Die Liebe meiner Träume (Teil 1) (German Edition)

The German NetzDG: A Risk Worth Taking?

---

Under the German Basic Law, freedom of expression does not cover insults and defamations, or incitement to hatred. To the extent that deletion of the illegal content amounts to an infringement, this is justified as it is provided by provisions of general laws under Article 5 II Basic Law.

Moreover, deleting illegal content appears as a measured sanction, given that such statements, when made in offline scenarios, often attract criminal prosecution which may result in fines and prison sentences.

Conversely, in the second scenario the operator deletes content mistakenly deeming it illegal. Here, the issues become more complicated.

NetzDG and ‘hate speech’

The German Federal Constitutional Court has recognised that there is a presumption in favour of freedom of expression whenever it is unclear whether the expression is illegal, at least on topics of public interest. Notably, this protection extends to public forums, even where access to them is regulated through private law relationships. However, NetzDG notably does not require censorship i. If overblocking does take place as a result of NetzDG, then this would indeed be would be problematic under the German Basic Law.

Despite their prevalence in legal writing on the subject, concerns that social media platforms will, when in doubt, delete content rather than risk a fine, appear overstated. Overblocking is likely to arise, so goes the argument, due to the structure of the fines that apply to a systematic failure to delete illegal content.

Hence, a prudent social media platform operator would, when in doubt and confronted with a flurry of complaints, delete content that is questionable , rather than risk a fine. With respect to illegal content, the matter is unproblematic from a constitutional perspective.

For the reasons stated earlier, social media users do not benefit from protections under freedom of expression for illegal content. Again, the more problematic scenario arises when the social media platform operator mistakenly deletes legal content. For the user, this represents an infringement of freedom of expression. Indeed, if overblocking is a prevalent phenomenon beyond the occasional erroneous decision of the complaints management infrastructure, it could dissuade users from expressing their views on the platform.

This in turn, would render the NetzDG significantly more problematic, and arguably unconstitutional. The Federal Constitutional Court has found a violation in ordering the publishers of a satirical magazine to pay compensation to an individual for an allegedly defamatory article, chiefly basing their ruling on the risk that it would discourage future exercise of freedom of expression.

However, it is not clear that such a chilling effect is inevitable: Notably, and contrary to the impression given by some reports , no fines attach to decisions in individual cases. It is difficult to see why a social media platform operator, which ultimately requires continuous user engagement and content creation to be profitable, would adopt an overly aggressive deletion policy. An exodus of users would be sure to follow the consistent and arbitrary deletion of legal content, and thus critically undermine the viability of the social media platform.

It therefore appears more likely that the limited scope of the fines and the inherent economic interests of social networks encourage a more nuanced deletion policy: The argument is that freedom of expression does not necessarily equate to a right to access to any specific means of expression. For instance, a recipient of social security was not entitled to claim the necessary transportation costs to travel to a protest meeting.

Moreover, access to and expression on most social networks is already significantly limited through private law terms and conditions. These grant platform operators wide-ranging powers to delete content or even indefinitely suspend accounts of users for actions that are unlikely to fall afoul of German criminal law. Against this backdrop, it is difficult to sustain an argument that the potential for unintended side effects of NetzDG are a unique or would as such suffice to find it unconstitutional. Social media platforms are hardly a free speech paradise: Overall, the NetzDG might after all form part of a civilizing influence on online debate, instead of having a one-sided chilling effect on freedom of expression.

The fact that to date social media and online interaction more generally, has created a space for a significantly more laissez faire approach to expression is neither here nor there on the question of constitutionality.

She's Not Me (Pt 1) (German translation)

The obligations to delete illegal content are based on well-establish limits to freedom of expression, to which NetzDG chiefly adds a more robust enforcement mechanism. The constitutionality of NetzDG may to a considerable extent rest on an evaluation of the complaints management infrastructure that social media operators develop. Die allermeisten Ergebnisse sind Wiedergaben des Liedtextes oder beziehen sich direkt darauf. It's very difficult to find an appropriate literal translation for a specific line of a poem or a song. In fact, there is a German version of the song you're trying to translate "Long Ago and Far Away" which changes the second part of the line.

There's even a YouTube video and the text line is at 1: Rare broadcast to enemy soldiers. If you only feed us one or two lines at a time, there is no way that anyone can offer a suggestion that will suit the tone, style, rhyme or rythm of the translation you have performed so far. That is not a translation of the phrase at all. It may be a valid rendering of the context, depending on how you tackle the whole text, but just looking at the line, the "translation" is a complete no-fit.

If you post these two lines of the poem out of context, the translation you provided is utterly wrong. Unless you provide the context of the whole poem and the translation you attempted so far, it is really hard to suggest how to translate this particular line. I assume that you have the skills to bingle a translation of "Aladin's lamp", so you don't really need us to provide you with "Aladins Wunderlampe", right?

So, the question title does not really reflect what the question is about. Definitely no a translation of "Aladin's lamp" into German. If you can't find that on the web, I don't know what to tell you.

The true essence of your question seems to be how to incorporate the two lines of poetry into an existing translation that you have already started. Well, post the whole original text, and then post the whole translation, as far as you've taken it. With that context, a suggestion may be achievable. Seeing that your "translation" has not very much in common with the original English text, I feel that you are not after a literal translation.

I would translate it into Aladins Wunderlampe.

NEU IN DER BOLLY.THEK

In fairytales, this is an old oil lamp, where you can rub on and an old genie appears to grant a wish. Overall, I would have translated the line like this: Please provide some more lines to see if we can stick to the rhyme without changing its origianl meaning. Home Questions Tags Users Unanswered. Here's another translation exercise. I rendered it in German as: Tom Au 9, 3 25 Below a specified threshold they would be associated with high voting rights and could possibly be refunded without profit.

Navigationsmenü

Beyond this threshold, the contributions would be treated as permanent gifts non-refundable, as at Harvard , and lead to capped voting rights which is more favourable than Harvard. If the billionaires pouring into the media at the moment are as disinterested as they say, then sharing power with journalists, readers and donors who are not as rich as they are should not be a problem.

What is preventing the present majority from adopting a reform of this sort? Perhaps the fear of displeasing the billionaires, and further still, the need to provide the requisite financial means. For, as soon as it is a question of non-refundable gifts, it would be logical to extend to the media the tax reductions applicable to gifts in the educational or medical sector, which has always been refused. However, it would be money well invested and it could easily be obtained by restoring the wealth tax on financial assets.

Until the government show some contrition for this original sin it will have considerable difficulty in convincing the country that it is concerned about fiscal justice and combating populism. This is the blog of a committed social scientist. The author of Capital in the 21st century casts an uncompromising eye on current social and political issues in France, Europe, and the world and shares his likes, dislikes, and critical commentary on what he is reading.

• Mortality
• Cape Summer and the Australians in England
• A Honey of a Story
• Theory and Practice in the Austrian School (Cato Unbound Book 92012)
• The Judges Charter: Protecting Peoples Rights from Tinkering Politicians