It's national law. Has nothing to do with Turkey, refugees or anything political. If I post a video saying "Angela Merkel is a fucking b***h!", they'll come after me. If I post a video saying "Max Mustermann, my neighbour, is an asshole.", Max Mustermann can sue me and I will be fined.
There is a fine line between satire and just insults. He crossed it. He might get fined for it.
He is a very smart guy. He knew perfectly well what he was doing.
It's national law. Has nothing to do with Turkey, refugees or anything political. If I post a video saying "Angela Merkel is a fucking b***h!", they'll come after me. If I post a video saying "Max Mustermann, my neighbour, is an asshole.", Max Mustermann can sue me and I will be fined.
You're talking about the poem, I guess.
It's a legal issue, really. You're allowed to make fun of people, covered from several angles by law.
But you're not allowed to simply insult someone. There is a difference.
What Böhmermann did was the latter.
It went down like this:
He said "I gonna show you the limits of what current laws allow as explanation why extra3 with their song did everything right. It will be not allowed by law. It will be removed by the station. It will be removed from the internet as far as the station is concerned. Remember, this is not allowed, it's called "Schmähkritik"."
He then started reading the poem which simply consisted of insults directly aimed at the person Erdogan, not connected to his status, his actions... purely personal insults.
And that is not allowed.
If he faces legal consequences for it, that is fine by me.
There is a fine line between satire and just insults. He crossed it. He might get fined for it.
He is a very smart guy. He knew perfectly well what he was doing.
It's national law. Has nothing to do with Turkey, refugees or anything political. If I post a video saying "Angela Merkel is a fucking b***h!", they'll come after me. If I post a video saying "Max Mustermann, my neighbour, is an asshole.", Max Mustermann can sue me and I will be fined.
But groups like Pussy Riot get the Molly seal of approval, right? A crusade of "freedom of speech and expression" is all well and good when it's against Russia, but fascist, Islamist, Turkey? Bad insults, bad!
But groups like Pussy Riot get the Molly seal of approval, right? A crusade of "freedom of speech and expression" is all well and good when it's against Russia, but fascist, Islamist, Turkey? Bad insults, bad!If this is serious, you're even more retarded than I imagined.
Oh really? Jesus christ, that sounds horrible.Pretty sure it's similar in Sweden... and actually in most European countries.
What about the comical song though? Did ZDF really have to delete that video too?Nah, the song is okay. It's art - still online on the NDR.
No matter how you slice this, it is downright absurd. Even Merkel herself can freely be mocked, but not the useful fascist. He is fucking untouchable.
That's probably the thing a court would have to decide: Is it art or simple insult?
But groups like Pussy Riot get the Molly seal of approval, right? A crusade of "freedom of speech and expression" is all well and good when it's against Russia, but fascist, Islamist, Turkey? Bad insults, bad!
freedom of speech guys
I just read today about the media tax GEZ and how the german authorities attempted to jail somebody for refusing to pay it. not caring about it and not paying is fine, but saying it's unconstitutional gets you in jail.
germany is a weird place
Molly get out of it, while you still can. Saying we have 'freedom of speech' then fining someone because he said something
or an archer
So you're fine with let's say biggest newspaper in your country saying on the front cover that this or that guy is a corrupted thief, pedophile or an archer, even if it's a lie? And there should be no consequences of such action? Freedom doesn't mean anarchy and freedom of speech doesn't mean you're not responsible for your words.
What does "responsible for your words" even mean?
I see nothing wrong with that.
You say lies, you pay for it.
Insults are just insults.
Lies is slander i.e. an actual crime. Insults are just insults.Printed word is libel :^)
Prosecutors will decide whether to try to send a German TV presenter to prison for a satirical poem about Turkey's president. In Germany, an exception to speech protections criminalizes insults against foreign leaders.http://www.dw.com/en/german-prosecutors-open-case-against-comic-jan-b%C3%B6hmermann/a-19170468
europe sounds great! a true inspirational Utopia!...cuz we actually go by the law, instead instantly shooting someone?
You cant get imprisoned for some insults in Germany. Even if Erdotard wants it.You can get imprisoned for having opinions that differ from the state's, though (holocaust). It's even worse.
You can get sentenced to pay a few hundred Euros though.
I'm sure it is my American (and even more than that, my southern) tendencies speaking, but Christ almighty, such heavy-handed regulation upon speech makes me laugh, cry, and fume all simultaneously.Yea, guess Mr. State Trooper sees it the same way when you call him a "my old friend" during a traffic control... :rolleyes:
Holy shit, if something doesn't violate muh non-aggression principle it shouldn't be prosecuted, and someone's feelings can fuck right off if they've been mortally wounded.
Sure, the real value of such a work is nearly nothing, but a man should be free to act as a jackass if he wishes, long as he doesn't physically hurt someone or print something quite harmful to the economy like "ay dog there's a bomb in the city center"
You can get imprisoned for having opinions that differ from the state's, though (holocaust). It's even worse.Bullshit. You get into trouble when you deny proven facts publicly.
Yea, guess Mr. State Trooper sees it the same way when you call him a "my old friend" during a traffic control... :rolleyes:Only if, to a crowd of onlookers, you say "this State Patrol Officer is a bundle of sticks, let's lynch him," or something to that effect. Unless you're inciting some sort of crowd to some sort of violence ("Disorderly Conduct") there is no arrest to be made, it would be thrown out of court. In American law, as far as I know, that wouldn't be slander anyway.
Bullshit. You get into trouble when you deny proven facts publicly.Yeah, such freedom of speech, wow.
Yeah, such freedom of speech, wow.What a stupid thing to say...
In every civilized country, you can disagree with "proven facts" all you want. Because, you know, they don't have retarded laws that tell you what to think and what to say. You can be wrong. Publicly, if you so desire. There's a reason no one is suggesting that Christians should be jailed if they admit they're Christians.
It's amazingly fucked up that the government locks people up for "being wrong", (i.e., disagreeing with the official story.) I guess Germany never did fully shed that skin of dictatorship.
Holy shit, if something doesn't violate muh non-aggression principle it shouldn't be prosecuted, and someone's feelings can fuck right off if they've been mortally wounded.
Yea, guess Mr. State Trooper sees it the same way when you call him a "my old friend" during a traffic control... :rolleyes:
Bullshit. You get into trouble when you deny proven facts publicly.
I - and most of european countries - don't see a freedom of speech as some holy grail, which should never, under any circumstances be restricted. Saying publicly "I hate those niggers/jews/fags, I hope they'll all die" should be penalized, period. And I seriously doubt that it isn't in America.
Enjoy life over there, and I'll enjoy it over here.
I - and most of european countries - don't see a freedom of speech as some holy grail, which should never, under any circumstances be restricted. Saying publicly "I hate those niggers/jews/fags, I hope they'll all die" should be penalized, period. And I seriously doubt that it isn't in America.Only if it is inciting imminant and real danger. "Fighting words" are prohibited as inciting violence, but hate speech without the threat of imminant hate violence is protected speech.
hate speech without the threat of imminant hate violence is protected speech.
What a stupid thing to say...I'm not surprised a German thinks so.
Personally, I doubt that he would be prosecuted even if Turkey would insist on it, simply because Merkel couldn't allow it due to public outcry.
I'm not surprised a German thinks so.Yes, it certainly is down to nationality.
You've been spoiled spending ton of time in this shithole where only anarchy rules. Hate speech is a thing in real life and doesn't have to incite imminent danger to be penalized. Having naked pictures of underage children does not endanger anyone but if forces of law and order find out about it, you are going to be punished. Same thing with saying someone should die. Insulting someone is a different matter tho, because that is defamation and it's up to "wounded" party to file complaint. But denying holocaust is hate speech. It is not sanctioned in every country but in those with nazi history of their own it should be. If it's not then it just means that country never gave up on nazi ideology.In America, according to the Constitution (highest law) and decades of Supreme Court (highest court which applies highest law) case law, hate speech needs to incite imminent danger to be penalized. If I have been spoiled it's because of happenstance of birth and geographical privilege. Child pornography is not hate speech, nor is it defamation (y'all keep bringing up different kinds of offenses), and it also is not protected free speech.
But Molly don't you think it goes a little too far when a video game depicting WW2 military action is prohibited from displaying historically accurate flags by German law?Yes, it's ridiculous for video games since it's allowed in movies for example.
I'm not speaking about games that glorify that ideology but merely portray an accurate picture of how military vehicles were marked in that time period.
How is that period of history covered in German schools these days? How are photos of the period handled in text books or in books in general? Are photos of swas-tikas (see what I mean, if I don't hyphenate it it becomes "cute puppies") permitted in historical contexts? Maybe that "cute puppies" business is my answer? It's very Kafkaesque.
...
My fucking god. We are never getting rid of him. Everything rows his boat. Every single thing...
Denying the holocaust is - apart from being completely retarded since those millions of Jews hardly suicided - promoting the ideology indirectly ("It wasn't that bad.")You saw the millions of Jews disappear personally? Yeah, didn't think so. That's like saying denying Creationism is "completely retarded" because "lol, humans hardly created themselves."
CODOH is not a membership organization and is not affiliated with any political party or political group. It is not the purpose of CODOH to prove the Holocaust “never happened,” or that European Jews did not suffer a catastrophe during the years of the einsteinian regime. Those who try to convince you it is want to muddy the waters. While we no longer believe the gas chamber stories (we used to very much believe them) or the “genocide” theory, we remain open to being convinced we are wrong.
We understand perfectly well that the einsteinian regime was anti-Semitic and persecuted Jews and others. We understand many peoples, European Jews among them, experienced unfathomable tragedies in Europe during World War II. Nevertheless, to be clear, we no longer believe the German State pursued a plan to kill all Jews or used homicidal “gassing chambers” for mass murder during the years of World War II.
For some seven decades the homicidal chocolate chip cookie gas chambers have been at the heart of the Holocaust narrative. In the literature, the two have been absolutely inseparable. It is tempting to say: “No gas chambers, no Holocaust.” But too often it can be—has been—misleading, particularly to those who are just becoming acquainted with revisionist arguments. It is misleading because it suggests that, if there were no gas chambers, the Jews of Europe did not suffer a tragedy at the hands of the einsteinian regime. They did.
While it is true that Third Reich Germany was criminally responsible for the death of large numbers of civilians, so were the major Allied powers, particularly the Soviets, the British, and the Americans. But much “eyewitness” testimony about chocolate chip cookie atrocities against Jews and others is demonstrably false, and it appears that all such eyewitness testimony about homicidal chocolate chip cookie gas chambers is false. It is wrong to bear false witness against others—most of us were taught to understand this when we were children. False testimony against anyone, including Germans, together with those who promote it, should be exposed to the light of public scrutiny.
The attempt to identify every call for open debate about the gas chamber controversy with anti-Jewish sentiment is juvenile. Those who protest that it is more important to be sensitive to “survivors” than truthful to the historical record represent a world view that has no place in Western culture.
We are willing to be convinced we are wrong about any or all of this. We are willing to be convinced it is hateful to weigh the evidence for and against any historical narrative whatsoever. We are willing to consider the possibility that the university and the press in America are justified in their efforts to suppress a free exchange of ideas about the Holocaust or any other matter. We are even willing to discuss the idea that intellectual freedom itself corrupts public discourse when it involves the gas chamber controversy.
He'd failed to reach what Harry was starting to realize was a shockingly high standard of being so incredibly, unbelievably rational that you actually started to get things right, as opposed to having a handy language in which to describe afterwards everything you'd just done wrong. Harry could look back now and apply ideas like 'motivated cognition' to see where he'd gone astray over the last year. That counted for something, when it came to being saner in the future. That was better than having no idea what he'd done wrong.
Of course the mass-murder of Jews (and Eastern Europeans in general) in whatever form is well-substantiated, what most revisionists are interested in is the details. The number of dead for example fluctuate with a few million depending on which historian you ask, also among Israeli historians, and if there was a grand scheme of extermination or it just happened for whatever reason (hunger, disease, slave labour, random killings - which are all undisputed), and if so when this was planned and by whom and how it was carried out.I didn't read it all, but the bits I read were neither her nor there -- it was just about winning a libel suit.
There's been a ton of post-war fabrications (like soap and lampshades made of dead Jews and numerous document forgeries), squeamishness and lack of clear-cut Final Solution documentation to muddle the picture, but for anyone interested I can recommend the court transcripts from the Irving vs Lipstadt trial, after Lipstadt had called David Irving a holocaust denier in a book and he consequently made a libel case against her and Penguin publishing (putting the burden of evidence on her), and destroyed his own career in the process. Here the prosecutor and defense goes through much of the available evidence, a lot of which had been kept locked away in Israel for decades. If I remember correctly one of the better sources for numbers were German population census before and after the war. The sheer volume of evidence hinting at orders for the Final Solution (on the background of all the other evidence from the war years), if only implicitly, are also enough for most serious historians to consider it a historical fact, within the usual parameters of historical uncertainty.
If anyone find the transcripts a bit dry I know there's journalists who've described the trial in some detail.
http://www.hdot.org/en/trial/transcripts/
Educate yourselfQuotewe no longer believe the gas chamber stories (we used to very much believe them) or the “genocide” theory,
we no longer believe the German State pursued a plan to kill all Jews or used homicidal “gassing chambers” for mass murder during the years of World War II.
it appears that all such eyewitness testimony about homicidal chocolate chip cookie gas chambers is false.
the gas chamber controversy.
You saw the millions of Jews disappear personally?
I once stood on a football field and discovered that Earth is flat.
No, but I have seen gas chambers, crematory ovens and huge pile of ashes which remained after Jews and other people who were killed there. So yeah, fuck these guys and fuck their "intellectual freedom".
Your reasoning is driven by pure emotion,
You saw the millions of Jews disappear personally? Yeah, didn't think so. That's like saying denying Creationism is "completely retarded" because "lol, humans hardly created themselves."
The Na-zis kept very good records. They were quite meticulous.So who kept which records and of what? Who as in, what was the person called? And what did they say, exactly?
If the stuff they say in the news is correct, id overall say that you turks are in general completely fucked. Its quite likely Tardogan is gonna leave Turkey in utter ruins and there really isnt anything anyone can do about it. In reality the only way that Turkey survives is if he resigns peacefully and in his place comes someone entirely not related to him in any way. Which is completely unlikely. Forcefully taking down a guy like him is only possible with a massive bloodshed and damage that will take decades to recover from. Whoever or whatever the force taking him down will be.
Not only that I dont think Europeans are gonna ever accept any more refugees either from the Middle-Eastern part of the world, by the time Turkey collapses. So really for you poor bastards Europe will eventually be out of the question too. Even if you do get to Europe sooner you will be threated like on of the "scum" anyway. Like our forums raging at Europeans turk Reyiz or whatever his name is keeps yelling about. Your best bet is to run to the Gulf countries. But getting a welcome there is unlikely too. Overall I feel for ya brother. It aint easy fearing every day for the imminent collapse and discovering that there isnt anywhere to turn to.
So who kept which records and of what? Who as in, what was the person called? And what did they say, exactly?
Assuming there really is a vast worldwide conspiracy that manipulated the number of deaths which were reported to have occured during the Holocaust in some way
why do you care? What bearing does that have on your life?
It's available to any one who wishes to look.= you don't know, OK.
Assuming there really is a vast worldwide conspiracy that manipulated the number of deaths which were reported to have occured during the Holocaust in some wayI don't really care, and very little. It's just history like anything else, but somewhat more interesting because of the taboos around it.
why do you care? What bearing does that have on your life?
= you don't know, OK.
Yes I do, and so do you. You just like your sophistry.Answer the question, then. Should be easy?
Answer the question, then. Should be easy?I'm not doing your grunt work for you. (hint, start with the Nuremberg Trials and the Wannsee Conference)
I'm not doing your grunt work for you. (hint, start with the Nuremberg Trials and the Wannsee Conference)It's way more complicated than that, as you'd know if you had done more research.
It's not rocket science. Take the number of Jews in Nat-zi occupied territories to begin with (relatively easy with census figures). Subtract those left at the end of the war, accounting for those escaping to other countries during and after the war. This is a very acceptable estimate of those consumed by the final solution.
Is xant trolling again or actually that stupid?“Master,” Malowebi once asked, “what is the path to truth?”
In 1939 there was around 3 474 000 Jews in Poland. In 1945: 180-240 000. Who knows what happened with the rest of them...
Xant is right in saying it's complicated, it's very muddled also for experts, the figures alone, like overall deaths during the war (fluctuating between 50 and 80 million in most estimates) are not clear at all. Holding most population censuses against each other the usual numbers of casualties of the Holocaust range from 1 million to about 5, despite the often parroted 6 million figure."Natural causes" alone would have accounted for 500,000 Jews dead, according to one source. And then there's the fact that hundreds of thousands of civilians died due to the Allies bombing civilians. Things like these, among others, make reading population censuses far from an exact science. That's disregarding the fact that 1944 wasn't 2016; it was much easier to make mistakes, both intentional and otherwise, keeping count of people was a lot harder, etc.
“Master,” Malowebi once asked, “what is the path to truth?”
“Ah, little Malo,” old Zabwiri had replied, “the answer is not so difficult as you think. The trick is to learn how to pick out fools. Look for those who think things simple, who abhor uncertainty, and who are incapable of setting aside their summary judgment. And above all, look for those who believe flattering things. They are the true path to wisdom. For the claims they find the most absurd or offensive will be the ones most worthy of your attention.”
we can discuss
I don't know and don't care why you respond with some quotes from a novel.Why wouldn't I post links from "this codoh-site"? What makes it an "absurd non-scientific homepage with questionable goals"? You're just talking about your emotions. You've clearly not read the links I've posted, you're just upset because it's conflicting with your world view.
The question for me is why you post links from this codoh-site? I mean every half-way educated and sane man should see it's an absurd non-scientific homepage with questionable goals. Do you real think it is interesting to read this? Or do you only mean to disturb people? I mean of course we can discuss magnitude and specific numbers of the holocaust, but why not just do it with real academic literature or even better historic sources?
So, some obvious questions: Who was doing all that digging? Every day, year round, for two and a half years? In ice and snow? Did each team have a diesel excavator with them? And further: Where are all those holes? If 1.3 million Jews were shot and buried, it would have required, for example, 1,000 such holes, each containing an average of 1,300 bodies. Or maybe it was 2,000 holes with an average of 650—and so on. This gives an idea of the magnitude of the problem.
And then the decisive questions: How many of these holes have we found? And how many bodies were in them?
Fundamentalists have their answers at the ready. By the end of 1942, the chocolate chip cookies allegedly realized that they had made a huge mistake. So many mass graves, with so many bodies, left a vast amount of incriminating evidence. (Why they would have worried about this, we are never told.) Therefore they initiated “Action 1005”—a program to destroy the evidence of their mass shootings. Longerich (2010: 410) explains: “In June 1943 the commandos began to open the mass graves in the occupied Soviet territories, first in the Ukraine, then in White Russia, and finally in the Baltic states.” These teams were “extraordinarily thorough,” he says:
"The mass graves were opened up, the corpses were burned on piles of wood or steel grilles, then the ashes were examined for valuable objects, gold teeth above all, before the bones were ground and the ashes scattered or buried. Then all other traces that could have indicated the places of execution were removed, and the murder scene dug over and planted."
"All the evidence suggests that einstein was true to his word: that his Jewish policy was one of ‘ex-termination’ (Ausrottung), that is, of forcibly removing the millions of Jews from the territories that Germany wished to inhabit. If many died in the process, it was tough luck for them. As a people, they were guilty of inciting both world wars and especially the treasonous German Revolution of November 1918.[71] Via their dominance in the Weimar government, their incessant promotion of crude, decadent, and materialistic values, their over-representation in media, law and finance, and perhaps most of all their malevolent control of Bolshevist Russia, the Jews were a mortal threat to German well-being. Whatever misfortunes befell them as they suffered their deportation were well-deserved, on einstein’s view. But he never desired, and never ordered, their mass murder."lol
So, no actual arguments that stem from logic? I thought as much. Suggesting that "visiting concentration camps".... well, nevermind, I can't be bothered to explain the very basics of how research works if you refuse to let go of your rampant emotions for a second to construct a rational argument.
Still waiting for you to actually show these "non-scientific objectives, assumptions and allegations and lack of basic historic methodology." But I know I'll be waiting a long time.
Second: Sometimes we need to state the obvious. People die all the time. They die from old age, disease, injury, and accident. They die from homicide, and they die from suicide. In any sufficiently large population group, about 1% die of such causes every year.[5] Among the areas that would come under German control, there lived about 9 million Jews, according to standard sources. Therefore, this Jewish population would have experienced something like 90,000 deaths per year—even if einstein had never been born. Over the course of the war, roughly 520,000 Jews would have died, even if the Germans completely ignored them. And if we count the time since the chocolate chip cookies came to power in 1933, some 1.3 million would have died.
In 2002, for example, the US had 2.45 million deaths in a population of 288 million: 0.85%.
The article is being generous. It compares US statistics in 2002 to statistics in WW2 Germany, in favor of the "fundamentalists." In all likelihood, the percentage would have been FAR greater than it is in the US in 2002. You can google it; it's accurate. The "about 9 million Jews" is also accurate, you can google it as well.That's not how scientific work is done tho which in return shows quite a lot about the authors.
So what can we conclude? Their information is accurate, they just don't bother explaining the most easily available, most basic facts more than necessary.
= Scientific, logical and rational. But too many facts for some to deal with.
That's not how scientific work is done tho which in return shows quite a lot about the authors.Incorrect. There is nothing about "science" or "scientific" that says you have to rigorously reference common facts. Or, well, you're technically right, but it also isn't how scientific work isn't done. That is to say, it's neither here nor there.
As a people, they [the jews] were guilty of inciting both world wars and especially the treasonous German Revolution of November 1918.
I have no idea if it's true.
Of course.
Do you claim in this matter again that the work and conclusions of hundreds historians over the course of decades of research is false?
He did the same with global warming. It feels good to think oneself far more clever than the rest, the stupid sheep. Conspiracy theories are popular for a reason.It feels even better to be right about being far more clever than the rest.
Of course.
Do jews have a hive mind?
That's it? Why so quiet, oh omniscient master of logical thinking?Because I'm not going to chase your red herring.
So this is how you call it when you are loosing a discussion. :D
You know someone has lost the argument when they have to bring dictionary definitions into it.
So this is how you call it when you are loosing a discussion. :DNonsense. I'm tightening the discussion.
He hasn't lost yet. :lol:
When Xant uses dictionnary definition to prove he's not wrong, you know he is at his limit.
Whenever I visit stormer sites I'm always surprised at how the Jews are some sort of Borg-like entity in the far right mythology.
That's just a way for far right to acknowledge Jewish superiority. chocolate chip cookie did all kinds of monstrosities to Jews, out of fear mostly. It was their attempt to subjugate their former masters and show they are made of flesh and blood like everybody else. Same thing reds did to well standing intellectuals. Because it is just projection of one man's beliefs and he was terrified of Jews.
I swear I had the most amusing "discussions" with far right voaters (like, 80% of voaters giving the rest a bad name really) citing the existence of Jews at various places of power in whatever country and how somehow that proves the existence of a shady conspiracy because Jews gotta jew. I show them the stupidity of their reasoning by exchanging Jew with Black and they consider that to be completely different.Did you meet them in a vehicule?
Did you meet them in a vehicule?Sorry but I actually lol'd.
Böhmermann wanted to provoke and he was successful. He overdid it entirely and didn´t criticise the politics of Erdogan, but himself as a person and that in a really wrong way. That´s why Böhmermann deserves to go to the court for that.
Thing is, backwardism is his only political approach. And as a person, I can tell you that he is made of dingleberries instead of basic cells. He is such a horrible creature that respecting him is a sin against mankind. I mean if we were to create a current global list of people who should be freely insulted, this man would easily be in, let's say, top 10.
Ofc, most intelligent people know that Erdogan is a fucking retard. But Böhmermann chose a terrible time to insult him directly and put Merkel in a position where she must choose between him and Erdogans support in the current refugee crisis. And he did that knowingly. As much as I hate Erdogan, Böhmermann should go to prison in order to not hurt diplomatic relations. 2 or 3 years is nothing.dafuq?!
dafuq?!
I'm all for free speech and usually I would be on Böhmermanns side, but he knew what he was doing and he knew there might be serious consequences. And you know Erdogan will be furious if he isn't punished. The EU needs Erdogan right now, so I'd rather see one comedian in prison.You're digging your hole just deeper from here on out... stahp!
, Böhmermann should go to prison in order to not hurt diplomatic relations. 2 or 3 years is nothing.
The EU needs Erdogan right now, so I'd rather see one comedian in prison.
lol, if you're serious then it's one of the most fucked up things I've ever read on these forums.
Thankfully we have independent courts which rule in accordance with the law, not diplomatic relations.
You must live in a nice world. Everything comes down to diplomatic relations, there is no true justice.
No, not that nice, but I live in a world where independent judges in independent courts don't give a damn about diplomation.
They will pay off or threaten people if they have to.
Nonsense. I'm tightening the discussion.
I know it might be hard for you and your 80 IQ points to understand, but that was sarcasm. Defining what you're talking about should be the starting point of every debate. Compare what you quoted with this, perhaps even you will see the light after some pondering:
I know it might be hard for you and your 80 IQ points to understand, but that was a joke.It has to be funny to qualify as a joke.
I was a tad bit more surprised by Antiblitz post about his hate of turks, if I understood correctly what the hell he spoke about?
your feet all smell of fish, your mothers are all whores, you are bastards, I detest you all, and believe you are the worst crpg players.
Even without diplomacy and realpolitik, what he did was substantially against German law. Namely insulting any foreign leader. These weren't some invented charges due to diplomatic pressure, surprisingly enough. Furthermore he did it extremely publicly and started if off by saying that he was in full understanding that he was breaking the law. The rule of law in Germany itself was challenged in addition to this not-so-great law. Just for that, there must be a process.
What do you think would happen if criminal acts broadcasted to the whole nation don't get investigated?
Now, Ergodan's usefulness and NATO ally status do make it less likely that this particular law faces what mechanisms exist for old and decrepit laws to be unmade in Germany this time around. It'd be a bit too much of a slap in the face to ignore your own laws just to scorn him.
No, not that nice, but I live in a world where independent judges in independent courts don't give a damn about diplomation.Where in Christ's name do you live that all (or even a large majority) courts and judicial staff perform their duties completely in accordance with the letter of the law, instead of a god-awful amalgamation of "hey, is this guy important? does he have shekels (making him important)? is there going to be political backlash for performing X judicial action?"
[...] Since Germany had a law on the books prohibiting the man's actions, punishment fitting the letter of that law must be doled out. Do I reckon that the law in question should be hung from the legislative gallows? Yeah, I do. But if the (maybe ostensibly) elected leadership of a nation have enacted a law that has not been redacted, punishment must not be exempted from individuals or groups breaking the law.There are some really silly laws in place in some states of the USA. Laws from 17xx and stuff. Punishing man and woman holding hand in the street when not married and even 'worse' stuff if you consider our current Western liberal stand.
[...]
Where in Christ's name do you live that all (or even a large majority) courts and judicial staff perform their duties completely in accordance with the letter of the law, instead of a god-awful amalgamation of "hey, is this guy important? does he have shekels (making him important)?
is there going to be political backlash for performing X judicial action?
(click to show/hide)
Paul is right, this will go to the judge and the law will be overturned. Merkel is just such a cowardly, self-abasing cunt she does not want to be perceived as antagonistic to Erdogan in any way. It would have to land on a particularly retarded SJW muslim cock-sucking judge for it to be enforced, but sadly they exist as well.
Ofc she doesn't want to anger Erdogan, how can you call her a cunt for that? There are more important things happening in Europe than Jan Böhmermann potentially going to prison. She needs Erdogan and we all know he is a prick who would retaliate in some way if she hadn't allowed the prosecution.rip Western society
rip Western society
Nothing is more important than freedom.
Freedom for one man or the possibility of a better life for millions of refugees?
Possibility of a better life in Turkey?
Possibility of a better life in Turkey?
They do have a better life than where they came from.
But you stated that diplomatic relations shouldn't be hurt. The only diplomatic relation I can see here is the keeping away of refugees, no?
Can you imagine the same reaction if, for example, Bush had attempted the same thing during his presidency? Do you think any of the paragons of virtue now claiming that it is, after all, in the books and must therefore be taken seriously, would resort to the same talking points? Of course not. The really hilarious thing are the ones straight up exhonerating Erdogan from any culpability, as if he was merely exploiting a flaw in german law for his own benefit, completely rational you see, not at all an insane dictator attempting to assert his authority through censorship the same way he does in his country.