Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: moviePig Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv Subject: Re: [OT] German politician successfully prosecuted for telling the truth Date: Fri, 24 May 2024 22:34:05 -0400 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 52 Message-ID: References: <20240522125702.0000756a@example.com> <27mdnRWJm93PuMz7nZ2dnZfqnPidnZ2d@giganews.com> Reply-To: nobody@nowhere.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Sat, 25 May 2024 04:34:06 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="d86b73f8b7f19a8826d703fa6e7b0314"; logging-data="2851675"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+HOVqkpkgHcO2UymKfNb6vku1i1TbT5Jc=" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:FaP8Fxd3qh1kyN/HWrwEZ+74JPw= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <27mdnRWJm93PuMz7nZ2dnZfqnPidnZ2d@giganews.com> Bytes: 3619 On 5/24/2024 7:40 PM, BTR1701 wrote: > moviePig wrote: >> On 5/24/2024 2:53 PM, BTR1701 wrote: >>> In article , >>> moviePig wrote: >>> >>>> On 5/23/2024 10:53 PM, BTR1701 wrote: >>>>> On May 23, 2024 at 7:29:19 PM PDT, "moviePig" wrote: >>> >>>>>>>> So, if you mean to defend against this "incitement of hatred" >>>>>>>> charge, you'll have to argue either that the very concept is >>>>>>>> unconstitutional >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Well, we're talking about Germany here not America, so 'unconstitutional' >>>>>>> isn't on the table, but yes, if this kind of law were to be passed here, >>>>>>> it would absolutely without question be unconstitutional. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> or that there's no valid reason it applies here. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There's no valid reason it should apply anywhere. >>>>>> >>>>>> Yet "incitement to hate" is a thing you recognize and deplore. (Isn't >>>>>> it?) >>>>> >>>>> No. >>>> >>>> Then I venture that you're purer than most. How do you characterize, >>>> e.g., a speech alleging that Jews drink the blood of infants? Isn't >>>> there a key difference to saying, e.g., Jews are Martians? >>> >>> Cattle can be incited to action. >>> >>> Humans are responsible for their own actions. You don't get to duck >>> responsibility for rioting or hating or whatever by claiming someone >>> incited you and you became a mindless automaton incapable of independent >>> thought or action. >>> >>> If you're hating, it's because you chose to, not because someone incited >>> you. >> >> This isn't about responsibility for an action, or even for hate. It's >> about whether "incitement to hate" -- regardless of whether anyone's >> thus incited -- is a recognizable concept we can generally identify. > > No. As I said, people are responsible for their own actions. And 'hate' > isn't an action anyway. It's a thought or an emotion, two things the state > has no business regulating in the first place. What people do or feel is irrelevant. The crime that'd be alleged by "incitement to hate" is what you *tried* to have them do or feel.