Like Tree22Likes

Free Speech in Germany?

Closed Thread
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
  1. #31

    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,687
    Quote Originally Posted by shri:
    Ok. So qualified free speech.
    Not really, threatening someone is covered by different laws, so inherently it is excluded from free speech.

  2. #32

  3. #33

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    6,180
    Quote Originally Posted by methosb:
    Essentially if all threat of harm is remove then all that is left is offense. So if you are for a law that is there to protect someone from feeling offended. As being offended is completely subjective the bar for what is and isn't allowed can be moved anywhere at the whim of any politician or any silly social climate (eg. University insanity going on now).
    Insult and feeling offended are not the same thing. Some people feel offended by boobs, even if they are of a nice size and shape and attached to a body that can present them perfectly.

    An insult should be directly related to you. When I say X (not his real name) is a moron, that is an insult. When I say, X is from a moron country, it's not an insult. You can (or better can't) only insult people directly.

  4. #34

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,452
    Original Post Deleted
    Sure there is. It's just words, they can't hurt. People should just stop being whiney bitches, especially politicians.
    Open Casket likes this.

  5. #35

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Pampanga, Philippines
    Posts
    29,763
    Original Post Deleted
    Which is where the limit lies IMO and what I think is the basis of the European law, if the words are likely to lead to unwanted consequences against a group then that is hate speech. So when Trump says build a wall to keep the rapists and murderers out that Mexico is sending and this leads to supporters at a sports match where one team is Hispanic shouting "Trump, Trump, build the wall" it could be argued his words were inciteful. Or when he says protesters should be carried on stretchers and he will pay the legal fees that could be deemed inciting violence.
    TheBrit likes this.

  6. #36

    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,687
    Original Post Deleted
    Both of your examples are examples of threats to people's safety.

  7. #37

    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,687

    Hate speech laws are ridiculous too. George Carlin couldn't do his act in Europe now without putting himself at risk of being prosecuted.

    Open Casket likes this.

  8. #38

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,452
    Original Post Deleted
    The problem there are not your words, but their actions. Words are just words, not actions. Since actions are already illegal, words don't have to be.

  9. #39

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Pampanga, Philippines
    Posts
    29,763
    Quote Originally Posted by mrgoodkat:
    The problem there are not your words, but their actions. Words are just words, not actions. Since actions are already illegal, words don't have to be.
    So when a radical imam preaches that all infidels should be killed and that it is a Muslim's duty to do the killing you would take no action? They are just words. It is not him taking the action.
    TheBrit likes this.

  10. #40

    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    3,015
    Quote Originally Posted by hullexile:
    That is the American view, most of Europe understands the concept of responsible free speech.
    Actually Europe seems very divided on this, especially your home country...