Germany’s federal court declares Facebook’s hate speech curbs to be in breach of citizens’ constitutional rights

Well, well, well, the BGH has decided in something that our Twitter account was also dealt, being blocked from German Ministries and the Labor Agency.

We became aware of the BGH decision a week ago. The excellent UK Human Rights Blog was faster in translation. Small wonder, being freed from the shackles of the EU is liberating and invigorating. So we take the liberty and quote their post in full before we inform the concerned ministries and the BA to, perhaps, consider lifting their blockings. Here goes the UK HR Blog and we extend our gratitude.

Germany’s federal court declares Facebook’s hate speech curbs to be in breach of citizens’ constitutional rights

The Federal Court of Justice in Germany (the Bundesgerichtshof, or BGH) has ruled against the social network provider that deleted posts and suspended accounts amid allegations of “hate speech”.

The ruling was handed down on the 29th of July (Bundesgerichtshof, Urteile vom 29. Juli 2021 – III ZR 179/20 und III ZR 192/20) and at the time of writing this post, the full judgment had not been published. The following summary is based upon the Bundesgerichtshof’s press release. NB the quotes from the plaintiff’s Facebook entries are in the judgment, i.e. the public domain, in other words no offence is intended by repeating them here.

Judgments of July 29, 2021 – III ZR 179/20 and III ZR 192/20

The III Civil Senate of the German Federal Court of Justice has ruled that Facebook’s terms and conditions of April 19, 2018 for the deletion of user posts and account blocking in the event of violations of the communication standards set out in the terms and conditions are invalid. This was because the defendant provider had not undertaken to inform the user about the removal of his post at least subsequently and about an intended blocking of his user account in advance, had not informed them of the reason for this and had not given them an opportunity to respond with a subsequent new decision. If, due to the invalid terms and conditions of the provider’s contract, a user’s contribution was deleted and their account temporarily subject to a partial blocking, the user should be able to claim the activation of the deleted contribution and, an undertaking that there would be no further account blocking or deletion of the contribution upon its renewed posting.

Background facts

The parties disputed the legality of a temporary partial blocking of the plaintiffs’ Facebook user accounts and the deletion of their comments by the defendant.

The plaintiffs each maintained a user account for a worldwide social network operated by the defendant’s parent company, whose provider and contractual partner for users based in Germany was the defendant. They claimed against the defendant – to the extent still relevant for the appeal proceedings – in respect of activation of the posts published by them on the network and deleted by the defendant, for an injunction against renewed blocking of their user accounts and deletion of their posts, and – in one of the appeal proceedings – for information about a company commissioned to implement the account blocking.

According to the network’s terms of use in the version applicable since April 19, 2018, the “Community Standards” may not be violated. These prohibit “hate speech” – defined in more detail there.

In the proceedings III ZR 179/20, the plaintiff posted the following contribution:

In contrast to [the assassinations committed by so-called citizens of the Reich] the murders by Islamic immigrants, which one has seen, have no consequences. German people are criminalized because they have a different view of their homeland than the regime. Migrants can murder and rape here and nobody cares! I would like to see a crackdown by the Office for the Protection of the Constitution.

In case III ZR 192/20, the plaintiff commented on a third party’s post containing a video in which a person with a migrant background refuses to be controlled by a policewoman as follows:

What are these people looking for here in our constitutional state … no respect … no respect for our laws … no respect for women … THEY WILL NEVER INTEGRATE HERE AND WILL BE IN THE POCKET OF THE TAXPAYER FOREVER … THESE GOLDIGGERS CAN ONLY MURDER … STEAL … RANDALIZE … AND VERY IMPORTANTLY … NEVER WORK.

The defendant deleted these statements in August 2018 because they violated the ban on “hate speech”. It temporarily blocked the user accounts so that the plaintiffs could not post anything, comment on anything, or use the Messenger function during this time. In their lawsuits, the plaintiffs claimed that the defendant was not entitled to delete their posts and block their user accounts.

Proceedings in the courts

In proceedings III ZR 179/20, the Regional Court dismissed the action. The Court of Appeals dismissed the plaintiff’s appeal against this ruling.

In proceedings III ZR 192/20, the Regional Court ordered the defendant to refrain from charging the plaintiff for posting the text:

What are these people looking for in our constitutional state – no respect – no respect for our laws – no respect for women. They will never integrate here and will be in the taxpayer’s pocket forever.

It also prohibited the defend from reblocking or deleting the post, if the post referred to people who resist a policewoman’s order on the basis that their ideology forbade them from letting women order them about. In all other respects, it dismissed the action. The plaintiff’s appeal was unsuccessful. On appeal by the defendant, the Higher Regional Court amended the judgment of the Regional Court and dismissed the action in its entirety.

The decision of the Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof)

The Third Civil Senate of the Federal Court of Justice partially overturned the judgments on appeal and – in proceedings III ZR 192/20, rejecting the appeal in all other respects – ordered the defendant to reinstate the plaintiff’s posts that it had deleted. In addition, in proceedings III ZR 179/20, it ordered the defendant to refrain from blocking the plaintiff from posting her contribution again or from deleting the contribution.

The defendant was not entitled to delete the plaintiff’s posts and block her user accounts on the basis of its terms of use and community standards. It is true that the amended Terms of Use of the Defendant, as amended on April 19, 2018, were effectively incorporated into the contractual relationship of the Parties by the Plaintiffs clicking on the corresponding button labeled “I agree” in response to the Defendant’s notice of the intended amendment, which was sent to them in the form of a pop-up window. However, the reservations granted in the defendant’s amended terms of use regarding the removal of user contributions and the blocking of user accounts were invalid pursuant to Section 307 (1) sentence 1 of the German Civil Code (BGB) because they unreasonably disadvantage the users of the network contrary to the requirements of good faith. [my italics]

When examining whether a clause is unreasonable within the meaning of Section 307 (1) sentence 1 BGB, a comprehensive assessment and weighing of the mutual interests is required. In the present case, the conflicting fundamental rights of the parties – on the part of the users, the freedom of expression under Article 5 (1) sentence 1 of the German Basic Law, and on the part of the defendant, the freedom to exercise a profession under Article 12 (1) sentence 1 of the German Basic Law – must be taken into account and balanced in such a way that they are as effective as possible for all parties. This balancing of interests shows that the defendant is in principle entitled to require the users of its network to comply with certain communication standards that go beyond the requirements of criminal law (e.g. insult, defamation or incitement of the people). It may reserve the right to remove posts and block the user account in question in the event of a breach of the communication standards.

However, in order to strike a balance between the conflicting fundamental rights in a manner that is in line with the interests of the parties, and thus to maintain reasonableness within the meaning of Section 307 (1) sentence 1 of the German Civil Code, the defendant must undertake in its terms and conditions to inform the user concerned at least retrospectively about the removal of a post and in advance about an intended blocking of his user account, to inform him of the reason for this and to give him an opportunity to respond, followed by a new decision.

The removal and blocking reservations in the defendant’s terms and conditions did not meet these requirements. The defendant was therefore not entitled to delete the plaintiffs’ posts and block their user accounts. It was ordered restore the posts and refrain from blocking the user accounts and deleting the posts when they are posted again.

Comment

Facebook’s initial reaction was to welcome the BGH’s finding that the network was in principle entitled to remove content according to its own guidelines and to block the user accounts in question. The Telegraph online quotes a spokesperson for Facebook: “We do not tolerate hate speech and are committed to removing inadmissible content from Facebook”. He added that the BGH decision would be “carefully examined to ensure that we can continue to take effective action against hate speech in Germany.” The lawyer representing Facebook had called the court’s requirement for a prior hearing “completely impractical.” Every day, he said, there are hundreds of cases, and each new insult encourages like-minded people.

It will be interesting to see how in practice Facebook responds to this ruling, as its moderation system relies heavily on AI thus removing users’ comments without reason.

. . . . . . . . .

Here is a thread on Twitter about the decision.

So what are you at the BMAS, the BMFSFJ and the BA thinking about this? You guys feel addressed? You feel unconcerned? Stay silent? As it says in the Twitter thread:

1. Facebook has to inform users (at least) AFTER blocking/delete a piece of content, and BEFORE they intend to deplatform someone. Why? Because of a weighing of the different rights involved.

2. A terms of service clause that does not respect the rights of both parties is unreasonable. When examining whether a clause is unreasonable within the meaning of Section 307 (1) sentence 1 BGB, a comprehensive assessment and weighing of the mutual interests is required.

3. In the present case, the conflicting fundamental rights of the parties – on the part of the users, the freedom of expression under Article 5 (1) sentence 1 of the German Basic Law, and on the part of the defendant, above all, the freedom to exercise a profession under Article 12

Ball’s in your court.

Dad, what is “hate speech”?

German Labor Ministry BMAS, via the stupidity of frigtard Jürgen Sonneck to “Certified German Criminal Civil Servants Fachkräfte”

German Labor Minister Hubsi Heil pondering socialist aesthetics of a double chin while Dieter’s getting pumped for the day.

Howdy @BMAS_Bund (blocked), German Labor Minister Heil, mayor of Munich Town Reiter @StadtMuenchen, Detlef @Bundesagentur (blocked), introducing Missus fucking Stupid, Douche-McGouche Jürgen Sonneck aka C. Paucher.

Jürgen Sonneck aka C. Paucher

Hubsi, Dieter, Detlef, how could this pathetic blunder happen? In the province of Bavaria, with its aborigines, the beacon of intellect, the living proof of Darwin’s flawed theory.

Germany is known for its ‘Fachkräfte’, so there is no reason why this hallmark should not be extended to German criminal civil servants. IOW Dieter & Hubsi & Detlef, let’s together work on setting the standards for “Certified German Criminal Civil Servants Fachkräfte”. Nothing less. Remember Tom Peters’ mantra: “distinct… or extinct”.

One thing is clear, hairloss cum stupidity is too much a society can bear and Jürgen Sonneck’s stupidity is ginormous. It runs full metal jacket against the minimum standards of criminality one would expect from a Teutonic civil servant.

So much to learn from this Bavarian mook Jürgen with his above room temperature IQ. Hubsi, Dieter, Detlef, when one of your criminal civil servants intends to email a criminal libelous complaint to police using a false name the next time, here are eight concise points to adhere to.

  1. Get a fucking burner tablet in a store. Pay with cash, not card!
  2. Create a NEW identity with Google. One that does not point to you, douche-canoe.
  3. Google ‘How to Bypass Gmail Phone Verification in 2020’ and ‘How to Create Gmail Without Phone Number’ if need be, twat waffle.
  4. Move your ass to a different place, dingleberry. When sending an email to police or any other gov. place, your IP address is recorded as well! Living in Munich, take the train to Lengries, Garmisch, or so. Find open Wifi. Better yet, book a cheap train ticket to Austria or if you like South Tyrol, Sterzing. Beautiful place. Same there, look for public Wifi, enjoy cake and cappuccino and do your rotten thing, fuckin’ creep.
  5. BUT KEEP THIS IN MIND! If your complaint with police is referring to a CEO of an office at which you work – man, are you a total moron?! Obfuscation is the game in town, sucker. Deflect. Every idiot knows you never rob a bank in your neighborhood!
  6. For fuck’s sake douche nozzle, keep chronology in mind. Do not rush it! Let time work for you, dimwit. When the court decision on a case you filed was made on a particular day and you dash off your email to police on that day … For Christ’s sake, this is a rookie mistake, you fucktard.
    With full-blown idiots like Jürgen Sonneck one can not even raid a Currywurst Bude. Ends up like Bobby Lasorda in ‘Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead’.
  7. Remember wangbadan, it’s called a burner tablet for a reason. Once done, destroy it, burn it and throw it into a dumpster.
  8. Lastly, never bank on courts that they keep on refusing inspection of files.

Hubsi Heil, Dieter, Detlef, anything to add from your side? Remember Tom Peters: “If you are not confused then you are not paying attention.”

I do not consider it necessary to explicitly explain that I of course demand full restitution of damages by that little pony! Do you Ugly Germans have anymore cheap tricks up your sleeve involving basement associates with @BMAS_Bund and @Bundesagentur ? Perhaps Swatting, Hubsi?! “There is nothing like race, is there?” as Oscar Wilde suggested.

Ave atque vale

PS. Most of it happened under your predecessor, the hideously ugly fucking fat frump Andrea Nahles. Detlef didn’t qualify for a picture. Lacks any aesthetics.

FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT AGENCY needs time to comment on stupidity of its former civil servant Jürgen Sonneck from Munich

Howdy senpai Detlef Scheele @Bundesagentur (blocked) cc @BMAS_Bund (blocked, you guessed it meanwhile),

I received notice that my enquiry of May 25 based on your country’s super generous ‘Information Freedom Act’ IFG has not been responded to. So I sent a reminder yesterday. Hope it did not fall on your feet.

Dieter, no sweat. I really understand you, the convulsions you must be going through. Worse that a woman having her period. I mean how do you best address the fucking stupidity of your former civil servant Jürgen Sonneck from Munich? When the twat waffle engages in an “Administrative procedure act under a false name” and totally forgets his IP address is being transmitted as well. Your pathetic Sindey Lumet version of Bobby Lasorda. God, Detlef, how could this shit happen?

So here is my heartfelt suggestion. Take your time in phrasing your response. Perhaps a little bit Heidegger for good measure or Albert Speer. But, please, do answer. I can be incredibly persistent and nagging.

Allow me one final question Detlef, do you always look like on this photo? May I suggest you invest a little into high quality booze and shun that supermarket hooch? BTW, class act how you got rid of that bitch.

Detlef, man love rules supreme. Yours truly and don’t disappoint me.

 

 

Bundesagentur für Arbeit & Detlef Scheele mögen Anfragen an ‘FragDenStaat’ nicht

BA Capo Detlef Scheele, kurz bevor er die Schnecke in den Kopierraum verfrachtete.

FragDenStaat liess am 27. Juni mitteilen:

Ihre Anfrage „Verwaltungsverfahrenshandlung unter falschem Namen“ wurde offenbar nicht in der gesetzlichen Frist beantwortet und ist nun verspätet.
Wir empfehlen Ihnen eine weitere Nachricht an die Behörde zu senden und den Status der Anfrage zu erfragen.

Dies betrifft die Anfrage an die Bundesagentur für Arbeit (gleiche erging auch an Hubsi Heils BMAS). Das verwundert nicht, ist das Sujet doch etwas pikant und ausserdem die BA für Maulfaulheit bekannt, wenn die Anfrage sich bezieht auf:

FragDenStaat – Betreff: Jürgen Sonneck – Verwaltungsverfahrenshandlung unter falschem Namen

Und die weitere Nachricht lautet:

Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren,

meine Informationsfreiheitsanfrage „Verwaltungsverfahrenshandlung unter falschem Namen“ vom 25.05.2020 (#187347) wurde von Ihnen nicht in der gesetzlich vorgeschriebenen Zeit beantwortet. Sie haben die Frist mittlerweile um 2 Tage überschritten.
Bitte informieren Sie mich umgehend über den Stand meiner Anfrage. Lassen Sie sich inspirieren durch Martin Heidegger:

„Sprache ist lichtend-verbergende Ankunft des Seins selbst.“

Di vos incolumes custodiant

FragDenStaat – Betreff: Jürgen Sonneck – Verwaltungsverfahrenshandlung unter falschem Namen

An FragDenStaat

Betreff: Verwaltungsverfahrenshandlung unter falschem Namen

(an BMAS und BA am 25. Mai 2020)

Guten Tag,

Ich beziehe mich auf die Antwort der BA “IFG_Rechtlicher Status von Jobcenter-Mitarbeitern, Weisungsbefugnis und Privathaftung (#5174) vom 3. Februar 2014.

Darin heisst es zu Beginn:

“…Die Beschäftigten der Bundesagentur in den Agenturen für Arbeit und in den als gemeinsame Einrichtung im Sinne des § 44b SGB II betriebenen Jobcentern handeln insoweit hoheitlich für die Behörde und üben eine öffentlich-rechtliche Verwaltungstätigkeit im Sinne des § 1 SGB X aus. Die Befugnis zur rechtswirksamen Vornahme von Verfahrenshandlungen leitet sich ab aus § 11 Abs. 4 SGB X, in dem es heißt: „Fähig zur Vornahme von Verfahrenshandlungen sind Behörden durch ihre Leiter, deren Vertreter oder Beauftragte.“ Die Leiter und Vertreter bedürfen keiner besonderen Beauftragung. …als Beauftragte in den für sie zuständigen Aufgabenbereich Verwaltungsverfahrenshandlungen vorzunehmen. …”

Frage 1:
Wenn “die Leiter und Vertreter … keiner besonderen Beauftragung” bedürfen, bedeutet dieses Absehen von Beauftragung, dass ein Beamter dieser Behörde seine “Verwaltungshandlungen” auch unter Angabe eines falschen Namens leisten kann?

Zur Erklärung: Der morone bayerische Beamte Jürgen Sonneck kam auf die Idee, im Mai 2015 unter Nichtbeachtung von elementarsten Verdunkelungsmassnahmen eine verleumdende Anzeige gegen mich an die Münchner Polizei unter Angabe des Namens ‘C. Paucher’ per Email zu senden.

Frage 2:
Wie sind “Organisations- und Geschäftsverteilungspläne” gestaltet bei einer Verwaltungstätigkeit unter falschem Namen per Email mit der Polizei.

Frage 3:
Wenn es heisst “Bei vorsätzlichem oder grob fahrlässigen Handeln derjenigen Beschäftigten, die den Schaden verursacht haben, kann die Behörde ihrerseits Regressansprüche … gegen den verursachenden Mitarbeiter haben” und dies nicht geschehen ist, dass Verleumdung bei Hartz 4 Rezipienten als zulässige Transgression anzusehen ist?

Frage 4:
Wenn nach §§ 60 ff SGB I “alle Tatsachen anzugeben” sind, sind vice versa Mitarbeiter der Behörde von dieser Wahrheitspflicht enthoben? Ist also die Angabe eines falschen Namens akzeptabler modus operandi?

Frage 5:

§ 35 SGB X wird erwähnt.

(1) Ein schriftlicher oder elektronischer sowie ein schriftlich oder elektronisch bestätigter Verwaltungsakt ist mit einer Begründung zu versehen.

Frage 6:
Wie würde eine Begründung für die Angabe eines falschen Namens in einer Email mit dem Vorwurf der Hassrede an die Polizei gesandt von einem Beamten aussehen? Wie begründen Beamte Verleumdung?

Unter Absatz 2 Satz 2 heisst es:

(2) Einer Begründung bedarf es nicht,
2. soweit demjenigen, für den der Verwaltungsakt bestimmt ist …, die Auffassung der Behörde über die Sach- und Rechtslage bereits bekannt oder auch ohne Begründung für ihn ohne weiteres erkennbar ist,

Frage 7:
Könnte die/das BA/BMAS ausführen, wie eine “Rechtslage bereits bekannt oder auch ohne Begründung … erkennbar” sein kann bei Angabe eines falschen Namens und des verleumdenden Vorwurfs der Hassrede? MAW eines Aktes, dessen sich sonst nur perfide Verbrecher zuwenden.

Absatz 4 bestimmt für ein Absehen einer Begründung,

wenn sich dies aus einer Rechtsvorschrift ergibt.

Frage 8:
Ist der BA/dem BMAS eine Rechtsvorschrift geläufig, die es Beamten anheim stellt, rattenmässig, feige sich in den Abwasserkanälen der Anonymität zu tummeln, wie es Dummerchen Jürgen Sonneck tat? Wird er beim BA gar als “Sonderbeauftragter C. Paucher” geführt?

§6 SGB 12 behandelt Fachkräfte

(1) Bei der Durchführung der Aufgaben dieses Buches werden Personen beschäftigt, die sich hierfür nach ihrer Persönlichkeit eignen und in der Regel entweder eine ihren Aufgaben entsprechende Ausbildung erhalten haben oder über vergleichbare Erfahrungen verfügen.

(2) Die Träger der Sozialhilfe gewährleisten für die Erfüllung ihrer Aufgaben eine angemessene fachliche Fortbildung ihrer Fachkräfte. …

Frage 9:
Ist der Persönlichkeitseignung, der fachlichen Fortbildung Genüge getan, wenn man einen falschen Namen benutzen muss und dabei aber so blöd ist zu vergessen, die IP Adresse wird mit übertragen?

Ich sehe den Ausführungen gespannt entgegen und verbleibe

Ave atque vale