Should Germany censor anti-migrant hate speech in light of Cologne provocative sexual assaults?

[gsa]

Spielgel Online has obtained a copy of a police report that details just how bad the backlash from this could get in light of Germany's ongoing immigration debate:

The report lists several examples of police officers' experiences:

• Officers were hindered from pushing their way through to people calling for help by tight clusters of men.
• A man is quoted as saying: "I'm a Syrian! You have to treat me kindly! Mrs. Merkel invited me."
• Witnesses were threatened when they provided the names of perpetrators.
• People reportedly demonstratively tore up residence permits in front of the police, grinned and said: "You can't touch me. I'll just go back tomorrow and get a new one." The report did not, however, confirm the authenticity of the documents.
• Orders for people to leave the premises were ignored; taking repeat offenders into custody was not possible due to lack of resources.
• After track closures due to overcrowding, people simply forced their way over adjacent platforms and train tracks back to the closed platform.
• Physical fights broke out as trains were being boarded; it was "every man for himself."

Note that this takes place in an increasingly censored environment that reflects the German government's determination to stamp out "hate speech" against migrants online and elsewhere, reaching deals with American companies like Google, Facebook and Twitter to apply domestic German laws to content contained in posts (presumably originating from Germany), rather than corporate policies that no doubt reflect the far more liberal American standard. To be clear, many of the removed posts are indeed vile:

It remains unclear how aggressive social media sites are being — some highly offensive posts in German have indeed been quickly removed from Facebook in recent days while others have lingered online for days. Yet the push here happens as a country with a built-in sensitivity to provocative speech has seen a decidedly fiercer public discourse as more than 1 million asylum seekers and migrants crossed Germany’s border last year.


The offensive views include an online post of a hangman’s noose as one solution to the refugee crisis, a quip by a right-wing politician about the breeding habits of Africans, as well as a comment made by a controversial speaker at an anti-migrant rally lamenting the closure of World War II-era concentration camps.

One wonders, though: What happens when you silence dissent, even offensive dissent, in the midst of a political crisis imbued with ethnic and religious tension? What happens when the voting population believes that the police cannot protect them, and politicians refuse to protect them while enabling their attackers?

One has a feeling that this will get much much worse before it gets better, unless there is some solution to the immigration crisis and the problems it is generating within Europe.

 

[SkylarHunter]

The citizens of Germany are starting to pay for a decision that their government made without asking their opinion. This is only the beginning. They opened their doors and they don't know what got in.
This kind of thing is going to become more frequent all over Europe and there are still a bunch of lunatics who believe that an open door policy can bring anything positive.
If the citizens affected by these kind of issue want to express themselves they have the right to do so.
Germany has no right to ask it's citizens to be assaulted and sexually abused and keep quiet about it. If I had been one of those victims I would do everything in my power to make it known what happened and who did it, at least to help others avoid going though the same.
If people start feeling like the authorities can't defend them and will protect the criminals instead, there will be blood and unfortunately innocent people will be caught in the middle, as usual.

 

[Revoltingest]

It would depend upon just how "hate speech" is defined in Germany.
Certainly, they need to discuss people in protected groups.

Will a Herr Donald Trumpmann arise from this vacuum of public discourse?

 

[columbus]

How do you say Kristalnacht in Arabic?
Tom

 

[gsa]

It would depend upon just how "hate speech" is defined in Germany.
Certainly, they need to discuss people in protected groups.

Will a Herr Donald Trumpmann arise from this vacuum of public discourse?

I really think that the US has the best standard here when it comes to regulation of speech content (whether we have the best ideas about money as speech is a different question). Unless it is directly threatening, why prohibit it? Judging by the comments that have been removed from social media, the prohibition has not resulted in the disappearance of these attitudes, just their public suppression. The relevant German law ("incitement of the masses") is fairly broad in its scope, encompassing both direct threats and calls for violence as well as "maliciously maligning an aforementioned group, segments of the population or individuals because of their belonging to one of the aforementioned groups or segments of the population, or defaming segments of the population." The protected categories are "national, racial, religious group or a group defined by their ethnic origins," which would seem to encompass the migrants, be they refugees or other.

 

[Revoltingest]

I really think that the US has the best standard here when it comes to regulation of speech content (whether we have the best ideas about money as speech is a different question). Unless it is directly threatening, why prohibit it? Judging by the comments that have been removed from social media, the prohibition has not resulted in the disappearance of these attitudes, just their public suppression. The relevant German law ("incitement of the masses") is fairly broad in its scope, encompassing both direct threats and calls for violence as well as "maliciously maligning an aforementioned group, segments of the population or individuals because of their belonging to one of the aforementioned groups or segments of the population, or defaming segments of the population." The protected categories are "national, racial, religious group or a group defined by their ethnic origins," which would seem to encompass the migrants, be they refugees or other.

That does seem exceedingly broad, so I wonder if the courts take a narrower interpretation.

 

[columbus]

The citizens of Germany are starting to pay for a decision that their government made without asking their opinion.

As a USonian who is still paying for the invasion of Iraq I can totally sympathize with the German people.
Tom

 

[Laika]

One wonders, though: What happens when you silence dissent, even offensive dissent, in the midst of a political crisis imbued with ethnic and religious tension? What happens when the voting population believes that the police cannot protect them, and politicians refuse to protect them while enabling their attackers?

Whilst I strongly sympathise with the goals behind political correctness, censorship only hides the symptom of the problem, rather than dealing with the underlying socio-economic causes. the surge of right-wing populism means that- whatever the intention- new methods will have to be found to protect against the rise of far-right, nationalist and fascist ideologies. That isn't an endorsement of suppression, as that is a last resort. we are thankfully still a far way from that (in Europe at least).

politicians need to deal with the immigration issue. globalisation means it won't go away, and the effect of climate change mean that mass migration will become a major issue to deal with in the future. we cannot close our doors as the nation-state has become an increasingly archaic remanant in a world dominated by free markets, where goods, capital and people move freely (legally or not). human rights, if they truly deserve the name, do not stop at our borders. as part of a global society we have global responsibilities.

rather than make issues of race, nationality and immigration taboo- exhaust the issue. they need to be subject to an overwhelming onslaught of factual based studies, public hearings, informed debates and efforts to inform the public. If we can't kill fascism by surpressing it, we kill every last one of the myths and subject it to a propaganda campign that means there is no-one left who can blame immigrants without being fact-checked. kill the myths, suffocate the conspiracy theories, drag every last one of the fascist and nationalist speakers through the public press, kicking and screaming until the people know that immigrantion is not the problem. discredit them totally and utterly. it's the economony, the recession,unemployment, increasing job insecurity, reduced social mobility and oppurtunities that people want to blame them for. so we sort it out.

if we're going to defend free speech, maybe its time to show them what we can do with it. lets crush them and reduce the fascist scum to the total irrelevance they deserve to be. give the fascists what they want- the oxygen of publicity until they suffocate and it kills their pathetic dellusions stone cold dead. who needs political correctness when factual correctness will do the job better? if they want to define a national identity, they going to have to fight for it.

 

[gsa]

Whilst I strongly sympathise with the goals behind political correctness, censorship only hides the symptom of the problem, rather than dealing with the underlying socio-economic causes. the surge of right-wing populism means that- whatever the intention- new methods will have to be found to protect against the rise of far-right, nationalist and fascist ideologies. That isn't an endorsement of suppression, as that is a last resort. we are thankfully still a far way from that (in Europe at least).

politicians need to deal with the immigration issue. globalisation means it won't go away, and the effect of climate change mean that mass migration will become a major issue to deal with in the future. we cannot close our doors as the nation-state has become an increasingly archaic remanant in a world dominated by free markets, where goods, capital and people move freely (legally or not). human rights, if they truly deserve the name, do not stop at our borders. as part of a global society we have global responsibilities.

rather than make issues of race, nationality and immigration taboo- exhaust the issue. they need to be subject to an overwhelming onslaught of factual based studies, public hearings, informed debates and efforts to inform the public. If we can't kill fascism by surpressing it, we kill every last one of the myths and subject it to a propaganda campign that means there is no-one left who can blame immigrants without being fact-checked. kill the myths, suffocate the conspiracy theories, drag every last one of the fascist and nationalist speakers through the public press, kicking and screaming until the people know that immigrantion is not the problem. discredit them totally and utterly. it's the economony, the recession,unemployment, increasing job insecurity, reduced social mobility and oppurtunities that people want to blame them for. so we sort it out.

if we're going to defend free speech, maybe its time to show them what we can do with it. lets crush them and reduce the fascist scum to the total irrelevance they deserve to be. give the fascists what they want- the oxygen of publicity until they suffocate and it kills their pathetic dellusions stone cold dead. who needs political correctness when factual correctness will do the job better? if they want to define a national identity, they going to have to fight for it.

I think it prudent to include the Islamists in this campaign as well.

 

[gsa]

How do you say Kristalnacht in Arabic?
Tom

If it has any Islamist connections, I think that the more appropriate example is the Reichstag fire. An attack with this scale and deliberate provocation has to be serving some other purpose.

 

[columbus]

drag every last one of the fascist and nationalist speakers through the public press, kicking and screaming until the people know that immigrantion is not the problem.

How about we also drag the Muslim and politically correct speakers through the public press, kicking and screaming until people know that immigration is a big problem?
Would that violate hate speech and blasphemy laws?
Tom

 

[Mister Emu]

if we're going to defend free speech, maybe its time to show them what we can do with it. lets crush them and reduce the fascist scum to the total irrelevance they deserve to be. give the fascists what they want- the oxygen of publicity until they suffocate and it kills their pathetic dellusions stone cold dead. who needs political correctness when factual correctness will do the job better? if they want to define a national identity, they going to have to fight for it.

Bravo.

The other problem is that the issues caused by the current governing decisions have to be addressed in actuality. When immigrants/refugees are violent across the continent you have to address that it is an immigration and refugee issue, or you leave the people affected with no one to turn to except the very people you don't want to have influence. If your other choice is someone who won't even address the issues that cause a mass sexual assault the nationalist no longer seems such a loon.

 

[gsa]

How about we also drag the Muslim and politically correct speakers through the public press, kicking and screaming until people know that immigration is a big problem?
Would that violate hate speech and blasphemy laws?
Tom

I think Laika is talking about how to specifically deal with racists and ethnic nationalists, though, not suggesting that there are no problems with immigration policy.

 

[RedDragon94]

I think that people with common sense need to face the evil of hatred dead on instead of censor it. It wouldn't hurt to talk about this kind of thing over supper with your family if you have one also. Censorship doesn't make hatred go away, it just keeps people naive to the reality of the way people think. Let's say someone wants to censor me for being anti-whatever. The people who are my victims have no idea how to combat my ignorance when the higher authorities keep me silent. I think life is a mixture of chaos and control. Both are needed to live effectively.

 

[gsa]

Bravo.

The other problem is that the issues caused by the current governing decisions have to be addressed in actuality. When immigrants/refugees are violent across the continent you have to address that it is an immigration and refugee issue, or you leave the people affected with no one to turn to except the very people you don't want to have influence. If your other choice is someone who won't even address the issues that cause a mass sexual assault the nationalist no longer seems such a loon.

Which explains the surge in support for the Swedish Democrats, for example, which would have been unthinkable just a few years ago.

The situation in Europe is disconcerting for a few reasons. First, in multiparty democracies it does not necessarily take a voting majority to put these groups into power. Second, if they are shut out of power with substantial support (i.e., the National Front) and without the concerns of their constituents being addressed in some way, you are effectively ignoring the problem and creating substantial resentment, particularly when there is a fairly clear preference for not addressing the ethnic and religious fault lines being created as a result of the immigration crisis.

I also think that some people in the left (critical race theory types) have some responsibility for this; for years they have been conflating non-racist but pointed critiques of Islam with racism in order to shield criticism of Islam, particularly in Europe. Well now the real racists are coming out of the woodwork and building political movements, and they are using the pretext of false accusations of political correctness to their advantage as a recruiting mechanism.

 

[Laika]

I think it prudent to include the Islamists in this campaign as well.

Yeah. If we take them down and show them to be the modern perversion of Islam that it probably is (I'm thinking of Sayyid Qubt), it will probably help muslims as well.

How about we also drag the Muslim and politically correct speakers through the public press, kicking and screaming until people know that immigration is a big problem?
Would that violate hate speech and blasphemy laws?
Tom

Muslims have pretty much already been dragged through the public press, and associated with Deash/ISIL and Al-Quieda and have been since 9/11. most of their community leaders have spent the past decade apologising virtually for being muslim when ever a bomb goes off. politically correctness speakers have too. the term "political correctness" was used by the right-wingers as a way to frame the issue as "freedom versus cultural marxism" in the US culture wars since the 90s. And it's worked hasn't it? all we associate "political correctness" with is censorship. we have to get past that and do something different.

the big problem is we have a media that sensationalises the issue and mis-informs people. then we have people like Donald Trump who step up and smell oppurtunity to fan the flames and profit from the media exposure. the moment we start talking about facts and figures, the debate will change. I promise.

 

[columbus]

I think Laika is talking about how to specifically deal with racists and ethnic nationalists, though, not suggesting that there are no problems with immigration policy.

I understand that. But the post didn't take into account the problems created by poorly regulated immigration. That is currently creating problems in Cologne. Here in the USA we've had it for awhile.
I am happy to share my country with people who move here to share the benefits of my imperfect, but excellent, culture. I expect them to assimilate. I have a big problem with people who want to leave a culture and also bring it with them.

I'm not European, so I am fine with being corrected.
It looks to me like European countries are accepting immigrants who don't like European culture and will abuse the freedom and prosperity European culture affords. But it is politically incorrect to be honest and accurate about that. So many European people are losing patience with the governments.
Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm not European, so I am fine with being corrected.
It looks to me like European countries are accepting immigrants who don't like European culture and will abuse the freedom and prosperity European culture affords. But it is politically incorrect to be honest and accurate about that. So many European people are losing patience with the governments.
Tom

All the refugees/immigrants I've run into here have assimilated quite well.
All countries should expect (& enforce if necessary) this result.

 

[Laika]

I also think that some people in the left (critical race theory types) have some responsibility for this; for years they have been conflating non-racist but pointed critiques of Islam with racism in order to shield criticism of Islam, particularly in Europe.

the left does have a problem on this. we probably have to stop talking about "Islam" and talk about "Arabs" instead. it shows that this is a race issue not a religious one and emphasises the possibility of a secular identity and movement in the middle east, rather than implicitly accept the judgement that that whole region is intrisncally religious. we have failed on this and use rhetoric of anti-imperialism to defend ISIL and co.

I understand that. But the post didn't take into account the problems created by poorly regulated immigration. That is currently creating problems in Cologne. Here in the USA we've had it for awhile.
I am happy to share my country with people who move here to share the benefits of my imperfect, but excellent, culture. I expect them to assimilate. I have a big problem with people who want to leave a culture and also bring it with them.

I'm not European, so I am fine with being corrected.
It looks to me like European countries are accepting immigrants who don't like European culture and will abuse the freedom and prosperity European culture affords. But it is politically incorrect to be honest and accurate about that. So many European people are losing patience with the governments.
Tom

I actually know very little about the extent of the problems. I have silenced myself and refused to look into these issues because I thought it was "racist" to do so. that was wrong and was simply denial rather than actually trying to deal with the issue. now the far-right monopolise it and I shouldn't be surprised by that as they have been the only ones talking about immigration. everytime I have fact-checked one of the cliams that have been made however, it's come up as wrong or horribly mis-guided. I'm pretty sure that if we did look into it, it would come up the same as so much of what circulates is mis-leading. I have grown used to finding things I thought were true because I read it in the papers or saw it in news turning out to be wrong or more "complicated" than it appears in a five minute news segment.

the problem of intergration is a generational one. there aren't easy answers to it and it will take time. but open borders only make sense with booming economies so that people who come in to the country can get jobs and have oppurtunities for advancement (and therefore an oppurtunity and an incentive to intergrate too). we're still really in the middle of a recession and not surprisingly, everyone is jumpy as they don't want to have to compete with someone coming in from overseas. that much makes sense.

America was founded on immigration and was able to accomodate millions of people coming over from overseas. it was able to do so because of the rate of economic growth. the problem is less to do with culture, and more to do with the threat that immigrants will bring with them their political problems."religion" is somewhat a smokescreen for the fear that muslims will impose "their" ways on us. given time and the oppurtunity "Islam" can become an accepted part of the secular landscape. we fear- rightly or wrongly- that muslim immigration will bring extremists, but that same fear goes back to the 1920's in the US when they closed the borders for fear of anarchists, communists etc, as well as overtly racist restriction on immigration by asians. Instead, immigrants come over anyway illegally and then end up without legal protections and get exploited.

 

[Flankerl]

Will a Herr Donald Trumpmann arise from this vacuum of public discourse?

No probably not. We'd need at least a major Terror Attack for that. And even then most parties that have a shot to actually get into Parliament support the other side of the political spectrum.