Hello World,

following feedback we have received in the last few days, both from users and moderators, we are making some changes to clarify our ToS.

Before we get to the changes, we want to remind everyone that we are not a (US) free speech instance. We are not located in US, which means different laws apply. As written in our ToS, we’re primarily subject to Dutch, Finnish and German laws. Additionally, it is our discretion to further limit discussion that we don’t consider tolerable. There are plenty other websites out there hosted in US and promoting free speech on their platform. You should be aware that even free speech in US does not cover true threats of violence.

Having said that, we have seen a lot of comments removed referring to our ToS, which were not explicitly intended to be covered by our ToS. After discussion with some of our moderators we have determined there to be both an issue with the ambiguity of our ToS to some extent, but also lack of clarity on what we expect from our moderators.

We want to clarify that, when moderators believe certain parts of our ToS do not appropriately cover a specific situation, they are welcome to bring these issues up with our admin team for review, escalating the issue without taking action themselves when in doubt. We also allow for moderator discretion in a lot of cases, as we generally don’t review each individual report or moderator action unless they’re specifically brought to admin attention. This also means that content that may be permitted by ToS can at the same time be violating community rules and therefore result in moderator action. We have added a new section to our ToS to clarify what we expect from moderators.

We are generally aiming to avoid content organizing, glorifying or suggesting to harm people or animals, but we are limiting the scope of our ToS to build the minimum framework inside which we all can have discussions, leaving a broader area for moderators to decide what is and isn’t allowed in the communities they oversee. We trust the moderators judgement and in cases where we see a gross disagreement between moderatos and admins’ criteria we can have a conversation and reach an agreement, as in many cases the decision is case-specific and context matters.

We have previously asked moderators to remove content relating to jury nullification when this was suggested in context of murder or other violent crimes. Following a discussion in our team we want to clarify that we are no longer requesting moderators to remove content relating to jury nullification in the context of violent crimes when the crime in question already happened. We will still consider suggestions of jury nullification for crimes that have not (yet) happened as advocation for violence, which is violating our terms of service.

As always, if you stumble across content that appears to be violating our site or community rules, please use Lemmys report functionality. Especially when threads are very active, moderators will not be able to go through every single comment for review. Reporting content and providing accurate reasons for reports will help moderators deal with problematic content in a reasonable amount of time.

  • yetAnotherUser@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    13 days ago

    Try Germany:

    §111 (1) StGB:

    Anyone who publicly, in a meeting or by disseminating content (Section 11 (3)) incites an unlawful act shall be punished as an instigator (Section 26).

    §130 StGB:

    (1) Anyone who, in a manner likely to disturb the public peace,

    1. incites hatred against a national, racial, religious or ethnic group, against parts of the population or against an individual because of his membership of a designated group or part of the population, or incites violence or arbitrary measures, or
    2. attacks the human dignity of others by insulting, maliciously denigrating or defaming a designated group, parts of the population or an individual because of their membership of a designated group or part of the population, shall be liable to a custodial sentence of three months to five years.

    (2) A custodial sentence not exceeding three years or a monetary penalty shall be imposed on anyone who

    1. disseminates or makes available to the public content (Section 11 (3)) or offers, provides or makes available to a person under the age of eighteen content (Section 11 (3)) that a) incites hatred against a group referred to in paragraph 1 number 1, against sections of the population or against an individual because of his or her membership of a group referred to in paragraph 1 number 1 or of a section of the population, b) incites violence or arbitrary measures against persons or groups of persons referred to in letter a), or c) violates the human dignity of persons or groups of persons referred to in letter a) by insulting, maliciously denigrating or defaming them, or
    2. produces, obtains, supplies, keeps in stock, offers, advertises or undertakes to import or export content referred to in number 1 letters a to c (§ 11 paragraph 3) in order to use it in the sense of number 1 or to enable another person to make such use of it.

    I’m fairly certain CEOs could fall under the “designated group” label but I’m not a lawyer. If that is the case, lemmy.world can be held accountable for the spread of content promoting their death.

    • Dragon Rider (drag)@lemmy.nz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      13 days ago

      CEOs aren’t a designated group, they’re a voluntary group. And 111 only prohibits advocating unlawful violence. It’s perfectly legal in Germany to say that criminals should be locked up. Imprisonment is a violent act, and it’s completely legal to advocate it. And criminals, just like CEOs, are not a designated group.

      • yetAnotherUser@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        13 days ago

        According to the 2nd highest court in Germany that can only be overruled by the constitutional court:

        A section of the population - the only one to be considered in the present case - is a group of persons who are distinguishable from the rest of the population on the basis of common external or internal characteristics of a political, national, ethnic, racial, religious, ideological, social, economic, professional or other nature, who are numerically of some significance and thus no longer individually distinguishable.

        BGH 3 StR 602/14, decision from 2015-04-14

        As a layman, CEOs seem to fit that definition due to their economic and professional characteristic.

        This Wikipedia article has an extensive number of court cases and resulting applocations and limitations listed, in case you’re interested in learning more. The English version is far less detailed, so try translating the whole site, i.e. through Firefox Translate:

        https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volksverhetzung

        • Dragon Rider (drag)@lemmy.nz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          13 days ago

          If criminals are a designated group, and advocating violence against designated groups is illegal in Germany, does that mean it’s illegal for Germans to say criminals should be locked up?

          Cowabunga!

          • yetAnotherUser@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            13 days ago

            No, because by definition criminals have already done an act such that their imprisonment is legal, if done by the state.

            Imprisonment is a legal act of violence if and only if someone has committed a crime. CEOs, while immoral, do not necessarily break laws.

            And yes, calling for a group of people to be imprisoned can fall under §130. Again, I am not a lawyer but there have been court decisions about this.

            Finally, the fact that lemmy.world distributes content advocating for the killing of CEOs could likely fall under this paragraph because the death sentence itself violates human dignity already.

            • Dragon Rider (drag)@lemmy.nz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              13 days ago

              So you’re saying that German law doesn’t prohibit all calls for violence, only certain kinds of calls for violence?

      • Muehe@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        13 days ago

        CEOs aren’t a designated group, they’re a voluntary group.

        Oh don’t pretend you know what you are talking about. The German text says “vorbezeichneten Gruppe”, for which an alternative translation is “aforementioned group”. So the designated groups are “national, racial, religious or ethnic group[s]”. So yeah, CEOs aren’t a designated group, but not for the reason you pulled out of your ass.

          • Muehe@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            13 days ago

            What the fuck does that have to do with CEOs being a designated group or not?

            But to answer your question, it depends. Specifically if you advocate for “arbitrary measures” against criminals and do it “in a manner likely to disturb the public peace” then it would be illegal under §130 StGB. Barring this caveat though it would be legal.

            • Dragon Rider (drag)@lemmy.nz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              13 days ago

              There’s no legal responsibility to shut down violent speech in any country and there never will be. All countries will always allow calls for violence.

              • Muehe@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                13 days ago

                What? You have just been given two example paragraphs that create a legal responsibility for the German executive to shut down violent speech. Yes, only certain kinds of violent speech as you put it in the sibling thread, but that still falsifies this statement.

                • Dragon Rider (drag)@lemmy.nz
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  5
                  ·
                  13 days ago

                  It’s not a law against violent speech. It’s only a rule against certain kinds of violent speech. Calling it a law against violent speech is misleading.

                  • Muehe@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    12 days ago

                    Look if you want to apply an overly broad definition of violent speech to score some weird semantic point, be my guest. But the original point upthread was that incitement to violence specifically, not “violent speech” in general, is outlawed in many countries, among them those that are hosting the .world instance. And that point is very much correct.

                    Which is all beside my original point, which was that the §130 StGB does not work like you boldly claimed it does.