News and information from Europe πͺπΊ
(Current banner: La Mancha, Spain. Feel free to post submissions for banner images.)
(This list may get expanded as necessary.)
Unless they're the only sources, please also avoid The Sun, Daily Mail, any "thinktank" type organization, and non-Lemmy social media. Don't link to Twitter directly, instead use xcancel.com. For Reddit, use old:reddit:com
(Lists may get expanded as necessary.)
We will use some leeway to decide whether to remove a comment.
If need be, there are also bans: 3 days for lighter offenses, 7 or 14 days for bigger offenses, and permanent bans for people who don't show any willingness to participate productively. If we think the ban reason is obvious, we may not specifically write to you.
If you want to protest a removal or ban, feel free to write privately to the primary mod account @EuroMod@feddit.org
Are you also going to enforce the rest of the German criminal code for other kinds of speech? Beleidigung (Β§ 185 StGB) for example is even more vague and dangerous than the other parts of StGB you're worried about. The US president would have a great case against the majority of commenters here.
Don't get me wrong, you should do however you want -- I'm not the one paying for your community's servers... but it's just depressing to see people falling for these kinds of chilling effects.
Calling for the dissolution of Israel, or calling for a one-state solution without specifying equal rights for all people; Jewish in particular.
So can I say "screw Israel; dismantle that apartheid state and build a true democracy with equal rights for everyone (including Jews) in its place"? The way this part is worded it could go either way.
Also wow that stuff you listed sounds really dystopian.
I'm in agreement with this decision. But I don't share the reasoning and context behind the conclusions regarding free speech. I'm non-europe, so the slogan "from the river to the sea" doesn't strike me as an impression that calls for Hamas. I suppose german lawmakers often make contextual decisions centered around their own experiences. That explains their legal stance, and I don't agree with it. I do agree with the decision to avoid the wrath of law enforcement agencies. As I understand it, i think it is reasonable enough since I've had members of my community vanishing without a trace until this day.
Throughout history, governments (WW2 and others) do commit atrocities and human rights violations. I think moderation teams allowing ample space for genocide documentation is good. As I understand it, other social medias such as Instagram don't allow genocide documentation at all. Granted, I think more should be done about it even in smaller communities like this. But that's besides the point, and I'm not an internet regular. And where real or digital spaces don't outright endorse "absolute free speech", I think spaces that allow specifics in their discourse is a good enough space to live in. After all, It is never ideal to let governments run fascist mode without accountability.
While calling Israeli fascist isnt allowed, am I allowed to call specific Israeli politicians Kahanist?
Fascism isn't exclusive to the historical Nazis. The rule is about relativism in regards to the crimes of the historical Nazis, and especially the holocaust.
Parts of the current Israeli government are obviously fascist, but calling all Israelis fascists would be against the general rules of this community.
Am I allowed to point out that the Kahanist ideology is rapidly gaining popularity among the Israeli populous? Or the fact that Israeli was founded by a literal national Bolshevik? Or how the Israeli left is a mix of national Socialists and national Bolsheviks while the right is a mix of kahanists and religious fundamentalists?
This still seems like a one sided approach to moderating the issue.
While law demands the censorship of certain criticisms of Israel and Zionism, there are none in regards to Palestinians.
That doesn't mean equal rules shouldn't be applied to the other side.
If you cannot argue for the end of Israel, you should neither be allowed to argue for the end of Palestine. If you cannot defend the actions or existence of Hamas or Hezbollah, neither should you be allowed to defend the actions or existence of the IDF. If you call for a one state solution it should include equal rights not only for Israelis but also Palestinians.
I have yet to see a comment or post Lemmy that actually argues for the 'end of Palestine'. That would already violate rule 4 if someone did it.
neither should you be allowed to defend the actions or existence of the IDF
Isn't the IDF Israel's regular army? Hamas and Hezbollah aren't exactly Palestine's regular armies, they're political organizations that also have military. There's a reason why Hamas isn't really active in the West Bank.
I haven't seen much defending of the IDF's actions, but fair point, that should probably be prohibited.
Palestine doesn't have a regular army because they're not allowed to be a regular state.
Why should that matter? At the end of the day an army is an army, whether it is commanded by an official state, the leadership of a political organisation, a terrorist organisation or by itself. And in the case of Israel-Palestine both commit planned out terrorist acts and atrocities.
Without going into the Gaza - West Bank schism, Hamas has governed the Gaza strip for nearly 2 decades now and its military is de facto that territory's military forces.
The argument of 'political militia' only holds water if there is a significant opposition party with a relatively equally large military force. I have yet to see evidence of that.
It doesn't help that there isn't a currently valid "constitution of Palestina" which could regulate military force and who controls them.
Isn't the IDF Israel's regular army?
Nope. Nope. Nope.
calling for a one-state solution without specifying equal rights for all people; Jewish in particular.
Sad that equal rights for every human, and imo all living beings, isn't just given as natural and needs to be specified explicitly.
What's the law's perspective of a global no-state solution?
I would like to say that i disagree with some of this, but will not argue it because I respect that the people who put effort in maintaining* this community are the ones that make the rules. Thank you for taking the time to write this explanation. edit: small spelling error
- Calling for the dissolution of Israel, or calling for a one-state solution without specifying equal rights for all people; Jewish in particular.
All people are equal, but some are more equal than others
More specified, not more equal in this case, really.
Why do they need to be specified? If it's equal rights for all people, then that includes Jews. There is no need to specify if you are promoting equality for all.
Would it be appropriate for people to share alternative communities which arenβt subject to as strict censorship on this issue?
Question. Would a comment calling Nethanyahu βfacistβ be removed?