EPTEuropean Politico-economics QA Mega-thread - Page 453
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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. | ||
|
Laserist
Turkey4269 Posts
| ||
|
hfglgg
Germany5372 Posts
| ||
|
Laserist
Turkey4269 Posts
| ||
|
virpi
Germany3599 Posts
| ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10937 Posts
| ||
|
DickMcFanny
Ireland1076 Posts
On April 15 2016 23:30 Velr wrote: The EU has nothing to do with this, its german law. This was a way to show Erdogan that he doesn't have ALL the cards, that he can't fuck with as us much as he likes and that we stand behind certain values. Instead we keep playing the Muslim-appeasement game, because that always works out great. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On April 15 2016 23:56 DickMcFanny wrote: This was a way to show Erdogan that he doesn't have ALL the cards, that he can't fuck with as us much as he likes and that we stand behind certain values. Instead we keep playing the Muslim-appeasement game, because that always works out great. You can't ignore a law because you think the law is stupid, that's not how it works in states of law. This isn't appeasement of any kind, it's simply due process. If they didn't like the law they should have changed it beforehand. Apart from that the regular defamation paragraph (185 stgb) would still have existed so this doesn't even make a difference | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
On April 16 2016 00:59 Nyxisto wrote: You can't ignore a law because you think the law is stupid, that's not how it works in states of law. This isn't appeasement of any kind, it's simply due process. If they didn't like the law they should have changed it beforehand. Apart from that the regular defamation paragraph (185 stgb) would still have existed so this doesn't even make a difference So why didn't they? Or are we still pretending that Merkel has any plan and knows what she's doing? | ||
|
DickMcFanny
Ireland1076 Posts
| ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On April 16 2016 01:01 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: So why didn't they? Or are we still pretending that Merkel has any plan and knows what she's doing? I don't think anybody actually cared about this law before, and I don't even know what this whole thing has to do with the government in the first place | ||
|
Laserist
Turkey4269 Posts
| ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
If they didn't do it people could have made the same argument they make about Erdogan, namely that the state interfers in the judiciary process. She's simply leaving it up to the courts which is the right decision. Again, if the Turkish government would have used the normal defamation paragraph this would have happened anyway. The only difference between the two is the state interference and the maximum penalty. If Böhmermann wins this which is likely it will look better anyway. That's nonsense if i've ever seen it. Your strawmanning is getting tiresome when it comes to refugee-crisis/merkel in general. First of all, "ignoring the law"? The law states that the government has to decide, either way. No one (as is clearly shown in polls, so your "everyone would complain the other way around too" is bs yet again) would've complained if she would've declined. We both (and pretty much everyone else) know why she decided the way she did. And then there's the tidbit that not "the state interferes in the judiciary process" - it's now other states that do exactly the same thing. Erdogan personally sued Boehmermann, so even if she would've declined, he would be tried. Don't act like you don't know why that decision was made. She had the opportunity to show the door to a fundamental nutjob who is as dangerous as ISIS, if not worse - and she took the pussy-way out to not threaten the (retarded in the first place) turkey-refugee deal. Which should never have existed in the first place. Merkel singlehandedly(!) fucked over the two biggest established parties in germany, opening the door to right wing extremist dumbshits, making the wrong decisions in every major one since the beginning of the refugee crisis - and there's STILL people arguing that she does a splendid job. Newsflash, she doesn't. Not only does she not do a good job, she also already fucked over the next Chancellor, who has to deal with the clusterfuck he'll/she'll inherit. This sharade was pure bullshit and that decision was made because germany is now blackmail-able. #Merkel. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
| ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
On April 16 2016 01:33 Nyxisto wrote: You don't use the law to "show nutjobs where the door is", the law isn't some giant phallus Angela Merkel can wave around to project some glorious power. I don't know why you get worked up over every little thing but I'm glad that we're not governed by hotheads. No. You use the law to show that journalistic freedom and freedom of expression/speech actually mean something in developed countries. Especially towards someone who constantly is in western news for incarcerating, sueing and whatnot journalists of his own country. If that is what you consider my giant penis waving around, i'm fine with that. edit: and yeah, i'm hotheaded. But i don't see it working the other way around: apologists like you wouldn't do a better job. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
| ||
|
hfglgg
Germany5372 Posts
On April 16 2016 00:59 Nyxisto wrote: You can't ignore a law because you think the law is stupid, that's not how it works in states of law. This isn't appeasement of any kind, it's simply due process. If they didn't like the law they should have changed it beforehand. Apart from that the regular defamation paragraph (185 stgb) would still have existed so this doesn't even make a difference the law states that the government can chose whether or not a prosecution should follow. by saying "NO FUCK YOU" its still within the law. how the fuck can you even breath? you are so incredible stupid, how the fuck can you breath? edit: oh and just to make it more understandable for your small brain: the reason why the government is required to give their ok is to defend germans from overzealous nutjobs like erdogan. thats the only purpose of this law and merkel failed horrible with it. pls stay out of this thread, pls get a real degree first and learn some logic. edit2: i mean seriously. how can you make a statement that just flat out false and still go with it. seriously i dont get it and its always you. your argument is wrong, logically wrong. this has nothing to do with opinions or anything else its just _wrong_. pls dont write wrong things in this thread constantly. pls get a brain. User was temp banned for this post. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
On April 16 2016 01:38 Nyxisto wrote: They totally mean something here, and if the court decides that Böhmermann is in the clear we can all go happily on with our lives, and the Turkish government will have gotten its fair process. That we in principle allow foreign institutions or individuals to sue if they think that their human dignity is under attack is a good thing, it's the basic principle of German jurisprudence and applies to every single person. It's not weak in any meaningful sense to allow this process. So satire is potentially illegal in Germany. Amazing. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On April 16 2016 02:10 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: So satire is potentially illegal in Germany. Amazing. yes and always has been. I mean if that wouldn't be the case any form of hate speech could be covered up by wrapping it up in satire and would make the whole thing obsolete. If some forms of hate speech are illegal it's consistent to have provisions in place so that artistic expression can't be abused. Just imagine if this wasn't the case about a Turkish dictator suing a liberal TV host but Israel suing a group of right-wing propagandists. What do you think the reaction would be? | ||
|
Silvanel
Poland4768 Posts
| ||
|
DickMcFanny
Ireland1076 Posts
On April 16 2016 02:10 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: So satire is potentially illegal in Germany. Amazing. If there's one thing we can learn from the USA, it's freedom of speech. | ||
| ||
