[Domestic Policy] Go Die - Dare less Freedom of Expression with the Amadeu Antonio Foundation 2021-06-19

Openly expressed racism or group-related hatred are of course to be condemned. However freedom of expression as a necessary condition for a democracy and must be guaranteed. In 2015 the Amadeu Antonio Foundation published the paper ">>Go to Die<< - Dealing with Hate Speech and Comments on the Internet".

1. False Claims
2. Insufficiencies in the Explanation
3. Reinterpretations
4. Recommendations for Action
5. The Ethic of Censorship

False Claims

Verifiable statements in the paper are rare. However the first verifiable statement that exists is already false. In the preface the then Federal Minister of Justice Heiko Maas (SPD) claims that the rise in attacks on refugee shelters can be traced back to intellectual arson.

The sudden increase in attacks on refugee accommodation shows that "intellectual arson" far too often turns into violence: In 2014 the number of crimes tripled compared to the previous year.

Dass aus »geistiger Brandstiftung« viel zu oft Gewalt wird, zeigt der sprunghafte Anstieg von Angriffen auf Flüchtlingsunterkünfte: Im Jahr 2014 hat sich die Zahl der Taten im Vergleich zum Vorjahr verdreifacht.

Heiko Maas (SPD), damals Bundesjustizminister [1,p.5]

In fact a total of 1,248 fire incidents in refugee accommodation were recorded in 2015 and 2016. Evidently 24% of this is attributable to third parties and 46% to the residents e.g. due to errors in the operation of kitchen appliances while the rest was not cleared up. However it remains to be seen what is hidden behind the unresolved cases. [2] [3]

Insufficiencies in the Explanation

In the paper it is openly admitted that what hate speech actually is remains disputed. Furthermore there would be neither a fixed definition nor a catalog of words for hate speech. Hate speech is a political term and depends on the context. [1,p.9-10] [1,p.13] It is even admitted that one cannot legally limit oneself to hate speech and that German law does not include hate speech. [1,p.33]

In contrast to specific criminal offenses, no common denominator is provided. This raises the question of how something that is not clearly defined ist to be regulated. If something is regulated without a clear definition, the regulation is inevitably subject to the convictions or political classification of those who make the decisions. And judgments depend on the political balance of power.

Reinterpretations

What is striking about the paper is that hate speech is never clearly defined. Instead various reinterpretations are used. For example the monopoly of the interpretation is granted exclusively to the declared victims and their subjective perception. [1,p.10-11] The Amadeu Antonio Foundation is already relying on the fact that there is an intellectual competition. However no social debate or a competition of ideas is outlined here.

Als Grundlage einer Definition ist die Betroffenenperspektive besser geeignet als die Intention des Sprechenden.

The perspective of the affected person is more suitable as a basis for a definition than the intention of the speaker. [1,p.10]

In the paper from the Amadeu Antonio Foundation racism is differentiated according to victims rather than its dynamics. [1,p.14] This reveals the double standards of the victim hierarchy. Future negative developments are ignored or not taken into account.

Hate Speech funktioniert nur, wenn sie eine kollektiv verankerte Abwertung anspricht und in Einklang mit gesellschaftlicher Diskriminierung steht. Rassismus gegen Weiße zum Beispiel kann situativ stattfinden, hat jedoch keine gesellschaftliche Dimension. Entsprechend fallen abwertende Aussagen über Weiße (z.B. »Kartoffel«) nicht unter Hate Speech, da ihnen schlicht die gesellschaftlichen Konsequenzen fehlen.

Hate speech only works if it addresses a collectively anchored devaluation and is in harmony with social discrimination. Racism against whites for example can take place situationally but has no social dimension. Correspondingly derogatory statements about whites (e.g. "potatoes") do not fall under hate speech as they simply lack the social consequences. [1,p.14]

Furthermore it is generally assumed that the cases are solely on purpose. [1,p.19] Negligence and even misunderstandings are ruled out and intent is assumed. However no evidence of this organization or planning is presented.

Es handelt sich eben nicht um randomisierte Vorkommnisse, sondern vielmehr um organisierte und geplante Aktionen.

It is not a matter of randomized occurrences but rather of organized and planned actions. [1,p.19]

Recommendations for Action

When dealing with hate speech the Amadeu Antonio Foundation makes recommendations on what to do and what not to do. Allegedly wrong posts should be deleted because moderating or debating is not classified as effective. Journalists should also show their attitude and make fun of the authors of the supposedly false articles. [1,p.22]

On the other hand there is occasional legitimate criticism e.g. if the authors of group-related enmity are classified as a loud minority. [1,p.24] In addition the publication of private data, such as Residential addresses, photos or bank details condemned. [1,p.26]

The Ethic of Censorship

To be against group-related human hatred is in the first approximation correct. However measures should not limit potential criticism and thus freedom of expression. Freedom of expression and democracy go hand in hand. For the free competition of ideas the possibility to get to know information and ideas and to be heard is by definition indispensable. Exceptions are the call for crimes and appeals that can disturb public peace such as the false warning of fire in cramped rooms. Everything else would be a some sort of dictatorship.

Censorship of hatred would require people or rules from people who distinguish hatred from criticism. In any case it would be people to differentiate. Hate and criticism however have a common intersection of interpretation depending on one's own position. In addition it is not yet clear whether the statement or the position of the addressed person is questionable or illegitimate. Thus a censorship would again be a projection of power even if it was driven by morality.

In addition a restriction of freedom of expression threatens a deradicalising dialogue and the visibility of illegal illegal expressions. One does not do justice to the meaning of the free democratic basic order and the possibility of free exchange without freedom of expression. And the rules of this exchange are determined by the legislature. For this most states require freedom of expression. In addition there are already paragraphs in the Penal Codes against the public call for crimes. [4]

[1] >>Geh Sterben<< - Umgang mit Hate Speech und Kommentaren im Internet
https://www.amadeu-antonio-stiftung.de/w/files/pdfs/hatespeech.pdf
[2] Brandstatistik Flüchtlingsunterkünfte - Eine erste Bilanz - 2017-01-13
http://www.inuri.de/210-brandstatistik-fluechtlingsunterkuenfte-erste-bilanz.html
[3] Die meisten Flüchtlingsheime werden von Bewohnern angezündet. Oder nicht? | reporter - 2017-01-18
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eXEZrPIXts
[4] Strafgesetzbuch Art 111
https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stgb/__111.html/