87-year old jailed for Holocaust denial in Germany

[Supersonic 49,376]

If you are allowing people to be racist with no reprecussions, you are basically saying it's ok/good to be racist and nothing to be ashamed of. :shrug:

[Morphine Prince 109,682]

1 minute ago, amenvodka said:

For his comments about Mexicans? He'd probably actually be in court and pay fines/serve time for it.

I get what you're trying to say about "beliefs" but let's be honest, doesn't holding xenophobic, racist, anti-semitic "beliefs" and stating them on a public platform (like the 87 year old woman here that went on national TV to spread hate speech) cause EVEN MORE actual damage to a whole subset of people instead of just slandering one singular person?

That's a good question. Does it? Because Donald Trump, for example, is saying what many people already think in America. The hidden racists are coming out the closet. 

Freedom of speech isn't really an issue here so he gets to say what he wants. Voters ultimately decide how much impact his opinions have. 

If I don't agree with him I simply turn the other cheek. No need to throw him in prison for his ridiculous opinions. 

[Morphine Prince 109,682]

4 minutes ago, amenvodka said:

If you are allowing people to be racist with no reprecussions, you are basically saying it's ok/good to be racist and nothing to be ashamed of. :shrug:

I already asked this and no one answered, so I'l ask you directly. 

Is homophobia hate speech in Germany? I noticed SSM isn't legal state-wide in Germany. One day when it's legalized and IF homophobia is hate speech, for example a religious leader who opposes SSM comes out saying he doesn't agree, will he be thrown in prison? 

[Supersonic 49,376]

20 minutes ago, Morphine Prince said:

I already asked this and no one answered, so I'l ask you directly. 

Is homophobia hate speech in Germany? I noticed SSM isn't legal state-wide in Germany. One day when it's legalized and IF homophobia is hate speech, for example a religious leader who opposes SSM comes out saying he doesn't agree, will he be thrown in prison? 

Honestly, I don't know. This state has always been built on homophobic, "christian traditional" values, especially with the current ruling party being the main opponent of same-s-x marriage. If SSM ever becomes legal here, I hope it becomes punishable hate speech. The term we've been talking about the entire time is called "Volksverhetzung" which doesn't really translate into English. The only thing that comes close is a combination of demagogouery, sedition and hate crime.

 

[Yanko 9,860]

so extra 

[Morphine Prince 109,682]

1 minute ago, amenvodka said:

Honestly, I don't know. This state has always been built on homophobic, "christian traditional" values, especially with the current ruling party being the main opponent of same-s-x marriage. If SSM ever becomes legal here, I hope it becomes punishable hate speech. The term we've been talking about the entire time is called "Volksverhetzung" which doesn't really translate into English. The only thing that comes close is a combination of demagogouery, sedition and hate crime.

 

That's terrifying. I hope I'm just not understanding the term because it really just sounds like laws that eliminate the freedom of opinion. 

Look, I'm not saying that these people are right in their opinions. I just see it as dangerous that the government can dictate what is acceptable to think, basically. 

In the US we have a different political culture and tend to not have full trust in the government, I understand this is different in Europe. 

[Supersonic 49,376]

9 minutes ago, Morphine Prince said:

That's terrifying. I hope I'm just not understanding the term because it really just sounds like laws that eliminate the freedom of opinion. 

Look, I'm not saying that these people are right in their opinions. I just see it as dangerous that the government can dictate what is acceptable to think, basically. 

In the US we have a different political culture and tend to not have full trust in the government, I understand this is different in Europe. 

I think it's not that scary honestly because in Germany we all (I hope so at least) know what happened when we didn't have those regulations the first time Germany became a democracy. It's not like those laws were employed for sh*ts and giggles, there has been a scary, major incident that justified it.

Imo, having no regulations at all would be way more scary to me. I'm getting the runs when I just think about how stand your ground is a thing. (And I grievingly remember the 17-year old German exchange student that did not know and got shot dead for it.)

[Morphine Prince 109,682]

7 minutes ago, amenvodka said:

I think it's not that scary honestly because in Germany we all (I hope so at least) know what happened when we didn't have those regulations the first time Germany became a democracy. It's not like those laws were employed for sh*ts and giggles, there has been a scary, major incident that justified it.

Imo, having no regulations at all would be way more scary to me. I'm getting the runs when I just think about how stand your ground is a thing. (And I grievingly remember the 17-year old German exchange student that did not know and got shot dead for it.)

It will be interesting to see how this law evolves. 

Not sure why you're mentioning stand your ground laws? 

[Supersonic 49,376]

3 minutes ago, Morphine Prince said:

It will be interesting to see how this law evolves. 

Not sure why you're mentioning stand your ground laws? 

For me stand your ground is kind of a prime example on how there is very little government intervention. I mean it basically sounds like a "Defend your own damn ass! Not my problem" kinda law.

[Morphine Prince 109,682]

7 minutes ago, amenvodka said:

For me stand your ground is kind of a prime example on how there is very little government intervention. I mean it basically sounds like a "Defend your own damn ass! Not my problem" kinda law.

Stand your ground laws have nothing to do with government intervention though? Are you sure you understand what that law is? 

It's basically when someone is somewhere where they have the right to be (their home) and there is a threat in which the person feels their life is in danger and the law states they have the right to defend their own life. 

The problem arises in cases like the one with the German exchange student. He was a suspected burglar, was he not? The man who shot him felt his life was in danger and shot him. The issue is that the student was NOT armed, so was his life really in danger?  

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

16 hours ago, Benji said:

People fail to realise this remains part of the reparations since WW2 and is an extremely important process for Germany and the world to go through.

Just because the crime is over, doesn't mean the damage wasn't done and can be denied to it's victims.

Anyway, good on Germany for enforcing this.

No.

People need to move on from the Holocaust already. It was a horrible time in human history but it's been over 60 years.

This is idiotic and borderline fascist.

[Supersonic 49,376]

Just now, Morphine Prince said:

Stand your ground laws have nothing to do with government intervention though? Are you sure you understand what that law is? 

It's basically when someone is somewhere where they have the right to be (their home) and there is a threat in which the person feels their life is in danger and the law states they have the right to defend their own life. 

The problem arises in cases like the one with the German exchange student. He was a suspected burglar, was he not? The man who shot him felt his life was in danger and shot him. The issue is that the student was NOT armed, so was his life really in danger?  

Well my point is that I think that this law gives the people too much freedom/responsibility to handle and that it's used frequently as an excuse to bend the truth. And because it's constitutional right in the USA (correct me if I'm wrong, I'm still not through the correct terminology for everything) I think it shows that the US government seldomly intervenes in issues of semi-public matters, unlike a lot of European countries.

[Morphine Prince 109,682]

Just now, amenvodka said:

Well my point is that I think that this law gives the people too much freedom/responsibility to handle and that it's used frequently as an excuse to bend the truth. And because it's constitutional right in the USA (correct me if I'm wrong, I'm still not through the correct terminology for everything) I think it shows that the US government seldomly intervenes in issues of semi-public matters, unlike a lot of European countries.

I agree with the bend the truth part. The law is often used to lessen the responsibility of the citizen shooting when in court. That's part of the controversy of the law.

However, I'm not sure about the "too much freedom" part. The law was designed to be used in instances of life and death. If applied correctly the law can save your life. Let's say an armed robber breaks into your house and you shoot them. You saved your life by using self defense. 

Not sure what you mean about the government intervening? Do you propose the person in danger call the police instead of acting on their own in a situation as dire as this? There are many rural areas in the US where police are like 20 minutes away. That would not work out. 

The constitutionality of these laws is in debate. I think the right to defend yourself is constitutional, but the issue with this law is that before it was implemented some states required the person to run away (NOT stand their ground) instead of applying self defense. The first stand your ground law was put in place in 2005 I believe, so it's a relatively new law (Don't quote me on this, I haven't looked into it that much). 

[Supersonic 49,376]

1 minute ago, Morphine Prince said:

I agree with the bend the truth part. The law is often used to lessen the responsibility of the citizen shooting when in court. That's part of the controversy of the law.

However, I'm not sure about the "too much freedom" part. The law was designed to be used in instances of life and death. If applied correctly the law can save your life. Let's say an armed robber breaks into your house and you shoot them. You saved your life by using self defense. 

Not sure what you mean about the government intervening? Do you propose the person in danger call the police instead of acting on their own in a situation as dire as this? There are many rural areas in the US where police are like 20 minutes away. That would not work out. 

The constitutionality of these laws is in debate. I think the right to defend yourself is constitutional, but the issue with this law is that before it was implemented some states required the person to run away (NOT stand their ground) instead of applying self defense. The first stand your ground law was put in place in 2005 I believe, so it's a relatively new law (Don't quote me on this, I haven't looked into it that much). 

Well, personally my first thought was actually to call the police and maybe knock the robber unconcious with a pan so the police can collect ha ass but not to shoot them dead.

[Morphine Prince 109,682]

1 minute ago, amenvodka said:

Well, personally my first thought was actually to call the police and maybe knock the robber unconcious with a pan so the police can collect ha ass but not to shoot them dead.

Well, you don't have to shoot them dead, but you have the right to shoot them or defend yourself. The law becomes an issue when people immediately shoot anything that moves without proof their life is actually in danger.