4 ms·

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 ta

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).

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).