Once this bullshit is over -abd one day it will- van we please criminalize calling politicians to be locked up? And I’m not talking about your average Lemmy calling for Trumo to be locked up because of too many to count crimes he committed, I’m talking about politicians calling for locking up other politicians only because you don’t like them.
If you have a following, first amendment no longer applies to you, you don’t get to say whatever bullshit that springs up in your head.
Germany has a law against Volksverhetzung; I’m pretty sure that would fall under it. Unfortunately they haven’t been very good at enforcing it, esp. on social media. Yet still some 'muricans screech that we’re against ❄️🍑 and therefore fascist - not understanding why and when that law was implemented.
That law should be applied to anyone with a following of more than 100 people. If you influence more people than you can on a small square then the rules should change and you shouldn’t be allowed to claim whatever shit you want and claim freedom of speech.
Volksverthetzung is about specific protected classes, which don’t include non-religious ideologies (and l’m not sure if “not american” is a specific enough identity either)
Volksverthetzung is about specific protected classes, which don’t include non-religious ideologies
That’s just wrong. Read this and realize just how wrong:
(1) Wer in einer Weise, die geeignet ist, den öffentlichen Frieden zu stören,
gegen eine nationale, rassische, religiöse oder durch ihre ethnische Herkunft bestimmte Gruppe, gegen Teile der Bevölkerung oder gegen einen Einzelnen wegen dessen Zugehörigkeit zu einer vorbezeichneten Gruppe oder zu einem Teil der Bevölkerung zum Hass aufstachelt, zu Gewalt- oder Willkürmaßnahmen auffordert oder
die Menschenwürde anderer dadurch angreift, dass er eine vorbezeichnete Gruppe, Teile der Bevölkerung oder einen Einzelnen wegen dessen Zugehörigkeit zu einer vorbezeichneten Gruppe oder zu einem Teil der Bevölkerung beschimpft, böswillig verächtlich macht oder verleumdet,
wird mit Freiheitsstrafe von drei Monaten bis zu fünf Jahren bestraft.
(2) Mit Freiheitsstrafe bis zu drei Jahren oder mit Geldstrafe wird bestraft, wer
einen Inhalt (§ 11 Absatz 3) verbreitet oder der Öffentlichkeit zugänglich macht oder einer Person unter achtzehn Jahren einen Inhalt (§ 11 Absatz 3) anbietet, überlässt oder zugänglich macht, der
a) zum Hass gegen eine in Absatz 1 Nummer 1 bezeichnete Gruppe, gegen Teile der Bevölkerung oder gegen einen Einzelnen wegen dessen Zugehörigkeit zu einer in Absatz 1 Nummer 1 bezeichneten Gruppe oder zu einem Teil der Bevölkerung aufstachelt,
b) zu Gewalt- oder Willkürmaßnahmen gegen in Buchstabe a genannte Personen oder Personenmehrheiten auffordert oder
c) die Menschenwürde von in Buchstabe a genannten Personen oder Personenmehrheiten dadurch angreift, dass diese beschimpft, böswillig verächtlich gemacht oder verleumdet werden oder
einen in Nummer 1 Buchstabe a bis c bezeichneten Inhalt (§ 11 Absatz 3) herstellt, bezieht, liefert, vorrätig hält, anbietet, bewirbt oder es unternimmt, diesen ein- oder auszuführen, um ihn im Sinne der Nummer 1 zu verwenden oder einer anderen Person eine solche Verwendung zu ermöglichen.
(3) Mit Freiheitsstrafe bis zu fünf Jahren oder mit Geldstrafe wird bestraft, wer eine unter der Herrschaft des Nationalsozialismus begangene Handlung der in § 6 Abs. 1 des Völkerstrafgesetzbuches bezeichneten Art in einer Weise, die geeignet ist, den öffentlichen Frieden zu stören, öffentlich oder in einer Versammlung billigt, leugnet oder verharmlost.
(4) Mit Freiheitsstrafe bis zu drei Jahren oder mit Geldstrafe wird bestraft, wer öffentlich oder in einer Versammlung den öffentlichen Frieden in einer die Würde der Opfer verletzenden Weise dadurch stört, dass er die nationalsozialistische Gewalt- und Willkürherrschaft billigt, verherrlicht oder rechtfertigt.
(5) Mit Freiheitsstrafe bis zu drei Jahren oder mit Geldstrafe wird bestraft, wer eine Handlung der in den §§ 6 bis 12 des Völkerstrafgesetzbuches bezeichneten Art gegen eine der in Absatz 1 Nummer 1 bezeichneten Personenmehrheiten oder gegen einen Einzelnen wegen dessen Zugehörigkeit zu einer dieser Personenmehrheiten öffentlich oder in einer Versammlung in einer Weise billigt, leugnet oder gröblich verharmlost, die geeignet ist, zu Hass oder Gewalt gegen eine solche Person oder Personenmehrheit aufzustacheln und den öffentlichen Frieden zu stören.
(6) Absatz 2 gilt auch für einen in den Absätzen 3 bis 5 bezeichneten Inhalt (§ 11 Absatz 3).
(7) In den Fällen des Absatzes 2 Nummer 1, auch in Verbindung mit Absatz 6, ist der Versuch strafbar.
(8) In den Fällen des Absatzes 2, auch in Verbindung mit den Absätzen 6 und 7, sowie in den Fällen der Absätze 3 bis 5 gilt § 86 Absatz 4 entsprechend.
Coming from a country that has similar laws: it’s about inciting hatred or violence.
Phrased as the previous commenter did, literally making it illegal to say lock them up, might not work.
But.
Saying Trump should be locked up for his crimes is not inciting hate or violence, because he has objectively committed crimes and the courts should do their job thankyouverymuch. Saying AOC should be locked up for made-up crimes based on made-up law is a different matter altogether.
But I’m aware that the US legal system has a looong way to go before it can accomodate for such distinctions.
It is different but do you expect a trial for person A saying person B should be locked up to first hold a mock trial for person B without access or standing to actually do so correctly before they can render a verdict on person A? Objectively unreasonable.
This is also massively prone to abuse. Even creating a plausible context for prosecuting someone creates the potential for effectively punishing critics even if everyone one of them gets off. This is further assuming that they actually get off even if innocent by your standards and mine.
Then there is the simple fact that based on US law this is sufficiently contrary to our laws that it would require a constitutional amendment which would be impossible to pass. It doesn’t matter if it could be passed in your country it certainly couldn’t be passed in this one.
Calling for something reasonable after proven evidence is submitted that the person broke the law should not be criminalized, though even with that there is a time and place. Submit that stuff to a court, not to twitter.
Either way, I’m talking about making random unsubstantiated claims or over generalizing claims like “all Jews are evil because they all support genocide” which obviously is bullshit
Once this bullshit is over -abd one day it will- van we please criminalize calling politicians to be locked up? And I’m not talking about your average Lemmy calling for Trumo to be locked up because of too many to count crimes he committed, I’m talking about politicians calling for locking up other politicians only because you don’t like them.
If you have a following, first amendment no longer applies to you, you don’t get to say whatever bullshit that springs up in your head.
Germany has a law against Volksverhetzung; I’m pretty sure that would fall under it. Unfortunately they haven’t been very good at enforcing it, esp. on social media. Yet still some 'muricans screech that we’re against ❄️🍑 and therefore fascist - not understanding why and when that law was implemented.
Took me a sec to translate snowflake ass to free speech
That law should be applied to anyone with a following of more than 100 people. If you influence more people than you can on a small square then the rules should change and you shouldn’t be allowed to claim whatever shit you want and claim freedom of speech.
I’d make those rules a lot stricter as well
Volksverthetzung is about specific protected classes, which don’t include non-religious ideologies (and l’m not sure if “not american” is a specific enough identity either)
That’s just wrong. Read this and realize just how wrong:
This would make it illegally to call for Trump to be locked up for the legitimate crimes has has and is committing and is obviously unconstitutional
Coming from a country that has similar laws: it’s about inciting hatred or violence.
Phrased as the previous commenter did, literally making it illegal to say lock them up, might not work.
But.
Saying Trump should be locked up for his crimes is not inciting hate or violence, because he has objectively committed crimes and the courts should do their job thankyouverymuch. Saying AOC should be locked up for made-up crimes based on made-up law is a different matter altogether.
But I’m aware that the US legal system has a looong way to go before it can accomodate for such distinctions.
And we’re moving farther from that goal with every decision handed down by our Supreme Court.
It is different but do you expect a trial for person A saying person B should be locked up to first hold a mock trial for person B without access or standing to actually do so correctly before they can render a verdict on person A? Objectively unreasonable.
This is also massively prone to abuse. Even creating a plausible context for prosecuting someone creates the potential for effectively punishing critics even if everyone one of them gets off. This is further assuming that they actually get off even if innocent by your standards and mine.
Then there is the simple fact that based on US law this is sufficiently contrary to our laws that it would require a constitutional amendment which would be impossible to pass. It doesn’t matter if it could be passed in your country it certainly couldn’t be passed in this one.
No it would not.
Calling for something reasonable after proven evidence is submitted that the person broke the law should not be criminalized, though even with that there is a time and place. Submit that stuff to a court, not to twitter.
Either way, I’m talking about making random unsubstantiated claims or over generalizing claims like “all Jews are evil because they all support genocide” which obviously is bullshit
How do you substantiate it without literally proving it in court which in this case we are here in the US specifically denied the right to do
We should make it so all public statements by a politician are considered as under oath. With harsh penalties for perjury.