7 ms·

> Germany just made wearing the 'Z' illegal Technically true, but without context, easily misunderstood. It's illegal in Germany to promote or advocate for ill

by V__ 5y ago

> Germany just made wearing the 'Z' illegal Technically true, but without context, easily misunderstood. It's illegal in Germany to promote or advocate for illegal acts. Since Russia attack on Ukraine is an illegal act, it's illegal to promote or advocate for the war, and this includes the Z symbol. Also "incitement to illegal conduct and imminent lawless action" is also illegal in the U.S. it just gets interpreted a little different. > There is only one country on earth that has decent free speech and it's the US Except for nearly all the other countries in Europe, Canade etc.

thereddaikon 5y ago
>Also "incitement to illegal conduct and imminent lawless action" is also illegal in the U.S. it just gets interpreted a little different. I'd say its more than a little different. The US definition is pretty narrow and immediate. You can't get on a megaphone and tell a crowd to go kill some guy right now. >Except for nearly all the other countries in Europe, Canada etc. It's all down to opinion of course but those nations do not have sensible freedom of speech. They pay lip service to the idea but will gladly jail people for saying things the government doesn't like but otherwise harmless or victim less.
- V__ 5y ago
  > The US definition is pretty narrow and immediate. Except for exceptions, such like making some kind of threat against the president. > will gladly jail people for saying things the government doesn't like but otherwise harmless or victim less. Can you show me such examples for lets say Germany?
  - sebzim4500 5y ago
    I'm not the guy you replied to but this springs to mind. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/15/angela-merkel-agrees-prosecution-comedian-erdogan-poem https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/15/angela-merkel-...
    - hef19898 5y ago
      Charges were dropped and the law was changed. The case was handled really bad so by Merkel.
      - V__ 5y ago
        Also, the law was kind of an old remnant, so most legal scholars were sure the law would have been declared unconstitutional if challenged.
- matkoniecz 5y ago
  What about National Security Letters?
pdabbadabba 5y ago
Based on what I'm reading here, U.S. law more than just a "little" different from German law in this regard. The word "imminent" in the U.S. standard does a huge amount of work, restricting liability to things like direct incitement (e.g., "Get him!"). And the "Z" itself is a perfect example, since it would almost certainly be considered protected speech in the U.S.
- V__ 5y ago
  I'm not trying to say there are no differences, but I find the exaggerations tiresome. When companies or people are muzzled by National Security Letters, whistleblowers jailed and companies bankrupt people with SLAP suits for saying something they don't like, that's somehow not a restriction on free speech in the U.S. However, when a country doesn't allow you to promote or advocate for war crimes, then it's "only the U.S. has free speech", go figure.
  - pdabbadabba 5y ago
    For better or worse, free-speech ideology in the U.S. is very focused on avoiding 1) prior restraint and 2) content/viewpoint discrimination by the government. So a lot of the things you identified tend not to strike people steeped in American legal thinking as free speech problems on the same order as categorically banning certain symbols or messages. I happen to think that this focus is correct, but I could be convinced otherwise. I don't think its at all obvious what the best approach is. But I agree with your more general point that Americans should be a bit less smug about the superiority of their free-speech rules.
    - V__ 5y ago
      I agree with you (and thanks for the nice discussion) and think it's really a different cultural interpretation. I would say that most Germans would say free speech is a value in general, which should be upheld by the government and for example the work place (and there are laws to protect people there) whereas the U.S. is more focus on the government part (just an observation). I think both have their historic reasons, place and differences.
freeflight 5y ago
> Technically true, but without context, easily misunderstood. It's practically true, and there is nothing to "misunderstand" there, unless you try to create such a misunderstanding by claiming this comes out of some kind of "general ban", when it's actually a very specific ban German states started putting in place [0]. Case in point; > Since Russia attack on Ukraine is an illegal act, it's illegal to promote or advocate for the war, and this includes the Z symbol. The US attack on Iraq was also illegal, yet that didn't lead to German states banning the V symbol for Victory or any other US symbols, or US media, getting banned. Which is not the only example of how most about this is purely political and not in any way based on impartial interpretation and application of laws for human rights and "justice" [1]. [0] https://www.zeit.de/politik/deutschland/2022-03/z-symbol-russland-ukraine-krieg-bundeslaender-verbot https://www.zeit.de/politik/deutschland/2022-03/z-symbol-rus... [1] https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/12/08/germany-could-have-delivered-justice-for-civilian-drone-strike-victims-it-failed/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/12/08/germany-could-have-deli...
- V__ 5y ago
  > some kind of "general ban", when it's actually a very specific ban German states started putting in place [0]. But it does, it's just that to prevent a misuse, any ban on symbols (which are used to advocate or promote something criminal) a separate law is needed to prevent misuse and allow judiciary overview. That's an additional protection. > US attack on Iraq was also illegal That's a fair point (and I agree on the illegality), and I would actually like this to be challenged in the court and see a decision. However, the Russian flag is not banned, just the Z symbol as a symbol for this war. If there was a symbol for U.S. drone strike or the invasion of Iraq we could be talking about something more concrete.
  - freeflight 5y ago
    > However, the Russian flag is not banned, just the Z symbol as a symbol for this war. The Z symbol exists for the same reason why the V symbol existed on US military vehicles in Iraq; It's mainly a friendly fire and unit identifier as Russia and Ukraine use a lot of the same mechanized equipment. While the Anglo V also stands for V as in "Victory" and even has a hand sign associated with it, it's a whole campaign dating back to WWII and Winston Churchill [0]. Me and many of my schoolmates would flash it at US military convoys passing our bus at school trips in the 90s. The soldiers were always super happy about it, while we thought we were signaling "peace" to them. Ultimately the V would morph into a Chevron with different orientations to distinguish what military group a vehicle belongs to [0], but there is a whole propagandist history behind the Anglo use of V, overlapping very much in the same ways of military necessity as the Russian Z does. [0] https://web.archive.org/web/20150708011459/https://time.com/hive.org/web/20150708011459/http://time.com/3880345/v-for-victory-a-gesture-of-solidarity-and-defiance/ https://web.archive.org/web/20150708011459/https://time.com/... [1] https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-significance-of-the-inverted-V-on-the-side-corners-of-US-tanks https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-significance-of-the-invert...
freeflight 5y ago
> Technically true, but without context, easily misunderstood. It's practically true, and there is nothing to "misunderstand" there, unless you try to create such a misunderstanding by claiming this comes out of some kind of "general ban", when it's actually a very specific ban German states started putting in place only recently [0]. Case in point; > Since Russia attack on Ukraine is an illegal act, it's illegal to promote or advocate for the war, and this includes the Z symbol. The US attack on Iraq was also illegal, yet that didn't lead to German states banning the V symbol for Victory or any other US symbols, or US state media getting banned. Which is not the only example of how most about this is purely political and not in any way based on impartial interpretation and application of laws for "human rights and justice" [1]. [0] https://www.zeit.de/politik/deutschland/2022-03/z-symbol-russland-ukraine-krieg-bundeslaender-verbot https://www.zeit.de/politik/deutschland/2022-03/z-symbol-rus... [1] https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/12/08/germany-could-have-delivered-justice-for-civilian-drone-strike-victims-it-failed/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/12/08/germany-could-have-deli...
xyzzyz 5y ago
Okay, so imagine Germany does not allow gay marriage (not so hard, considering it did not do that until 2017, and had no legal recognition of same sex partnership at all before 2001). This would make gay marriage an illegal act. Do you think Germany then should be allowed to criminally prosecute people for advocating for the illegal act of gay marriage? Ability to advocate for illegal, repugnant, or offensive ideas or acts is in fact the entire point of free speech, so being able to do it is an essential right.
- V__ 5y ago
  That's a very good observation. I should've made sure to say that not all illegal acts are created equal, and those which are illegal to advocate for, are specially listed [1]. In summary, those basically are high treason, murder/manslaughter, assault, robbery, counterfeiting, creating fire/explosions/radiation, destroying/interference in infrastructure (planes etc.). [1] https://dejure.org/gesetze/StGB/138.html https://dejure.org/gesetze/StGB/138.html
  - rightbyte 4y ago
    "High treason" seems arbitrary broad. E.g. advocating forming a republic from a monarchy is high treason or any form of separatism.
- DocTomoe 4y ago
  > This would make gay marriage an illegal act. Back in the day, noone prevented same-sex partners to marry in Germany in front of a religious congregation which allowed that according to their rules. They just couldn't get the marriage certificate from the State. As for the illegality: it would make gay marriage an impossible act, because the legal framework to marry two men (or two women) from a legal standpoint (which includes the marriage certificates and the rights and responsibilities associated with it) would not exist. A public official who wrote a marriage certificate for a same-sex couple in 1999 would not have committed a crime, he or she would just have written an invalid form which would have had no legal bearing (and the public official would probably have been reprimanded). Something you cannot do by definition cannot be illegal.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
tekknik 5y ago
As a counter point, and a more accurate apples comparison, it’s not illegal to wear a swastika in the US. Nor promote support for what Russia is currently doing. You’ve pointed out that Germany can make something illegal to control speech, which is not the same as promoting riots or planning the demise of the gov.
DocTomoe 4y ago
> Except for nearly all the other countries in Europe, Canade etc. None of them has free speech. Free speech is a binary thing - either speech is free, or it isn't. The moment you face criminal lawsuits for saying the wrong things, you do not live under a Free Speech regime. To my knowledge, the only country which does this correctly is the US. Many countries claim to have Freedom of Opinion - which is a different concept from Freedom of Speech. Under a "Freedom of Opinion" regime, you can hold any opinion that you like - but some you need to keep to yourself.

by V__ 5y ago

thereddaikon 5y ago

>Also "incitement to illegal conduct and imminent lawless action" is also illegal in the U.S. it just gets interpreted a little different. I'd say its more than a little different. The US definition is pretty narrow and immediate. You can't get on a megaphone and tell a crowd to go kill some guy right now. >Except for nearly all the other countries in Europe, Canada etc. It's all down to opinion of course but those nations do not have sensible freedom of speech. They pay lip service to the idea but will gladly jail people for saying things the government doesn't like but otherwise harmless or victim less.

V__ 5y ago
> The US definition is pretty narrow and immediate. Except for exceptions, such like making some kind of threat against the president. > will gladly jail people for saying things the government doesn't like but otherwise harmless or victim less. Can you show me such examples for lets say Germany?
- sebzim4500 5y ago
  I'm not the guy you replied to but this springs to mind. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/15/angela-merkel-agrees-prosecution-comedian-erdogan-poem https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/15/angela-merkel-...
  - hef19898 5y ago
    Charges were dropped and the law was changed. The case was handled really bad so by Merkel.
    - V__ 5y ago
      Also, the law was kind of an old remnant, so most legal scholars were sure the law would have been declared unconstitutional if challenged.
matkoniecz 5y ago
What about National Security Letters?

pdabbadabba 5y ago

Based on what I'm reading here, U.S. law more than just a "little" different from German law in this regard. The word "imminent" in the U.S. standard does a huge amount of work, restricting liability to things like direct incitement (e.g., "Get him!"). And the "Z" itself is a perfect example, since it would almost certainly be considered protected speech in the U.S.

V__ 5y ago
I'm not trying to say there are no differences, but I find the exaggerations tiresome. When companies or people are muzzled by National Security Letters, whistleblowers jailed and companies bankrupt people with SLAP suits for saying something they don't like, that's somehow not a restriction on free speech in the U.S. However, when a country doesn't allow you to promote or advocate for war crimes, then it's "only the U.S. has free speech", go figure.
- pdabbadabba 5y ago
  For better or worse, free-speech ideology in the U.S. is very focused on avoiding 1) prior restraint and 2) content/viewpoint discrimination by the government. So a lot of the things you identified tend not to strike people steeped in American legal thinking as free speech problems on the same order as categorically banning certain symbols or messages. I happen to think that this focus is correct, but I could be convinced otherwise. I don't think its at all obvious what the best approach is. But I agree with your more general point that Americans should be a bit less smug about the superiority of their free-speech rules.
  - V__ 5y ago
    I agree with you (and thanks for the nice discussion) and think it's really a different cultural interpretation. I would say that most Germans would say free speech is a value in general, which should be upheld by the government and for example the work place (and there are laws to protect people there) whereas the U.S. is more focus on the government part (just an observation). I think both have their historic reasons, place and differences.

freeflight 5y ago

> Technically true, but without context, easily misunderstood. It's practically true, and there is nothing to "misunderstand" there, unless you try to create such a misunderstanding by claiming this comes out of some kind of "general ban", when it's actually a very specific ban German states started putting in place [0]. Case in point; > Since Russia attack on Ukraine is an illegal act, it's illegal to promote or advocate for the war, and this includes the Z symbol. The US attack on Iraq was also illegal, yet that didn't lead to German states banning the V symbol for Victory or any other US symbols, or US media, getting banned. Which is not the only example of how most about this is purely political and not in any way based on impartial interpretation and application of laws for human rights and "justice" [1]. [0] https://www.zeit.de/politik/deutschland/2022-03/z-symbol-russland-ukraine-krieg-bundeslaender-verbot https://www.zeit.de/politik/deutschland/2022-03/z-symbol-rus... [1] https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/12/08/germany-could-have-delivered-justice-for-civilian-drone-strike-victims-it-failed/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/12/08/germany-could-have-deli...

V__ 5y ago
> some kind of "general ban", when it's actually a very specific ban German states started putting in place [0]. But it does, it's just that to prevent a misuse, any ban on symbols (which are used to advocate or promote something criminal) a separate law is needed to prevent misuse and allow judiciary overview. That's an additional protection. > US attack on Iraq was also illegal That's a fair point (and I agree on the illegality), and I would actually like this to be challenged in the court and see a decision. However, the Russian flag is not banned, just the Z symbol as a symbol for this war. If there was a symbol for U.S. drone strike or the invasion of Iraq we could be talking about something more concrete.
- freeflight 5y ago
  > However, the Russian flag is not banned, just the Z symbol as a symbol for this war. The Z symbol exists for the same reason why the V symbol existed on US military vehicles in Iraq; It's mainly a friendly fire and unit identifier as Russia and Ukraine use a lot of the same mechanized equipment. While the Anglo V also stands for V as in "Victory" and even has a hand sign associated with it, it's a whole campaign dating back to WWII and Winston Churchill [0]. Me and many of my schoolmates would flash it at US military convoys passing our bus at school trips in the 90s. The soldiers were always super happy about it, while we thought we were signaling "peace" to them. Ultimately the V would morph into a Chevron with different orientations to distinguish what military group a vehicle belongs to [0], but there is a whole propagandist history behind the Anglo use of V, overlapping very much in the same ways of military necessity as the Russian Z does. [0] https://web.archive.org/web/20150708011459/https://time.com/hive.org/web/20150708011459/http://time.com/3880345/v-for-victory-a-gesture-of-solidarity-and-defiance/ https://web.archive.org/web/20150708011459/https://time.com/... [1] https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-significance-of-the-inverted-V-on-the-side-corners-of-US-tanks https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-significance-of-the-invert...

freeflight 5y ago

> Technically true, but without context, easily misunderstood. It's practically true, and there is nothing to "misunderstand" there, unless you try to create such a misunderstanding by claiming this comes out of some kind of "general ban", when it's actually a very specific ban German states started putting in place only recently [0]. Case in point; > Since Russia attack on Ukraine is an illegal act, it's illegal to promote or advocate for the war, and this includes the Z symbol. The US attack on Iraq was also illegal, yet that didn't lead to German states banning the V symbol for Victory or any other US symbols, or US state media getting banned. Which is not the only example of how most about this is purely political and not in any way based on impartial interpretation and application of laws for "human rights and justice" [1]. [0] https://www.zeit.de/politik/deutschland/2022-03/z-symbol-russland-ukraine-krieg-bundeslaender-verbot https://www.zeit.de/politik/deutschland/2022-03/z-symbol-rus... [1] https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/12/08/germany-could-have-delivered-justice-for-civilian-drone-strike-victims-it-failed/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/12/08/germany-could-have-deli...

xyzzyz 5y ago

Okay, so imagine Germany does not allow gay marriage (not so hard, considering it did not do that until 2017, and had no legal recognition of same sex partnership at all before 2001). This would make gay marriage an illegal act. Do you think Germany then should be allowed to criminally prosecute people for advocating for the illegal act of gay marriage? Ability to advocate for illegal, repugnant, or offensive ideas or acts is in fact the entire point of free speech, so being able to do it is an essential right.

V__ 5y ago
That's a very good observation. I should've made sure to say that not all illegal acts are created equal, and those which are illegal to advocate for, are specially listed [1]. In summary, those basically are high treason, murder/manslaughter, assault, robbery, counterfeiting, creating fire/explosions/radiation, destroying/interference in infrastructure (planes etc.). [1] https://dejure.org/gesetze/StGB/138.html https://dejure.org/gesetze/StGB/138.html
- rightbyte 4y ago
  "High treason" seems arbitrary broad. E.g. advocating forming a republic from a monarchy is high treason or any form of separatism.
DocTomoe 4y ago
> This would make gay marriage an illegal act. Back in the day, noone prevented same-sex partners to marry in Germany in front of a religious congregation which allowed that according to their rules. They just couldn't get the marriage certificate from the State. As for the illegality: it would make gay marriage an impossible act, because the legal framework to marry two men (or two women) from a legal standpoint (which includes the marriage certificates and the rights and responsibilities associated with it) would not exist. A public official who wrote a marriage certificate for a same-sex couple in 1999 would not have committed a crime, he or she would just have written an invalid form which would have had no legal bearing (and the public official would probably have been reprimanded). Something you cannot do by definition cannot be illegal.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

tekknik 5y ago

As a counter point, and a more accurate apples comparison, it’s not illegal to wear a swastika in the US. Nor promote support for what Russia is currently doing. You’ve pointed out that Germany can make something illegal to control speech, which is not the same as promoting riots or planning the demise of the gov.

DocTomoe 4y ago

> Except for nearly all the other countries in Europe, Canade etc. None of them has free speech. Free speech is a binary thing - either speech is free, or it isn't. The moment you face criminal lawsuits for saying the wrong things, you do not live under a Free Speech regime. To my knowledge, the only country which does this correctly is the US. Many countries claim to have Freedom of Opinion - which is a different concept from Freedom of Speech. Under a "Freedom of Opinion" regime, you can hold any opinion that you like - but some you need to keep to yourself.