German Politician Fined For Telling The Truth..

[tabibito]

Your comment on Voltaire is irrelevant.

Your comment about repercussions is vague and authoritarian.

If so, there are times when being authoritarian is appropriate.

[CivilDiscourse]

A comment on Voltaire is "irrelevant" even though you offered a paraphrase of a comment that is attributed to him.

Yes, it is. It is random trivia and has no relevance to the actual thread of the conversation.

Imagine the scenarios that would ensue from completely uncontrolled and unlimited "free speech".

Imagine the scenarios that would ensue from the people in charge deciding what is and is not allowed to be spoken.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Yes, it is. It is random trivia and has no relevance to the actual thread of the conversation.

So why introduce the phrase?

Imagine the scenarios that would ensue from the people in charge deciding what is and is not allowed to be spoken.

That is an equally extreme situation.

To ensure social cohesion there have to be limits on what can be said in public or in print. Hence laws exist against slander and libel.

[CivilDiscourse]

So why introduce the phrase?

I'll slow this down for you so perhaps you can understand.

1. This is a discussion about free speech, the throughline as implied by you is that you shouldn't defend someone's right to speech because they have problematic associations. Or, conversely, that if you support their right to speech, you are endorsing their ideas. (On a side note, this is different than your excusing and minimizing the calls for violence, as you are not defending their right to be spoken, only minimizing the speech itself).

2. The above idea as implied by you, is where the sentiment of "I disagree with what you say, but will defend your right to say it" is relevant. It points out that just because certain speech is 'odious' or bad, etc. You can defend the right to say it without actually having to agree with it.

3. Your comment about Voltaire does not relate to either 1 or 2. It is akin to talking to electrical engineers planning out a substation by pointing out the Ben Franklin's kite experiment would've killed him. Just because the broad topic is electricity doesn't mean random trivia is relevant to the conversation.

[seer]

She was inciting hatred of a particular group of refugees. Biden has not implied that all MAGA members are rapists.

And it is evident that there exists among some members of MAGA a fascist tendency. The slogan itself has echoes of 1920s and 1930s fascism. Germany was going to made great again by Hitler. Mussolini was going to make Italy the new Rome. The devotion to the cult of the leader also is found among some MAGA members and that cult is encouraged by the leadership, e.g. the selling of pieces of the suit worn by Trump, Trump approved Bibles and sneakers. That same cultish attitude was encouraged in Italy and Germany. Hitler was regarded as a messianic leader in some quarters. In fascism the leader claims that he is the only one who can save the country and is bound by destiny to do so. Donald Trump: "I alone can fix it" and "I am your voice". Hitler promised the same for Germany and proclaimed; Ein Reich, Ein Volk, Ein Führer.

See, you are broad brushing MAGA voters, people nether you or Biden know. When you call them fascists you are inciting hatred, after all fascists are evil. You say 'some' have a fascist tendency, who? How many? The charge of fascism therefore falls on all Trump supporters.

You seem to hold the view that anyone can say anything without being held responsible for any repercussions. That is a very childish view and if tolerated would lead to social chaos.

Bingo - I believe you have the right to call me a Fascist, me to call you an anti Semite, and Kaiser to bring up he fact that Muslims tend to rape more.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I'll slow this down for you so perhaps you can understand.

1. This is a discussion about free speech, the throughline as implied by you is that you shouldn't defend someone's right to speech because they have problematic associations. Or, conversely, that if you support their right to speech, you are endorsing their ideas. (On a side note, this is different than your excusing and minimizing the calls for violence, as you are not defending their right to be spoken, only minimizing the speech itself).

2. The above idea as implied by you, is where the sentiment of "I disagree with what you say, but will defend your right to say it" is relevant. It points out that just because certain speech is 'odious' or bad, etc. You can defend the right to say it without actually having to agree with it.

3. Your comment about Voltaire does not relate to either 1 or 2. It is akin to talking to electrical engineers planning out a substation by pointing out the Ben Franklin's kite experiment would've killed him. Just because the broad topic is electricity doesn't mean random trivia is relevant to the conversation.

You introduced the phrase attributed to Voltaire and then wrote that my comment on the origin of that phrase was "irrelevant". Your peculiar notions of what you deem to be relevant are duly noted.

I have also pointed out that untrammelled and uncontrolled free speech leads to social chaos including slander and libel.

[Ronson]

You introduced the phrase attributed to Voltaire and then wrote that my comment on the origin of that phrase was "irrelevant". Your peculiar notions of what you deem to be relevant are duly noted.

I have also pointed out that untrammelled and uncontrolled free speech leads to social chaos including slander and libel.

Slander and libel are determined by the courts. Not by the government.

[CivilDiscourse]

You introduced the phrase attributed to Voltaire and then wrote that my comment on the origin of that phrase was "irrelevant". Your peculiar notions of what you deem to be relevant are duly noted.

Ok, so as I explained the rationale for why the phrase was relevant to the conversation, explain to all of us how your TRIVIA on Voltaire furthers the actual throughline of the discussion.

[Stoic]

Slander and libel are determined by the courts. Not by the government.

The courts are part of the government.

Or, to put it another way, "incitement to hatred" is determined by the (German) courts, not by the government.

[Ronson]

The courts are part of the government.

Not in the sense of determining guilt. IOW, a gaggle of bureaucrats don't fine you for slander.

Or, to put it another way, "incitement to hatred" is determined by the (German) courts, not by the government.

OK. But slander and libel (in the US anyway) have pretty narrow definitions. Claiming "all Afghans are rapists" doesn't qualify.

[seer]

The courts are part of the government.

Or, to put it another way, "incitement to hatred" is determined by the (German) courts, not by the government.

Would saying that Muslims have a higher tendency for rape/crime, if fact, be an incitement to hatred?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Slander and libel are determined by the courts. Not by the government.

The government makes the laws.

And that such restrictions exist demonstrate that untrammelled "free speech" without any repercussions is not tolerated.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Ok, so as I explained the rationale for why the phrase was relevant to the conversation, explain to all of us how your TRIVIA on Voltaire furthers the actual throughline of the discussion.

He never actually created the phrase, It merely was used to describe his way of thinking.

[CivilDiscourse]

He never actually created the phrase, It merely was used to describe his way of thinking.

Ok...So, how does that forward the throughline of the conversation? After all, the phrase itself has long-outlived him, and carries meaning separate from him.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Would saying that Muslims have a higher tendency for rape/crime, if fact, be an incitement to hatred?

Do they?