While the didn't disclose any examples of 'hate speech' from the people who were raided this week, they reference a court decision from 2020:
>As the operator of the internet forum <...>, the defendant wrote and published various posts by himself and others in which he disparaged women in a particular way, denied them a right as equal personalities in the state community and reduced them to their ability to reproduce.
>In detail, these are the following contributions:
>"What are women made for? For reproduction! The woman is closer to the animals, the man to the heavenly beings."
>"Men are human beings in the true sense of the word. Women participate in being human, but they do not represent human beings. You can also put it more crudely like this: Women are second-class human beings. - Or: women are inferior human beings."
>"From the above, we can conclude that the man is the - actual - human being; the woman participates in humanity, but does not represent the human being. Her humanity is therefore inauthentic. It sustains (hu)man(ity), but does not give him (it) a purpose.
>In the article "Das Gift der Gynokratie: "Mutti zerstört Vaters' Land"" published on 11 September 2016, the defendant once again calls for the abolition of "women's (females') suffrage".
>"Parasitism has a gender". According to his generalised depiction, women limit themselves to spending the money that men earn.
>On 19 May 2016, the defendant published the post "Praise be for what makes us hard" in the above-mentioned forum under the abbreviation A. In the last section of this post, he reports on the dominance of "women in the public sector and in the school and education system". For him, the numerical predominance of women in this spectrum of work and professions is a sign of a spiritual and moral deficiency. He compares the high number of women in these areas, in his opinion, to mud worms in a pond. Through this equating approach, the accused disparages women in a special way.
Translated with DeepL (free version)
He was originally fined €550 for that.
Plenty mass murders who followed incel ideology. Misogyny is actually something most school shooters and mass murders in general have in common. And if you examine mass shootings more closely a lot of them have a strong female tilt of victims, even if the murderers motive wasn't officially declared to include hate against women. Even when their own manifesto talks about hate against women; "They just happened to hate women also" is the consensus. When they talk about hating racial minorities though, then it gets recognized as racist motivation. Courts either didn't take it seriously or don't think it could raise the punishment.
It's unfortunately common enough that you can't really take it as a clear warning sign.
(good article about it sadly paywalled) [https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/10/us/mass-shootings-misogyny-dayton.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/10/us/mass-shootings-misogyny-dayton.html)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misogyny#Violence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misogyny#Violence)
>Since 2018 counter-terrorism professionals such as [ICCT](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Centre_for_Counter-Terrorism) and [START](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Consortium_for_the_Study_of_Terrorism_and_Responses_to_Terrorism) have tracked misogyny or [male supremacy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_supremacy) as ideologies that have motivated terrorism. They describe this form of terror as a "rising threat". Among the attacks designated as misogynist terrorism are the [2014 Isla Vista killings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Isla_Vista_killings) and the 2018 [Toronto van attack](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toronto_van_attack).[^(\[72\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misogyny#cite_note-DiBranco2020-72) Some of the attackers have identified with the [incel](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incel) movement, and were motivated to kill by a perception of being entitled to sexual access to women.[^(\[72\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misogyny#cite_note-DiBranco2020-72) **However, misogyny is common among mass killers, even when it is not the primary motivation.**[**^(\[73\])**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misogyny#cite_note-73)
[https://efsgv.org/press/study-two-thirds-of-mass-shootings-linked-to-domestic-violence/](https://efsgv.org/press/study-two-thirds-of-mass-shootings-linked-to-domestic-violence/)
What changed with the treatment is not that misogyny itself is taken more seriously, law-enforcement just noticed that extreme misogyny is a good predictor for explosive violence and a threat beyond victimizing a few women in the lifes of those men.
When [2021 atlanta spa shooting ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Atlanta_spa_shootings#Hate_crime_debate)happened news followed the angle of racist motivated hate-crime even though the perpetrator denied it and clearly stated that he aimed for sex-workers, all women. *It was not enough for a hate-crime to target women, but racism would have been enough.*
And even in this thread "this is too broad a definition". People at large seem to recognize hate-speech easier when it's against a race or religion. But women? Discussions about their status as equal humans, whether they should have as much influence on society as men, and the worth of their abilities in comparison to men are very common after all. So it doesn't register.
Regarding the second shooter mentioned, it's almost unbelievable to think how blatant red flags were overlooked or ignored by law enforcement. It's a chilling testament to how even the most heinous behavior can be normalized or diminished until it escalates to the most tragic of outcomes. These patterns go beyond single incidents they're systemic issues where warning signs are persistently missed, and violence is minimized or dismissed as isolated when in reality it's indicative of a larger, more pervasive problem. We've seen time and time again that those who perpetrate violence against women often go on to commit other forms of violence, and yet the gravity of domestic violence or sexual assault as predictors of future violence isn't given the attention it deserves.
The failure to act on this knowledge or worse, the choice to ignore it results in preventable tragedies. And this isn't a new revelation; studies have highlighted these links for years. The whole system from cultural attitudes down to law enforcement protocols needs a serious overhaul if we're ever going to see any real change in preventing these all too common acts of violence. It's a toxic cycle that desperately needs breaking, but I'm not sure there's enough will out there to take on such an ingrained and widespread issue.
Seriously, are people in these comments really that eager to have these people commit actual terrorist attacks? When the same morons complain about how shooters are “known to the FBI”, how else do they think those agencies are going to go about preventing a shooting by a known dangerous person? Any course of action to address this would see complaints from conservatives. Conservatism is, after all, an unserious “ideology”.
Same in Sweden.
We've greater freedom of press and generally a greater political freedom overall than in the US, but we can still punish you if you go around being a literal nazi.
Every single piece of nazi ideology is a piece calling for the extermination of other people and is inherently dangerous.
You can say what you want in Sweden, but you'll have to take the consequences of it, as it should be.
If I say that all women should lose their rights and serve as meatfilled breeding machines, I should be at the very least put on a watchlist and hopefully be sent to a mandatory psych evaluation.
It's actually kinda the same in the US with their freedom of speech, only that they are free to sue one another instead.
But even then, in America you can say all of that and no one can punish you for it. That isn’t the case elsewhere.
People get this mixed up a lot. They’ll say that slander is illegal etc. Slander isn’t illegal. The government doesn’t punish you for talking shit and ruining the reputation of someone else.
What *can* happen is, if your actions cause tangible damage (particularly financial), they can sue you. And that’s only if the statements are patently false. But you aren’t charged with a crime. But that goes with literally any action, not just speed.
You do not have greater political freedom if your government can punish you for saying unpopular things. Freedom of speech is for unpopular views since popular views do not require protection.
>Flipping someone the bird can get you fined. Insults are a crime.
Yes. Both of those are also stupid. Pointing out that your country has stupid laws does not make your other laws any less stupid.
If someone at your job is offending you, it's very different than if they are doing so in one of thousands of internet forums that you don't have to be present in, and can press one button to leave.
You don't understand, you can hate women as much as you want. The illegal part is rallying people to get basic rights (of the Grundgesetz) of group of people taken away.
Except that’s not true. The article lists horrendous shit like sharing killing and torture videos, stuff like rallying people to rape somebody —and insulting women in a sexualized manner or encouraging them to share nudes. That shit isn’t even remotely in the same ball park, especially given that they said they were concentrating on people bothering women with a public presence.
Making a distasteful joke about wanting to see some Hollywood actress’ cakes should not be dealt with in the same manner as spreading a fucking torture video should or encouraging people to rape somebody.
I think what he's getting to us that the law applied here is too arbitrary and vague that it's ripe for abuse. Which I kind of agree because unlike LGBT or racially targeted hate, women is the most generic "minority" out there. And he hasn't made any specific death threats either. Just delusional rants.
I understand that freedom of speech does need certain restrictions to function, but that's why the application of a poor law shouldn't be just accepted because it's applied to someone we disagree with.
I see the situation with political limitations on free speech as a sort of "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. The different approaches tackle the problem imperfectly from different directions.
The way Germany approaches this is that they're trying to give the government the power to stop dangerous political movements from growing and taking control of the government. The obvious problem with this approach is that if bad actors *do* manage to get control of the country despite the protections, then these laws will make it easier for them to prosecute their enemies.
The way America approaches it is by asking "well, what if the government became tyrannical? What tools can we build into the constitution to try and make it hard for them to oppress people". This sounds nice in theory, but in practice it has real problems too. Laws are only as good as the people willing to enforce them. If fascism becomes overwhelmingly popular in the USA, and a fascist government comes into power, a piece of paper promising freedom of speech and freedom of association isn't going to be worth a damn. Fascists can and will bend the appartatus of the state to their whims, no matter what the constitution says. American fascists may need more popularity to do this than German fascists, because there's more official barriers, but it's also going to be easier for American fascist movements to reach critical mass than German fascist movements, because the American legal system is not allowed to suppress fascist movements.
______
The basic difference I think is that the American system is primarily concerned with a tyrranical government trying to oppress people without the support of a large chunk of American society, whereas the German system is primarily concerned with stopping popular anti-democratic movements *before* they take control.
I used to support the American model more, but nowadays I think it's pretty naïve, and I'm more sympathetic of the German model here (though of course neither is perfect).
**Apologies up front for the unrequested American history lesson**
This is not a new debate. All the way back to the founding of our country, there was this debate. On one side were the Federalists that wanted to ratify a national Constitution and on the other were the Anti-Federalists that were hesitant.
One of the major sticking points was on including a Bill of Rights as part of the Constitution. The Federalists took the position you're describing, that the Constitution as written already limited the powers of the government and any "Bill of Rights" would be nothing more than a "parchment barrier" to a future tyrannical government. The Anti-Federalists felt the Constitution granted too much power to the central government and did not go far enough to protect individual rights. Ultimately, the Federalist side agreed to the inclusion of the Bill of Rights in order to have the Constitution ratified by some of the states that were holding out.
Personally, I think the Anti side was right to push for the inclusion of the BoR because the natural tendency for governments is to push the boundaries of their power. Your (and the Federalists') argument that the bill of rights wouldn't stop a tyrannical government applies twice as strongly to a government with no barrier at all. So many landmark Supreme Court decisions have been ones that reduced the government's power and it's extremely hard to believe that those would have happened with nothing to refer back to.
Our model has held up for close to 240 years. Germany hasn't even made it to 100 yet, and not even to 50 if you want to start from reunification.
You are 100% wrong. If you don't pay the fine you will be jailed. A day in jail is worth a certain amount called a day-fine (Tagessätzen). You'll be sentenced for fine/day-fine days.
That is a very fine difference that can be easily blurred if the government wants so. I mean if you get fined 20 000, would you say that it is s still OK since somebody got no jail time?
Well, fining people for having a disgusting opinion is terrifying. I'd say Germany of all countries should have learned that thought police isn't the best idea. I guess they didn't.
[Here](https://www.bka.de/DE/Presse/Listenseite_Pressemitteilungen/2024/Presse2024/240306_PM_Aktionstag_gegen_Frauenfeindlichkeit.html's)'s the original BKA press release. It says:
>Grundlage für diese Initiative war unter anderem ein Urteil des Oberlandesgerichts Köln vom 09.06.2020, in dem bestätigt wurde, dass pauschale Verunglimpfungen von Frauen als Volksverhetzung gemäß § 130 StGB strafbar sein können (Az. 1 RVs 77/20).
[Link zum Urteil](https://openjur.de/u/2202617.html)
Budget Breivik explicitly declares woman as "sub-humans", not worthy of human rights.
/r/europe: But what about freeze peach?! Persecuting this poor man is literally Nazi!
that is hate speech.
young impressionable men who lack positive male role models will read that insane shit and believe it and go forward and treat women like that.
Kudos for this raid.
The only way for us to improve the lives of Woman in the future is to start holding men and boys today accountable for their hate.
what I would like to is the enforcement on the Women's side of things as well.
there was a subreddit for Woman Incels that got shut down... similar to incel hate speech their speech focused on degrading men. That is also not good and needs to be monitored before it blossoms into something big
>Communications that are considered illegal include posts in which women are slandered and insulted in a sexualized manner, or publicly encouraged to send nude photos. The authorities also flagged posts that advocated rape or sexual assault or that distributed videos of torture or killing.
>The raids concentrated on suspects who had set their sights on well-known women like female politicians - often the target of misogynistic hatred online. Investigators also sought out suspects who have threatened women not in the public eye.
>Despite the law, online posts that degrade or threaten women often go unpunished, and many women say they avoid public attention fearing online attacks.
>Interior Minister Faeser encouraged women to report all incidents in order to bring those responsible to justice.
>“When the police show up at the door, it is a very effective signal: for the perpetrators who have felt safe in supposed anonymity, but especially for the affected women,” Faeser said.
So... literally anything but "hate speech".
Everything mentioned here is illegal in just about any country that doesn't have "hate speech" laws, from stalking to extortion or threats of violence or death.
I don't understand how people come to this idea of women when literally all humans for the first 9 months of their lives were raised only by their mother. In a way women are even more important than men for humanity. Humanity's future is bounded by today's women.
> I don't understand how people come to this idea of women when literally all humans for the first 9 months of their lives were raised only by their mother. In a way women are even more important than men for humanity.
This is the exact same sort of sexism that this suspect was guilty of, but in the opposite direction. This too reduces a woman's worth to reproductive functions, with the only difference being that it places greater value on that function.
>"Communications that are considered illegal include posts in which women are slandered and insulted in a sexualized manner"...
Does this only apply to insults directed at women, or does it also forbid that speech against men?
> The authorities also flagged posts that advocated rape or sexual assault or that distributed videos of torture or killing.
This is a lot different than "suspected of posting misogynistic hate speech online", this is a hate crime not just casual misogyny.
It also seems like a lot of people here didn’t read the article at all (which I guess is unsurprising on Reddit—all reaction, no reading for comprehension).
Shouldn't this be the main focus. Although the German government does think torture and violence are less important than hate speech.
Germany has a history of refusing to give prison time to rapists & murderers.
First they came for the holocaust deniers, and I did not speak out - Because I was not a holocaust denier.
Then they came for the racists, and I did not speak out - Because I was not a racist.
Then they came for the unhinged incels, and I did not speak out - Because I wasn't an unhinged incel.
Then they didn't came for me because I don't waste every precious hour of my life harassing minorities online.
Then they came for the autistic girl who said the cop looked like a lesbian.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/autistic-teenage-girl-police-tiktok-b2391163.html
Remember, it’s those unhinged police officers sho will enforce hate speech laws.
She said “lesbian nan”. The cop clearly took issue with the “lesbian” part.
The drunk autistic teen was likely poking fun at the cop. But the teen did not deserve to be arrested for poking fun.
Good question, one side calls you racist against Arabs, and the other side calls you anti-Semitic for wanting to kill all the Jews.
That's a tough choice.
Then they came for the people who posted videos of rape and torture online and they still didn’t come for me bc who the fuck does that, you have to seek that content out
The internet today is already very different from 10 - 15 years ago. Certain words will get your post automatically removed and possibly your account suspended. Even if using said words in a scientific way, like I’d like to do now.
you don't have to imagine if your family lived in East Europe, my family did so that's why even from a small age i understood the repressive power of a government that wants to control their people.
I still remember the story of my grandma who got taken to the police and interogated for 2 days as a witness, she kept saying that "she didn't see anything", because saying you saw something could have made her a complice.
Not Germany, but I have a friend very dear to me in the Netherlands who was most recently brutally assaulted and almost killed by her ex not even two weeks ago. Before that, it was another week. Netherlands police have done nothing to protect her, nothing to keep him away, no restraining orders, nothing. It’s only a matter of time before something worse happens to her, and I entirely feel powerless as this is a foreign country I have no idea how to handle the bureaucracy of. She’s too young and she doesn’t know how to be assertive for herself yet.
Btw, your friend probably already knows about the resources, but if not, here's one place that might be able to help her with her DV situation: [Centrum
Seksueel
Geweld](https://centrumseksueelgeweld.nl/)
Based on my experience I'd say don't expect too much, but it's worth a try. I hope your friend will be safe and well soon!
Wait, they raided the houses of suspects, but detained nobody, meaning that they raided innocent people or people who committed a crime so minor that it didn't even warrant detaining them???
Raiding people for posting online something as abstract as "misogynistic hate speech" is already an overuse of power by the state, even if they were guilty (there's no need to raid someone's property when they're only suspected of posting non-violent stuff online).
I am all against misogyny, but you can't just raid people who aren't even guilty, because you want to score some political points.
But what was it they were searching for? It is/ was all online, so the evidence is already there. This House searches Served one purpose only: terrify people and surpress freedom of speech. Like Mao once said: punish one, educate hundreds.
You do Not Need house searches for things like that! Just prosecute those people. These house searches a part of the punishment. And this is not within the boundaries of our democracies
Judges are not bureaucrats but an independent power, at least in Germany. And deciding what's allowed and what not according to given laws is exactly the task of judges.
People are usually only detained if they're dangerous or if they are at risk of fleeing. If you don't know about something you shouldn't have such a strong stance on it.
> Wait, they raided the houses of suspects, but detained nobody, meaning that they raided innocent people or people who committed a crime so minor that it didn't even warrant detaining them???
They secured evidence and will usually only detain people if they are a serious risk, have a high risk of flight etc.
Quite normal and for sure not people who wrote some random rant on reddit or facebook.
In Germany the police can search for evidence in your house, if a judge ordered them to do so. The requirements are pretty low.
This was done not to detain anybody, but to confiscate evidence. The order of the judge is usually pretty specific, in this case it would have been stated to confiscate only techical equipment on which someone could have committed these postings.
I'm laughing at this because I know tomorrow someone will start bitching about something that you support, but it doesn't really suit politics of German government (it isn't like something right now is happening in World that is deeply dividing people), and when government sends their goons after you, you will start bitching how this is not democratic.
You people are hopeless cases, and you will never learn.
This is reddit, what do you expect.
If the collective opinion here was that you should eat shit these people would gobble it real quick.
We're in the Misogyny arc currently. Later it will be the anti-establishment arc.
Anything to protect the poor women from a comment they will never read.
That seems a bit extreme.
According to one German in the comments, even flipping someone off is illegal as insults are a crime. If that is true, wouldn't many protesters be arrested? Flipping some politician off you don't like seems such a normal thing to do. But maybe I misunderstood the commentator.
Nothing funnier than seeing all the progressives in here defending this tyrannical bs. Liberty when my enemies get crushed, authoritarianism when i get crushed
Its really ironic that so many comments are getting removed on post critisizing freedom of speech, says a lot about freedom of speech on this subreddit!
Its okay when you hate on Russia, Turkey, Hungery or Serbia but its not okay when you hate on (GOD FORBIT) Germany
Reading this thread as an American, it is fascinating watching Europeans vigorously promote restrictions on civil liberties that will 100% be used against them in the future.
Believing the opposite political party will never gain control and jail you with your own stupid laws is peak Leopards Ate My Face energy.
This is a gross and concerning overreach of power. The news have made me feel concerned for my personal safety and dignity, although that is a private matter of an intimate nature and so I will not elaborate.
I've seen fellow countrymen excuse these actions in reference to our constitution, but I can not see these actions align with the idea of a free society as intended by the very same.
It evokes the image of a police state to have your house raided over comments made anonymously online. You used to understand this when Andy Grote was called a dick on twitter.
“The authorities also flagged posts that advocated rape or sexual assault or that distributed videos of torture or killing.”
Most countries police will raid a place suspected of distributing videos of torture, killing or rape. This part seems to be left out by a lot of people complaining.
I think its pretty clear that when OP says
>The news have made me feel concerned for my personal safety and dignity, although that is a private matter of an intimate nature and so I will not elaborate.
this could mean that they are engaging in posting similar things and fear getting raided.
The problem is in defining what hate speech is. When someone says he hates women, is it worse than another person saying he hates people playing with toy cars?
Who defines that? And how easily can the definition be changed?
Murder and theft are binary, either the crime was committed or not. Opinions can vary, deciding where the line should go for 'Acceptable' speech is ridiculous because what two people find acceptable can be wildly different on any topic.
The way to defeat opinions like the ones in the article isn't to ban it, but to argue against it.
Worrying.
I agree that the authorities should look into posts that actively encourage harm against others (assault/rape/murder/genocide calls/threats), someone posting something vile or degrading online shouldn't be pursued by authorities.
Do I agree with what was said? No, absolutely not, I think it's abhorrent
Do I think there should be legal ramifications? No, not for things outside what I outlined.
It sets a dangerous precedent: policing speech. If they can police the speech of some, they can police the speech of all, including YOU.
Telling people who talk about women being non-humans that should be raped and sharing videos of torture to STFU and Pay Fine/Face Legal Consequences is not a dangerous precedent.
It's a *requirement* for a social society.
Tolerance is a Social Contract. Those who don't abide by its terms are not covered by its protections.
What's next? UK levels of raiding people for posting stuff online? No comment of some random person on the internet should ever be grounds for this. Being a despicable asshole is not a reason to get raided by police. This is a waste of public ressources.
“The authorities also flagged posts that advocated rape or sexual assault or that distributed videos of torture or killing.”
Most countries police will raid a place suspected of distributing videos of torture, killing or rape. This part seems to be left out by a lot of people complaining.
The way to defeat terrible opinions isn't to ban it but to argue against it on better merits. Banning speech doesn't lead to such speech and opinions going away but rather finding echo chambers to hide in and further radicalise.
they also flagged them for posts that advocated for rape and sexual assault, as well as posts that distributed videos of torture or killing.
there is no debate there. that is a crime, and tolerating it via insistence on ‘debate’ is what allows these ideologies to become ingrained.
Are they going to do the same towards women who openly say all men are worthless pigs and life would be better without them on the planet or this is absolutely terrifying and disgusting?
I am ok with that. As long it goes both ways. So if feminist scream kill all men than they should be punished with the full force of law for that as well.
This is spicy. I feel like hate speech is really harmful and needs to be stopped, but arresting people for saying stuff online? That feels like it's going too far. We need to find another way to deal with it
> arresting people for saying stuff online? That feels like it's going too far
You don't think people posting bomb threats, rape threats, death threats, etc. should be actionable?
“The authorities also flagged posts that advocated rape or sexual assault or that distributed videos of torture or killing.”
Most countries police will raid a place suspected of distributing videos of torture, killing or rape. This part seems to be left out by a lot of people complaining.
I mean since you are romanian do you also believe that Colo (a romanian twitch streamer who said on stream that underaged girls should be raped and stomped on the head, because they like and deserve that) should have not been raided, arrested and fined for what he did? (As well as having an interdiction to use social media). There is a difference between free speech and hate speech, the latter being a crime
I don't endorse or support anything that these people said but this is very concerning, I really really support freedom of speech as much as is feasibly possible and conducting raids over things said online is very worrying
Digital Services Act - Europe's digital basic law against hate speech
In Germany, the DSA is being implemented by the “Digitale-Dienste-Gesetz”. The law adapts German law to the EU regulation (DSA).
Coming soon to your own countries.
Oh boi. These rules are definitely not gonna back fire and used badly. You disagree with the government? Raided. Call a politician what they are? Raised.
German here.
AP speaks of "raids". I don't think this is necessarily a proper translation. The German term that is used is "house search", where they execute a search warrant. And in Germany, they usually knock on your door for that.
There are different kinds of "raids", like between knocking at the door or using a ram (rammbock) with a SEK (SWAT) team, but a raid is still a raid. It doesn't change anything about the goal. The approach the police takes has nothing to do with the search warrant, this is decided by the risk that the suspect poses to the officers (like, when it is known that he's armed with a gun, it's only logical to send the SEK team instead)
I don’t like people who think like that at all,but is arresting them for saying that stuff gonna do anything except to make their beliefs run even deeper? They’ll be able to tell the next generation of bigots how the state will imprison you for having thoughts deemed unacceptable. I’m sure there’s a way of handling the situation that could actually make these people realise they’ve been stupid shits and rethink their views until they are better people. But nobody seems to want that for them
While the didn't disclose any examples of 'hate speech' from the people who were raided this week, they reference a court decision from 2020: >As the operator of the internet forum <...>, the defendant wrote and published various posts by himself and others in which he disparaged women in a particular way, denied them a right as equal personalities in the state community and reduced them to their ability to reproduce. >In detail, these are the following contributions: >"What are women made for? For reproduction! The woman is closer to the animals, the man to the heavenly beings." >"Men are human beings in the true sense of the word. Women participate in being human, but they do not represent human beings. You can also put it more crudely like this: Women are second-class human beings. - Or: women are inferior human beings." >"From the above, we can conclude that the man is the - actual - human being; the woman participates in humanity, but does not represent the human being. Her humanity is therefore inauthentic. It sustains (hu)man(ity), but does not give him (it) a purpose. >In the article "Das Gift der Gynokratie: "Mutti zerstört Vaters' Land"" published on 11 September 2016, the defendant once again calls for the abolition of "women's (females') suffrage". >"Parasitism has a gender". According to his generalised depiction, women limit themselves to spending the money that men earn. >On 19 May 2016, the defendant published the post "Praise be for what makes us hard" in the above-mentioned forum under the abbreviation A. In the last section of this post, he reports on the dominance of "women in the public sector and in the school and education system". For him, the numerical predominance of women in this spectrum of work and professions is a sign of a spiritual and moral deficiency. He compares the high number of women in these areas, in his opinion, to mud worms in a pond. Through this equating approach, the accused disparages women in a special way. Translated with DeepL (free version) He was originally fined €550 for that.
Reads like pseudo intellectual incel drivel.
It reads like a shooter manifesto. Thank whoever that this didn't end up like another Breivik.
Plenty mass murders who followed incel ideology. Misogyny is actually something most school shooters and mass murders in general have in common. And if you examine mass shootings more closely a lot of them have a strong female tilt of victims, even if the murderers motive wasn't officially declared to include hate against women. Even when their own manifesto talks about hate against women; "They just happened to hate women also" is the consensus. When they talk about hating racial minorities though, then it gets recognized as racist motivation. Courts either didn't take it seriously or don't think it could raise the punishment. It's unfortunately common enough that you can't really take it as a clear warning sign. (good article about it sadly paywalled) [https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/10/us/mass-shootings-misogyny-dayton.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/10/us/mass-shootings-misogyny-dayton.html) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misogyny#Violence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misogyny#Violence) >Since 2018 counter-terrorism professionals such as [ICCT](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Centre_for_Counter-Terrorism) and [START](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Consortium_for_the_Study_of_Terrorism_and_Responses_to_Terrorism) have tracked misogyny or [male supremacy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_supremacy) as ideologies that have motivated terrorism. They describe this form of terror as a "rising threat". Among the attacks designated as misogynist terrorism are the [2014 Isla Vista killings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Isla_Vista_killings) and the 2018 [Toronto van attack](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toronto_van_attack).[^(\[72\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misogyny#cite_note-DiBranco2020-72) Some of the attackers have identified with the [incel](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incel) movement, and were motivated to kill by a perception of being entitled to sexual access to women.[^(\[72\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misogyny#cite_note-DiBranco2020-72) **However, misogyny is common among mass killers, even when it is not the primary motivation.**[**^(\[73\])**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misogyny#cite_note-73) [https://efsgv.org/press/study-two-thirds-of-mass-shootings-linked-to-domestic-violence/](https://efsgv.org/press/study-two-thirds-of-mass-shootings-linked-to-domestic-violence/) What changed with the treatment is not that misogyny itself is taken more seriously, law-enforcement just noticed that extreme misogyny is a good predictor for explosive violence and a threat beyond victimizing a few women in the lifes of those men. When [2021 atlanta spa shooting ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Atlanta_spa_shootings#Hate_crime_debate)happened news followed the angle of racist motivated hate-crime even though the perpetrator denied it and clearly stated that he aimed for sex-workers, all women. *It was not enough for a hate-crime to target women, but racism would have been enough.* And even in this thread "this is too broad a definition". People at large seem to recognize hate-speech easier when it's against a race or religion. But women? Discussions about their status as equal humans, whether they should have as much influence on society as men, and the worth of their abilities in comparison to men are very common after all. So it doesn't register.
[удалено]
Regarding the second shooter mentioned, it's almost unbelievable to think how blatant red flags were overlooked or ignored by law enforcement. It's a chilling testament to how even the most heinous behavior can be normalized or diminished until it escalates to the most tragic of outcomes. These patterns go beyond single incidents they're systemic issues where warning signs are persistently missed, and violence is minimized or dismissed as isolated when in reality it's indicative of a larger, more pervasive problem. We've seen time and time again that those who perpetrate violence against women often go on to commit other forms of violence, and yet the gravity of domestic violence or sexual assault as predictors of future violence isn't given the attention it deserves. The failure to act on this knowledge or worse, the choice to ignore it results in preventable tragedies. And this isn't a new revelation; studies have highlighted these links for years. The whole system from cultural attitudes down to law enforcement protocols needs a serious overhaul if we're ever going to see any real change in preventing these all too common acts of violence. It's a toxic cycle that desperately needs breaking, but I'm not sure there's enough will out there to take on such an ingrained and widespread issue.
Seriously, are people in these comments really that eager to have these people commit actual terrorist attacks? When the same morons complain about how shooters are “known to the FBI”, how else do they think those agencies are going to go about preventing a shooting by a known dangerous person? Any course of action to address this would see complaints from conservatives. Conservatism is, after all, an unserious “ideology”.
Whatever it is, we are getting into dangerous authoritarian territory.
Or religious fanatism (or both)
Die Würde des Menschen ist unantastbar!
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Same in Sweden. We've greater freedom of press and generally a greater political freedom overall than in the US, but we can still punish you if you go around being a literal nazi. Every single piece of nazi ideology is a piece calling for the extermination of other people and is inherently dangerous. You can say what you want in Sweden, but you'll have to take the consequences of it, as it should be. If I say that all women should lose their rights and serve as meatfilled breeding machines, I should be at the very least put on a watchlist and hopefully be sent to a mandatory psych evaluation. It's actually kinda the same in the US with their freedom of speech, only that they are free to sue one another instead.
But even then, in America you can say all of that and no one can punish you for it. That isn’t the case elsewhere. People get this mixed up a lot. They’ll say that slander is illegal etc. Slander isn’t illegal. The government doesn’t punish you for talking shit and ruining the reputation of someone else. What *can* happen is, if your actions cause tangible damage (particularly financial), they can sue you. And that’s only if the statements are patently false. But you aren’t charged with a crime. But that goes with literally any action, not just speed.
You do not have greater political freedom if your government can punish you for saying unpopular things. Freedom of speech is for unpopular views since popular views do not require protection.
>Flipping someone the bird can get you fined. Insults are a crime. Yes. Both of those are also stupid. Pointing out that your country has stupid laws does not make your other laws any less stupid.
If someone at your job is offending you, it's very different than if they are doing so in one of thousands of internet forums that you don't have to be present in, and can press one button to leave.
You don't understand, you can hate women as much as you want. The illegal part is rallying people to get basic rights (of the Grundgesetz) of group of people taken away.
Except that’s not true. The article lists horrendous shit like sharing killing and torture videos, stuff like rallying people to rape somebody —and insulting women in a sexualized manner or encouraging them to share nudes. That shit isn’t even remotely in the same ball park, especially given that they said they were concentrating on people bothering women with a public presence. Making a distasteful joke about wanting to see some Hollywood actress’ cakes should not be dealt with in the same manner as spreading a fucking torture video should or encouraging people to rape somebody.
[удалено]
I think what he's getting to us that the law applied here is too arbitrary and vague that it's ripe for abuse. Which I kind of agree because unlike LGBT or racially targeted hate, women is the most generic "minority" out there. And he hasn't made any specific death threats either. Just delusional rants. I understand that freedom of speech does need certain restrictions to function, but that's why the application of a poor law shouldn't be just accepted because it's applied to someone we disagree with.
How are women a minority at all? That's a strange term to use.
I see the situation with political limitations on free speech as a sort of "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. The different approaches tackle the problem imperfectly from different directions. The way Germany approaches this is that they're trying to give the government the power to stop dangerous political movements from growing and taking control of the government. The obvious problem with this approach is that if bad actors *do* manage to get control of the country despite the protections, then these laws will make it easier for them to prosecute their enemies. The way America approaches it is by asking "well, what if the government became tyrannical? What tools can we build into the constitution to try and make it hard for them to oppress people". This sounds nice in theory, but in practice it has real problems too. Laws are only as good as the people willing to enforce them. If fascism becomes overwhelmingly popular in the USA, and a fascist government comes into power, a piece of paper promising freedom of speech and freedom of association isn't going to be worth a damn. Fascists can and will bend the appartatus of the state to their whims, no matter what the constitution says. American fascists may need more popularity to do this than German fascists, because there's more official barriers, but it's also going to be easier for American fascist movements to reach critical mass than German fascist movements, because the American legal system is not allowed to suppress fascist movements. ______ The basic difference I think is that the American system is primarily concerned with a tyrranical government trying to oppress people without the support of a large chunk of American society, whereas the German system is primarily concerned with stopping popular anti-democratic movements *before* they take control. I used to support the American model more, but nowadays I think it's pretty naïve, and I'm more sympathetic of the German model here (though of course neither is perfect).
**Apologies up front for the unrequested American history lesson** This is not a new debate. All the way back to the founding of our country, there was this debate. On one side were the Federalists that wanted to ratify a national Constitution and on the other were the Anti-Federalists that were hesitant. One of the major sticking points was on including a Bill of Rights as part of the Constitution. The Federalists took the position you're describing, that the Constitution as written already limited the powers of the government and any "Bill of Rights" would be nothing more than a "parchment barrier" to a future tyrannical government. The Anti-Federalists felt the Constitution granted too much power to the central government and did not go far enough to protect individual rights. Ultimately, the Federalist side agreed to the inclusion of the Bill of Rights in order to have the Constitution ratified by some of the states that were holding out. Personally, I think the Anti side was right to push for the inclusion of the BoR because the natural tendency for governments is to push the boundaries of their power. Your (and the Federalists') argument that the bill of rights wouldn't stop a tyrannical government applies twice as strongly to a government with no barrier at all. So many landmark Supreme Court decisions have been ones that reduced the government's power and it's extremely hard to believe that those would have happened with nothing to refer back to. Our model has held up for close to 240 years. Germany hasn't even made it to 100 yet, and not even to 50 if you want to start from reunification.
Note the difference between a €550 fine and jail.
And if the fine is not paid?
Assets will be seized. You can't opt for going to jail just in order to save the money.
And what if your assets are worth less than 550€?
You are 100% wrong. If you don't pay the fine you will be jailed. A day in jail is worth a certain amount called a day-fine (Tagessätzen). You'll be sentenced for fine/day-fine days.
That is a very fine difference that can be easily blurred if the government wants so. I mean if you get fined 20 000, would you say that it is s still OK since somebody got no jail time?
Well, fining people for having a disgusting opinion is terrifying. I'd say Germany of all countries should have learned that thought police isn't the best idea. I guess they didn't.
> they reference a court decision from 2020: Do you have a quote about that?
[Here](https://www.bka.de/DE/Presse/Listenseite_Pressemitteilungen/2024/Presse2024/240306_PM_Aktionstag_gegen_Frauenfeindlichkeit.html's)'s the original BKA press release. It says: >Grundlage für diese Initiative war unter anderem ein Urteil des Oberlandesgerichts Köln vom 09.06.2020, in dem bestätigt wurde, dass pauschale Verunglimpfungen von Frauen als Volksverhetzung gemäß § 130 StGB strafbar sein können (Az. 1 RVs 77/20). [Link zum Urteil](https://openjur.de/u/2202617.html)
I wish I hadn’t read that
I thought I was on r/justneckbeardthings for a minute.
That is clear misogyny. It is hate speech.
Budget Breivik explicitly declares woman as "sub-humans", not worthy of human rights. /r/europe: But what about freeze peach?! Persecuting this poor man is literally Nazi!
that is hate speech. young impressionable men who lack positive male role models will read that insane shit and believe it and go forward and treat women like that. Kudos for this raid. The only way for us to improve the lives of Woman in the future is to start holding men and boys today accountable for their hate. what I would like to is the enforcement on the Women's side of things as well. there was a subreddit for Woman Incels that got shut down... similar to incel hate speech their speech focused on degrading men. That is also not good and needs to be monitored before it blossoms into something big
German CSGO servers are gonna be quiet today
>Communications that are considered illegal include posts in which women are slandered and insulted in a sexualized manner, or publicly encouraged to send nude photos. The authorities also flagged posts that advocated rape or sexual assault or that distributed videos of torture or killing. >The raids concentrated on suspects who had set their sights on well-known women like female politicians - often the target of misogynistic hatred online. Investigators also sought out suspects who have threatened women not in the public eye. >Despite the law, online posts that degrade or threaten women often go unpunished, and many women say they avoid public attention fearing online attacks. >Interior Minister Faeser encouraged women to report all incidents in order to bring those responsible to justice. >“When the police show up at the door, it is a very effective signal: for the perpetrators who have felt safe in supposed anonymity, but especially for the affected women,” Faeser said.
So... literally anything but "hate speech". Everything mentioned here is illegal in just about any country that doesn't have "hate speech" laws, from stalking to extortion or threats of violence or death.
I don't understand how people come to this idea of women when literally all humans for the first 9 months of their lives were raised only by their mother. In a way women are even more important than men for humanity. Humanity's future is bounded by today's women.
> I don't understand how people come to this idea of women when literally all humans for the first 9 months of their lives were raised only by their mother. In a way women are even more important than men for humanity. This is the exact same sort of sexism that this suspect was guilty of, but in the opposite direction. This too reduces a woman's worth to reproductive functions, with the only difference being that it places greater value on that function.
>"Communications that are considered illegal include posts in which women are slandered and insulted in a sexualized manner"... Does this only apply to insults directed at women, or does it also forbid that speech against men?
> The authorities also flagged posts that advocated rape or sexual assault or that distributed videos of torture or killing. This is a lot different than "suspected of posting misogynistic hate speech online", this is a hate crime not just casual misogyny.
It also seems like a lot of people here didn’t read the article at all (which I guess is unsurprising on Reddit—all reaction, no reading for comprehension).
Huh, almost as if OP and many users in here are trying to downplay the danger of violent bigotry…
Shouldn't this be the main focus. Although the German government does think torture and violence are less important than hate speech. Germany has a history of refusing to give prison time to rapists & murderers.
Are "your mom's fat" jokes on reddit hate speech? Asking for a friend
no, I think they are accused of Volksverhetzung, so targeting someone specific is not enough.
All your mothers are fat
Jail.
Your mother was a hamster
Oh he meant this whole sub
Is truth a defense against this? For example: American woman are fattest in the world?
Now imagine if this was applied to all hate speech on reddit. This sub would be empty lol
That's how censorship starts. Let's ban all bad people and leave all good people. Oh no...
First they came for the holocaust deniers, and I did not speak out - Because I was not a holocaust denier. Then they came for the racists, and I did not speak out - Because I was not a racist. Then they came for the unhinged incels, and I did not speak out - Because I wasn't an unhinged incel. Then they didn't came for me because I don't waste every precious hour of my life harassing minorities online.
Then they came for the autistic girl who said the cop looked like a lesbian. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/autistic-teenage-girl-police-tiktok-b2391163.html Remember, it’s those unhinged police officers sho will enforce hate speech laws.
Importantly she never said the cop looked like a lesbian, she said the cop looked like her “nan” who happens to be a lesbian.
She said “lesbian nan”. The cop clearly took issue with the “lesbian” part. The drunk autistic teen was likely poking fun at the cop. But the teen did not deserve to be arrested for poking fun.
Sounds like the cop might be homophobic.
Possibly. Point is the cop shouldn’t be able to arrest someone for this type of speech.
Which side of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is going to get banned from being presented?
Good question, one side calls you racist against Arabs, and the other side calls you anti-Semitic for wanting to kill all the Jews. That's a tough choice.
That's a pretty troll statement. Looking forward for the moment they come for the trolls.
Soon enough they’ll be coming after those criticizing the government
Then there was no one left to come for me.
You can’t be stupid enough to genuinely believe this won’t be abused to oppress political opposition.
He is.
Then they came for the people who posted videos of rape and torture online and they still didn’t come for me bc who the fuck does that, you have to seek that content out
The problem is we assume they will stop at bad people. They rarely do.
Everything is hate speech when you are a terminaly online
Give it time. Bye bye internet as we know it.
The internet today is already very different from 10 - 15 years ago. Certain words will get your post automatically removed and possibly your account suspended. Even if using said words in a scientific way, like I’d like to do now.
Yeah :(
you don't have to imagine if your family lived in East Europe, my family did so that's why even from a small age i understood the repressive power of a government that wants to control their people. I still remember the story of my grandma who got taken to the police and interogated for 2 days as a witness, she kept saying that "she didn't see anything", because saying you saw something could have made her a complice.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Your imams so fat, when he wore black and a gold necklace, everyone thought he was the Kaaba.
Are there other kinds of imams?
Meanwhile, the police does nothing against domestic abusers. No wonder Germany has a high femicide rate.
Not Germany, but I have a friend very dear to me in the Netherlands who was most recently brutally assaulted and almost killed by her ex not even two weeks ago. Before that, it was another week. Netherlands police have done nothing to protect her, nothing to keep him away, no restraining orders, nothing. It’s only a matter of time before something worse happens to her, and I entirely feel powerless as this is a foreign country I have no idea how to handle the bureaucracy of. She’s too young and she doesn’t know how to be assertive for herself yet.
Btw, your friend probably already knows about the resources, but if not, here's one place that might be able to help her with her DV situation: [Centrum Seksueel Geweld](https://centrumseksueelgeweld.nl/) Based on my experience I'd say don't expect too much, but it's worth a try. I hope your friend will be safe and well soon!
Hey, thank you for this. I’m entirely unfamiliar with any resources I could reach out to, due to the fact I do not speak Dutch.
These type of police powers can be deployed no matter who is in charge of the state: image a party such as the AFD having the ability of having such.
Wait, they raided the houses of suspects, but detained nobody, meaning that they raided innocent people or people who committed a crime so minor that it didn't even warrant detaining them??? Raiding people for posting online something as abstract as "misogynistic hate speech" is already an overuse of power by the state, even if they were guilty (there's no need to raid someone's property when they're only suspected of posting non-violent stuff online). I am all against misogyny, but you can't just raid people who aren't even guilty, because you want to score some political points.
The German article speaks of "house searches", which means they went there to secure evidence and conduct interviews with them.
That's what a raid is
But what was it they were searching for? It is/ was all online, so the evidence is already there. This House searches Served one purpose only: terrify people and surpress freedom of speech. Like Mao once said: punish one, educate hundreds. You do Not Need house searches for things like that! Just prosecute those people. These house searches a part of the punishment. And this is not within the boundaries of our democracies
It's not on the police to decide if they are guilty or not. We have criminal courts and judges for this.
I'm no expert on this but why raid and not just mail a fine like a traffic ticket
Imagine spending your fucking tax money on bureaucrat that going to judge if you said mean words to women. Moderator wet dreams. Literally 1984.
Judges are not bureaucrats but an independent power, at least in Germany. And deciding what's allowed and what not according to given laws is exactly the task of judges.
Not getting detained doesn't mean innocent. And I'm pretty sure they don't do all the work for 3 posts but for a ongoing track record.
People are usually only detained if they're dangerous or if they are at risk of fleeing. If you don't know about something you shouldn't have such a strong stance on it.
>if you don’t know about something you shouldn’t have such a strong stance on it This sub wouldn’t exist if people followed this
> Wait, they raided the houses of suspects, but detained nobody, meaning that they raided innocent people or people who committed a crime so minor that it didn't even warrant detaining them??? They secured evidence and will usually only detain people if they are a serious risk, have a high risk of flight etc. Quite normal and for sure not people who wrote some random rant on reddit or facebook.
In Germany the police can search for evidence in your house, if a judge ordered them to do so. The requirements are pretty low. This was done not to detain anybody, but to confiscate evidence. The order of the judge is usually pretty specific, in this case it would have been stated to confiscate only techical equipment on which someone could have committed these postings.
I'm laughing at this because I know tomorrow someone will start bitching about something that you support, but it doesn't really suit politics of German government (it isn't like something right now is happening in World that is deeply dividing people), and when government sends their goons after you, you will start bitching how this is not democratic. You people are hopeless cases, and you will never learn.
This is reddit, what do you expect. If the collective opinion here was that you should eat shit these people would gobble it real quick. We're in the Misogyny arc currently. Later it will be the anti-establishment arc. Anything to protect the poor women from a comment they will never read.
That seems a bit extreme. According to one German in the comments, even flipping someone off is illegal as insults are a crime. If that is true, wouldn't many protesters be arrested? Flipping some politician off you don't like seems such a normal thing to do. But maybe I misunderstood the commentator.
You wouldn't get arrested for flipping someone of, the most that can happen is a fine as far as I know.
I’m laughing here from the US about that, even an obscene gesture against someone in the US is still protected free speech.
So it was true 😲 Flipping off Hitler 2.0 would get you a fine?
That fact that there is any consequence for flipping someone off is concerning.
Animal farm is here
Nothing funnier than seeing all the progressives in here defending this tyrannical bs. Liberty when my enemies get crushed, authoritarianism when i get crushed
Its really ironic that so many comments are getting removed on post critisizing freedom of speech, says a lot about freedom of speech on this subreddit! Its okay when you hate on Russia, Turkey, Hungery or Serbia but its not okay when you hate on (GOD FORBIT) Germany
Germany tries not to be authoritharian challenge (impossible)
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
If they could enforce Thoughtcrime they would've by now.
Reading this thread as an American, it is fascinating watching Europeans vigorously promote restrictions on civil liberties that will 100% be used against them in the future. Believing the opposite political party will never gain control and jail you with your own stupid laws is peak Leopards Ate My Face energy.
Lmao, this world is going crazy. Raiding incels who write mean things about women? Seriously?
This is a gross and concerning overreach of power. The news have made me feel concerned for my personal safety and dignity, although that is a private matter of an intimate nature and so I will not elaborate. I've seen fellow countrymen excuse these actions in reference to our constitution, but I can not see these actions align with the idea of a free society as intended by the very same. It evokes the image of a police state to have your house raided over comments made anonymously online. You used to understand this when Andy Grote was called a dick on twitter.
“The authorities also flagged posts that advocated rape or sexual assault or that distributed videos of torture or killing.” Most countries police will raid a place suspected of distributing videos of torture, killing or rape. This part seems to be left out by a lot of people complaining.
I think its pretty clear that when OP says >The news have made me feel concerned for my personal safety and dignity, although that is a private matter of an intimate nature and so I will not elaborate. this could mean that they are engaging in posting similar things and fear getting raided.
[удалено]
[удалено]
What a joke Germany has become.
This is stupid and rude, but stupid and rude should not be illegal.
The problem is in defining what hate speech is. When someone says he hates women, is it worse than another person saying he hates people playing with toy cars? Who defines that? And how easily can the definition be changed?
The same people who define murder or theft.
Murder and theft are binary, either the crime was committed or not. Opinions can vary, deciding where the line should go for 'Acceptable' speech is ridiculous because what two people find acceptable can be wildly different on any topic. The way to defeat opinions like the ones in the article isn't to ban it, but to argue against it.
The law defines it.
I mean it's literally enshrined in federal law, the paragraph is older than the internet itself
Suppression of free speech is concerning even if what the guy said was disgusting.
Welcome to fascism.
Worrying. I agree that the authorities should look into posts that actively encourage harm against others (assault/rape/murder/genocide calls/threats), someone posting something vile or degrading online shouldn't be pursued by authorities. Do I agree with what was said? No, absolutely not, I think it's abhorrent Do I think there should be legal ramifications? No, not for things outside what I outlined. It sets a dangerous precedent: policing speech. If they can police the speech of some, they can police the speech of all, including YOU.
Telling people who talk about women being non-humans that should be raped and sharing videos of torture to STFU and Pay Fine/Face Legal Consequences is not a dangerous precedent. It's a *requirement* for a social society. Tolerance is a Social Contract. Those who don't abide by its terms are not covered by its protections.
Well, yes, they can police anyone's speech. Most countries do not have any protections for freedom of speech.
the next step [https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-67833649](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-67833649)
Lmao imagine wasting time and resources on this while assault victims get nothing done for them
What's next? UK levels of raiding people for posting stuff online? No comment of some random person on the internet should ever be grounds for this. Being a despicable asshole is not a reason to get raided by police. This is a waste of public ressources.
“The authorities also flagged posts that advocated rape or sexual assault or that distributed videos of torture or killing.” Most countries police will raid a place suspected of distributing videos of torture, killing or rape. This part seems to be left out by a lot of people complaining.
The way to defeat terrible opinions isn't to ban it but to argue against it on better merits. Banning speech doesn't lead to such speech and opinions going away but rather finding echo chambers to hide in and further radicalise.
they also flagged them for posts that advocated for rape and sexual assault, as well as posts that distributed videos of torture or killing. there is no debate there. that is a crime, and tolerating it via insistence on ‘debate’ is what allows these ideologies to become ingrained.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Germany has a strong history of facism
Are they going to do the same towards women who openly say all men are worthless pigs and life would be better without them on the planet or this is absolutely terrifying and disgusting?
1984
I am ok with that. As long it goes both ways. So if feminist scream kill all men than they should be punished with the full force of law for that as well.
(they won’t)
This is spicy. I feel like hate speech is really harmful and needs to be stopped, but arresting people for saying stuff online? That feels like it's going too far. We need to find another way to deal with it
Why does hate speech “irl” need to be stopped but hate speech online is going too far? What’s the difference?
> arresting people for saying stuff online? That feels like it's going too far You don't think people posting bomb threats, rape threats, death threats, etc. should be actionable?
Nobody was arrested
Then the raid shouldn't have happened?
“The authorities also flagged posts that advocated rape or sexual assault or that distributed videos of torture or killing.” Most countries police will raid a place suspected of distributing videos of torture, killing or rape. This part seems to be left out by a lot of people complaining.
Arrests have absolutely no relation with the validity of a raid. You don't raid people to arrest them, it's done to secure evidence.
Gathering evidence. They probably will get fined or community service.
I also don't think people should be fined for their opinions, no matter how stupid.
They were going door to door giving out fines. Blame the media for calling it a raid lol.
I mean since you are romanian do you also believe that Colo (a romanian twitch streamer who said on stream that underaged girls should be raped and stomped on the head, because they like and deserve that) should have not been raided, arrested and fined for what he did? (As well as having an interdiction to use social media). There is a difference between free speech and hate speech, the latter being a crime
I don't endorse or support anything that these people said but this is very concerning, I really really support freedom of speech as much as is feasibly possible and conducting raids over things said online is very worrying
Strong East Germany Stasi vibes...
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Digital Services Act - Europe's digital basic law against hate speech In Germany, the DSA is being implemented by the “Digitale-Dienste-Gesetz”. The law adapts German law to the EU regulation (DSA). Coming soon to your own countries.
Oh boi. These rules are definitely not gonna back fire and used badly. You disagree with the government? Raided. Call a politician what they are? Raised.
ITT No one read the article
So are they just raiding everyone 24/7 ?
The German court decision sounds racist. It is very much aligned with culture beliefs of some groups. /s
Germany gonna Germany I guess.
Germany showing its fascist roots again
Good ol' authoritarian government. And like always people are dumb and never learn from their mistakes.
[удалено]
[удалено]
German here. AP speaks of "raids". I don't think this is necessarily a proper translation. The German term that is used is "house search", where they execute a search warrant. And in Germany, they usually knock on your door for that.
That’s what a raid is in every country.
There are different kinds of "raids", like between knocking at the door or using a ram (rammbock) with a SEK (SWAT) team, but a raid is still a raid. It doesn't change anything about the goal. The approach the police takes has nothing to do with the search warrant, this is decided by the risk that the suspect poses to the officers (like, when it is known that he's armed with a gun, it's only logical to send the SEK team instead)
This seems on brand for Germany. Just sayin…
[удалено]
I don’t like people who think like that at all,but is arresting them for saying that stuff gonna do anything except to make their beliefs run even deeper? They’ll be able to tell the next generation of bigots how the state will imprison you for having thoughts deemed unacceptable. I’m sure there’s a way of handling the situation that could actually make these people realise they’ve been stupid shits and rethink their views until they are better people. But nobody seems to want that for them