If you thought censorship on social media is bad now, wait 'till this law comes in. The German parliament has voted for a law which will allow prosecutors to fine social media companies for allowing offensive material to be published on their websites. The bill still needs final approval from the upper house.

This bill will effect people worldwide because of the ambiguity of the wording and the international nature of these companies.

Even when what's written is not illegal in Germany, social media companies can still be fined.

Under this law, social media companies have 24 hours to delete material which is "evidently unlawful". This would include material containing obviously illegal content such as; death threats, child pornography, blackmail and inciting violence.

However, they also have 7 days to delete offensive (a subjective term) material that isn't evidently unlawful. Because offence taking is something unique to individuals, social media companies will have no choice but to overreact and delete anything even remotely controversial in order to ensure they are not fined.

But these companies are mostly American, aren't they protected by the 1st amendment?

You would think so but no. Precedent has already been set by EU officials fining U.S companies in the past. Google was recently hit with a record breaking 2.4 billion Euro fine. If U.S companies operate worldwide, they have to abide by different standards. What they perhaps should do is block all German I.Ps and say to the German parliament: "Have fun explaining to your citizens why they can't use Youtube or Facebook." Unfortunately no one in Silicon Valley appears to have the bollocks to do that. Besides, social media companies seem to like censorship because it makes them more corporate friendly when attracting ad revenue.

Should "hate speech" be banned anyway?

The problem is that the definition of hate speech changes depending on who you ask. It's a completely subjective term that keeps on changing. And accusations of someone causing offence seems to be a go-to strategy for many people as a way to shut down an argument. Even people who've spent their lives campaigning against hatred have been unjustly accused of it. Germany has also used "hate speech" laws in the past to shut down criticism of government policy, specifically migrant policy.

This is why I'm glad I'm on Steemit.

I don't really have any controversial views, I'm a boring centrist with Libertarian leanings. Nor do I have any use for hateful words towards anyone. But I really don't like being told what I can read or hear. Even if someone genuinely is a horrible hate-filled person I don't think that's a good enough reason to deprive them of free speech, nor do I trust anyone to define for me what is and what is not hate speech. Particularly as I've witnessed such arbitrary use of words like: "Racist" or "Misogynist" in the past.

A decentralised system where users decide what is acceptable I find much more agreeable. Even if some users wield far more power to decide than others I feel it will even out more as Steemit grows.