How is the naked German woman meme doing the nazi salute inciting to violence, exactly? :think: Also there's a different between a precise fatwa and a precise call for murder and violent rhetoric which doesn't explicitly call for murder, which is what I pointed out with my examples.Aneris wrote:It does not reflect my views at all. I am against laws that ban symbols, art, or political speech. I am totally against the protection of ideas by law. I see a few "strictly delineated and individually justified" limitations, when it comes to personality rights and privacy. I also believe that in a free democracy people have a right to not live in fear of being murdered. Speech that demonstrably incites to violence, Fatwas, calls to murder someone etc. cannot enjoy freedom of speech protections.
Why don't you quote what was written, instead of trying to link me to a context of murders and attacks (pretty dishonest on your part)? You wrote:This was another disagreement. Precisely my reluctance to throw the entire law (nuance and such) was exploited. Kirbmarc argued that politicians have to put up with calls to being murdered, here. Not only is there this PEGIDA case I was citing, it also ties into a new political reality, see the murder of Jo Cox, and knife-attack on Henriette Reker that left her severely wounded. Once more, more arrows that point to the Far Right corner (surprise, surprise!).
You seemed to think that this was exclusive to PEGIDA and AFG, or at least that PEGIDA and AFG were so bad that they justified the restrictive laws on speech. I pointed out cases of people calling for the assassination of Donald Trump, and of islamists being allowed to go around with placards say "behead those who insult islam" (so uhm, it's not just the far right doing it!), to prove my case that:Context Two is AFD and Neo Nazis and suchlike in Germany, where the government is interested in dealing with their material online. It already was allegal for a long time. Normally, such instances would have to go through authorities and would end with legal trouble. This law (as far as I understood it) dumbs it down to merely delete such material, in order to contain it. The background is that PEGIDA, AFD and Extreme Right circles are spreading incitement to violence, libel and defamation and suchlike in the guise of Fake News and Volksverhetzung (i.e. "hate speech"). This is serious stuff, like building gallows for politicians and such, not kids shitposting.
Also I wrote:Deep down the difference of context is between the US, the UK (and Switzerland) and Germany. Building gallows for politicians would be considered freedom of speech in the US. Threats against politicians are considered protected speech
Politicians are targets of violence. This is nothing new, and it's not really just the Far Right doing it, a man tried to kill Donald frigging Trump, I doubt he was a far-righter.Pegida uses stupid, violent rhetoric, but is it any worse of those things? Moreover, was the picture of a naked woman doing the nazi salute really comparable to violent rhetoric?
On June 18, 2016, an attempt was made to assassinate the presumptive Republican nominee for the 2016 United States presidential election, Donald Trump, in the final weeks of the Republican presidential primaries. While Trump was speaking at a rally in Las Vegas, Nevada, Briton Michael Steven Sandford attempted to seize the sidearm of a Las Vegas Metropolitan police officer providing security for the event before being subdued. There were no injuries. Sandford, who had a lengthy history of mental disorders, stated that he had wished to kill Trump to prevent him from becoming President.
Specific threats are illegal in the US or Switzerland as they are everywhere else. Using violent rhetoric which isn't a specific threat is allowed. Charlie Sheen has asked God to "take Donald Trump next". A German journalists (Joseph Joffe) has expressed the idea that what could stop Donald Trump was "murder in the White House". I wouldn't want those people to go to jail for their generic violent rhetoric.On June 16, 2015, Donald Trump announced that he intended to run for President of the United States. Sandford decided that "if Trump was elected, it would change the world...somebody had to stand up for America."[3] Prior to the assassination attempt, Sandford had displayed no interest in politics.[5] Following his arrest, Sandford expressed to his father his concern about policies of Trump's such as building a wall along the United States-Mexico border and halting immigration to the United States by Muslims,[6] calling Trump a racist.[10]
Likewise the PEGIDA idiots haven't said "let's kill Angela Merkel", they've built gallows with the words "reserved for Angela Merkel" written on them. Morbid? Yeah. Creepy? Yeah. Stupid? Hell yeah. But it's not a specific threat, not more than Joffe wishing for someone to murder Donald Trump. Countless people have called for the assassination or death of Donald Trump, some of them have gotten in trouble with the law, in most cases those who got in trouble had posted specific threats. I've never argued against those arrests, and I think that serious, precise threats against any person (including politicians of all stripes) aren't protected free speech.
Anyway this is all a bit sidestep. The livestream was about the guy whose house was raided allegedly because of a meme which didn't contain any violent rhetoric, let alone threats. Your insertion of political violence was an attempt to change the discourse to one about the looming threat of the Far Right, to which Sargon may be laying the pipes for.