4 ms·

> potentially illegal speech (if you believe such a thing should exist) Child pornography, calls to violence etc. I think anybody agrees that, to some degree,

by V__ 4y ago

> potentially illegal speech (if you believe such a thing should exist) Child pornography, calls to violence etc. I think anybody agrees that, to some degree, things have to be banned. > (No such provision seem to exist against glorifying/justifying the illegal wars of aggressions which "NATO partners" have staged). The main reason no such provision exists is that there simply is no widespread movement to glorify, for example the Iraq war. > the strictest controls need to be set up to prevent abuse Absolutely. I just hope some solution can be found, which actually works, because you can only through so many judges against bots, foreign actors etc.

DocTomoe 4y ago
I really wish you had not brought up Child pornography. CP material is not speech, much like criminalised drugs are not. Hypothetically, the idea that CP media possession should be decriminalised, or what material should constitute (or not constitute) CP to begin with, or how to tackle the problem of child abuse (both generally and specifically when it comes to CP media production). And in fact, none of those opinions would be "criminal". Still, bringing up CP often is unhealthy for a discussion. Too often it is the way of the political scoundrel, the wannabe-strongman, to throw the "think of the children" card (and then abuse the powers grabbed with that argument against unrelated activities). > The main reason no such provision exists is that there simply is no widespread movement to glorify, for example the Iraq war. There has been actual attempts to prosecute the Schröder government for preparation of and participation in a war of aggression (against Serbia), which was then cancelled out because "t'was a righteous war". Note how the law does not distinguish between 'righteous' and 'criminal' wars of aggression. > Absolutely. I just hope some solution can be found, which actually works, because you can only through so many judges against bots, foreign actors etc. We are not that far away from each other. We just disagree who the real danger, the real enemy is: bots and foreign actors (by the way: Freedom of speech also protects their freedom of speech, even the watered-down "freedom of opinion" of the Grundgesetz is not limited to 'Germans only'), or a - in the future potentially tyrannic - federal government. Given our history, I tend to see the danger at home, not abroad.
modo_mario 4y ago
>The main reason no such provision exists is that there simply is no widespread movement to glorify, for example the Iraq war. Might also have something to do with the fact that German troops were and are still in Iraq no?

by V__ 4y ago

DocTomoe 4y ago

I really wish you had not brought up Child pornography. CP material is not speech, much like criminalised drugs are not. Hypothetically, the idea that CP media possession should be decriminalised, or what material should constitute (or not constitute) CP to begin with, or how to tackle the problem of child abuse (both generally and specifically when it comes to CP media production). And in fact, none of those opinions would be "criminal". Still, bringing up CP often is unhealthy for a discussion. Too often it is the way of the political scoundrel, the wannabe-strongman, to throw the "think of the children" card (and then abuse the powers grabbed with that argument against unrelated activities). > The main reason no such provision exists is that there simply is no widespread movement to glorify, for example the Iraq war. There has been actual attempts to prosecute the Schröder government for preparation of and participation in a war of aggression (against Serbia), which was then cancelled out because "t'was a righteous war". Note how the law does not distinguish between 'righteous' and 'criminal' wars of aggression. > Absolutely. I just hope some solution can be found, which actually works, because you can only through so many judges against bots, foreign actors etc. We are not that far away from each other. We just disagree who the real danger, the real enemy is: bots and foreign actors (by the way: Freedom of speech also protects their freedom of speech, even the watered-down "freedom of opinion" of the Grundgesetz is not limited to 'Germans only'), or a - in the future potentially tyrannic - federal government. Given our history, I tend to see the danger at home, not abroad.

modo_mario 4y ago

>The main reason no such provision exists is that there simply is no widespread movement to glorify, for example the Iraq war. Might also have something to do with the fact that German troops were and are still in Iraq no?