Erdogan the Dictator.

[prisonermonkeys]

Do you really believe that a comedian with poor taste should be jailed?

I don't think that he should be jailed, but nor do I think he should simply be let off. As I have said before, freedom of speech is not freedom from consequence. Böhmermann cannot simply say what he likes and then run and hide when he doesn't like what happens next. If he believed in his words when he said them, he should be held to them. If he cannot bear the consequences of his actions, then he should have shown more forethought when he said them. His sketch implied that Erdogan watched child pornography and engaged in beastiality. These are serious, heinous insinuations, and putting them in the context of a comedy sketch doesn't soften their impact. So again, I ask, what did he think would happen? Is it unreasonable for someone else to conclude that the reaction that he got may have been different to the one that he anticipated? And if so, is it too much to ask that he take this into consideration?

My issue is not so much that he said it, but rather that he is apparently unwilling to accept the consequences of his actions, and that people see any attempt to impose a consequence is a violation of his right to free speech. But nobody forced Böhmermann to say it. There's no mitigating circumstance that absolves him of responsibility. If you tell a sexist joke in the workplace and offend a colleague and that colleague takes it to your boss, you don't say "I was exercising my right to free speech" and expect to walk away from it. You take responsibility for your actions, and you face up to the consequences.

Imagine a world where everyone could say whatever they wanted, whenever they wanted, about whomever they wanted, and never had to face any kind of consequences for their actions, even when their actions are defamatory or malicious. We'd be living in a state of anarchy, or something so close to it that we would be unable to tell the difference.

 

[squadops]

You keep saying consequence without defining what consequence.

 

[20832]

My issue is not so much that he said it, but rather that he is apparently unwilling to accept the consequences of his actions, and that people see any attempt to impose a consequence is a violation of his right to free speech.

Böhmermann has said right before his sketch "What I'm about to do is stupid and you shouldn't do this...ever"
So saying that he doesn't want to face any consequence or rather he actually kinda did expect a strong reaction and potentially even consequences.
But then again, he has practiced his freedom of speech and his freedom to practice art. Yes, Erdogan does put Böhmermann on trail on a valid law, which everybody agrees upon, is bloody stupid.

And the other, potentially bigger issue is that a leader of another country is trying to put someone else in a different country to trail and trying to censor just about everything remotely borderline negative against him. Do you think it'll stop there? No. Due to the whole deal with the immigration, Merkel and our Gouvernment have become susceptible to blackmail. And the relationship to Turkey has changed in general because we both, Germany and Turkey, see the entire relationship in a completely different way and are kinda dependable on Turkey. And that's a pretty dangerous situation on might say.

 

[Famine]

To be clear on your meaning; if Person A says that Person B rapes children then Person B would be justified in taking action for defamation?

If it's not true, yes.

Does Person A still have freedom of speech in their comments

Unless they are criminally prosecuted by the state, yes.

and does that trump Person B's right to reputation?

The right to what? Trumping it how? Defamation has nothing to do with freedom of speech.

If you tell a sexist joke in the workplace and offend a colleague and that colleague takes it to your boss, you don't say "I was exercising my right to free speech" and expect to walk away from it. You take responsibility for your actions, and you face up to the consequences.

That has nothing to do with freedom of speech either.

"Freedom of" isn't "complete immunity from any responsibility for". It's "the state cannot make you a criminal for". I'm not sure why this needs to be explained again.

"Freedom of speech" doesn't mean you can say what you want, where you want, when you want and anyone who objects to you saying it is wrong*. "Freedom of speech" means that that state cannot convict you as a criminal for saying something. If you're fired for what you say, it's nothing to do with freedom of speech. If you're taken to court by a wounded party for what you say, it's nothing to do with freedom of speech. If you're prevented from speaking by someone else (unless they are acting as an official of the state), it's nothing to do with freedom of speech. If you are prosecuted by the state for speaking it is to do with freedom of speech.

In Germany the state can prosecute you for denying the Holocaust happened. It is a criminal offence to say that you don't believe that the Holocaust happened and you can be fined or sent to prison for saying it. This means that in Germany, you do not have freedom of speech.

In the UK the state can prosecute you for telling a joke from Sickipedia about a child molester. It is a criminal offence to make that joke and you can be fined or sent to prison for repeating it. This means that in the UK, you do not have freedom of speech.

I'm surprised no-one's brought up the "shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre" line yet. In any country where you can be prosecuted by the state for shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre even if nothing happens as a result, you don't have freedom of speech. Being prosecuted for a resulting stampede isn't a prosecution for speaking, but for the result - and thus nothing to do with freedom of speech.


*Yes, some stupid people will scream that they have the right to free expression when challenged, but they are stupid people, and wrong. Stupid people abuse the moderators here on GTPlanet because they believe they have the right to free expression, despite us not being any state and being a private, opt-in website...

What these people believe by the term 'freedom of speech' is not what it means.

 

[tarnheld]

The right to what? Trumping it how? Defamation has nothing to do with freedom of speech.

Unless they are criminally prosecuted by the state, yes.

In Germany defamation is a criminal offense, and as such even if there are only individuals involved the plaintiff has to hand off the charges to the judicial system that does the prosecution. The german judicial system can even press charges themselves without a plaintiff when they think a crime has been done. Does this make defamation law in Germany going against freedom of speech, as the prosecutor is always the judicial state power? Do you recognize the separation of judicative, executive and legislative powers or are they all "the state" for you?

Erdogan pressed civil charges and also sues for defamation and defamation of foreign state officials. The federal government has to allow initiating the prosecution of charges by the courts for the last, which they did on Friday and that's what got Merkel into political trouble. I think Merkel didn't make a mistake here but rather when she announced she phoned with Erdogan and told him she thinks the piece is clearly defamatory -- she shouldn't make such valuations and let that be decided by the courts.

 

[Famine]

Does this make defamation law in Germany going against freedom of speech

Yes.

 

[Ibonibo]

I think there should be certain limits to freedom of speech (art excluded for this post). And in all countries, even in the US, where the KKK can parade around has restricitions on the freedom of speech (defamation, false claims,...)

And I am okay with that.

In Germany, as Famine invoked the Holocaust, is a very sensible theme as we all know.
The problem I see is Germany tabulisating the whole theme a bit too much.

All the propaganda material from the 3rd Reich, is under lock! Even professors need clearance to view them. And I think that is a wrong approch just trying to put part of the thing under a carpet.

Young Germans should not feel ashamed anymore for the crimes of the ancestors, but it's a very important theme, that I think is not talked about enough in Germany, in all it's aspects as the aspect " we did this, this is bad, should not happen again" is more important. Especially as a whole, a lot is under wraps, because pssssh you can not talk about that.

The whole native definition of burocraty and experiment of Milgram,symbolism, propaganda is not put enough in the main focus.

Comparing the speeches of the AFD and the NSAP shows some scary similarities, and how the Germans fall again for it, shows that not enough education on that matter was done.

I am in shock when i see how many people in Europe support Putin by now. The Kremel has at least 800 poeple doing nothing other than posting comments on western sites propaganda-ing Russia.

Russia propaganda at it's finest:
http://www.tagesspiegel.de/berlin/1...einsame-demo-vor-dem-kanzleramt/12870386.html

The same goes for other parties in the EU, US,....

And people seem to lack the tools to clearly see it as it is...

But as history showed us in the past. history is like a sinus. Some stuff will happen "periodicly".... if we don't learn from the past. And that can only be done without major censorship

 

[Rage Racer]

I am in shock when i see how many people in Europe support Putin by now. The Kremel has at least 800 poeple doing nothing other than posting comments on western sites propaganda-ing Russia.

According to Boris Reitschuster, Kremlin also has about 300 saboteurs in Germany, who are trained to handle guns and explosives, and are waiting for Putin's order...

 

[TenEightyOne]

According to Boris Reitschuster, Kremlin also has about 300 saboteurs in Germany, who are trained to handle guns and explosives, and are waiting for Putin's order...

That's not unlikely, is it? Most foreign powers place caches and sleepers for when the balloon goes up. Why would Russia (a tremendously advanced military power) be any different?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Yes.

Okay, what would you say to this, then:

A journalist runs a story about a well-known person that alleges serious criminal activity. That person suffers a loss on reputation, as well as in their personal and professional lives. The police launch an investigation, but discover that the story is not only fabricated, but that the journalist knew it and actively sought to suppress any evidence that could prove it to be a fabrication. The only conclusion is that the story was malicious in its intent, written solely as an attack on the person. When charges are brought up against the journalist for defamation, they argue that they were simply exercising their right to free speech.

 

[Denur]

Okay, what would you say to this, then:

A journalist runs a story about a well-known person that alleges serious criminal activity. That person suffers a loss on reputation, as well as in their personal and professional lives. The police launch an investigation, but discover that the story is not only fabricated, but that the journalist knew it and actively sought to suppress any evidence that could prove it to be a fabrication. The only conclusion is that the story was malicious in its intent, written solely as an attack on the person. When charges are brought up against the journalist for defamation, they argue that they were simply exercising their right to free speech.

Did you even read @Famine 's post (#64) about what freedom of speech is?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Yes, I did. But a few years after I graduated high school, a student accused a teacher of touching her. He had been at the school for the better part of twenty years, and was very highly-regarded. He was one of those teachers who didn't suffer fools gladly - he could teach you a lot, but he didn't tolerate nonsense. After the accusation, his life fell apart; he and his family were forced to move away, and the last I heard, he hasn't taught since. The police got involved, of course, and ultimately proved that he had done nothing wrong - the girl made the accusation because she had not handed in an assignment and her teacher had threatened to give her a failing grade. When she was questioned about her actions, she argued that she was free to say whatever she wanted.

That kind of speech isn't worth protecting.

 

[Ibonibo]

Making false criminal accusation is prosecuted bey penal law. Again nothing to do with free speech. She sure does have the right to say it, as has society to prosecute her.
And that exemple is very different.


Also it is of primordial importance that the whole scetch is taken into consideration, not just the poem. And I suspect not all media made this clear as clickbait is more rewarding. As Winston said it : You can hang a man by taking a sentence out of context.

Comedian B. defends Song from WDR (posted on page 2), by saying to Erdogan that that song is legal in Germany and protected by law. To make this clear, he then goes on to state that the only thing excluded from this is a Schmähgedicht ( a diffamation poem) and as an exemple goes on to read said Poem, only to show the difference to Erdogan.

That whole thing is one thing. One sketch, one satire.

 

[tarnheld]

Yes.

I guess there isn't a single country that implements freedom of speech as you define it. I find it pretty moot to measure everything with the same idealistic categorial yardstick.

All the propaganda material from the 3rd Reich, is under lock! Even professors need clearance to view them. And I think that is a wrong approch just trying to put part of the thing under a carpet.

Are you aware that Hitlers Mein Kampf was published in a commented edition in Germany lately as the copyright that was held by the Bavarian state has run out? And you can look at tons of propaganda material in the nearest museum here, as well as visit the concentration camps.

Also it is of primordial importance that the whole scetch is taken into consideration, not just the poem. And I suspect not all media made this clear as clickbait is more rewarding. As Winston said it : You can hang a man by taking a sentence out of context.

Comedian B. defends Song from WDR (posted on page 2), by saying to Erdogan that that song is legal in Germany and protected by law. To make this clear, he then goes on to state that the only thing excluded from this is a Schmähgedicht ( a diffamation poem) and as an exemple goes on to read said Poem, only to show the difference to Erdogan.

That whole thing is one thing. One sketch, one satire.

I'm sure the courts will judge it appropriately and take the whole context into consideration. I wonder if Erdogan will sue more satirists as plenty of reactions came after Böhmermann, so i guess he could call Merkel every week discussing a new case to be prosecuted. But Böhmermann raised the bar considerably, what will come next? The notorious magazine Titanic speculates too:

Spoiler: Caution: Satire!

Well this Böhmermann, now he draws Erdogan cartoons as well!

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Making false criminal accusation is prosecuted bey penal law.

Only when you file a police report. This girl was cunning enough not to launch a formal complaint; she never came forward initial, and instead let the rumour fester because she knew that in the education system, you are guilty until your innocence is proven. By the time it became apparent that she was at the centre of it, she couldn't be charged because nobody could prove that she started the rumours.

 

[Famine]

Yes, I did. But a few years after I graduated high school, a student accused a teacher of touching her. He had been at the school for the better part of twenty years, and was very highly-regarded. He was one of those teachers who didn't suffer fools gladly - he could teach you a lot, but he didn't tolerate nonsense. After the accusation, his life fell apart; he and his family were forced to move away, and the last I heard, he hasn't taught since. The police got involved, of course, and ultimately proved that he had done nothing wrong - the girl made the accusation because she had not handed in an assignment and her teacher had threatened to give her a failing grade. When she was questioned about her actions, she argued that she was free to say whatever she wanted.

That's nothing to do with freedom of speech. Neither was your previous example.

That kind of speech isn't worth protecting.

Freedom is a binary state. Either you are free or you are not. Apply limits to freedom and you are not free - and once certain limits are in place there is precedent for others.

Either all speech is free or none of it is. If you don't think someone should be put in prison for saying the government sucks you cannot support imprisoning anyone for saying anything.

I guess there isn't a single country that implements freedom of speech as you define it. I find it pretty moot to measure everything with the same idealistic categorial yardstick.

Oh well.

 

[tarnheld]

Freedom is a binary state. Either you are free or you are not. Apply limits to freedom and you are not free - and once certain limits are in place there is precedent for others.

Either all speech is free or none of it is. If you don't think someone should be put in prison for saying the government sucks you cannot support imprisoning anyone for saying anything.

Look, i get your point and i think it's a noble goal to strive to achieve such kind of freedom. But putting together a law that works in all kind of cases and cannot be abused isn't that easy and clear because laws are made by and for people and there are many ways to circumvent them or misuse them. Let's say there would be a country where freedom of speech as in your definition would be implemented -- all forms of speech are never prosecutable by any law except private law used by private (juristical?) persons to get compensation for whatever damages the private law dictates. Erdogan would have sued anyways as a private person. All state members could press charges as private persons -- effectively you wouldn't be sent to jail, but you would still be bancrupt after a free speech. On top of that all that can be done by members of a malicious state without touching any of your definition of free speech. Your definition of freedom of speech is neither a be all and end all for ensuring a free society nor are states that don't meet your definition (all states today?) devoid of free speech -- in my humble opinion.

And what can i do to solve the technicalities preventing your definition of free speech in my country? With your binary definition i would only be sucessful if i rally to make all crimes of honour and obscenity private law and abolish several paragraphs regarding incitement of the masses and treason. I find it a bit excessive and personally i have no problem that controversial cases be brought to the courts -- as long as there is an indepentent justice system i don't see any harm weighing conflicting rights such as (juristical as implemented in most constitutions) freedom of speech vs. honour or vs. privacy. For example the holocaust denial was judged in courts as a defamation and an offence against the honour of those killed -- pretty plausible to me, and i think it's a good thing that german law feels responsible for the honour of those killed by the Nazis. In 1994 the legislative added a special section regarding the criminality of the denial specifically of the atrocities of the Nazis. I wonder if it would be needed as the prosecution includes almost always charges of defamation and the incitement of hatred and the trials were mostly spectacular displays of contempt of court by the defendants and lawyers alike -- i guess this theme attracts certain kind of persons.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Freedom is a binary state. Either you are free or you are not. Apply limits to freedom and you are not free - and once certain limits are in place there is precedent for others.

And that's how society works. Not all freedoms are compatible with sensible respect. If one doesn't want to live in a society that applies common sense to limitation of freedoms then one's free to choose not to, surely?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

If one doesn't want to live in a society that applies common sense to limitation of freedoms then one's free to choose not to, surely?

The problem is when they want it both ways.

 

[squadops]

And that's how society works. Not all freedoms are compatible with sensible respect. If one doesn't want to live in a society that applies common sense to limitation of freedoms then one's free to choose not to, surely?

Indeed they are, it is the very reason I advocate state's rights in the u.s. for example. Famine is correct also in what he said and you responded to, however you are speaking of people willing to give up some freedom voluntarily and not by force.

 

[Ibonibo]

 

[Dennisch]

Turkey has send an email to the Turkish consulate in Rotterdam that states that Dutch Turks should report everyone who insults Crybaby Erdogan.

I'm pretty sure Erdo has a really tiny penis, and still someone managed to step on it.

 

[Ibonibo]

Turkey has send an email to the Turkish consulate in Rotterdam that states that Dutch Turks should report everyone who insults Crybaby Erdogan.

I'm pretty sure Erdo has a really tiny penis, and still someone managed to step on it.

Not just someone.

A freaking horse

Embedded media from this media site is no longer available

Embedded media from this media site is no longer available

 

[Dennisch]

Turkish version of the Nutcracker.

That also explains why he turned into a giant butthurt dick. His tiny trouser companion has been squashed to smithereens.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Turkish version of the Nutcracker.

That also explains why he turned into a giant butthurt dick. His tiny trouser companion has been squashed to smithereens.

I'm no biologist but I think that was more dick-hurt butt, but hey.

 

[Sanji Himura]

Dutch citizen barred from leaving Turkey for tweets insulting Erdogan:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...etained-for-tweeting-about-president-erdogan/

 

[mister dog]

Dutch citizen barred from leaving Turkey for tweets insulting Erdogan:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...etained-for-tweeting-about-president-erdogan/

Her house in Amsterdam was also burgled in the meantime. Laptop stolen and they wrote 'whore' on her wall:

https://www.rt.com/news/340895-dutch-columnist-flat-burglary/

 

[Dennisch]

Her house in Amsterdam was also burgled in the meantime. Laptop stolen and they wrote 'whore' on her wall:

https://www.rt.com/news/340895-dutch-columnist-flat-burglary/

She also wrote a new piece in the Metro.

The bit about the Dutch Turks is the finest.
Goatlovers. But not quite.

 

[Dennisch]

This will now the general Erdogan/Turkey thread, because Erdogan is well on his way to grab as much power as possible.

Today it became clear that Erdogan wanted the somewhat moderate and Pro European Prime Minister Davutoglu out of office, and his wish has been granted. The PM has resigned, causing the EU to lose a important partner in the relationship of the EU and Turkey.

Important detail is that the EU and Turkey agreed yesterday on the deal for Visa free travel to the EU for the Turks.

Erdogan is seriously using his tiny throbbing member to shaft the EU in any way possible.

 

[Dotini]

This will now the general Erdogan/Turkey thread, because Erdogan is well on his way to grab as much power as possible.

Today it became clear that Erdogan wanted the somewhat moderate and Pro European Prime Minister Davutoglu out of office, and his wish has been granted. The PM has resigned, causing the EU to lose a important partner in the relationship of the EU and Turkey.

Important detail is that the EU and Turkey agreed yesterday on the deal for Visa free travel to the EU for the Turks.

Erdogan is seriously using his tiny throbbing member to shaft the EU in any way possible.

He has you by the short hairs due to you guys in Europe screwing the pooch in Libya and Syria. This is the screwing you get for the screwing you gave. All the world is in balance.