Germany to establish a Ministry of Truth
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-01-2017, 01:38 PM
RE: Germany to establish a Ministry of Truth
^^^^^
This is a complete lie! Angry












I've been wanting to do that dumb joke ever since I saw the thread title

Shakespeare's Comedy of Errors.... on Donald J. Trump:

He is deformed, crooked, old, and sere,
Ill-fac’d, worse bodied, shapeless every where;
Vicious, ungentle, foolish, blunt, unkind,
Stigmatical in making, worse in mind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-01-2017, 03:23 PM
RE: Germany to establish a Ministry of Truth
(01-01-2017 10:21 AM)epronovost Wrote:  86, 86a and 130 are kind of no brainers. Do we really need to hear the Nazi out. Laws are pretty much targetting them (and Islamists and maybe some other fundamentalist groups) without naming them. Don't we already know what they want to say and know what they want to achieve and have collectively judged that it was monstruous and shitty. As for article 189, most country including some state in the USA, have a simillar one, but it's very rarely applied. There are many laws on which aren't applied with much consistency. It's a good thing that freedom of speech has some limitation. Words are actions and have powers they should be wielded with some judgement. The question is how much do we limit it and in what fashion.

It is not about whether or not we need to hear any groups of people out / hear their idiologies.
Sure it is a reasonable position to not spread Nazi or islamist propaganda, you are very right there.
But making it illegal is not just un-constitutional and unreasonable > it also doesn't do anything. We have the internet *shrug*.
You know laws like this open the door to more. So what opinion or thought will be next to go illegal?

If it were my call, I'd rather have free speech about it all. Simply because that way I have a better way to keep an eye on potential trouble makers.

"Freedom is the freedom to say that 2+2=4" - George Orwell (in 1984)
- Wotsefack?! -
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Leerob's post
01-01-2017, 03:31 PM (This post was last modified: 01-01-2017 03:35 PM by epronovost.)
RE: Germany to establish a Ministry of Truth
(01-01-2017 11:58 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  The concept of free speech breaks down if it only extends to popular speech. It is unpopular speech that needs such protection most.

Odious speech is best treated by refutation, not suppression, I think.

The law doesn't say unpopular speech is punishable. It says hateful speech that support violent or abitrary measures directed against people based on their ethnicity, nationality or religion is punishable. It also punish people for spreading lies about those groups with the intention of stimulating hatred, violence or abitrary measures against them. Finally, the only other type of speech that isn't protected is that which is directly linked to anticonstitutional, revolutionnary groups. It does present examption for the benefits of education, art and history amongts other things. Saying that under such laws "unpopular" opinions are supressed is a strawman agrument in my opinion. Dangerous, murderous and arbitrarly hateful opinons are targetted not mearly "unpopular" one's. Hate speech laws also operate within the confine of a legal system that guaranties the rights of the accused, making it far from a fascist stance. I don't believe that, at the moment, those laws present a danger for a slippery slope toward authoritarianism and severe democratic supression.

Yes, hateful speech is best treated by refutation and education, but it doesn't need to be only treated by refutation. Refutation can only limit the spreading of those ideas. It isn't that efficient at "converting" the core adherents of those ideas. It doesn't really protect the targeted minorites from their predation either. Hate crimes happen and those crimes are motivated by hateful ideology that were not supressed, but were refutated ad nauseam. If I wanted to present an argument for restriction in a very manichean way to make a mirror of the argument about unpopular opinions I could say the following: "Being against hate speech laws is favorising neo-nazis right to exist on the political scene over the dignity and safety of those they wish to purge or enslave." As you can see this arguments is so big and manichean its almost laughable. Nothing is that simple. Restriction to "free speech" have always existed from onus against perjury, libel, intellectual theft, public disturbance, presentation of violent or pornographic material to young minors, threats, fraud, blackmail and false advertisement. I do agree to almost all of those restrictions.

I do personnaly believe in a certain limitation on free speach as long as this limitation is narrow, clearly defined in scope, is within the confine of a democratic judicial system, accompanied by vigorous effort of education and refutation of those ideas as a first response, has demonstrated its uses, can be overturned in a democratic fashion through non-violent political activism, is exercised with temperance, has clearly defined examption for education and isn't linked to draconnian sentencing. Most hate speech laws in the Western world are within those limits, some are a bit too murky, start to escape the confine of a democratic judicial system or are not used with enough temperance. Thus, vigilence is never unwarranted. I do not, for example, condone restriction against blasphemy because they don't operate within most of these, if not all, of these criterias not more than I support laws against unions for example.

Freedom is servitude to justice and intellectual honesty.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like epronovost's post
02-01-2017, 04:06 AM
RE: Germany to establish a Ministry of Truth
All rights have limits here in America, too. The right to speak freely, however, is treasured, and rightly so, in my opinion. Who defines "hateful"? Who defines "lies"?

I don't hold that it is the mission of any government to "convert" the "core adherents" of any ideology. I don't look to government for leadership ideologically. I want the government to keep the fire trucks oiled and the borders defended; I want the government to keep the streets safe and the trash picked up. I do not want the government having any say on what speech is acceptable or not unless said speech inflicts the reasonable possibility of actual harm to actual people.

As such, I am against hate-speech laws. In one sense, I think hate-speech serves a useful purpose -- it allows us to identify and quarantine the idiots of the world (or at least some of them, lol), and shine a light on their idiocy. Imprison a rebel and create a saint (look at Hitler's trial over the 1923 putsch for a prime example). Rather, let them unravel enough rope, and then tie them in knots.

Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Let the bigots of the world announce themselves, so that you know exactly where to aim your cannon.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Thumpalumpacus's post
02-01-2017, 09:06 AM
RE: Germany to establish a Ministry of Truth
Down here in Houston Texas, the AM dial is a cess pool of right winger lies. Sean Insanity, Lush Rimjob, Mark Leslime and other wretched merchants of nonsense. FM is bad pop music and one news station, NPR. TV, dun't esk. Our one newspaper is a slim little old thing mostly taken from AP news and not much worth reading. The rising tide of stupid has all but submerged us.

And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter
- Thomas Jefferson

Cheerful Charlie
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-01-2017, 11:19 AM (This post was last modified: 02-01-2017 11:23 AM by Deesse23.)
RE: Germany to establish a Ministry of Truth
(01-01-2017 06:50 AM)Vosur Wrote:  The sort of freedom of speech we have in Germany is a mockery of the concept.
Would a law that puts you in prison for several years for denying the holocaust also be a mockery of the concept?
Would passing such a law also be a fascist tendency, or be a sign that fascism never really went away in this country?
Gerrman §130 does fulfill your criteria. Too bad you *forgot* to mention, that in the Czech Republic there is an identical paragraph that sends you for up to 3 years behind bards for denying the holocaust of communist atrocities.


(01-01-2017 06:50 AM)Vosur Wrote:  I envy the Americans their first amendment and the ferocity with which it is defended.

Debs v. United States
Quote:Eugene V. Debs was an American labor and political leader and five-time Socialist Party of America candidate for the American Presidency. On June 16, 1918 Debs made an anti-war speech in Canton, Ohio, protesting US involvement in World War I. He was arrested under the Espionage Act of 1917 and convicted, sentenced to serve ten years in prison and to be disenfranchised for life.

The case against Debs was based on a document entitled Anti-War Proclamation and Program, showing that Debs' original intent was to openly protest against the war. The argument of the Federal Government was that Debs was attempting to arouse mutiny and treason by preventing the drafting of soldiers into the United States Army. This type of speech was outlawed in the United States with the Espionage Act of June 15, 1917. The defense argued that Debs was entitled to the rights of free speech provided for in the first amendment of the Bill of Rights. This was one of three cases decided in 1919 in which the Court had upheld convictions that restricted free speech.

Schenck v. United States
Quote:Defendant's criticism of the draft was not protected by the First Amendment, because it created a clear and present danger to the enlistment and recruiting service of the U.S. armed forces during a state of war.
Quote:The Court, in a unanimous opinion written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., held that Schenck's criminal conviction was constitutional.
Quote:The opinion's most famous and most often quoted passage was this:

The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.

The phrase "shouting fire in a crowded theater" has since become a popular metaphor for dangers or limitations of free speech.

Gitlow v. New York
Quote:The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits states from infringing free speech, but the defendant was properly convicted under New York's Criminal Anarchy Law because he disseminated newspapers that advocated the violent overthrow of the government.


Czech supreme court decision from 2008:
A court fined the "big brother" promoters because broadcasting such a show endangers minors. Supreme court upheld this decision. By your definition thats a mockery of your concept of free speech too. In contrast, in Germany (so far) no promoter of "big brother" was fined, afaik.

Last but not least:
We all know you are so glad to be in Prague now, where fascist tendencies arent as rampant as in Germany, and where a "ministry of truth" to fight fake news and Putins manipulations are impossible, right?
Czech Republic to fight 'fake news' with specialist unit
Quote:The Czech government is to set up a specialist “anti-fake news” unit as officials attempt to tackle falsehoods, predominantly about migrants, which they claim are spread by websites supported by the government of Russian president Vladimir Putin.

So, Germany has fascist tendencies, Czech Republic too, even the US and the renowned Oliver Wendell Holmes seemed to have fascist tendencies inside him (unanimous decision in case of Schenck v. United States).

Either this and you need to move somewhere else, like the moon, or your idea of "free speech" is a red herring.

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Deesse23's post
02-01-2017, 02:07 PM
RE: Germany to establish a Ministry of Truth
(02-01-2017 11:19 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  Would a law that puts you in prison for several years for denying the holocaust also be a mockery of the concept?
Yes.

(02-01-2017 11:19 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  Would passing such a law also be a fascist tendency, or be a sign that fascism never really went away in this country?
Yes.

(02-01-2017 11:19 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  Gerrman §130 does fulfill your criteria.
That is my argument, yes.

(02-01-2017 11:19 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  Too bad you *forgot* to mention, that in the Czech Republic there is an identical paragraph that sends you for up to 3 years behind bards for denying the holocaust of communist atrocities.
(02-01-2017 11:19 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  Czech Republic to fight 'fake news' with specialist unit
Quote:The Czech government is to set up a specialist “anti-fake news” unit as officials attempt to tackle falsehoods, predominantly about migrants, which they claim are spread by websites supported by the government of Russian president Vladimir Putin.
(02-01-2017 11:19 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  Czech supreme court decision from 2008:
A court fined the "big brother" promoters because broadcasting such a show endangers minors. Supreme court upheld this decision. By your definition thats a mockery of your concept of free speech too. In contrast, in Germany (so far) no promoter of "big brother" was fined, afaik.
I didn't forget anything, your accusation to the contrary notwithstanding. The nature of free speech laws in the Czech Republic is irrelevant to a discussion about government infringement on free speech in Germany. Why do you think you're the first person in this entire thread to even mention that country?

(02-01-2017 11:19 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  Debs v. United States
Quote:Eugene V. Debs was an American labor and political leader and five-time Socialist Party of America candidate for the American Presidency. On June 16, 1918 Debs made an anti-war speech in Canton, Ohio, protesting US involvement in World War I. He was arrested under the Espionage Act of 1917 and convicted, sentenced to serve ten years in prison and to be disenfranchised for life.

The case against Debs was based on a document entitled Anti-War Proclamation and Program, showing that Debs' original intent was to openly protest against the war. The argument of the Federal Government was that Debs was attempting to arouse mutiny and treason by preventing the drafting of soldiers into the United States Army. This type of speech was outlawed in the United States with the Espionage Act of June 15, 1917. The defense argued that Debs was entitled to the rights of free speech provided for in the first amendment of the Bill of Rights. This was one of three cases decided in 1919 in which the Court had upheld convictions that restricted free speech.

Schenck v. United States
Quote:Defendant's criticism of the draft was not protected by the First Amendment, because it created a clear and present danger to the enlistment and recruiting service of the U.S. armed forces during a state of war.
Quote:The Court, in a unanimous opinion written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., held that Schenck's criminal conviction was constitutional.
Quote:The opinion's most famous and most often quoted passage was this:

The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.

The phrase "shouting fire in a crowded theater" has since become a popular metaphor for dangers or limitations of free speech.

Gitlow v. New York
Quote:The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits states from infringing free speech, but the defendant was properly convicted under New York's Criminal Anarchy Law because he disseminated newspapers that advocated the violent overthrow of the government.
You seem to be under the impression that I believe there to be virtually no restrictions on free speech in the U.S., a view which I strangely enough never expressed. That circumstance leads me to believe that you are unaware of the fundamental nature of this discussion. I would suggest you to read the past few posts from Thumpalumpacus and epronovost in which they outlined it nicely (i.e. the difference between outlawing unpopular opinions and outlawing panic- and violence-inducing speech).

(02-01-2017 11:19 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  Last but not least:
We all know you are so glad to be in Prague now, where fascist tendencies arent as rampant as in Germany, and where a "ministry of truth" to fight fake news and Putins manipulations are impossible, right?
That's a bloody nice straw man, mate. I can't help but wonder where you read those things, because I certainly didn't say them in any of my posts.

(02-01-2017 11:19 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  So, Germany has fascist tendencies [...]
Good, it looks like you decided to concede my initial point.

(02-01-2017 11:19 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  [...] Czech Republic too [...]
Indeed.

(02-01-2017 11:19 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  [...] even the US and the renowned Oliver Wendell Holmes seemed to have fascist tendencies inside him (unanimous decision in case of Schenck v. United States).
A single court decision from nearly a hundred years ago and during World War I, no less, does not a fascist legislation make. I would again advise you to read the previous few posts to catch up on what the whole discussion in this thread is about. I'll point out one of the obvious differences for you: Neo Nazis are allowed to voice their opinions, deny the Holocaust, do a Hitler salute and display Nazi symbols without any restrictions in the US. In Germany, you can be thrown in prison for doing any one of those things and a group like the Westboro Baptist Church, for instance, does not and cannot exist in Germany, for better or worse.

(02-01-2017 11:19 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  Either this and you need to move somewhere else, like the moon, or your idea of "free speech" is a red herring.
Again, you're arguing with me as if I my idea of free speech contains no restrictions on it whatsoever, but I haven't defended such a position in this thread.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Vosur's post
02-01-2017, 07:17 PM (This post was last modified: 03-01-2017 10:18 AM by Thumpalumpacus.)
RE: Germany to establish a Ministry of Truth
Now that they've been brought up, I will say this: I fully support the right of the WBC to mount their demonstrations; the KKK as well; and other extremist organizations as well. So long as they aren't committing violence, or empowering others to do so, I am fine with their using their rights as they see fit.

Free speech does, and ought to, have restrictions -- but those restrictions ought to be as lenient as possible. Denying a historical event such as the Holocaust does not, to my view, broach that precept. Nor, for that matter, does a Hitler salute, racist language, or other hate-speech.

As an American veteran, I am often thanked for my service. My standard answer is that the best thanks I can receive is the vigorous exercise of one's rights. I need not, and often don't, agree with the espoused views, but I didn't put my ass on the line for the government and its prerogative to dictate what is and isn't acceptable.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Thumpalumpacus's post
03-01-2017, 01:47 AM
RE: Germany to establish a Ministry of Truth
(02-01-2017 04:06 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  Imprison a rebel and create a saint (look at Hitler's trial over the 1923 putsch for a prime example). Rather, let them unravel enough rope, and then tie them in knots.

Hitler was already popular in some circles and seen as good if misguided patriot even by court which would explain his sentence. Lenience of sentence was seen as a scandal by those who supported Weimar republic [Volker Ullrich, Hitler, p.213 of polish 2015 edition].

It is true that putsch and trial gave him some additional popularity but if it wasn't for unheard of leniency he would fall into obscurity. So it was not trial itself that helped Hitler, but sympathy of the Judge who already was known to going easy on murderers* and who allowed to make a courtroom a place for Hitler speeches.

Lastly - Hitler wasn't a rebel but a traitor guilty of attempt to overthrowing existing legal order. Not arresting him would be a sign of weakness, when political charges notwithstanding his action led to death of police officers. Coddling him in court was such sign too.


*Judge Georg Neidhardt praised murderer of Kurt Eisner count Arco auf Valley for his love of nation.

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Szuchow's post
03-01-2017, 02:04 AM
RE: Germany to establish a Ministry of Truth
(02-01-2017 07:17 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  Now that they've been brought up, I will say this: I fully support the right for the WBC to mount their demonstrations; the KKK as well; and other extremist organizations as well. So long as they aren't committing violence, or empowering others to do so,

I think you are spot on with what i bolded above. This is what i tried to explain to Vosur (but i doubt he wants to see it). Free speech in terms of "absolute, 100% free speech" is a red herring. I would go so far (by pointing out at the *shouting fire in a theatre* scenario) as to say it isnt even desireable.

Coming back you your excellent post id like to agree with you again, that free speech should be handled as lenient as possible, since its is one of the cornerstones of a free and fair society.

Pointing fingers at ones home country, shouting "fascism" and professing to be proud to live in a different much more free country now, and then it turns out the country you are living is in no way different than the one you are pointing fingers at, thats bigoted.

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Deesse23's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: