3 ms·

"Policy debate and opposition to government" is never curbed, it gives the population the feeling that they accomplish something with discussions. Actually doi

by rqis 7y ago

"Policy debate and opposition to government" is never curbed, it gives the population the feeling that they accomplish something with discussions. Actually doing something is curbed in many ways. > unilaterally "revoked" them on her website. So what, that's like Stallman redefining terms. Hardly a cause for concern, I wonder if some readers are mentally unstable if they take that seriously. > declaring herself to be "Public Enemy #1" If your website is shut down, why would you not get anxious? The whole thing is an overreaction.

Tainnor 7y ago
You can do lots of things, e.g. stage an online protest, sign petitions, vote for different parties in the next elections (and it's not as if you don't have a choice; compared to the US with its two-party system, you can really pick your favourites in Germany), call your representatives, join a political party or create a new one, sue the government, ... What you can't do is unilaterally decide that you don't like a law and ignore it. Asking other people to gather outside for a demonstration when this kind of action is currently disallowed is incitement and therefore illegal. As others have said, debates around the current measures are allowed and happening. Several parties have already filed lawsuits. In all cases that I know of, the constitutional court has rejected the preliminary injunctions. This means that, while the constitutional court may still decide in the future that the laws were anti-constitutional, they have decided that the harm to the individual due to these laws does not outweigh the harm of these laws not being enforced _were_ they constitutional. As to whether they needed to shut down the web site or whether that is actually legal: I don't know. But the police, especially local police, sometimes does things of questionable legality, as in every country. Of course, you can always sue the police and demand that your website be restored, and then the courts will examine your arguments. It's not a perfect system (no system is), but you do have legal options.
- azpk 7y ago
  No one cares about online protests or petitions, please. The majority of Germans is against the television protection money. You have to pay this protection money even if you do not own a television, or else you'll be thrown in debtor's prison and your credit score is ruined. The protection money ruled "constitutional" by the Verfassungsgericht. That is how democracy works. So, since you are so informed: What should I do? Found my own party, vote AfD? Neither of these is an actual option for me.
  - Tainnor 7y ago
    I don't think you understand how representative democracy works. It very well may be that the majority of the people rejects the Rundfunkbeitrag. But it clearly isn't very important to those people, otherwise they would create a single-issue party and vote that party in. In a representative democracy, people decide what party or candidate represents them best and vote for them. Nobody expects to be asked about every issue. If you want to change that, you could move to Switzerland, where voters actually do regularly vote on issues, but be warned, that that system comes with its own set of disadvantages. Also noteworthy: the Swiss people recently voted on whether to keep the equivalent of the Rundfunkgebühr, and they overwhelmingly said yes, as soon as they realised how much they would otherwise lose; you see, it's one thing to claim you're against something when asked randomly during some survey, it's another to actually go and vote against it once you know your opinion matters and you've had some time reviewing the pros and cons. By the way, I don't own a car and I still have to pay money for streets; I don't have children and have to pay for school; and I've never received unemployment benefits, yet have to pay for it. I don't complain about any of that because I think having public goods is a good thing. You've asked me what I think you should do. I've outlined a lot of things in my previous post. That none of these is an "actual option" for you or that you think people won't care about your cause is not a failure of democracy. Nobody ever said that change is easy.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

by rqis 7y ago

Tainnor 7y ago

You can do lots of things, e.g. stage an online protest, sign petitions, vote for different parties in the next elections (and it's not as if you don't have a choice; compared to the US with its two-party system, you can really pick your favourites in Germany), call your representatives, join a political party or create a new one, sue the government, ... What you can't do is unilaterally decide that you don't like a law and ignore it. Asking other people to gather outside for a demonstration when this kind of action is currently disallowed is incitement and therefore illegal. As others have said, debates around the current measures are allowed and happening. Several parties have already filed lawsuits. In all cases that I know of, the constitutional court has rejected the preliminary injunctions. This means that, while the constitutional court may still decide in the future that the laws were anti-constitutional, they have decided that the harm to the individual due to these laws does not outweigh the harm of these laws not being enforced _were_ they constitutional. As to whether they needed to shut down the web site or whether that is actually legal: I don't know. But the police, especially local police, sometimes does things of questionable legality, as in every country. Of course, you can always sue the police and demand that your website be restored, and then the courts will examine your arguments. It's not a perfect system (no system is), but you do have legal options.

azpk 7y ago
No one cares about online protests or petitions, please. The majority of Germans is against the television protection money. You have to pay this protection money even if you do not own a television, or else you'll be thrown in debtor's prison and your credit score is ruined. The protection money ruled "constitutional" by the Verfassungsgericht. That is how democracy works. So, since you are so informed: What should I do? Found my own party, vote AfD? Neither of these is an actual option for me.
- Tainnor 7y ago
  I don't think you understand how representative democracy works. It very well may be that the majority of the people rejects the Rundfunkbeitrag. But it clearly isn't very important to those people, otherwise they would create a single-issue party and vote that party in. In a representative democracy, people decide what party or candidate represents them best and vote for them. Nobody expects to be asked about every issue. If you want to change that, you could move to Switzerland, where voters actually do regularly vote on issues, but be warned, that that system comes with its own set of disadvantages. Also noteworthy: the Swiss people recently voted on whether to keep the equivalent of the Rundfunkgebühr, and they overwhelmingly said yes, as soon as they realised how much they would otherwise lose; you see, it's one thing to claim you're against something when asked randomly during some survey, it's another to actually go and vote against it once you know your opinion matters and you've had some time reviewing the pros and cons. By the way, I don't own a car and I still have to pay money for streets; I don't have children and have to pay for school; and I've never received unemployment benefits, yet have to pay for it. I don't complain about any of that because I think having public goods is a good thing. You've asked me what I think you should do. I've outlined a lot of things in my previous post. That none of these is an "actual option" for you or that you think people won't care about your cause is not a failure of democracy. Nobody ever said that change is easy.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]