Twitter bans Neo-Nazi group, a first for the website

Twitter has blocked the account of a German Neo-Nazi group known as Besseres Hannover, or Better Hannover.

Jeff Chiu/AP/File
In this June 23, 2010, file photo, a Twitter sign hangs at the offices of Twitter Inc., in San Francisco.

Twitter has invoked its local censorship policy for the first time, blocking the feed of a German Neo-Nazi group known as Besseres Hannover, or Better Hannover. According to the Associated Press, the ban came after authorities in Lower Saxony ordered "the closure of all user accounts of the Besseres Hannover group," including YouTube and Twitter. 

"We announced the ability to withhold content back in January," Twitter general counsel Alex Macgillivray said in a tweet earlier today. "We're using it now for the first time re: a group deemed illegal in Germany."

In a separate tweet, he posted a link to Twitter's "Country-Withheld Content" policy, and wrote that Twitter "never [wants] to withhold content; good to have tools to do it narrowly & transparently." 

That policy stipulates that Twitter will attempt to balance the free speech of its users with local legal concerns. From the Twitter Website: 

Upon receipt of requests to withhold content, we will promptly notify affected users unless we believe we are legally prohibited from doing so (for example, if we receive an order under seal). We also clearly indicate within the product when content has been withheld. And, we have expanded our partnership with Chilling Effects to publish not only DMCA notifications but also requests to withhold content – unless, similar to our practice of notifying users, we are legally prohibited from doing so.

Still, many critics have questioned the wisdom of Twitter's actions.

"Bad move if you ask me," wrote one Twitter user. "Censorship is a slippery slope," wrote another. 

But Cindy Cohn, legal director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a kind of ACLU for digital rights, said that in this case, Twitter did the right thing. 

"Twitter is being pilloried for being honest about something that all Internet platforms have to wrestle with," she told CBS News. "As long as this censorship happens in a secret way, we're all losers."

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.