Germany Wants To Force Gab To Censor, It’s Not Happening

Free speech is not a thing of the Krauts which is why we cross-publish GAB’s post on the attack from Germany.

“This week we received a huge packet of documents with fines and legal threats from the nation state of Germany. Gab is refusing, and has refused for many years, to comply with the German Network Enforcement Act. Gab is a US company and as such we are under zero obligation to obey foreign laws from tyrannical governments.

For those unfamiliar, the Network Enforcement Act is a draconian German law aimed at combatting “fake news” on social networking websites. “Fake news” is of course, whatever the German Government says it is.

For example this week Facebook deleted 150 accounts belonging to an anti-lockdown movement in Germany, likely at the behest of the German government under the Network Enforcement Act.

Because of Gab’s unwillingness to participate in State-mandated censorship of free speech, the German government is now coming after our bootstrapped tech startup with heavy fines and other legal action.

Gab is not a lawless website. We work diligently to stop and prevent illegal activity from taking place on our platform. We have great relationships with many foreign countries who understand and respect our position on free speech and appreciate our zero tolerance for criminal activity. The German government isn’t concerned about any actual criminal activity, they are concerned with Thought Criminals who dare to dissent against their globalist regime.

According to our legal team, who has been working with us on this issue for several months, we have three choices.

1) Obey German censorship laws and start censoring content that the German Government doesn’t like (this is not going to happen)
2) Disobey German censorship laws and pick a fight with the nation state of Germany (I likely wouldn’t ever be able to leave the US again, they would come at us from every possible angle through state-sponsored deplatforming, heavy fines, they would possibly leverage contacts in the Biden Admin to come after Gab in other ways, and Lord knows what else.)
3) Temporarily stop providing this service in Germany by blocking German IPs.

I hate everything about these choices, which is why we went public with this information to gather feedback and consensus from our community on the topic.

The overwhelming majority of people have been very supportive of the third option. Our lawyers are suggesting this option. Our community is suggesting this option. I’ve had many people email me and reach out privately to say that this is our best course of action. We seem to have a consensus.

Yet it doesn’t sit right with me.

Ultimately as the CEO of Gab I alone need to make this decision. These are the types of decisions that define a man and make history. If we block German IPs to appease the German government that sets a precedent that other countries will want to follow. We are not IP blocking ourselves into a corner here. If the German government wants to stop German IPs from accessing Gab they can block us themselves.

Why should we block an entire country from accessing Gab because their government is sending us fines we won’t pay and veiled legal threats that mean nothing to Gab as a US corporation? I won’t be able to travel to Europe anyway because I’m not getting injected with an experimental substance. On the bright side I now have a huge stack of kindling paper for my wood stove this winter.

The reality is the German government has zero authority or jurisdiction over how we operate Gab. We have no corporate entity in Germany, we have no employees in Germany, and we are not German citizens. We are Americans.

In America you play by our rules, we don’t play by yours. Germany is a guest in our community and they will respect our values and way of doing things, not the other way around. I have nothing but love for the German people and they too deserve the fundamental human right to speak freely on the internet.

Our mission is to defend free speech online for all people, everywhere. Including in Germany. We will continue to do that, regardless of any threats from foreign governments. If we bow to Germany today, what’s to stop us from bowing to literal tyrants, such as those in Russia (like Google and Apple did just last week) or China (as Apple has done for years)?

In matters pertaining to serious crime, German police forces already know how to reach us, as indeed they have done many times in the past. We will continue to respond to those requests and provide prompt assistance to those police forces on a voluntary basis. What we will not do is restrict access to, or remove, content which is legal in the United States on or from servers in the United States.

As I write this today is the day the American Constitution was signed over 234 years ago. We must stand up now to defend it and fight for the freedoms enshrined in it, which come from God, for all nations.

I’m not sure what will come of this decision, but I will not make an important choice like this from a position of fear. I leave the outcomes of this decision in the hands of God Almighty and I pray that the German people will take back their country and freedoms very soon.

Until then: wir werden nicht nachgeben, “Nuts!”. (we will not comply, Nuts!)

Andrew Torba
CEO, Gab.com
Only Jesus Saves

We expect some large legal expenses in dealing with this matter and would greatly appreciate any support. You can upgrade to GabPRO here or make a one time donation on the Gab Shop here.”

Section 160 and 163a Code of Criminal Procedure superfluous in racist Germany when a fuckin’ migrant is defrauded by a racist and criminal judge

Chrissy Lambrecht @BMJV_Bund

Section 160 and 163a Code of Criminal Procedure superfluous in racist Germany when a fuckin’ migrant is defrauded by a racist and criminal judge? The name of the racist and criminal judge is Ehegartner, Social Kangaroo Court Munich.

Germany eliminates the word ‘race’ by adjectivizing it

Please note. @BMJV_Bund consequently eliminates racism. To be precise, it eliminates the word ‘race’ (Rasse) from the Basic Law text of Art. 3. Before we get to that it should be noted that there are/were continued discussions about the need of a study about racism in police forces. One from Bavaria, incidentally the Minister of Home Affairs, strictly against it. What could be the reason? Then there are travel warnings for Germany like this one from Australia. Then a magazine featured an interview a couple days with a black young actor Jerry Hoffmann (you can not get a more German sounding last name) in Germany who puts it plain: “In Germany, people often exclude black actors on principle”. A black news anchor on TV? FFS, no. This is the scenario.

So how does the German Ministry of Justice manage the cleansing of language it considers bad? By adjectizing the word ‘race’. Simples. This is nuts. Below is the present text of Art. 3 BL:

Article 3 basic law in prior version: No one may be discriminated against or given preferential treatment because of his or her gender, ancestry, race, language, home country and origin, faith, religious or political views.

This is the cleansed form:

Now cleansed of racism: No one may be discriminated against or given preferential treatment because of his or her gender, ancestry, racial reasons , language, home country and origin, faith, religious or political views.

To which Wittgenstein would comment in PI 6:

(Uttering a word is like striking a note on the keyboard of the imagination.) But in the language of §2 it is not the purpose of the words to evoke images. (It may, of course, be discovered that that helps to attain the actual purpose.)
But if the ostensive teaching has this effect,—am I to say that it effects an understanding of the word? Don’t you understand the call “Slab!” if you act upon it in such-and-such a way?—Doubtless the ostensive teaching helped to bring this about; but only together with a particular training. With different training the same ostensive teaching of these words would have effected a quite different understanding.

So it depends in what circumstance you use a word. The purpose of that word is to categorize different human beings. That’s all. Words in general have a purpose. Even those words babies utter which we are unable to understand often. The German word ‘Scheisse’ can mean different things. Something went wrong, something tastes like …, the real stuff you produce and in English it can even mean something cool. That is some hot shit.

In PI 115:

A picture held us captive. And we could not get outside it, for it lay in our language and language seemed to repeat it to us inexorably.

Wittgenstein about representation in PI 50:

And just this goes for an element in language-game (48) when we name it by uttering the word “R”: this gives this object a role in our language- game; it is now a means of representation. And to say “If it did not exist, it could have no name” is to say as much and as little as: if this thing did not exist, we could not use it in our language-game.—What looks as if it had to exist, is part of the language. It is a paradigm in our language-game; something with which comparison is made. And this may be an important observation; but it is none the less an observation concerning our language-game—our method of representation.

Finally Wittgenstein in PI 55:

What the names in language signify must be indestructible; for it must be possible to describe the state of affairs in which every- thing destructible is destroyed. And this description will contain words; and what corresponds to these cannot then be destroyed, for otherwise the words would have no meaning.” I must not saw off the branch on which I am sitting.

Here is Michel Foucault in ‘The order of things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences’:

If discourse seizes upon the adjective designating a modification and gives it within the sentence the value of the very substance of the proposition, then that adjective becomes sub-stantival; the noun, on the other hand, which behaves within the sentence like an accident, becomes adjectival, even though it is designating substances, as hitherto.

What is next, Germany? Should we call a Black (Schwarzer) a dark anthrazit person?

Strafanzeige gegen Bundesjustizministerin Christine Lambrecht wegen Verleumdung von US Präsident Trump

F A X

Staatsanwaltschaft
Turmstraße 91
10559 Berlin

‘Mistrust all in whom the urge to punish is strong!
Mistrust all those who talk much about their justice!’
Nietzsche

10. Jan. 2021

Ich erstatte Strafanzeige gegen

Bundesministerin Christine Lambrecht,
Behördenleiterin des Bundesministerium der Justiz und für Verbraucherschutz

wegen Verleumdung (§ 187 StGB) des amerikanischen Präsidenten Donald J. Trump und Verstoss gegen Art 5 GG.

Am 07. Januar 2021 twitterte die Behördenleiterin des BMJV, Christine Lambrecht, unmittelbar nach den Ereignissen im Capitol von Washington vom 06. Januar ihren Kommentar zur Blockierung des amtierenden (!) Präsidenten der USA, Donald J. Trump, auf Facebook und Twitter. Sie versieht diesen Tweet auch noch mit dem Hashtag “Demokratie”! Der Tweet lautet:

“Twitter und Facebook haben die Accounts des amtierenden US-Präsidenten Trump gesperrt. #Capitol #Demokratie
Dass Twitter und Facebook Trumps Flut der Lügen jetzt unterbrechen, ist eine viel zu späte Einsicht. Wut, Hass und Aggression waren viel zu lange ein Teil des Geschäftsmodells, mit dem die Plattformen reich geworden sind. Wir werden in Europa verbindliche Pflichten für die Internetplattformen schaffen, um Wahlen zu schützen, Hetze zu löschen und gegen Lügen konsequent vorzugehen.
Christine Lambrecht, Bundesministerin der Justiz und für Verbraucherschutz”


Diese sozialistische Ministerin unterstellt dem amtierenden amerikanischen Präsidenten Donald J. Trump DIREKT NACH den Vorfällen im Capitol zu Washington vom 06. Jan. 2021, er hätte Hetze und Aggression geschürt in seiner Rede vom gleichen Tag. Implizit beschuldigt sie ihn damit zur Aufstachelung und macht ihn verantwortlich für die Vorfälle im Capitol. Es steht ausser Zweifel, sie hat es nicht für nötig befunden, Trumps Rede überhaupt zu lesen.

Damit begeht diese durchtriebene Bundesministerin genau das, was sie Trump vorwirft: sie lügt schäbig und genau, wie man es von einem Politiker erwartet. Hier ist die Rede von Präsident Trump nachzulesen.

Gut, dass man nicht angewiesen ist auf die deutsche Shitpaper Presse und seine schwanzlutschenden (1) Journalisten, sondern dass es integre Blogger gibt wie Ann Althouse, Rechtsprofessor an der University of Wisconsin Law School, jetzt emeritierter Professor. Im Blog Post “The 7 most violence-inciting statements in Donald Trump’s speech to the crowd on January 6th.” befasst sie sich mit Trumps Rede. Hier ist ihr Post übersetzt:

Hier ist das Transkript. Ich las die gesamte Rede – die über eine Stunde dauerte – und suchte nach den Sätzen, die am meisten der Interpretation unterliegen, dass er die Menge dazu aufrief, in das Kapitol einzubrechen oder irgendeine Art von Gewalttat zu begehen. Ich mache das, weil mir klar wurde, dass ich keine Zitate von Trump gesehen habe, sondern nur die Behauptung, dass die Rede eine Anstiftung und eine Ursache-Wirkungs-Schlussfolgerung war, die auf der Abfolge der Ereignisse beruhte: Er sprach und dann handelten sie.
Es gibt Stellen, an denen er eindeutig von einem friedlichen Protestmarsch sprach. Er sagt: “Ich weiß, dass alle hier bald zum Kapitol marschieren werden, um friedlich und patriotisch Ihre Stimmen zu Gehör zu bringen.” Und: “Also werden wir die Pennsylvania Avenue entlang gehen … Also gehen wir die Pennsylvania Avenue entlang.”
Aber hier sind die 7 gewalttätigsten Aussagen. Wenn Sie etwas Gewalttätigeres oder mehr im Zusammenhang mit der Idee finden, in das Kapitol einzubrechen und das Verfahren physisch zu stören, lassen Sie es mich wissen und ich werde es der Liste hinzufügen. Folgendes habe ich gefunden und in die Reihenfolge von am wenigsten bis am gewalttätigsten gebracht:

7. Wir gehen zum Kapitol hinunter und werden unsere tapferen Senatoren und Kongressabgeordneten anfeuern. Wir werden einigen von ihnen wahrscheinlich nicht so viel zujubeln, weil Sie unser Land niemals mit Schwäche zurückerobern werden. Man muss Stärke zeigen und man muss stark sein.

6. Um einen Lieblingsbegriff zu verwenden, den Sie alle wirklich erfunden haben, werden wir den Diebstahl stoppen…. Wir werden nicht zulassen, dass sie Ihre Stimmen zum Schweigen bringen.

5. Die Republikaner müssen härter werden. Sie werden keine republikanische Partei haben, wenn Sie nicht härter werden.

4. Wir werden jemanden dort haben, der nicht dort sein sollte, und unser Land wird zerstört, und wir werden nicht dafür eintreten.

3. Wir werden niemals aufgeben. Wir werden niemals zugeben, es passiert nicht. Sie geben nicht zu, wenn es um Diebstahl geht.

2. Wir werden es nicht zulassen. Ich werde es nicht zulassen.

1. Gemeinsam sind wir entschlossen, die Regierung des Volkes, des Volkes und des Volkes zu verteidigen und zu bewahren.” (Ende)

Diese Ministerin unterstellt dem amtierenden Präsidenten – gewählt von 75 Millionen Menschen – des Landes, das Deutschland von den Nazis befreit hat und die mittels Sozialisten an die Macht kamen, Äusserungen, die er belegbar nicht getätigt hat und befürwortet seine Knebelung. Die Aussicht, die sie für Europa macht, lässt nur erschauern. Diese Ministerin sollte ihres Amtes enthoben werden. Doch Eingriff in die freie Meinungsäusserung liegt im DNA dieser Deutschen.

Cadit quaestio

(1) Ich bedauere den Terminus, aber mir fällt bei deutschen Journalisten nichts anderes mehr ein. Einen Günter Gaus gibt es leider nicht mehr.

Criminal complaint against Head of German Federal Ministry of Justice for defamation of the US President Trump

Public Prosecutor’s Office
Turmstrasse 91
10559 Berlin

‘Mistrust all in whom the urge to punish is strong!
Mistrust all those who talk much about their justice!’

Nietzsche

Jan. 10, 2021

I’m filing a criminal complaint against the

Federal Minister Christine Lambrecht,
Head of the Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection

for defamation (§ 187 StGB) of the American President Donald J. Trump and violation of Art 5 Basic Law.

On January 7th, 2021, the head of the BMJV, Christine Lambrecht, tweeted her comment on the blocking of the incumbent (!) President of the USA, Donald J. Trump, on Facebook and Twitter. She even uses the hashtag “Democracy”! The tweet reads:

“Twitter and Facebook have blocked the accounts of the incumbent US President Trump. #Capitol #Democracy

That Twitter and Facebook now interrupt Trump’s flood of lies is far too late a conclusion. Anger, hatred and aggression have been part of the business model that made the platforms rich for far too long.
We will create binding obligations for Internet platforms in Europe in order to protect elections, erase hate speech and consistently take action against lies.

Christine Lambrecht, Federal Minister of Justice and Consumer Protection”

This socialist minister accuses the incumbent American President Donald J. Trump DIRECTLY AFTER the incidents in the Capitol in Washington on Jan. 6, 2021, that he had stirred up hatred and aggression in his speech on the same day. She implicitly accuses him of incitement and makes him responsible for the incidents in the Capitol. There is no doubt she did not even bother to read Trump’s speech.

This sly Federal Minister is doing exactly what she accuses Trump of: she lies shabbily and exactly as one would expect from a politician. Read President Trump’s speech here.

It’s good that you don’t have to rely on the German shitpaper press and its cock-sucking (1) journalists, but that there are bloggers with integrity like Ann Althouse, law professor at the University of Wisconsin Law School, now professor emeritus. In the blog post “The 7 most violence-inciting statements in Donald Trump’s speech to the crowd on January 6th.” she covers Trump’s speech. Here is her post translated:

Here‘s the transcript. I read the entire speech — which was over an hour — looking for the sentences that are most subject to the interpretation that he was inciting the crowd to break into the Capitol building or commit any sort of act of violence. I’m doing this because I realized I wasn’t seeing quotes from Trump, just assertions that the speech was an incitement and cause-and-effect inferences based on the sequence of events: He spoke and then they acted.
There are places where he clearly talked about a peaceful protest march. He says: “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.” And: “So we’re going to, we’re going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue… So let’s walk down Pennsylvania Avenue.”
But here are the 7 most violent statements. Please, if you can find anything more violent or more related to the idea of breaking into the Capitol and physically disrupting the proceedings, let me know, and I’ll add it to the list. This is what I’ve found and have put in order from least to most violent:

7. We’re going walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators, and congressmen and women. We’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them because you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength, and you have to be strong.

6. To use a favorite term that all of you people really came up with, we will stop the steal…. We will not let them silence your voices.

5. The Republicans have to get tougher. You’re not going to have a Republican party if you don’t get tougher.

4. [W]e’re going to have somebody in there that should not be in there and our country will be destroyed, and we’re not going to stand for that.

3. We will never give up. We will never concede, it doesn’t happen. You don’t concede when there’s theft involved.

2. We’re not going to let it happen. Not going to let it happen.

1. Together we are determined to defend and preserve government of the people, by the people and for the people.” (End)

This minister insinuates that the incumbent president – elected by 75 million people – of the country that liberated Germany from the Nazis and that came to power via the indirect assistence of socialists, made public statements that he clearly has not made and supports his gagging. The prospect she opens up for Europe can only make one shiver. This minister should be removed from office. But encroachment on freedom of expression is in the DNA of these Germans.

Cadit quaestio


(1) I regret the term, but I can’t think of any better way to describe German journalists. Unfortunately, there is no longer a Günter Gaus.