The New York Times has been running an extended crusade for some years now to dispense with freedom of speech. It’s run op-eds arguing that speech is violence, that the First Amendment has been misunderstood… and that we should be more like Germany.
The story starts with this incident
When the police pounded the door before dawn at a home in northwest Germany, a bleary-eyed young man in his boxer shorts answered. The officers asked for his father, who was at work.
They told him that his 51-year-old father was accused of violating laws against online hate speech, insults and misinformation. He had shared an image on Facebook with an inflammatory statement about immigration falsely attributed to a German politician. “Just because someone rapes, robs or is a serious criminal is not a reason for deportation,” the fake remark said.
The police then scoured the home for about 30 minutes, seizing a laptop and tablet as evidence, prosecutors said.
It’s hard to imagine a worse test case for censorship. But the New York Times decided to lead with someone sharing a sarcastic quote on Facebook mocking pro-migrant politicians.
Clearly, the Times would like to see this in America.
Hate speech, extremism, misogyny and misinformation are well-known byproducts of the internet. But the people behind the most toxic online behavior typically avoid any personal major real-world consequences. Most Western democracies like the United States have avoided policing the internet because of free speech rights, leaving a sea of slurs, targeted harassment and tweets telling public figures they’d be better off dead. At most, Facebook, YouTube or Twitter remove a post or suspend their account.
But over the past several years, Germany has forged another path, criminally prosecuting people for online hate speech.
Germany is known for forging another path. That said, most European countries will prosecute some kinds of speech and none have free speech. The police can come to your door in the UK and any number of European countries. Germany does this on a larger scale.
In doing so, they have flipped inside out what, to American ears, it means to protect free speech. The authorities in Germany argue that they are encouraging and defending free speech by providing a space where people can share opinions without fear of being attacked or abused.
This is the same “Censorship is Freedom” argument being used by Google, Facebook and the Left.
What’s really telling are the examples in the article.
And it was that post that eventually led to the raid of that 51-year-old father’s house in northwest Germany. The father, whose name was not shared by authorities because of Germany’s strict privacy laws, is still under investigation in Lower Saxony as police examine the contents of his devices. Even if he did not know the comment attributed to Ms. Bause was fake, he still faces punishment because “the accused bears the risk of spreading a false quote without checking it,” prosecutors said.
So basically penalizing opponents of a leftist politician.
Swen Weiland, a software developer turned internet hate speech investigator, is in charge of unmasking people behind anonymous accounts. He hunts for clues about where a person lives and works, and connections to friends and family. After an unknown Twitter user compared Covid restrictions to the Holocaust, he used an online registry of licensed architects to help identify the culprit as a middle-aged woman.
“I try to find out what they do in their normal life,” Mr. Weiland said. “If I find where they live or their relatives then I can get the real person. The internet does not forget.”
It’s safe to say that woman was not a fan of the Nazis.
Last year, Christian Endt, a journalist in Berlin whose coverage of Covid drew a steady stream of insults online, reached a breaking point. After an anonymous Twitter user had called him “stupid” and mentally ill, he embarked on a mission to see if he could get the person prosecuted.
The person’s account did not include a real name, but it had a photo on the profile page. That allowed Mr. Endt to perform an image search to see where else on the internet the image could be found. It led him to a LinkedIn page of a small-business owner. From there, he found the individual’s company website, phone number and home address.
Mr. Endt compiled his finding in a memo and sent it to the local district attorney. In December, the case landed with the online hate unit in Lower Saxony, where the culprit lived. After reviewing the evidence, they sent the man a fine worth about €1,000.
Again, criticism of government COVID policies.
Last year, Andy Grote, a city senator responsible for public safety and the police in Hamburg, broke the local social distancing rules — which he was in charge of enforcing — by hosting a small election party in a downtown bar.
After Mr. Grote later made remarks admonishing others for hosting parties during the pandemic, a Twitter user wrote: “Du bist so 1 Pimmel” (“You are such a penis”).
Three months later, six police officers raided the house of the man who had posted the insult, looking for his electronic devices. The incident caused an uproar.
None of the incidents profiled involve any kind of Nazi association. This is about the government suppressing its own political opposition under the guise of fighting hate speech. The complaints seem to largely involve politicians, activists and media figures.
It’s not hard to see why the media in this country thinks we should be more like Germany.
Well, when a privately owned publication refuses to publish a letter to the editor because they disagree with it that is legitimately well within their purview. The government, being political, does not enjoy that right. It may exercise the power, but it does not have the legitimate right.
Before I get to the point, a tangent, about differences between people on the continent/Western Europe and UK and USA, which long puzzled me. I think it has something about Western Europeans having become more docile/domesticated, like sheep or cattle, from being dominated by somewhat benevolent authoritarian governments for so long, while UK in their islands and ships and USA experienced more freedom. Obviously UK and USA have gone downhill in that respect from the 1900s onwards.
Anyway, overlooking the obvious flaws in my thoughts above, criminalizing free speech means SWAT teams coming to your door for anonymous social media posts, followed by seizure of assets, long prison sentences and bankruptcy inducing fines.
Agree completely
When did the government assume control of our vocal cords?
Is moderation a form of censorship?
Are you aware that if sites like this do not practice some form of moderation, the left will come after them and try to get them shut down? In the past five years, pretty much every conservative website that I visit has come under attack. Many have had to eliminate their comments sections or put them behind a paywall. Many have suffered major losses in traffic and revenue because of this. The LEFT WANTS TO SHUT DOWN EVERY CONSERVATIVE WEBSITE IN THIS COUNTRY AND WILL DO IT IF THEY CAN.
I’m hoping that you understand that there is a huge difference between comment moderation and criminally prosecuting speech…
Not really, no.
It’s a sign of these end times. Ever read this? ” And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon.
12 And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed.
13 And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men,
14 And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live.
15 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.
16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:
17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
I an secure in the knowledge that I can express any opinion or belief or proposal I please.
Once.
There is a character here at the FPM comment board who goes by the moniker “Intrepid” who follows me around the internet trying to find out who I am and any kind of dirt on me he can find all because he hates atheistic Objectivism. He has threatened to sue me and another commenter that goes by the moniker “Sumsrent”.
He would love to turn the FPM comment board into a “Christians and Jews Only” comment board.
There are also totalitarians on the Right. They should be on the Left but they seem oblivious to their contradictions.
Boo, hoo…
If you don’t like Intrepid’s comments about your idiotic buffoonery and the foolishness of your cult you are free to ignore them.
You must have noticed that quite a few here enjoy his handily kicking your sorry ass. Had you been smarter you’d figure your pathetic whining will only add to the enjoyment.
Whataboutism again even though you’re completely free to post your contemptuous appraisals of religion routinely indicates that everything is always about your favourite topic, you and how yours is the path.
Frightening!
The NYT’s moronic and dangerous position is undoubtedly based on their uninformed and biased belief that only “right-wingers” ever spread “misinformation” or issue insults on line. If everyone “guilty” of such “crimes” were investigated and arrested, about two or three million people would be in jail, probably including most employees of the NYT.
Of course, the NYT probably assumes that these laws would not be enforced equally, and that anyone on the left would be exempt. No doubt Merrick Garland, the DOJ, and FBI would agree.
This view expressed by The New York Times reminds me of the attempt of a few years ago to shut down opinions of “non-journalists” before elections. This favored The Times and other old media as well as Big Tech. The purpose was censorship of competition with the so called legitimate journalists and to favor Democrats. Internet writers could have been suppressed. This new suggestion, if acted upon, would reach beyond writers not recognized as journalists to every individual saying as much as boo.
Free speech crushing “libs” want to make an example of dissenters not content to simply control all the platforms and arbitrarily demoneitize wrong think from people like Larry Elder.
So, the German and copycat NYT idea is: In order for Leftists to have freedom of speech to vilify, smear, or just spread falsehoods, it is necessary to shut down conservatives who disagree with them. Got it.
Does the NYT consider disparaging half the country as “semi-fascists” who want to destroy democracy “hate speech” that should be banned? Asking for a friend.
That is exactly what the Left believes. See, Marcuse, Herbert, “Repressive Tolerance,” (1965).
Of course Germany censors speech. They murdered what, 17 million people in WWII? I wouldn’t let anyone talk about it either. Maybe the NY Times should move there, they’d be much happier.
Can we then shut down the new york times for all the propaganda it publishes?
That’s because Germany is a cucked country. We do not live like that, nor will we. The cuckold who wrote this wants a society like this. Move to Cuckmany then.
Doesn’t get more cuck than Covid you pathetic worm. We do not live like that nor will we! lols
You’re a broken arrow pal.
The NYT has been waiting to die a slow death and is no longer a credible source.
The Slimes also thought Hitler was a good guy too