Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!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 22:34:05 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 52
Message-ID: <v2rimu$2n0qr$1@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>
 <U3CdnSvI9LTfnM37nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <v2q9me$2ce49$1@dont-email.me>
 <atropos-0395EB.11531224052024@news.giganews.com>
 <v2qqf5$2fc26$1@dont-email.me>
 <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: Sat, 25 May 2024 04:34:06 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="d86b73f8b7f19a8826d703fa6e7b0314";
	logging-data="2851675"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+HOVqkpkgHcO2UymKfNb6vku1i1TbT5Jc="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:FaP8Fxd3qh1kyN/HWrwEZ+74JPw=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <27mdnRWJm93PuMz7nZ2dnZfqnPidnZ2d@giganews.com>
Bytes: 3619

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.