German Prosecutors Think It’s Funny People’s Homes Are Being Raided And Their Devices Seized Because They Said Stuff On The Internet
-
Okay. What are the others? The other example they listed was posting a racist cartoon, they didn't go into any other details. You said they have no grasp, is there something I should read instead to get up to speed?
I'm comfortable saying that if you're prosecuting 3,500 cases of online "hate speech" per year, and some examples among them include stuff that is horrifying if prosecuted, then the situation is bad. Right? Or, it sounds like you're disagreeing with that, and saying that one was a penis but the other 3,499 were okay? Tell me.
-
Pretty fascinating. English translation:
Just Liking Can Be Punishable
08/22/2022 by Lars Sobiraj Reading time: 3 min.
Simply liking other people's posts on Facebook and similar platforms can be punishable under certain conditions, according to the Meiningen Regional Court.
Whether the like is punishable depends on whether the liked post itself contained criminal content. This emerges from a decision by the Meiningen Regional Court (LG Meiningen, Decision of 08/05/2022, 6 Qs 146/22).
Background: A Facebook user from Thuringia had liked another user's post. The case concerns the murder of police officers in the Kusel district on January 31, 2022. The author wrote as a title "Not a single second of silence for these creatures."
The Meiningen public prosecutor's office then obtained a search warrant for the apartment, car, and person who had liked the post. By liking the post, the Facebook user had committed both the defamation of the memory of the deceased under § 189 of the Criminal Code and the rewarding and approval of criminal acts under § 140 of the Criminal Code, according to the application.
The police hoped to find evidence such as smartphones or PCs to analyze the storage media. They were also allowed to search the suspect's cloud storage.
After the raid, the accused hired Berlin criminal and media lawyer Ehssan Khazaeli. Khazaeli filed a complaint against the search warrant. He sharply criticized the decision: "By liking a post, it remains clear that it is someone else's post – there can be no talk of 'making it one's own,'" he stated yesterday. One cannot attach one's own intellectual statement to a mere like.
He also argued that his client had not approved of any crime. While it was tasteless to comment on the murdered police officer's funeral in such a way, Khazaeli does not consider his client's action criminally relevant.
A constitutional complaint is to be filed against both decisions next month. "This isn't about the individual case, but about the fundamental question of whether merely liking on social media can be punishable," said attorney Ehssan Khazaeli. This approach is not an isolated case. We had previously reported about a search warrant issued because of a like on Twitter.
However, the Meiningen District Court's view was supported by the Meiningen Regional Court. The original user's post was considered a defamation of the memory of the deceased under § 189 of the Criminal Code, according to the judgment. The judges view the like as an expression of approval of the author's statements on Facebook. By doing so, the searched person publicly showed that they shared the opinion of the person who defamed the funeral of the killed police officers.
The media would also evaluate particularly public-facing posts based on how many likes they receive. The more attention a posting receives, the greater the likelihood that it will also be covered in the media.
@[email protected] What's your feeling on this one? You said "Who do you suppose are the people suffering a 6:00am door-knock?" and then got extremely indirect about answering the question, but it sounds like what you were implying is that they deserve it and the law is doing its job. Do you think this person deserves to be charged for this as well?
-
The PBS video has other examples, like calling for the rape and murder of specific people, including one example where the person (a local politician) was actually murdered by a right-wing terrorist shortly after.
-
I can't say what those 3500 cases were. But when it comes to anti-semitism and racism, judges are more than happy to file search warrents for the police to act upon.
The other example they listed was posting a racist cartoon
which probably was enough for StGB 130 to apply.
then the situation is bad. Right?
oh, yeah it is bad. Twitter, Facebook and other social media are huge cesspools which spawn those cases; its "free speech" after all right? Even though its not without consequences.
is there something I should read instead to get up to speed?
i cannot give you anything. Sorry
-
Do you think this person deserves to be charged for this as well?
I mean, if a "like" on facebook is interpreted as it is "liking someones post and or comment" and that post or comment dehumanized a dead police officer (or the entire force), then yes, I think its more than justified.
-
You and I have very different opinions of what is the right way to deal with online speech.
I actually agree with poVoq elsewhere in this thread that in terms of moderation, most of this stuff is probably stuff that whoever oversees the channel should be removing. In absolutely no reality should that mean the real-world police need to get involved. There are literally thousands of people on Lemmy who would be getting visits from the American police, concerning a certain Mario brother, if that were the rule here. I would prefer not to open that door (not least of which because it is completely guaranteed that once it starts, it will instantly be applied to anyone who for example calls a politician a penis. You keep sort of swerving around that example as if it "doesn't count" or something, when measuring the impact of this law when applied in practice.)
-
You and I have very different opinions of what is the right way to deal with online speech.
And that's totally fine, especially since we apparently don't live in the same country and as such different Laws apply to us.
-
Right, the CBS transcript has a lot more information and balance about it.
I would still like to see a breakdown of how many of these were for what. Surely calling for someone's rape or murder was already illegal, Nazi symbolism within Germany was already illegal, you could sue if someone was publishing false quotes by you, and so on. A lot of the examples they bring up seem sort of misleading, because they're linking them with the controversial 2018 law, and sort of tangling up the issues of "we got a lot more aggressive with policing already-illegal online speech that probably should stay illegal" versus "we made all kinds of things that are what Lemmy moderators deal with every day, into police matters now." It feels like it is from the cops' point of view instead of the defendants', leaving some pretty glaring unexplored questions, which was Techdirt's point.
Like I say I would like to see the breakdown. I won't say it is not 3,499 AfD trolls and 1 penis joke, but it does seem unlikely. Probably it's not the inverse of that either, though, that's a fair point.
-
BTW:
-
The mentioned case with a politician being called a dick was found illegal by the courts in the meantime:
https://www.spiegel.de/panorama/justiz/hamburg-wohnungsdurchsuchung-wegen-pimmelgate-war-unrechtmaessig-a-de489269-6589-453f-896f-56e728128cea -
It is a scientifically proven fact that a dehumanisation and increased verbal violence online reduces the barrier for people to commit actual violence against people.
-
-
BTW(was posted as an answer as well, sorry,wrong button):
-
The mentioned case with a politician being called a dick was found illegal by the courts in the meantime:
https://www.spiegel.de/panorama/justiz/hamburg-wohnungsdurchsuchung-wegen-pimmelgate-war-unrechtmaessig-a-de489269-6589-453f-896f-56e728128cea -
It is a scientifically proven fact that a dehumanisation and increased verbal violence online reduces the barrier for people to commit actual violence against people.
-
