German court strikes down Facebook rules on hate speech
Page 1 of 1 [ 10 posts ]
Quote:
BERLIN, July 29 (Reuters) - A top German court has ruled that Facebook (FB.O) acted illegally in taking down racist posts and blocking the account of their author because the social network failed to inform the user or give a reason for shutting them down.
Thursday's judgment by the Federal Court of Justice further complicates a fraught debate over toxic discourse on social networks as Germany girds for a general election in September that polls show may not deliver a stable government.
It is all the more striking because the comments made by the unnamed plaintiff evidently violated Facebook's community standards governing so-called hate speech, which is banned under German law if it threatens the peace or incites violence against minority groups.
In its three-page summary, the Karlsruhe-based court stated that Facebook's terms of service regarding the deletion of posts and blocking accounts for violating its community standards were "null and void".
This, it added, is because Facebook does not undertake to inform the user about the removal of an offensive post at least retrospectively, to advise that it is blocking an account, to give a reason for doing so, or to offer the right of appeal.
Thursday's judgment by the Federal Court of Justice further complicates a fraught debate over toxic discourse on social networks as Germany girds for a general election in September that polls show may not deliver a stable government.
It is all the more striking because the comments made by the unnamed plaintiff evidently violated Facebook's community standards governing so-called hate speech, which is banned under German law if it threatens the peace or incites violence against minority groups.
In its three-page summary, the Karlsruhe-based court stated that Facebook's terms of service regarding the deletion of posts and blocking accounts for violating its community standards were "null and void".
This, it added, is because Facebook does not undertake to inform the user about the removal of an offensive post at least retrospectively, to advise that it is blocking an account, to give a reason for doing so, or to offer the right of appeal.
Source: https://www.reuters.com/technology/top-german-court-strikes-down-facebook-rules-hate-speech-2021-07-29/
Brictoria wrote:
Quote:
[...] In its three-page summary, the Karlsruhe-based court stated that Facebook's terms of service regarding the deletion of posts and blocking accounts for violating its community standards were "null and void". [...]
Source: https://www.reuters.com/technology/top-german-court-strikes-down-facebook-rules-hate-speech-2021-07-29/Besides, all that FaceBook has to do to comply with the ruling in Germany is to inform German users of take-downs and the reasons for doing so.
... Facebook (FB.O) acted illegally ... because the social network failed to inform the user or give a reason for shutting them down.
Source: Same article cited by the OP.
_________________
Pffft…Sweden’s hate speech laws are far better than Germany’s. A pastor there was arrested for hate speech and incitement for saying homosexuality is a “sin”.
We need to enforce Sweden’s laws in the Deep South, Texas, the heartland, and the Utah/Idaho area.
_________________
Who’s better at math than a robot? They’re made of math!
Now proficient in ChatGPT!
Tim_Tex wrote:
Pffft…Sweden’s hate speech laws are far better than Germany’s. A pastor there was arrested for hate speech and incitement for saying homosexuality is a “sin”. We need to enforce Sweden’s laws in the Deep South, Texas, the heartland, and the Utah/Idaho area.
Naah ... let us just tax every religious institution like we do to the other money-making enterprises.
_________________
Brictoria wrote:
Quote:
BERLIN, July 29 (Reuters) - A top German court has ruled that Facebook (FB.O) acted illegally in taking down racist posts and blocking the account of their author because the social network failed to inform the user or give a reason for shutting them down.
Thursday's judgment by the Federal Court of Justice further complicates a fraught debate over toxic discourse on social networks as Germany girds for a general election in September that polls show may not deliver a stable government.
It is all the more striking because the comments made by the unnamed plaintiff evidently violated Facebook's community standards governing so-called hate speech, which is banned under German law if it threatens the peace or incites violence against minority groups.
In its three-page summary, the Karlsruhe-based court stated that Facebook's terms of service regarding the deletion of posts and blocking accounts for violating its community standards were "null and void".
This, it added, is because Facebook does not undertake to inform the user about the removal of an offensive post at least retrospectively, to advise that it is blocking an account, to give a reason for doing so, or to offer the right of appeal.
Thursday's judgment by the Federal Court of Justice further complicates a fraught debate over toxic discourse on social networks as Germany girds for a general election in September that polls show may not deliver a stable government.
It is all the more striking because the comments made by the unnamed plaintiff evidently violated Facebook's community standards governing so-called hate speech, which is banned under German law if it threatens the peace or incites violence against minority groups.
In its three-page summary, the Karlsruhe-based court stated that Facebook's terms of service regarding the deletion of posts and blocking accounts for violating its community standards were "null and void".
This, it added, is because Facebook does not undertake to inform the user about the removal of an offensive post at least retrospectively, to advise that it is blocking an account, to give a reason for doing so, or to offer the right of appeal.
Source: https://www.reuters.com/technology/top-german-court-strikes-down-facebook-rules-hate-speech-2021-07-29/
As the Soup Nazi would say: "No appeal for you!"
Fnord wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
Quote:
[...] In its three-page summary, the Karlsruhe-based court stated that Facebook's terms of service regarding the deletion of posts and blocking accounts for violating its community standards were "null and void". [...]
Source: https://www.reuters.com/technology/top-german-court-strikes-down-facebook-rules-hate-speech-2021-07-29/Besides, all that FaceBook has to do to comply with the ruling in Germany is to inform German users of take-downs and the reasons for doing so.
... Facebook (FB.O) acted illegally ... because the social network failed to inform the user or give a reason for shutting them down.
Source: Same article cited by the OP.
I think you missed the part where facebook doesn't want to do that.
Doing so would give the plaintiff "a right of appeal", me lord.
Tim_Tex wrote:
Pffft…Sweden’s hate speech laws are far better than Germany’s. A pastor there was arrested for hate speech and incitement for saying homosexuality is a “sin”.
We need to enforce Sweden’s laws in the Deep South, Texas, the heartland, and the Utah/Idaho area.
We need to enforce Sweden’s laws in the Deep South, Texas, the heartland, and the Utah/Idaho area.
Well, according to god, it is.
ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,454
Location: Long Island, New York
Tim_Tex wrote:
Pffft…Sweden’s hate speech laws are far better than Germany’s. A pastor there was arrested for hate speech and incitement for saying homosexuality is a “sin”.
We need to enforce Sweden’s laws in the Deep South, Texas, the heartland, and the Utah/Idaho area.
We need to enforce Sweden’s laws in the Deep South, Texas, the heartland, and the Utah/Idaho area.
They would have to arrest millions of people., in the north also.
_________________
Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity
It is Autism Acceptance Month
“My autism is not a superpower. It also isn’t some kind of god-forsaken, endless fountain of suffering inflicted on my family. It’s just part of who I am as a person”. - Sara Luterman
Pepe wrote:
Fnord wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
Quote:
[...] In its three-page summary, the Karlsruhe-based court stated that Facebook's terms of service regarding the deletion of posts and blocking accounts for violating its community standards were "null and void". [...]
Source: https://www.reuters.com/technology/top-german-court-strikes-down-facebook-rules-hate-speech-2021-07-29/Besides, all that FaceBook has to do to comply with the ruling in Germany is to inform German users of take-downs and the reasons for doing so.
... Facebook (FB.O) acted illegally ... because the social network failed to inform the user or give a reason for shutting them down.
Source: Same article cited by the OP.
I think you missed the part where facebook doesn't want to do that.
Doing so would give the plaintiff "a right of appeal", me lord.
I wonder why that minor detail was ignored in the reply?
It's not as though it wasn't included in the post which originated the thread (and was deliberately removed in the reply), after all...
It would be interesting to see how similar cases could work in other countries should "social media" companies ignore what is "agreed" to in their "terms of service" in their haste to remove members\posts.
Brictoria wrote:
Pepe wrote:
Fnord wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
Quote:
[...] In its three-page summary, the Karlsruhe-based court stated that Facebook's terms of service regarding the deletion of posts and blocking accounts for violating its community standards were "null and void". [...]
Source: https://www.reuters.com/technology/top-german-court-strikes-down-facebook-rules-hate-speech-2021-07-29/Besides, all that FaceBook has to do to comply with the ruling in Germany is to inform German users of take-downs and the reasons for doing so.
... Facebook (FB.O) acted illegally ... because the social network failed to inform the user or give a reason for shutting them down.
Source: Same article cited by the OP.
I think you missed the part where facebook doesn't want to do that.
Doing so would give the plaintiff "a right of appeal", me lord.
I wonder why that minor detail was ignored in the reply?
One of the mysteries of life.
Page 1 of 1 [ 10 posts ]
Similar Topics | |
---|---|
Which court card best describes YOU? |
16 Mar 2024, 1:53 am |
US Court Sides With Transgender Athlete Against WV Ban |
19 Apr 2024, 4:57 pm |
Accommodations for Aspies in Court Litigation |
11 Apr 2024, 3:32 pm |
Israel and the International Criminal Court |
13 Feb 2024, 5:01 pm |