Turkey tries to have a German comedian locked up–in Germany
economist.com
economist.com
This case has created quite a media hype in Germany though, with comedians trying to top each other in violating this law now -- not sure if that's what Erdogan intended... "Nichtlustig" for example: https://www.facebook.com/NICHTLUSTIG/photos/a.186737799993.1...
German here:
The dude didn't do satire. He straight-up went on a tirade of insults against Erdogan in a way that contained literally zero satire (i.e. criticism by exaggeration), and was found funny by approximately nobody.
He even declared he knew that what he was doing is illegal but he isn't actually doing it and only reading the "poem" as an "example".
It is obvious to basically everyone here that what he did was roughly equivalent to saying:
"I know it is illegal to call for all people with black skin to be murdered, for example with a speech that would roughly go like this: <insert 5 minutes of hate speech calling for the aforementioned> But what i did is different, see, since this is only an example!"
There are very few germans who're actually opposed to having Böhmermann be hit with the full legal force, since:
Our very first law states that the human dignity shall be inviolable. This means insulting someone without actually engaging in satire can be countered with a law suit, usually punishable with fines. Insulting a high-ranking foreigner representing their nation elevates the punishment to possibly a few years of jail, since suddenly that person is playing with the fate of the rest of Germany while also violating a person's dignity.
P.S. Also, what exactly is the difference between the content of the article and your statement except for your added sentiment?
As for that law: Böhmermann could still be sued without it, just not have to worry about a jail sentence. And frankly, i prefer that over having Erdogan express his anger towards Germany differently, which is the whole reason this law exists.
If you disagree with the premise of my question and think i asked the same question, then it's fine for you to state that and have a dialogue on that point.
However pretending to answer my question, yet actually answering a completely different question is just very dishonest.
If Erdogan hadn't acted like a huge dick there wouldn't have been a need to insult him.
So why should Germany censor itself just because Erdogan is a whiny little cunt?
I'll insult whom I please, in public. If I have a job in the media, and that isn't part of my job, I may get fired for it (free speech does not mean that my employer has to give me a platform). Also, others may view me negatively. Other than that, I'll say what I please without fear of consequences.
Is it viewed as a bug or as a feature that a normal citizen can, in the framework of this thinking here, anoint themselves a kind of 'ambassador' for Germany and potentially have real foreign policy and diplomatic impact? And by the way, if that be so, would it not be reasonable to lodge a flurry of protests with the Erdogan's government in response to whatever random hooligans on the streets of Izmir say about Germany or Merkel?
Perhaps a reasonable compromise would be to hold highly conspicuous or famous people making statements in broadcast media to a different standard than ordinary citizens who merely face the chance of accidentally ending up on camera.
As for the questions: With or without the law, someone insulting a foreign dignitary on national TV can have serious diplomatic effects. It's just reality.
As for the second question: In two parts: Insulting the country is not covered by the german law, only direct persons. Further, if Merkel were insulted by whatever a turkish citizen is saying and Turkey has a law allowing her to sue those, then she could do it. If there isn't such a law she'd need to find other ways to deal with her anger if she has any such.
Or am I coming at this from a presumptuous vantage point of Anglo-American jurisprudence and missing some subtlety of German law?
We'd better be very careful what we say about Kim Il Sung in Germany then! Ergodan seems to be running along the same track albeit with some way to go; luckily I'm not German or I'm in trouble.
So according to my anecdotal evidence you are actually in the minority with wanting this law enforced.
So how does this difference in our observations come from? Are you from the south or east, where people are typically more conservative? I'm from the north west.
Yeah of course, communism doesn't go well with religion.
> responsibility, being honest and valuing politeness
Sorry but it sounds more like an upbringing that make you very conformist. Upholding a law that should have been abolished years ago just because it's a law actually delegates personal responsibility away to a book.
Haha, honestly, sounds like we just differ very fundamentally. There's basically nothing i agree with in how you communicate or what you communicate, so we'll just have to agree to disagree.
However the authoritarian totalitarianism practiced by the DDR was completely unacceptable.
It's the same totalitarian attitude of Erdogan (the guy that also funded ISIS and attacked socialist kurds btw) that requires us to resist with everything we have.
And if it means binding his resources and attention with childish insults, then be it so.
Can you back up your claims with numbers?
Kids in the Hall: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEQOvyGbBtY
this kind of hyperbole is just plain ridiculous.
Is that the punchline?