4 ms·

It is more than stupid shit, it is illegal stupid shit. Please read (edit: replaced, was "the") the German legal code. From your argument it would be better not

It is more than stupid shit, it is illegal stupid shit. Please read (edit: replaced, was "the") the German legal code. From your argument it would be better not to pursue crime just because you might "(to) get more physical radicalism"? That is clearly not justice.

jklinger410 10y ago
Laws are not moral and right just because they are laws.
- Overtonwindow 10y ago
  Laws that oppress the free expression of ideas, which are not expressed to advocate direct or indirect harm or violence, are bad laws that should be broken.
  - lawless123 10y ago
    " and that most of the suspects were accused of posting anti-Semitic, xenophobic, and other extremist messages" Laws that stop this kind of "expression" have existed in Germany a while now, for historical reasons.
  - preetbhinder 10y ago
    I disagree, violence is not just physical, verbal abuse can be a form of violence as well. What kind of idea is public hate speech expressing? From the article, "Attacks on refugees are often the result of radicalization, which begins on social networks."
    - strictnein 10y ago
      Attacks on free speech radicalize me. You don't restrict rights based on how others respond to people exercising those rights.
  - king_phil 10y ago
    I don't really think that calling to arms (in this case as self justice in combination with using Nazi symbols) is expression of free speech. It is totally okay that our understanding of free speech differs, but I just don't count that as free speech. And sympathizing with Nazis by using their symbols is not okay for me, too. I might be wrong, but in a lot of countries it might not be legal to call for self justice on a whole race.
frabbit 10y ago
That's right. If it's the law then it must be right. It's a simple way of thinking that has worked out very well in many situations. Meanwhile: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/15/angela-merkel-agrees-prosecution-comedian-erdogan-poem https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/15/angela-merkel-...
- king_phil 10y ago
  You forget that in Germany we have "Gewaltenteilung", meaning that legislation, judiciary and executive are separated. This is a concept that is fundamental to our country and culture. If the law is not okay it is not in the power of the executive to change, not enforce or bend it. There is a separate process for it that must be invoked. (In this case) there seems to be no critical mass that calls for changing this particular law. And you can rest assured that we have a very active public discussion about changes to the criminal code right now, with thousands of people actively participating. As you might be better informed the me, could you please cite at least one instance of what these people or people in similar cases said/wrote that should NOT the punishable, but is under current law? edit: citing the decision to allow prosecution of Böhmermann reveals how little you understand the German legal system. The article is misleading at best and not covering the legal grounds and background correctly at all.
  - frabbit 10y ago
    > could you please cite at least one instance of what these people or people in similar cases said/wrote that should NOT the punishable, but is under current law? If I am parsing what you wrote correctly then you are asking me to draw a distinction between different types of speech which should be allowed under law. I don't believe any should be restricted. That includes the classic "shouting `fire' in a crowded theatre" or making threats to someone. Certainly in both cases if actual physical or financial harm results then the speaker can be deemed to have caused harm and measures taken against them. But the outlawing and punishment of the act of speech in and of itself is illogical. In effect hate speech and other laws conflate locution, illocution and perlocution[1]. The effect on the discussion of ideas (e.g. the criticism of Erdogan) in a democracy strike me as obvious, so I won't go into them further. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illocutionary_act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illocutionary_act
brbsix 10y ago
Some state intervention (e.g. drug prohibition) creates issues (in this case mass violations of civil liberties, militarization of police, vast numbers of incarcerated minorities, criminalization of medical conditions) that are measurably worse than the original problem it intended to solve. I don't know whether that's the case here, but it's worth asking. You'd better be certain that hate speech online is a serious enough problem that it is worth the cost, and you'd better have a good idea of what the cost will be.
angersock 10y ago
Would you feel the same way were the ban on sodomy or support of gays?
- lawless123 10y ago
  Do you feel all opinions on this are equal? That someone expressing misinformation about groups or calling for restrictions to their freedom is equivalent to someone expressing support for the same minorities?
  - angersock 10y ago
    I feel that whenever practices like this are made acceptable, invariably abuses follow. It is an accident of history that the people being picked on now are regarded as deserving. I'll pose my earlier question with a different group--how would you feel were this being done to conservative Christians or Muslims? Both groups express misinformation and sometimes call for restrictions on others (covering women in public, treatment of homosexuals, this sort of thing). We can't get everyone to get along. However, we can seek to eliminate state powers that are ripe for abuse.
    - tremon 10y ago
      It is an accident of history that the people being picked on now are regarded as deserving. No, that's not an accident. It's an evolutionary necessity: https://www.myind.net/tolerance-intolerance-and-game-theory https://www.myind.net/tolerance-intolerance-and-game-theory
- king_phil 10y ago
  If you could indicate using Nazi symbols and calling to arms and self justice is free speech I would be happy to discuss further. I have a bit of a doubt that you grasp what the charge is.
  - angersock 10y ago
    All of those are communicative in nature and do not involve the bodily injury of another human being--so yes, I think it's fair to consider them free speech. I am unfamiliar with German law, so if you would like to educate me on the nuances of the charge, I would appreciate it.
xiaoma 10y ago
>"It is more than stupid shit, it is illegal stupid shit." Exactly. This is like how posting negative things about the communist party leadership in a wechat group can get your house raided. Break the law, and police might show up.

jklinger410 10y ago

Laws are not moral and right just because they are laws.

Overtonwindow 10y ago
Laws that oppress the free expression of ideas, which are not expressed to advocate direct or indirect harm or violence, are bad laws that should be broken.
- lawless123 10y ago
  " and that most of the suspects were accused of posting anti-Semitic, xenophobic, and other extremist messages" Laws that stop this kind of "expression" have existed in Germany a while now, for historical reasons.
- preetbhinder 10y ago
  I disagree, violence is not just physical, verbal abuse can be a form of violence as well. What kind of idea is public hate speech expressing? From the article, "Attacks on refugees are often the result of radicalization, which begins on social networks."
  - strictnein 10y ago
    Attacks on free speech radicalize me. You don't restrict rights based on how others respond to people exercising those rights.
- king_phil 10y ago
  I don't really think that calling to arms (in this case as self justice in combination with using Nazi symbols) is expression of free speech. It is totally okay that our understanding of free speech differs, but I just don't count that as free speech. And sympathizing with Nazis by using their symbols is not okay for me, too. I might be wrong, but in a lot of countries it might not be legal to call for self justice on a whole race.

frabbit 10y ago

That's right. If it's the law then it must be right. It's a simple way of thinking that has worked out very well in many situations. Meanwhile: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/15/angela-merkel-agrees-prosecution-comedian-erdogan-poem https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/15/angela-merkel-...

king_phil 10y ago
You forget that in Germany we have "Gewaltenteilung", meaning that legislation, judiciary and executive are separated. This is a concept that is fundamental to our country and culture. If the law is not okay it is not in the power of the executive to change, not enforce or bend it. There is a separate process for it that must be invoked. (In this case) there seems to be no critical mass that calls for changing this particular law. And you can rest assured that we have a very active public discussion about changes to the criminal code right now, with thousands of people actively participating. As you might be better informed the me, could you please cite at least one instance of what these people or people in similar cases said/wrote that should NOT the punishable, but is under current law? edit: citing the decision to allow prosecution of Böhmermann reveals how little you understand the German legal system. The article is misleading at best and not covering the legal grounds and background correctly at all.
- frabbit 10y ago
  > could you please cite at least one instance of what these people or people in similar cases said/wrote that should NOT the punishable, but is under current law? If I am parsing what you wrote correctly then you are asking me to draw a distinction between different types of speech which should be allowed under law. I don't believe any should be restricted. That includes the classic "shouting `fire' in a crowded theatre" or making threats to someone. Certainly in both cases if actual physical or financial harm results then the speaker can be deemed to have caused harm and measures taken against them. But the outlawing and punishment of the act of speech in and of itself is illogical. In effect hate speech and other laws conflate locution, illocution and perlocution[1]. The effect on the discussion of ideas (e.g. the criticism of Erdogan) in a democracy strike me as obvious, so I won't go into them further. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illocutionary_act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illocutionary_act

brbsix 10y ago

Some state intervention (e.g. drug prohibition) creates issues (in this case mass violations of civil liberties, militarization of police, vast numbers of incarcerated minorities, criminalization of medical conditions) that are measurably worse than the original problem it intended to solve. I don't know whether that's the case here, but it's worth asking. You'd better be certain that hate speech online is a serious enough problem that it is worth the cost, and you'd better have a good idea of what the cost will be.

angersock 10y ago

Would you feel the same way were the ban on sodomy or support of gays?

lawless123 10y ago
Do you feel all opinions on this are equal? That someone expressing misinformation about groups or calling for restrictions to their freedom is equivalent to someone expressing support for the same minorities?
- angersock 10y ago
  I feel that whenever practices like this are made acceptable, invariably abuses follow. It is an accident of history that the people being picked on now are regarded as deserving. I'll pose my earlier question with a different group--how would you feel were this being done to conservative Christians or Muslims? Both groups express misinformation and sometimes call for restrictions on others (covering women in public, treatment of homosexuals, this sort of thing). We can't get everyone to get along. However, we can seek to eliminate state powers that are ripe for abuse.
  - tremon 10y ago
    It is an accident of history that the people being picked on now are regarded as deserving. No, that's not an accident. It's an evolutionary necessity: https://www.myind.net/tolerance-intolerance-and-game-theory https://www.myind.net/tolerance-intolerance-and-game-theory
king_phil 10y ago
If you could indicate using Nazi symbols and calling to arms and self justice is free speech I would be happy to discuss further. I have a bit of a doubt that you grasp what the charge is.
- angersock 10y ago
  All of those are communicative in nature and do not involve the bodily injury of another human being--so yes, I think it's fair to consider them free speech. I am unfamiliar with German law, so if you would like to educate me on the nuances of the charge, I would appreciate it.

xiaoma 10y ago

>"It is more than stupid shit, it is illegal stupid shit." Exactly. This is like how posting negative things about the communist party leadership in a wechat group can get your house raided. Break the law, and police might show up.