4 ms·

source?

mzhaase 1y ago
https://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/nancy-faeser-afd-naher-journalist-david-bendels-wegen-verleumdung-zu-freiheitsstrafe-verurteilt-a-87085d7d-53c3-4a72-ba14-1a31e43a58f8 https://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/nancy-faeser-afd-...
doublerabbit 1y ago
https://x.com/M_Simonyan/status/1909968556332097681 https://x.com/M_Simonyan/status/1909968556332097681
xvokcarts 1y ago
The UK folks don't seem to feel so free to say stuff either: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/704467 https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/704467
graemep 1y ago
I do not know about that but people have had police raids for calling the head of the german Green Party an idiot: https://www.ft.com/content/27626fa8-3379-4b69-891d-379401675942 https://www.ft.com/content/27626fa8-3379-4b69-891d-379401675... The Online Safety Act in the UK has been discussed here before and it is part of a general trend to prevent "harmful" speech including specifically "legal but harmful speech".
- InsideOutSanta 1y ago
  After the man posted the image, Robert Habeck (the politician in question) made a criminal complaint. When the Criminal Police investigated the case, they found additional evidence against the man, which prompted the search. His house was not searched for calling Habeck an idiot, but calling him an idiot triggered the investigation, which triggered the search.
  - graemep 1y ago
    The politician in question has filed more than 700 criminal complaints about what people have said about him: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Habeck#Hate_crimes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Habeck#Hate_crimes Also, AFAIK while calling him an idiot might not be the direct reason for the raid, it is a crome in itself, right?
    - InsideOutSanta 1y ago
      >The politician in question has filed more than 700 criminal complaints about what people have said about him I'm not sure why that matters in the context of this discussion. He is free to file as many criminal complaints as he wants, no? Living in a free society means that idiots can do idiotic things like filing 700 criminal complaints.
      - graemep 1y ago
        The problem is that merely insulting someone can be a crime at all so he not just being idiotic. Those complaints lead to investigations: https://www.dw.com/en/germany-greens-habeck-presses-charges-over-online-insult/a-70793557 https://www.dw.com/en/germany-greens-habeck-presses-charges-... (scroll down to explanation). its not the only European country where this is possible, at least in theory: https://www.politico.eu/article/european-countries-where-insulting-head-of-state-can-land-prison-belgium-denmark-france-germany/ https://www.politico.eu/article/european-countries-where-ins...
        InsideOutSanta 1y ago
        >The problem is that merely insulting someone can be a crime at all I disagree that this is a problem per se. Pretty much all jurisdictions across the world have laws like that. It really depends on how exactly the law is implemented. In fact, American libel and defamation laws are, in some ways, more problematic than many European ones simply because of how the legal system works. If you are sued in a place with no SLAPP laws, the mere lawsuit can be so expensive that it can have a chilling effect on free speech, even if the defendant ultimately wins the case. (I do agree that laws singling out politicians are stupid.)
InsideOutSanta 1y ago
It's a defamation case. Journalist David Bendels posted a doctored picture of politician Nancy Faeser holding up a sign saying, "Ich hasse die Meinungsfreiheit" ("I hate freedom of speech"). Faeser filed criminal charges against Bendels for "üble Nachrede und Verleumdung" (defamation). Bendels was sentenced to a 7 months suspended sentence and a fine of 1500 Euros, has to remove the image and apologize to Faeser. Bendels will appeal the decision. I'm going to guess that this will be overturned on appeal. Every country has stupid courts that make bad decisions. I think this is kind of an edge case between satire and defamation, since Bendels is ostensibly a real journalist who reports on real facts—it seems odd to me that he would publish doctored pictures. Still, I think this will lean towards satire in the end, since I don't think most reasonable people would assume the picture of Faeser was real. You can read about it here (German): https://www.faz.net/aktuell/feuilleton/nancy-faeser-erwirkt-urteil-gegen-deutschland-kurier-chef-david-bendels-110409959.html https://www.faz.net/aktuell/feuilleton/nancy-faeser-erwirkt-...
- croes 1y ago
  He just had to clarify is was doctored before he posted it, so it seemed like a real picture, that's defamation.
  - sadeshmukh 1y ago
    Having to clarify satire ruins its point. In a case against a man who creatd a fake Facebook page of his police department and was subsequently raided, the Onion submitted this amicus brief: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-293/242292/20221003125252896_35295545_1-22.10.03%20-%20Novak-Parma%20-%20Onion%20Amicus%20Brief.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-293/242292/2022... It's really quite interesting to read at some point, but I believe that nobody should have to "clarify it was doctored". Because that image was also very obviously fake - it's literally a meme template, and nobody should be prosecuted for that. I do have to question your judgement if you believe that is real.
    - croes 1y ago
      It’s not my judgment in question, it’s the journalist‘s target audience’s. They believe those things because they don’t see it obviously fake. Obviously is highly subjective. There is a reason why satire accounts have to clearly state they are satire and why things like /s exist. The judge came to the conclusion it wasn’t obvious.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

source?

https://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/nancy-faeser-afd-naher-journalist-david-bendels-wegen-verleumdung-zu-freiheitsstrafe-verurteilt-a-87085d7d-53c3-4a72-ba14-1a31e43a58f8 https://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/nancy-faeser-afd-...

doublerabbit 1y ago

https://x.com/M_Simonyan/status/1909968556332097681 https://x.com/M_Simonyan/status/1909968556332097681

xvokcarts 1y ago

The UK folks don't seem to feel so free to say stuff either: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/704467 https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/704467

graemep 1y ago

I do not know about that but people have had police raids for calling the head of the german Green Party an idiot: https://www.ft.com/content/27626fa8-3379-4b69-891d-379401675942 https://www.ft.com/content/27626fa8-3379-4b69-891d-379401675... The Online Safety Act in the UK has been discussed here before and it is part of a general trend to prevent "harmful" speech including specifically "legal but harmful speech".

InsideOutSanta 1y ago
After the man posted the image, Robert Habeck (the politician in question) made a criminal complaint. When the Criminal Police investigated the case, they found additional evidence against the man, which prompted the search. His house was not searched for calling Habeck an idiot, but calling him an idiot triggered the investigation, which triggered the search.
- graemep 1y ago
  The politician in question has filed more than 700 criminal complaints about what people have said about him: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Habeck#Hate_crimes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Habeck#Hate_crimes Also, AFAIK while calling him an idiot might not be the direct reason for the raid, it is a crome in itself, right?
  - InsideOutSanta 1y ago
    >The politician in question has filed more than 700 criminal complaints about what people have said about him I'm not sure why that matters in the context of this discussion. He is free to file as many criminal complaints as he wants, no? Living in a free society means that idiots can do idiotic things like filing 700 criminal complaints.
    - graemep 1y ago
      The problem is that merely insulting someone can be a crime at all so he not just being idiotic. Those complaints lead to investigations: https://www.dw.com/en/germany-greens-habeck-presses-charges-over-online-insult/a-70793557 https://www.dw.com/en/germany-greens-habeck-presses-charges-... (scroll down to explanation). its not the only European country where this is possible, at least in theory: https://www.politico.eu/article/european-countries-where-insulting-head-of-state-can-land-prison-belgium-denmark-france-germany/ https://www.politico.eu/article/european-countries-where-ins...
      - InsideOutSanta 1y ago
        >The problem is that merely insulting someone can be a crime at all I disagree that this is a problem per se. Pretty much all jurisdictions across the world have laws like that. It really depends on how exactly the law is implemented. In fact, American libel and defamation laws are, in some ways, more problematic than many European ones simply because of how the legal system works. If you are sued in a place with no SLAPP laws, the mere lawsuit can be so expensive that it can have a chilling effect on free speech, even if the defendant ultimately wins the case. (I do agree that laws singling out politicians are stupid.)

InsideOutSanta 1y ago

It's a defamation case. Journalist David Bendels posted a doctored picture of politician Nancy Faeser holding up a sign saying, "Ich hasse die Meinungsfreiheit" ("I hate freedom of speech"). Faeser filed criminal charges against Bendels for "üble Nachrede und Verleumdung" (defamation). Bendels was sentenced to a 7 months suspended sentence and a fine of 1500 Euros, has to remove the image and apologize to Faeser. Bendels will appeal the decision. I'm going to guess that this will be overturned on appeal. Every country has stupid courts that make bad decisions. I think this is kind of an edge case between satire and defamation, since Bendels is ostensibly a real journalist who reports on real facts—it seems odd to me that he would publish doctored pictures. Still, I think this will lean towards satire in the end, since I don't think most reasonable people would assume the picture of Faeser was real. You can read about it here (German): https://www.faz.net/aktuell/feuilleton/nancy-faeser-erwirkt-urteil-gegen-deutschland-kurier-chef-david-bendels-110409959.html https://www.faz.net/aktuell/feuilleton/nancy-faeser-erwirkt-...

croes 1y ago
He just had to clarify is was doctored before he posted it, so it seemed like a real picture, that's defamation.
- sadeshmukh 1y ago
  Having to clarify satire ruins its point. In a case against a man who creatd a fake Facebook page of his police department and was subsequently raided, the Onion submitted this amicus brief: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-293/242292/20221003125252896_35295545_1-22.10.03%20-%20Novak-Parma%20-%20Onion%20Amicus%20Brief.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-293/242292/2022... It's really quite interesting to read at some point, but I believe that nobody should have to "clarify it was doctored". Because that image was also very obviously fake - it's literally a meme template, and nobody should be prosecuted for that. I do have to question your judgement if you believe that is real.
  - croes 1y ago
    It’s not my judgment in question, it’s the journalist‘s target audience’s. They believe those things because they don’t see it obviously fake. Obviously is highly subjective. There is a reason why satire accounts have to clearly state they are satire and why things like /s exist. The judge came to the conclusion it wasn’t obvious.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]