Path: ...!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: Sun, 26 May 2024 16:02:58 -0400 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 73 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: Sun, 26 May 2024 22:02:59 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="878f2a07ab5067ab83a300a16eb6a445"; logging-data="3733555"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/oXlhxoHtAiNkFSO7tja3W+ZjcPKJAWKY=" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:jWBBi4GSPBPZrW/A8eKfoOw0JkU= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Bytes: 4424 On 5/26/2024 2:47 PM, BTR1701 wrote: > 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. He's a paid civil servant, who might later have joined in her protest.