4 ms·

@frabbit exactly, but they did NOT yell "fire" but "open fire on the immigrants" (literally: in one instance the comment was posted beneath a picture of a immig

@frabbit exactly, but they did NOT yell "fire" but "open fire on the immigrants" (literally: in one instance the comment was posted beneath a picture of a immigrant child "you need a flamethrower to get rid of these bugs", with bugs might not be the best translation here) posted besides Nazi symbols. At least for me, this makes a difference. edit: I am going out on a limb here, but I thought exactly this was one of the purposes of RICO. Telling someone to commit a crime in a formed group is a crime and not free speech. I am a total amateur in US criminal code, is this understanding correct?

frabbit 10y ago
While abhorrent I do not believe that speech should be made illegal.
frabbit 10y ago
You are correct. Legal codes in many countries criminalize the act of speech itself. This even goes all the way back to the concept of "assault" in anglo-saxon legal traditions[1] (which is the simple threat part of the pair "assault and battery". Many of us use "assault" to mean a physical attack, but it seems originally to be simply causing someone to fear.) Again, though, you are arguing that because something is the law then that in itself makes it moral and useful. Those who make slippery-slope arguments about the vesting of power in the state seem increasingly persuasive when we see the turning of the act of speaking into a crime itself. For further examples of "European" countries which illustrate the dangers you could look at Ireland's blasphemy laws which still stand. 1. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/assault https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/assault
- king_phil 10y ago
  I don't necessarily argue that everything is right because it is the law, I argue that THIS exact law is right. It might not be for you, but it is for me. And seemingly not only for.me, but for a lot of people in this country. Otherwise there would be a (stronger) opposition to this law. I think we might have to recognize that the German culture is different from yours (US I suppose it is) and that we simply cannot expect to agree on everything. This might be because we are grown up in the system that protects us both adequately and we therefore think it is the best one, only because it is a adequate one. This goes both ways, e.g. you are right to think your system is better while I am right to think ours is. And exactly that tolerance is what I would like to not only see but DEMAND from other people. And I believe this exact law is right in a way that it makes it harder for people that don't recognize that all people are created and to be treated equal to express and propagate their beliefs. I think you could even find a similar or maybe exact same argument for your position. I respect that but hope you have other ways to ensure no one creates a climate of fear, hatred and violence (physical and non-physical) against people that are different. This law will not be everything the German culture sets against that climate but is one piece of our puzzle.
  - frabbit 10y ago
    > you are right to think your system is better while I am right to think ours is. And exactly that tolerance is what I would like to not only see but DEMAND from other people. I am not interested in the personalization of the argument or grounding it in lived experience of any sort. Objectively the system which you extoll results in censorship, in this case of criticism of a near-dictator involved in genocide against the Kurdish people. I believe that enabling a state to censor what people can say is dangerous to democracy. I think this is adequately demonstrated through numerous historical and current examples. Your statement of "tolerance" is meaningless because you will be unaware of other viewpoints of which you must be tolerant when they are censored. Ironically as this discussion is deemed offensive to the moderators of HN this entire discussion has been effaced.
    - king_phil 10y ago
      I can't follow. How is this incident related to any genocide, dictatorship, erdogan... what? I have the feeling you are just cherry picking this to troll on and not interested in talking about the different dogmatics of legal systems. I didn't want to personalize the discussion, just replace "you" and "me" with "any person from your belief system" and "any person from my belief system". It looks to me that you are not interested in thinking about other people's opinion and/or belief system. Now THAT was a personal remark.
      - frabbit 10y ago
        > I can't follow. How is this incident related to any genocide, dictatorship, erdogan... what? Really? So, you can't see the link between the German state's power to choose which speech acts can be punished and the punishing of someone for speech acts? You cannot see the link between the Turkish bombing and starving of the Kurdish people and the historical assaults by your own country on minority populations? I am not going to reply any more to you as you have descended to personalized abuse, but I will close with thanking you for illustrating exactly why the policing of free speech can never be allowed: there are too many people like you who are incapable of exercising tolerance and rationality, and once a lever of power and control is in your hands you will pull it. Thank you, and god bless the USA.

frabbit 10y ago

While abhorrent I do not believe that speech should be made illegal.

frabbit 10y ago

You are correct. Legal codes in many countries criminalize the act of speech itself. This even goes all the way back to the concept of "assault" in anglo-saxon legal traditions[1] (which is the simple threat part of the pair "assault and battery". Many of us use "assault" to mean a physical attack, but it seems originally to be simply causing someone to fear.) Again, though, you are arguing that because something is the law then that in itself makes it moral and useful. Those who make slippery-slope arguments about the vesting of power in the state seem increasingly persuasive when we see the turning of the act of speaking into a crime itself. For further examples of "European" countries which illustrate the dangers you could look at Ireland's blasphemy laws which still stand. 1. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/assault https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/assault

king_phil 10y ago
I don't necessarily argue that everything is right because it is the law, I argue that THIS exact law is right. It might not be for you, but it is for me. And seemingly not only for.me, but for a lot of people in this country. Otherwise there would be a (stronger) opposition to this law. I think we might have to recognize that the German culture is different from yours (US I suppose it is) and that we simply cannot expect to agree on everything. This might be because we are grown up in the system that protects us both adequately and we therefore think it is the best one, only because it is a adequate one. This goes both ways, e.g. you are right to think your system is better while I am right to think ours is. And exactly that tolerance is what I would like to not only see but DEMAND from other people. And I believe this exact law is right in a way that it makes it harder for people that don't recognize that all people are created and to be treated equal to express and propagate their beliefs. I think you could even find a similar or maybe exact same argument for your position. I respect that but hope you have other ways to ensure no one creates a climate of fear, hatred and violence (physical and non-physical) against people that are different. This law will not be everything the German culture sets against that climate but is one piece of our puzzle.
- frabbit 10y ago
  > you are right to think your system is better while I am right to think ours is. And exactly that tolerance is what I would like to not only see but DEMAND from other people. I am not interested in the personalization of the argument or grounding it in lived experience of any sort. Objectively the system which you extoll results in censorship, in this case of criticism of a near-dictator involved in genocide against the Kurdish people. I believe that enabling a state to censor what people can say is dangerous to democracy. I think this is adequately demonstrated through numerous historical and current examples. Your statement of "tolerance" is meaningless because you will be unaware of other viewpoints of which you must be tolerant when they are censored. Ironically as this discussion is deemed offensive to the moderators of HN this entire discussion has been effaced.
  - king_phil 10y ago
    I can't follow. How is this incident related to any genocide, dictatorship, erdogan... what? I have the feeling you are just cherry picking this to troll on and not interested in talking about the different dogmatics of legal systems. I didn't want to personalize the discussion, just replace "you" and "me" with "any person from your belief system" and "any person from my belief system". It looks to me that you are not interested in thinking about other people's opinion and/or belief system. Now THAT was a personal remark.
    - frabbit 10y ago
      > I can't follow. How is this incident related to any genocide, dictatorship, erdogan... what? Really? So, you can't see the link between the German state's power to choose which speech acts can be punished and the punishing of someone for speech acts? You cannot see the link between the Turkish bombing and starving of the Kurdish people and the historical assaults by your own country on minority populations? I am not going to reply any more to you as you have descended to personalized abuse, but I will close with thanking you for illustrating exactly why the policing of free speech can never be allowed: there are too many people like you who are incapable of exercising tolerance and rationality, and once a lever of power and control is in your hands you will pull it. Thank you, and god bless the USA.