Path: ...!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-1.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 24 May 2024 23:40:02 +0000 User-Agent: NewsTap/5.3.5 (iPhone/iPod Touch) Cancel-Lock: sha1:O309nFECNS/s0WOhB/SdHgufosY= Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv Subject: Re: [OT] German politician successfully prosecuted for telling the truth Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: BTR1701 References: <20240522125702.0000756a@example.com> Message-ID: <27mdnRWJm93PuMz7nZ2dnZfqnPidnZ2d@giganews.com> Date: Fri, 24 May 2024 23:40:02 +0000 Lines: 46 X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com X-Trace: sv3-4JAT81h2de+/RQWSTrcSmBwu0boss8lVymH2/dBvWabu/PWateS4XikATb/t95MzQ7qgFQQOhEkVdHB!vpT+8InRfsG/sJ+JTYvJxU/qxiB32A9A+vlP3iVINanY3j8KwLxqVBks2orDN5XmZ2b+bJMo/g== 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: 3390 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.