Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
As well as
The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or the rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
Actually I’m very confused with this. Fox example holocaust denial is illegal in Germany but not the UK. A multitude of symbols considered far right are illegal in Germany even as tatoos, but you could not say Mohamed was a pedophile?.The holocaust of course certainly happened but Mohamed almost certainly had a child bride and it appears was ok with sex slaves but both are risky things to say? I admit I’m confused with this. I was brought up Methodist but I’m fine with any criticisms of it as long as I can return fire (metaphorically speaking).
Is it that it would fall under hurting the reputation of Mohamed ?
British Holocaust denier David Irving (I mean that Irving is British, not that he denied a British Holocaust) lost a libel suit on the basis of his writings, and later spent 3 years in an Austrian prison on the basis of things he wrote and said while outside Austria.
I’m going to continue the blasphemy discussion here (even though this thread was supposed to be about a guy called Bob, or something).
As a general rule, don’t click on clickbait. Life is too short for that.
As a general rule, people who write articles using CAPITAL LETTERS for emphasis are not very intelligent and/or are targeting a not very intelligent audience. Even when they tell you the truth, they’re still bad sources.
If you want to prove cause and effect, you can’t just point out a correlation, cross your arms, and smugly proclaim victory.
You have two things here. First, you have an example of an effort to change civilization (stop Islamophobia). Then, you have an example of civilization being changed (an Islamophobe gets arrested). Ergo, it seems, one has led to the other, and we all urgently need to vote for anti-Islam politicians because they are the only ones who can save us from this madness.
Is there any substance to this?
The first part – some people wanting to stop Islamophobia and being willing to restrict freedom of speech in order to achieve that goal – is not in dispute. How extreme the mainstream versions of it are (or how mainstream the extreme versions of it are) is another question.
As for the second part…
I won’t spend a lot of time pointing out flaw after flaw in the article (that would be easy and boring). The main point is the criminal case, which you can easily find out more about, if you want to look.
“Using marks [symbols] of unconstitutional organizations” refers to what’s commonly known as the Nazi symbol ban, which is actually a ban on the symbols and propaganda of various organizations, ranging from the original Nazi Party to various Communist parties to ISIL. That law is serious business in Germany. Even crossed-out swastikas were banned until 2007. Your destroy-civilization-through-anti-Islamophobia conspiracy didn’t write that law, and it has no special anti-Islamophobia provisions.
As for the other charge, “cursing denominations, religious communities and belief groups” refers to § 166 of the Criminal Code, the German version of the Austrian blasphemy law we discussed earlier. In both countries, these are simply the modern versions of the ancient/medieval European (Christian) blasphemy laws. Once upon a time these laws only protected Christianity, but now they’re universal, though without any special anti-Islamophobia provisions. As the ancient proverb says, good for the goose, good for the gander.
Also found in the Wiki article:
A 2011 study showed an average of 15 blasphemy convictions per year in Germany.
Over the last few decades, the “center-right” parties have repeatedly been the ones insisting on keeping or even strengthening the blasphemy law (even in the wake of Charlie Hebdo), while the leftish parties have been the ones trying to relax or abolish it.
There was no equivalent law in East Germany. (Where’s that time machine when we need it? I’ve found a great place for you to vacation while you recover from the horrors of Malaysia! )
The Netherlands – probably one of your favorite countries to avoid – stopped prosecuting blasphemy in 1968 and abolished it in 2012.
Incidentally, Canada repealed its blasphemy law this past December. Yes, Justin’s Canada! I’ll give you a minute to catch your breath.
So, to return to your bullshit clickbait article that’s supposed to prove that leftist parties in western countries are part of the conspiracy to destroy civilization under the cover of anti-Islamophobia…
No, Germany just proved that German law trumps German law, and it was written long ago.
But here’s the real kicker. Note that the article is dated August 22, 2017, 10:50 am. There is no update.
To return to Wikiland…
sprach … frei = freisprechen 3rd person singular past simple indicative active with direct object between the two halves of the verb = acquitted
Okay, I am not a professional German ==> English translator, and neither is the robot, but whatever that actually means, I’m not trembling in fear of this grand conspiracy of yours.
To return briefly to your complaint:
Your point being what, that non-existent laws are destroying civilization? Lots of laws don’t get passed. Lots of old laws don’t get enforced. There are non-binding resolutions (and even theoretical laws with no actual capability of enforcement) that get passed all the time, about all kinds of things. This is what keeps you up at night?
Go ahead, shock us. But please, please, make meaningful contributions to the discussion, not more of that sloppy copy pasta bullcrap.
Are you serious, have you been living under the rock where Islam gets special treatment over any other religions?
Even on here, I speak out against Islam. Posters are saying I’m attacking Muslims and think they’re all bombers and I’m alt right and might shoot up a mosque. People criticize all the other religions here and no one says that about them. In public, I’m at risk of losing my job, media blowing it up etc.
Many of the laws have been used to silence people, they might get dropped but the charges are very real. There is an active push to from many different groups to give Islam more protection.
Umm they’re hate speech and blasphemy laws. They are literally designed to silence people from using “hate speech” and “blasphemy”. You have not even come close to showing they are being particularly applied to protect Islam, regardless of your agitated rhetoric.
So what? What does one thing have to do with the other.
So what? How are they not related. People pushing limit free speech on criticism of Islam is not relevant to more instances where people are silenced due to threat of the penalty of law?
Hate speech laws and laws similar to that are pretty ambiguous and it’s been used to suppress people’s views on all fronts. But it’s been particularly used to suppress ideas on one side. It may have been used to prevent critical of the church before which I find equally ridiculous. But today there’s been pushes by pro Muslim groups and pro Israel groups to include any criticisms against them.
No, but it’s a growing number and I see more and more people welcome the idea of not just having hate speech laws, but expanding it. Maybe not today, but big changes often happen slowly and gradually.
I’ve shown you examples, but you’re not satisfied because some of the laws are old. But as I explained it’s how the law is going to be used that is also important. Not saying hate speech laws don’t silence a lot of other things. They do, I’m against them in general. But hate speech is overwhelmingly used to attack one side of the political spectrum.
A few examples aren’t going to cut it. When you have hate speech laws which are being applied, that a few such cases have occurred isn’t surprising. Especially if you do something like this last yoyo. Let me know when you’ve assembled something convincing that these laws are being selectively applied. You don’t get to just jump to me assuming it. I’m out until then