I didnt assume you want to prevent ALL protest. This would be literally one of the worst dictatorships in existens, few of them actually forbid all and every protest.
Trying to exclude people without papers from democracy while not giving those people a fair chance to get papers is still the closest thing to racial segregation the international court allows
Oh wait, international law art.20 Nr. 1 actually sets protests as a universal human right.
1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.
2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.
Help a tired brain out. Are you making the stupid argument that pro-Palestine advocacy is incitement to discrimination and hatred and war propaganda for Hamas?
Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
"
This in combination with art. 19 gives us the right to protest:
"Article 19
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
It does, but with a similar Problem as the US one: it garuantees freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, but only to CITIZENS.
Cause what does a politician care about people who can’t vote for him anyway -.-
Well kinda yes and kinda no. The US constitution speaks of “the people” which is not defined legally, while some interpret this as “all people in the world”, some interpret it as “all people with significant connection to the US” and some “all people of the political community, e.g. citizens”
While certainly better then Germany’s version with “all Germans have the right…” Which is clearly more restrictive, its is not as clear cut in the US either - thus maga supporters label immigrants or dissidents as “aliens” which are in their interpretation not part of “the people”
While I am certainly in favor of the first definition of “the people” you clearly don’t interpret it that way in the fourth amendment (see US military in basically every war):
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
Also
"
When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.
However I am no longer in favour of free speech. I used to adhere to the Voltairean principle: “I wholly disapprove of what you say—and will defend to the death your right to say it.”
However the shitshow of social media which has enabled MAGA and SovCits has me reluctantly accepting that free speech was a fantasy, an especially attractive one for its simplicity.
All of us computer geeks in the 90’s (and I do mean all) were evangelical about the internet ushering in a Renaissance in dissemination of truth. We were naive.
Of course the question of “Who should be the moderators?” arises but there is no simple answer. Am now worried Billionaires will convince the public that AI speaks only the truth.
Protests by non-citizens is what I wrote.
Yeah and thats what i meant.
I didnt assume you want to prevent ALL protest. This would be literally one of the worst dictatorships in existens, few of them actually forbid all and every protest.
Trying to exclude people without papers from democracy while not giving those people a fair chance to get papers is still the closest thing to racial segregation the international court allows
Oh wait, international law art.20 Nr. 1 actually sets protests as a universal human right.
Which international law is that?
Do you mean the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Article 20 says:
1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.
2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.
Help a tired brain out. Are you making the stupid argument that pro-Palestine advocacy is incitement to discrimination and hatred and war propaganda for Hamas?
That was article 20. The other commenter said article 20 but didn’t say which international law.
Universal declaration of human rights:
"Article 20
Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association. "
This in combination with art. 19 gives us the right to protest:
"Article 19
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
"
Source: https://www.ohchr.org/en/human-rights/universal-declaration/translations/english
TIL “US constitution guarantees the right to free speech to everyone in the US despite your citizen status” https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2025/0415/1507664-j1-activism/
Not that the constitution matters to MAGA.
Does Germany have a similar section of their constitution?
It does, but with a similar Problem as the US one: it garuantees freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, but only to CITIZENS. Cause what does a politician care about people who can’t vote for him anyway -.-
https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/gg/art_8.html
Read again: The US one is irrespective of citizenship.
Well kinda yes and kinda no. The US constitution speaks of “the people” which is not defined legally, while some interpret this as “all people in the world”, some interpret it as “all people with significant connection to the US” and some “all people of the political community, e.g. citizens”
While certainly better then Germany’s version with “all Germans have the right…” Which is clearly more restrictive, its is not as clear cut in the US either - thus maga supporters label immigrants or dissidents as “aliens” which are in their interpretation not part of “the people”
https://harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/vol126_the_people_in_the_constitution.pdf
While I am certainly in favor of the first definition of “the people” you clearly don’t interpret it that way in the fourth amendment (see US military in basically every war):
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
Also
" When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.
"
Thanks again, I appreciate the intricacies.
However I am no longer in favour of free speech. I used to adhere to the Voltairean principle: “I wholly disapprove of what you say—and will defend to the death your right to say it.”
However the shitshow of social media which has enabled MAGA and SovCits has me reluctantly accepting that free speech was a fantasy, an especially attractive one for its simplicity.
All of us computer geeks in the 90’s (and I do mean all) were evangelical about the internet ushering in a Renaissance in dissemination of truth. We were naive.
Of course the question of “Who should be the moderators?” arises but there is no simple answer. Am now worried Billionaires will convince the public that AI speaks only the truth.
Thanks