And here is another place where the german government skates on thin ice.

"Volksverhetzung is a punishable offense under Section 130 of the Strafgesetzbuch (Germany's criminal code) and can lead to up to five years imprisonment. Volksverhetzung is punishable in Germany even if committed abroad and even if committed by non-German citizens, if the incitement of hatred takes effect on German territory—that is, the seditious sentiment was expressed in written or spoken German and disseminated in Germany (German criminal code's Principle of Ubiquity, Section 9 Paragraph 1 Alternatives 3 and 4 of the Strafgesetzbuch).[2]"

I remmember this situation arising in Denmark.
The justice minister took it upon herself to "go along with the program", and had a group of people arrested. Within 24 hours, they were released by the court, who decided to go along with the Danish Constitution, rather than "the program".

Exportation of tyranical restrictions of Freedom Of Speech are NOT acceptable.

The german people are "free" to accept tyrany within their own borders, if they so choose.
The german government however, is NOT free to export that tyrany to other lands.

Again, restrictions on Freedom Of Speech, lead to restrictions on Freedom Of Thought.

While this of course is an extreme statement, it does have a very good point. A long time ago, I, too, posted on a forum about how Nazis shouldn't be allowed to demonstrate, or speak their mind. As part of the ensuing discussion, someone pointed out to me that I was proposing basically the same model of freedom of speech that was in use in Nazi Germany: you can say whatever you please, with no restrictions, censorship, or fear of punishment... except from things that do not go along with the party line. In 2010 in Germany, every statement is allowed, except from statements that further a policy that goes against that of the strongly anti-Nazi government.

The punishments differ, sure, no one loses their heads, or faces firing squads, or mysteriously vanish for saying the Holocaust didn't take place. But facing up to three years of jail (more than you get for rape in many places) is still a very harsh sentence, and when it comes down to it, the sentiment -- that our cause is so all-important, so "sacred", that we simply cannot allow anyone to speak up against it, is the same.

Is that by any chance the incitement subsection that is used for holocaust deniers.

Glad to see the point of my post did not go unnoticed.

Thank you for expanding, and clarifying further, the intent of my post.

Nail on the head! :up:

While I don't agree with what the man was doing - Stupidity isn't a crime!

We see all to often how people become the monsters they thought they destroyed and how laws are used to abuse former abusers.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Hatred breeds hatred. It will continue to evolve and spread until this world ends itself in nuclear destruction.

Then the world will have to contend with SuperMutants, Feral Ghouls, RadRoaches, RadScorpions, and Molerats! Reserve your family's seat with Vault-Tec Today! :up:

Sounds like the forum members! :D

Stupidity is a crime when it leads to negligence.

What the man did was absolutly insane,but I'cant say at the and of the world, will be nuclear
disaster,I say if more of us, talk and solved common issue,and have a open mind and not stand in a corner to "only" watch,act and that's give you advantage!

Hereditary sin? :-?


Yes, John Rabe was a horrible, horrible man! And wiping out anyone with an oponion we find distasteful can surely be no murder, if we can find justification in likeminded people in history. Come to think of it, the only good Democrat is a dead Democrat, because they were anti-abolitionists back in the day. And modern day Democrats - including Obama - are just as guilty as those 200 years ago and must suffer the consequences. What they have themselves actually done or not done is entirely irrelevant. :doh:

You hit it right on the head GR. :yep: He wasn't thinking.:haha:

Wanted!
 

Brain missiing....:yep:

Hey, how is that:

I come to Virginia in the US and do some good ol' cross-burning if you come to Berlin in Germany, put on a SS-uniform and goose-step through the Brandenburg gate.

Deal?

[QUOTE=Kissaki;1437034]Hereditary sin? :-?



When the Democrats deliberately murder 9 million people then you betcha.

True....
 

[QUOTE=August;1437097]But in this case was,ono mans"no thinking at all, so what are we do for to prevent this?
Forbidd or Be my guest?

Does that mean ALL Democrats deliberately murder 9 million people? From now on and till the end of time? :-?


Yes, in this case, he fully deserved some sort of legal repercussion. I think three years is extreme, though, unless most of it is suspended. The reason this guy deserved it is because he wasn't simply voicing his opinion, he was disturbing the peace and instigating to whatever mayhem he could.

Must people really be officially allowed all freedom to do maximum damage possible?

I have a problem with plticians manipulating and gagging media for party interests. I have a porblem with corproations lobbying to betray voter'S vote and nevertheless acchieve different legislation than was voted for by voters.

I have no problem with free speech restricted if it calls for the destruction of the constitutional order (and this is what it is about, if you go back to the german constitution that I quoted). I WANT Islamic hate speech banned, becasue it mitivates andlures oyung men to go to pakistan, learn how to build bombs and assassinate people from the hidden. and if there would have been a ban on racist speech and natiobnalistic propaganda in the early 30s, maybe we would have escaped a holocaust with 6 million Jews and mor eothers being slaughtered like cattle, and over 50 million killed in war, most of them civilians.

Unlimited freedom for the individual living in a community context, is just one thing, and it never is anything different: anarchy, the law of the jungle. Where your way of living touches upon the way of living of others, your freedoms find limits, necessarily. If you deny that, you only find chaos, slaughter, war.

the more private you are, the more free you can behave (as long as your action does not cause consequences for others). the more public or social you are, the more rules necessarily must limit your freedoms, else you become the bully of the block. the citical thinking must not go into that principle - it is beyond discussion. The critical thinking must go into the rules and their balancing.