Identification Cards

[Joe]

But they wrote their constitution that way, and they ratified it. And most germans dont care enough to want to change it, they dont feel like their rights are being violated because they chose to make the tradeoff between their own personal dignity and their right to say whatever the want.

Who care if most of them feel like their rights aren't being violated? I'm sure most of the religious fundies who supported Southern anti-sodomy laws didn't feel like their rights were being violated, either.

What about the people that can't speak their mind about someone without potentially getting slapped with a fine?

But we cant judge other cultures by comparing them to our own, we need to judge them by their own standards.

So female genital mutilation and anti-Semitism are OK? I don't think you want to go down this path.

[HemlockGrey]

Dahak, I find you smelly and offensive. You emit a foul odor, I consider your sense of style to be tack and disreputable, and your intellectual capacities would not compare favorably with those of a lungfish.

[Joe]

Insulting is violating my personal honour, so to speak, and my human dignity.

In other words, if it offends you, you can criminalize it. Again, sounds like an argument a fundie could use to support anti-sodomy laws.

[Dahak]

Insulting is violating my personal honour, so to speak, and my human dignity.

In other words, if it offends you, you can criminalize it. Again, sounds like an argument a fundie could use to support anti-sodomy laws.

You just have to find a judge who will convict you for the insult. Given that you don't have evidence all the time, this is quite difficult. Unless you're stupid enough to insult someone in front of a TV camera...
And there have been funny cases, indeed...

[Dahak]

Dahak, I find you smelly and offensive. You emit a foul odor, I consider your sense of style to be tack and disreputable, and your intellectual capacities would not compare favorably with those of a lungfish.

Thanks

[Sir Sirius]

Insulting is violating my personal honour, so to speak, and my human dignity.

Then take a katzbalger in one hand and a glove in the other, walk up to the person who has so fiendishly violated your honour, slap him in the face with the glove and demand satisfaction. That way there will be no silly trial of some poor soul that had the audacity to, heaven forbid, insult you and violate your human dignity, instead there will be much enjoyment as the duel is televised and you even get to satisfy your Germanic bloodlust.

[Joe]

You just have to find a judge who will convict you for the insult. Given that you don't have evidence all the time, this is quite difficult. Unless you're stupid enough to insult someone in front of a TV camera...
And there have been funny cases, indeed...

It was difficult to bust homosexuals on anti-sodomy laws before they were struck down, as well.

[Alyrium Denryle]

But they wrote their constitution that way, and they ratified it. And most germans dont care enough to want to change it, they dont feel like their rights are being violated because they chose to make the tradeoff between their own personal dignity and their right to say whatever the want.

Who care if most of them feel like their rights aren't being violated? I'm sure most of the religious fundies who supported Southern anti-sodomy laws didn't feel like their rights were being violated, either.

What about the people that can't speak their mind about someone without potentially getting slapped with a fine?

But we cant judge other cultures by comparing them to our own, we need to judge them by their own standards.

So female genital mutilation and anti-Semitism are OK? I don't think you want to go down this path.

Look, it seems like you have missed the point... I am not saying I agree with these laws... in fact, I really find them slightly repulsive. But a democratic government is a social contract. The people work out what they want in their government, and ratify it, as a people. They set what priorities they want to assign to certain rights, what overrides what etc.

The Germans, when they hammered out their basic law, decided that thier person dignity, was a little more important than their right to free speech. And that isnt wrong.. it is the priority that they set, when they wrote up their social contract.

Americans, when we wrote up ours, put the exact opposite priority in their. I myself have that priority myself. But it doesnt make it "right" ather, we, as a people simply have a different set of priorities.

Now, on the anti-sodomy laws, and genital manipulation... well genital manipuation is a form of child abuse, and causes objective harm to an individual.... Anti-Sodomy laws violate the privacy rights, that we included in our own social contract. And I find such laws repulsive, much like I turn up my nose at anti-insult laws.

[dummnutzer]

Junior for a start those terrorists where in the process of trying to cause harm to innocents. Terrorists deserve 9mm of instant justice. IRA terrorists have committed treason, therefore their life is forefit. I COME FROM THE COUNTRY THAT SPAWNED THOSE SCUMBAGS, who the fuck are you to come here and dictate how we deal with our murdering bastards. Life for a life, death for death, justice for the innocent.

Oops, I am sorry. I just assumed we were talking about the UK, a modern country respecting the Rule of Law and signatory to several international treaties about legal and human rights. I did not realize You were refering to some Third World Dictatorship. My mistake.

And you have yet to prove that they were jailed for things they said. Rather they were jailed for concrete actions, specifically consorting with known terrorists and planning a dirty bomb attack. If you can't see the difference between the two then you'd better break out the white cane.

You are trusting the government. A big mistake, IMHO.

Any power will be misused, unless there are sufficient checks and balances.

The administration just issues a lettre de chachet, and someone disappears. I don´t care whether he is guilty or not, as nobody - no court, no commission of parliament - checks it. This is the current legal situation in the US. Even if this extraordinary power has not been abused yet, the unchecked power to disappear any US citizen without trial IS a reality. And as long as any government can decide to remove its citizens without trial, there is de facto no Free Speech in such a society.

But maybe I am just paranoid.

[Dahak]

Junior for a start those terrorists where in the process of trying to cause harm to innocents. Terrorists deserve 9mm of instant justice. IRA terrorists have committed treason, therefore their life is forefit. I COME FROM THE COUNTRY THAT SPAWNED THOSE SCUMBAGS, who the fuck are you to come here and dictate how we deal with our murdering bastards. Life for a life, death for death, justice for the innocent.

Oops, I am sorry. I just assumed we were talking about the UK, a modern country respecting the Rule of Law and signatory to several international treaties about legal and human rights. I did not realize You were refering to some Third World Dictatorship. My mistake.

Oh do shut up!
Just look at the way we went against the RAF. The only fact that we didn't outright kill them was that we're prohibited from death penalty.

And you have yet to prove that they were jailed for things they said. Rather they were jailed for concrete actions, specifically consorting with known terrorists and planning a dirty bomb attack. If you can't see the difference between the two then you'd better break out the white cane.

You are trusting the government. A big mistake, IMHO.

Any power will be misused, unless there are sufficient checks and balances.

The administration just issues a lettre de chachet, and someone disappears. I don´t care whether he is guilty or not, as nobody - no court, no commission of parliament - checks it. This is the current legal situation in the US. Even if this extraordinary power has not been abused yet, the unchecked power to disappear any US citizen without trial IS a reality. And as long as any government can decide to remove its citizens without trial, there is de facto no Free Speech in such a society.

But maybe I am just paranoid.

If you're German, you're living in a country were the people trust the government to the extreme!
You're throwing big stones out of a tiny glasshouse here...

[HemlockGrey]

You know, while I am a firm believer in 'never trust the government', at least some proof would be nice.

[Andrew J.]

People do NOT have the right to not be offended.

Here, they do.

The right to be offended is much more useful and much less harmful than the right to not be offended. How will you handle new ideas which are good but offend many people?

[Soontir C'boath]

It is unfortunate that Farenheit 451 was banned in many locations.~Jason

[dummnutzer]

Oh do shut up!
Just look at the way we went against the RAF. The only fact that we didn't outright kill them was that we're prohibited from death penalty.

Unless You believe in the Roth-Otto or Landshut conspiracy theories regarding the RAF, the situation was as follows:

Two countries have a terrorism problem, no death penalty and a public opinion in favour of killing these bastards.
One commits state murder. No trial in absentia, but outright murder.
The other does not. It changes its laws (e.g. Kontaktsperregesetz), but it does not AFAIK commit murder.

If You can not see the difference ...

If you're German, you're living in a country were the people trust the government to the extreme!
You're throwing big stones out of a tiny glasshouse here...

So what? Many (insert nationality) are stupid or uninformed. How does this change anything about the erosion of civil liberties, which currently seems to be spearheaded by the US?

[Uraniun235]

"If unbridled licence of speech and writing be granted to all, nothing will remain sacred and inviolate; even the highest and truest mandates of nature, justly held to be the common and noblest heritage of the human race, will not be spared. Thus, truth being gradually obscured by darkness, pernicious and manifold error, as too often happens, will easily prevail."- Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical letter of June 20, 1888.

[salm]

you´re allowed to go around and call people dickheads in the states? even police officers and judges and stuff like that?

[Aeolus]

you´re allowed to go around and call people dickheads in the states? even police officers and judges and stuff like that?

Police can almost always find charges to arrest you on if they want to..but they cannot arrest you for calling them names. If you called a Judge a name IN court he could nab you for contemp of court. But out on the street you could tell off.

[salm]

you´re allowed to go around and call people dickheads in the states? even police officers and judges and stuff like that?

Police can almost always find charges to arrest you on if they want to..but they cannot arrest you for calling them names. If you called a Judge a name IN court he could nab you for contemp of court. But out on the street you could tell off.

so the next time when i´m in the states it´s absolutely legal that i walk up to some seargant and call him a dickhead? that´s cool. in case i grow additional balls that are a couple of sizes to large, i´ll do that.

[RedImperator]

you´re allowed to go around and call people dickheads in the states? even police officers and judges and stuff like that?

Well, walk up to a cop and call him a dickhead, and, depending on his mood, you're likely to be busted for public drunkeness or disturbing the peace or loitering or some nuisance charge. They'll haul you down to the station and toss you in the pokey for a few hours (to "calm down" or "dry out" or whatever), then let you go with no charges filed. However, none of that is technically legal--it's just impossible to prove the cop acted improperly unless the same officer has a history of this kind of thing. So yes, it's legal to insult a cop.

Same with a judge--actually, it's safer, because a judge doesn't carry handcuffs. You still have to be careful--you can't pull things like follow him to his car and shout at him or something--but just walking up to him on the street or in a restaurant and going, "Judge Smith, I just thought you'd like to know that I think you're a total dickhead," and then walking away, is legal.

Written insults are even safer, because in most cases, there's no way you can accuse someone who's, say, written something nasty about someone else in a blog, of being a thread to the safety of the individual in question. You have to be careful not to libel someone or make threats of violence, but the standards for both are pretty tight and it's hard to accidentily do it (imposible in the case of libel, since the libeled party must prove the writer was deliberately lying AND meant to ruin the libeled party's reputation).

Short answer: yes, in the states, you can insult anyone you feel like so long as you don't threaten or slander him. "Personal honor" means squat in the American legal code. Now for a fun exercise, how about one of the people here defending the German legal code show me how you can prove that by harming someone's personal honor, you've caused him real, objectively verifiable harm that justifies a one year prison term.

[RedImperator]

you´re allowed to go around and call people dickheads in the states? even police officers and judges and stuff like that?

Police can almost always find charges to arrest you on if they want to..but they cannot arrest you for calling them names. If you called a Judge a name IN court he could nab you for contemp of court. But out on the street you could tell off.

so the next time when i´m in the states it´s absolutely legal that i walk up to some seargant and call him a dickhead? that´s cool. in case i grow additional balls that are a couple of sizes to large, i´ll do that.

Just be sure you haven't been drinking, or you'll get slapped with public drunkeness and creating a public nuisance. There's always some obscure nuisance law for which a pissed-off cop can arrest you.

[Dark Hellion]

Man, Germany is like a giant kindergarden class isn't it. Don't call Janey a poo head, jimmy. Don't draw swaztikas (sp? you crazy germans and your german language), don't get in fights. Wow, if you didn't live a couple hours from Amersterdam, how would you not be totally fucking bored. No wonder you started so many world wars.
Instead, we got the good old U.S.A., where, with the right paperwork, you can lead a KKK march through Harlem, on Martin Luther King Jr. day (you won't survive 5 minutes though). Bless that freedom.

[Aeolus]

you´re allowed to go around and call people dickheads in the states? even police officers and judges and stuff like that?

Police can almost always find charges to arrest you on if they want to..but they cannot arrest you for calling them names. If you called a Judge a name IN court he could nab you for contemp of court. But out on the street you could tell off.

so the next time when i´m in the states it´s absolutely legal that i walk up to some seargant and call him a dickhead? that´s cool. in case i grow additional balls that are a couple of sizes to large, i´ll do that.

If you piss off a cop he will find some minor infraction to nab you on...it just will not be calling him a name.

[Dahak]

Man, Germany is like a giant kindergarden class isn't it. Don't call Janey a poo head, jimmy. Don't draw swaztikas (sp? you crazy germans and your german language), don't get in fights. .

We don't call them Swastikas, at all. That's your name for it. In German, those are Hakenkreuze (hook-crosses).

[Dahak]

Now for a fun exercise, how about one of the people here defending the German legal code show me how you can prove that by harming someone's personal honor, you've caused him real, objectively verifiable harm that justifies a one year prison term.

I'm not a lawyer, so I haven't spend my whole life discussing this stuff. And usually, you don't have to, since no one differs...

But insulting someone is degrading him, and thus can be viewed as degrading his human dignity, which is the ultimate legal principle here.

[StimNeuro]

But insulting someone is degrading him, and thus can be viewed as degrading his human dignity, which is the ultimate legal principle here.

And that is where the danger comes from. 'Degrading human dignity' is highly subjective. Unless you have a concrete legal definition of 'human dignity', then all kinds of things can be passed in the name of protecting it. I realize that this may seem like a slippery slope, but it's still a likely danger.