Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: FPP Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv Subject: Re: [OT] German politician successfully prosecuted for telling the truth Date: Sat, 25 May 2024 09:45:57 -0400 Organization: Ph'nglui Mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh Wgah'nagl Fhtagn. Lines: 73 Message-ID: References: <20240522125702.0000756a@example.com> <27mdnRWJm93PuMz7nZ2dnZfqnPidnZ2d@giganews.com> Reply-To: fredp1571@gmail.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sat, 25 May 2024 15:45:57 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="2d7385a8a8d8abab23f5ff855412568d"; logging-data="3053620"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+0UNx6m7Oy5Apm0or4UxGZ" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.0 Cancel-Lock: sha1:f4taG0raiFirEzufcMw34/BFdWY= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Bytes: 4439 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. You're supposed to be a lawyer. -- "Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man’s mind." - OC Bible 25B.G. https://www.dropbox.com/s/ek8kap93bmk0q5w/D%20U%20N%20E%20Part%20II.jpg?dl=0 Gracie, age 6. https://www.dropbox.com/s/0es3xolxka455iw/BetterThingsToDo.jpg?dl=0