pull down to refresh

I just read this article from the Brownstone Institute: https://brownstone.org/articles/germanys-latest-war-on-freedom/.

Here's an excerpt.

Germany was the scene of some of the 20th century’s worst tyranny but today’s German leaders have only noble intentions for oppression. Berlin’s Best and Brightest™ “improved” democracy by turning politicians into a privileged caste. After a conservative editor mocked a top German law enforcement official by posting a meme showing her holding a sign, “I hate freedom of opinion,” he was convicted and sentenced to seven months in jail for “abuse, slander or defamation against persons in political life.” The editor is on probation while the sentence is suspended but many other Germans have been locked up for similar offenses.

Who's in the know and on the ground, that has some details? I guess in the US, our constitution does protect us (to a limited and decreasing extent) - at least more than in Germany.

151 sats \ 8 replies \ @optimism 2h

The problem is mostly the defamation laws. You still have broad freedom of speech protections but these become void if you address your savagery to another person/"identity".

So you could say "I think that rapists are disgusting pigs", but you cannot walk up to a rapist and call him a "disgusting pig". That would mean that a convicted rapist can sue you for defamation, and this gets taken seriously.

While I do feel that a lot of higher profile people that get in trouble with the law over this are doing it on purpose, because headlines, the imbalance is a serious issue. Especially since politicians are using this all the time against their critics.

As long as you politely resist, you'll be fine though lol.

reply
201 sats \ 5 replies \ @freetx 2h
While I do feel that a lot of higher profile people that get in trouble with the law over this are doing it on purpose though, because headlines, the imbalance is a serious issue. Especially since politicians are using this all the time against their critics.

The US solves this issue via the concept of "public vs private person".

Essentially being a "public person" means you largely give up your rights to slander / defamation since the concept is you willingly put yourself in the public sphere, thus there is a 'public ownership' portion of that...this mirrors in law the same idea that its not illegal to film someone on a public street.

Whereas a "private person" is one that still retains their ability to sue for slander / defamation.

The basic litmus test for public vs private is "making public statements", so that includes things like public speeches, writing articles, etc.

I know a very rich family who are very insistent on protecting their "private stature" as it relates to the law. Like even if they donate money to a charity and the charity wants to honor them by asking them to say a few words at their meeting, they refuse.

reply
28 sats \ 3 replies \ @optimism 2h

Yes. Basically Anti-SLAPP. I'd say Germany needs this.

reply
100 sats \ 2 replies \ @freetx 2h

This is one of the reasons why social media that forces you to use your real name is so dangerous to US citizens and its something that 99.9% of the populace doesn't understand.

When Jane Smith post a picture of her breakfast on facebook, she doesn't realize that she is crossing the line between private - public persona.

reply

Does it really work that way? I'd be surprised if posting food pics to Facebook all of a sudden make you meet the criteria for "public person"

reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @freetx 1h

No, its a sliding scale of course, but the threshold becomes cumulative. That borderline is what becomes litigated....

A single pic of a bagel or commenting "so cute" on neighbors kids pics wouldn't pass the test.

But constant public commentary, an instagram page, X account, youtube account will at some point push you over the threshold of what a jury finds that you are now a public person.

reply

Fascinating! Thanks for this. It would seem like a very hazy line between public / private, and who crosses over, and why. Like, what counts as a public statement could be argued over. Posting on Twitter, for instance? Hmm.

reply

Do those protections extend to people outside Germany? It seems like Trump could probably get lots of Germans locked up for what they've said about him.

reply
61 sats \ 0 replies \ @optimism 2h

I'm sure that in exchange for recognizing the ICC he can get a lot of stuff done. Great deal lmao.

reply
100 sats \ 0 replies \ @zuspotirko 1h

No, it isn't.

Mr Bovard is just a whiny baby because german comedians where mocking him. And actually, it would be worse free speech situation if the state forbid other comedians to mock him. Mr Bovard doesn't understand that tho and continues to cry about it.

reply

Germany is only good to learn at duolingo.

reply