So könnte Justizminister Heiko Maas dieses amerikanische Internetz doch zusätzlich noch säubern. Dass er da noch nicht drauf gekommen ist.

Heiko Maas präsentiert seine
Pantone Kollektion

Nun ja, es liegt wahrscheinlich daran, dass Fatzke Heiko Maas nie als Anwalt auch nur einen Tag gewerkelt hat. Da fehlts dann an den nötigen subtilen Tricks. Vielleicht ist er auch erigiert elektrisiert und durchläuft sein Kalachakra im Musentempel Natalia.

Wie dem auch sei. Dauernd angewiesen zu sein auf ne rothaarige Medusa aus der DDR und starring in The Stasi Connection mit externem Funding durch Küsten-Barbies Ressort der Reichsdeutschen Mutterschaft wirkt irgendwann etwas unbefriedigend, wenn man wie Heiko gewohnt ist, mit 54/11 Übersetzung sein Cervélo zu brettern.

Hier also ein paar Denkanstösse an den adretten 172 cm GQ Honcho aus Saarlouis wie man sich unliebsamer Posts und Blogs entledigt. Es geht ein bischen dreckig zu, aber als Anwalt ist man da ja im Métier.

Dozens of suspicious court cases, with missing defendants, aim at getting web pages taken down or deindexed

By Eugene Volokh and Paul Alan Levy October 10 

There are about 25 court cases throughout the country that have a suspicious profile:

• All involve allegedly self-represented plaintiffs, yet they have similar snippets of legalese that suggest a common organization behind them. (A few others, having a slightly different profile, involve actual lawyers.)
• All the ostensible defendants ostensibly agreed to injunctions being issued against them, which often leads to a very quick court order (in some cases, less than a week).
• Of these 25-odd cases, 15 give the addresses of the defendants — but a private investigator (Giles Miller of Lynx Insights & Investigations) couldn’t find a single one of the ostensible defendants at the ostensible address.

Now, you might ask, what’s the point of suing a fake defendant (to the extent that some of these defendants are indeed fake)? How can anyone get any real money from a fake defendant? How can anyone order a fake defendant to obey a real injunction?

The answer is that Google and various other Internet platforms have a policy: They won’t take down material (or, in Google’s case, remove it from Google indexes) just because someone says it’s defamatory. Understandable — why would these companies want to adjudicate such factual disputes? But if they see a court order that declares that some material is defamatory, they tend to take down or deindex the material, relying on the court’s decision.

Yet the trouble is that these Internet platforms can’t really know if the injunction was issued against the actual author of the supposed defamation — or against a real person at all. That’s why we have incidents like this:

1. Matthew Chan, a Georgia resident, posts a negative review of Mitul Patel, a Georgia dentist, on Yelp and a few other sites. (Readers may remember this story, which we blogged about in August; that’s the incident that got us investigating this issue.) Several months after Chan puts up his post, Yelp emails him, saying that it’s about to take his comment down because it received a court order that was issued against him, and the court concluded that his comment was defamatory.

But wait!, says Chan — he’s never been sued. And sure enough, the order is against a supposed Mathew Chan of Baltimore. As best we can tell, no such Mathew Chan exists in Baltimore, but in any event no Baltimorean is the author of the post. Yet the order is supposedly based on that Mathew Chan agreeing with Mitul Patel that the review was defamatory, and should be removed. (As we’ll see below, Mitul Patel and some of the other plaintiffs state that they did not authorize the lawsuit or sign the pleadings, though they did hire a “reputation management company” to do something.)

Hier ist noch wesentlich mehr zu fnden.

Update: Mr. Chan geht auf Attacke. Well done, buddy.

The German liberal elite ambling in their walled garden of free speech

Soren Kierkegaard

Once you label me you negate me.

Soren Kierkegaard

"Facebook needs to do more than before, so that its platform is not a playground for right-wing extremists", German Minister of Justice Heiko Maas said to the Bild newspaper.

Freedom of expression is a "valuable asset", the Minister said. He added: "However, the Internet is not a lawless area where racist agitation and criminal utterances may be spread uncontrolled."

Interesting how the able minister, who has not spent a single day in his life as a lawyer, equates right-wingers and people with other opinions with extremists, racist agitation and criminal utterances. As if his own coalition party and ordinary bourgeois people would not hold and publicly express such views. Why else are the comments functions disabled on websites of German news websites?

Here is the Minister for Family Affairs, blonde Manuela Schwesig, aka 'Küsten-

Heiko & Manuela, ready to pounce on free hate speech

Barbie':

"Hatred is not an opinion. Neither on the Internet. With the 'No hate speech' campaign we in Germany want to set another example against hatred and violence. We want to support the people to engage themselves for democracy and to fight against hatred and discrimination - online and offline," said Manuela Schwesig.

If hatred is not an opinion, why bother? Of course, the sentence is plain nonsense. When somebody is called an asshole, that is without doubt an opinion. Whether it is true or false, is a different matter.

Let's listen in to an interview between Yasmin Nair and Walter Benn Michaels:

YN: Hate crimes...

WBM: Complete  bullshit.

Both ministers are united in one desire, to have such opinions deleted from Twitter and Facebook in order to create a clean environment. An environment with attuned people that "engage ... for democracy and to fight against hatred and discrimination". An environment in which the IDENTITY of a refugee is created, attended to and celebrated. Untainted, pristine and resting in itself. This self is the self of inequality and nobody is nor wants to be bothered by this. The proponents of free speech are indifferent to it. They strive for an antiseptic communication.

While they correctly see the impetus of the German government's 'No hate speech' campaign as an assault on free speech and celebrate their intellectual prowess as proof of their noble intentions, they are nonchalant about the plight of the refugees. It is free speech they pay obeisance to. This is their holy right, their altar, while at the same time humanitarian thoughts and compassion fall by the wayside. The neoliberalism of the ego.

Here again Walter Benn Michaels.

YN: You  write  in  your  book,  “The  preferred  crimes  of  neoliberalism are  always  hate  crimes;  when  our  favorite  victims  are  the  victims  of prejudice,  we  are  all  neoliberals.”  What  do  you  mean?

WBM: You  and  others  have  analyzed  the  various  practical  ways  in which   hate   crimes   laws  perpetrate   or  extend   inequalities   that already  exist.  I  think  that  analysis  is  totally  convincing.  But  my  own opposition   is   somewhat   more   primitive:   that   hate   crimes   are precisely  defined  as  crimes  of  identity. The  biggest  of  all  hate  crimes  in  our  culture  is  the  Holocaust.  The point  of  course  is  not  to  defend  the  Holocaust  but  to  suggest  that the  murder  of  six  million  people  is  sufficient  unto  itself  as  a  crime. The first point is that it’s not as if we want to legitimate these crimes. 

The second point is that insofar as we make hate crimes foundational for us, we end up imagining the just society as a society without hatred, without prejudice. My argument is not for prejudice; only that the elimination of prejudice has nothing to do with the elimination of exploitation. And that insofar as we focus on the idea of social justice as the elimination of prejudice, with hate crimes being a kind of ne plus ultra of that form, what we are doing is focusing on something which, even if we should succeed, would make no difference whatsoever in the principal inequalities that currently confront us.

That should give the nobly-intentioned liberals enough food for thought. Fighting the ban of hate speech is all about having a good conscience while disregarding inequalities in society. Guaranteeing those disadvantaged their identity means safeguarding them from so-called ill speech/hate speech and keeping them on their predetermined rung on the ladder of society and the economy. A cynical indifference in a walled garden of good conduct.

What both ministers unite is their complete disregard of the inequality of these people the hatred is directed at, while being naive about the origin of the perpetrators of hate crimes.

YN: It’s  also  true  that  poor  white  people  are  often  held  as  the  most phobic  and  hate-prone.

WBM: Let’s  say  for  the  sake  of  argument  that  poor  white  people  are more  characteristically  racist  and  homophobic  than  middle-class white  people.  Let’s  say  for  the  sake  of  argument  it’s  true.  The argument  here  is  not  to  defend  their  homophobia,  or  their  racism; it’s  not  defensible.  But  my  deeper  argument  is  that  they  are  not  the enemy.  That  is  to  say,  if  you  turned  the  world  into  a  world  where  the elimination  of  prejudice  is  the  sole  desideratum  then  you’ve  got  a face-off.  Between  the  upper-middle  class,  committed  to  its  own sense  of  virtue,  which  is  completely  tolerant  of  the  inequalities  which make  poor  white  people  poor  and  completely  intolerant  of  the racism  and  sexism  that  poor  whites  exemplify. 

Denouncing and banning free speech, err, hate speech to bask in a virtuous circle of life, while shoving the fact of inequality under the carpet. Indifference to economic inequality and to guarantee the disadvantaged their identity lays the groundwork for their future status in society as a dependable and frugal source of cheap labor, with state-guaranteed dignity. Unless they get deported.

The  liberal  elite  that conservatives  criticize  really  does  exist.  It’s  an  elite  whose  liberalism consists   in  its  opposition  to  discrimination,  in  its  cultivation  of identity,  and  in  complete  indifference  to  economic  inequality.  So,  for the   liberal   elites,   the   poor  whites  are  the  people  they  love  to hate.  And  the  liberal  elites  are  the  people  the  poor  whites  love  to hate.  If  the  liberal  elite  began  to  think  of  its  liberalism  as  a  challenge to  its  elitism,  we  would  have  a  different  world.  A  world  where  the goal  was  not  to  diversify  the  elite  but  to  eliminate  elites.  Whereas now  we’re  just  diversifying  the  elite. 

It is exactly for this purpose that the German government has turned to the Bertelsmann company Arvato and the notorious Amadeu Antonio Foundation, whose chairwomen is an ex Stasi member like her late father, to go against, what they consider to be, hate speech.

How identity is celebrated and cynically utilized and conveniently discarded is shown by the Amadeu Antonio Foundation, which seems to be a financially pretty successful investment fund. Here is an excerpt from the German Wikipedia page (there is no English version!). Please note that his last name is Kiowa. That probably had too much of an African ring to qualify for inclusion in the name of the foundation.

Kiowa left behind his pregnant girlfriend Gabriele Schimanski. Their son was born on January 9, 1991, the same day, Kiowa's corpse was transferred to Angola. There Antonio was buried in the cemetery of Sant'Ana in Luanda. Since September 3, 2011 decorated with a wooden cross be previously covered only by earth grave. Antonios wife and son hostilities were suspended in Eberswalde other, so among other things, the pram was daubed with swastikas and later destroyed. Gabriele Schimanski died in 2015. The cause of death is unclear.

The mother of Kiowa, who belongs to the people of the Bakongo, lives with her family in the slums Rocha Pinto in the Angolan capital Luanda. For the funeral, and repair of the tomb of her son there was in 2011 an appeal, in which the mother could be handed over 1,500 euros. Whether a promised financial support for the family that had decided in 1990 the Eberswalde council, has been received by the members, is currently being investigated. To demonstrate the relationship between Antonio and his family undoubtedly, his mother was a hair sample for genetic matching from. In addition, the Eberswalde council decided on 30 September 2011, the Antonios family occasion of the 20th anniversary of the death to send 5,000 euros support performance.

(Google translate)

Read also: Adolph Reed: Identity Politics Is Neoliberalism

The German Amadeu Antonio foundation: How to run a profitable foundation and screw free speech.

Decidedly politically incorrect

A good foundation needs a beacon. Preferably a person. Someone who people can focus on, be affected by. A moral instance.

A nigger fits fine.

Alive? Hardly so. In a dead state his monetizing potential increases dramatically, though not beyond a lower single-digit return.

Slain? Now you're talking. Viciously? You're getting me revved up. Definitely has the potential to generate a yearly return in the double-digits. That potential, however, can only be realized if you can attract government support.

Now we need a name for that sorry soul. As luck would have it, he has a rather sweet, kind of like an artist sounding name, Amadeu Antonio. Perfect. Ear candy.

I am not going to relate the gruesome way he was killed. Interestingly, Wikipedia has a post about him in only two languages, so this is via Translate. It also gives an impression about the well-known institutionalized racism in German courts and police. If you fancy to feel truly disgusted, read it.

So now that the stage is set, we need an investment fund manager/bankster a leader, chairman/-woman, chairman/-woman of the board. As luck would have it, exactly that and nothing less is Anetta Kahane.

Anetta Kahane, high return fund manager at a Foundation

Running a Hypocrisy Investment Fund, err, I meant to say administering a foundation in the name of a slain colored African gentleman going by the mellifluous name of Amadeu Antonio (his full name Amadeu Antonio Kiowa was presumably shortened to give the foundation a better ring) implies certain credentials far beyond mere mastering of capital allocation, spreadsheets, risk assessment, road shows, fund raising, you name it. It requires the highest moral standards, righteousness, a religious belief in ethical values. In short, something only a woman can master.

Anetta Kahane delivers on all fronts and it seems to be a family trait. Interested to hear about her father?

Max Kahane was a convinced communist. KPD member, co-founder of (later GDR) Intelligence ADN, journalist and chief commentator at New Germany, the state propaganda journal of the GDR, which agitated against the Federal Republic and liberal, market economy and glorified  the criminal state DDR. Even the newspaper New Germany itself (yes it still exists) wrote - with all relativizing the rest - in April 2016. 70-year existence on its own past: "In this newspaper terrible things have been, Left were defamed, made people contemptuously, which the real existing socialism was no more hope. It was a lie. There were nebulized real conditions and relationships. " Well, there were not only defamed left. But in fact: terribleness has spread the newspaper. And Max Kahane has been through this. (Google Translate)

IOW, he was an asshole.
Like father, like daughter

His daughter Anetta Kahane continues the "terrible" propaganda work with the charitable Amadeu Antonio Foundation, she founded in 1998 and whose CEO she is. She probably learned this in the East German secret police (the Stasi) , for whom she worked many years as a spy. A school for life. A proven Stasi method of subversion was to somehow defame people by alleging an extreme right-wing connection (see here). These means can be used even today. Through its Foundation Ms Kahane can now defame dissidents and pillory them. To this end, lists of individuals who in the view of the foundation display false political attitudes are drawn up in order to put them in the political (right-wing) criminal corner (see the project "New Rights Wiki"), on behalf of the German government (!!!) and with Facebook a so-called "initiative for civil courage online" is being operated to combat unwelcome opinions on the Internet. Recently, with the explicit support of the Federal Ministry for family Affairs a guide titled "Incitement against refugees in social media" was published where concrete persons were vilified as well as various publications (eg Peculiarly free).

With this much shit at her heels, let's hear what they do according to their website:

Dedicated to a civil society that nurtures democratic culture

The Amadeu Antonio Foundation is a response to the neo-Nazi subculture that permeates former East Germany and has crept into former West. Whether from Nazi fatigue, willfull ignorance or non-chalant ambivalence, the issue doesn't receive the public attention it deserves. Incidences of insults, threats and attacks -- some of which result in death -- often go un- or underreported by German media. The Foundation is determined to keep the spotlight on neo-Nazi and right-wing activity while taking concrete and proactive steps to eliminate the real and ongoing threat they pose to German democracy and pluralism, especially on the local level.

Oh really?!

Time to assess the mind-boggling financial expertise of the red-haired lass Anetta Kahane.

For starters, how would you like a foundation that in times of 'secular stagnation' (thanks, Larry), ZLB and Supermario's 'whatever it takes' manages a yearly return of 17 to 19%, tax-free! Simply by doing its job of infringing on free speech. What's not to like? Tantalizing? You would be right, unless you have some friends in higher places, in higher places with an agenda, like a government ministry.

That means we need to finally bring the German 'Küsten-Barbie' into the picture, IOW, the Minister of Family Affairs Mrs Schwesig. As we learn below, said ministry headed by the blonde babe, a mother since a year or so, is funding Anetta Kahane's Fund to Eliminate Free Speech to the tune of € 900K per year. Here are some details following below the image.

Küsten-Barbie: € 900,000 taxpayer money per year to suppress Free Speech

Defamation dissent - at taxpayer expense
(Google Translate of post in German by a lawyer)

"According to their website, the Foundation received from 2008 to 2014 (the years prior to 2008 have not been published, 2015, not yet) almost 6.2 million euros in grants, particularly from the Federal Ministry for Family Affairs. On average, nearly 900,000 euros annually. That's about two-thirds of revenue. The rest are donations and other income which are unspecified. In the period from 2008 to 2014, the Foundation achieved a total surplus of approximately 455,000 euros, the annual average of the excess amounts to about 65,000 euros. Based on the foundation's capital, which increased in the period of 343 700 euros to 379 700 euros, makes an annual return on equity of about 17 to 19 %. And that is tax-exempted. Of these the most "evil capitalists" can only dream of. (The reserves are externally admitted in the returns as charities in principle may not be geared towards asset accumulation).

At such high profits you can not help wondering why the state provides grants to the Foundation, which are in any case not required in the full amount. Who is ideologically not completely wrongheaded, naturally wonders going on, why ever grants to this foundation are paid, and the answer can give yourself. But that should not be the issue here. Because even who should be weighed the Foundation (whether as donors or as an official who has to decide on subsidy grants) should think about why high profits must be implemented in a non-profit organization.

From these profits, the foundation has been built up reserves, to almost 1.3 million euros to reserves amount along with profit brought forward by 31.12.2014, plus the endowment of almost 400,000 euros. What does a foundation with so much unused grants and donations? She puts it in securities of (approximately 600,000 euros), leaving it in the account (about 700,000 euros). And then you can still lend money even as a bank. 432,000 euros are recorded as other loans in the balance sheet. As other loans long-term capital transferred to third parties are referred to, in front of all loans are included. The Foundation shares - on request - not with what they are doing and if these have potential loan to Ms. Kahane placing themselves or others board members or to a friendly party / organization or whomever. Anyone who wants to support the "banking" the Foundation continued, like quietly donate. The Amadeu Antonio bank will thank him." (Google translate)

Hate Speech according to the Foundation:

All Greeks are lazy.
He is a Greek, but absolutely hardworking.
Jews are the greatest evil in the world.
When Jews do it, it is worse.
Judaism and Israel must be abolished.
The right to asylum needs to be abolished.

Someone still here asking who is screwed up?

Meet the Teutonic anti-Free Speech SWAT Team

Anti Free Speech SWAT Team w. leader Heiko Maas