Internet censorship in Germany

Last updated

Although Internet censorship in Germany has traditionally been rated as low, it is practised directly and indirectly through various laws and court decisions. [1] German law provides for freedom of speech and press with several exceptions, including what The Guardian has called "some of the world's toughest laws around hate speech". [2] An example of content censored by law is the removal of web sites from Google search results that deny the holocaust, which is a felony under German law. According to the Google Transparency Report, the German government is frequently one of the most active in requesting user data after the United States.[ citation needed ]

Contents

Most cases of Internet censorship in Germany occur after state court rulings. One example is a 2009 court order, forbidding German Wikipedia to disclose the identity of Wolfgang Werlé and Manfred Lauber, two criminals convicted of the murder of the Bavarian actor Walter Sedlmayr. In another case, Wikipedia.de (an Internet domain run by Wikimedia Deutschland) was prohibited from pointing to the actual Wikipedia content. The court order was as a temporary injunction in a case filed by politician Lutz Heilmann over claims in a German Wikipedia article regarding his past involvement with the former German Democratic Republic's intelligence service Stasi. [3]

The first known case of Internet censorship in Germany occurred in 1996, when the Verein zur Förderung eines Deutschen Forschungsnetzes banned some IP addresses from Internet access. [4]

Relevant laws

Access Impediment Act

In June 2009, the Bundestag passed the Access Impediment Act or Zugangserschwerungsgesetz [5] that introduced Internet blocking of sites found to distribute child pornography. [6] [7] Against the backdrop of an intense political debate, the law did not come into force until federal elections in September 2009 changed the setup of the governing coalition. In talks between the new governing parties CDU and FDP, it was agreed that no blocking would be implemented for one year, focusing on take-down efforts instead. After one year the success of the deletion policy would be reviewed. [8] The governing parties ultimately decided in April 2011 to repeal the law altogether. [9]

After lobbying efforts by news publishers which began in 2009, the Bundesrat considered a law preventing search results from returning excerpts from news sites unless the search engine has paid a license for them. It passed in 2013 and was widely interpreted as an attempt to have Google subsidize German news. [10] [11] In response, Google modified search to only display headlines for certain sites. The publishing collective VG Media claimed in an unsuccessful lawsuit that removing the snippets rather than licensing them was an antitrust violation. [12] Other supporters of the bill, including Axel Springer, saw an overall decrease in their readership following its passage. [13]

Network Enforcement Act

The Netzwerkdurchsetzungsgesetz or NetzDG was passed in June 2017 as a measure to require social media companies in Germany to censor extremism online, with significant hate speech provisions as well. [14] The law, which applies to for-profit websites with over 2 million users, demands the removal of offensive illegal content within 24 hours and allows for one week to review "more legally ambiguous content". [15] It was authored by Heiko Maas and went into full effect in January 2018.

Critics have questioned the feasibility of fining companies €50 million for failing to comply, and pointed to hundreds of new German content moderators hired by Facebook. [16] A report testing the amount of illegal content that could be removed within 24 hours found figures of 90% for YouTube, 39% for Facebook and 1% for Twitter. [17] Purveyors of satire also criticized the law after the magazine Titanic and the comedian Sophie Passmann were both suspended from Twitter after attempting to mock anti-Muslim rhetoric. [18] The United Nations special rapporteur on freedom of expression David Kaye expressed a fear that NetzDG would lead to overly restrictive blocking and Cathleen Berger of Mozilla found evidence that it was inspiring other countries to do the same. [19] Some victims of harassment campaigns have supported increased restrictions and stated "I don't mind if other comments get deleted along with the bad ones." [20]

Opposition politicians including Nicola Beer of the FDP, Simone Peter of the Green Party and Sahra Wagenknecht of The Left, have criticized the idea of putting decisions about online discourse in the hands of American companies, with the latter calling it "a slap in the face of all democratic principles". [21] In what has been called the "first test case" of NetzDG, a German Internet user sued Facebook for deleting a post that was critical of Germany. In April 2018, the court obtained an injunction ordering that the comment be restored. [22]

See also

Related Research Articles

The Great Firewall is the combination of legislative actions and technologies enforced by the People's Republic of China to regulate the Internet domestically. Its role in internet censorship in China is to block access to selected foreign websites and to slow down cross-border internet traffic. The Great Firewall operates by checking transmission control protocol (TCP) packets for keywords or sensitive words. If the keywords or sensitive words appear in the TCP packets, access will be closed. If one link is closed, more links from the same machine will be blocked by the Great Firewall. The effect includes: limiting access to foreign information sources, blocking foreign internet tools and mobile apps, and requiring foreign companies to adapt to domestic regulations.

Censorship in South Korea is implemented by various laws that were included in the constitution as well as acts passed by the National Assembly over the decades since 1948. These include the National Security Act, whereby the government may limit the expression of ideas that it perceives "praise or incite the activities of anti-state individuals or groups". Censorship was particularly severe during the country's authoritarian era, with freedom of expression being non-existent, which lasted from 1948 to 1993.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Internet censorship in Pakistan</span>

Internet censorship in Pakistan is government control of information sent and received using the Internet in Pakistan. There have been significant instances of website access restriction in Pakistan, most notably when YouTube was banned from 2012–2016. Pakistan has asked a number of social media organisations to set up local offices within the country, but this is yet to happen.

Google and its subsidiary companies, such as YouTube, have removed or omitted information from its services in order to comply with company policies, legal demands, and government censorship laws.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Internet censorship in India</span> Overview of Internet censorship in India

Internet censorship in India is done by both central and state governments. DNS filtering and educating service users in suggested usages is an active strategy and government policy to regulate and block access to Internet content on a large scale. Also measures for removing content at the request of content creators through court orders have become more common in recent years. Initiating a mass surveillance government project like Golden Shield Project is also an alternative discussed over the years by government bodies.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Internet censorship</span> Control or suppression of what can be accessed, published, or viewed on the internet

Internet censorship is the legal control or suppression of what can be accessed, published, or viewed on the Internet. Censorship is most often applied to specific internet domains but exceptionally may extend to all Internet resources located outside the jurisdiction of the censoring state. Internet censorship may also put restrictions on what information can be made internet accessible. Organizations providing internet access – such as schools and libraries – may choose to preclude access to material that they consider undesirable, offensive, age-inappropriate or even illegal, and regard this as ethical behaviour rather than censorship. Individuals and organizations may engage in self-censorship of material they publish, for moral, religious, or business reasons, to conform to societal norms, political views, due to intimidation, or out of fear of legal or other consequences.

Internet censorship in the United States is the suppression of information published or viewed on the Internet in the United States. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects freedom of speech and expression against federal, state, and local government censorship.

Most Internet censorship in Thailand prior to the September 2006 military coup d'état was focused on blocking pornographic websites. The following years have seen a constant stream of sometimes violent protests, regional unrest, emergency decrees, a new cybercrimes law, and an updated Internal Security Act. Year by year Internet censorship has grown, with its focus shifting to lèse majesté, national security, and political issues. By 2010, estimates put the number of websites blocked at over 110,000. In December 2011, a dedicated government operation, the Cyber Security Operation Center, was opened. Between its opening and March 2014, the Center told ISPs to block 22,599 URLs.

Internet censorship in the United Kingdom is conducted under a variety of laws, judicial processes, administrative regulations and voluntary arrangements. It is achieved by blocking access to sites as well as the use of laws that criminalise publication or possession of certain types of material. These include English defamation law, the Copyright law of the United Kingdom, regulations against incitement to terrorism and child pornography.

Censorship in Denmark has been prohibited since 1849 by the Constitution:

§ 77: Any person shall be at liberty to publish his ideas in print, in writing, and in speech, subject to his being held responsible in a court of law. Censorship and other preventive measures shall never again be introduced.

Facebook is a social networking service that has been gradually replacing traditional media channels since 2010. Facebook has limited moderation of the content posted to its site. Because the site indiscriminately displays material publicly posted by users, Facebook can, in effect, threaten oppressive governments. Facebook can simultaneously propagate fake news, hate speech, and misinformation, thereby undermining the credibility of online platforms and social media.

Censorship of Twitter refers to Internet censorship by governments that block access to Twitter. Twitter censorship also includes governmental notice and take down requests to Twitter, which Twitter enforces in accordance with its Terms of Service when a government or authority submits a valid removal request to Twitter indicating that specific content is illegal in their jurisdiction.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Internet censorship in South Korea</span> Overview of Internet censorship in South Korea

Internet censorship in South Korea is prevalent, and contains some unique elements such as the blocking of pro-North Korea websites, and to a lesser extent, Japanese websites, which led to it being categorized as "pervasive" in the conflict/security area by OpenNet Initiative. South Korea is also one of the few developed countries where pornography is largely illegal, with the exception of social media websites which are a common source of legal pornography in the country. Any and all material deemed "harmful" or subversive by the state is censored. The country also has a "cyber defamation law", which allow the police to crack down on comments deemed "hateful" without any reports from victims, with citizens being sentenced for such offenses.

Internet censorship in France should not be confused with censorship of Freedom of speech.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Internet censorship in Russia</span> Overview of Internet censorship in the Russian Federation

Internet censorship in the Russian Federation is enforced on the basis of several laws and through several mechanisms. Since 2012, Russia maintains a centralized internet blacklist maintained by the Federal Service for Supervision of Communications, Information Technology and Mass Media (Roskomnadzor).

The right to be forgotten (RTBF) is the right to have private information about a person be removed from Internet searches and other directories under some circumstances. The concept has been discussed and put into practice in several jurisdictions, including Argentina, the European Union (EU), and the Philippines. The issue has arisen from desires of individuals to "determine the development of their life in an autonomous way, without being perpetually or periodically stigmatized as a consequence of a specific action performed in the past."

The Network Enforcement Act, also known colloquially as the Facebook Act, is a German law that was passed in the Bundestag that officially aims to combat fake news, hate speech and misinformation online.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Internet censorship and surveillance in Europe</span>

This list of Internet censorship and surveillance in Europe provides information on the types and levels of Internet censorship and surveillance that is occurring in countries in Europe.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Internet censorship and surveillance in Asia</span>

This list of Internet censorship and surveillance in Asia provides information on the types and levels of Internet censorship and surveillance that is occurring in countries in Asia.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Internet censorship and surveillance in the Americas</span>

This list of Internet censorship and surveillance in the Americas provides information on the types and levels of Internet censorship and surveillance that is occurring in countries in the Americas.

References

  1. ↑ "ONI Country Profiles", Research section at the OpenNet Initiative web site, a collaborative partnership of the Citizen Lab at the Munk School of Global Affairs, University of Toronto; the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University; and the SecDev Group, Ottawa
  2. ↑ Oltermann, Philip (2018-01-05). "Tough new German law puts tech firms and free speech in spotlight". The Guardian. Retrieved 2018-06-09.
  3. ↑ Efroni, Zohar (16 November 2008). "German Court Orders to Block Wikipedia.de Due to Offending Article". Center for Internet and Society Blog. Stanford University Law School. Retrieved 18 March 2010.
  4. ↑ "Der Versuch einer Zensur im Internet" (in German). 1997-04-23. Retrieved 2018-06-05.
  5. ↑ Gesetz zur Erschwerung des Zugangs zu kinderpornographischen Inhalten in Kommunikationsnetzen (in German) (Act for impeding access to child pornography content in communications networks).
  6. ↑ "Kabinett beschließt Netzsperren gegen Kinderpornos" Archived 2009-04-25 at the Wayback Machine (in German) (Cabinet approves blocking against child pornography), Pressestelle Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Technologie (Press Office Federal Ministry for Economics and Technology), 22 April 2009. Retrieved 19 June 2009.
  7. ↑ "Namentliche Abstimmung: Bekämpfung von Kinderpornografie" (in German) (Roll-call vote: combating child pornography), 18 June 2009. Retrieved 19 June 2009. Archived June 20, 2009, at the Wayback Machine
  8. ↑ "New German government reaches key internet security agreements", Neil King, Deutsche Welle, 15 October 2009.
  9. ↑ German Internet blocking law to be withdrawn, EDRi-gram newsletter, European Digital Rights, 6 April 2011.
  10. ↑ "Two front battle". The European. 2013-10-19. Archived from the original on 2018-06-12. Retrieved 2018-06-07.
  11. ↑ Sterling, Greg (2013-05-16). "German "Ancillary Copyright" Law To Go Into Effect, Imposes Limits On Search Results". Search Engine Land. Retrieved 2018-06-07.
  12. ↑ Moody, Glyn (2015-09-24). "German Competition Authority Decides To Take No Action Over Google's Removal Of Snippets From Google News". TechDirt. Retrieved 2018-06-07.
  13. ↑ Meyer, David (2016-03-24). "EU lawmakers are still considering this failed copyright idea". Fortune. Retrieved 2018-06-07.
  14. ↑ Lee, Diana (2017-10-10). "Germany's NetzDG and the threat to online free speech". Yale Law School. Retrieved 2018-06-08.
  15. ↑ Appell, Mikayla (2018-01-23). "A new responsibility for Internet platforms: Germany's new hate speech law". American Institute for Contemporary German Studies. Retrieved 2018-06-08.
  16. ↑ Ballesteros, Carlos (2018-01-01). "Hate speech is going to cost Facebook and Twitter a fortune in 2018". Newsweek. Retrieved 2018-06-08.
  17. ↑ Scott, Mark; Delcker, Janosch (2018-01-14). "Free speech vs censorship in Germany". Politico. Retrieved 2018-06-08.
  18. ↑ Bremner, Steve (2018-04-26). "Germany and the perils of online censorship". Spiked Online. Retrieved 2018-06-08.
  19. ↑ Mong, Attila (2018-01-23). "As German hate speech law sinks Titanic's Twitter post, critics warn new powers go too far". Committee to Protect Journalists. Retrieved 2018-06-08.
  20. ↑ Evans, Patrick (2017-09-18). "Will Germany's new law kill free speech online?". BBC. Retrieved 2018-06-05.
  21. ↑ "German opposition parties call to replace online hate speech law". Deutsche Welle. Retrieved 2018-06-08.
  22. ↑ Kerkmann, Christof; Steger, Johannes (2018-04-13). "German court overturns Facebook 'censorship'". Handelsblatt. Retrieved 2018-06-08.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.