How Germany (Accidentally) Created a Prototype for Global Online Censorship

Cross-posted from JUSTITIA

BY JACOB MCHANGAMA ON 5. NOVEMBER, 2019

Global Internet freedom is in decline. Authoritarian states manipulate the Internet to serve their own illiberal ends. But liberal democracies have also limited Internet freedom to counter contemporary scourges such as fake news, hate speech, and terrorist content.

Germany´s Network Enforcement Act (NetzDG) is the most prominent weapon in the online arsenal of democracies. NetzDG obliges social media platforms to remove illegal content within 24 hours or risk huge fines. But in a global free speech race to the bottom, the NetzDG matrix has been copy-pasted by authoritarian states to provide cover and legitimacy for digital censorship and repression.

A new report by Jacob Mchangama and Joelle Fiss documents that at least 13 countries have adopted or proposed models similar to the NetzDG matrix. According to Freedom House’s Freedom on the Net (2019), five of those countries are ranked “not free” (Honduras, Venezuela, Vietnam, Russia and Belarus), five are ranked “partly free” (Kenya, India, Singapore, Malaysia and Philippines), and only three ranked “free” (France, UK and Australia). Most of these countries have explicitly referred to the NetzDG as a justification for restricting online speech. Moreover, several of these countries, including Venezuela, Vietnam, India, Russia, Malaysia, and Kenya, require intermediaries to remove vague categories of content that include “fake news”, “defamation of religions”, “anti-government propaganda” and “hate speech” that can be abused to target political dissent.

“Authoritarian states are copy-pasting illiberal laws designed by liberal democracies. Whereas Germany’s initial goal was to curb hate online, the NetzDG has provided a blueprint for Internet censorship that is being used to target dissent and pluralism. This development creates a regulatory race to the bottom that undermines freedom of expression as guaranteed by international human rights standards” says Jacob Mchangama, Executive Director of Justitia and co-author of the report.

Read “The Digital Berlin Wall: How Germany (Accidentally) Created a Prototype for Global Online Censorship”

The report is presented in Foreign Policy: Germany’s Online Crackdowns Inspire the World’s Dictators

Surely the Federal Ministry of Family Affairs BMFSFJ can substantiate the allegedly committed instances of libel

VG 2 K 215.19

Dear Ms Undersecretary Virnich, Mr/Mrs Dr. Tasma,

Further to my email of yesterday I wish to address some regrettable insinuations of yours and here I desire your good opinion. Just to be sure what this whole burlesque - unfortunately, I fail to think of any other more appropriate description - starting in August 2018 with a simple email to the Ministry of Culture and Media is about. Here is, yet again, my enquiry of back then:

"What tweets have made the blocking of the Twitter account @ErebusSagace by BMAS and BMFSFJ necessary and what are the general criteria of the Federal Government for blocking on Twitter?"

On page three of your reply to the court (1) you declare:

"According to the principles of general administrative law, an application made in violation of the law can be rejected as inadmissible".

Upon which you establish that "querulous requests and applications with insulting content constitute cases of abuse of rights."

It is here that I would like to suggest a moment of introspection as 'vanity is a weakness indeed. But pride, where there is a real superiority of mind, pride will be always under good regulation'. In that sense, I am sure you can substantiate your claim that I committed libel and I would be pleased if you could point out that/those instance/s of libel because I am unable to find any. All the more so, since you ask the court based this accusation to drop the case.

Allow me to furnish some advice with Ms Elizabeth Bennet: 'It is particularly incumbent on those who never change their opinion, to be secure of judging properly at first'.

I believe a time frame of seven days should be appropriate. If you feel a preference for ten days I shall be more than happy to oblige. After all, we both remember the BMJV's rapturous slogan "We are a State of Law". So be it!

Lastly, I am not quite sure what to make of your concluding sentence to the court on page four:

"If the court requests further comments, in particular on the defendants' reasons for blocking the plaintiff's Twitter account, a court order is politely requested."

Is that not what I had enquired to learn in the first place? It strikes me as ironic yet proves again ‘there is, I believe, in every disposition a tendency to some particular smugness — a natural defect, which seemingly not even the best education can overcome' (2).


Sincerely,


(1) I had contacted the Munich Social Court in this in Sept. 2019 and not the court in Berlin. As was to be expected, there was no answer.
(2) slightly edited.

What stops the German government and its Ministries to publish their 'Policy on Blocking on Twitter'?

Federal Ministry for Family Affairs, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth
Glinkastraße 24
10117 Berlin

by Email

cc Justiziariat BMAS
Social Court Munich


VG 2 K 215.19

Dear Ms Undersecretary Virnich, Mr/Mrs Dr Tasma,

It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a man in possession of a lawful desire, must be in want of his right. I take the liberty to respond to your statement dated Oct. 14, 2019 and sent to the Berlin Administrative Court on the subject of my writ about 'The policy of the ministry on blocking on Twitter'. This writ was sent by me to the Social Court Munich, NOT the Berlin Administrative Court! The Social Court Munich forwarded my writ to the Ministry BMFSFJ which means 'Litispendenz' lies with the SCM and so the above file # serves only as an identifier.

I associate a ministry for family affairs like the BMFSFJ among others with righteousness and probity. After all, that is what parents should instill in their offspring. Unfortunately, in your statement you chose to present yourself with rather different credentials.

Right in the first paragraph you claim the Ministry did not receive my email of June 25, 2018 with a Pdf attachment and in addition lament the absence of an email protocol. Really? Well here it is.

The Ministry did of course receive my email but chose to ignore it in typical German fashion. To a certain extent that is understandable. After all, who wants to hear about a screwed up civil servant Jürgen Sonneck with the asshatted idea of sending an email complaint to police using the false name 'C. Paucher' and everything is covered up right up to the Euro clowns at the ECHR!

Secondly, you claim the Ministry did not receive my fax sent on Jan. 13, 2019. You further substantiate that by pointing out that my writ did not include a fax transmission report. That is correct as I did not deem it necessary to print one out. I was rather under the, delusory and naive as it now turns out, assumption staff at a German ministry would act in decency and integrity.

I think we can at this point agree that your credibility has been damaged right on the very first page of your letter.

It does not get any better when you claim I did not mention the Twitter handle. I did so in my email of Aug 28, 2018 to the @RegSprecher Mr Seibert. When this did not elicit a response - quelle surprise -, I dispatched a second email to him on Sep 6, 2018 upon which he wrote to the BMFSFJ. You see, my experience with Germans at large is they are not exactly communicative and this was further proven when two emails to Mrs Henschen of the pompously named Ministry of Culture and Media all went unanswered. Likewise two very recent emails and tweets to the Minister of State for Culture and Media Mrs Grütters.

Completely incomprehensible to me is your objection a legal request would be missing in my writ. I may not be the reincarnation of Hegel but my rudimentary grasp and comprehension of the German language provides me a quite satisfying level of certainty that the question "What tweets have made the blocking of the Twitter account @ErebusSagace by BMAS and BMFSFJ necessary and what are the general criteria of the Federal Government for blocking on Twitter?" can be understood as a request. Would you fancy to agree?

I assume, this paper is known to all of you:

Access to police public relations on social media ("Twitter"), © 2018 Deutscher Bundestag WD 3 - 3000 - 044/18.

Turns out, it is just a paper without any value as you refuse to honor it.

As so often in Germany, when someone insists on a legal right a grumbling lust ("querulantisches Begehren"), as you chose to phrase it, for information is disapprovingly detected by authorities and rebuked. You did not stop there but further accused me of libel. I shall address that accusation in a second email.

So without further ado, what stops the German government and its Ministries to simply publish their 'Policy on Blocking on Twitter'? Is there anything to hide; is tradition running its course?

May I lastly enquire in what subject you gained your prestigious doctor title, dear Mr/Mrs Tasma? Math, chemistry and physics are sciences, all else is vanity subjects; law a crude craft.

Thank you for granting me the privilege to address some salient points that, it is to be hoped, advance the quality of a democracy. All the more so as the BMJV presently runs a hip campaign "We are a State of Law". Allons enfants.

Sincerely,


P.S.: I may confess that my mind is not agreeably engaged for any further communication with the Berlin Administrative Court as I do not have the pleasure of understanding their involvement and have never desired their good opinion in the first place.

Written in English for wider readership.

Disclaimer: Any resemblance to persons living or dead or with fictitious events or characters is purely coincidental.

Follow-up: Surely the Federal Ministry of Family Affairs BMFSFJ can substantiate the allegedly committed instances of libel.

When will the European Union order Twitter to silence President Trump?

Excerpt from the Volokh Conspracy.

Today's episode opens with coverage of a truly disturbing bit of neocolonialist lawmaking from the Court of Justice of the European Union. The CJEU ruled that an Austrian court correctly ordered Facebook to take down statements about an Austrian politician, not just in Austria, not just in Europe, but everywhere in the world. Called an "oaf" and a "fascist," the politician more or less proved the truth of the accusations by suing to keep that and similar statements off Facebook worldwide. I suggest that the US adopt blocking legislation to protect the First Amendment from foreign government interference and argue that President Trump should support such a law. After all, if he were ever to insult a European politician on Twitter, this ruling could lead to litigation that takes his Twitter account off the air. Heading off that threat is truly a legislative and international agenda for the Age of Trump! 

From the comments section.

"Some commentators have suggested that the EU could rewrite the Right to Be Forgotten directives to permit global delisting."

Them Europeans have a hard time with free speech. Still, the

European Court’s Decision in Right To Be Forgotten Case is a Win for Free Speech,

sort of.

In a significant victory for free speech rights, the European Union’s highest court ruled that the EU’s Right to Be Forgotten does not require Google to delist search results globally, thus keeping the results available to be seen by users around the world.

The EU standard, established in 2014, lets individuals in member states demand that search engines not show search results containing old information about them when their privacy rights outweigh the public’s interest in having continued access to the information. The question before the court was whether Google had to remove the results from all Google search platforms, including Google.com, or just the ones identified with either the individual’s state of residence, in this case Google.fr, or ones identified with the EU as a whole.

...

EFF joined Article 19 and other global free speech groups in urging the Court of Justice to reach this decision and overturn a ruling by CNIL. As the brief explained, a global delisting order would conflict with the rights of users in other nations, including U.S. users protected by First Amendment. U.S. courts have consistently held that the First Amendment’s protections for expression, petition, and assembly necessarily also protect the rights of individuals to gather information to fuel those expressions, petitions, and assemblies.

As we explained in the brief:

"In the United States, a right to de-reference publicly available information on data protection grounds would be unconstitutional: the First Amendment to the US Constitution guarantees the right of people to publish information on matters of public interest that they acquire legally, even in the face of significant interests relating to the private life of those involved (Smith v. Daily Mail Publishing Co. 443 US 97 (1979)). This reasoning extends to those situations where there is a significant governmental interest in maintaining the confidentiality of the information in question (Oklahoma Pub. Co. v. Distr. Court 430 US 308 (1977), where the information concerns judicial procedures (Landmark Communications, Inc. v. Virginia 435 US 829 (1978) and even where the publisher of the information knows that her or his source obtained the information illegally (Bartnicki v. Vopper 532 US 514 (2001). The First Amendment also guarantees the right to receive information, including by means of a search engine (see e.g. Langdon v. Google 474 F. Supp. 2d 622 (D. Del. 2007)). . . .  The incompatibility of broad de-referencing obligations with US law is especially relevant in the present case given that all major search providers are established in the US…" 

The Europeans being Europeans might still reconsider.

In a passage that has left commentators scratching their heads, the court emphasized that even though the Right to be Forgotten “does not currently require” delisting from all versions of Google’s search engine, EU law “does not prohibit such a practice.” The court said an authority in an EU member state may balance an individual’s right to privacy and the freedom of information and, “where appropriate,” order the operator of a search engine to delist search results from all of its versions.

More here 

@BundesKultur What are the German government's general criteria for blocking on Twitter?

and what are the federal government's general criteria for blocking on Twitter?

You are aware of this paper?
“Zugang zur Öffentlichkeitsarbeit der Polizei in sozialen Medien („Twitter“), © 2018 Deutscher Bundestag WD 3 - 3000 - 044/18

— Clarky Cat Boz Boz (@ErebusSagace) September 17, 2019

I really have no inclination whatsoever to pay a court in Berlin (Verwaltungsgericht) € 438 initial fee …

Thank you.

— Clarky Cat Boz Boz (@ErebusSagace) September 17, 2019

Sexistischer Affront, wenn epistemische Schäden bei Martina Musati, Arbeitsagentur Stuttgart, einfach so akzeptiert werden

Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart

Olgastraße 2
70182 Stuttgart

(cc Arbeitsagentur Stuttgart, JC München)

22. Juli 2019

Az. 16 Zs 988/19
Az. 112 Js 48272/19

Ermittlungsverfahren gegen Martina Musati wegen Nötigung u.a. (Beschwerde bei Google basierend auf dem Anti-Art. 5 GG NetzDG von Sozialist Heiko Maas & Konsorten)

Verehrtes schwäbisches Gericht,

Ich erhielt mit Schreiben vom 16.07.2019 von Oberstaatsanwältin Hartwig das verlockende Angebot, gegen ihren ablehnenden Bescheid beim OLG Antrag auf gerichtliche Entscheidung mittels Rechtsanwalts zu stellen.

Diesem Fall liegt zugrunde eine - selbstverständlich in Deutschland - anonyme Beschwerde einer dritten Person der neoliberalen Arbeitsagentur Stuttgart, nach der sich die im fortgeschrittenen Alter noch ledige beamtete Dame Martina Musati “diffamiert und verleumdet” fühlt durch Zitate aus Werken des eminenten französischen Sozialphilosophen Pierre Bourdieu und einem bekannten abgewandelten Prinzips aus der Welt des Business, dem Peter Principle. Mit anderen Worten, wir befinden uns mitten in einer mediokren Provinz des sedimentären Intellekts, auch bekannt unter dem Namen ‘Beamtentum’.

So ich das Angebot von Frau Staatsanwältin Hartwig überdachte, fielen mit zwei Aufsätze ein zum Thema “Epistemologie und Luft ablassen” (Venting as Epistemic Work), denn um Letzteres handelt es sich ja bei der Beschwerde bei Google in altruistischer Sorge um prä-menopausale Mamsell.

So heisst es im Papier "Venting as epistemic work” von Juli Thorson und Christine Baker (2019) im Abstractum (Google translate; Hervorhebungen durch mich):

“Wir behaupten, dass Luft ablassen eine epistemische Arbeit sein kann: Wenn man sich an die richtige Art von Person wendet, kann man Wissen über eine unterdrückerische Gesellschaftsstruktur, ihren Platz darin und darüber gewinnen, wie man den epistemischen Schaden, den sie verursacht, repariert. Um diese Behauptung zu rechtfertigen, definieren wir sowohl epistemischen Schaden als auch Luft ablassen und kontrastieren Luft ablassen mit verwandten Begriffen wie Beschwerden und Schimpfen. Anhand des Verständnisses von Code für Zeugnis, Dotsons Begriff des sprachlichen Austauschs und Frickers Unterscheidung zwischen Zeugnis- und hermeneutischer Ungerechtigkeit beschreiben wir, wann und wie Luft ablassen epistemisch ist. Wir diskutieren auch, wie sich Luft Ablassen von Bewusstseinsbildung unterscheidet. Wir schließen daraus, dass, obwohl ein Ziel des Luft Ablassens darin besteht, epistemische Schäden bei einzelnen Frauen zu reparieren, die positive epistemische Wirkung des Luft Ablassens Frauen auf die Bekämpfung hermeneutischer Ungerechtigkeiten vorbereitet.”

Dies ist offenbar bei der schwäbischen Staatsanwaltschaft nicht genügend berücksichtigt worden und dies scheint mir in Zeiten von genderspezifischen Themata, die den gesellschaftlichen Diskurs ja geradezu durchtränkt haben, ein arges Manko. Bei Arbeitsagenturen darf man ohnehin jeden epistemischen Anspruch diskontieren. Es muss als sexistischer Affront gewertet werden, wenn epistemische Schäden bei einzelnen Behörden-Frauen nolens volens akzeptiert werden.

Wie es der Zufall will, erschien ein weiterer Aufsatz zu diesem Thema, der bedauerlicherweise auch en passant arge Zweifel am Verstand besagter lediger Arbeitsbehörden-Beamtin Mademoiselle Musati aufkommen lässt. In "On the Successfulness of Venting and Its Venues" von Manuel Padilla Cruz, Universidad de Sevilla, wird zu bedenken gegeben (wieder Google translate):

“Schließlich setzt seine wesentliche Bedingung voraus, dass das Luft Ablassen ein Versuch des Luftablassers sein muss, dem Publikum zu erkennen zu geben, dass der fragliche Sachverhalt sie negativ beeinflusst hat, und eine Vielzahl von Gefühlen wie Empörung, Wut, Enttäuschung, Angst usw. hervorruft.”

Dies ist nun nirgendwo zu finden in dieser ridikülen Google Beschwerde und es muss unterstellt werden, wenn man die intellektuell äusserst dürftige Beschwerde bei Google durch diese teutonische Arbeitsbehörde liest, dass nicht einmal elementarste kognitive Intelligenz zu erahnen ist, geschweige denn die Lektüre von Pierre Bourdieu. Selbiges muss allerdings auch der schwäbischen Staatsanwaltschaft vorgehalten werden. Dies düpiert doch ein wenig, so doch die Deutschen das ‘Volk der Dichter und Denker’ sind.

Völlig untergegangen scheint mir bei der Stuttgarter Staatsanwaltschaft und es muss hier einmal mehr beklagt werden, wie üblich bei der beamteten Suffragette des neoliberalen Arbeitsverordnungsamtes Martina Musati, die folgende Beobachtung des Autoren:

"Andererseits sind Äußerungen öffentlich, d.h. wahrnehmbar, hörbar - Darstellungen von entweder anderen privaten Darstellungen - d.h. Gedanken, Überzeugungen - oder andere öffentliche - d.h. Äußerungen anderer Personen. Aus diesem Grund sind Äußerungen Metadarstellungen der eigenen Gedanken des Sprechers, aber sie können auch verwendet werden, um die anderen Personen zugeschriebenen Gedanken oder die Äußerungen, die sie (möglicherweise) hervorgebracht haben, zu metadarstellen.

Im ersteren Fall sind Äußerungen beschreibende Metadarstellungen; In letzterem Fall handelt es sich um attributive Metadarstellungen, sofern es eine (leicht) identifizierbare Quelle für diese Gedanken oder Äußerungen gibt. Wenn Äußerungen, die zugeschrieben werden, die Gedanken oder Worte anderer Personen widerspiegeln, können die Sprecher auch ihre eigene Haltung gegenüber dem Inhalt zum Ausdruck bringen. Das Spektrum der Einstellungen, die sie ausdrücken können, umfasst dissoziative, befürwortende oder hinterfragende. Die Äußerungen werden durch Äußerungen echoischer Metadarstellungen (Wilson 1999; Noh 2000; Sperber 2000)."

Diese Passage sollte die schwäbische Justiz motivieren, wohl bewusst diesem Schreiber, dass das Internet ja noch so richtig Neuland ist in DE, wie eine Immigrantin aus der DDR konstatierte:

"Das Luft Ablassen kann nicht auf traditionelle Formen sozialer Interaktion wie verbale Kommunikation von Angesicht zu Angesicht oder schriftliche Kommunikation beschränkt werden. Im Gegenteil, es kann in neueren, durch Technologie vermittelten Kommunikationsformen auftreten, die potenzielle Anbieter sicherlich nutzen können, um ein größeres Publikum zu erreichen und dessen Wirkung zu verstärken. Die neue und faszinierende Herausforderung, der sich Pragmatiker, Analytiker des vermittelten Diskurses und der Kommunikation, Forscher der neuen Technologien und an Entlüftung interessierte Sozialepistemologen stellen müssen, ist die Untersuchung und Erklärung der Dynamik neuerer technologiebasierter Formen des Luft Ablassens und ihres Beitrags zum Kampf gegen und Beseitigung von Ungerechtigkeiten und Ungleichheiten."

Es wäre ja nicht die Bananen Republik DE, wenn es in dieser Burleske nicht ein Kuriosum gäbe. So ist der beanstandete Blog Post mit dem Titel “Klage wg. Nötigung gg. Martina Musati. Mildernd ihr Mangel an Bourdieuschen Cultural Capital und damit Hindernis am Heiratsmarkt laut Harvard Studie" vom 29. Nov. 2017 in England (!!!) geblockt (https://www.lumendatabase.org/notices/18274558). Er ist NICHT GEBLOCKT in Deutschland.

Unter Berücksichtigung dieser eluzidierenden Aufsätze und reminiszierend meiner Erfahrung mit deutscher Justiz, halte ich das Angebot von Frau Staatsanwältin für wenig attraktiv als auch unter dem Aspekt der Opportunitätskosten, so doch ohnehin der Beschluss des OLG schon vorab feststeht. Bestätigt sehe ich mich durch den ersten Prinzen von Benevento, der erste Herzog von Talleyrand, französischem Politiker und Diplomat:

A court is an assembly of noble and distinguished beggars. 

Charles Maurice de Talleyrand-Périgord

In Ehrfurcht ersterbend unterthänigster

xxx
_______________
Venting as Epistemic Work
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02691728.2018.1561762
On the Successfulness of Venting and Its Venues
https://social-epistemology.com/2019/02/21/on-the-successfulness-of-venting-and-its-venues-manuel-padilla-cruz/

"EU Fines Are Just Stealth Taxation Against U.S. Tech Companies"

He nails it.

Comment by Ganja Man on article "Germany Cashes Out, Hits Facebook With Fines For Failing To Comply With Its Ultra-Vague 'Hate Speech' Law" :

This is no secret. U.S. companies understand that EU Commission fines, regardless of whether they're based on privacy or competition, are just a revenue generation exercises. You can find the most egregious privacy violators or antitrust cartels in Europe, and they're given slaps on the wrists by EU regulators. But Silicon Valley tech companies are fined billions for made up violations.

 It all started in the 2000s with the EU fines against Microsoft. The Commission got addicted to the fines, and since then, they've gone after Intel, Microsoft, Google, Apple, etc., repeatedly, to extract fines for supposed violations. It's basically just stealth taxation and tariffs. If the U.S. pulled this stunt on European companies doing business in the U.S., the practice would stop overnight.

"Whether this is related to the fact that for the past 14 years Germany has been presided over by someone who not only grew up in East Germany but seemed to do rather well under it I leave as an exercise for the reader."

Relevant question by Tim Newman in his post from yesterday:

This article is primarily about France’s descent into authoritarianism under Macron, but this passage caught my eye:

A recent poll found only 18 percent of Germans feel they can speak freely in public. More than 31 percent did not even feel free to express themselves in private among their friends. Just 17 percent of Germans felt free to express themselves on the internet, and 35 percent said free speech is confined to small private circles.

Jean points to the ECJ in his comment.

"Actually, this is caused by the ECJ; while claiming freedom of ‘expression’ exists they’ve ruled that ‘hate’ speech is forbidden. And ‘hate’ speech is defined in a least one incident as speaking badly about groups of people. Given that, with the exception of a few remaining hermits, we are all members of several overlapping groups, you’d better watch what you say! European values, FTW!"

Anyway. Sad fact is the GDR bitch had yet another trembling fit. This time when meeting some Finnish bloke. Why don't they come clean in Berlin, Merkel is bewitched by the WOKE movement.

Merkel even wrote a raving review on March 14, 2019.https://t.co/aIwpNRbnjrÅMÅŽÕÑ&crid=2Z5PDWRNXUQFE&keywords=titania+mcgrath&qid=1562776624&s=gateway&sprefix=titania%2Caps%2C168&sr=8-1

— Clarky Cat Boz Boz (@ErebusSagace) July 10, 2019

Is this German Basic Law TV ad campaign perhaps sponsored by the #Bundesverfassungsgericht aka The Red Divas of Karlsruhe?

Here is one more TV chick. Well, what is she doing exactly? Is it advertising Article 5 Basic Law, is it promoting the article, is it signalling???

Gee, sometimes I am really slow. Article 5 Basic Law means you can open the top buttons of your blouse as a woman.

Okidokey, I am fine with that.

German Twitter Nazis

Just like in Grammar Nazis. You can not even joke about women's soccer, or some German is pissed.

Twitter complaint on June 10, 2019

Hello,

We have received a complaint regarding your account, @ErebusSagace, for the following content. 

Tweet ID: 1137325862989258753

Tweet Text: @RegSprecher @DFB_Frauen OK, und wer kocht jetzt daheim???

We have investigated the reported content and could not identify any violations of the Twitter Rules (https://support.twitter.com/articles/18311) or applicable law. Accordingly, we have not taken any action at this time. 

Sincerely,

Twitter

in English:

Tweet Text: @RegSprecher @DFB_Frauen OK, and who will be cooking at home???

"The Germans, in the 20’s and 30’s, by allowing the Nazis free speech, were able to counter Nazi lies ..."

A comment too good to be missed. It is from the post of Jonathan Turley from May "Poll: Only 18 Percent Of Germans Feel Free To Voice Views In Public". Would not go down well in Good Ol', but who cares.

The Germans, in the 20’s and 30’s, by allowing the Nazis free speech, were able to counter Nazi lies and insure the triumph of freedom. Tolerating intolerance is the path to freedom, as the free speech in Germany (and the US where hate speech against native Americans and African slaves led to their thriving) during the Weimar Republic clearly demonstrates.

Those who oppose speech which promotes discrimination and violence against others are the real opponents of free speech, for hate speech is the epitome of free speech….until it totally crushes it, as history teaches us.  

If you cant vilify others in rhetoric of collective libel, what is the point of free speech? The freedom to promote hatred and crushing the rights of others is the heart of free speech. Isn’t it?"

Federal Ministry of Justice, something is seriously flawed in your NetzDG. It discriminates unmarried women!

Tweets in image form as Germans have a hard time with free speech and a tendency to report postings on social networks.

See Clarky Cat Boz Boz's other Tweets.

Poll reveals: Only 18 Percent Of Germans Feel Free To Voice Views In Public

Cross-posted from Jonathan Turley at

JONATHAN TURLEY

Res ipsa loquitur – The thing itself speaks

For years, we have discussed the unrelenting attacks on free speech in Europe with the expansion of hate speech laws and the general criminalization of speech, including international speech crimes. Some in the United States would like to follow down that dangerous path (and universities are reinforcing the view of the need to regulate speech). The implications of such anti-speech policies are evident in Germany where a survey, conducted by the Institut für Demoskopie Allensbach(and published in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung) found that only 18 percent of Germans feel free to express their views in public. It is the most vivid example of how Europeans are learning to live without free speech. Undeterred, Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer, the successor to Angela Merkel, is now calling on greater limits on free speech during election periods — a concept that would normally be viewed as counterintuitive outside of the new European model.

Notably, over 31 percent of Germans did not even feel free expressing themselves in private among friends. Just 17 percent felt free to express themselves on the Internet and 35 percent said that freedom to speech is confined to the smallest of private circles.

Even at the height of the Stasi, citizens were not nearly as controlled in East Germany. It is the irony of our times. It has been otherwise liberal governments that have succeeded with authoritarian regimes failed in getting people to give up their free speech rights. All in the name of fighting intolerance . . . by codifying intolerance to an ever-expanding range of speech.

Over the course of the last 50 years, the French, English and Germans have waged an open war on free speech by criminalizing speech deemed insulting, harassing or intimidating. We have previously discussed the alarming rollback on free speech rights in the West, (here and here and here and here and here and here and here) and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here). There are encroachments appearing in the United States, particularly on college campuses. Notably, the media celebrated the speech of French President Emmanuel Macron before Congress where he called on the United States to follow the model of Europe on hate speech.

I readily admit to following the classic liberal view of free speech. The solution to bad speech — even hateful speech — to more speech. It is free speech that allows people of conscience to contest the flawed and hateful ideas of bigots. Germany has proven the fallacy of changing minds through threatened prosecution.  While I am certainly sympathetic to the Germans in seeking to end the scourge of fascism, I have long been a critic of the German laws prohibiting certain symbols and phrases, I view it as not just a violation of free speech but a futile effort to stamp but extremism by barring certain symbols. Instead, extremists have rallied around an underground culture and embraced symbols that closely resemble those banned by the government. I fail to see how arresting a man for a Hitler ringtone is achieving a meaningful level of deterrence, even if you ignore the free speech implications.

We recently discussed how Germany is extending its criminalization of speech to the Internet.  Germany imposed a legal regime that would allow fining social networks such as Facebook up to 500,000 euros ($522,000) for each day the platform leaves a “fake news” story up without deleting it. Governments have finally found a vehicle to get citizens to allow them to curtail or chill speech — ironically in the name of facilitating “real news” or “truth.” It is perfectly Orwellian and Merkel’s latest contribution to the erosion of free speech in the West.

The view of Germans that they are living without free speech would be of little surprise. What is most disconcerting is that they seem to reconciled to living without this basic human right.

The German CDU's Kramp-Karrenbauer losing her Mojo. If there ever was one

Hell, I vowed to abstain commenting on politics but when the temperature apparently is too low, female politicians just tend to spill the beans and lay it all bare what they think about free speech in light of a disappointing elections result.

It is also common for some people to joke about Trump's sometimes erratic speeches and the German cocksucker media - to call them Fake News won't do - is prone to that. After all, ze Germans are ze pipuls of Thinkers & Poets.

So here is the Pocahontas and chancellor in spe (won't happen) of the CDU party with the mellifluous name Kramp-Karrenbauer and a finely chiselled sentence:

"And the question arises already with regard to the topic of opinion making, what are actually rules from the analog area and which rules actually apply to the digital domain, yes or no.”

„Und die Frage stellt sich schon mit Blick auf das Thema Meinungsmache, was sind eigentlich Regeln aus dem analogen Bereich und welche Regeln gelten eigentlich für den digitalen Bereich, ja oder nein.“ 

"It is not tenable to assume that observations of between-person associations—comparing different people at the same time point—translate into within-person effects—tracking an individual, and what affects them, over time (2)."

— Clarky Cat Boz Boz (@ErebusSagace) May 28, 2019

and this directed precisely at AKK:
"There might be small reciprocal within-person effects in females, with increases in life satisfaction predicting slightly lower social media use, and increases in social media use predicting tenuous decreases in life satisfaction."

— Clarky Cat Boz Boz (@ErebusSagace) May 28, 2019

Bitte an Google, Namen des Beschwerenden unter Bezug EU-DSGVO zu nennen zwecks Klage gegen die Person

Judging from the context the request was made by sexyhexy Ms. Martina Musati. Could you confirm that, or else tell me the name of the complainant please.

— Clarky Cat Boz Boz (@ErebusSagace) April 26, 2019

Anyway, name would be nice as I wish to file a lawsuit. Just for the sake of legal basis, Article 6 ECHR guarantees access to case files. I will send an email in addition.

Thank you so much.

— Clarky Cat Boz Boz (@ErebusSagace) April 26, 2019

Strafanzeige gegen Den Vorsitzenden der 42. Kammer, Richter am Sozialgericht München Ehegartner

Neuköllner Duddelchen Franziska Giffey
widmet sich rechtlichen Angelegenheiten
mit Milchmagd-Expertise in freizügiger Décolletage.
© 2017 Celebrityphotos.co

Staatsanwaltschaft München I
Linprunstraße 25
80335 München

21. April 2019

Hiermit  erstatte  ich  Strafanzeige  gegen

Den Vorsitzenden der 42. Kammer, Richter am Sozialgericht München Ehegartner

wegen Rechtsbeugung im Amt (§ 339 StGB) sowie Verstoss gegen Art. 101 GG als auch die §§ 1 Abs. 1, 5 Abs. 1 und 7 Abs. 1 und 5 IFG.

Ich hatte zwei Klagen gegen das BMAS und BMFSFJ wegen Blocken auf Twitter an das SG mit Schreiben vom 09. Feb. 2019 und 05. März 2019 respektive geschickt (Anlage 1 als Beispiel)1. Als diese unbeantwortet blieben, sandte ich ein Erinnerungsschreiben an die Präsidentin des SG mit Datum 07. April 2019 (Anlage 2). Mit Schreiben vom 11. April 2019 erhielt ich die Mitteilung, die Schreiben (sic!) seien an die jeweiligen Ministerien gesandt worden (Anlage 3). Das BMAS hatte von mir ein Fax vom 14. Jan. 2019 erhalten und das BMFSFJ am 13. Jan. 2019. Wie zu erwarten blieben diese Schreiben in einem Land, das keine freie Meinungsäusserung kennt, unbeantwortet.

Schon im August 2018 blieb die Social-Media-Redaktion des Referats Öffentlichkeitsarbeit der Beauftragten der Bundesregierung für Kultur und Medien Frau Henschen maulfaul trotz zweier Emails.

Begründung

Zwar unterliegen die Sozialgerichte der Dienstaufsicht des Arbeitsministeriums des betreffenden Landes und damit in föderaler Extension dem BMAS, es bedürfte aber einer konsiderablen Interpretationselastizität, dem BMAS als einer der beklagten Partei nun auch noch die richterliche Kapazität anzudingen. Das SG München hat seltsame Rechtsvorstellungen in Tatmehrheit mittlerweile!

Mit der bislang völligen Nichtbeachtung meiner Klagen wegen dieser Blockierung auf Twitter, muss ich dem SG unterstellen, es steht der freien Meinungsäusserung von Harz 4 Beziehern auf Social Networks gleichgültig, ja sogar feindlich gegenüber.

I. Durch die Blockierung des Twitter Accounts @ErebusSagace durch das neoliberale BMAS und das BMFSFJ werde ich meines grundgesetzlich garantierten Rechts auf freie Meinungsäusserung als auch Informationsfreiheit gemäss Art. 5 Abs. 1 S. 1 GG als auch insbesondere Art. 3 Abs. 1 und 3 GG beraubt.

II. Erkenntniserweiternd bot ich dem Gericht einige kuratierte Hinweise zur Lektüre, um das erschreckend niedrige intellektuelle Niveau in dieser Provinz der Eingeborenen anzuheben:

1. Ich verwies auf das Papier des Deutschen Bundestags “Zugang zur Öffentlichkeitsarbeit der Polizei in sozialen Medien („Twitter“)", © 2018 Deutscher Bundestag WD 3 - 3000 - 044/18 mit Absatz 2. Blockieren von Nutzern. 

2. Ebenso auf das Papier: “Political Discourse on Social Media: Echo Chambers, Gatekeepers, and the Price of Bipartisanship”, Kiran Garimella. Aalto University. Espoo, Finland”. 

3. Weiters Prof. Dr. Arno Scherzberg, Erfurt, “Das Recht auf Zugang zu behördlichen Informationen – ein neues Grundrecht? - Mit Nachweisen versehener Vortrag an der Universität Luzern, 2007”. 

4. Gefolgt von dem Papier von Hampton, Shin & Lu von der Rutgers University, New Brunswick, USA mit dem einschlägigen Titel “Social media and political discussion: when online presence silences offline conversation”. 


Nicht überraschend der Artikel “DEUTSCHLAND IST WELTMEISTER! BEIM BLOCKEN VON TWITTER-ACCOUNTS”. Danach liegt Deutschland sogar vor der Türkei in der Rangliste der Meinungsunterdrücker. So tut sich eine Regierung, für die “das Internet für alle Neuland ist” und der EU dem Rent-Seeking dient, natürlich schwer in der Beantwortung meiner Fragen:

Welche Tweets liegen gegen den Klagenden vor, die eine Blockierung auf Twitter notwendig machten sowie die allgemeinen Kriterien der Bundesregierung für eine Blockierung? 

Um exakt diese Fragen geht es vor Gericht! Die Ministerien hatten genügend Zeit zu antworten.

III. Ich darf den Horizont erweiternd anregen, aus den muffigen Gefilden Deutschlands einen Blick auf das Land mit einem First Amendment - dies im Vergleich zum Schweizer Käse des Artikels 5 GG - zu werfen. Dort entschied der United States District Court for the Southern District of New York am 23. Mai 2018 im Fall Knight First Amendment Institute v. Trump, No. 1:17-cv-05205 (S.D.N.Y.), dass eine Blockierung nicht mit dem First Amendment zu vereinbaren sei. Eine Lektüre des Artikels “Blocking of Twitter Users from @RealDonaldTrump Violates First Amendment” des amerikanischen Rechtslehrenden an der UCLA School of Law Eugene Volokh und hier insbesondere der Paragraphen 1 und 3 könnte Licht in den bundesdeutschen Dunst bringen.

Die Vorstellung, ministerielles Neuköllner Duddelchen Franziska Giffey würde sich nun auch noch rechtlichen Angelegenheiten mit ihrer Milchmagd-Expertise in freizügiger Décolletage widmen, würde an Parodie grenzen.

Ich fordere das SG auf, sich auf den Boden des Rechtsstaats zurück zu begeben und die Klagen unverzüglich einer gerichtlichen Aufmerksamkeit zuzuführen.

“Publicity is the very soul of justice.” - Jeremy Bentham

_____________
1 Das BMFSFJ blockierte den Twitter Account innerhalb von 48 Stunden!

Anlage 1 Fax an das BMFSFJ
Anlage 2 Brief an die Präsidentin des SG München
Anlage 3 Schreiben des SG München

Assange Arrested for Exposing U.S. War Crimes – Paul Jay

snippet from RealNews Network

Wikileaks released Manning’s leaked documents and exposed multiple crimes committed by the U.S. government and armed forces - Jay says this is getting lost in the corporate media coverage of Assange’s arrest;  when he was arrested, Assange carried a copy of TRNN’s book “Gore Vidal on the History of the National Security State” which was based on a series of interviews conducted by Paul Jay between 2005 to 2007; the premise of the book is the American state and its loyal media use patriotism to lie to the American people about U.S. foreign policy and militarism.

PAUL JAY: Well, I think it was deliberate, obviously. He’s known that he was going to be arrested for quite some time, and certainly in the last couple of days it was just a question of when. So I mean, I’ve never met or talked to Julian. But I’m assuming he did it with some intent. And I think it’s to send the message that this is the national security state that has come for him, and that the national security state is a dangerous thing for people and they should be aware of it.

I think the most important thing to keep in mind here is just what he’s been arrested for; this alleged collusion, if you want to use the word, with Chelsea Manning to leak the various reams of information that Chelsea Manning leaked. They’re claiming he crossed the line in helping to create a password–crack a password–which a journalist is only supposed to receive the information, not in any way collaborate. I have no idea whether Julian did or didn’t do what they’re alleging. But I think a far more important thing is being lost in, so far, most of the media coverage I’ve seen of this arrest, which is they exposed war crimes; they being Julian, Chelsea Manning. They exposed American war crimes in Iraq. And of course there’s this famous footage of a helicopter essentially murdering people as they walk across a square in–I guess it’s Baghdad. But we know in that story that not only did they kill the people in the original video, but they go ahead and strafe a van where there were children in it. And that was just a tip of the iceberg of the kind of war crimes being committed by the United States in Iraq.

And most importantly, what should be discussed again at this moment is that the war itself was a war crime. It was an illegal war. It was not sanctioned by the United Nations. The United States did not face a threat of imminent attack by Iraq, which is the only justification for war. These types of wars of aggression–and it’s clear it was a war of aggression. There was no weapons of mass destruction, and the UN inspectors were all saying so. The Nuremberg trials, they put the Nazis on trial. And it was said at the time and it’s been said since it’s the highest form of war crime, an aggressive war.

So what did WikiLeaks, what did Julian Assange, what did Chelsea Manning do? They exposed war crimes. So whether it may have technically broken an American law or not, if there’s ever going to be democracy, there better be whistleblowers. And the fact that the Obama administration and now the Trump administration, the deep state is going after whistleblowers–and particularly the most well known other than Snowden, Assange–is to send a message. And it comes at a very critical time when I think the Trump administration is planning for some kind of attack on Iran; certainly massive economic destabilization. And who knows what other nefarious things they are planning.

So it’s not just an attack on press freedom, which it is. It’s not just a way to intimidate journalists and news organizations from accepting leaked material, which it is. But it’s saying even if you’re exposing war crimes, we’re coming after you. And the corporate media is ignoring the whole substance of what was done by Chelsea and Julian.

(Excerpt from MNE)

Full talk on TRNN

Why the Assange Arrest Should Scare Reporters

via Rolling Stone

By MATT TAIBBI

The WikiLeaks founder will be tried in a real court for one thing, but for something else in the court of public opinion


Julian Assange was arrested in England on Thursday. Though nothing has been announced, there are reports he may be extradited to the United States to face charges related to Obama-era actions.

Here’s the Washington Post on the subject of prosecuting Assange:

“A conviction would also cause collateral damage to American media freedoms. It is difficult to distinguish Assange or WikiLeaks from The Washington Post.”

That passage is from a 2011 editorial, “Why the U.S. Shouldn’t Try Julian Assange.”

The Post editorial of years back is still relevant because Assange is being tried for an “offense” almost a decade old. What’s changed since is the public perception of him, and in a supreme irony it will be the government of Donald “I love WikiLeaks” Trump benefiting from a trick of time, to rally public support for a prosecution that officials hesitated to push in the Obama years.

Much of the American media audience views the arrested WikiLeaks founder through the lens of the 2016 election, after which he was denounced as a Russian cutout who threw an election for Trump.

But the current indictment is the extension of a years-long effort, pre-dating Trump, to construct a legal argument against someone who releases embarrassing secrets.

Barack Obama’s Attorney General, Eric Holder, said as far back as 2010 the WikiLeaks founder was the focus of an “active, ongoing criminal investigation.” Assange at the time had won, or was en route to winning, a pile of journalism prizes for releasing embarrassing classified information about many governments, including the infamous “Collateral Murder” video delivered by Chelsea Manning. The video showed a helicopter attack in Iraq which among other things resulted in the deaths of two Reuters reporters.

full article here

Law suit against German Labor Ministry BMAS for blocking on Twitter

This is a condensed excerpt from my law suit against the German Labor Ministry's blocking on Twitter.

I hereby lodge a complaint against the

Federal Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs represented by Minister Hubertus Heil, Wilhelmstraße 49, 10117 Berlin (hereinafter BMAS)

for blocking on Twitter and thereby committing a

Violation of Article 5 (1) sentence 1 GG as well as in particular Article 3 (1) and (3) GG and in extension §§ 1 (1), 5 (1) and 7 (1) IFG.

Reason

I. In 2017 or 2018, the Twitter account @ErebusSagace was blocked by the neo-liberal BMAS. As a user of this social network account, I was thus deprived of my constitutionally guaranteed right to freedom of expression as well as freedom of information pursuant to Art. 5 (1) sentence 1 GG and in particular Art. 3 (1) and (3) GG.

In the paper of the German Bundestag "Access to public relations of the police in social media Twitter", © 2018 German Bundestag WD 3 - 3000 - 044/18 it says:

2. Blocking users

If the police blocks specific posts or users on their short message account, this fundamentally and depending on the case design interferes with the following basic rights:

• The freedom of expression of the user, insofar as he can no longer comment on contributions from the police (Article 5 (1) sentence 1 GG);
• freedom of information of the user insofar as he can no longer view the contributions of the police or only under difficult conditions (Article 5 (1) sentence 1 GG);
• the right to equal participation in public services and facilities (Article 5 (1) sentence 1 GG, Article 3 (1) GG)

Without doubt this also applies to federal ministries. These are obviously of the opinion that Hartz IV recipients are dispensable social accessories. In a fax dated Jan. 14, 2019 (see attachment) I asked the neoliberal Federal Ministry of Foreign Affairs for information about the reasons for blocking on Twitter and the official guidelines of the Federal Government for blockages on social networks in general. I set the deadline February 8, 2019, after several pertinent communications, as can be seen from the fax, remained unanswered in a typically German way. This request, too, remained unanswered in well-known German fashion.

In any case, the BMAS received an e-mail notification on the blog post "German Labor Minister Nahles, reign in your criminals" June 1, 2017. This post dealt with the criminal civil servant Manfred Jäger (coercion) and the completely retarded criminal civil servant and useful idiot Jürgen Sonneck (slander), formerly Jobcenter Munich and operating under the wrong name 'C. Paucher'. This was covered up by Munich police and the Munich Court despite glaring circumstantial evidence.
...

For the sake of completeness and in support of the facts presented here, the article "GERMANY IS WORLD CHAMPION! WHEN BLOCKING TWITTER ACCOUNTS" deals with a shocking but not surprising scenario according to which Germany is even ahead of Turkey in the ranking of opinion oppressors.
...

V. Last but not least, the plaintiff would like to point to the country with a First Amendment, which assures a much broader right to free speech than Germany's Article 5 GG. There, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled on May 23, 2018 in the case Knight First Amendment Institute v. United States. Trump, No. 1: 17-cv-05205 (S.D.N.Y.):

“This case requires us to consider whether a public official may, consistent with the First Amendment, “block” a person from his Twitter account in response to the political views that person has expressed, and whether the analysis differs because that public official is the President of the United States. The answer to both questions is no.”

US lawyer Eugene Volokh's article "Blocking Twitter Users from @RealDonald Trump Violates First Amendment" explains the judge's reasoning in particular in the paragraphs 1 and 3:

[1.] The virtual space provided by Twitter for replying to the President's Tweets is a "designated public forum" -- a space controlled (even if not owned) by the government that is generally open for public speech to fellow members of the public, and in which the First Amendment forbids viewpoint discrimination. The Tweets themselves aren't a forum, because they are the President's own speech; but the space for public replies is a forum. The court's concern is that replies are a valuable means for the repliers to speak to fellow members of the public. The court recognizes that there's no right to speak to the President in a way that the President is obliged to read; the President remains free, for instance, to use Twitter's "mute" function, which would keep him from seeing the user's replies when he reviews his own feed.

[3.] Though blocked users remain free to read the President's Tweets, and can even comment on them through various workarounds (such as by creating new accounts), the various workarounds "require [the individual plaintiffs] to take more steps than non-blocked, signed-in users to view the President's tweets," which "delay[s] their ability to respond to @realDonaldTrump tweets." This is not a vast burden, the court concluded, but "the First Amendment recognizes, and protects against, even de minimis harms."