Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Quick Search: in
Freedom of Speech in Two Constitutions
View unanswered posts
View posts from last 24 hours

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next  
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Off the Wall
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
The Doctor
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 27 Jul 2010
Posts: 2600

PostPosted: Fri Aug 30, 2019 4:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Asch wrote:
The Doctor wrote:
The weatherman asserts that because press did their job and reported on facts as they became available his human dignity suffered. In other words, the press cannot have freedom of the press because it harms his human dignity and their rights have to be curtailed.

That argument can be used to ban any public speech. Two genders? That harms the human dignity of transgender. Banned. Criticize Muslims? Banned. All easily done because it violates someone's "human dignity."

Your legal system might draw that line somewhere, but your constitution does not.


That's a good thing that people are free to libel and misrepresent with false accusations in the US. Speech is so free there that no one would fear social reprisals and SJW mobs if they dared come into his defense or even contemplate the possibility that the accusation was false and/or made in bad will.

I mean, if the accused was not a democrat. In that case, everybody would look the other way and no outrages would be caused.
Libel is illegal and doesn't have anything to do with this. It is a complaint about human dignity, unless ulenrich is unable to distinguish between the two.

EDIT: Take for example Jian Ghomeshi. Falsely accused. Media reports where swirling with negative coverage treating him like he was guilty. Trial proved the accusers where lying and they admitted as much under oath. Was the media coverage wrong? No. Their reports where based on false information that they had no way of knowing was false. They presented the facts as they knew them. That isn't a problem with the reporting yet it certainly violated his human dignity.
_________________
First things first, but not necessarily in that order.

Apologies if I take a while to respond. I'm currently working on the dematerialization circuit for my blue box.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ulenrich
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 10 Oct 2010
Posts: 1389

PostPosted: Fri Aug 30, 2019 4:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Doctor wrote:
..., unless ulenrich is unable to distinguish between the two.
What ..., arrgh I have to answere yours:
The Doctor wrote:
1st, American and British people who have lived in Germany disagree that your freedom of speech comes close to what is held in the US or UK, which is saying something considering how bad the UK is.

Second, Die Würde des Menschen ist unantastbar does sound nice, but think about it. Where is "human dignity" ever defined? That is the problem. There is literally no teeth to it because it doesn't mean anything. It just sounds good.

Quote:
Once the most famous tv weatherman was wrongly accused of rape. After years in court he now slowly makes his comeback. But he accuses the press to have assaulted his dignity when reporting the case.
And strangely you highlight exactly the problem.

The weatherman asserts that because press did their job and reported on facts as they became available his human dignity suffered. In other words, the press cannot have freedom of the press because it harms his human dignity and their rights have to be curtailed.

That argument can be used to ban any public speech. Two genders? That harms the human dignity of transgender. Banned. Criticize Muslims? Banned. All easily done because it violates someone's "human dignity."

Your legal system might draw that line somewhere, but your constitution does not.
Where is "human dignity" ever defined?
That is a problem unless you have a very strong:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Constitutional_Court

The Federal Constitutional Court gets most of his power defining "human dignity"!
In this way the judges are very independent from any legislature. And they can adapt to the Zeitgeist in society. More over this highest Constitutional Court - positioned in the south of Germany near Strasbourg - is coining the terms of thinking in Germany (Zeitgeist) in advance often.
It is the most respected institution in Germany but sometimes upsets conservative critics when something new arrives (transgender etc). Though there have been cases in favor of conservatives: Abortion only is allowed in the first 3 months and must be preceeded by counseling pro life.
Also very new phenomena, like data ownership of the personal life, can be connected to "human dignity". What about family pictures of children put online: Is the human dignity of the baby hurt then?

Also immigration related: children must learn to swim (human dignity not to be drowned easily)
And history related often is forbidden in free speech (human dignity of jewish human beings)
_________________
the thread ain't easily find an end
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
The Doctor
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 27 Jul 2010
Posts: 2600

PostPosted: Fri Aug 30, 2019 5:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ulenrich, you are continually proving my point.

Your constitutions does NOT guarantee free speech at all. I suspected as much reading the first post. Now you are going out of your way to prove the point.
Quote:
The Federal Constitutional Court gets most of his power defining "human dignity"!
Therefore the constitution doesn't define it and allows speech to be abridged by whatever the court thinks "human dignity" should be. The legislature can pass any restriction they feel like and as long as they can convince the court that somehow human dignity is involved they can do it.

Meaning that yes, my examples hold as the perfect example. Banning criticism of multiple genders could be considered an affront to human dignity no matter what medical evidence was under discussion. Or criticism of Islam. Or criticism of Chancellor Hitler. All you need is the correct judges and it is perfectly constitutional!

Heck, Germany has previously arrested and executed millions of Jews to preserve the human dignity of Aryan race. Is that constitutional? Seems like it is as long as we accept the argument that Jews are a lesser form of person that harms Aryan ones by their existence. And you only need about 20 people to agree.
Quote:
Also very new phenomena, like data ownership of the personal life, can be connected to "human dignity".
You seem to be going out of your way to prove my point. Literally anything can be interpreted that way.

That type of issue can easily be addressed under the US legal system as well. You don't need vague undefined platitudes to do it. In fact, it is actively harmful.
_________________
First things first, but not necessarily in that order.

Apologies if I take a while to respond. I'm currently working on the dematerialization circuit for my blue box.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
patrix_neo
Guru
Guru


Joined: 08 Jan 2004
Posts: 519
Location: The Maldives

PostPosted: Fri Aug 30, 2019 9:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Doc: You are speaking to entities that argue about what is wrong with you. It's not about what is wrong, but that you are wrong and how they can make you see that.

I had to say it, more than tell you.
_________________
Life is a fog where some thinks to know where to go
To make an error is human, letting it be is the error.
Deus Vult
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ulenrich
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 10 Oct 2010
Posts: 1389

PostPosted: Fri Aug 30, 2019 10:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Doctor wrote:
ulenrich, you are continually proving my point.
I don't get your point yet

Quote:
Your constitutions does NOT guarantee free speech at all. I suspected as much reading the first post. Now you are going out of your way to prove the point.
Quote:
The Federal Constitutional Court gets most of his power defining "human dignity"!
Therefore the constitution doesn't define it and allows speech to be abridged by whatever the court thinks "human dignity" should be. The legislature can pass any restriction they feel like and as long as they can convince the court that somehow human dignity is involved they can do it.

Meaning that yes, my examples hold as the perfect example. Banning criticism of multiple genders could be considered an affront to human dignity no matter what medical evidence was under discussion. Or criticism of Islam. Or criticism of Chancellor Hitler. All you need is the correct judges and it is perfectly constitutional!
I acknowledge fully as all correct above:
The written constitution does not guarantee anything in the long run. But the constitutional system as a whole is supposed to do so. It is called:
"wehrhafte Demokratie"
militant democracy
I must admit the whole thing depends on the personalities and education of the judges in the Federal Constitutional Court
(in the USA the electorate of Trump seems to also appreciate an importance of these judges)

Quote:
Heck, Germany has previously arrested and executed millions of Jews to preserve the human dignity of Aryan race. Is that constitutional? Seems like it is as long as we accept the argument that Jews are a lesser form of person that harms Aryan ones by their existence. And you only need about 20 people to agree.
A suggested "dignity of Aryan race" or any suggested kind of race of jewish people is judged harming "human dignity" and censored
"Volksverhetzung"
incitement of the people
and is excluded from Free Speech in Germany.
In the domain of science (you must have a science grade or work for one to get) you can make full use of the race kind of terms. Limited use of such speech is possible in the domain of art: For example a character in a theatrical play may recite a Hitler speech. But such a play will be tried before the courts for sure, because someone will want to get it censored/forbidden. The picture Downfall (wit Bruno Ganz, 2004) was a great success in Germany and never was forbidden. One of the best films depicting Hitler. It is the motion picture most quoted on Youtube showing Hitller.

In light of my answer, could you again explain your point, please.
_________________
the thread ain't easily find an end
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
The Doctor
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 27 Jul 2010
Posts: 2600

PostPosted: Sat Aug 31, 2019 4:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

patrix_neo wrote:
Doc: You are speaking to entities that argue about what is wrong with you. It's not about what is wrong, but that you are wrong and how they can make you see that.

I had to say it, more than tell you.
Thank you, I am fully aware. I haven't taken anything online personally in about 10 years. Now I just enjoy poking them to see what they do when I'm bored.


ulenrich wrote:
...I must admit the whole thing depends on the personalities and education of the judges in the Federal Constitutional Court...
...A suggested "dignity of Aryan race" or any suggested kind of race of jewish people is judged harming "human dignity" and censored...
..."Volksverhetzung" incitement of the people and is excluded from Free Speech in Germany...
In light of my answer, could you again explain your point, please.
You seem to fully understand. The Constitution protects nothing by design and instead depends on the judiciary to define it.
_________________
First things first, but not necessarily in that order.

Apologies if I take a while to respond. I'm currently working on the dematerialization circuit for my blue box.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
frank9999
n00b
n00b


Joined: 20 Feb 2013
Posts: 61
Location: Germany

PostPosted: Thu Sep 05, 2019 6:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dark ages are coming in the US:

https://www.economist.com/international/2019/08/17/the-global-gag-on-free-speech-is-tightening?fsrc=scn/tw/te/bl/ed/theglobalgagonfreespeechistighteningthenewcensors

Quote:
Meanwhile, in mature democracies, support for free speech is ebbing, especially among the young, and outright hostility to it is growing. Nowhere is this more striking than in universities in the United States. In a Gallup poll published last year, 61% of American students said that their campus climate prevented people from saying what they believe, up from 54% the previous year. Other data from the same poll may explain why. Fully 37% said it was “acceptable” to shout down speakers they disapproved of to prevent them from being heard, and an incredible 10% approved of using violence to silence them.
Many students justify this by arguing that some speakers are racist, homophobic or hostile to other disadvantaged groups. This is sometimes true. But the targets of campus outrage have often been reputable, serious thinkers. Heather Mac Donald, for example, who argues that “Black Lives Matter” protests prompted police to pull back from high-crime neighbourhoods, and that this allowed the murder rate to spike, had to be evacuated from Claremont McKenna College in California in a police car. Furious protesters argued that letting her speak was an act of “violence” that denied “the right of black people to exist”.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
The Doctor
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 27 Jul 2010
Posts: 2600

PostPosted: Fri Sep 06, 2019 1:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Most of them will grow up when they have to get a real job. We have seen it before, although this time there is less risk of herpes and syphilis.
_________________
First things first, but not necessarily in that order.

Apologies if I take a while to respond. I'm currently working on the dematerialization circuit for my blue box.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ulenrich
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 10 Oct 2010
Posts: 1389

PostPosted: Fri Sep 06, 2019 1:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

@frank9999
your post examplifies, what I wanted to show in this thread:
There cannot be a constitution with a Freedom of Speech sentence clear and bright enough, whatsoever there might be no Freedom of Speech in the land at all. I myself have seen such a country with all human rights clearly written on constitutional papers: 1980 I crossed the Wall and visited East-Berlin.

Also american history has a couple of decades where Freedom of Speech was on papers only! And for some groups of people longer than some decades.
_________________
the thread ain't easily find an end
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
The Doctor
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 27 Jul 2010
Posts: 2600

PostPosted: Fri Sep 06, 2019 1:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ulenrich, when someone can go to Germany get out their soap box and start preaching about how Muslims and transgender people are bad for society and Nazi ideology isn't that bad then you can talk about having free speech. Until then your just pretending.

The USA lets the KKK and genuine Nazis march and protects them. That is freedom of speech. Inoffensive speech by definition needs no protection. Freedom of speech is the right to be offensive.
_________________
First things first, but not necessarily in that order.

Apologies if I take a while to respond. I'm currently working on the dematerialization circuit for my blue box.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ulenrich
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 10 Oct 2010
Posts: 1389

PostPosted: Sat Sep 07, 2019 6:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Question to experts of Freedom of Speech:

When you summon someone to break the law and deliver with your free speech a description how to do it,
this is a criminal abuse of Freedom of Speech, isn't it?

1. example
Recently Trump called some state lawyers to circumvent orderly proceedurs to get properties needed for the border wall.

2. example
This week Boris Johnson prompted the prime minister not to follow the law and seek for an extension in Brussels. He advised to break this law by falling deadly into a ditch.

Both examples are not covered by Freedom of Speech, aren't they?
_________________
the thread ain't easily find an end
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
The Doctor
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 27 Jul 2010
Posts: 2600

PostPosted: Sat Sep 07, 2019 8:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

1) citation needed.
2) without royal assent it is not a law so he is not breaking it. Haven't you learned about commenting on UK law without knowing it?
_________________
First things first, but not necessarily in that order.

Apologies if I take a while to respond. I'm currently working on the dematerialization circuit for my blue box.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ulenrich
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 10 Oct 2010
Posts: 1389

PostPosted: Sat Sep 07, 2019 10:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Doctor wrote:
2) without royal assent it is not a law so he is not breaking it.
Yeah, that seems to be true. But do you think, instructing oneself to do a crime is not allowed under Freedom of Speech?

Quote:
Haven't you learned about commenting on UK law without knowing it?
I have to study UK law, surely. But then I wouldn't ask you about it any more, surely.

PS ad 1)
Quote:
But that’s not what’s happening with President Donald Trump’s latest push for his border wall. The Washington Post reports that Trump is frantically urging aides to get construction on his border wall under way, overriding their objections that this might require breaking environmental laws, violating contracting rules, or improperly claiming private land.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/08/trump-pardons-border-wall/596962/
_________________
the thread ain't easily find an end
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
juniper
l33t
l33t


Joined: 22 Oct 2004
Posts: 763
Location: EU

PostPosted: Sat Sep 14, 2019 5:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Doctor wrote:
The German constitution does not protect speech at all. Anything offensive could be interpreted to violate "Human dignity" and therefore be banned.


I don't know how this works in practice, but this indeed seems to be a problem. What is human dignity and what constitutes violating it?

My take on this is that the most ardent supporters of restricting free speech are the ones who in a just society would have it used against them first. Take the people who want to ban criticism of religion on the basis of offence. This crowd has a lot of muslim members. Do you know what one of the most offensive books ever is to me? the quran. So, if we are going to start banning things, that should be high on the list.

it's the basis of why Geert Wilders wants to ban the Quran. He calls it hate speech.
_________________
wswartzendruber wrote:
Well, every group has its nutjobs, and the Second Amendment crowd is no exception.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
The Doctor
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 27 Jul 2010
Posts: 2600

PostPosted: Sat Sep 14, 2019 8:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ulenrich, can you tell the difference between an opinion piece and a news article? Because that is all that is.

The fact is environmental laws can be broken to build the wall due to this national emergency business. And the walls have proven very effective, so calling them "symbolic" should be your cue that the piece your citing doesn't bother with facts. Illegal boarder crossings drop dramatically wherever there is a wall. And as to enlarging ice to combat the problem? Who exactly is refusing to do that? Wait, its coming to me... the Democrats!
_________________
First things first, but not necessarily in that order.

Apologies if I take a while to respond. I'm currently working on the dematerialization circuit for my blue box.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sugar
Guru
Guru


Joined: 07 Aug 2004
Posts: 579
Location: Morrinsville, New Zealand

PostPosted: Sun Sep 15, 2019 7:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Old School wrote:
The first step to control thought is to control speech. That is what the regressive left hopes to achieve. The elimination of ideas contrary to their own.



I can stand on your lawn and read passages from LOTR at 3am in the morning through a loud speaker, but shouldn't be surprised that my first amendment rights have been taken away when the authorities turn up and unplug my microphone.

If I take a photo of you in a compromising position in your own home, you are not harmed in anyway, and it does not restrict your 'natural rights'. Can I expect my right to freedom of speech to protect me from the government when I publish said photos?

the right to free speech is not absolute or infinite.
_________________
He who calls for full employment calls for war!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
crocket
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 29 Apr 2017
Posts: 269

PostPosted: Sun Sep 15, 2019 8:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Freedom of speech is ultimately a human invention. It's imagined by humans. I like freedom, but freedom is ultimately an imagination.

That's why you bump into all sorts of paradoxes when you talk about freedom of speech.
The theory is not complete.

Freedom is as fictional as atoms. Atom is a theory and a model. We are not actually made of atoms, but of empty void. Atom is not the absolute truth.
Freedom and rights don't exist in vacuum. They are stuff we construct in our minds.

What are you left with after you are stripped of freedom and rights? You are left with selfishness.

If people acted selflessly for the greater good instead of citing whatever selfish freedom they can conjure up to protect their own ass, the society would become better.
You got to survive and prevent others from taking advantage of you, but it's also important to act selflessly for the greater good.
We are gridlocked because most people are selfish assholes.
We better think about how to balance survival and selfless pursuit of the greater good.

In practice, this may look like making trade-offs between various kinds of freedom for the greater amount of freedom for all, not just for you.


Last edited by crocket on Sun Sep 15, 2019 10:00 am; edited 9 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
crocket
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 29 Apr 2017
Posts: 269

PostPosted: Sun Sep 15, 2019 8:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

sugar wrote:
Old School wrote:
The first step to control thought is to control speech. That is what the regressive left hopes to achieve. The elimination of ideas contrary to their own.



I can stand on your lawn and read passages from LOTR at 3am in the morning through a loud speaker, but shouldn't be surprised that my first amendment rights have been taken away when the authorities turn up and unplug my microphone.

If I take a photo of you in a compromising position in your own home, you are not harmed in anyway, and it does not restrict your 'natural rights'. Can I expect my right to freedom of speech to protect me from the government when I publish said photos?

the right to free speech is not absolute or infinite.


I think you are confusing speech with publishing.

Publishing a photo is not speech.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
frank9999
n00b
n00b


Joined: 20 Feb 2013
Posts: 61
Location: Germany

PostPosted: Sat Oct 05, 2019 6:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

A nice additional example about the non-existent freedom of speech here in the authoritarian shithole country of germany:
Today: When stickers on your vehicle, with criticism about Greta, can take you to prison for up to 3 years...
See the IMHO creative stickers on the photo in the article:
https://www.freiepresse.de/vogtland/plauen/ermittlungen-gegen-greta-hasser-artikel10624070

Quote:

One of these tailgate decorations looks like this: out of the trunk hang two long and beautifully made Greta braids. It says "problem solved", and a little further up "Fuck you Greta". Against a man from Plauen, who has stuck his car with the braids, the prosecutor's office has initiated a preliminary investigation. "The charge that needs to be considered is a public call for crimes," says Ines Leonhardt, spokeswoman for the Zwickau district attorney. In this kind of tailgate decoration one could see violence glorification against children and the request to do something to a certain person. The Penal Code provides for up to three years imprisonment.


He can be glad that Gretaism has not yet been recognized as a religion here. We have still a blasphemy(!) paragraph in the code here, that could increase the possible punishment ...
It's getting more and more absurd every day in this country ....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ulenrich
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 10 Oct 2010
Posts: 1389

PostPosted: Sat Oct 05, 2019 7:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

frank9999 wrote:
A nice additional example about the non-existent freedom of speech here in the authoritarian shithole country of germany:
Today: When stickers on your vehicle, with criticism about Greta, can take you to prison for up to 3 years...
This is a first investigation. When the man is in jail actually get me noted: I need to get rid of my neighbour.
_________________
the thread ain't easily find an end
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
crocket
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 29 Apr 2017
Posts: 269

PostPosted: Sun Oct 06, 2019 4:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think freedom of speech is just a distraction. The core of the issue is that some people in germany rigged the system at the expense of most people.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Muso
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 22 Oct 2002
Posts: 1002
Location: The Holy city of Honolulu

PostPosted: Sun Oct 06, 2019 7:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

frank9999 is right. That is frightening.
_________________
"You can lead a horticulture but you can't make her think" ~ Dorothy Parker
"It's not a big truck. It's a series of tubes." ~ Senator Ted Stevens describing the Internet
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ulenrich
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 10 Oct 2010
Posts: 1389

PostPosted: Sun Oct 06, 2019 8:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Muso wrote:
frank9999 is right. That is frightening.
Yes, for human beings like Greta. Probabilities to get murdered is rising for publicly seen persons with a crowd frightend loosing their lifestyle.
_________________
the thread ain't easily find an end
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Old School
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 245
Location: West Bank of the Coast Fork

PostPosted: Sun Oct 06, 2019 3:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ulenrich wrote:
Muso wrote:
frank9999 is right. That is frightening.
Yes, for human beings like Greta. Probabilities to get murdered is rising for publicly seen persons with a crowd frightend loosing their lifestyle.
The little ignorant girl with anger issues did not go to China, where she would get murdered. The Chinese are the ones that would lose their lifestyle, not the US which is already lowering emissions.
_________________
The Future Ain't What It Used To Be

Christmas Lights Are Like Jeffrey Epstein, They Don't Hang Themselves.

The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.
George Orwell
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mrbassie
Guru
Guru


Joined: 31 May 2013
Posts: 563

PostPosted: Sun Oct 06, 2019 3:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ulenrich wrote:
Muso wrote:
frank9999 is right. That is frightening.
Yes, for human beings like Greta. Probabilities to get murdered is rising for publicly seen persons with a crowd frightend loosing their lifestyle.


Surely she'd rise on the third day anyway.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Off the Wall All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 2 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum