Path: ...!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-2.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 26 May 2024 18:38:28 +0000 From: BTR1701 Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv Subject: Re: [OT] German politician successfully prosecuted for telling the truth References: <20240522125702.0000756a@example.com> <27mdnRWJm93PuMz7nZ2dnZfqnPidnZ2d@giganews.com> User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.3b3 (Intel Mac OS X) Date: Sun, 26 May 2024 11:47:45 -0700 Message-ID: Lines: 68 X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com X-Trace: sv3-vqU4zX5xmXJDdygJEH/oJuD6uolhiA1fBqvuMoRITyzrHNA2Dk+NybuFlc9iqaDyoNhLi83tYsGws7x!N9+BvO0E/xCQuUddrIOsOBY9LjQYJWVUgKEOgtPa8lzjZHg6P+Za/Au3sVPGf7pMIuQa8Ra50MCj!WJ4= X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.40 Bytes: 4152 In article , FPP wrote: > On 5/25/24 12:00 AM, BTR1701 wrote: > > On May 24, 2024 at 7:34:05 PM PDT, "moviePig" wrote: > > > >> 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. > > > > Well, that would be the only crime in legal history where the attempt is > > punishable but actually completing the crime is not. > > > > The legal dystopia you'd create if you were in charge is stupefying. > So what? It's the law. I don't care what it WOULD be... it's on the books. Said the bus driver to Rosa Parks.