8 ms·

> lacks freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is article 5 of the German constitution. What you mean is that it differs from the US version.

sneak 5y ago
No, you're not allowed to publish gory video games or racist literature[1] in Germany, which is clearly prior restraint. It's not that the US has some crazy absolutist freedom of expression (it does not), it's that Germany simply lacks it. You can't have "mostly" free expression. It's either abridged or it isn't. Germany censors harmless digital art that the government deems inappropriate for adults to be able to see. It's a classic slippery slope (modern Germans defending their government's censorship and lack of free expression will usually cite Hitler/racist stuff, but that's not all that's banned). It doesn't really matter what the constitution says, if in practice you don't have those rights. It's sort of like how the 2A in the USA says that the people have the right to keep and bear arms, but I don't suggest attempting to exercise that right in Central Park, because you don't actually have it. Same goes for free expression in Germany. From https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/xmlui/handle/1794/19123 https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/xmlui/handle/1794/19123 : > Germany is one of the strictest censors of violence among the world’s video game consumers. Due to its history and a cohesive national opinion, the legislature limits content severely, much more severely than the surrounding European nations. This results in international developers choosing not to market to Germany, creating censored titles specifically for the German market, or finding themselves on a list of banned titles illegal to buy or sell. [1]: there's also no indication that racist publications were responsible for WW2 (versus, say, Hitler himself), making this censorship-for-censorship's sake. Many other countries do not prohibit racist literature and have not committed a holocaust. So, of course, they banned violent video games too, because those don't cause violence either.
- GlitchMr 5y ago
  Freedom of speech is not absolute in United States either, see https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/what-does https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-re....
- cma 5y ago
  > It's sort of like how the 2A in the USA says that the people have the right to keep and bear arms Why leave out the for the maintenance of a well-regulated militia part?
  - sneak 5y ago
    Because you asked, even though it's now way off-topic for this thread (and I will not respond further): Because the text of 2A does not indicate that the right is contingent upon participation in a militia (and indeed 10 USC 246[1] legally defines the US militia as all able-bodied male citizens of ages 17 to 44 inclusive, as well as all female citizens who are members of the National Guard, even if it did), as 2A actually specifies RKBA as a right of the people (not "people of the militia", just "people"). [1]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246
    - Frondo 5y ago
      Heh, and where was this interpretation when the Black Panthers were arming themselves in California? Even the NRA supported gun control back then. > In contrast to the NRA’s rigid opposition to gun control in today’s America, the organization fought alongside the government for stricter gun regulations in the 1960s. https://www.history.com/news/black-panthers-gun-control-nra-support-mulford-act https://www.history.com/news/black-panthers-gun-control-nra-...
      - _dain_ 5y ago
        stupid irrelevant gotcha, the nra is not the scotus
    - cma 5y ago
      From 1930s to 2008 it was read differently. The words also don't say the mentally ill with violent uncontrollable ideations can't have them, but we constitutionally allow the disallowing of that presumably both out of common sense and because forcing allowing that has nothing to do with a well regulated militia.
- sascha_sl 5y ago
  Your information on video games is about a decade out of date, there were no video games put on List A or B for the past 2 years at least, and I haven't checked further. The last high profile ban was Wolfenstein, and that was for it's use of the Swastika. https://www.schnittberichte.com/svds.php?Page=Indizierungen&Kat=Games https://www.schnittberichte.com/svds.php?Page=Indizierungen&...
_dain_ 5y ago
Freedom of speech was also Article 125 of the Soviet constitution. The US First Amendment version is the only one that is worthy of the name.
- sneak 5y ago
  Don't try to tell that to Julian Assange.
  - na85 5y ago
    He's not a US citizen though. Their constitution only applies to them.
    - lazide 5y ago
      FYI - not according to the US constitution. It applies to everyone on US soil, and is supposed to bind the federal gov’t in general in how it acts everywhere. De facto and de jure of course being completely different things.
      - na85 5y ago
        > FYI - not according to the US constitution. It applies to everyone on US soil, and is supposed to bind the federal gov’t in general in how it acts everywhere. Sure but that ship sailed years ago. Their constitution is also supposed to guarantee a right to a fair trial but obviously the legions of drone victims didn't get one.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
- cycomanic 5y ago
  I encourage you to read up on the J.E. Hoover and J. McCarthy on how much the US First Amendment is worth. Or maybe try running a pro ISIS webserver in the US, see how quickly you have the FBI knocking on your door. Let's not even talk about DCMA takedowns etc.. The US ranks lower than Germany in the FH and RWB freedom of the press indices [1], which while not quite the same is highly related to freedom of speech. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_by_country
adolph 5y ago
Good luck naming your baby "X Æ A-Ⅻ" in Germany: https://www.iamexpat.de/expat-info/german-expat-news/german-names https://www.iamexpat.de/expat-info/german-expat-news/german-... An appropriate German name is one that is first recognised as a proper name. It cannot be associated with evil (e.g. Satan, Lucifer) or deemed religiously insensitive (e.g. Christus or Jesus). A name cannot be a product, brand, surname or a place name. Finally, German names have to indicate the child’s gender and they are not allowed to cross (one exception is Maria, which can be used as a boy’s second name). Neutral names (e.g. Alex, Kim) must be followed by a second name that indicates the child’s gender.
- frenchyatwork 5y ago
  You're right that German naming rules are overbearing, but you'd have trouble naming a baby "X Æ A-Ⅻ" in a lot of places, including many US states, I believe.
- SahAssar 5y ago
  If your definition of freedom of speech means being able to name your kid whatever you want then obviously the US first amendment is not working since most states have rules regarding naming too. For example: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/11/california-birth-certifcates-accents-marks https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/11/california-b...
  - adolph 5y ago
    That’s a great article, thanks! California like several other states bans the use of diacritical marks on official documents. Last year, the state took up a bill that would have allowed diacritical marks, but it stalled out when a $10m price tag was attached
- sascha_sl 5y ago
  The gender restriction has been ruled unconstitutional at least 10 years ago.

sneak 5y ago

No, you're not allowed to publish gory video games or racist literature[1] in Germany, which is clearly prior restraint. It's not that the US has some crazy absolutist freedom of expression (it does not), it's that Germany simply lacks it. You can't have "mostly" free expression. It's either abridged or it isn't. Germany censors harmless digital art that the government deems inappropriate for adults to be able to see. It's a classic slippery slope (modern Germans defending their government's censorship and lack of free expression will usually cite Hitler/racist stuff, but that's not all that's banned). It doesn't really matter what the constitution says, if in practice you don't have those rights. It's sort of like how the 2A in the USA says that the people have the right to keep and bear arms, but I don't suggest attempting to exercise that right in Central Park, because you don't actually have it. Same goes for free expression in Germany. From https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/xmlui/handle/1794/19123 https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/xmlui/handle/1794/19123 : > Germany is one of the strictest censors of violence among the world’s video game consumers. Due to its history and a cohesive national opinion, the legislature limits content severely, much more severely than the surrounding European nations. This results in international developers choosing not to market to Germany, creating censored titles specifically for the German market, or finding themselves on a list of banned titles illegal to buy or sell. [1]: there's also no indication that racist publications were responsible for WW2 (versus, say, Hitler himself), making this censorship-for-censorship's sake. Many other countries do not prohibit racist literature and have not committed a holocaust. So, of course, they banned violent video games too, because those don't cause violence either.

GlitchMr 5y ago
Freedom of speech is not absolute in United States either, see https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/what-does https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-re....
cma 5y ago
> It's sort of like how the 2A in the USA says that the people have the right to keep and bear arms Why leave out the for the maintenance of a well-regulated militia part?
- sneak 5y ago
  Because you asked, even though it's now way off-topic for this thread (and I will not respond further): Because the text of 2A does not indicate that the right is contingent upon participation in a militia (and indeed 10 USC 246[1] legally defines the US militia as all able-bodied male citizens of ages 17 to 44 inclusive, as well as all female citizens who are members of the National Guard, even if it did), as 2A actually specifies RKBA as a right of the people (not "people of the militia", just "people"). [1]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246
  - Frondo 5y ago
    Heh, and where was this interpretation when the Black Panthers were arming themselves in California? Even the NRA supported gun control back then. > In contrast to the NRA’s rigid opposition to gun control in today’s America, the organization fought alongside the government for stricter gun regulations in the 1960s. https://www.history.com/news/black-panthers-gun-control-nra-support-mulford-act https://www.history.com/news/black-panthers-gun-control-nra-...
    - _dain_ 5y ago
      stupid irrelevant gotcha, the nra is not the scotus
  - cma 5y ago
    From 1930s to 2008 it was read differently. The words also don't say the mentally ill with violent uncontrollable ideations can't have them, but we constitutionally allow the disallowing of that presumably both out of common sense and because forcing allowing that has nothing to do with a well regulated militia.
sascha_sl 5y ago
Your information on video games is about a decade out of date, there were no video games put on List A or B for the past 2 years at least, and I haven't checked further. The last high profile ban was Wolfenstein, and that was for it's use of the Swastika. https://www.schnittberichte.com/svds.php?Page=Indizierungen&Kat=Games https://www.schnittberichte.com/svds.php?Page=Indizierungen&...

_dain_ 5y ago

Freedom of speech was also Article 125 of the Soviet constitution. The US First Amendment version is the only one that is worthy of the name.

sneak 5y ago
Don't try to tell that to Julian Assange.
- na85 5y ago
  He's not a US citizen though. Their constitution only applies to them.
  - lazide 5y ago
    FYI - not according to the US constitution. It applies to everyone on US soil, and is supposed to bind the federal gov’t in general in how it acts everywhere. De facto and de jure of course being completely different things.
    - na85 5y ago
      > FYI - not according to the US constitution. It applies to everyone on US soil, and is supposed to bind the federal gov’t in general in how it acts everywhere. Sure but that ship sailed years ago. Their constitution is also supposed to guarantee a right to a fair trial but obviously the legions of drone victims didn't get one.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
cycomanic 5y ago
I encourage you to read up on the J.E. Hoover and J. McCarthy on how much the US First Amendment is worth. Or maybe try running a pro ISIS webserver in the US, see how quickly you have the FBI knocking on your door. Let's not even talk about DCMA takedowns etc.. The US ranks lower than Germany in the FH and RWB freedom of the press indices [1], which while not quite the same is highly related to freedom of speech. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_by_country

adolph 5y ago

Good luck naming your baby "X Æ A-Ⅻ" in Germany: https://www.iamexpat.de/expat-info/german-expat-news/german-names https://www.iamexpat.de/expat-info/german-expat-news/german-... An appropriate German name is one that is first recognised as a proper name. It cannot be associated with evil (e.g. Satan, Lucifer) or deemed religiously insensitive (e.g. Christus or Jesus). A name cannot be a product, brand, surname or a place name. Finally, German names have to indicate the child’s gender and they are not allowed to cross (one exception is Maria, which can be used as a boy’s second name). Neutral names (e.g. Alex, Kim) must be followed by a second name that indicates the child’s gender.

frenchyatwork 5y ago
You're right that German naming rules are overbearing, but you'd have trouble naming a baby "X Æ A-Ⅻ" in a lot of places, including many US states, I believe.
SahAssar 5y ago
If your definition of freedom of speech means being able to name your kid whatever you want then obviously the US first amendment is not working since most states have rules regarding naming too. For example: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/11/california-birth-certifcates-accents-marks https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/11/california-b...
- adolph 5y ago
  That’s a great article, thanks! California like several other states bans the use of diacritical marks on official documents. Last year, the state took up a bill that would have allowed diacritical marks, but it stalled out when a $10m price tag was attached
sascha_sl 5y ago
The gender restriction has been ruled unconstitutional at least 10 years ago.