13 ms·

No sinister men with long coats and barking dogs at three o'clock in the morning, but the screws are being tightened on free expression over much of Western Eur

No sinister men with long coats and barking dogs at three o'clock in the morning, but the screws are being tightened on free expression over much of Western Europe these days, not least as concerns potential offense towards a certain easily offended religion. [edit: typo]

bayesian_horse 11y ago
Actually, laws against defamation and insults are very old. And this particular incident falls clearly under the category of pure insults. Even with a strong taste of racial slur ("goat ..."). The only reasons we are debating this at all is that nobody likes Erdogan and that the insult was offered by a comedian.
- ceejayoz 11y ago
  > Actually, laws against ... insults are very old. So are laws against blasphemy, witchcraft, etc. That doesn't make them at all legitimate in the modern world.
  - bayesian_horse 11y ago
    Which is why they are being changed. Though I still see no value in allowing people to call other people "goat f*rs" for sake of a political argument.
    - ceejayoz 11y ago
      > Which is why they are being changed. Then why cite the age of a law like them as evidence of the law's legitimacy? > Though I still see no value in allowing people to call other people "goat f*rs" for sake of a political argument. That places you in the very dangerous position of deciding what's a valid political argument and what isn't.
      - DanBC 11y ago
        beyseian horse didn't cite old laws like them, you did.
        cname 11y ago
        Are you sure? > bayesian_horse: Actually, laws against defamation and insults are very old. > ceejayoz: So are other laws. So what? [paraphrased]
        DanBC 11y ago
        Yes, I'm sure. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11504575 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11504575 > ceejayoz 3 hours ago | [-] > So are laws against blasphemy, witchcraft, etc.
      - bayesian_horse 11y ago
        The important thing here is not that the law is legitimate, but rather that it is from an era when manners and respect where more important than extremer notions of free speech. It hasn't been a problem, because normally, nations which have the respect of the German state to require such prosecution know better than to use it. On the other hand, accusing foreign heads of states of fucking goat on public television isn't exactly something people expected. Erdogan has ensured that the oppression of his media will stay in European media for months.
      - 7Z7 11y ago
        It wasn't evidence of the law's legitimacy, it was to counter the hand wringing of the parent comment: >the screws are being tightened on free expression over much of Western Europe these days, not least as concerns potential offense towards a certain easily offended religion
    - gaur 11y ago
      Fortunately, Western countries don't regulate speech based on what the majority of people at a given time find valuable. If they did, probably every civil rights movement in the West could have been made illegal simply by the government declaring that the speech is not valuable. Fuck that.
    - kirykl 11y ago
      goat fuckers. see how it works? you can swear with out pretending to
    - tim333 11y ago
      The value is you can say what you think without having to run it by a lawyer.
    - Retric 11y ago
      It was clearly political speech. He was protesting about what someone took as an insult. ~"That's not an insult, this is an insult: &@##$ @#$@#$." He said, "&@##$ @#$@#$"! Burn him! When in context the actual insult was said before then.
- rayiner 11y ago
  > The only reasons we are debating this at all is that nobody likes Erdogan and that the insult was offered by a comedian. We're debating it because most of HN is in the United States, where people regularly go around saying far worse things about our President than calling him a "goat."
  - Roodgorf 11y ago
    I think you may have missed the "..." there. He didn't call him a goat, more like one who lays with goats.
    - venomsnake 11y ago
      I doubt it. Goats have standards and we are talking about Erdogan. The only way the act would have occurred is if the animal was deceased. Anyway - Cameron was accused seriously to have received oral sex by the vehicle of a roasted pig just a month ago - and he did the unthinkable - shrug it off. No one was prosecuted in Germany. and i am sure their tabloids reported it.
      - vidarh 11y ago
        As much as I despise Cameron, he's smart enough - or has smart enough advisors - to realise that having the claims in question discussed at length in court would have kept it in the news far longer. It of course helped that most people - including those of us who very much would have loved for it to blow up much more than it did - realised that Lord Ashcroft very much had an axe to grind.
    - bayesian_horse 11y ago
      These are completely different cases. Cameron acted wisely, Erdogan acted stupidly. Cameron was "insulted" by a whole slew of people that way, considering all the attention the topic got. Erdogan has a single target to go after, legally speaking. And the applicable laws in both cases differ substantially, too.
    - unprepare 11y ago
- wukerplank 11y ago
  It is in the same tradition of Charlie Hebdo, Titanic, Ricky Gervais, Louis C.K. and other crass comedians. Some might find this humor tasteless and insulting, but in my opinion this is covered by freedom of speech.
- maze-le 11y ago
  It is more subtle that this. The whole poem should not be viewed without the moderation and context of the show. The pivot point is the extra-3 song, a satirical song about erdogans narcissistic tendencies by another german comedy TV-show. This song was the reason the german ambassador in turkey was summoned by the turkish governemnt. Böhmermanns reaction was... and I am paraphrasing here: "What? You think this was insulting??? Mr. Erdogan, I can show you what an insult looks like, and german courts would regard it as insult:" (... and on this point in the show comes the poem...) So... was the poem insulting, disgraceful and racist? Sure, in my oponion yes. But you can't look at it without the context, the whole show was trying to make.
  - platz 11y ago
    What of it? I'm not sure how this 'context', namely the lead-in for the joke, changes anything.
  - rndgermandude 11y ago
    Yes, the entire point of the poem was to show the differences between the satire the extra-3 song used to criticize Erdogan on his free speech and refugree policies from what would be really just slurs and racism, by Böhmermann explicitly stating that. It is like comparing Trevor Noah stating on the Daily Show that "of course we all know, Mexicans are racists and we need a wall" vs Trump saying the same thing. The first is comparable to what Böhmerman did (attacking racists, while simultaneously attacking Erdogan on free speech issues re:extra-3), while the later is actually racist slurs. Context matters.
- ekianjo 11y ago
  > Actually, laws against defamation and insults are very old. And this particular incident falls clearly under the category of pure insults. In France insults are usually allowed when it's a parodic context (such as in a play, a TV show, a movie or the like).
DanBC 11y ago
...and yet this law has nothing to do with religion, but is about "insulting national leaders". Most people think it's dumb, but don't misrepresent it.
to3m 11y ago
Which certain easily offended religion is this?
- efaref 11y ago
  Why don't you publicly insult them all and find out? For science, of course.
- factorialboy 11y ago
  Islam
- bayesian_horse 11y ago
  "Fng goats" is not an insult against Muslims, but rather something that offends a lot of people from goat-rich countries around the mediterranean, even Greece.
  - gaur 11y ago
    > "Fng goats" Let's not mince words here: it's fucking goats (or Ziegen ficken originally).
  - lomnakkus 11y ago
    Jeeebus... here I was, thinking that goat-fucker is pretty much a generic insult at the schoolyard level and that any adult[1] being called a goat-fucker would probably just laugh it off and get on with their day. [1] Or semi-clueful child for that matter. EDIT: I should say, my point is: Given that the actual number of people who fuck goats is miniscule, but probably not zero, the "accusation" is a priori so laughable as to NOT constitute defamation in any reasonable sense. (Hopefully the courts will agree, but it's ridiculous that the prosecution is even allowed to go forward.)
    - germanier 11y ago
      Calling people from that region "goat fuckers" unfortunately has a long history. It's not a generic insult and the use was obviously deliberate. (Of course that was the whole point of that poem.)
pieter1976 11y ago
Yes. This is a big problem here in the Netherlands. Traditionally we have been a very open society but more recently people have become unable to speak their minds about religious matters that affect society.
- bayesian_horse 11y ago
  Are they really unable to speak their minds or are they simply unwilling to face harsh criticism of their opinions and beliefs? Freedom of speech doesn't mean other people are not allowed to criticize you. And if your opinions are intentionally offending other people, you just have to expect some intentional offenses in return...
  - pmarreck 11y ago
    The problem is that offense is not (in itself) an argument, nor a counterargument https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisdom_of_repugnance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisdom_of_repugnance Of course, intentional insults devoid of content are merely https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem, but it is important to recognize the difference. Discussing something rationally requires having a thick skin.
typon 11y ago
Wait...why is religion coming into this? How does Erdogan represent Islam?
- topspin 11y ago
  Because those who frequent sites outside the SWPL universe see this sort of thing (http://bit.ly/1MVlVUE http://bit.ly/1MVlVUE) with demoralizing frequency. This comedians plight has captured some attention, but it's really the exception.
  - notahacker 11y ago
    And people who aren't overly inclined to take the editorial stance of blogs that actually cover Gamergate as a serious ethical movement too seriously realise that [West] Germany hasn't allowed those considered to be expressing far right views anything resembling freedom of speech since 1945 for not-exactly-inexplicable reasons which have absolutely nothing to do with some sort of left-wing conspiracy to make people not hate Muslims. It's a country where you're not allowed to collect war memorabilia, never mind write blog comments saying "off to Auschwitz with you". The original Bloomberg article has Merkel saying she had no intention of interfering in a prosecution brought under an ancient law about insulting heads of states, but actually intended to scrap the law so it couldn't be used in future. Which apart from suggesting that German speech laws are getting more permissive rather than less is pretty much an endorsement of the view that Erdogan - and presumably other Muslim heads of state - is a perfectly legitimate target for satire
- tim333 11y ago
  "Turkey’s Erdoğan says his only concern is Islam" http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/turkeys-erdogan-says-his-only-concern-is-islam-takes-jab-at-atheists.aspx?PageID=238&NID=86228&NewsCatID=338 http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/turkeys-erdogan-says-his-on...
  - typon 11y ago
    So can I claim I'm the representative of Islam and everyone's supposed to believe me?
lumberjack 11y ago
In the Netherlands if you tweet something that is perceived as inflammatory you will get a police visit: http://www.nrc.nl/next/2016/01/20/u-twittert-wel-heel-veel-zei-de-politie-1578392 http://www.nrc.nl/next/2016/01/20/u-twittert-wel-heel-veel-z... Note that this is not the same as hate speech which will lend you in court and get you fined or worst.
- ekianjo 11y ago
  Thought crime at its best.
  - digitalengineer 11y ago
    Agreed. Intimidation. But hey, we're the country that sends a arrest-squad in the middle of the night to cartoonists and detain them. NOT kidding: https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregorius_Nekschot https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregorius_Nekschot
    - interfixus 11y ago
      Similar things are happening in Sweden. Dan Park is a Swedish street artist who has actually done jailtime for his works, some of which have also, by order of the court, been destroyed. Both Dan and his gallerist have been subject to nightly police raids. Lars Vilks is another Swedish artist. He is not being hunted by a police force, but by private, less rulebound actors. He can no longer live on a fixed address, and travels under constant police protection. What a glorious time for free speech.
- AnimalMuppet 11y ago
  Well... it might depend on the message the police deliver. If they're saying, "Look, some of these people react violently when you say stuff like this, and we can't always stop them, so if you're going to keep doing it, you'd better think about your physical security", that's perfectly reasonable. If they're saying, "This is a polite, non-official notice that if you keep saying stuff like this, you are going to face unofficial heat from the government, in ways that you can't prove is because you're saying this stuff", well, that's not appropriate for a free society.
arrrg 11y ago
I’m not sure whether that is actually true … Insults were always a crime in Germany. They are even more or less explicitly mentioned (“honor” is mentioned) as an exception in the freedom of speech article in the German constitution. (One interesting tidbit: there are no such explicit exceptions for art, i.e. art is allowed to do everything. Of course that is not totally true. As soon as two or more basic rights collide judges have to decide which one wins out and how different basic rights have to be balanced. Law is not an algorithm, it is a living, breathing thing with a certain spirit, filled with life by the people living with it, applying it and interpreting it.) This particular law merely names a higher punishment – and requires the German government to allow prosecution. If you think you have been insulted you always have to make a criminal complaint. Without a criminal complaint there is no prosecution (unlike with, say, a robbery, where it doesn’t matter whether you make a criminal complaint, the robbers can be convicted either way). That applies to everyone. Erdogan actually made a criminal complaint (one that doesn’t require the permission of the German government to go ahead), too, as well as this criminal complaint that does require the government’s permission. So there would have been some prosecution and maybe even a court case either way the German government had decided, just with a potentially slightly lower punishment. I think it will be interesting to see how this case turns out … but I would be wary of identifying any trend. In general I would argue that the German constitutional court has again and again emphasized the importance of freedom of speech as a constituent element of democracies and has also, over the years, given the right wider and wider latitude and more teeth, meaning not everything that might, at first blush, sound like an insult actually is an insult. But the exception exists, sure, and always has. There is also no doubt that what the comic said is insulting content. It was explicitly named as such and that’s pretty uncontroversial … the constitutionally much more interesting question is whether the context in which the insults were packaged is enough to restore the freedom of speech. I personally think it should be and I hope that judges will decide that way … but it’s a honestly tricky question. I mean, one thing is for sure: Simple disclaimers (“Saying the following would be illegal: …”) are not enough. The law is not stupid … but we are not talking about simple disclaimers here.
- Retric 11y ago
  > This particular law merely names a higher punishment – and requires the German government to allow prosecution. That's things getting worse.
pinaceae 11y ago
no, those are old laws. mind you, you also get in a lot of trouble for promoting nazism ("wiederbetätigung"). see here, austria, 5 convictions for up to 22 months: http://diepresse.com/home/panorama/oesterreich/4947913/Funf-Schuldspruche-wegen-Wiederbetaetigung-in-Krems- http://diepresse.com/home/panorama/oesterreich/4947913/Funf-... so?
tobltobs 11y ago
Shouldn't we wait until the court makes a decision. Until now it is only a good way to show Erdogan what separation of powers means.
matthewmacleod 11y ago
You are allowed, to say "Islam" you know – but I know that people with the views you are hinting at have a bit of a habit of not doing so, in what I'd perceive as a rather flaccid attempt to demonstrate how their freedom of speech is being repressed. Screws are not being tightened on freedom of expression on any real sense. The German law in question has nothing to do with religious insult, and ECHR Article 10 explicitly protects freedom of expression. More importantly, it is not the place of the Chancellor to decide whether or not the law has been violated. That's the last thing that we want.

bayesian_horse 11y ago

Actually, laws against defamation and insults are very old. And this particular incident falls clearly under the category of pure insults. Even with a strong taste of racial slur ("goat ..."). The only reasons we are debating this at all is that nobody likes Erdogan and that the insult was offered by a comedian.

ceejayoz 11y ago
> Actually, laws against ... insults are very old. So are laws against blasphemy, witchcraft, etc. That doesn't make them at all legitimate in the modern world.
- bayesian_horse 11y ago
  Which is why they are being changed. Though I still see no value in allowing people to call other people "goat f*rs" for sake of a political argument.
  - ceejayoz 11y ago
    > Which is why they are being changed. Then why cite the age of a law like them as evidence of the law's legitimacy? > Though I still see no value in allowing people to call other people "goat f*rs" for sake of a political argument. That places you in the very dangerous position of deciding what's a valid political argument and what isn't.
    - DanBC 11y ago
      beyseian horse didn't cite old laws like them, you did.
      - cname 11y ago
        Are you sure? > bayesian_horse: Actually, laws against defamation and insults are very old. > ceejayoz: So are other laws. So what? [paraphrased]
        DanBC 11y ago
        Yes, I'm sure. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11504575 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11504575 > ceejayoz 3 hours ago | [-] > So are laws against blasphemy, witchcraft, etc.
    - bayesian_horse 11y ago
      The important thing here is not that the law is legitimate, but rather that it is from an era when manners and respect where more important than extremer notions of free speech. It hasn't been a problem, because normally, nations which have the respect of the German state to require such prosecution know better than to use it. On the other hand, accusing foreign heads of states of fucking goat on public television isn't exactly something people expected. Erdogan has ensured that the oppression of his media will stay in European media for months.
    - 7Z7 11y ago
      It wasn't evidence of the law's legitimacy, it was to counter the hand wringing of the parent comment: >the screws are being tightened on free expression over much of Western Europe these days, not least as concerns potential offense towards a certain easily offended religion
  - gaur 11y ago
    Fortunately, Western countries don't regulate speech based on what the majority of people at a given time find valuable. If they did, probably every civil rights movement in the West could have been made illegal simply by the government declaring that the speech is not valuable. Fuck that.
  - kirykl 11y ago
    goat fuckers. see how it works? you can swear with out pretending to
  - tim333 11y ago
    The value is you can say what you think without having to run it by a lawyer.
  - Retric 11y ago
    It was clearly political speech. He was protesting about what someone took as an insult. ~"That's not an insult, this is an insult: &@##$ @#$@#$." He said, "&@##$ @#$@#$"! Burn him! When in context the actual insult was said before then.
rayiner 11y ago
> The only reasons we are debating this at all is that nobody likes Erdogan and that the insult was offered by a comedian. We're debating it because most of HN is in the United States, where people regularly go around saying far worse things about our President than calling him a "goat."
- Roodgorf 11y ago
  I think you may have missed the "..." there. He didn't call him a goat, more like one who lays with goats.
  - venomsnake 11y ago
    I doubt it. Goats have standards and we are talking about Erdogan. The only way the act would have occurred is if the animal was deceased. Anyway - Cameron was accused seriously to have received oral sex by the vehicle of a roasted pig just a month ago - and he did the unthinkable - shrug it off. No one was prosecuted in Germany. and i am sure their tabloids reported it.
    - vidarh 11y ago
      As much as I despise Cameron, he's smart enough - or has smart enough advisors - to realise that having the claims in question discussed at length in court would have kept it in the news far longer. It of course helped that most people - including those of us who very much would have loved for it to blow up much more than it did - realised that Lord Ashcroft very much had an axe to grind.
  - bayesian_horse 11y ago
    These are completely different cases. Cameron acted wisely, Erdogan acted stupidly. Cameron was "insulted" by a whole slew of people that way, considering all the attention the topic got. Erdogan has a single target to go after, legally speaking. And the applicable laws in both cases differ substantially, too.
  - unprepare 11y ago
wukerplank 11y ago
It is in the same tradition of Charlie Hebdo, Titanic, Ricky Gervais, Louis C.K. and other crass comedians. Some might find this humor tasteless and insulting, but in my opinion this is covered by freedom of speech.
maze-le 11y ago
It is more subtle that this. The whole poem should not be viewed without the moderation and context of the show. The pivot point is the extra-3 song, a satirical song about erdogans narcissistic tendencies by another german comedy TV-show. This song was the reason the german ambassador in turkey was summoned by the turkish governemnt. Böhmermanns reaction was... and I am paraphrasing here: "What? You think this was insulting??? Mr. Erdogan, I can show you what an insult looks like, and german courts would regard it as insult:" (... and on this point in the show comes the poem...) So... was the poem insulting, disgraceful and racist? Sure, in my oponion yes. But you can't look at it without the context, the whole show was trying to make.
- platz 11y ago
  What of it? I'm not sure how this 'context', namely the lead-in for the joke, changes anything.
- rndgermandude 11y ago
  Yes, the entire point of the poem was to show the differences between the satire the extra-3 song used to criticize Erdogan on his free speech and refugree policies from what would be really just slurs and racism, by Böhmermann explicitly stating that. It is like comparing Trevor Noah stating on the Daily Show that "of course we all know, Mexicans are racists and we need a wall" vs Trump saying the same thing. The first is comparable to what Böhmerman did (attacking racists, while simultaneously attacking Erdogan on free speech issues re:extra-3), while the later is actually racist slurs. Context matters.
ekianjo 11y ago
> Actually, laws against defamation and insults are very old. And this particular incident falls clearly under the category of pure insults. In France insults are usually allowed when it's a parodic context (such as in a play, a TV show, a movie or the like).

DanBC 11y ago

...and yet this law has nothing to do with religion, but is about "insulting national leaders". Most people think it's dumb, but don't misrepresent it.

to3m 11y ago

Which certain easily offended religion is this?

efaref 11y ago
Why don't you publicly insult them all and find out? For science, of course.
factorialboy 11y ago
Islam
bayesian_horse 11y ago
"Fng goats" is not an insult against Muslims, but rather something that offends a lot of people from goat-rich countries around the mediterranean, even Greece.
- gaur 11y ago
  > "Fng goats" Let's not mince words here: it's fucking goats (or Ziegen ficken originally).
- lomnakkus 11y ago
  Jeeebus... here I was, thinking that goat-fucker is pretty much a generic insult at the schoolyard level and that any adult[1] being called a goat-fucker would probably just laugh it off and get on with their day. [1] Or semi-clueful child for that matter. EDIT: I should say, my point is: Given that the actual number of people who fuck goats is miniscule, but probably not zero, the "accusation" is a priori so laughable as to NOT constitute defamation in any reasonable sense. (Hopefully the courts will agree, but it's ridiculous that the prosecution is even allowed to go forward.)
  - germanier 11y ago
    Calling people from that region "goat fuckers" unfortunately has a long history. It's not a generic insult and the use was obviously deliberate. (Of course that was the whole point of that poem.)

pieter1976 11y ago

Yes. This is a big problem here in the Netherlands. Traditionally we have been a very open society but more recently people have become unable to speak their minds about religious matters that affect society.

bayesian_horse 11y ago
Are they really unable to speak their minds or are they simply unwilling to face harsh criticism of their opinions and beliefs? Freedom of speech doesn't mean other people are not allowed to criticize you. And if your opinions are intentionally offending other people, you just have to expect some intentional offenses in return...
- pmarreck 11y ago
  The problem is that offense is not (in itself) an argument, nor a counterargument https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisdom_of_repugnance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisdom_of_repugnance Of course, intentional insults devoid of content are merely https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem, but it is important to recognize the difference. Discussing something rationally requires having a thick skin.

typon 11y ago

Wait...why is religion coming into this? How does Erdogan represent Islam?

topspin 11y ago
Because those who frequent sites outside the SWPL universe see this sort of thing (http://bit.ly/1MVlVUE http://bit.ly/1MVlVUE) with demoralizing frequency. This comedians plight has captured some attention, but it's really the exception.
- notahacker 11y ago
  And people who aren't overly inclined to take the editorial stance of blogs that actually cover Gamergate as a serious ethical movement too seriously realise that [West] Germany hasn't allowed those considered to be expressing far right views anything resembling freedom of speech since 1945 for not-exactly-inexplicable reasons which have absolutely nothing to do with some sort of left-wing conspiracy to make people not hate Muslims. It's a country where you're not allowed to collect war memorabilia, never mind write blog comments saying "off to Auschwitz with you". The original Bloomberg article has Merkel saying she had no intention of interfering in a prosecution brought under an ancient law about insulting heads of states, but actually intended to scrap the law so it couldn't be used in future. Which apart from suggesting that German speech laws are getting more permissive rather than less is pretty much an endorsement of the view that Erdogan - and presumably other Muslim heads of state - is a perfectly legitimate target for satire
tim333 11y ago
"Turkey’s Erdoğan says his only concern is Islam" http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/turkeys-erdogan-says-his-only-concern-is-islam-takes-jab-at-atheists.aspx?PageID=238&NID=86228&NewsCatID=338 http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/turkeys-erdogan-says-his-on...
- typon 11y ago
  So can I claim I'm the representative of Islam and everyone's supposed to believe me?

lumberjack 11y ago

In the Netherlands if you tweet something that is perceived as inflammatory you will get a police visit: http://www.nrc.nl/next/2016/01/20/u-twittert-wel-heel-veel-zei-de-politie-1578392 http://www.nrc.nl/next/2016/01/20/u-twittert-wel-heel-veel-z... Note that this is not the same as hate speech which will lend you in court and get you fined or worst.

ekianjo 11y ago
Thought crime at its best.
- digitalengineer 11y ago
  Agreed. Intimidation. But hey, we're the country that sends a arrest-squad in the middle of the night to cartoonists and detain them. NOT kidding: https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregorius_Nekschot https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregorius_Nekschot
  - interfixus 11y ago
    Similar things are happening in Sweden. Dan Park is a Swedish street artist who has actually done jailtime for his works, some of which have also, by order of the court, been destroyed. Both Dan and his gallerist have been subject to nightly police raids. Lars Vilks is another Swedish artist. He is not being hunted by a police force, but by private, less rulebound actors. He can no longer live on a fixed address, and travels under constant police protection. What a glorious time for free speech.
AnimalMuppet 11y ago
Well... it might depend on the message the police deliver. If they're saying, "Look, some of these people react violently when you say stuff like this, and we can't always stop them, so if you're going to keep doing it, you'd better think about your physical security", that's perfectly reasonable. If they're saying, "This is a polite, non-official notice that if you keep saying stuff like this, you are going to face unofficial heat from the government, in ways that you can't prove is because you're saying this stuff", well, that's not appropriate for a free society.

arrrg 11y ago

I’m not sure whether that is actually true … Insults were always a crime in Germany. They are even more or less explicitly mentioned (“honor” is mentioned) as an exception in the freedom of speech article in the German constitution. (One interesting tidbit: there are no such explicit exceptions for art, i.e. art is allowed to do everything. Of course that is not totally true. As soon as two or more basic rights collide judges have to decide which one wins out and how different basic rights have to be balanced. Law is not an algorithm, it is a living, breathing thing with a certain spirit, filled with life by the people living with it, applying it and interpreting it.) This particular law merely names a higher punishment – and requires the German government to allow prosecution. If you think you have been insulted you always have to make a criminal complaint. Without a criminal complaint there is no prosecution (unlike with, say, a robbery, where it doesn’t matter whether you make a criminal complaint, the robbers can be convicted either way). That applies to everyone. Erdogan actually made a criminal complaint (one that doesn’t require the permission of the German government to go ahead), too, as well as this criminal complaint that does require the government’s permission. So there would have been some prosecution and maybe even a court case either way the German government had decided, just with a potentially slightly lower punishment. I think it will be interesting to see how this case turns out … but I would be wary of identifying any trend. In general I would argue that the German constitutional court has again and again emphasized the importance of freedom of speech as a constituent element of democracies and has also, over the years, given the right wider and wider latitude and more teeth, meaning not everything that might, at first blush, sound like an insult actually is an insult. But the exception exists, sure, and always has. There is also no doubt that what the comic said is insulting content. It was explicitly named as such and that’s pretty uncontroversial … the constitutionally much more interesting question is whether the context in which the insults were packaged is enough to restore the freedom of speech. I personally think it should be and I hope that judges will decide that way … but it’s a honestly tricky question. I mean, one thing is for sure: Simple disclaimers (“Saying the following would be illegal: …”) are not enough. The law is not stupid … but we are not talking about simple disclaimers here.

Retric 11y ago
> This particular law merely names a higher punishment – and requires the German government to allow prosecution. That's things getting worse.

pinaceae 11y ago

no, those are old laws. mind you, you also get in a lot of trouble for promoting nazism ("wiederbetätigung"). see here, austria, 5 convictions for up to 22 months: http://diepresse.com/home/panorama/oesterreich/4947913/Funf-Schuldspruche-wegen-Wiederbetaetigung-in-Krems- http://diepresse.com/home/panorama/oesterreich/4947913/Funf-... so?

tobltobs 11y ago

Shouldn't we wait until the court makes a decision. Until now it is only a good way to show Erdogan what separation of powers means.

matthewmacleod 11y ago

You are allowed, to say "Islam" you know – but I know that people with the views you are hinting at have a bit of a habit of not doing so, in what I'd perceive as a rather flaccid attempt to demonstrate how their freedom of speech is being repressed. Screws are not being tightened on freedom of expression on any real sense. The German law in question has nothing to do with religious insult, and ECHR Article 10 explicitly protects freedom of expression. More importantly, it is not the place of the Chancellor to decide whether or not the law has been violated. That's the last thing that we want.