5 ms·

That does not compute.

raincole 8mo ago
It computes quite well. > It was a 2021 case involving Andy Grote, a local politician, that captured the country's attention. Grote complained about a tweet that called him a "pimmel," a German word for the male anatomy. His complaint triggered a police raid and accusations of excessive censorship by the government. A police raid for calling a politician a dick. Let it sink. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/germany-online-hate-speech-prosecution-60-minutes/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/germany-online-hate-speech-pros...
- beachy 8mo ago
  A little bit like a country's leader calling for the death penalty for a decorated pilot and astronaut who reminded service members of their duty to reject unlawful orders.
  - asgeesg 8mo ago
    [dead]
- generic92034 8mo ago
  That was a overall very rarely occurring abuse of power of a politician in charge of leading local law enforcement. It was declared illegal later. And you take that as a proof for what about the whole of Germany?
  - raincole 8mo ago
    > His unit has successfully prosecuted about 750 hate speech cases over the last four years. It's just one of the sixteen units that prosecute 'hate speech' cases in Germany. Oh, by the way, the Chancellor himself is calling to demolish online anonymity completely: https://dpa-international.com/politics/urn:newsml:dpa.com:20090101:260218-99-569905/ https://dpa-international.com/politics/urn:newsml:dpa.com:20... But sure, abuse of power is so rare. Nothing to see here.
    - ben_w 8mo ago
      > > His unit has successfully prosecuted about 750 hate speech cases over the last four years. > But sure, abuse of power is so rare. Nothing to see here. This would make your point if those hate speech cases were all the same as your Andy Grote example. Otherwise it's like pointing at one defendant winning a road traffic law case due to dashcam footage showing the police were making things up, as evidence that all road traffic law prosecutions are abusing power.
    - shafyy 8mo ago
      The current chancellor is also a right-conservative jabroni, so don't equate what he demands to what the German people want.
      - rrr_oh_man 8mo ago
        > so don't equate what he demands to what the German people want The German people elected the parliament. The parliament elected Merz. The margin was narrow, but that was the decision.
        shafyy 8mo ago
        That does not mean that everything the chancellor says or does is something that the majority of the people would stand behind, does it?
  - Podrod 8mo ago
    Not just for Germany but apparently for the entire continent of Europe!
  - joe_mamba 8mo ago
    >It was declared illegal later. You're missing the point. That's exactly how democratic governments cloak fascist behavior everywhere: The punishment IS THE PROCESS. People in Germany (and the UK and other places) have to self censor because they don't want to be visited by the police and then dragged through courts for months/years, even though it eventually gets thrown out and you get to walk away innocent, you still had to suffer the entire prosecution process, which nobody wants to, so they keep their mouth shut. The stress toll of having to go through all that annoying grind through the legal system, even though you did nothing wrong and what the government is doing will be considered illegal, is how the government preemptively keeps people in line. >That was a overall very rarely occurring abuse of power Very rare?! Unless there's direct consequences with actual punishment on government officials for illegally abusing the legal system on citizens just because they hear stuff they don't like, then they will keep throwing prosecutions at innocent people just to keep them in check since currently they have nothing stopping them from this abuse turning from rare to being the norm.
    - rrr_oh_man 8mo ago
      > You're missing the point. That's how democratic governments masquerade fascist behavior: The punishment IS THE PROCESS. YES.
    - generic92034 8mo ago
      Except for the Grote case you can very well criticize politicians, even in somewhat questionable language without LE raiding your home. That one case was an exception. Just look at any political thread in any social media in German language. There is plenty of criticism or even insults regarding government officials, without them getting raided. It is only extreme cases (often with calls for violence) which trigger LE. So the chilling effect is missing or at least it has little influence.
    - proctorg76 8mo ago
      We have a name for this, "You can beat the rap but you can't beat the ride"
- eagleal 8mo ago
  In Italy there's a politician named Gasparri who has made a career (30+ years) of barring himself behind Parlamentary immunity and insulting on citizens/journalists. When they respond he sues them for libel or similar asking moral damages.
- deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]
lucasRW 8mo ago
It does. That's why GrapheneOS left France; Signal is considering doing so to if ChatControl passes. Von Der Leyen and Breton clearly mentioned the possibility of banning X. And there are many other "signals". But yeah we get it, there's bad censorhip (Iran, China, Russia), and there is the good censorhip, sorry, i meant "protection of children", when it's the EU. :o)
- mapontosevenths 8mo ago
  > there's bad censorhip (Iran, China, Russia), and there is the good censorhip I understand that you're being facetious here, but this is literally true. Words kill people sometimes, and in the same way that my right to swing my arm stops where your nose begins your right to say whatever you want stops where my safety begins. Or to rephrase it, nobody can have free speech at all if others are allowed to threaten your health and safety for it, which automatically implies that violent and hateful speech must be curtailed. It is a variation on the paradox of tolerance. Yes, there is room to debate exactly where the line is, but the fact that there is a line is fairly well settled except amongst the rabid.
  - frumplestlatz 8mo ago
    You’re advocating for a censorship regime that would put me in jail for words that you happen to think are dangerous. Ergo, your words threaten my safety.
    - mapontosevenths 8mo ago
      Google the paradox of tolerance. Essentially the only thing that cant be tolerated is intolerance.
      - Aerroon 8mo ago
        >"[...] But we should claim the right to suppress them [intolerant ideologies] if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols." The paradox of tolerance is not about censoring others. If anything, censorship lands on the side of the intolerant of this paradox.

It computes quite well. > It was a 2021 case involving Andy Grote, a local politician, that captured the country's attention. Grote complained about a tweet that called him a "pimmel," a German word for the male anatomy. His complaint triggered a police raid and accusations of excessive censorship by the government. A police raid for calling a politician a dick. Let it sink. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/germany-online-hate-speech-prosecution-60-minutes/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/germany-online-hate-speech-pros...

beachy 8mo ago
A little bit like a country's leader calling for the death penalty for a decorated pilot and astronaut who reminded service members of their duty to reject unlawful orders.
- asgeesg 8mo ago
  [dead]
generic92034 8mo ago
That was a overall very rarely occurring abuse of power of a politician in charge of leading local law enforcement. It was declared illegal later. And you take that as a proof for what about the whole of Germany?
- raincole 8mo ago
  > His unit has successfully prosecuted about 750 hate speech cases over the last four years. It's just one of the sixteen units that prosecute 'hate speech' cases in Germany. Oh, by the way, the Chancellor himself is calling to demolish online anonymity completely: https://dpa-international.com/politics/urn:newsml:dpa.com:20090101:260218-99-569905/ https://dpa-international.com/politics/urn:newsml:dpa.com:20... But sure, abuse of power is so rare. Nothing to see here.
  - ben_w 8mo ago
    > > His unit has successfully prosecuted about 750 hate speech cases over the last four years. > But sure, abuse of power is so rare. Nothing to see here. This would make your point if those hate speech cases were all the same as your Andy Grote example. Otherwise it's like pointing at one defendant winning a road traffic law case due to dashcam footage showing the police were making things up, as evidence that all road traffic law prosecutions are abusing power.
  - shafyy 8mo ago
    The current chancellor is also a right-conservative jabroni, so don't equate what he demands to what the German people want.
    - rrr_oh_man 8mo ago
      > so don't equate what he demands to what the German people want The German people elected the parliament. The parliament elected Merz. The margin was narrow, but that was the decision.
      - shafyy 8mo ago
        That does not mean that everything the chancellor says or does is something that the majority of the people would stand behind, does it?
- Podrod 8mo ago
  Not just for Germany but apparently for the entire continent of Europe!
- joe_mamba 8mo ago
  >It was declared illegal later. You're missing the point. That's exactly how democratic governments cloak fascist behavior everywhere: The punishment IS THE PROCESS. People in Germany (and the UK and other places) have to self censor because they don't want to be visited by the police and then dragged through courts for months/years, even though it eventually gets thrown out and you get to walk away innocent, you still had to suffer the entire prosecution process, which nobody wants to, so they keep their mouth shut. The stress toll of having to go through all that annoying grind through the legal system, even though you did nothing wrong and what the government is doing will be considered illegal, is how the government preemptively keeps people in line. >That was a overall very rarely occurring abuse of power Very rare?! Unless there's direct consequences with actual punishment on government officials for illegally abusing the legal system on citizens just because they hear stuff they don't like, then they will keep throwing prosecutions at innocent people just to keep them in check since currently they have nothing stopping them from this abuse turning from rare to being the norm.
  - rrr_oh_man 8mo ago
    > You're missing the point. That's how democratic governments masquerade fascist behavior: The punishment IS THE PROCESS. YES.
  - generic92034 8mo ago
    Except for the Grote case you can very well criticize politicians, even in somewhat questionable language without LE raiding your home. That one case was an exception. Just look at any political thread in any social media in German language. There is plenty of criticism or even insults regarding government officials, without them getting raided. It is only extreme cases (often with calls for violence) which trigger LE. So the chilling effect is missing or at least it has little influence.
  - proctorg76 8mo ago
    We have a name for this, "You can beat the rap but you can't beat the ride"
eagleal 8mo ago
In Italy there's a politician named Gasparri who has made a career (30+ years) of barring himself behind Parlamentary immunity and insulting on citizens/journalists. When they respond he sues them for libel or similar asking moral damages.
deleted 8mo ago
[deleted]

lucasRW 8mo ago

It does. That's why GrapheneOS left France; Signal is considering doing so to if ChatControl passes. Von Der Leyen and Breton clearly mentioned the possibility of banning X. And there are many other "signals". But yeah we get it, there's bad censorhip (Iran, China, Russia), and there is the good censorhip, sorry, i meant "protection of children", when it's the EU. :o)

mapontosevenths 8mo ago
> there's bad censorhip (Iran, China, Russia), and there is the good censorhip I understand that you're being facetious here, but this is literally true. Words kill people sometimes, and in the same way that my right to swing my arm stops where your nose begins your right to say whatever you want stops where my safety begins. Or to rephrase it, nobody can have free speech at all if others are allowed to threaten your health and safety for it, which automatically implies that violent and hateful speech must be curtailed. It is a variation on the paradox of tolerance. Yes, there is room to debate exactly where the line is, but the fact that there is a line is fairly well settled except amongst the rabid.
- frumplestlatz 8mo ago
  You’re advocating for a censorship regime that would put me in jail for words that you happen to think are dangerous. Ergo, your words threaten my safety.
  - mapontosevenths 8mo ago
    Google the paradox of tolerance. Essentially the only thing that cant be tolerated is intolerance.
    - Aerroon 8mo ago
      >"[...] But we should claim the right to suppress them [intolerant ideologies] if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols." The paradox of tolerance is not about censoring others. If anything, censorship lands on the side of the intolerant of this paradox.