2 ms·

Yes, when a country imposes naturalized future citizens any kind of pledge (especially when it does not apply to local born ones) I think its claims of free spe

Yes, when a country imposes naturalized future citizens any kind of pledge (especially when it does not apply to local born ones) I think its claims of free speech are tenuous. Frankly I had no idea you had to do that as part of the US citizenship process and it only serves to confirm my biases. To get to the point of my previous comment. Do you expect that demanding anti-zionists to publicly say Israel deserves to be a state will have any impact on their belief? The DW article acknowledges that a very strong anti zionist (or rather plain anti jewish) sentiment exists already in the locals. What good does it do to force people to say this one specific thing?

oezi 2y ago
Certainly, I find it ridiculous that new immigrants need to give a pledge that existing locals don't have to give. On the other hand, I don't think any of this pertains to Free Speech. Free Speech just means that you aren't oppressed to say certain things. Like all rights, also the Freedom of Speech has its boundaries. Slander for example. Germany applies certain sensible restrictions on speech and that's it. That's not negative. Free speech absolutists just like to have no strings attached, but this isn't what holds societies together.
- mariusor 2y ago
  > Free Speech just means that you aren't oppressed to say certain things Forgive me for dramatizing, but I fail to see how being rejected for citizenship as a refugee coming from the Palestinian territories because you can't bring yourself to say your life long enemy is implied to have the right to oppress you and your family is anything but pertaining to Free Speech. When governments demand people (any people) say things (any things) for a purpose (any purpose), that is an infringement of their freedom of speech. I can understand you disagree with that, but for me it's very obvious.
  - oezi 2y ago
    a.) As a refugee you don't have to become a German citizen. Governments obviously can (must!) ask you to answer (truthfully) in many situations. Just think of taxation. This isn't infringement of freedom of speech. b.) As a Palestinian you aren't forced by Germans to say Israel can oppress you. You are asked to agree that Israelis have a right to life too (as any human actually has).
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]

oezi 2y ago

Certainly, I find it ridiculous that new immigrants need to give a pledge that existing locals don't have to give. On the other hand, I don't think any of this pertains to Free Speech. Free Speech just means that you aren't oppressed to say certain things. Like all rights, also the Freedom of Speech has its boundaries. Slander for example. Germany applies certain sensible restrictions on speech and that's it. That's not negative. Free speech absolutists just like to have no strings attached, but this isn't what holds societies together.

mariusor 2y ago
> Free Speech just means that you aren't oppressed to say certain things Forgive me for dramatizing, but I fail to see how being rejected for citizenship as a refugee coming from the Palestinian territories because you can't bring yourself to say your life long enemy is implied to have the right to oppress you and your family is anything but pertaining to Free Speech. When governments demand people (any people) say things (any things) for a purpose (any purpose), that is an infringement of their freedom of speech. I can understand you disagree with that, but for me it's very obvious.
- oezi 2y ago
  a.) As a refugee you don't have to become a German citizen. Governments obviously can (must!) ask you to answer (truthfully) in many situations. Just think of taxation. This isn't infringement of freedom of speech. b.) As a Palestinian you aren't forced by Germans to say Israel can oppress you. You are asked to agree that Israelis have a right to life too (as any human actually has).
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]