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: Thu, 23 May 2024 22:29:19 -0400 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 58 Message-ID: References: <20240522125702.0000756a@example.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: Fri, 24 May 2024 04:29:20 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="e9250a95934dfcf62d9d60a7824d3f11"; logging-data="2258381"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/BsPSru/aGw64TlDBMJEH07Fcj1f2sp2g=" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:sLWmsvgomAd8rBUbUQmd4mTy6Oc= In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 3792 On 5/23/2024 6:43 PM, BTR1701 wrote: > In article , > moviePig wrote: > >> On 5/23/2024 4:35 PM, BTR1701 wrote: >>> In article , >>> moviePig wrote: >>> >>>> On 5/23/2024 2:38 PM, BTR1701 wrote: >>>>> In article , >>>>> moviePig wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 5/22/2024 12:57 PM, Rhino wrote: >>>>>>> Once again, Leo Kearse hits it out of the park: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5uW1Htq7XU [10 minutes] >>>>>> >>>>>> I listened to enough to hear the claim that truth is a defense >>>>>> against a charge of "incitement to hatred" ...which, obviously, >>>>>> it isn't. >>>>> >>>>> As I said, the truth is now illegal. >>>>> >>>>> But neither should citing the government's own crime statistics in a >>>>> discussion about public policy be considered "incitement to hatred" >>>>> merely because it undermines the government's immigration agenda. >>>> >>>> As I said, an "incitement to hatred" needn't carry any lie. >>> >>> And expanding on what I said, if you make truth illegal because you've >>> created circumstances that allow you to claim it leads to some nebulous >>> concept of 'hatred', then you've successfully muzzled all political >>> opposition and have created a dictatorial society where anyone who >>> speaks against you is criminalized. >>> >>> And this all comes from the people who are constantly bleating about >>> the need to "protect muh democracy!" >> >> There are enough laws, rules, regulations, and statutes in the world to >> allow anyone to be prosecuted for (or exonerated of) anything. The >> ultimate trial arena is always in the mind of the ultimate presiding >> judge. 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?) How is its subjectivity different from that of pornography?