As the First Amendment comes increasingly under attack by social media in the form of censorship from what their leftist screeners consider “fake news,” what we all recognize to be the removing of opposition political views and the truth from the public sphere, similar attacks are going on elsewhere. Germany, under Frau Merkel, who has placed Germany high on the list of the speech intolerant, took another step in her pre-election crack down on opposing views and expression on Wednesday.

Germany’s Cabinet approved a new bill that provides for punitive action against social networking companies for failure to quickly remove “illegal content.” Illegal content is speech that doesn’t match the government’s dictates as to what can or cannot be thought or said. Chief on the list of offensive content is what they call hate speech, opposition to the Islamic invasion and associated calls to action. They also prohibit “defamatory fake news,” the catch all term for whatever else they don’t approve of that might not fit into the first category.

Not that the social media types are adverse to screening out nationalist, non-globalism ideas from their mediums, they just needed a government shield and justification to make it a much more tidy and simple process for them to reach their common goal of thought control over the masses. After all, that was primarily what they were created for in the first place. First they get us all dependent upon social media as a means of communicating, leaving it in “private hands” so it’s “not subject to the First Amendment,” in the US or other protections as they are in other countries, then they manipulate.

Chancellor Merkel’s Cabinet agreed to new rules which call for a fine of as much as 50 million Euros (53.4 million dollars) on Facebook, Twitter and other social media platforms. The longtime opponent of free speech, German Justice Minister Heiko Maas, figured prominently in the action, placing the responsibility for policing the content, what he called “removing hateful content” on the companies.

He laughably laid out the pretext of legitimacy for the stupid people, saying the actions would not restrict the freedom of expression, but intervene only when criminal hatred or intentionally false news are posted. So it intervenes without restricting, how exactly does that happen, Heiko? And since it is “criminal” hatred, there is a crime committed, which means there must be hearings, just as there would have to be in proving the “news” posted was “fake.”

So how, Heiko, exactly, does the threat of potential jail time and fines not restrict the freedom of expression? Is only “fake” news that is opposed by the state prosecuted but that which is complimentary of Ms. Merkel is deemed acceptable? That’s how it works with her invasion, opposition is hate speech, support is “free speech.” Heiko Maas is reporting fake government policy news, arrest him and grab his wallet.

It does appear that, in their supposed efforts to prevent a reemergence of Nazi racism or fascism, the Germans have ushered in more fascism. Although it was a perfect setting to use for the invasion of Europe. With their laws prohibiting and loosely defining racism, the people have been brainwashed into accepting conquest and to keep quiet about it.

“Just like on the streets, there is also no room for criminal incitement on social networks,” said Maas, adding, “The internet affects the culture of debate and the atmosphere in our society. Verbal radicalization is often a preliminary stage to physical violence.”

Verbal radicalization is also known as voicing objections or challenging the actions of others. There was a time when conversation was seen as a means of deescalating potential conflicts. It seems those days are in the past for Germany under Herr Merkel. Comply or goodbye, her way or the highway, shut up or get locked up is the new German standard.

Maas signaled that once parliament approves of this bill, it will be taken to the European level, necessary for it to “be effective.” Are there any Frenchman or Germans who needed another reason to vote to leave the EU?

Rick Wells