Their Rule 4:
No bigotry, sexism, racism, antisemitism, islamophobia, dehumanization of minorities, or glorification of National Socialism. We follow German law; don’t question the statehood of Israel.
Europe@feddit.org removed my comment for de-tangling the conflation of antisemitism and anti-zionism. A dangerous conflation that is genuinely antisemitic and fuels antisemitic hate as it conflates the actions of Israel and Zionism to all Jewish people and Judaism.
This prioritization of the German definition, the adopted IHRA definition, is promoting antisemtitism and is diametrically opposed to the 'No antisemitism' aspect of the rule. The definition has been condemned by the writer of the definition, a multitude of human rights organizations including Human Rights Watch (HRW), American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), B’Tselem, Peace Now, and Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR), and over 120 leading scholars of anti-semitism.
Germany Is Trying to Combat Antisemitism. Experts Warn a New Resolution May Do the Opposite
Fifteen Israeli nongovernmental organizations, including the Association for Civil Rights in Israel, B'Tselem and Peace Now, issued an open letter in September stating their concern that the resolution, especially the IHRA definition, could be weaponized to "silence public dissent."
This could also affect Jewish voices speaking out for Palestinian rights and opposing the occupation, they added. "Paradoxically, the resolution may therefore undermine, not protect, the diversity of Jewish life in Germany," the letter argued.
Rights groups urge UN not to adopt IHRA anti-Semitism definition
"The IHRA definition has often been used to wrongly label criticism of Israel as antisemitic, and thus chill and sometimes suppress, non-violent protest, activism and speech critical of Israel and/or Zionism, including in the US and Europe,” the letter said.
US-based Human Rights Watch (HRW), American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Israeli rights group B’Tselem, and the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR) were among the signatories
The letter is the latest attempt by human rights advocates to urge the UN not to adopt the IHRA definition. In November, more than 120 scholars called on the world body to reject the definition, due to its “divisive and polarising” effect.
128 scholars ask UN not to adopt IHRA definition of anti-Semitism
In a statement published on Thursday, the 128 scholars, who include leading Jewish academics at Israeli, European, United Kingdom and United States universities, said the definition has been “hijacked” to protect the Israeli government from international criticism
Why the man who drafted the IHRA definition condemns its use
The drafter of what later became popularly known as the EUMC or IHRA definition of antisemitism,including its associated examples, was the U.S. attorney Kenneth S. Stern. However, in written evidence submitted to the US Congress last year, Stern charged that his original definition had been used for an entirely different purpose to that for which it had been designed. According to Stern it had originally been designed as a ”working definition” for the purpose of trying to standardise data collection about the incidence of antisemitic hate crime in different countries. It had never been intended that it be used as legal or regulatory device to curb academic or political free speech. Yet that is how it has now come to be used. In the same document Stern specifically condemns as inappropriate the use of the definition for such purposes, mentioning in particular the curbing of free speech in UK universities, and referencing Manchester and Bristol universities as examples. Here is what he writes:
The EUMC “working definition” was recently adopted in the United Kingdom, and applied to campus. An “Israel Apartheid Week” event was cancelled as violating the definition. A Holocaust survivor was required to change the title of a campus talk, and the university [Manchester] mandated it be recorded, after an Israeli diplomat [ambassador Regev] complained that the title violated the definition.[See here]. Perhaps most egregious, an off-campus group citing the definition called on a university to conduct an inquiry of a professor (who received her PhD from Columbia) for antisemitism, based on an article she had written years before. The university [Bristol] then conducted the inquiry. And while it ultimately found no basis to discipline the professor, the exercise itself was chilling and McCarthy-like. [square brackets added – GW]
Still protected under free speech. Feddit.org probably doesn't get federal grants, which could get denied for "antisemitism".
~~german~~ austrian acceptable speech law too?
Not sure if it makes a difference, just want to dump info here:
Feddit.org is owned by an austrian non-profit, so I assume it's the Austrian law that they have to follow.
fediverse.foundation is their page.
We already went through this bullshit with lemmy.world and Luigi.
"The law" was used as pretext there and looks that's what is happening here
Modlog is really good at keep them accountable though. So that's a W for free speech enjoyers
This is another example content censorship IMHO
It amazing how these modding decisions always revolve around regime talking points. Makes ya wonder
i mean yeah, it is censorship. literally. most countries do not have a notion of free speech. if the instance breaks the law of the country it's in then it can't operate there anymore.
Can you pin point which law was broke?
If there is a law fine, but I have gone through this exercise several times and nobody can bring any receipts ever
So my conclusion that it ain't about the law until I see something tangible.
i was not saying that a law is being broken. i was asking if there is such a law in austria, and saying that if that's the case then the mods of the instance are just doing CYA policy. i am not against you here.
i am not a good german speaker, and i do not know their laws, but if any country would be quick to take israel's side considering even recent history, it would be austria.
from a cursory google there are laws against "disparagement of religious doctrines", which is article 188 of the austrian criminal code. there's also talk about a law for quelling online hate speech which critics worried were being "passed through by way of a hot needle" and numerous articles on austria-israel relations, including one where either the chancellor for austria or the ambassador for israel says un a meeting that "antisemitism and antizionism are two sides of the same coin" (can't find the article i read it at again).
this was not what i wanted to do just before going to bed.
Appreciate you doing basic googling
But how wpuld disparagement of religion laws apply here.
The original comment discusses israel as sovereign state committing crimes similar to Germany and south Africa.
I don't see a religious angle in the comment.
it's the antisemitism/antizionism mixup that's important. israel the state has spent a lot of time the past years trying to make people think the two are the same.
That's because the two terms are intertwined. Zionism means believing in the right for Israel to exist. If you're anti-Zionist then you want Israel to vanish off the face of the earth. That would either leave millions of Jews stateless and homeless (Ethnic cleansing of Jews) or you force both countries together, which would cause easily the biggest bloodbath in history (Genocide of Jews). There is no peaceful way of abolishing Israel, they are surrounded by populations that salvate at the very idea of killing Jews.
You can argue that Israel shouldn't have been founded in the way that it was, and that's a perfectly understandable viewpoint. But it exists now and it's going nowhere.
zionism is a movement started by non-jewish fascists in order to get rid of jews by way of mass deportation to palestine. the government of israel today is explicitly zionist in that their stated mission is to get rid of palestine. that would either leave millions of palestinians stateless and homeless (Ethnic cleansing of palestinians) or you force both countries together, which would cause easily the biggest bloodbath in history (Genocide of palestinians). There is no peaceful way of abolishing palestine, they are surrounded by a population that salvate at the very idea of killing palestinians.
Oh, look at these terrible antisemites:
How is that ties to the law tho
just in case you're not just being difficult: a state with laws against religious disparagement and which is equating antizionism with antisemitism, can use those laws to criminalise criticism of israel.
If that's how law is actually written that's not a "traditional" religious disparagment law.
Laws and ESP criminal law has to be drafted pretty tightly to have any meaning, otherwise it is just there to harass the population via arbitrary and capricious application, ie persecution of undesirable.
But based on how resident Germans are reacting, it seems like thats likely what is going on here.
Bottom line, public servers should not be hosted in a jurisdictions like these. It is anti thesis to a proper public discourse.
ok