3 ms·

The prosecution could still decide to throw the case out if they don't think it has any merit. Just the same as with any other law where the government isn't ev

The prosecution could still decide to throw the case out if they don't think it has any merit. Just the same as with any other law where the government isn't even asked for their opinion. He would have been prosecuted anyway. If the government hadn't greenlight it under that law it would run under the label of the general insult law. In practice this decision shouldn't have changed anything for him. It just sent a message: "In Germany the courts are independent. We won't interfere, even if we could."

Retric 11y ago
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." This is someone not taking a stand for justice when they could. They had the power and option to make the right choice and they chose the politically expedient one. This is worse than "I was only following orders" this is actively choosing the wrong thing.
- notahacker 11y ago
  This rather depends on whether you believe that allowing the independent judicial system to decide whether satirists get a day in court they more or less literally asked for (whilst announcing you intend to abolish the law and the criminal penalties associated with it anyway) is really "the triumph of evil". I think that argument's quite hard to sustain. There's even an argument that in this instance the less just course of action might be a powerful politician stepping into thwart the usual judicial process and signalling to the wider world that Western democrats, like Turkish autocrats, don't see anything wrong with subordinating the judiciary to executive fiat when a particular case allows them to step in.
  - Retric 11y ago
    Are you seriously suggesting that the other option is to send them to prison without a trial? The judiciary's role is to follow the rules as written, this is balanced by those who write the laws on one end, and those who can issue pardons when things go off the rails. Independent Judiciary means their outcomes are not changed behind the scenes, a public pardon has nothing to do with this.
    - notahacker 11y ago
      No, I haven't suggested that at all. I've suggested that it's rather hard to sustain the argument that a prosecutor and jury trial represents a "less just" way of deciding something than a political leader intervening to tell the judiciary she will be making the decision for them in this instance. Especially when reporting suggests that rescinding the bill via the accepted constitutional process for legislative change as she's said she intended to do would make it impossible for a sentence to be carried out in the unlikely event of a court deciding to convict anyway. Similarly, I don't think it's possible to argue that the decision of whether to prosecute or not resting with the head of state is compatible with the concept of an independent judiciary (whether the outcome is changed behind the scenes or publicly is a tangential point) To be clear, she's declined to use a special executive privilege written into this archaic bad law to give the state power to intervene if it's in their foreign policy interest, not a pardoning system introduced as a constitutional check and balance. I'm sure the German legal system has been designed with plenty of actual checks and balances.
      - Retric 11y ago
        Get your day in court imply's it's a privilege. Needing to defend such a basic form of free speech vs. a high ranking politician is a sign of a broken system. Nobody gets a free pass for failing to support a basic human right. People should be demanding she steps down right fucking now.
        notahacker 11y ago
        If read the wider coverage, it's strongly implied that the comedian in question did it deliberately to challenge the limits of the law in question, so I don't think it's the case that he'd be dreadfully upset if he ended up challenging it in court. Ironically, he's apparently far more likely to be successfully prosecuted under Germany's regular defamation law which Merkel has no power to intervene in whatsoever. Although judging from the tone of your previous comments I suppose you'll still find a way for that to be Merkel's fault...

Retric 11y ago

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." This is someone not taking a stand for justice when they could. They had the power and option to make the right choice and they chose the politically expedient one. This is worse than "I was only following orders" this is actively choosing the wrong thing.

notahacker 11y ago
This rather depends on whether you believe that allowing the independent judicial system to decide whether satirists get a day in court they more or less literally asked for (whilst announcing you intend to abolish the law and the criminal penalties associated with it anyway) is really "the triumph of evil". I think that argument's quite hard to sustain. There's even an argument that in this instance the less just course of action might be a powerful politician stepping into thwart the usual judicial process and signalling to the wider world that Western democrats, like Turkish autocrats, don't see anything wrong with subordinating the judiciary to executive fiat when a particular case allows them to step in.
- Retric 11y ago
  Are you seriously suggesting that the other option is to send them to prison without a trial? The judiciary's role is to follow the rules as written, this is balanced by those who write the laws on one end, and those who can issue pardons when things go off the rails. Independent Judiciary means their outcomes are not changed behind the scenes, a public pardon has nothing to do with this.
  - notahacker 11y ago
    No, I haven't suggested that at all. I've suggested that it's rather hard to sustain the argument that a prosecutor and jury trial represents a "less just" way of deciding something than a political leader intervening to tell the judiciary she will be making the decision for them in this instance. Especially when reporting suggests that rescinding the bill via the accepted constitutional process for legislative change as she's said she intended to do would make it impossible for a sentence to be carried out in the unlikely event of a court deciding to convict anyway. Similarly, I don't think it's possible to argue that the decision of whether to prosecute or not resting with the head of state is compatible with the concept of an independent judiciary (whether the outcome is changed behind the scenes or publicly is a tangential point) To be clear, she's declined to use a special executive privilege written into this archaic bad law to give the state power to intervene if it's in their foreign policy interest, not a pardoning system introduced as a constitutional check and balance. I'm sure the German legal system has been designed with plenty of actual checks and balances.
    - Retric 11y ago
      Get your day in court imply's it's a privilege. Needing to defend such a basic form of free speech vs. a high ranking politician is a sign of a broken system. Nobody gets a free pass for failing to support a basic human right. People should be demanding she steps down right fucking now.
      - notahacker 11y ago
        If read the wider coverage, it's strongly implied that the comedian in question did it deliberately to challenge the limits of the law in question, so I don't think it's the case that he'd be dreadfully upset if he ended up challenging it in court. Ironically, he's apparently far more likely to be successfully prosecuted under Germany's regular defamation law which Merkel has no power to intervene in whatsoever. Although judging from the tone of your previous comments I suppose you'll still find a way for that to be Merkel's fault...