Germany’s history informs its current laws. That much is undeniable. But it doesn’t excuse the over-correction applied by legislators in hopes of heading off another Hitler. And it cert…
The referenced video has other examples, like calling for the rape and murder of specific people, including one example where the person (a local politician) was actually murdered by a right-wing terrorist shortly after.
Right, the CBS transcript has a lot more information and balance about it.
I would still like to see a breakdown of how many of these were for what. Surely calling for someone’s rape or murder was already illegal, Nazi symbolism within Germany was already illegal, you could sue if someone was publishing false quotes by you, and so on. A lot of the examples they bring up seem sort of misleading, because they’re linking them with the controversial 2018 law, and sort of tangling up the issues of “we got a lot more aggressive with policing already-illegal online speech that probably should stay illegal” versus “we made all kinds of things that are what Lemmy moderators deal with every day, into police matters now.” It feels like it is from the cops’ point of view instead of the defendants’, leaving some pretty glaring unexplored questions, which was Techdirt’s point.
Like I say I would like to see the breakdown. I won’t say it is not 3,499 AfD trolls and 1 penis joke, but it does seem unlikely. Probably it’s not the inverse of that either, though, that’s a fair point.
The referenced video has other examples, like calling for the rape and murder of specific people, including one example where the person (a local politician) was actually murdered by a right-wing terrorist shortly after.
Right, the CBS transcript has a lot more information and balance about it.
I would still like to see a breakdown of how many of these were for what. Surely calling for someone’s rape or murder was already illegal, Nazi symbolism within Germany was already illegal, you could sue if someone was publishing false quotes by you, and so on. A lot of the examples they bring up seem sort of misleading, because they’re linking them with the controversial 2018 law, and sort of tangling up the issues of “we got a lot more aggressive with policing already-illegal online speech that probably should stay illegal” versus “we made all kinds of things that are what Lemmy moderators deal with every day, into police matters now.” It feels like it is from the cops’ point of view instead of the defendants’, leaving some pretty glaring unexplored questions, which was Techdirt’s point.
Like I say I would like to see the breakdown. I won’t say it is not 3,499 AfD trolls and 1 penis joke, but it does seem unlikely. Probably it’s not the inverse of that either, though, that’s a fair point.