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: Sun, 26 May 2024 16:02:58 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 73
Message-ID: <v304hi$3hu1j$1@dont-email.me>
References: <20240522125702.0000756a@example.com>
 <v2qqf5$2fc26$1@dont-email.me>
 <27mdnRWJm93PuMz7nZ2dnZfqnPidnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <v2rimu$2n0qr$1@dont-email.me>
 <PLqcnZv4l5nb_8z7nZ2dnZfqn_GdnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <v2sq2l$2t61k$3@dont-email.me>
 <atropos-2C1101.11474526052024@news.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: <atropos-2C1101.11474526052024@news.giganews.com>
Bytes: 4424

On 5/26/2024 2:47 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <v2sq2l$2t61k$3@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> On 5/25/24 12:00 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> 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.
> 
>> 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.