> In its press release, the BKA said that the operation carried out this week aims to combat a "strong rise in verbal radicalism."
Raiding homes of people posting stupid private shit on the internet is also great way to get more physical radicalism.
Raiding homes of people posting stupid private shit on the internet is also great way to get more physical radicalism.
Laws that stop this kind of "expression" have existed in Germany a while now, for historical reasons.
From the article, "Attacks on refugees are often the result of radicalization, which begins on social networks."
You don't restrict rights based on how others respond to people exercising those rights.
Meanwhile: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/15/angela-merkel-...
edit: citing the decision to allow prosecution of Böhmermann reveals how little you understand the German legal system. The article is misleading at best and not covering the legal grounds and background correctly at all.
If I am parsing what you wrote correctly then you are asking me to draw a distinction between different types of speech which should be allowed under law.
I don't believe any should be restricted. That includes the classic "shouting `fire' in a crowded theatre" or making threats to someone. Certainly in both cases if actual physical or financial harm results then the speaker can be deemed to have caused harm and measures taken against them. But the outlawing and punishment of the act of speech in and of itself is illogical.
In effect hate speech and other laws conflate locution, illocution and perlocution[1].
The effect on the discussion of ideas (e.g. the criticism of Erdogan) in a democracy strike me as obvious, so I won't go into them further.
At least for me, this makes a difference.
edit: I am going out on a limb here, but I thought exactly this was one of the purposes of RICO. Telling someone to commit a crime in a formed group is a crime and not free speech. I am a total amateur in US criminal code, is this understanding correct?
This even goes all the way back to the concept of "assault" in anglo-saxon legal traditions[1] (which is the simple threat part of the pair "assault and battery". Many of us use "assault" to mean a physical attack, but it seems originally to be simply causing someone to fear.)
Again, though, you are arguing that because something is the law then that in itself makes it moral and useful.
Those who make slippery-slope arguments about the vesting of power in the state seem increasingly persuasive when we see the turning of the act of speaking into a crime itself. For further examples of "European" countries which illustrate the dangers you could look at Ireland's blasphemy laws which still stand.
I am not interested in the personalization of the argument or grounding it in lived experience of any sort.
Objectively the system which you extoll results in censorship, in this case of criticism of a near-dictator involved in genocide against the Kurdish people.
I believe that enabling a state to censor what people can say is dangerous to democracy. I think this is adequately demonstrated through numerous historical and current examples.
Your statement of "tolerance" is meaningless because you will be unaware of other viewpoints of which you must be tolerant when they are censored.
Ironically as this discussion is deemed offensive to the moderators of HN this entire discussion has been effaced.
I have the feeling you are just cherry picking this to troll on and not interested in talking about the different dogmatics of legal systems. I didn't want to personalize the discussion, just replace "you" and "me" with "any person from your belief system" and "any person from my belief system". It looks to me that you are not interested in thinking about other people's opinion and/or belief system. Now THAT was a personal remark.
Really? So, you can't see the link between the German state's power to choose which speech acts can be punished and the punishing of someone for speech acts?
You cannot see the link between the Turkish bombing and starving of the Kurdish people and the historical assaults by your own country on minority populations?
I am not going to reply any more to you as you have descended to personalized abuse, but I will close with thanking you for illustrating exactly why the policing of free speech can never be allowed: there are too many people like you who are incapable of exercising tolerance and rationality, and once a lever of power and control is in your hands you will pull it.
Thank you, and god bless the USA.
I'll pose my earlier question with a different group--how would you feel were this being done to conservative Christians or Muslims? Both groups express misinformation and sometimes call for restrictions on others (covering women in public, treatment of homosexuals, this sort of thing).
We can't get everyone to get along. However, we can seek to eliminate state powers that are ripe for abuse.
No, that's not an accident. It's an evolutionary necessity: https://www.myind.net/tolerance-intolerance-and-game-theory
I am unfamiliar with German law, so if you would like to educate me on the nuances of the charge, I would appreciate it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volksverhetzung
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strafgesetzbuch_section_86a
Specifics are hard to judge without the actual content and context of the posts, this stuff keeps courts busy.
There are BTW other "Äußerungsdelikte" (statement offenses, free translation), like slander and deformation. All these are based on the human right that no harm should be inflicted on you because somebody says something wrong about you (in a very simplistic way, you normally would have a lots of hours of law lectures just on this offenses, their reasoning and distinction).
Exactly. This is like how posting negative things about the communist party leadership in a wechat group can get your house raided. Break the law, and police might show up.