Censorship continued: first the Parler app then @realDonaldTrump

glennds
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 554
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 11:24 am

Re: Censorship continued: first the Parler app then @realDonaldTrump

Post by glennds » Tue Jan 12, 2021 6:12 pm

SomeDude wrote:
Tue Jan 12, 2021 6:01 pm
Lol. Glends this is literally the second paragraph from the article you linked to:

"The fundamental right to freedom of opinion is a fundamental right of elementary importance, and this fundamental right can be interfered with, but through the law and within the framework defined by the legislature, not according to the decision of the management of social media platforms," said Merkel's spokesman, Steffen Seibert."

As I said, Germany doesn't have freedom of speech and merkle certainly doesnt support it.
I have no horse in the race, but somehow find myself here defending Germany! In terms of overall scoring of human rights, Germany looks better than the US. Lol.
Does any country in the world meet your standard of freedom of speech? Obviously not the US and not Germany. If there is a country that makes the grade in your mind, I'd be interested to know whom.


Image
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 5403
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Censorship continued: first the Parler app then @realDonaldTrump

Post by vnatale » Tue Jan 12, 2021 6:41 pm

SomeDude wrote:
Tue Jan 12, 2021 5:03 pm

From the same Wikipedia, I'm amazed you missed it:


Holocaust denial is a crime in Germany. § 130(3) of the StGB (German penal code) reads:

He who, publicly or in assembly, approves, denies, or trivializes genocide committed under the regime of National Socialism in a way that is suitable to disturb the public peace, is subject to imprisonment up to 5 years or a monetary fine.[20]
Perpetrators of Holocaust denial can be tried in absentia and declared persona non grata, thus being barred from entering the country. Extradition treaties as relate to Holocaust denial are subject to political asylum pleas, but a persona non grata who enters Germany can be immediately arrested. Furthermore, a German arrest warrant based on the offense of Holocaust denial is deemed executable in many EU states, thus, a Holocaust denier's entry into any EU state could lead to arrest and extradition to Germany (or any other state where such denial is an offense, such as Austria, and which has issued an arrest warrant).

Among those who have been charged with Holocaust denial in Germany are the following:

David Irving, who was declared persona non grata and has not returned to Germany;
Germar Rudolf, who was sentenced to prison but fled jurisdiction; he was deported from the United States in 2005;
Ernst Zündel, received a five-year prison sentence on February 15, 2007 in Germany,
Fredrick Töben, an Australian citizen, who had an appointment with a German public prosecutor in Mannheim with whom he wanted to discuss Holocaust denial; at the end of the conversation with the prosecutor, Toben was presented an arrest warrant which the prosecutor had already obtained beforehand. A German court sentenced him to a prison sentence of ten months.


This is completely appropriate in a country like Germany wherein they owned up to their responsibility to the world for letting Nazism reign for 12 years and all the misery it brought to both its own country and so many other countries of the world.

This is showing that they serious about the matter.

Unlike our country and its Civil War cause deniers.

The same penalties above should apply to anyone in our country who denies that the cause of the Civil War was anything but the South's desire to not only continue the institution of slavery in the existing states but to be extended to additional states.

If that had been done then we would not have seen that offensive flag of United States black oppression being waved around the Capitol building last week.

"I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats."
User avatar
Mark Leavy
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1369
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2012 10:20 pm
Location: US Citizen, Permanent Traveler

Re: Censorship continued: first the Parler app then @realDonaldTrump

Post by Mark Leavy » Tue Jan 12, 2021 6:58 pm

vnatale wrote:
Tue Jan 12, 2021 6:41 pm

This is showing that they serious about the matter.

Unlike our country and its Civil War cause deniers.

The same penalties above should apply to anyone in our country who denies that the cause of the Civil War was anything but the South's desire to not only continue the institution of slavery in the existing states but to be extended to additional states.

If that had been done then we would not have seen that offensive flag of United States black oppression being waved around the Capitol building last week.
You really don’t understand what free speech means.

The 1st amendment is about protecting speech that most people find repugnant. It is about defending insulting, offensive, idiotic and inflammatory speech.

‘Approved’ speech needs no protection.

This doesn’t apply to Germany, of course, as they have neither the first amendment nor free speech.
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 5403
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Censorship continued: first the Parler app then @realDonaldTrump

Post by vnatale » Tue Jan 12, 2021 7:52 pm

Mark Leavy wrote:
Tue Jan 12, 2021 6:58 pm

vnatale wrote:
Tue Jan 12, 2021 6:41 pm


This is showing that they serious about the matter.

Unlike our country and its Civil War cause deniers.

The same penalties above should apply to anyone in our country who denies that the cause of the Civil War was anything but the South's desire to not only continue the institution of slavery in the existing states but to be extended to additional states.

If that had been done then we would not have seen that offensive flag of United States black oppression being waved around the Capitol building last week.


You really don’t understand what free speech means.

The 1st amendment is about protecting speech that most people find repugnant. It is about defending insulting, offensive, idiotic and inflammatory speech.

‘Approved’ speech needs no protection.

This doesn’t apply to Germany, of course, as they have neither the first amendment nor free speech.


Of course I really understand what free speech means.

What you really missed was that I was writing the ideal, as if I had full power to mandate all. But it's understandable you missed that because my writing is generally written in such a serious and literal vein.

However, you are not acknowledging that there is not complete free speech in our country. I challenge you to go anywhere public within ear shot of others or on the radio and continually repeat George Carlin's famous seven words.

Ask Howard Stern about the realities of free speech in our country.

Clear Channel nixes Howard Stern
Faced with a $495,000 FCC fine, the radio chain drops Stern show from six stations.
April 8, 2004: 5:48 PM EDT

https://money.cnn.com/2004/04/08/news/f ... 20stations.

You can say, "Well that is different." Maybe so. But if there can be laws against seven words then there can also be laws against speech attempting to either minimize or perpetuate crimes against humanity.

"I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats."
User avatar
InsuranceGuy
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 363
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2015 1:44 pm

Re: Censorship continued: first the Parler app then @realDonaldTrump

Post by InsuranceGuy » Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:03 pm

vnatale wrote:
Tue Jan 12, 2021 7:52 pm
Of course I really understand what free speech means.

What you really missed was that I was writing the ideal, as if I had full power to mandate all. But it's understandable you missed that because my writing is generally written in such a serious and literal vein.

However, you are not acknowledging that there is not complete free speech in our country. I challenge you to go anywhere public within ear shot of others or on the radio and continually repeat George Carlin's famous seven words.

Ask Howard Stern about the realities of free speech in our country.

Clear Channel nixes Howard Stern
Faced with a $495,000 FCC fine, the radio chain drops Stern show from six stations.
April 8, 2004: 5:48 PM EDT

https://money.cnn.com/2004/04/08/news/f ... 20stations.

You can say, "Well that is different." Maybe so. But if there can be laws against seven words then there can also be laws against speech attempting to either minimize or perpetuate crimes against humanity.
None of our liberties are without some limits thanks to politicians and judges.
glennds
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 554
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 11:24 am

Re: Censorship continued: first the Parler app then @realDonaldTrump

Post by glennds » Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:13 pm

InsuranceGuy wrote:
Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:03 pm
vnatale wrote:
Tue Jan 12, 2021 7:52 pm
Of course I really understand what free speech means.

What you really missed was that I was writing the ideal, as if I had full power to mandate all. But it's understandable you missed that because my writing is generally written in such a serious and literal vein.

However, you are not acknowledging that there is not complete free speech in our country. I challenge you to go anywhere public within ear shot of others or on the radio and continually repeat George Carlin's famous seven words.

Ask Howard Stern about the realities of free speech in our country.

Clear Channel nixes Howard Stern
Faced with a $495,000 FCC fine, the radio chain drops Stern show from six stations.
April 8, 2004: 5:48 PM EDT

https://money.cnn.com/2004/04/08/news/f ... 20stations.

You can say, "Well that is different." Maybe so. But if there can be laws against seven words then there can also be laws against speech attempting to either minimize or perpetuate crimes against humanity.
None of our liberties are without some limits thanks to politicians and judges.
Also thanks to reason and common sense. An example being limitation of speech that calls for immediate violence.
Last edited by glennds on Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Mark Leavy
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1369
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2012 10:20 pm
Location: US Citizen, Permanent Traveler

Re: Censorship continued: first the Parler app then @realDonaldTrump

Post by Mark Leavy » Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:19 pm

vnatale wrote:
Tue Jan 12, 2021 7:52 pm

Of course I really understand what free speech means.

What you really missed was that I was writing the ideal, as if I had full power to mandate all. But it's understandable you missed that because my writing is generally written in such a serious and literal vein.
My mistake. I acknowledge that you are not in favor of free speech.
User avatar
InsuranceGuy
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 363
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2015 1:44 pm

Re: Censorship continued: first the Parler app then @realDonaldTrump

Post by InsuranceGuy » Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:33 pm

glennds wrote:
Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:13 pm
InsuranceGuy wrote:
Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:03 pm
None of our liberties are without some limits thanks to politicians and judges.
Also thanks to reason and common sense. An example being limitation of speech that calls for immediate violence.
I don't disagree there shouldn't be speech limits to protect other's liberty such as calling for violence or defamation.

I should have been more clear that these liberties including speech continue to be eroded by politicians and judges to "protect" us from ourselves.
glennds
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 554
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 11:24 am

Re: Censorship continued: first the Parler app then @realDonaldTrump

Post by glennds » Tue Jan 12, 2021 10:32 pm

InsuranceGuy wrote:
Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:33 pm
glennds wrote:
Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:13 pm
InsuranceGuy wrote:
Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:03 pm
None of our liberties are without some limits thanks to politicians and judges.
Also thanks to reason and common sense. An example being limitation of speech that calls for immediate violence.
I don't disagree there shouldn't be speech limits to protect other's liberty such as calling for violence or defamation.

I should have been more clear that these liberties including speech continue to be eroded by politicians and judges to "protect" us from ourselves.
I think we're in agreement. Rights should not be unlimited, but eroding them should not happen lightly either. It's a balancing act to be sure.

Honestly, I often think if more of us (all of us?) conducted ourselves more responsibly and did not abuse our rights, they might not be as vulnerable to erosion. However I also recognize that promoting accountability of self is not a popular idea in our age of entitlement.
User avatar
InsuranceGuy
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 363
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2015 1:44 pm

Re: Censorship continued: first the Parler app then @realDonaldTrump

Post by InsuranceGuy » Tue Jan 12, 2021 10:58 pm

glennds wrote:
Tue Jan 12, 2021 10:32 pm
InsuranceGuy wrote:
Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:33 pm
I don't disagree there shouldn't be speech limits to protect other's liberty such as calling for violence or defamation.

I should have been more clear that these liberties including speech continue to be eroded by politicians and judges to "protect" us from ourselves.
I think we're in agreement. Rights should not be unlimited, but eroding them should not happen lightly either. It's a balancing act to be sure.

Honestly, I often think if more of us (all of us?) conducted ourselves more responsibly and did not abuse our rights, they might not be as vulnerable to erosion. However I also recognize that promoting accountability of self is not a popular idea in our age of entitlement.
I think you nailed the root of the issue. Too many look to solve the problems of the world by changing others (many times by government mandate) instead of starting with themselves.
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 5403
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Censorship continued: first the Parler app then @realDonaldTrump

Post by vnatale » Tue Jan 12, 2021 11:04 pm

Republicans usually revere the free market. Now, they’re cursing it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... ursing-it/

Opinion by
Max Boot
Columnist
Jan. 12, 2021 at 2:30 p.m. EST
You have to savor the irony: Republicans who normally extol the virtues of the free market are now cursing it. That’s because they are feeling the wrath of corporate America for having subverted U.S. democracy and instigated an insurrection.

Simon & Schuster decided to cancel a book by Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), leading him to rage against the “woke mob” in ways that he has never done against the MAGA mob that invaded the U.S. Capitol. He even called the publisher’s move a “direct assault on the First Amendment,” as though every American has a constitutional right to be published by Simon & Schuster. Other major companies have said they won’t donate to the Sedition Caucus — the 147 congressional Republicans who voted not to certify the presidential election results. The financial hit could hurt GOP chances of retaking Congress in 2022.

President Trump is said to be “gutted” because the Professional Golfers’ Association of America voted to take the 2022 PGA Championship away from one of his golf courses. If only he could get a mulligan for his attacks against U.S. democracy.



That these right-wingers are able to protest Twitter’s decision on Twitter refutes their silly scaremongering about the end of free speech. Indeed, the fact that Twitter banned the president of the United States shows that freedom of speech is very much alive in America. Any media organization in China or Russia that tried to shut down Xi Jinping or Vladimir Putin’s lies would not be in business for long — and its owners would not be at liberty either.


A better solution is to introduce more transparency and accountability into social media companies’ decisions to ban certain users — without risking heavy-handed government censorship. It’s a tough balancing act, but it can be done. Mark MacCarthy of the Brookings Institution suggests the creation of an independent industry arbitration panel that could oversee social media companies’ implementation of their own standards to make sure they are being fair and consistent. This would provide a way to appeal decisions by Twitter’s Jack Dorsey or Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg without forcing the government to rule on who should be allowed to say what.

But simply because social media companies need to be more transparent in their decisions doesn’t mean that they were wrong to ban Trump and some of his most deranged followers. If the companies had acted earlier — while Trump was spreading lies about election fraud — the Capitol might never have been attacked.
"I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats."
User avatar
I Shrugged
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1067
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 6:35 pm

Re: Censorship continued: first the Parler app then @realDonaldTrump

Post by I Shrugged » Wed Jan 13, 2021 8:52 am

Max Boot is not a republican, no matter what he might say. He’s a center neocon.
Post Reply