There is no way to distinguish malice from political opinion.
"Obama is a fuckhead." is malicious, but also a political opinion.
This extends all the way down to the very lowest levels, like your boss, for example. It's valid to criticize your boss (whether or not you get fired is a separate issue). Saying he's a fuckhead is a criticism. It's not cleaned up, it's not nice, but it's still valid criticism.
You seriously don't see a difference between an insult and a political statement? Wow, then I can say what I want, because you'll never get my point, because I (and also the law of the country I'm living in) is making a distinction.
Saying that for example a firm is shit and nobody should buy there can get you punished, while saying that this firma has misstreated you and that therefore nobody should buy there is completely legal (as long as you don't make that up).
The big difference is intend: You say something out of maliciousness makes it an insult, but as long as it's part of an argument and has context it's okay.
I never said it should be easy to sue someone because he insulted you; and I'd be really bewildered by any judge that would interpret misgendering as a serious insult, if not part of a very specific context.
Sorry, I inexplicitely though that the USA law agrees in this basic points with the law of my country. We have the principles here in place; a persons well-being is more important than the freedom of speech of another.
@Kartoffel I don't know what the perception in Germany is regarding free speech, but historically in the US (and by historically I mean several Supreme Court cases decades and even centuries ago) made free speech to be pretty much precisely that, no exceptions. That doesn't mean there aren't negative consequences for insults but the idea of legal consequences for speech is politically untenable that country, given that it has always historically been at odds with itself over everything and has greatly benefited from having a debate platform as wide as possible.
Yeah, sorry for my mistake again, nice to see that someone elaborates a bit on it.
I personally prefer the system of my country, but I think that came also historically into being, because we wanted to make sure that something like the Nazis can't happen here again a second time. And it's not like we are against free speech here; there was a quite famous case of an entertainer who made a poem about Edogan and he won the process, which I think shows that our system works. Also we don't have that much bullshit here in the first place with safe spaces and special pronouns, but I'm not that up to date German-speaking social media, but coverage in webmedia seems to agree with this impression. Perhaps opressed minorities feel a bit safer here because of this difference in mentality? Or our trannys are simply not as flashy as yours. I have absolutely no idea.
That's specifically related to the U.S. First Amendment.
However, the very concept of free speech is completely meaningless and empty without the right to be offensive. Nobody ever tried to stop speech they didn't find offensive!
Just having super thin skin and taking offense at fucking everything doesn't give you special rights. There is no "right not to be offended."
Yeah like we noticed, my bad, our countrys differ here massively.
I never said there is a right that your are not offended, but you have a right to not be psychologically harmed with words. That's why I repeatedly emphasized the malicious intend and the extend of the insults. Nobody will ever get sued because he did insult someone once or twice. But doing it repeatedly over and over again without belonging to the press or doing it in an artistic context? Yupp, then you might be successfully sued - but only if they can actually prove that it happened.
I am not for "Samthandschuhe" and that people should not get offended by the slightest provocation (someone who does is a poor wiener), but I think there is a line between free speech and verbal garbage. The first one is important and must be protected, the other one should be minimized.
Sorry, I inexplicitely though that the USA law agrees in this basic points with the law of my country. We have the principles here in place; a persons well-being is more important than the freedom of speech of another.
Yeah, sorry for my mistake again, nice to see that someone elaborates a bit on it.
I personally prefer the system of my country, but I think that came also historically into being, because we wanted to make sure that something like the Nazis can't happen here again a second time. And it's not like we are against free speech here; there was a quite famous case of an entertainer who made a poem about Edogan and he won the process, which I think shows that our system works. Also we don't have that much bullshit here in the first place with safe spaces and special pronouns, but I'm not that up to date German-speaking social media, but coverage in webmedia seems to agree with this impression. Perhaps opressed minorities feel a bit safer here because of this difference in mentality? Or our trannys are simply not as flashy as yours. I have absolutely no idea.
I've observed that every country has a slightly different outlook on universal civil liberties, which is perfectly acceptable because different people get different experiences.
Germany's perspective makes perfect sense given what happened in the past, but in the US our past does too. Despite how it may appear I think there's always sort've been 'two Americas' in tension with each other but to keep the peace we have an understanding on a lot of things, and it goes all the way back to the foundation. I think the 1st amendment was written the way it was to make the government as neutral as possible to prevent it from taking one side or favoring one interest over a multiplicity of others. Sometimes that has been a detriment, but on the whole I think it works very well for us.
I've observed that every country has a slightly different outlook on universal civil liberties, which is perfectly acceptable because different people get different experiences.
Germany's perspective makes perfect sense given what happened in the past, but in the US our past does too. Despite how it may appear I think there's always sort've been 'two Americas' in tension with each other but to keep the peace we have an understanding on a lot of things, and it goes all the way back to the foundation. I think the 1st amendment was written the way it was to make the government as neutral as possible to prevent it from taking one side or favoring one interest over a multiplicity of others. Sometimes that has been a detriment, but on the whole I think it works very well for us.
Yeah, there're certainly worse places to live then America, the only thing that really deeply baffles me about your country is, that women get no paid matrial leave, except a few weeks to recover from the birth itself. But seperating of powers and neutrality of the state are one of the most awesome concepts that humanity has ever come up with.
I said that there is no way to tell (objectively) the difference. Thus you can only approximate what people were going for. And if there's nothing material at stake, it's pretty sketchy to weigh someone's freedom of expression on mere approximations.
Wow, then I can say what I want, because you'll never get my point, because I (and also the law of the country I'm living in) is making a distinction.
Saying that for example a firm is shit and nobody should buy there can get you punished, while saying that this firma has misstreated you and that therefore nobody should buy there is completely legal (as long as you don't make that up).
The big difference is intend: You say something out of maliciousness makes it an insult, but as long as it's part of an argument and has context it's okay.
Can't calling a given firm "shit" implicitly say you were mistreated by it in some way? In fact, isn't that the situation 99% of the time when someone insults a given firm?
Furthermore, I think malice is irrelevant. If you got ripped off by a company and you want revenge, that's malice. But that shouldn't be used as a justification for censorship.
See, I don't think you give offensive speech its due respect. There are legitimate emotions behind even the most coarse insults.
Consider:
Then "fuck tha police" became a rallying cry for disenfranchised black youth across the US. Coarse? Certainly. But it's got deeper meaning. I don't think anyone would dispute it, considering the social significance the original song has achieved. No one could really prove that saying "fuck the police" isn't referring to the original song, if it went in front of a judge. I think you would agree it has redeeming social value by this point, right?
But what, does that mean all vulgar language has to be sponsored by prominent art in order to be considered valid? Do we just have to strangle offensive language in the crib, before it becomes a meme? (Because once its a meme, it's too late. It's political/social art.)
I said that there is no way to tell (objectively) the difference. Thus you can only approximate what people were going for. And if there's nothing material at stake, it's pretty sketchy to weigh someone's freedom of expression on mere approximations.
Can't calling a given firm "shit" implicitly say you were mistreated by it in some way? In fact, isn't that the situation 99% of the time when someone insults a given firm?
No, context is really important here, you have to make clear that something is your personal oppinion etc. here if you don't want to risk to be sued for slander.
Furthermore, I think malice is irrelevant. If you got ripped off by a company and you want revenge, that's malice. But that shouldn't be used as a justification for censorship.
Eh, malice plays a big role in the justice system: Killing someone accidently is considered a lesser crime then killing someone out of hate, greed etc. also in your country. Intention plays a big role in many laws and it's a ernormous problem when certain laws leave it out (migratory birds act...).
See, I don't think you give offensive speech its due respect. There are legitimate emotions behind even the most coarse insults.
So the emotions of the insulter are more important than the ones of the insulted ones? Hm... I guess this kind of conflict should be settled by eternal back and forth of curses then.
Well I prefer it when people are told that curses don't make their points exactly more valid.
Consider:
Then "fuck tha police" became a rallying cry for disenfranchised black youth across the US. Coarse? Certainly. But it's got deeper meaning. I don't think anyone would dispute it, considering the social significance the original song has achieved. No one could really prove that saying "fuck the police" isn't referring to the original song, if it went in front of a judge. I think you would agree it has redeeming social value by this point, right?
See, this is not an insult in the classic sense, but protest, or could even classify as art. And this kind of things have a special weight. Also in Germany people who work in the public service have to endure more insults-wise than a normal person would have to, because that's part of the job. This is also why we don't have a seperate law for insulting police-men or the like; these still fall under the regular one. But they remind you that they can and will make use of the law if you start cursing at them because they just try to do their damm job.
But what, does that mean all vulgar language has to be sponsored by prominent art in order to be considered valid? Do we just have to strangle offensive language in the crib, before it becomes a meme? (Because once its a meme, it's too late. It's political/social art.)
Nope, you could use offensive words still in another contexts; it's just not allowed to insult others with them. And art has not to be necessarily prominent, but it must be indentifiable as it. In the end it depends on the judge, like it should be. That's their job, to make sure the law is applied rightfully.
But I must remind - my country's laws, not yours. I like mine better, you yours, both ways are legitimate and I don't wonder at all why someone would prefer the version he grew up with.
So long as people aren't discriminating in the workplace or beating the shit out of people for being different, I don't see the point in banning free speech. What people say and do in their spare time is their own business and the government has no place regulating it.
Besides, it's a slippery slope. Does refusing to refer to some batshit otherkin as their preferred pronoun count as hate speech?
I personally prefer the system of my country, but I think that came also historically into being, because we wanted to make sure that something like the Nazis can't happen here again a second time.
So long as people aren't discriminating in the workplace or beating the shit out of people for being different, I don't see the point in banning free speech. What people say and do in their spare time is their own business and the government has no place regulating it.
Free speach isn't banned. But speech with malicious intend is. As long as you are civil about it (and don't spread lies) you can say anything you want.
Besides, it's a slippery slope. Does refusing to refer to some batshit otherkin as their preferred pronoun count as hate speech?
In almost all cases no, it isn't. But if someone would misgender someone for a long time on a regular basis while it is clear that this is really deeply insulting to that person, you might have a base for a sue case - if you documented it properly of course. But I don't know how exactly this kind of crazy did fare in German courts so far; like I said, over here people are not that vocal about stuff like that. Or we have less sissys here.
Yes, because it's soo difficult to not curse all the time. Because your point gets automatically more valid when you decorate it with little cunts and retards; instead of insulting to your own and the intelligence of the one you are arguing with. Emotions are important and valid, but it's dumb to build your argumentation on it instead of objective points.
Yeah, heavily controlling something is nazi-like, they liked to do that sort of thing.
Yes it should be, considering the alternative is violence.
No , there is also the alternative in using the state's institutions to solve the conflict in a lawful manner. That's what sueing is for: to instead of using violence letting the state handle the argument, because they can if it needs to.
Of course in the USA this option becomes not very pratical, because you had to bring your legislative to make a law first, so jursis- and executive can handle, but it's still an excisting alternative, that seperates us from mere babarians.
I also realized something right now; I think one of the reason that you value free speech so much is because you lack privacy. If your state constantly spies on you, then of course the complete freeness is the only thing that keeps you from becoming rightfully paranoid. In my country we have a much more emphasis on the right to privacy and it's much much harder to get access to private stuff from the side of the state, so we actually don't have to watch out all the time what we say and how. As long as you know your limits you can say and do what your want.
Yes, because it's soo difficult to not curse all the time. Because your point gets automatically more valid when you decorate it with little cunts and exceptional individuals; instead of insulting to your own and the intelligence of the one you are arguing with. Emotions are important and valid, but it's dumb to build your argumentation on it instead of objective points.
No , there is also the alternative in using the state's institutions to solve the conflict in a lawful manner. That's what sueing is for: to instead of using violence letting the state handle the argument, because they can if it needs to.
Taking someone to court is violent. The only reason people show up to court is because they know the police will come to their door with guns if they don't. All government action is, at the end of the day, compelled by the threat of violence. Chairman Mao was right when he said that political power comes from the barrel of a gun.
Sorry, I inexplicitely though that the USA law agrees in this basic points with the law of my country. We have the principles here in place; a persons well-being is more important than the freedom of speech of another.
@Kartoffel, your system is, has alway been, and always will be, a disgrace to human rights and actively enabled the Third Reich's martyr complex and rise to power. I'll live in a country with open Klansmen every day over a country which pretends such men don't exist until it's too late and the Klansmen start turning your own rules against you.
No, context is really important here, you have to make clear that something is your personal oppinion etc. here if you don't want to risk to be sued for slander.
See, this is not an insult in the classic sense, but protest, or could even classify as art. And this kind of things have a special weight. Also in Germany people who work in the public service have to endure more insults-wise than a normal person would have to, because that's part of the job. This is also why we don't have a seperate law for insulting police-men or the like; these still fall under the regular one. But they remind you that they can and will make use of the law if you start cursing at them because they just try to do their damm job.
No, reread what I was saying. I was saying that you almost certainly would agree that the original song is art. (Because it is.)
But the phrase that it spawned, "fuck the police" is not a song. It's just a saying.
If I understand you correctly, you suggest that mere insults should be bannable because they carry no deeper meaning. So I'm saying that since the song became big, the phrase "fuck the police" stopped being a mere insult. Because again, it has deeper meaning.
Is that correct?
The bit about police being a special case isn't really relevant. Rephrase my whole argument in terms of any other insulting meme, one not directed at police, and it still holds.
I also realized something right now; I think one of the reason that you value free speech so much is because you lack privacy. If your state constantly spies on you, then of course the complete freeness is the only thing that keeps you from becoming rightfully paranoid. In my country we have a much more emphasis on the right to privacy and it's much much harder to get access to private stuff from the side of the state, so we actually don't have to watch out all the time what we say and how. As long as you know your limits you can say and do what your want.
We have excellent privacy in the US. Privacy is a huge issue in the US. See the fourth amendment.
I don't know what the German analogs are, but I can't imagine any modern state having protections any stronger than the fourth amendment. (Not that they're particularly special, of course. It's pretty standard "don't snoop without a warrant".)
If you're referring to the NSA, while that is indeed a problem, it's highly illegal. The only reason the NSA is still operating is because a load of legal bullshit that they use to dodge judicial scrutiny. Hopefully a politician or a group with some testicles tries to fuck with that. But of course, I'm not holding my breath.
(Well, and domestic spying agencies exist in other countries as well. The NSA is just very notorious.)
Well that's what you get when your state cares about its inhabitants. You should try it out, having access to affordable health care is great!
Taking someone to court is violent. The only reason people show up to court is because they know the police will come to their door with guns if they don't. All government action is, at the end of the day, compelled by the threat of violence. Chairman Mao was right when he said that political power comes from the barrel of a gun.
Yes, because violence get's shit done in the end. And I find violence in form of "fighting" before a court with predefined rules and using evidence as "weapon" a much better sort of violence then hitting the other till he does what I want.
And the logic behind that argument is that they would not have come to power by not being imprisoned? Please explain a little more in detail how exactly that is supposed to have worked.
@Kartoffel, your system is, has alway been, and always will be, a disgrace to human rights and actively enabled the Third Reich's martyr complex and rise to power. I'll live in a country with open Klansmen every day over a country which pretends such men don't exist until it's too late and the Klansmen start turning your own rules against you.
Excuse me? Pretend that they don't excist? That's bullshit we observe and watch these kind of people and persecute them when possible.
Also I'd call the death penality an guantanamo bay the bigger digrace to human rights than restricting civil speech to be in a cilvil manner and not purely insult-based. And saying that the restriction of free speech to be have in a civil manner was the enabler for the nazi bullshit is ludicrous. There was a multitude of reasons and in the law sense the big enabler was rather that stupid law that let Hitler easily overrule the parliament.
Yes, because violence get's shit done in the end. And I find violence in form of "fighting" before a court with predefined rules and using evidence as "weapon" a much better sort of violence then hitting the other till he does what I want.
I have no problem with the idea of legislation against housing, hiring, and workplace discrimination of transgender people, which is what this fundamentally is. The problem is that with the state of the transgender community now, people can't be trusted not to make up BS identities or exploit the "no harassment" clause to hell and back.
I had one of my closer friends cut all ties with me for a while because I mentioned being irreligious in a joke, but I respected his decision. Hell, after a few weeks, he apologized and we just pretended the whole thing never happened. :powerlevel: If I chimped out, my friend would have probably only had his beliefs reinforced and it'd ruin an otherwise good friendship.
Fighting hatred with hatred tends to not work well when it comes to civil rights.
In regards to contends, yes, I think I can agree. In regards to form, no; only if the context is suitable.
No, reread what I was saying. I was saying that you almost certainly would agree that the original song is art. (Because it is.)
But the phrase that it spawned, "fuck the police" is not a song. It's just a saying.
If I understand you correctly, you suggest that mere insults should be bannable because they carry no deeper meaning. So I'm saying that since the song became big, the phrase "fuck the police" stopped being a mere insult. Because again, it has deeper meaning.
Is that correct?
The bit about police being a special case isn't really relevant. Rephrase my whole argument in terms of any other insulting meme, one not directed at police, and it still holds.
Ah okay, I think I get now what you mean; but I'd say your case would be very iffy other here; it would really depend on how the Judge factors each component of the case and how widely known that thing is.
The other question is, would a policemen sue? Insults are only prosecuted if actively brought to attention. The bigger problem in this case would be the policemen if you ask me; most policemen don't actually sue, only if you pretend like a giant douche and I think they can discriminate between normal assholery and political activism.
Sorry if I didn't read that well enough, that topic here is huge and almost a bit overwhelming. But very interesting to discuss none the less.
We have excellent privacy in the US. Privacy is a huge issue in the US. See the fourth amendment.
I don't know what the German analogs are, but I can't imagine any modern state having protections any stronger than the fourth amendment. (Not that they're particularly special, of course. It's pretty standard "don't snoop without a warrant".)
If you're referring to the NSA, while that is indeed a problem, it's highly illegal. The only reason the NSA is still operating is because a load of legal bullshit that they use to dodge judicial scrutiny. Hopefully a politician or a group with some testicles tries to fuck with that. But of course, I'm not holding my breath.
(Well, and domestic spying agencies exist in other countries as well. The NSA is just very notorious.)
Yeah, I was reffering to the NSA, but you are also more unprotected because their is no federal law for protection of personalized data just many little local ones, which makes it very hard to see through - and that the state has made it easy for itself to snoop, because of terrorism.
Hitler's regime is not what we might call exactly lawful at that time.
Also you might consider the fact that nowadays our law is constructed explicitely in a way that such bullshit does never happen again. To come to the fact that todays laws are inferior because when they were already in the Weimarer republic is dumb, because these also included free speech, assembly and religion and where actually quite advanced for their time. The big problem was that giant gaping hole that enabled Hitler to grab the power.
You can get ill from getting bullied enough. Why is it less a crime if you fuck a life up by hitting someone directly then doing the same damage verbally? When you hurt someone (without one reason out of a limited and known set) you get punished. That's fair and also one of the oldest law principles we have.
How about we don't have any violence by just letting everyone say whatever they want?
Imagine that someone makes a hobby out of it to insult you constantly in public. Just because he can. And you can do nothing about it. It's basically mobbing. And that's what our law is against, that you missuse your right to free speach, just to hurt someone.
I thought you said you had privacy? Now you observe and persecute speech. Which is it?
They use moles; not everyone is constantly watched, but if you are part of a criminal club that might undermine our constitution, one or the other of your buddies might be in reality an agent of our internal intelligence angency. Normal people have absolutely nothing to fear.
Restricting speech isn't "caring about its inhabitants" it's a blatant disregard for civil rights.
Nope, it's putting the value of one right over the over. And the right to bodily integrity is valued higher here then the right to free speach. And that right includes the psyche.
There never can be full freedom for anyone without cutting down on another one.
I have no problem with the idea of legislation against housing, hiring, and workplace discrimination of transgender people, which is what this fundamentally is. The problem is that with the state of the transgender community now, people can't be trusted not to make up BS identities or exploit the "no harassment" clause to hell and back.
Yes, that's a big problem. But that's why jurisdiction and legislative are different powers, because politics are wuite easily influenced by lobbyism and the current climate. Judges do have to use the laws we have, but they have a certain wiggle room available - otherwise there wouldn't exist a need for them in the first place.
I had one of my closer friends cut all ties with me for a while because I mentioned being irreligious in a joke, but I respected his decision. Hell, after a few weeks, he apologized and we just pretended the whole thing never happened. :powerlevel: If I chimped out, my friend would have probably only had his beliefs reinforced and it'd ruin an otherwise good friendship.
Fighting hatred with hatred tends to not work well when it comes to civil rights.
You can get ill from getting bullied enough. Why is it less a crime if you fuck a life up by hitting someone directly then doing the same damage verbally?
Imagine that someone makes a hobby out of it to insult you constantly in public. Just because he can. And you can do nothing about it. It's basically mobbing. And that's what our law is against, that you missuse your right to free speach, just to hurt someone.
Hundreds of political pundits have made careers out of insulting Obama in public for the past 8 years. If they're literally physically following you around, that's stalking and is illegal no matter what they say. Otherwise yes that is protected by free speech.
Nope, it's putting the value of one right over the over. And the right to bodily integrity is valued higher here then the right to free speach. And that right includes the psyche.
To paraphrase Tyler the Creator:
Hahahahahahahaha How The Fuck Is Verbal Bullying Real Hahahaha Nigga Just Walk Away Like Nigga Cover Your Ears Haha
Hundreds of political pundits have made careers out of insulting Obama in public for the past 8 years. If they're literally physically following you around, that's stalking and is illegal no matter what they say. Otherwise yes that is protected by free speech.
