4 ms·

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.
  - detaro 10y ago
    English wikipedia seems to have ok coverage of the relevant laws: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volksverhetzung https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volksverhetzung https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strafgesetzbuch_section_86a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strafgesetzbuch_section_86a Specifics are hard to judge without the actual content and context of the posts, this stuff keeps courts busy.
  - king_phil 10y ago
    I think a very important nuance here is that it is not enough to just tell other people to commit crimes against people from a religion/race/color/gender/..., it must be suitable (I have trouble translating here) to be effective in that matter. The reason is explicitly the human rights, because nobody should fear to be harmed because somebody told other people to harm people from a certain gender/race etc. There are BTW other "Äußerungsdelikte" (statement offenses, free translation), like slander and deformation. All these are based on the human right that no harm should be inflicted on you because somebody says something wrong about you (in a very simplistic way, you normally would have a lots of hours of law lectures just on this offenses, their reasoning and distinction).

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.
- detaro 10y ago
  English wikipedia seems to have ok coverage of the relevant laws: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volksverhetzung https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volksverhetzung https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strafgesetzbuch_section_86a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strafgesetzbuch_section_86a Specifics are hard to judge without the actual content and context of the posts, this stuff keeps courts busy.
- king_phil 10y ago
  I think a very important nuance here is that it is not enough to just tell other people to commit crimes against people from a religion/race/color/gender/..., it must be suitable (I have trouble translating here) to be effective in that matter. The reason is explicitly the human rights, because nobody should fear to be harmed because somebody told other people to harm people from a certain gender/race etc. There are BTW other "Äußerungsdelikte" (statement offenses, free translation), like slander and deformation. All these are based on the human right that no harm should be inflicted on you because somebody says something wrong about you (in a very simplistic way, you normally would have a lots of hours of law lectures just on this offenses, their reasoning and distinction).