to be a grammar nazi but "informations" seriously? (joking)


Name me a country with limitless free speech.

There propably isn't. But germany is a negative example.

 

[noname223]

There propably isn't. But germany is a negative example.

So you are for legalizing defamation, doxxing, threatening people, insulting anyone without boundaries, sexual harrassment verbally, swatting without consequences.
I mean you are in favor of limitless free speech.

 

[Endofpain]

So you are for legalizing defamation, doxxing, threatening people, insulting anyone without boundaries, sexual harrassment verbally, swatting without consequences.
I mean you are in favor of limitless free speech.

I am in favour of not being prosecuted for expressing my political opinion.

And for the rest of the above, yes. The positives outweight the negatives. Its not black and white of course. (And what does swatting have to do with anything? Fabricating a false police report is and should be illegal)

 

[noname223]

I am in favour of not being prosecuted for expressing my political opinion.

And for the rest above, yes. The positives outweight the negatives. Its not black and white of course. (And what does swatting have to do with anything? Fabricating a false police report is and should be illegal)

Swatting in this instance would be claiming that an innocent person is a terrorist (or alike). If there is limitless free speech such a claim could not be prosecuted.

 

[Endofpain]

Swatting in this instance would be claiming that an innocent person is a terrorist (or alike). If there is limitless free speech such a claim could not be prosecuted.

That makes no sense. Thats like claiming that a bank robbery is free speech if you continue this argument ad absurdium.

 

[noname223]

That makes no sense. Thats like claiming that a bank robbery is free speech if you continue this argument ad absurdium.

We could argue what limitless free speech practically means but I think my argument works even if we don't include swatting.

 

[Forever Sleep]

I am German I am not ought to be a grammar nazi but "informations" seriously? (joking)

It's 'out', not 'ought' but my grammar/ spelling isn't the best either... Plus, I admire anyone who can understand multiple languages.

Regarding free speech, I also agree there needs to be a balance. People should have the right to express their views and criticisms. They ought to be able to back them up though ultimately- so they can be properly discussed. I imagine most slurs come from some kind of grievance. If we took the time to examine them, we'd be better equipped to judge whether or not they were reasonable.

I think it's also important for people to recognise that it's likely an individual they are talking to. That individual isn't necessarily representative of the whole group of people they have a problem with. I think a lot of the time, our anger is pointed and even focussed in the wrong direction anyway.

Like our politicians will try to focus the hate on immigrants in the UK but it's politicians themselves who made the rules! It's also their ruling type who decided to try and conquer the world in the first place- with the British Empire. You can't expect to pilage and dominate other people's countries. Tell them they are now British citizens (congratulations) and then not expect them to come here, hoping to get a warm welcome! Our ancestors set the precedent to be a multi nation country when they decided to try and take over the world!

I still think we need to discuss stuff openly though but, in a civil manner. Otherwise, it does just descend into a whole load of mud slinging and hatred in both directions.

 

[avoid]

Free speech should be limitless

Free speech needs boundaries. What these boundaries are is up for discussion. But to remove all boundaries is thoughtless. Even in the United States where everyone has quote-on-quote free speech, there's a wash list of exceptions (wiki). Most if not all countries have such restrictions on speech. And I think there's a general consensus that these restrictions are necessary.

---

Most countries tend to restrict free speech further than the US does, and I think this is a good thing. For example, hate speech should be prohibited, or more specifically: any expression that promotes hatred or violence against individuals or groups based on attributes such as race, religion, or sexual orientation. Particularly the internet is riddled with veiled threats and malicious speech. Imagine reading variations of "<race> is a cancer on society" daily on the internet. This creates an illusory truth effect (wiki) that harms people's psyche one way or another. And I consider the excuse "get a thicker skin or get off the internet" blaming the victim.

Another example of restricting free speech is prohibiting offensive speech. Although I don't entirely agree with the letter of such laws, the police is discretionary in enforcing the laws, often adhering to the spirit in order to maintain peace and social cohesion. I think Dutch police strikes a good balance between the letter and spirit of the law. I don't know about German police. And the UK, as portrait in this video, seems to take it a step too far.

 

[Gustav Hartmann]

The fight against misinformation should start with the prohibition of the holy books.

 

[tormentedhusk]

Despite this criticism I am pretty glad that we in Germany have this approach compared to the US. I think US tech companies need to be better regulated in th EU. The US media ecosystem is toxic, full of garbage, corporate greed and misinformation. Most people cannot differentiate between fake news and correct news anymore. The better regulated approach also has flaws but if we look at the outcome Germany has less issues with fake news than the US. One has to compare German politics news shows with American ones. Most Germans are stunned when they watch them. The German shows are less emotional, less yellow press alike, more based on facts. We have public braoadcasting which avoid corporate logic of having to make money with news. Corporate news have a different logic. The monetary approach is often susceptible to shortterm profits, sensationalism, partisanship and greed. Americans are way too conspiracy minded. However, there were more true conspiracies in the US than in Germany after WW2. I think the monetary incentives are toxic to the US system. In Germany we also have a completely different financing of elections. In Germany the largest party spends roundabout 30 million Euros for their campaign. I think this shows how much waste and corruption there is in the US system.

This forum exists due to a lack of regulation/censorship. Under the "German approach to free speech" this website would be blocked by internet service providers, its owners could face legal consequences, you could also face legal consequences for what you post here, and they would try to get this place shut down.

 

[tormentedhusk]

Most countries tend to restrict free speech further than the US does, and I think this is a good thing. For example, hate speech should be prohibited, or more specifically: any expression that promotes hatred or violence against individuals or groups based on attributes such as race, religion, or sexual orientation. Particularly the internet is riddled with veiled threats and malicious speech. Imagine reading variations of "<race> is a cancer on society" daily on the internet. This creates an illusory truth effect (wiki) that harms people's psyche one way or another. And I consider the excuse "get a thicker skin or get off the internet" blaming the victim.

Another example of restricting free speech is prohibiting offensive speech. Although I don't entirely agree with the letter of such laws, the police is discretionary in enforcing the laws, often adhering to the spirit in order to maintain peace and social cohesion. I think Dutch police strikes a good balance between the letter and spirit of the law. I don't know about German police. And the UK, as portrait in this video, seems to take it a step too far.

Having governments criminalize "hate speech" seems like a good idea on the surface level, until you take more time to think about it.
Who gets to decide what qualifies as hate speech, and what is not?

How is it decided?

How do you ensure these laws are evenly and equally applied?

Who gets to be part of a protected class, and who isn't included?

If the government has the power to criminalize "hate speech", it can easily classify speech it doesn't like as hate speech, or change the legal definition of hate speech to censor anything the people in power dislike.

 

[Gustav Hartmann]

This forum exists due to a lack of regulation/censorship. Under the "German approach to free speech" this website would be blocked by internet service providers, its owners could face legal consequences, you could also face legal consequences for what you post here, and they would try to get this place shut down.

This is not true! In this forum is an interal censorship, for example concerning the LGBTQ community.