4 ms·

> What part of illegal did you not understand? The "why" part, actually. Why is hate speech illegal? Where is the line drawn? Who gets to draw the line? Can th

by ythl 10y ago

> What part of illegal did you not understand? The "why" part, actually. Why is hate speech illegal? Where is the line drawn? Who gets to draw the line? Can the line move over time? Could politicians eventually move the line to suppress undesirable speech (political dissension) under the guise of hate speech?

avs733 10y ago
while the comment you replied to is stupidly phrased...and strangely authoritarian for HN...I think there may be room for a deeper discussion here. We (i.e., the US/the internet) have a tendency to view basic human rights through a very US-centric framework. We value freedom of speech above all else (well except the right to bear/bare arms...). However, our framework of what rights there should be is not entirely universal, nor should it be. We tend to be not so great at articulating a basic right to exist or to be free from harm created by others. I hear many conversations about the constitution, which is our law, but I rarely hear people discuss the declaration of independence which was a much broader statement about the rights of human beings. The constitution is our codification and does not, nor should it, be applied as a universal critique of other systems. And none of that is to say that we have unlimited free speech anyways in the US. The standard framework for restriction is strict scrutiny, which requires a compelling governmental interest to restrict free speech (e.g., preserving the health and welfare of many citizens is why you can't yell fire in a crowded theater). Because the law is not ahistorical, I think you could make a fairly compelling argument that it is in the German government's interest to make laws that do things like make denying the holocaust illegal or placing some limits on hate speech. The potential damage of those things is something that Germany has experienced in ways we haven't, and I would generally defer to them making laws within their own society rather than judge them with ours.
- atom-morgan 10y ago
  The history of a country gives no validity to thoughtcrime.
  - king_phil 10y ago
    The definition of thoughtcrime is that it is punishable to think something. There is not a single German law that punishes a thought (if you found one, please cite immediately because every German citizen can appeal in the Federal Constitutional Court against it). There is one thing that you as a US citizen might never have heard of but is essential to German law: the "Erheblichkeitsschwelle" - meaning that a crime is only punishable if it has an significant effect (e.g. damage). A thoughtcrime can by definition not have an significant effect because it does not realize an action or forbearance. Most people in this discussion seem not to know this, so you see that what these people (whose homes got raided) must have had a effect on the real world to be punishable. Furthermore, in Germany if you get charged with something at first there is an investigation by the police. The result is handed over to the prosecutor who decides if there is going to be prosecution (first hurdle), then it is going to court. The judge first decides if the prosecution is even accepted(!!!) (second hurdle) and THEN there is a trial (third hurdle). So it is not like these people are put in jail just because there is an investigation. I am seriously baffled by the comments that lack significant knowledge of that the hell this news mean.
    - avs733 10y ago
      Thank you for the defense and the details. I continue to be amazed at the moral absolutism and absolute positivist views of how the world works from a group of people on HN I deeply respect for the most part.
- pc86 10y ago
  > However, our framework of what rights there should be is not entirely universal, nor should it be. If you believe the rights enumerated in our founding documents are truly inalienable human rights that exist simply by virtue of us being human, then yes you should also believe that they should be codified in every other country's laws as well.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > If you believe the rights enumerated in our founding documents are truly inalienable human rights that exist simply by virtue of us being human, then yes you should also believe that they should be codified in every other country's laws as well. OTOH, if you believe that they are one, almost certainly imperfect, attempt to protect actual inalienable human rights rather than a flawless articulation of the exact bounds of actual inalienable human rights, you can easily accept that there may be alternative mechanisms attempted to protect the actual underlying rights that are no farther from the ideal than those in our founding documents. Treating the results of the political compromises that went into creating our founding documents as if they were carved on stone tablets by God's own hand and handed down to Moses as eternal law is, well, about as sensible as doing that with the output of any randomly-chosen more recent political compromise by our governing bodies.

by ythl 10y ago

avs733 10y ago

while the comment you replied to is stupidly phrased...and strangely authoritarian for HN...I think there may be room for a deeper discussion here. We (i.e., the US/the internet) have a tendency to view basic human rights through a very US-centric framework. We value freedom of speech above all else (well except the right to bear/bare arms...). However, our framework of what rights there should be is not entirely universal, nor should it be. We tend to be not so great at articulating a basic right to exist or to be free from harm created by others. I hear many conversations about the constitution, which is our law, but I rarely hear people discuss the declaration of independence which was a much broader statement about the rights of human beings. The constitution is our codification and does not, nor should it, be applied as a universal critique of other systems. And none of that is to say that we have unlimited free speech anyways in the US. The standard framework for restriction is strict scrutiny, which requires a compelling governmental interest to restrict free speech (e.g., preserving the health and welfare of many citizens is why you can't yell fire in a crowded theater). Because the law is not ahistorical, I think you could make a fairly compelling argument that it is in the German government's interest to make laws that do things like make denying the holocaust illegal or placing some limits on hate speech. The potential damage of those things is something that Germany has experienced in ways we haven't, and I would generally defer to them making laws within their own society rather than judge them with ours.

atom-morgan 10y ago
The history of a country gives no validity to thoughtcrime.
- king_phil 10y ago
  The definition of thoughtcrime is that it is punishable to think something. There is not a single German law that punishes a thought (if you found one, please cite immediately because every German citizen can appeal in the Federal Constitutional Court against it). There is one thing that you as a US citizen might never have heard of but is essential to German law: the "Erheblichkeitsschwelle" - meaning that a crime is only punishable if it has an significant effect (e.g. damage). A thoughtcrime can by definition not have an significant effect because it does not realize an action or forbearance. Most people in this discussion seem not to know this, so you see that what these people (whose homes got raided) must have had a effect on the real world to be punishable. Furthermore, in Germany if you get charged with something at first there is an investigation by the police. The result is handed over to the prosecutor who decides if there is going to be prosecution (first hurdle), then it is going to court. The judge first decides if the prosecution is even accepted(!!!) (second hurdle) and THEN there is a trial (third hurdle). So it is not like these people are put in jail just because there is an investigation. I am seriously baffled by the comments that lack significant knowledge of that the hell this news mean.
  - avs733 10y ago
    Thank you for the defense and the details. I continue to be amazed at the moral absolutism and absolute positivist views of how the world works from a group of people on HN I deeply respect for the most part.
pc86 10y ago
> However, our framework of what rights there should be is not entirely universal, nor should it be. If you believe the rights enumerated in our founding documents are truly inalienable human rights that exist simply by virtue of us being human, then yes you should also believe that they should be codified in every other country's laws as well.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > If you believe the rights enumerated in our founding documents are truly inalienable human rights that exist simply by virtue of us being human, then yes you should also believe that they should be codified in every other country's laws as well. OTOH, if you believe that they are one, almost certainly imperfect, attempt to protect actual inalienable human rights rather than a flawless articulation of the exact bounds of actual inalienable human rights, you can easily accept that there may be alternative mechanisms attempted to protect the actual underlying rights that are no farther from the ideal than those in our founding documents. Treating the results of the political compromises that went into creating our founding documents as if they were carved on stone tablets by God's own hand and handed down to Moses as eternal law is, well, about as sensible as doing that with the output of any randomly-chosen more recent political compromise by our governing bodies.