4 ms·

I think, what is important to understand in German law is, that you are not prevented from uttering your opinion. You are rather prevented from claiming false f

I think, what is important to understand in German law is, that you are not prevented from uttering your opinion. You are rather prevented from claiming false facts. Let's take the example of the photo of Angela Merkel and the Syrian refugee, mentioned in the article. If you publicly declare, that the person on the photo is a terrorist, and the person is not, you are clearly breaking the law, because you are damaging the persons reputation with arbitrary false claims. If you mention something as a fact, which you cannot prove, you are held responsible for the consequences of the claim and you are prevented from repeating the false fact. If you would declare "There have been rumours, that the person on the photo is a terrorist", the legal perspective is completely different. Because there obviously have been the rumours this is not a false claim. It now depends very much on the context. If it was known to you, that the person is not a terrorist and you declared the fact of the rumours, but in a way, that it nevertheless makes the person appear as a terrorist, you might be breaking law, but this now depends very much on circumstances and can only be deciced individually in a court case. Saying "I completely believe the person is a terrorist, even though there is no prove" would most likely be covered by freedom of speech in Germany, because the claim is not presented as a fact, but an opinion. There are limits here (you cannot hide abuse and revilement in an opinion), but interpretation is extremely generous in those cases and makes, in my eyes, the biggest difference to systems like China. I am completely fine with this approach. I think that a proper differentiation between fact and opinion is the key for a healthy social discourse. How would anyone be able to defend himself against false claims, if any utterance of whatever was covered by free speech?

Vinnl 9y ago
Your example is interesting, because 'terrorism' is a rather ill-defined term - i.e. some people refer as 'terrorists' to what other people refer to as 'freedom fighters'. When is the former making a false claim?
- TheCoelacanth 9y ago
  Terrorist vs. freedom fighter is opinion. Terrorist/freedom fighter vs. someone who has never committed or aided in an attack against a civilian population is objective fact. If you claim that someone is a terrorist and they have never had any involvement in an attack against a civilian population, then that is objectively false.
- AlphaGeekZulu 9y ago
  There is some legal definition for "terrorism" in german criminal law (do not ask me the details, but there is a difference if an act of murder was a terroristic act or not - it has to do with intentions, means, motives, acting alone or in a network and so on). So there is some factual definition. A quote like "They call him freedom fighter, I call him terrorist" is clearly an opinion and yes, it makes a difference whether you use the word in the sense of a legal definition or an abstract concept or a hyperbolic metaphor. The level rod is dignity.
  - Vinnl 9y ago
    My point wasn't that there isn't a definition somewhere that is clear, but that people very often use it in different ways - whereas I don't think we want to treat all these people in the same way.
- AndrewKemendo 9y ago
  'terrorism' is a rather ill-defined term In the American Legal system at least, both domestic and international terrorism are very well defined terms: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2331 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2331
- Fnoord 9y ago
  > because 'terrorism' is a rather ill-defined term Terrorism is well defined, by Alex P. Schmid in 1988: Schmid and Jongman (1988): "Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby - in contrast to assassination - the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperilled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought". As well as by "The Revised Academic Consensus Definition of Terrorism (2011)" by Alex Schmid available at [1] The problems derive from definition being complex. Examples: laymen don't have the analytical power, powers that be have a conflict of interest as you describe. However that is certainly not the same as terrorism being an ill-defined term. The revised definition is used world wide by terrorism experts such as Prof. Dr. Beatrice de Graaf and Prof. Dr. Edwin Bakker. If this subjects is of interest to you I recommend the Coursera course "Terrorism and Counterterrorism: Comparing Theory and Practice" [2] by Prof. Dr. Edwin Bakker. [1] http://www.terrorismanalysts.com/pt/index.php/pot/article/view/schmid-terrorism-definition/html http://www.terrorismanalysts.com/pt/index.php/pot/article/vi... [2] https://www.coursera.org/learn/terrorism https://www.coursera.org/learn/terrorism
blackbagboys 9y ago
This sounds very similar to U.S. libel laws, except that in the case of public figures you also need to prove malice.
tomjen3 9y ago
How about something that I believe is true, for which I have evidence, but which is not actually true? Can I just write 'terrorist?' instead of 'terrorist' next to a person?
- AlphaGeekZulu 9y ago
  It depends very much on the subtle details: "He is a terrorist." = claimed fact. Contravention, if false! "He is a terrorist.", about a person during trial = claimed fact, contravention until the verdict, no matter how the verdict will be! "He is a terrorist.", about a convicted terrorist = claimed fact, true, no contravention. "I believe, he is a terrorist." = opinion "I have evidence, that he is a terrorist." = claimed fact. Contravention, if false! "For me, he is a terrorist, even though he was acquitted." = opinion "All soldiers are murderers." = opinion (obviously false fact, but in an abstract, hyperbolic metaphoric way, no contravention - there has been actual trial about this in Germany). "Soldier Frank Miller is a murderer, because all soldiers are murderers." = claimed fact, but with an obviously stupid reasoning, edge case. "All refugees are terrorists" = claimed fact, but obviously false and therefore possibly hyperbolic metaphoric, edge case. "All Syrian refugees are terrorists" = claimed fact, obviously false, but targeted at an ethnic group, possible hate speech and sedition. It is a very complicated matter. Courts are dealing with this topics every day with sometimes very surprising results.
tomjen3 9y ago
Reading that article you are also prevented from documenting cruel behaviour/acts of violence. Good luck sharing that picture of the young woman who were murdered and bleed out on camera after being shot by the Iranian government. Good luck sharing the videos that prove just how evil Isis is.

Vinnl 9y ago

Your example is interesting, because 'terrorism' is a rather ill-defined term - i.e. some people refer as 'terrorists' to what other people refer to as 'freedom fighters'. When is the former making a false claim?

TheCoelacanth 9y ago
Terrorist vs. freedom fighter is opinion. Terrorist/freedom fighter vs. someone who has never committed or aided in an attack against a civilian population is objective fact. If you claim that someone is a terrorist and they have never had any involvement in an attack against a civilian population, then that is objectively false.
AlphaGeekZulu 9y ago
There is some legal definition for "terrorism" in german criminal law (do not ask me the details, but there is a difference if an act of murder was a terroristic act or not - it has to do with intentions, means, motives, acting alone or in a network and so on). So there is some factual definition. A quote like "They call him freedom fighter, I call him terrorist" is clearly an opinion and yes, it makes a difference whether you use the word in the sense of a legal definition or an abstract concept or a hyperbolic metaphor. The level rod is dignity.
- Vinnl 9y ago
  My point wasn't that there isn't a definition somewhere that is clear, but that people very often use it in different ways - whereas I don't think we want to treat all these people in the same way.
AndrewKemendo 9y ago
'terrorism' is a rather ill-defined term In the American Legal system at least, both domestic and international terrorism are very well defined terms: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2331 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2331
Fnoord 9y ago
> because 'terrorism' is a rather ill-defined term Terrorism is well defined, by Alex P. Schmid in 1988: Schmid and Jongman (1988): "Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby - in contrast to assassination - the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperilled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought". As well as by "The Revised Academic Consensus Definition of Terrorism (2011)" by Alex Schmid available at [1] The problems derive from definition being complex. Examples: laymen don't have the analytical power, powers that be have a conflict of interest as you describe. However that is certainly not the same as terrorism being an ill-defined term. The revised definition is used world wide by terrorism experts such as Prof. Dr. Beatrice de Graaf and Prof. Dr. Edwin Bakker. If this subjects is of interest to you I recommend the Coursera course "Terrorism and Counterterrorism: Comparing Theory and Practice" [2] by Prof. Dr. Edwin Bakker. [1] http://www.terrorismanalysts.com/pt/index.php/pot/article/view/schmid-terrorism-definition/html http://www.terrorismanalysts.com/pt/index.php/pot/article/vi... [2] https://www.coursera.org/learn/terrorism https://www.coursera.org/learn/terrorism

blackbagboys 9y ago

This sounds very similar to U.S. libel laws, except that in the case of public figures you also need to prove malice.

tomjen3 9y ago

How about something that I believe is true, for which I have evidence, but which is not actually true? Can I just write 'terrorist?' instead of 'terrorist' next to a person?

AlphaGeekZulu 9y ago
It depends very much on the subtle details: "He is a terrorist." = claimed fact. Contravention, if false! "He is a terrorist.", about a person during trial = claimed fact, contravention until the verdict, no matter how the verdict will be! "He is a terrorist.", about a convicted terrorist = claimed fact, true, no contravention. "I believe, he is a terrorist." = opinion "I have evidence, that he is a terrorist." = claimed fact. Contravention, if false! "For me, he is a terrorist, even though he was acquitted." = opinion "All soldiers are murderers." = opinion (obviously false fact, but in an abstract, hyperbolic metaphoric way, no contravention - there has been actual trial about this in Germany). "Soldier Frank Miller is a murderer, because all soldiers are murderers." = claimed fact, but with an obviously stupid reasoning, edge case. "All refugees are terrorists" = claimed fact, but obviously false and therefore possibly hyperbolic metaphoric, edge case. "All Syrian refugees are terrorists" = claimed fact, obviously false, but targeted at an ethnic group, possible hate speech and sedition. It is a very complicated matter. Courts are dealing with this topics every day with sometimes very surprising results.

tomjen3 9y ago

Reading that article you are also prevented from documenting cruel behaviour/acts of violence. Good luck sharing that picture of the young woman who were murdered and bleed out on camera after being shot by the Iranian government. Good luck sharing the videos that prove just how evil Isis is.