|
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 April 16 2016 02:15 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2016 02:10 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: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. 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?
You should probably laugh (if the joke is funny) or shrug (if its not).
|
On April 16 2016 02:10 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +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.
No, you are wrong. Satire is completely legal in Germany. The question the court will decide is whether what Boehmermann did was satire or whether it was slander.
Personally I think this is a rather tricky topic as Boehmermann wanted to show the difference between satire - for example the extra3 song + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2e2yHjc_mc (you can enable english subtitles)
Merkel with her decision to give her ok (as required under Section 104a) for prosecution under Section 103 of our penal code is ensuring that if Boehmermann is found guilty by the court the punishment will be harsher than under normal insult/defamation law i.e. Section 185/186/187 of our penal code.
For reference: http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/index.html
If you want to have a look at our penal code in English.
|
On April 16 2016 02:10 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +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.
This. If he would have insulted the north korean dwarf, Putin or anybody else who isn't held in high regard, nobody would have bat an eyelid. Since the wannabe sultan Erdogan is politically important right now because of Merkel's inability to solve the refugee problem (the dirty work got shifted to Turkey for money), he'll get dragged to court over some silly rhymes.
It's shameful and pathetic, Merkel is the worst chancellor since Adolf, what a honor. The last 5 years of her reign are basically a continuous breach of law, from her refusal to reform the gambling laws ordered by the highest court, her refusal to reform family and divorce law after european institutions critisized the discrimination of men, using intelligence services to serve foreign countries against companies with german involvement, breach of european treaties fucking 6 months after they were signed, pretending that Dublin II doesn't exist, now licking the boots of autocrats to not put shady treaties in danger that wouldn't have been signed if she would do her job correctly in the first place potentially risking to limit freedom of expression and freedom of art.
Fuck her seriously.
|
Cherish this moment fellow American TL'ers we are to the left of European users here on a certain issue.
Soak it in.
|
On April 16 2016 05:38 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Cherish this moment fellow American TL'ers we are to the left of European users here on a certain issue.
Soak it in.
Just one guy 
And he was insulted rightfully although the poster chose the wrong words
|
On April 16 2016 05:45 AngryMag wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2016 05:38 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Cherish this moment fellow American TL'ers we are to the left of European users here on a certain issue.
Soak it in. Just one guy And he was insulted rightfully although the poster chose the wrong words
Many many more people like him on TL, but thankfully only a small amount post in this thread.
|
For free speech advocates you guys seem to be remarkably thin-skinned when someone disagrees with you on the issue free speech.
|
You didn't disagree, you spouted plain wrong bullshit.
So now, can you please let it rest?
|
On April 16 2016 05:38 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Cherish this moment fellow American TL'ers we are to the left of European users here on a certain issue.
Soak it in.
Ooo. When did the American left get back on the free speech train?
|
When the "American Left" consisted of more than overzealous identity theory purists, which has always been the case, contrary to what Limbaugh or Hannity may say.
|
A thought just occurred to me, political cartoons. Say a German newspaper posts a Political Cartoon poking fun of Erdoğan. Who has shut down Newspapers. Erdoğan does not like this. Merkel by definition could decide to take them to court. No?
|
On April 16 2016 07:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
A thought just occurred to me, political cartoons. Say a German newspaper posts a Political Cartoon poking fun of Erdoğan. Who has shut down Newspapers. Erdoğan does not like this. Merkel by definition could decide to take them to court. No?
She cannot necessarily take them to court. Erdogan could press charges. The prosecutor would then investigate whether there is a criminal offence. This could either result in a trial infront of a court, a fine or an acquittal. The legal accusation would be defamation/insult.
There is an additional law paragraph from yesteryear along the lines of defamation/insult against a foreign head of state and this investigation needs to be greenlighted by the government which fucking Merkel just did. This would lead to a higher sentence in the case of being found guilty and opens the floodgate in the sense that it makes it possible for foreign head of states to influence the press in germany via threatening with charges.
|
So not only is the German taxpayer paying to charge a comedian with insulting a "head of state" but could find themselves representing human rights abusers such as Saudi Arabia etc. If they were to find offense whether it is from a Newspaper column, poem or even a cartoon...
|
103 Stgb is going to be removed though which was announced in the same press conference, so the only law for foreign officials to sue on will be 185 stgb as individuals.
Also the law demands reciprocity and I don't know if comparable laws exist in SA
|
On April 16 2016 07:45 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
So not only is the German taxpayer paying to charge a comedian with insulting a "head of state" but could find themselves representing human rights abusers such as Saudi Arabia etc. If they were to find offense whether it is from a Newspaper column, poem or even a cartoon...
yes
|
On April 16 2016 07:45 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
So not only is the German taxpayer paying to charge a comedian with insulting a "head of state" but could find themselves representing human rights abusers such as Saudi Arabia etc. If they were to find offense whether it is from a Newspaper column, poem or even a cartoon...
Yeah, when these columns, poems or cartoons call certain, named people in these human right abuser states "goatfucker" or hint them to be pedophile, yes, even these human right abuses have the right to fight at courts against these statements, as they are considerd to attack the personal honor of people.
On April 16 2016 07:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
A thought just occurred to me, political cartoons. Say a German newspaper posts a Political Cartoon poking fun of Erdoğan. Who has shut down Newspapers. Erdoğan does not like this. Merkel by definition could decide to take them to court. No?
No she couldnt. In theory Erdogan (or any Head of State) could go to Merkel and tell her to fucking act after $103 and take legal actions against this theoretical newspaper. Even if she wanted to do the political suicide and do it (think about it, you are talking about a political cartoon, not about Böhmermann calling Erdogan a Goatfucker), she couldnt just bring it to court. She is not a prosecutor.
She would give "green light" for a prosecutor to gather evidence to bring this case infront of a court. This prosecutor can now say he didnt found enough evidence to get this case rolling, there is just no case because nothing illegal has been done or he could bring it infront of a court. Before the court starts his job and it comes to a process, the court then will judge the evidence if there is enough and a sentince is likely. A political cartoon will not be enough to process these stages, aslong a named person "Erdogan" is not fucking a goat in this "newspaper".
|
Trivial cases like these get very low priority at court. So even if some prosecutor would actually bring forward a case it will probably not be finished in under half a year from now. If Merkel (technically the parliament) does in fact declare $103 obsolete in the coming months, he can not be convicted on this paragraph anymore.
Which leaves us with the usual slander laws. As a private person Erdogan can feel insulted, but since he is a 'person of public interest', the freedom of press and artist generally do take precedence over his rights.
There is a 0.01% chance that Böhmermann ever gets convicted of slender (and it would also have to pass by the European Court for Human Rights for that!).
Also context matters a lot. A satirical newspaper depicting Erdogan as a goatfucker in a cartoon is satire precisely because it is a satirical newspaper. In a neo-nazi leaflet, the context would be very different. It is the intend that counts.
|
i do not believe that the 6 Bill pledge by Merkel to Turkey has anything to do with refugees; i'm waiting for the other shoe to drop(EU, mainly Germany + France obv., had businesses with Turkey which more or less included turning the Middle East and the whole of N-Africa into one democracy after the other; it failed, promises were broken, so now someone is paying for something).
the blackmail is just to strong here so maybe we'll find out in 5 to 10 years after everything turns to dust.
|
On April 16 2016 07:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
A thought just occurred to me, political cartoons. Say a German newspaper posts a Political Cartoon poking fun of Erdoğan. Who has shut down Newspapers. Erdoğan does not like this. Merkel by definition could decide to take them to court. No?
I think you didn't get what Böhmermann did: + Show Spoiler +He called Erdogan a pedophile with a micro penis who likes to fuck goats and beat little girls. He said the cock of Turkey's president smells so badly like Kebab that even a pig's fart smells better.
This is slander and it's illegal in Germany. It could be that considering the circumstances it may go through as satire, because it was on a satirical show where Boehmermann wanted to point out the difference between satire and slander.
|
ZDF Heute Show about 3 weeks(?) ago called the queen “ancient grandma from the dynasty of the horse faced”(not my translation) then shat all over brits.
was anyone sued?; was there no plaintiff?.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
