Random Thoughts (Political Edition)

SirEdward

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2008
Messages
1,829
Location
Bologna, Italy
Car(s)
VW Golf MkV
Don't worry, it's defined in very restrictive terms. Many other nations have similar rules, such as Austria, Switzerland, France, Ukania, Sweden, Finland, ... there even is an EU initiative on the way, you might need to join the list soon.
Sometimes you can learn something even from the US. Strange but true! :p :p :p :)

As for "if people like those two had the power to define the meaning and application of those words", well - that's what we have a working court system for. Two random people don't redefine the meaning of well-established laws.
What I was saying is so clear that if I didn't know you already, I would say you are making fun of me. But I know you aren't, so what I was saying, clearly, is not that two random people can do that, but that if their way of thinking was spread enough as to become common judgement, you could be in prison for something that in my way of thinking wouldn't be worth of that. This example is a way to remind you that censorship is bad, because who's to decide what's wrong and what's not, since we are speaking of words and ideas? Very easy example: Pussy Riot.

I'll make you some examples more: do you remember when slavery existed and speaking rudely against some master might mean punishment, flogging or, in some cases, death? Do you remember when being atheist was an insult to god and meant prison, or worse?

I understand why that law exist, but it's dangerous, because it is, ultimately, deeply wrong in its essence. Who decides what's an insult and what is just overreaction?

Whether the video in question actually would violate that law would be for a court to decide.
Yes, but according to what rule? And what people did made the rule? We are lucky now, because that law is effective in today's Germany, but a good law isn't a good law if a change in people's mind can turn it into a horrible tool without even modifying a single word of it.

Funnily, Volksverhetzung crimes committed outside of Germany may still be prosecuted here if they have an effect here as if committed here. FG top tip, don't visit us.
You see, now I could make a joke and mock the prosecution of something outside Germany's jurisdiction as if wanting to decide for all was some 70+ years-old bad habit of German people. This would make you very angry. I would have insulted you, and quite a bit. Should I be put in prison... for a terribly bad joke? Or should the punishment be disproportionate to the crime? Yes, maybe the law needs something more to really put people in prison, but it's essence doesn't; any limitation or mitigation would always be completely accessory and debatable.

Also, what if I said: "Jedis are stupid, they are all deluded followers of a hobo and a man in love with her sister, they should all die and Palpatine should be the one ruler of the Empire!". Should I be brought before court because I insulted the Jedi's religion (which actually exists!)?

You can't change minds with laws, yes - but you can prohibit the spreading of such ideas. See those protests in the Islamic world, I'm fairly certain that most violent protesters had those ideas put into their mind, very few came up with the ideas themselves.
I agree with you on the protesters, but you can't just prohibit ideas, you have to teach people how to tell a good one from a bad one. Only then bad ideas will wither away and never return.
 
Last edited:

British_Rover

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2006
Messages
4,288
Location
Torrington, CT United States
Car(s)
2005 Gr Cherokee, dealer demo
I wasn't suggesting the American evangelists would gather and start a riot, no.

My comparison was rather meant to show the amount of feelings hurt with that video. It is a massive, huge insult of ANY muslim in the world. And it so happens, that in some parts of the world the West (and the USA in particular) has managed to get itself such a bad image in the heads of ordinary, uneducated people, that such a video can trigger such events.

I am not defending the rioters, their reaction is unacceptable. And I'm quite sure, that 95 % of all muslims in the world share that view. But the video is like a slap in the face and it's not only the stupidity of the movie maker (who obviously is now too sacred to admit his handywork) and the fact, that the actors were obviously tricked into the film and that their words were dubbed with nonsense later on.

It is in my eyes also unacceptable, that YouTube still leaves the video online, saying it doesn't violate their terms and conditions :wall:
You need to read this...

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/09/the-muslim-protests-two-myths-down-three-to-go/262375/



Then remember that the video does not in fact violate their terms of service. The creator's uploaded it so they own the copyright and people in the US at least do have freedom of speech even if it is offensive.


The flip side is you have the whole "yelling fire in a crowded theater" litmus test.

Is this film, if it exists which it probably does not, or just the trailer the equivalent of that online?

Eh I don't know but I don't think so. It is at least up for debate.


They do a better job of explaining the difference the I ever could here.

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/09/that-anti-muhammed-film-its-totally-protected-by-the-1st-amendment/262324/

Lastly I doubt, and the info coming out seems to support this, that the attack on the consulate was totally related to outrage by the film. It seems more likely that a group shadowing the ambassador took advantage of the riot to stage the attack.

Also I am disappointed no one commented on my awesome blue potatoes. :(
 
Last edited:

CraigB

Ich bin ein Kartoffel
DONOR
Joined
Feb 14, 2007
Messages
12,895
Location
SWMO
Car(s)
Mustang SVO - Nissan Frontier Pro-4X & Altima
Random Thoughts (Political Edition)

I thought they where purple.

As a non-believer I've never quite understood why someone would let their life be ruled by an ancient text that has no real bearing on modern life. To me religion is only a tool to control people. Always has been, always will be. You know, "Be good and live well after you die."
 

narf

Sgt. Maj. Buzzkill
DONOR
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
18,186
Location
Kiel/Wherever, Germany
Car(s)
'19 BMW M240i
Sometimes you can learn something even from the US. Strange but true! :p :p :p :)
And yet, LA police have taken the person responsible for the video in for questioning :hmm: apparently, he was banned from the internet for five years :lol:

if their way of thinking was spread enough as to become common judgement, you could be in prison for something that in my way of thinking wouldn't be worth of that. This example is a way to remind you that censorship is bad, because who's to decide what's wrong and what's not, since we are speaking of words and ideas? Very easy example: Pussy Riot.

I understand why that law exist, but it's dangerous, because it is, ultimately, deeply wrong in its essence. Who decides what's an insult and what is just overreaction?

Yes, but according to what rule? And what people did made the rule? We are lucky now, because that law is effective in today's Germany, but a good law isn't a good law if a change in people's mind can turn it into a horrible tool without even modifying a single word of it.
Again, that's what we have a working legal system for.

You see, now I could make a joke and mock the prosecution of something outside Germany's jurisdiction as if wanting to decide for all was some 70+ years-old bad habit of German people. This would make you very angry. I would have insulted you, and quite a bit. Should I be put in prison... for a terribly bad joke? Or should the punishment be disproportionate to the crime? Yes, maybe the law needs something more to really put people in prison, but it's essence doesn't; any limitation or mitigation would always be completely accessory and debatable.
If I stand on the Swiss side of the border and shoot someone standing on the Italian side, should I be punished for it? I did not commit a crime in Switzerland (assuming I'm in legal possession of the gun). My actions had an effect in Italy though.

I agree with you on the protesters, but you can't just prohibit ideas, you have to teach people how to tell a good one from a bad one. Only then bad ideas will wither away and never return.
The law does not prohibit ideas. It prohibits spreading a very limited category of ideas.

Again, I'm not 100% positive whether the video would be deemed in violation or not. It's possible though.
 

British_Rover

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2006
Messages
4,288
Location
Torrington, CT United States
Car(s)
2005 Gr Cherokee, dealer demo
Your potatoes looked yummy.
Thank you the stew was good just a bit thin on the broth.

I thought they where purple.

As a non-believer I've never quite understood why someone would let their life be ruled by an ancient text that has no real bearing on modern life. To me religion is only a tool to control people. Always has been, always will be. You know, "Be good and live well after you die."
Well the species is billed as a blue potato but they do look bluish purple especially under the light of my kitchen.

Religion is fucked up but some people need that crutch. The problem is when they pick up that crutch and beat people to death with it.

And yet, LA police have taken the person responsible for the video in for questioning :hmm: apparently, he was banned from the internet for five years :lol:
The guy who supposedly made it is a convicted felon so he might have violated his parole. Convicted felons do not have the same rights as regular people in the US.
 

remizak

Active Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2011
Messages
263
Location
IL
Car(s)
2010 nissian maxima
And yet, LA police have taken the person responsible for the video in for questioning :hmm: apparently, he was banned from the internet for five years
He went in for questioning voluntarily then walked out. http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/15/world/anti-islam-filmmaker/index.html?hpt=hp_t2 under the terms of his probation he cant access the internet with out his probation officers approval.

If I stand on the Swiss side of the border and shoot someone standing on the Italian side, should I be punished for it? I did not commit a crime in Switzerland (assuming I'm in legal possession of the gun). My actions had an effect in Italy though
you committed a crime if you did that and my guess would be prosecuted in Switzerland for weapons charge and murder/attempted murder depending on how successful you were in Italy. But I fail to see how that analogy as anything to do with the video as its in no way a crime.
 
Last edited:

narf

Sgt. Maj. Buzzkill
DONOR
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
18,186
Location
Kiel/Wherever, Germany
Car(s)
'19 BMW M240i
you committed a crime if you did that and my guess would be prosecuted in Switzerland for weapons charge
I did say assuming the weapon was legal in Switzerland, didn't I?

and murder/attempted murder depending on how successful you were in Italy. But I fail to see how that analogy as anything to do with the video as its in no way a crime.
How can I commit a crime in Italy if I'm in Switzerland? That's outside of Italy's jurisdiction. Exactly the problem Edward posed when arguing against prosecuting Volksverhertzung acts committed outside of Germany that affect the inside of Germany.

As for the video, it may be a crime in Germany. I'm not certain about that myself, but our foreign minister believes it is: http://www.tagesschau.de/multimedia/video/video1181374.html last 20 seconds, not sure if accessible from elsewhere.
 

British_Rover

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2006
Messages
4,288
Location
Torrington, CT United States
Car(s)
2005 Gr Cherokee, dealer demo
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/09/that-anti-muhammed-film-its-totally-protected-by-the-1st-amendment/262324/

Go back and read that because you obviously didn't.


The severity of a crime or whether a crime was committed at all goes back to intent. Ignore the border issue for the moment as that is not as important.

If you pointed the rifle directly at the person and said, "hey I am going to shoot that guy," plus their are witnesses to that then intent is easy to prove. If there aren't any witnesses then it becomes harder but you can do it with forensics.


Now if you are showing the weapon to someone and it accidentally discharges injuring or killing the person then that goes back to intent as well. You did not mean to kill the guy so no 1st degree murder charge but a lesser charge would be applicable.

The problem is that the rifle is not a good stand in for the movie. A rifles intent is pretty clear. You use it to shoot things and it is a deadly weapon. A movie is not normally a weapon. The intent is not as clear and much more difficult to prove.

I guess the closes thing would be if you had thought you cleared the rifle but there was a hang fire sometime after you set the rifle down then that might absolve you of most intent. Obviously you didn't mean to shoot the person you thought you cleared and secured the rifle but because of ignorance or error there was a hang fire.

You would still most likely be charged but I cannot see you being charged with murder by even the most aggressive prosecutor.

It all comes down to intent and with a movie, even one as flagrant as this, the intent is not nearly as clear. I am speaking about all of this as an American. In Europe with some of the more restrictive free speech laws you have things would be very different.
 

narf

Sgt. Maj. Buzzkill
DONOR
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
18,186
Location
Kiel/Wherever, Germany
Car(s)
'19 BMW M240i
Ignore the border issue for the moment as that is not as important.
The border issue is key, since Edward was ridiculing the fact that actions taken outside of Germany may be punishable under German law. The crime I chose as an example is irrelevant. Insert any crime that can be committed in country A that affects country B.
 
Last edited:

British_Rover

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2006
Messages
4,288
Location
Torrington, CT United States
Car(s)
2005 Gr Cherokee, dealer demo
The border issue is key, since Edward was ridiculing the fact that actions taken outside of Germany may be punishable under German law.
You have trial in Absentia in Germany don't you? I think you could try a to mount a prosecution but I think you would lose under intent.
 

narf

Sgt. Maj. Buzzkill
DONOR
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
18,186
Location
Kiel/Wherever, Germany
Car(s)
'19 BMW M240i
You have trial in Absentia in Germany don't you? I think you could try a to mount a prosecution but I think you would lose under intent.
Nobody's going to prosecute him, but I wouldn't risk travelling here. People are a bit upset about the trashed German embassy in Khartoum.

However, once again, I'm not 100% positive whether the video actually would be subject to the law. I couldn't bare the terrible post-production sound to watch it properly, and IANAL. Our former vice chancellor considers it illegal though.
 

SirEdward

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2008
Messages
1,829
Location
Bologna, Italy
Car(s)
VW Golf MkV
The border issue is key, since Edward was ridiculing the fact that actions taken outside of Germany may be punishable under German law. The crime I chose as an example is irrelevant. Insert any crime that can be committed in country A that affects country B.
Narf, I know you don't do it on purpose, but I wasn't in any way talking about borders, and I wasn't ridiculing anything. I was talking about censorship (or laws saying what ideas are right or wrong).
 

CraigB

Ich bin ein Kartoffel
DONOR
Joined
Feb 14, 2007
Messages
12,895
Location
SWMO
Car(s)
Mustang SVO - Nissan Frontier Pro-4X & Altima
Random Thoughts (Political Edition)

Religion is fucked up but some people need that crutch. The problem is when they pick up that crutch and beat people to death with it.
I'd rep you but I'm on Tapatalk.
 

narf

Sgt. Maj. Buzzkill
DONOR
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
18,186
Location
Kiel/Wherever, Germany
Car(s)
'19 BMW M240i
Narf, I know you don't do it on purpose, but I wasn't in any way talking about borders, and I wasn't ridiculing anything. I was talking about censorship (or laws saying what ideas are right or wrong).
Right here:

You see, now I could make a joke and mock the prosecution of something outside Germany's jurisdiction
 

SirEdward

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2008
Messages
1,829
Location
Bologna, Italy
Car(s)
VW Golf MkV
Right here:
please, read (and quote) the whole sentence. "You see, now I could make a joke and mock the prosecution of something outside Germany's jurisdiction" ... "as if wanting to decide for all was some 70+ years-old bad habit of German people. This would make you very angry. I would have insulted you, and quite a bit. Should I be put in prison... for a terribly bad joke?"


There wasn't even a comma between the two parts, so why have you taken just one bit of my entire sentence, subverting its meaning completely and suggesting that I have said things I haven't? Did you even notice that?

This kind of things are your custom, I know you do and I know you are probably unaware of it, so I have marked but ignored the first two iterations. That is good will on my part. Now get a grip and try to do your part, because otherwise communication isn't going to work.
 
Last edited:

narf

Sgt. Maj. Buzzkill
DONOR
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
18,186
Location
Kiel/Wherever, Germany
Car(s)
'19 BMW M240i
Look back at what sentence you responded to with that - it said that such crimes can be prosecuted even if committed outside the country. If your response had nothing to do with the part you quote right above it then I can't help you :dunno:
 

SirEdward

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2008
Messages
1,829
Location
Bologna, Italy
Car(s)
VW Golf MkV
Look back at what sentence you responded to with that
I have. your sentence was a suggestion, a starting point, for me to build an example of what was the main topic of our exchange.

If your response had nothing to do with the part you quote right above it then I can't help you
If you think I'm going somewhere else (and I wasn't), you should warn me, ask me to stick on topic, ask me to explain my thoughts better. You haven't.
Instead, you still took my words and twisted them away, changing their meaning to... maybe what your mind suggested you I was saying. Except I wasn't, so now you are trying to find a valid way out of your own bad steps.

However, this things isn't worth going on anymore. I just pointed out that my thoughts were different. If you don't believe me, I'm very sorry and I wish you the best of luck.
 

CraigB

Ich bin ein Kartoffel
DONOR
Joined
Feb 14, 2007
Messages
12,895
Location
SWMO
Car(s)
Mustang SVO - Nissan Frontier Pro-4X & Altima
Random Thoughts (Political Edition)

Repped him for you.
Same problem. ;)


This is really random, it has been weighing on my mind lately. Since I've never stepped foot in an institution of higher learning, this may have been covered in Phsyc 101, but here we go...

Who's to say which side is right in any moral argument?
 
Top