Germany. SPD coalition with CDU/CSU leaves party youth out? What it means for Poland?

Che Guevara was a committed communist, participated in wars, knew about and probably helped in murders and never stood for any free election.

Schulz is a committed democrat, elected to office many times who is trying to solve complicated problems within the framework of his country's laws.

Not really a fanatic is he.

The chapter is closed on Che Guevara. Don't count Schulz out just yet, people do strange things when they ascend to great power. Plenty of tyrants throughout history ascended through the ballot box, there is one in the Phillipine's right now. I have no doubt in my mind that if left wingers gained significantly more powers in Europe, we would see greater encroachments upon freedom than we've seen thus far. Putting people in prison for a made up term like "hate speech" is just the beginning, and it's why we libertarians we refer to censorship like that as the as the slippery slope, because well..........it's real.

He's certainly one of the good guys, a moderate and a democrat.

Democracy may not always be perfect, however the alternative is a nightmare. Those who publicly yearn for some right-wing authoritarian system would be the least able to actually survive in one.

Right, so aged 62, having been through 14 elections this dude is suddenly going to start executing and imprisoning people.

I dont like the hate speech laws either but they might be a necessary evil at the moment. Free speech was intended to allow criticism of politicians who cut down protected forests or sell valuable kamienica to their friends. At the moment however the more brainless elements on the left and right think free speech means the right to be deliberately offensive for no other reason than to cause trouble

Yes, free speech means exactly that. It wasn't enumerated as numero uno in the US constitution because they just didn't have any other ideas. Your feelings do not matter to democracy and freedom, free speech means dying to protect someones right to say the most vile, offensive, and horrible things. So long as someone doesn't engage in libel, slander, or a threat of imminent violence (for which there is a definitive test that must meet three stringent criteria) they should be free to say whatever they please. No one has the right not to be offended.

Tell me I need to call you by the pronoun Zim or Per, "or else." Guess what I'm going to do? I'm going to "mis-gender" the living hell out of you just out of spite. Ask me respectfully and I may oblige that persons delusions.

free speech might mean that in the US (arguably it does not and there are few records of Washington or Lincoln using it to be abusive with impunity).

However in Europe we vote consistently for politicians who realise that there are limits to your rights to insult people, whether it is by abusing transsexuals as in your case or by referring to Polish death camps or by praising Hitler in Germany.

He's a very solid choice, if a little conservative.


Absolutely - now the internet has changed things and there are some absolutely vile things out there. Some individuals just like to provoke out of malice, saying things that would get them ostracised in real life.


And he wouldn't do it in real life, unless he wanted a smack in the mouth from a bodybuilding trans man or 6'6" ex-marines trans woman.

There's a phenomenon called "internet deindividualtion", especially common (though not exclusive to) Americans. A random example would be someone who spends all day saying "yes Sir, no Sir, three bags full Sir" to their black boss and comes out with racist or anti-Muslim crap when they're safely behind a keyboard.

At least in Germany, the major political parties favour restraint.

It's strange that it's actually right wingers in Europe that have traditionally sought to limit freedom. It's also worth pointing out that the current attack on net neutrality in the US comes from a Republican Congress and Presidency. Right wingers all over the world understand freedom as "freedom to agree with us and only us."

Not that strange at all - it's all about authority and a fear of anything new.


Money. Here in the heart of Africa the internet providers all have a deal to favour youtube.


How fascism started, it's very genesis with Gabriele d'Annunzio who couldn't handle anyone disagreeing with him. Ever.

He is one dangerous individual, fortunately he will never be in power.

• 
  20120410_ep_presiden.jpg
  

@delphiandomine

For one, I don't prefer extremists on either end of the political spectrum, and in this case Schulz is a radical leftist, I am just as afraid of him as I am of someone with a radical right-wing ideology. Two, you're projecting the lefts treatment of dissenters onto the right (though the sentiment is equally true for the right, albeit less enforceable), as the consequence for disagreeing with the lefts dogma that there are 72 genders, or that 'white privilege' exists (it doesn't), or advocating for a merit based immigration policy, can often times mean social ostracization, loss of employment, and physical violence. The lefts reaction to political dissent is to look at that person and say "I'm going to hurt you, somehow." If you think that that's the way to build bridges and share ideas, bon appetit. You would rather talk down to these people who hold contrary ideas to your own, rather than try to understand them. I ask questions frequently because I want to understand the motivations of those on the left, and hopefully try to come to some middle ground that's more amenable to everyone, not push this toxic polarity that the left seems to be fond of trying to brow beat people into their world view. You, and others like you, seem wholly disinterested in any such bridge building. For instance, I have many friends who are liberals, some of them even radically so in my opinion, and that doesn't bother me, we're friends for other reasons and enjoy each others company. However, I would be hard pressed to believe you keep friends who don't agree with your politics.

Kind of says it all. In the US the Bill of Rights limits government ability to infringe on individual rights, limits on free expression are essentially limited to

a) speech that is physically dangerous (yelling 'FIRE!' in a crowded theater) or that calls for violence against an indentifiable person or persons. 'We should burn down Thadeus Fribblehath's house!' 'All people with negative O blood are monsters and should be put in death camps!')

In Europe citizens have no inalienable rights but are instead allowed certain behaviors by the nanny government which may take them away at will when big nanny decides the children are being mean to each other and need a time out.

You might like having a nanny, but I prefer the American approach of treating citizens like responsible adults. Grow up already!

Well US case law provides plenty of other examples where free speech can be restricted including what you can say on people's property or the workplace.

I lived in both US and Europe and for sure both have their concepts of liberty but it's not so simple as to say that Europe is made up of nanny states - rules over drugs, booze, ****, pretty much any kind of vice are much looser in Europe and it is treated as the individuals decision to manage the consequences. Rules over banking, stock markets, currency etc are also far more restricted in the US than in Europe.

I've never heard any European say they want Europe to be like America., and in Europe I always feel perfectly free. I don't think I would over there. When I was in America, I didn't feel that I'd suddenly gone from oppression to liberty, and I would feel far less free in a place where people get very upset if you use an innocuous word like 'cvnt' , where you can't even get seen by a doctor unless you have money for something they call a 'co-pay' and in some parts, teachers can't even teach evolution to students.

I think I'd prefer Germany, a place that's much safer, freer and happier.

@cms

Which cases specifically? You're only limited by what you can say on private property based on property rights, a property owner has the right to trespass you from their property for any reason at all. That's not really a consequence for speech though, it just means that you're denied a soapbox on someones private property, there are plenty of public easements and property to voice your gripe on. The workplace uses a similar argument to this, in that you're representing the employer while at work, and you should be working while at work, not campaigning for governor. The rest of what you wrote regarding your opinion on other freedoms in Europe/US is immaterial to the topic at hand.

Not to mention.... opinions that disagree with yours are censored... The tweet in consideration was not hate speech under any reasonable definition, especially not in Germany and Cologne...

dw.com/en/afd-politician-censored-under-new-german-hate-speech-law-for-anti-muslim-tweet/a-41992679

I've never been censored. Then again, it's always good to avoid hate speech.

If someone went on American tv and made direct reference to the way Melania Trump used to earn a living, I suspect the camera feed would be cut pretty quickly and the station's lawyers would be crapping themselves.

I never felt particularly free when there, not least because you can never be quite sure if the person next to you has a lethal weapon somewhere. In Germany however, I've always felt completely safe, completely free and very relaxed. Even here in Africa, in a state often considered repressive with a less than stellar human rights record I feel OK. Americans however don't generally last very long here and are not especially welcomed due to past issues, mostly crime that they wouldn't ever get away with at home but try here.

Well she was first censored by private corporations Twitter and Facebook and then by the police.

But this illustrates the point - if she just said Muslim men then I would understand and even sympathise with her view. I also don't know why taxpayers money is spent on Arabic communication. By calling them barbaric gang raping hordes of Muslim men then she is using that language for the sole purpose of causing offence and testing the rules to get her mug on the newspaper again.

Sig re other freedoms then it is relevant as Maf wants to conflate speech restrictions with a general belief that we live in nanny states. As for specific cases then look them up yourself - I'm not a lawyer but I do know from my own line of work that you do not have the right to spout off, deliver leaflets or make broadcasts in shopping malls :)

what a wussy (and change the first letter to p)

the problem with hate speech laws is the lack of an objective definition of 'hate' would a politician be censored for the probably true statement that Turkish nationals (both Turks and Kurds) probably represent a multi-generational economic loss for Germany? (balancing out their meager economic contributions with the costs they run up in terms of social spending, welfare and police enforcement and imprisonment)?

would a German politician be censored for pointing out the generally terrible educational results all through the Arab world and pointing out that letting them into Europe won't improve their educational results?


that would be liable, one of the defenses of which is truth, if they can prove it then they're fine, if not... she can sue (though as a public figure she'd probably lose since the barrier for public figures is a lot higher)

@jon357

Ok, this is a fun exercise. Define hate speech. The reason we call it the slippery slope is because it's a slippery slope. Libel, slander, and threats of imminent violence are not subjective, they have definitive legal tests by which to judge them. Hate speech on the other hand, is not in any legal lexicon, and its definition is completely arbitrary. So, give me a working definition with a objective test by which to judge the speech by.

oh yea a P.S.- I'm American and I'm in Africa now, seem to get on just fine.

And this is they key to it. She is deliberately trying to provoke.


Have you ever heard anyone be censored for discussing comparative education systems?


It's very unlikely that you are in this place - I would know already...

I thought she was trying to prevent barbaric gang raping hordes of Muslim men, not provoke them into action.... What do you have against calling out barbaric gang raping hordes of Muslim men? Or do you think barbaric gang raping hordes of Muslim men are an asset to western societies?


Been in Cottbus recently?

@jon357

So you don't want to give us a working definition of hate speech with an objective test that can be used in legal cases then?

No, you knew she was sh1t-stirring.


In November. As grey and eastern as it ever was. It will never become Harrogate or Weybridge.


Why don't you ask a lawyer? Or better still, spend 30 seconds on google.

It's a position that you took, so I would expect you'd be able to inform me, the person who contends it is a completely arbitrary application of a bad law which can be abused to stifle dissent.

Furthermore, is it at all possible for you to engage in conversation with people who have differing opinions than yours without using condescension and personal attacks, or do you have no civility? We're all here exchanging ideas, I don't take your position personally at all, and I previously stated I want to understand it (hence asking for a definition), so you ought to try cooling your jets and not try to make your response about me, but rather the topic at hand, not taking the bait mate.

You sound as if you're debating something. This is an online forum, not a debating society.


I've never taken a position on this.

I don't however feel the need to raise any issues with the status quo in Germany that you seem to want to try and challenge, albeit online and from afar.

So... before the stabby Syrians caused the city to refuse any more migrants...

There you go again. The old Berlin Wall used to be officially called the anti-fascist twin barrier by the DDR. It seeems now that we need an anti fascist barrier against the Ossies.

Fortunately, Germany is still moderate as a whole and that is unlikely to change. Nor is the level of migration from poorer parts of the world to richer ones - that will only increase.

which do you dispute? that they were Syrians or that they were stabby?

And people are supposed to just lay back and think of diversity...

Most people just get on with things.