Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: [OT] German politician successfully prosecuted for telling the
 truth
Date: Fri, 24 May 2024 11:03:01 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 72
Message-ID: <v2qa76$2ce49$2@dont-email.me>
References: <20240522125702.0000756a@example.com>
 <v2obln$1ubc9$1@dont-email.me>
 <atropos-34D386.15435423052024@news.giganews.com>
 <v2ou1v$24ted$1@dont-email.me>
 <4-OdnQTEt7B6lc37nZ2dnZfqnPGdnZ2d@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: Fri, 24 May 2024 17:03:03 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="e9250a95934dfcf62d9d60a7824d3f11";
	logging-data="2504841"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19F57lSXauNhXJv1S5rz2NW1JMhjRJ4Rvw="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:dE2jAoqXF1tch4HwliBleotbEdg=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <4-OdnQTEt7B6lc37nZ2dnZfqnPGdnZ2d@giganews.com>
Bytes: 4431

On 5/23/2024 11:26 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> On May 23, 2024 at 7:29:19 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 5/23/2024 6:43 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>   In article <v2obln$1ubc9$1@dont-email.me>,
>>>     moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>   
>>>>   On 5/23/2024 4:35 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>   In article <v2o7bi$1tkcc$1@dont-email.me>,
>>>>>      moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>   On 5/23/2024 2:38 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>   In article <v2ns6e$1rgqc$1@dont-email.me>,
>>>>>>>       moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> 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?
> 
> 
> https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/1781169843351298050/vid/avc1/356x270/lHOICO1gYm5AAqF8.mp4?tag=14
> 
> Incitement to hate? Should they all be arrested?

I don't understand what I'm seeing/hearing there.

But, if you're objecting that a law against, e.g., "incitement to hate" 
is too subjective and prone to misapplication, that's a objection 
different to claiming that it has no semantic usefulness.