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 <no_email@invalid.invalid>
References: <20240522125702.0000756a@example.com>
 <v2obln$1ubc9$1@dont-email.me>
 <atropos-34D386.15435423052024@news.giganews.com>
 <v2ou1v$24ted$1@dont-email.me>
 <U3CdnSvI9LTfnM37nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <v2q9me$2ce49$1@dont-email.me>
 <atropos-0395EB.11531224052024@news.giganews.com>
 <v2qqf5$2fc26$1@dont-email.me>
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 <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
> On 5/24/2024 2:53 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> In article <v2q9me$2ce49$1@dont-email.me>,
>> moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 5/23/2024 10:53 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>> On May 23, 2024 at 7:29:19 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> 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.