Guest essay by Eric Worrall
German Chancellor Angela Merkel is planning new censorship laws, a harsh crack down on “fake news”, which according to President Obama seems to include any criticism of climate theory.
…
“Something has changed — as globalization has marched on, [political] debate is taking place in a completely new media environment. Opinions aren’t formed the way they were 25 years ago,” she said Wednesday while addressing Germany’s Bundestag, or parliament. “Today we have fake sites, bots, trolls — things that regenerate themselves, reinforcing opinions with certain algorithms, and we have to learn to deal with them.”
Merkel indicated that she supported tougher measures to crack down on hate speech in its various forms and figure out new ways to regulate the complicated ecosystem of online information (and misinformation).
“I believe we should not underestimate what is happening in the context of the Internet and with digitalization; this is part of our reality,” Merkel said. “We have regulations that allow for our press freedom, including the requirement for due diligence from journalists. Today we have many that experience a media that is based on very different foundations and is much less regulated.”
…
President Obama stating the problematic new media ecosystem includes “climate denial”
…
The new media ecosystem “means everything is true and nothing is true,” Obama told me later. “An explanation of climate change from a Nobel Prize-winning physicist looks exactly the same on your Facebook page as the denial of climate change by somebody on the Koch brothers’ payroll. And the capacity to disseminate misinformation, wild conspiracy theories, to paint the opposition in wildly negative light without any rebuttal—that has accelerated in ways that much more sharply polarize the electorate and make it very difficult to have a common conversation.”
That marked a decisive change from previous political eras, he maintained. “Ideally, in a democracy, everybody would agree that climate change is the consequence of man-made behavior, because that’s what ninety-nine per cent of scientists tell us,” he said. “And then we would have a debate about how to fix it. That’s how, in the seventies, eighties, and nineties, you had Republicans supporting the Clean Air Act and you had a market-based fix for acid rain rather than a command-and-control approach. So you’d argue about means, but there was a baseline of facts that we could all work off of. And now we just don’t have that.”
…
Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/11/28/obama-reckons-with-a-trump-presidency
Does Angela Merkel think criticism of climate science should be included in her crackdown? I haven’t found a direct quote where Merkel describes climate “denial” as “fake news”, but given how close she is to President Obama on this subject, this seems a reasonable assumption.
Under German Law, Merkel has the power to prosecute or imprison people who voice proscribed opinions. German Law, unlike the US Constitution, does not provide a guarantee of free speech. German law contains a broad and vaguely defined concept of Volksverhetzung, “incitement of the masses”.
Volksverhetzung, in English “incitement of the masses”, “instigation of the people” (the official English translation of the German Criminal Code uses “incitement to hatred”), is a concept in German criminal law that refers to incitement to hatred against segments of the population and refers to calls for violent or arbitrary measures against them, including assaults against the human dignity of others by insulting, maliciously maligning, or defaming segments of the population.
It is often applied to, though not limited to, trials relating to Holocaust denial in Germany. The criminal code (Strafgesetzbuch) Chapter 7 (Offences against public order), Paragraph 130 (Incitement to hatred) of the Federal Republic of Germany defines when a person is guilty of Volksverhetzung.
The concept draws criticism by press and legal scholars for not being defined with the necessary definiteness and violating the principle of clarity and definiteness (Bestimmtheitsgrundsatz) and thus is called an elastic clause (Gummiparagraph) allowing in theory to punish nearly any political statment made and violating the freedom of speech.
…
Read more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volksverhetzung
The only silver lining to this ghastly business is in order to legally persecute “climate deniers”, if this is Merkel’s intention, she will have to define what climate denial actually is. Defining climate “denial” is harder than it might seem, because there is a lot of agreement about the fundamental physics. A legal definition of climate “denial” would have to include ridiculously prescriptive clauses, such as “expressing a belief that equilibrium climate sensitivity may be less than 1.5c / doubling of CO2”.
It’s starting to make Putin look like a good guy loved by his people.
I know the US has many checks and balances but I feel it has just escaped one big time bomb when it elected Pres-elect Trump. Eight more years of this Obama and Dem State AG nonsense would make US freedoms unrecognizable.
Merkel has confirmed plans to rapidly expand the scope and size of Germany’s intelligence services including its domestic spy agency. What you can take from this that the days of the Stasi or Gehiemes Staat Polizei are back.
Government is now the arbiter of truth – that’s the real meaning of Post Truth
In the EU whenever there is an Islamic terror attack, the political class and the media immediately focus on the bogeyman of far-right violence toward muslims. Of course it never materialises, and it succeeds in portraying the muslims as the real victims.
That’s what counts.
“media immediately focus on the bogeyman of far-right violence”
Yeah, and it’s always called the FAR-right in Europe, in an effort to make them appear extreme and radical. It’s never just the Right.
And of course, they never say FAR-Left. Can’t have that.
The problem that for most of the elite in Europe, socialists are right wing.
Anyone to the right of a socialist immediately gets labeled as far-right.
Merkel has confirmed plans to rapidly expand the scope and size of Germany’s intelligence services including its domestic spy agency. What you can take from this that the days of the Stasi or Gestapo are back.
Government is now the arbiter of truth – that’s the real meaning of Post Truth
In the EU whenever there is an attack by members of a certain faith, the politicians and the media immediately focus on the bogeyman of far right violence toward muslims. Of course it never materialises, and it succeeds in portraying the entire membership of that faith group as the real victims.
That’s what counts.
“and nothing is true,” Obama told me later. “An explanation of climate change from a Nobel Prize-winning physicist looks exactly the same on your Facebook page as the denial of climate change by somebody on the Koch brothers’ payroll.”
An explanation from a Nobel Peace price winner looks not that different to the statement of the Colonia head of police who lacks enough troops to defend women on the town place before ‘northafrican migrant’ offenders.
http://m.spiegel.de/international/germany/22-germans-speak-about-challenges-of-integrating-refugees-a-1075661.html
http://m.spiegel.de/international/germany/refugee-hostels-in-germany-beset-by-sexual-assault-a-1091681.html
Given that the internet hosts images of rape, murder child pornography and genuine hate preachers, isn’t it sickening that ‘fake’ news is what concerns these people?
With the US just coming out of an election, I am somewhat amazed at what we avoided here.
One theme in the election was that “fact checkers” cited by the legacy media were blatantly supporting one political party, the Democrats, and their pet causes, like CAGW and Keynesian economics.
Another theme was the malign effect of “fake news” on the internet, which in one sense was real (mostly obvious conspiracy theories and malign gossip about candidates) and in another, anything that contradicted the legacy media.
A theme by the Democrats was to change the US constitution to override the “Citizens United” Supreme Court decision (which gave corporations [including membership organizations] and labor unions free speech rights) by amending the Constitution. The proposed wording of the new amendment was every bit as “gummi” as the German law. In some readings of the proposals, the government would be able to restrict the funding for speech of some groups, at the government’s discression. I am a member of a group that ran anti-Hiilary Clinton ads (not associated with climate change issues) that she almost certainly defines as part of the “basket of deplorables”. By that standard, we would have fewer rights as a group than individually.
The McCain-Feingold law that was over turned by the courts actually had a provision that stated that nobody other than the candidates themselves could comment on a election in the 30 days prior to the election. The only exception to this ban was for reporters. And who gets to decide who is and who isn’t a reporter? The government of course.
“I am a member of a group that ran anti-Hiilary Clinton ads”
I salute you, Tom! 🙂
Obama and Merkel’s arguments are so transparent – claiming that “we gotten control of the press and books”
and speech – they are now “regulated.” Not exactly – they face laws against slander and libel. So what is different about speech and text on the internet? Those laws apply there as well.
Obama’s propaganda outlets – the LA Times, the NY Times and the Wash Post, all coastal publications,
could all rightly be called fake news outlets, at least as far as climate science is concerned – we need to go back thru all of the things those rags published about global warming and methodically shred them.
http://climatechangepredictions.org/
Simply bringing predictions to light offers most of the shredding you need.
Would censorship by any other name stink any less?
Climate Change has become the new Phrenology – an official state religion.
….think more along the line of when eugenics was the popular delusion of the left and you will have a better insight of where these intellectual midgets are currently heading.
eugenics was accepted as fact in the United States among “progressives” until the Nazis gave it a bad name.
Agreed ferdb
It was very popular 1900-1930. Planned Parenthood is one of its spawn (which really surprised me when I found out the whole history).
So now that the internet is being turned over to international control you can expect more freedom of speech going by-by. Anthony, your site will be banded in Germany.
When exactly did ‘Freedom of Speech’ (Press) come to include a requirement for ‘due diligence’? Who gets to decide if the ‘diligence’ a member of the press has exercised is sufficiently ‘due’? That may be one of the single most frightening things Merkel has said. She expects the well trained sheep to follow along with the imposition of a dictatorship over information?
Maybe this is why John Cook has been seen wearing a Nazi uniform, he’s just interviewing for a job with a German chancellery.
All news about “fake news” are a fake and therefore streng verboten!
“German Law, unlike the US Constitution, does not provide a guarantee of free speech.”
Wrong. Dead Wrong. Check the facts. Here: The German Grundgesetz.
“Article 5
[Freedom of expression, arts and sciences]
(1) Every person shall have the right freely to express and disseminate his opinions in speech, writing and pictures, and to inform himself without hindrance from generally accessible sources. Freedom of the press and freedom of reporting by means of broadcasts and films shall be guaranteed. There shall be no censorship.”
You forgot the “rest of the story” (as detailed by Michael Palmer):
Sorry, that is not freedom when they “find their limits” in general laws. That is censored speech. Based upon the prevailing winds of government at the time.
This may actually turn out to be good news by way of forcing the debate into a court room much like “An Inconvenient Truth” was in the UK.
When OlBlame-0 is with Merkel the world is treated to the Joint inanity of Merkel and Urkel. What a Truth squad! Cannot believe Merkel is a physicist. How does the Great nation of Germany burden itself with such a pitiful and incoherent Leader. Have we seen this horror before. What the hell is the matter with you Sour Krauts?
“Cannot believe Merkel is a physicist.”
It’s not the profession itself, it’s what you do with it. Remember, Mengele had a doctorate in medicine.
She is merely implementing the policies of her former country, the DDR. As Obama is trying to do as well. They cannot compete in a free society, so must control information and the people through whatever means they can dream up.
It is a sad time, and Kruschev’s prediction is coming true – even after the death of his nation.
+10. Obama is a traitor to the Constitution. He and he alone trashed the first worldwide free speech zone. Even as he, in his petty intellectual cowardice ignorantly and cowardly flees from debate and discussion. Merkel grew up a nasty commie rat in nasty commie tyranny. Obama grew up in America and still hates our freedom.
This is a History Channel re accounting of Nikita Kruschev’s rant at the UN in 1956…with his son providing needed perspective, insight, and translation.
Still, his meaning rings true in what we see going on in the western world today. Socialism creep into the educational systems, the political systems, and the hearts and minds of the everyday (uninformed) citizenry.
The US of A has indeed averted a slide into the socialist abyss with the Presidential election results this year. However, and unfortunately, the media appears to be doubling down with the recent “Fake News” meme, and I am growing increasingly tired of reading and hearing of their petulance. They cannot fathom that the US populace does not want to be controlled by a select few through a socialistic governmental approach.
And – I have just yesterday, cancelled my print subscription to my local newspaper – they have increased the monthly rate to USD $42.03 per month, and with the unrepentant attitudes I see in the editorials page and syndicated columns chosen to be printed, I have finally had enough. Please welcome me into the wholly-electronic world of obtaining my news, weather, and sports!!
Regards,
MCR
“The most effectual engines for [pacifying a nation] are the public papers… [A despotic] government always [keeps] a kind of standing army of newswriters who, without any regard to truth or to what should be like truth, [invent] and put into the papers whatever might serve the ministers. This suffices with the mass of the people who have no means of distinguishing the false from the true paragraphs of a newspaper.”
–Thomas Jefferson to G. K. van Hogendorp, Oct. 13, 1785. (*) ME 5:181, Papers 8:632
Section 5 of the German constitution reads:
It would oblige the Bundesverfassungsgericht (constitutional court) to test each law that proposes to limit the rights expressed in this paragraph for excessive infringement. It is a common occurrence that this court rejects (and thus, invalidates) legislation passed by the parliament.
I guess these provisions are very similar to those of other democratic countries, and indeed I can perceive little difference in how German and English or North American media exercise their rights; in reality, both are limited much more by their own biases, stupidity, and laziness, and probably by “guidance” from the owners, than they are limited by any laws.
As a German citizen, I detest and distrust Angela Merkel as much as anyone, but neither she nor her parliamentary super-majority will find it possible to substantially change the legal situation.
A 5 minute google search suggests what you’ve written is largely nonsense, as the exceptions to the general principles of freedom of speech are what are of concern. For example, section 166:
(1) Whoever publicly or through dissemination of writings (Section 11 subsection (3)) insults the content of others’ religious faith or faith related to a philosophy of life in a manner that is capable of disturbing the public peace, shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than three years or a fine.
(2) Whoever publicly or through dissemination of writings (Section 11 subsection (3)) insults a church, other religious society, or organization dedicated to a philosophy of life located in Germany, or their institutions or customs in a manner that is capable of disturbing the public peace, shall be similarly punished.
Or section 130 which is even worse:
(1) Whoever, in a manner that is capable of disturbing the public peace:
1. incites hatred against segments of the population or calls for violent or arbitrary measures against them; or
2. assaults the human dignity of others by insulting, maliciously maligning, or defaming segments of the population,
shall be punished with imprisonment from three months to five years.
***
Or in other words, if you are critical of a religious claim or hurt a ‘group’s’ feelings, you can be imprisoned. Not really satisfactory, is it?
Will, please work on your reading comprehension. What you cite are special laws as subsumed by the second paragraph:
Whether or not you find those protections of religious sensibilities excessive — for the record, I do, too — it is a stretch to assume that the warmist cult will come to enjoy the same kind of protection. Even if parliament — which admittedly is chock-full of nitwits these days — should pass such legislation, it would in all likelihood be thrown out by the Constitutional Court.
Your response strikes me as delusional. You defend the use of such undefined language as reasonable because it’s countered by equally vague language. I expect the world is divided into those who have had to run Court cases (myself unfortunately), and those who never had. The never hads being clueless about the extreme dangers of vague and ambiguous wording in laws.
Will, you are using imprecise language yourself — it is fine if you find my arguments unconvincing, but that is not the same as “delusional.” That lack of discipline in your language, like your selective reading comprehension, can’t have helped in those court cases of yours.
While I agree with you that some of the specific rules you cited unduly limit freedom of speech, there is nothing in them that can be twisted into limiting the freedom to state scientific opinions. BTW the German regulations are quite similar to the ones we have here in Canada. I do prefer the US law in principle, but so far it has made little difference in practice.
If you lack of understanding and experience makes you unable to comprehend the points I am making, you might want to do more reading on the topic. There is limits to what can be explained to someone in a comments section of a forum, particularly if they unaware of the subject matter. You might want to read up on “section 18c” in Australia or “Bill C 16” in Canada, as examples. Here is a random selection of articles you can read to get you started. I’m sure there are better ones but I only spent 10 seconds googling.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1380971/Simon-Ledger-arrested-racism-performing-Kung-Fu-Fighting.html
https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/jordan-peterson-exposes-the-creeping-dictatorship-of-gender-rights-movement
“Delusional” was probably the wrong word to use in your case. Probably “ignorant” would be more accurate, perhaps.
Germany and other countries (including the United States) ought to pass a law against media activism masquerading as news. When I was in the Army, I maintained the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile. One of the requirements when you discovered a defect, was to identify the cause. The instructions stated that you had to identify opinion as such. (Actually, the paperwork requirements for nukes were not too bad).
That’s as bad as what Merkle is proposing.
How do you define media activism?
I predicted that the corrupt, anti-freedom, cowardly, parasitic, hateful, losers on the left would eventually come for climate skeptics. And the disgusting climate true believers, like the miserable trolls who post their hateful bilge here and everywhere that skeptics post will cheer it on. Obama deserves to be hated by everyone who values freedom of only for his betrayal of a free internet.
Merkel: “We have regulations that allow for our press freedom, including the requirement for due diligence from journalists.”
“Due diligence” from journalists? On climate science? That is the DEFINITION of fake news.
most journalists today just copy-n-paste press releases. They do no due diligence at all, and if they had to they’d close down leaving the only source of news, internet blogs.
“Merkel: “We have regulations that allow for our press freedom”
We are so glad you deign to allow press freedom. Here in the U.S. we think free speech is an innate human right, not one that’s only allowed by another human being. You can stick your “allow’ where the sun don’t shine.
Lack of due dilligence is relevant in a libel case.
History warns us to be very wary of ideological extremist Germans like Merkel using sciencey sounding politics as an excuse to clean up things those extremists find annoying.
Merkel left out fake science and the politically controlled budgets funding it.
[mod – this is more or less a duplicate of another post that seems to have gotten lost in transmission. If that other one is still in the queue, please discard either one. Thank you.]
The fifth paragraph of the German constitution reads (translation by Dr. Google with minor edits):
It obliges the Bundesverfassungsgericht (Federal Constitutional Court) to test any law passed by parliament for infringement on the constitution, and indeed this court has struck down a fair number of laws over the years. I detest and distrust Merkel as much as anyone, but she will not try to change this situation.
As understand it, these legal provisions are quite similar to those of other democratic countries, and in fact I do not see any difference in the exercise of these rights between Germany (where I used to live for 40 years) and North America (where I live now). In practice, both German and North American media are limited much more by their own biases, stupidity, and laziness, by political correctness, as well as by economic pressures and “guidance” provided by their owners, than by any laws. On the other hand, independent forums such as this one exist on both sides of the pond as well.
Current events have answered a long standing dilemma: how could the people of Germany have accepted someone like Hitler?
He promised to cancel the treaty of Versailles – and kept this promise. He promised to make Germany great again -he kept this promise as well, but just for a limited time. He promised to erase unemployment and he kept that promise as well. But finally things started to go terribly wrong.
Nasty way to show just how ignorant you are, non nomen.
Starting in 1933 after his election, Hitler and the Nazi Party took over every single non-governmental social organization in the country, right down to the hiking clubs and book groups, and Nazified them. No independence at all was brooked.
He also immediately began persecuting the Jews and dismissing them, first, from government positions, all of which became progressively worse. Private businesses were “Aryanized” (fire all Jews), and Jewish owned businesses were required sold to those owned and run by ethnically acceptable Germans.
A national policy of eugenics was instigated, including forcible sterilization and certain marriages forbidden, and political dissidents, especially Social Democrats and Communists, were sent to prison and concentration camps.
When Hitler was elected and the Nazis came to power, Goebbels announced proudly that individualism was finally dead. Collective morality (read Nazi ideas) was enforced and the entire state was forcibly organized. Progressives of the day saw all that as ideal, until the break with the Soviet Union.
There’s nothing to be proud of, or happy with, in the lot of it.