Path: ...!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-2.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 25 May 2024 04:00:06 +0000
From: BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: [OT] German politician successfully prosecuted for telling the truth
References: <20240522125702.0000756a@example.com> <v2qqf5$2fc26$1@dont-email.me> <27mdnRWJm93PuMz7nZ2dnZfqnPidnZ2d@giganews.com> <v2rimu$2n0qr$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=fixed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
User-Agent: Usenapp/0.92.2/l for MacOS
Message-ID: <PLqcnZv4l5nb_8z7nZ2dnZfqn_GdnZ2d@giganews.com>
Date: Sat, 25 May 2024 04:00:06 +0000
Lines: 58
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-9K4Iso0Q2Ahat3wdpPJDk2ecujfZrtx3Ok5OBixS04glqqRt/vFNZKAcX2fllHMfD0NRMP6jG77Lyyz!mtdaKCnRk4nWxRrUaBREZ0GiLGzx4ZLIQ3r2Gh1MQtVProTNGifJtYJ0W2Z4nFOCG01aeo5C1bBZ
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: 3754
X-Original-Lines: 57

On May 24, 2024 at 7:34:05 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

> On 5/24/2024 7:40 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>  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.
> 
> 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.