Erdogan the Dictator.
- Thread starter Dennisch
- 497 comments
- 27,070 views
- 31,714
- Buckwheat City
- Dennisch
No, it's not because you don't think it's funny. It's because you're trying to undermine freedom of speech, just like Merkel and Erdogan. And one of the 3 in your company recognized the mistake that was made.
Feelings got hurt, so what? Shrug it off and move on.
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
No, I'm not - because I firmly believe that freedom of speech is not freedom to commit defamation. Freedom of speech was created to promote debate and discussion within society. It's not a shield that allows people to say whatever they want whenever they want. Too many people, yourself included, clearly think that so long as you say "I was exercising my right to free speech", you don't have to own up to or take responsibility for your words. Böhmermann's "satire" took the form of a crude poem that implied Erdogan watched child pornography and engaged in beastiality. What was he expecting Erdogan would do? Laugh it off? He just defamed the man, suggesting that he committed vile and reprehensible activities, and now seems shocked that Erdogan responded poorly.
If anybody is undermining free speech, it's you - because the whole attitude of free speech being absolutely inviolate creates a situation where anyone can say anything about anybody without consequence. I could go around claiming that you are a paedophile without any hard evidence, and under your idea of what free speech is, I could reasonably expect you to simply sit there and take it while I suffered no consequences. Court after court has ruled as to what constitutes free speech, and they have ruled that some speech is protected and some is not.
If you're not willing to take responsibility for what you say, don't say it.
- 31,714
- Buckwheat City
- Dennisch
It seems, again, that Europe thinks a whole lot different about this case. German broadcaster ZDF will give their full support to Böhmermann if it comes to a courtcase.
In addition, major of Antwerp, Bart de Wever, has called for everyone to share the text as much as possible on social media.
In addition, major of Antwerp, Bart de Wever, has called for everyone to share the text as much as possible on social media.
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
Well, I still don't get it. Most of the outrage seems to be directed at the fact that Böhmermann has to face consequences for his actions.
If Erdogan were the mayor of a town in Germany and Böhmermann presented his sketch, the case would wind up in civil courts for slander or libel or defamation or whatever German law allows for - and nobody would care. But because Erdogan is an unpopular leader, it's apparently entirely okay for Böhmermann to do what he did without suffering any consequences. It's a double standard on top of a double standard.
If Erdogan were the mayor of a town in Germany and Böhmermann presented his sketch, the case would wind up in civil courts for slander or libel or defamation or whatever German law allows for - and nobody would care. But because Erdogan is an unpopular leader, it's apparently entirely okay for Böhmermann to do what he did without suffering any consequences. It's a double standard on top of a double standard.
- 11,639
- Intercourse, PA
- Carbonox
He's a foreigner. Why is it not OK to slander people that are outside your country's jurisdiction?
- 40,885
No, you're the bad guy here because you're defending criminal proceedings against a hack comedian for making a hack joke.
- 87,619
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
If he chose to take it to the court, he would have been well within his rights to do so. If he chose not to, it would not have vindicated Böhmermann's actions.
Like I said, if you're not willing to accept the consequences of your words, then you shouldn't say them. If you say something objectionable and it blows up in your face, then you have no right to complain about it later. What did Böhmermann think was going to happen? That everyone would just laugh and move on? His sketch implied that Erdogan watched child pornography and engaged in beadtiality. It doesn't matter who you are; that kind of insinuation is very upsetting.
Kind of says more about you than it does me seeing as how you consider me the bad guy for something so trivial.
- 40,885
The only reason it doesn't say anything about you is because you have a long history of claiming people have a right to not be offended more than people have a right to free speech. It's not at all surprising that you consider the latter "trivial".
- 6,146
- Germany
Yes, because a personality from a different country is trying to undermind our freedom of expression and art, which satire is. Not to mention that Erdogan himself has sad that "the german press should keep their nose out of our business" and yet all of the sudden Erdogan does the exact opposite and trails against Böhmermann. It's one thing that Erdogan practices censorship in his own country, but trying to censor others in a different country is a whole different level!
For an even better understanding of the situation, if you understand german of course, you should watch satirist Somuncu's view on the whole situation, suming up everything very nicely
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
I have never said that people don't have a right to free speech. Instead, I have said that people have a responsibility to exercise their free speech appropriately. Actions have consequences. If you are not willing to accept those consequences, then do not perform the action that will bring them about. If you perform that action and then refuse to accept the consequences, then you have no cause to complain.
That's what you're defending - people who have the nerve to say something when they feel safe and secure, but run and hide the moment trouble comes. Calling "freedom of speech" is not the shield that you think it is. You have the right to say what you want, when you want - but you also have the responsibility to accept whatever consequences that brings about. It boggles the mind that you refuse to acknowledge this, since accepting responsibility for your actions is one of the first things that a parent teaches their child.
Joel
Premium
- 8,141
- Halifax, NS
- Noob616
You keep saying this as if "people might think you're stupid if you say this", "you may deeply anger or offend people if you say this" or "people may choose to stop associating with you if you say this" are the same kind of consequences as "you may be criminally prosecuted or imprisoned if you say this". Nobody has said speech doesn't have consequences or that you can say whatever you want and nobody can have an opinion about what you say because of free speech. The issue is and has always been government limits on free speech and using courts and police to enforce them.
I don't have an opinion on the video itself. I don't speak German and there's no way for me to accurately get the nuance of what was said so I won't pretend to. If it was defamatory then it should be settled in a civil court, not by hauling him off to jail and charging him criminally.
Last edited:
- 40,885
I'm going to spell this out for you, since you are clearly too far up your own moral backside to actually understand the issue at hand. No one on this topic in this thread is saying no one should be responsible for what they say in the process of free speech. That's entirely why defamation laws and civil cases exist to that end; and if this was a civil suit it's doubtful it would have even made the news, nevermind a thread on GTP. But that's not what is happening here, and was never what was being argued against.
This Turkish politician wants criminal proceedings placed against this German comedian for telling defamatory jokes. Criminal. Not Civil, like the examples you keep bringing up to justify your stance. Again, for clarity: A Turkish citizen wants the German government to arrest a German citizen and place him in jail for up to 5 years for insulting the Turkish citizen; and a German federal law allows for that to happen. People on this forum said similar mean things about David Cameron about 6 months ago or so when that bizarre goat business came up, to say nothing about what people have said on this forum about Bush or Blair; and no one was calling for any of them to be placed in custody by their respective federal governments. That is what you are defending in this thread. That you are incapable of seeing how that is different from suing someone in court for defamation is no one's problem but your own; because the people whose parents you are attacking can see the difference.
Aaaaaaaand there's the personal attack.
Catholic priests who diddle kids practice what they preach more than you do, Interludes.
Last edited:
- 1,433
- Northern Ireland
What do you think are the consequences for Böhmermann's words, in the context of his sketch?
- 2,228
- Bielefeld
- tarnheld
Care to elaborate on that? Sounds a bit too black or white for me.
And satire and insult prosecution go hand in hand in most states, from constitutional democracies to totalitarian dictatorships. The difference is how the act of prosecution is carried out. I don't think it's wrong that people have a right to defend themselves against defamation, as long as it's through a fair and open trial and with an independent justice system.
- 87,619
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
If he wants to claim that, he can go ahead. I don't really care and it doesn't harm me in any way. It's not actually related to anything I said, because any dispute that might arise from that is civil, not criminal.
In Germany you can go to prison for saying that the Holocaust didn't happen. In the UK you can go to prison for making a joke about a child molester. If you can go to prison for saying something, you don't have freedom of speech.
- 2,228
- Bielefeld
- tarnheld
The civil vs. criminal distinction is unclear to me, maybe because german and british law differ. Here defamation is a crime against honour, something that seems not to exist in british law. So it's basically the threat of imprisonment that bothers you? It's very rare to be imprisoned for defamation, i haven't heard of any satirist going to prison, when they loose they have to pay a restitution.
If you might have to pay restitution to say something, would you have freedom of speech?
EDIT:
Let me explain my point of view a bit more: I think freedom of speech is important, but i think the right to go to court -- also in case of defamation -- is equally important and we should put trust in an independent justice system to settle cases of conflicting interests, like in freedom of speech vs. defamation.
Last edited:
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
I know that you want to be seen as the bigger man in all of this, but then you follow up with this:
You clearly want me to learn some valuable life-changing lesson in all this, to critically re-assess the way I conduct myself, and then you go and reveal yourself as a hypocrite. Sure, my comment could have been taken as a personal attack - if you chose to interpret it that way; it could also be seen as a simple statement of what parental responsibilities are and my shock at your lack of understanding thereof. You clearly constructed it as a personal attack because I disagree with you. Your comment, however, leaves no scope for interpretation; it's intended to be a personal attack.
Since it's obviously against the AUP, perhaps you will learn what I mean about taking responsibility for your words.
squadops
(Banned)
- 1,987
- United States
Do you really believe that a comedian with poor taste should be jailed? It's a comedian, he is joking, he is being paid by his crowd to be an ass. What about his customers then?
Slander and liable are something different as has been said already. Should I go back and reteach my kids not to offend some guy named prisonermonkey?
- 87,619
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Civil = individual/company vs. individual/company
Criminal = state vs. individual/company
If you can be convicted of a crime, it is criminal law.
If there is a law against saying certain things, you can be convicted of a crime for speaking and you don't have freedom of speech.
In Germany, saying that the Holocaust didn't happen is a crime that you can be convicted of. In the UK, making a joke on social media about a paedophile is a crime that you can be convicted of. In either country the state can prosecute you, convict you and send you to prison for things that you say, thus there is no freedom of speech.
Defamation has nothing to do with freedom of speech.
- 40,885
Nope, I'm content with demonstrating how foolish the things you are saying are. Literally years ago it was clear that you don't have the introspection required to critically re-assess your anything.
That you continue saying dumb things as if they were inarguable truths just adds to the amusement.
Ah, yes, so it wasn't a personal attack. It was just something completely irrelevant that you brought up as a non-sequitur, after you already made a post implying that my views being what they are shows that there are more problems with me than you.
It certainly was. I am curious what you think it meant, though. What it actually was was a analogy to how you always whine about people doing ad hominems against you for reasoning so petty as them not buying into your appeals to authority, then turn around and throw sly digs as soon as it's clear an argument is going pear shaped; like how some Catholic priests claim to be men of God but then use their power to molest kids. In not so many words, I called you a blazing hypocrite. I almost used the "Republican gay-bashing senators who are caught having anonymous gay sex in airport restrooms" one, but I liked how the "practice what you preach" turn of phrase worked so well.
Since spelling things out seems to be important here, no, I wasn't saying you are a child molester.
No, I construed it as a personal attack because you made it soon after you also posted this in the thread:
I construed it as a personal attack because you have time and time again shown yourself incapable of arguing points without calling people racists, or illiterate, or lacking some level or morality, or poorly parented or any number of things for no other reason that they don't pass your particular breed of uptight WASP-esque moral compass and you are incapable of stringing together logical arguments to support it.
That's strange, since Famine already posted in this thread thrice since the "personal attack" and... nothing. Feel free to report it. I've explained what the point behind me saying it was. I'm trusting that nothing will happen, but that's your prerogative.
Now, since you got the lecture out of your system, any time you want to acknowledge all of the things you blatantly ignored would be good, too; since up until that point you had no issue arguing them.
Last edited:
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
Similar threads
