|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On a rather unrelated note for our visitors from across the Atlantic:
German "Nazi grandma" (Ursula Haverbeck) sentenced to jail for the umpteenth time.
So yes, free speech has its limits if it is pure, hateful lying and/or denial.
Haverbeck, from the German town of Vlotho near Bielefeld, has been sentenced for similar charges on five other occasions. The most recent, in October, saw her sentenced to six months in prison by a district court in Berlin for incitement of racial hatred after she claimed at a public event that the gas chambers and Auschwitz concentration camp "were not real."
In August she was handed a two-year sentence by a regional court in Lower Saxony.
Haverbeck has appealed the rulings passed down against her and proceedings in each other case remains ongoing. Haverbeck claims she has been merely been repeating an opinion.
This Tuesday's appeal verdict is not final, either. Haverbeck's lawyers intend to take the case to the Higher Regional Court in the town of Hamm, their last chance to challenge the sentence.
|
On November 29 2017 06:00 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2017 04:16 Nyxisto wrote:
responsible minister pulled a stunt and deviated from government line. Merkel apparently didn't even know about it and SPD is mad to have this happen right before the negotiations. How could a minister take the initiative to desobey?!
As Artisreal already implied, possibly related to CSU-CDU infighting. The CSU took a hard hit in the election (under 40% which is unimaginable for them) and they blame the CDU course of the last few years for this. The CSU has serious problems right now and regional elections are coming up soon.
|
On November 29 2017 06:42 Artisreal wrote:On a rather unrelated note for our visitors from across the Atlantic: German " Nazi grandma" (Ursula Haverbeck) sentenced to jail for the umpteenth time. So yes, free speech has its limits if it is pure, hateful lying and/or denial. Show nested quote +
Haverbeck, from the German town of Vlotho near Bielefeld, has been sentenced for similar charges on five other occasions. The most recent, in October, saw her sentenced to six months in prison by a district court in Berlin for incitement of racial hatred after she claimed at a public event that the gas chambers and Auschwitz concentration camp "were not real."
In August she was handed a two-year sentence by a regional court in Lower Saxony.
Haverbeck has appealed the rulings passed down against her and proceedings in each other case remains ongoing. Haverbeck claims she has been merely been repeating an opinion.
This Tuesday's appeal verdict is not final, either. Haverbeck's lawyers intend to take the case to the Higher Regional Court in the town of Hamm, their last chance to challenge the sentence.
Germany doesn’t have the same free speech protections codified in law that, say, the USA does. That’s not about “free speech has its limits if”; it’s about how different nations approach what freedoms are reserved to the individual in society.
|
You are entitled to your opinion.
Though I must say that it's pure garbage what you think on this one.
The example I posted is clearly not a matter of expressing an opinion, which would be fair, but of a revisionist display which sole goal is to legitimize what the Nazis did. Which is support for genocide among others.
To call this the use of one's free speech rights is delusional. But you're no stranger to delusion when it's not your rights that are infringed upon.
That America grants equal free speech to its citizens is laughable, but that just as a side-note.
The us could be so much better off if people jumped over the pretentious Shadow that is free speech and simply name horrible demagoguery and hate speech as it is and limit how much you can advocate for the suffering of others.
It's not free speech, it's a violation of so many other's human dignity. And it is highly questionable at best, if the human right to free speech can be exercised (or even applies) where it violates another human right.
|
On November 29 2017 16:05 Artisreal wrote:
You are entitled to your opinion.
Though I must say that it's pure garbage what you think on this one.
The example I posted is clearly not a matter of expressing an opinion, which would be fair, but of a revisionist display which sole goal is to legitimize what the Nazis did. Which is support for genocide among others.
To call this the use of one's free speech rights is delusional. But you're no stranger to delusion when it's not your rights that are infringed upon.
That America grants equal free speech to its citizens is laughable, but that just as a side-note.
The us could be so much better off if people jumped over the pretentious Shadow that is free speech and simply name horrible demagoguery and hate speech as it is and limit how much you can advocate for the suffering of others.
It's not free speech, it's a violation of so many other's human dignity. And it is highly questionable at best, if the human right to free speech can be exercised (or even applies) where it violates another human right.
I have very little interest if other countries of the world allow their citizens less freedoms and are willing to accept the attendant costs. You have that structure and the citizens accept it (as far as I can tell).
Just don’t prattle on about how “free speech has its limits” like you didn’t choose to restrict free speech in that manner and got that outcome.
|
WTF how did he get access to such stuff?
|
On November 29 2017 23:08 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2017 16:05 Artisreal wrote:
You are entitled to your opinion.
Though I must say that it's pure garbage what you think on this one.
The example I posted is clearly not a matter of expressing an opinion, which would be fair, but of a revisionist display which sole goal is to legitimize what the Nazis did. Which is support for genocide among others.
To call this the use of one's free speech rights is delusional. But you're no stranger to delusion when it's not your rights that are infringed upon.
That America grants equal free speech to its citizens is laughable, but that just as a side-note.
The us could be so much better off if people jumped over the pretentious Shadow that is free speech and simply name horrible demagoguery and hate speech as it is and limit how much you can advocate for the suffering of others.
It's not free speech, it's a violation of so many other's human dignity. And it is highly questionable at best, if the human right to free speech can be exercised (or even applies) where it violates another human right. I have very little interest if other countries of the world allow their citizens less freedoms and are willing to accept the attendant costs. You have that structure and the citizens accept it (as far as I can tell). Just don’t prattle on about how “free speech has its limits” like you didn’t choose to restrict free speech in that manner and got that outcome.
Casual deflect as expected of you.
|
On November 29 2017 08:29 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2017 06:42 Artisreal wrote:On a rather unrelated note for our visitors from across the Atlantic: German " Nazi grandma" (Ursula Haverbeck) sentenced to jail for the umpteenth time. So yes, free speech has its limits if it is pure, hateful lying and/or denial.
Haverbeck, from the German town of Vlotho near Bielefeld, has been sentenced for similar charges on five other occasions. The most recent, in October, saw her sentenced to six months in prison by a district court in Berlin for incitement of racial hatred after she claimed at a public event that the gas chambers and Auschwitz concentration camp "were not real."
In August she was handed a two-year sentence by a regional court in Lower Saxony.
Haverbeck has appealed the rulings passed down against her and proceedings in each other case remains ongoing. Haverbeck claims she has been merely been repeating an opinion.
This Tuesday's appeal verdict is not final, either. Haverbeck's lawyers intend to take the case to the Higher Regional Court in the town of Hamm, their last chance to challenge the sentence.
Germany doesn’t have the same free speech protections codified in law that, say, the USA does. That’s not about “free speech has its limits if”; it’s about how different nations approach what freedoms are reserved to the individual in society.
What? That is exactly the point he is making. Freedom is not an absolute term. It is interpreted by society and societies decide for themselves how they want to implement it. The only absolute freedom is not to be found in the USA but in a lawless society without any form of government. I for my part am a fan of freedom to assemble in public, so when the police is dissolving my gathering in front of the only fire department access point to a burning building i will cry that my right to assemble should be absolute and the state is infringing on my right. And if you still think that your country has "free speech", how about you start posting everywhere that one of your friends has raped a bunch of girls. Let's see how much the USA with all that free speech protection protects your right to call someone a rapist without any proof in public.
|
On November 29 2017 23:08 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2017 16:05 Artisreal wrote:
You are entitled to your opinion.
Though I must say that it's pure garbage what you think on this one.
The example I posted is clearly not a matter of expressing an opinion, which would be fair, but of a revisionist display which sole goal is to legitimize what the Nazis did. Which is support for genocide among others.
To call this the use of one's free speech rights is delusional. But you're no stranger to delusion when it's not your rights that are infringed upon.
That America grants equal free speech to its citizens is laughable, but that just as a side-note.
The us could be so much better off if people jumped over the pretentious Shadow that is free speech and simply name horrible demagoguery and hate speech as it is and limit how much you can advocate for the suffering of others.
It's not free speech, it's a violation of so many other's human dignity. And it is highly questionable at best, if the human right to free speech can be exercised (or even applies) where it violates another human right. I have very little interest if other countries of the world allow their citizens less freedoms and are willing to accept the attendant costs. You have that structure and the citizens accept it (as far as I can tell). Just don’t prattle on about how “free speech has its limits” like you didn’t choose to restrict free speech in that manner and got that outcome.
You are mixing two concepts. The one is freedom, which ends where your actions become nonconsensual interaction, the other is free speech, which is a concept that allows you to speak, disregarding consent about your words by others in your society.
If America puts freedom of speech first under all circumstances then they are clearly not aiming for maximum freedom
|
On November 29 2017 23:47 Artisreal wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2017 23:08 Danglars wrote:On November 29 2017 16:05 Artisreal wrote:
You are entitled to your opinion.
Though I must say that it's pure garbage what you think on this one.
The example I posted is clearly not a matter of expressing an opinion, which would be fair, but of a revisionist display which sole goal is to legitimize what the Nazis did. Which is support for genocide among others.
To call this the use of one's free speech rights is delusional. But you're no stranger to delusion when it's not your rights that are infringed upon.
That America grants equal free speech to its citizens is laughable, but that just as a side-note.
The us could be so much better off if people jumped over the pretentious Shadow that is free speech and simply name horrible demagoguery and hate speech as it is and limit how much you can advocate for the suffering of others.
It's not free speech, it's a violation of so many other's human dignity. And it is highly questionable at best, if the human right to free speech can be exercised (or even applies) where it violates another human right. I have very little interest if other countries of the world allow their citizens less freedoms and are willing to accept the attendant costs. You have that structure and the citizens accept it (as far as I can tell). Just don’t prattle on about how “free speech has its limits” like you didn’t choose to restrict free speech in that manner and got that outcome. Casual deflect as expected of you.
I take it you cease to defend your characterization.
|
On November 30 2017 00:50 Broetchenholer wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2017 08:29 Danglars wrote:On November 29 2017 06:42 Artisreal wrote:On a rather unrelated note for our visitors from across the Atlantic: German " Nazi grandma" (Ursula Haverbeck) sentenced to jail for the umpteenth time. So yes, free speech has its limits if it is pure, hateful lying and/or denial.
Haverbeck, from the German town of Vlotho near Bielefeld, has been sentenced for similar charges on five other occasions. The most recent, in October, saw her sentenced to six months in prison by a district court in Berlin for incitement of racial hatred after she claimed at a public event that the gas chambers and Auschwitz concentration camp "were not real."
In August she was handed a two-year sentence by a regional court in Lower Saxony.
Haverbeck has appealed the rulings passed down against her and proceedings in each other case remains ongoing. Haverbeck claims she has been merely been repeating an opinion.
This Tuesday's appeal verdict is not final, either. Haverbeck's lawyers intend to take the case to the Higher Regional Court in the town of Hamm, their last chance to challenge the sentence.
Germany doesn’t have the same free speech protections codified in law that, say, the USA does. That’s not about “free speech has its limits if”; it’s about how different nations approach what freedoms are reserved to the individual in society. What? That is exactly the point he is making. Freedom is not an absolute term. It is interpreted by society and societies decide for themselves how they want to implement it. The only absolute freedom is not to be found in the USA but in a lawless society without any form of government. I for my part am a fan of freedom to assemble in public, so when the police is dissolving my gathering in front of the only fire department access point to a burning building i will cry that my right to assemble should be absolute and the state is infringing on my right. And if you still think that your country has "free speech", how about you start posting everywhere that one of your friends has raped a bunch of girls. Let's see how much the USA with all that free speech protection protects your right to call someone a rapist without any proof in public.
Point? You can restrict freedoms in law as much as your society tolerates it. These exist on a spectrum including when speech is tolerated up to the point that it is critical of the ruling government. I see no actual point from him ... he asserts without reason that free speech itself has its limits (if), when the true statement is German law imposes limits on free speech. This was a straightforward exercise of those limits codified in law. That’s not an argument for the suitability or unsuitability of such policies.
I don’t really see your point on Freedom unless you’re trying to say Ursula was more free by being jailed for her writing and speech. Germany is less free than the US in this regard, and go have at it. It’s not my country and I shouldn’t have a say in it.
|
On November 30 2017 01:17 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2017 23:08 Danglars wrote:On November 29 2017 16:05 Artisreal wrote:
You are entitled to your opinion.
Though I must say that it's pure garbage what you think on this one.
The example I posted is clearly not a matter of expressing an opinion, which would be fair, but of a revisionist display which sole goal is to legitimize what the Nazis did. Which is support for genocide among others.
To call this the use of one's free speech rights is delusional. But you're no stranger to delusion when it's not your rights that are infringed upon.
That America grants equal free speech to its citizens is laughable, but that just as a side-note.
The us could be so much better off if people jumped over the pretentious Shadow that is free speech and simply name horrible demagoguery and hate speech as it is and limit how much you can advocate for the suffering of others.
It's not free speech, it's a violation of so many other's human dignity. And it is highly questionable at best, if the human right to free speech can be exercised (or even applies) where it violates another human right. I have very little interest if other countries of the world allow their citizens less freedoms and are willing to accept the attendant costs. You have that structure and the citizens accept it (as far as I can tell). Just don’t prattle on about how “free speech has its limits” like you didn’t choose to restrict free speech in that manner and got that outcome. You are mixing two concepts. The one is freedom, which ends where your actions become nonconsensual interaction, the other is free speech, which is a concept that allows you to speak, disregarding consent about your words by others in your society. If America puts freedom of speech first under all circumstances then they are clearly not aiming for maximum freedom
Freedom of the press, freedom of speech, freedoms of the secret ballot, etc etc. These are all freedoms, though I’m unfamiliar if German language constructions presume the word is narrower.
Will the government jail you for saying “Merkel is wrong and dangerous,” “The holocaust is a lie,” or “The Christian God is a false god?” Will an angry mob assault and kill you with no consequence should that reaction occur? One of the base meanings of freedom is “the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint.” I say this is a straightforward implementation of a limit on Ursula’s freedom, and maybe it’s good and maybe it’s bad, but it’s definitely related to freedoms reserved to the individual in society, contrary to your assertion.
|
On November 30 2017 01:38 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2017 01:17 Big J wrote:On November 29 2017 23:08 Danglars wrote:On November 29 2017 16:05 Artisreal wrote:
You are entitled to your opinion.
Though I must say that it's pure garbage what you think on this one.
The example I posted is clearly not a matter of expressing an opinion, which would be fair, but of a revisionist display which sole goal is to legitimize what the Nazis did. Which is support for genocide among others.
To call this the use of one's free speech rights is delusional. But you're no stranger to delusion when it's not your rights that are infringed upon.
That America grants equal free speech to its citizens is laughable, but that just as a side-note.
The us could be so much better off if people jumped over the pretentious Shadow that is free speech and simply name horrible demagoguery and hate speech as it is and limit how much you can advocate for the suffering of others.
It's not free speech, it's a violation of so many other's human dignity. And it is highly questionable at best, if the human right to free speech can be exercised (or even applies) where it violates another human right. I have very little interest if other countries of the world allow their citizens less freedoms and are willing to accept the attendant costs. You have that structure and the citizens accept it (as far as I can tell). Just don’t prattle on about how “free speech has its limits” like you didn’t choose to restrict free speech in that manner and got that outcome. You are mixing two concepts. The one is freedom, which ends where your actions become nonconsensual interaction, the other is free speech, which is a concept that allows you to speak, disregarding consent about your words by others in your society. If America puts freedom of speech first under all circumstances then they are clearly not aiming for maximum freedom Freedom of the press, freedom of speech, freedoms of the secret ballot, etc etc. These are all freedoms, though I’m unfamiliar if German language constructions presume the word is narrower. Will the government jail you for saying “Merkel is wrong and dangerous,” “The holocaust is a lie,” or “The Christian God is a false god?” Will an angry mob assault and kill you with no consequence should that reaction occur? One of the base meanings of freedom is “the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint.” I say this is a straightforward implementation of a limit on Ursula’s freedom, and maybe it’s good and maybe it’s bad, but it’s definitely related to freedoms reserved to the individual in society, contrary to your assertion.
I disagree with your base meaning of freedom, as well as all the "freedoms" you listed above. Freedom is a singular entity, it can only have a single definition. Everything else is a false god.
Since freedom is a physically given trait - I can always do what I physically can - the only question is always, how do you make it so that the freedom of one person does not (negatively) interfere with the freedom of another person. Which is the question of giving consent (in a broad sense - directly, or by consenting to a law or consenting to a process that creates a law).
If someone undermines that consent, for example by shouting Nazi propaganda in my proximity, then we have to make the decision whether them violating my freedom is a bigger loss of freedom, than those who call themselves society compromising their freedom, when they punish that Nazi-shouter for that. Given the experience with the Nazi government and its frontal attack on freedom I don't see any evidence under which a person subscribing to Hitler's ideology is not a grave and dangerous violation of freedom of at the very least those, who would be killed by such a government.
|
On November 30 2017 01:38 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2017 01:17 Big J wrote:On November 29 2017 23:08 Danglars wrote:On November 29 2017 16:05 Artisreal wrote:
You are entitled to your opinion.
Though I must say that it's pure garbage what you think on this one.
The example I posted is clearly not a matter of expressing an opinion, which would be fair, but of a revisionist display which sole goal is to legitimize what the Nazis did. Which is support for genocide among others.
To call this the use of one's free speech rights is delusional. But you're no stranger to delusion when it's not your rights that are infringed upon.
That America grants equal free speech to its citizens is laughable, but that just as a side-note.
The us could be so much better off if people jumped over the pretentious Shadow that is free speech and simply name horrible demagoguery and hate speech as it is and limit how much you can advocate for the suffering of others.
It's not free speech, it's a violation of so many other's human dignity. And it is highly questionable at best, if the human right to free speech can be exercised (or even applies) where it violates another human right. I have very little interest if other countries of the world allow their citizens less freedoms and are willing to accept the attendant costs. You have that structure and the citizens accept it (as far as I can tell). Just don’t prattle on about how “free speech has its limits” like you didn’t choose to restrict free speech in that manner and got that outcome. You are mixing two concepts. The one is freedom, which ends where your actions become nonconsensual interaction, the other is free speech, which is a concept that allows you to speak, disregarding consent about your words by others in your society. If America puts freedom of speech first under all circumstances then they are clearly not aiming for maximum freedom Freedom of the press, freedom of speech, freedoms of the secret ballot, etc etc. These are all freedoms, though I’m unfamiliar if German language constructions presume the word is narrower. Will the government jail you for saying “Merkel is wrong and dangerous,” “The holocaust is a lie,” or “The Christian God is a false god?” Will an angry mob assault and kill you with no consequence should that reaction occur? One of the base meanings of freedom is “the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint.” I say this is a straightforward implementation of a limit on Ursula’s freedom, and maybe it’s good and maybe it’s bad, but it’s definitely related to freedoms reserved to the individual in society, contrary to your assertion.
Ehm, holocaust denial is a crime in 16 European countries. So yes, the government can jail you for saying "The holocaust is a lie".
|
On November 30 2017 01:31 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2017 00:50 Broetchenholer wrote:On November 29 2017 08:29 Danglars wrote:On November 29 2017 06:42 Artisreal wrote:On a rather unrelated note for our visitors from across the Atlantic: German " Nazi grandma" (Ursula Haverbeck) sentenced to jail for the umpteenth time. So yes, free speech has its limits if it is pure, hateful lying and/or denial.
Haverbeck, from the German town of Vlotho near Bielefeld, has been sentenced for similar charges on five other occasions. The most recent, in October, saw her sentenced to six months in prison by a district court in Berlin for incitement of racial hatred after she claimed at a public event that the gas chambers and Auschwitz concentration camp "were not real."
In August she was handed a two-year sentence by a regional court in Lower Saxony.
Haverbeck has appealed the rulings passed down against her and proceedings in each other case remains ongoing. Haverbeck claims she has been merely been repeating an opinion.
This Tuesday's appeal verdict is not final, either. Haverbeck's lawyers intend to take the case to the Higher Regional Court in the town of Hamm, their last chance to challenge the sentence.
Germany doesn’t have the same free speech protections codified in law that, say, the USA does. That’s not about “free speech has its limits if”; it’s about how different nations approach what freedoms are reserved to the individual in society. What? That is exactly the point he is making. Freedom is not an absolute term. It is interpreted by society and societies decide for themselves how they want to implement it. The only absolute freedom is not to be found in the USA but in a lawless society without any form of government. I for my part am a fan of freedom to assemble in public, so when the police is dissolving my gathering in front of the only fire department access point to a burning building i will cry that my right to assemble should be absolute and the state is infringing on my right. And if you still think that your country has "free speech", how about you start posting everywhere that one of your friends has raped a bunch of girls. Let's see how much the USA with all that free speech protection protects your right to call someone a rapist without any proof in public. Point? You can restrict freedoms in law as much as your society tolerates it. These exist on a spectrum including when speech is tolerated up to the point that it is critical of the ruling government. I see no actual point from him ... he asserts without reason that free speech itself has its limits (if), when the true statement is German law imposes limits on free speech. This was a straightforward exercise of those limits codified in law. That’s not an argument for the suitability or unsuitability of such policies. I don’t really see your point on Freedom unless you’re trying to say Ursula was more free by being jailed for her writing and speech. Germany is less free than the US in this regard, and go have at it. It’s not my country and I shouldn’t have a say in it.
You can compare countries regarding their laws of freedom of speech and say country A restricts freedom of speech more then country B. This however is not an idicator for anything else. There is neither a consensus that more freedom is automatically better nor should the USA be considered more free then Germany because you are allowed to say that the holocaust is fake news by the jewish mainstream media. Every country has to find a balance between individual freedoms and we simply say that the freedom to deny history is less important then the dignity of those that survived this history.
|
On November 30 2017 01:24 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2017 23:47 Artisreal wrote:On November 29 2017 23:08 Danglars wrote:On November 29 2017 16:05 Artisreal wrote:
You are entitled to your opinion.
Though I must say that it's pure garbage what you think on this one.
The example I posted is clearly not a matter of expressing an opinion, which would be fair, but of a revisionist display which sole goal is to legitimize what the Nazis did. Which is support for genocide among others.
To call this the use of one's free speech rights is delusional. But you're no stranger to delusion when it's not your rights that are infringed upon.
That America grants equal free speech to its citizens is laughable, but that just as a side-note.
The us could be so much better off if people jumped over the pretentious Shadow that is free speech and simply name horrible demagoguery and hate speech as it is and limit how much you can advocate for the suffering of others.
It's not free speech, it's a violation of so many other's human dignity. And it is highly questionable at best, if the human right to free speech can be exercised (or even applies) where it violates another human right. I have very little interest if other countries of the world allow their citizens less freedoms and are willing to accept the attendant costs. You have that structure and the citizens accept it (as far as I can tell). Just don’t prattle on about how “free speech has its limits” like you didn’t choose to restrict free speech in that manner and got that outcome. Casual deflect as expected of you. I take it you cease to defend your characterization.
I take you don't want to engage with what I said.
|
Like he ever would. There are no arguments behind his stance, just nationalism.
|
On November 30 2017 00:50 Broetchenholer wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2017 08:29 Danglars wrote:On November 29 2017 06:42 Artisreal wrote:On a rather unrelated note for our visitors from across the Atlantic: German " Nazi grandma" (Ursula Haverbeck) sentenced to jail for the umpteenth time. So yes, free speech has its limits if it is pure, hateful lying and/or denial.
Haverbeck, from the German town of Vlotho near Bielefeld, has been sentenced for similar charges on five other occasions. The most recent, in October, saw her sentenced to six months in prison by a district court in Berlin for incitement of racial hatred after she claimed at a public event that the gas chambers and Auschwitz concentration camp "were not real."
In August she was handed a two-year sentence by a regional court in Lower Saxony.
Haverbeck has appealed the rulings passed down against her and proceedings in each other case remains ongoing. Haverbeck claims she has been merely been repeating an opinion.
This Tuesday's appeal verdict is not final, either. Haverbeck's lawyers intend to take the case to the Higher Regional Court in the town of Hamm, their last chance to challenge the sentence.
Germany doesn’t have the same free speech protections codified in law that, say, the USA does. That’s not about “free speech has its limits if”; it’s about how different nations approach what freedoms are reserved to the individual in society. What? That is exactly the point he is making. Freedom is not an absolute term. It is interpreted by society and societies decide for themselves how they want to implement it. The only absolute freedom is not to be found in the USA but in a lawless society without any form of government. I for my part am a fan of freedom to assemble in public, so when the police is dissolving my gathering in front of the only fire department access point to a burning building i will cry that my right to assemble should be absolute and the state is infringing on my right. And if you still think that your country has "free speech", how about you start posting everywhere that one of your friends has raped a bunch of girls. Let's see how much the USA with all that free speech protection protects your right to call someone a rapist without any proof in public.
Freedom of speech allows you to call someone a rapist. If you dont show any proof however you get punished. This is still the freedom of the speech.
Nature of law=dont harm others
U.S.A has no freedom of speech, no country has. Its not interpreted by society its interpreted by government, which is wrong as fuck.
Lawless country could work aswell because the law of the nature still applies. It always do, its what we are born with.
|
On November 29 2017 06:42 Artisreal wrote:On a rather unrelated note for our visitors from across the Atlantic: German " Nazi grandma" (Ursula Haverbeck) sentenced to jail for the umpteenth time. So yes, free speech has its limits if it is pure, hateful lying and/or denial. Show nested quote +
Haverbeck, from the German town of Vlotho near Bielefeld, has been sentenced for similar charges on five other occasions. The most recent, in October, saw her sentenced to six months in prison by a district court in Berlin for incitement of racial hatred after she claimed at a public event that the gas chambers and Auschwitz concentration camp "were not real."
In August she was handed a two-year sentence by a regional court in Lower Saxony.
Haverbeck has appealed the rulings passed down against her and proceedings in each other case remains ongoing. Haverbeck claims she has been merely been repeating an opinion.
This Tuesday's appeal verdict is not final, either. Haverbeck's lawyers intend to take the case to the Higher Regional Court in the town of Hamm, their last chance to challenge the sentence.
How is this either of those you said? I dont see it.
|
On November 29 2017 16:05 Artisreal wrote:
You are entitled to your opinion.
Though I must say that it's pure garbage what you think on this one.
The example I posted is clearly not a matter of expressing an opinion, which would be fair, but of a revisionist display which sole goal is to legitimize what the Nazis did. Which is support for genocide among others.
To call this the use of one's free speech rights is delusional. But you're no stranger to delusion when it's not your rights that are infringed upon.
That America grants equal free speech to its citizens is laughable, but that just as a side-note.
The us could be so much better off if people jumped over the pretentious Shadow that is free speech and simply name horrible demagoguery and hate speech as it is and limit how much you can advocate for the suffering of others.
It's not free speech, it's a violation of so many other's human dignity. And it is highly questionable at best, if the human right to free speech can be exercised (or even applies) where it violates another human right.
How is denying what Nazis did suddenly legitimizing it? According to what you've said, she claims that the Holocaust never happened. How are you making the jump to accusing her of claiming that the Holocaust was a good thing and should be repeated?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
