Posted June 17, 2015
I know that it isn't free speech - and that is covered in german law already. But i didn't know about it being the highest court for people.
Who says the internet is only for porn?
j0ekerr
Heisenbunny
Registered: Jun 2014
From Spain
I know that it isn't free speech - and that is covered in german law already. But i didn't know about it being the highest court for people.
Who says the internet is only for porn?
ElTerprise
Registered: May 2011
From Germany
Posted June 17, 2015
Who says the internet is only for porn?
Goodaltgamer
New User
Registered: Oct 2014
From Germany
Posted June 17, 2015
About the ECHR, there is a trial going on, where a German dog owner is prosecuting the German state, because of he thinks he is not treated on the basis of equality, as he is paying more taxes in his town for his dog than he would in another city.
Does he have a merrit, yes, as all people shall be treated equal and courts have found that owning an animal is a human right.
ElTerprise
Registered: May 2011
From Germany
Posted June 17, 2015
But don´t forget, it might be part of German law, but not all countries have the same laws ;)
About the ECHR, there is a trial going on, where a German dog owner is prosecuting the German state, because of he thinks he is not treated on the basis of equality, as he is paying more taxes in his town for his dog than he would in another city.
Does he have a merrit, yes, as all people shall be treated equal and courts have found that owning an animal is a human right.
I was referring to german law because you're a fellow german. And i'm aware that not all countries have laws regarding that.
That's an interesting trial. Let's see if they rule in his favour.
de_Monteynard
Technologist
Registered: Jul 2010
From Slovenia
Shadowstalker16
Jaded optimist
Registered: Apr 2014
From India
Posted June 17, 2015
Here is my take on the matter.
A guy walks into an auditorium during a mask-wearing party thing and and threatens to rape and kill someone publicly, over the mic. In that case, and rightfully so, the person making the threats will be arrested. The owner of the auditorium can hire ushers to drag off the crazy person, but can't do anything to prevent him / her speaking. So it makes sense that only the crazy person is charged.
On the internet, a forum is a masks party. If people come to a mask party, they SHOULD expect and accept anonymity. There are safe spaces. If they want to live in a strictly encourage only environment, they can retreat to social media and block out non-friends.
It seems its OK for theater owners to allow the existence of people who talk during movies but not for site-admins on the internet? Its not the job, obligation or duty of site owners to watch over, invade the privacy and morally police people on his / her forum just so one TV-centric mainstream media social justice dickhead who knows nothing of the internet other than tumblr and facebook doesn't get offended.
A guy walks into an auditorium during a mask-wearing party thing and and threatens to rape and kill someone publicly, over the mic. In that case, and rightfully so, the person making the threats will be arrested. The owner of the auditorium can hire ushers to drag off the crazy person, but can't do anything to prevent him / her speaking. So it makes sense that only the crazy person is charged.
On the internet, a forum is a masks party. If people come to a mask party, they SHOULD expect and accept anonymity. There are safe spaces. If they want to live in a strictly encourage only environment, they can retreat to social media and block out non-friends.
It seems its OK for theater owners to allow the existence of people who talk during movies but not for site-admins on the internet? Its not the job, obligation or duty of site owners to watch over, invade the privacy and morally police people on his / her forum just so one TV-centric mainstream media social justice dickhead who knows nothing of the internet other than tumblr and facebook doesn't get offended.
Goodaltgamer
New User
Registered: Oct 2014
From Germany
Posted June 17, 2015
I was referring to german law because you're a fellow german. And i'm aware that not all countries have laws regarding that.
That's an interesting trial. Let's see if they rule in his favour.
It is just that especially a few of those German laws contradict European law.
I am just thinking of the law, that displaying Nazi-symbols is forbidden, EVEN if it is to criticize like Neo-Nazis. I don´t know if you remember the case, where the German high-court ruled that a anti Nazi T-shirt was illegal just because of this?
Funny thing is, if they would have bought it in like the Netherlands, that would hemper trade and would be illegal IMHO, just to mention one point there, also like freedom of expression etc.....
For the trial, nobody really knows how they will decide, the German courts have said legal, what for a surprises....
But other judges from other countries already asked WTF?
Seeing how the EU has not yet ratified the European Convention on Human Rights, it is not (officially) bound by the ECHR ruling in the sense that it would now have to change the e-Commerce directive. As others have pointed out, the case and sentence are very specific. Furthermore, the ECHR has always erred on the side of caution when it comes to freedom of speech/hate speech in comparison to the US Supreme Court (far too much if you ask me).
And where the hell did you get the information that EU hasn´t signed the convention?
It is up to the members to sign up and ratify it. And just in case:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Rights
You see this nice little picture on the right hand side in this link, yeah the blue colour, which is all over Europe, they all signed up and ratified it, even those countries like Turkey and Russia.
A guy walks into an auditorium during a mask-wearing party thing and and threatens to rape and kill someone publicly, over the mic. In that case, and rightfully so, the person making the threats will be arrested. The owner of the auditorium can hire ushers to drag off the crazy person, but can't do anything to prevent him / her speaking. So it makes sense that only the crazy person is charged.
On the internet, a forum is a masks party. If people come to a mask party, they SHOULD expect and accept anonymity. There are safe spaces. If they want to live in a strictly encourage only environment, they can retreat to social media and block out non-friends.
It seems its OK for theater owners to allow the existence of people who talk during movies but not for site-admins on the internet? Its not the job, obligation or duty of site owners to watch over, invade the privacy and morally police people on his / her forum just so one TV-centric mainstream media social justice dickhead who knows nothing of the internet other than tumblr and facebook doesn't get offended.
If you have chosen: He will go to jail, then you are correct.
The difference is, the internet, here a newsforum, is a PUBLIC place, same as theatre, so different rules. In a closed place, so just private different story.
Post edited June 17, 2015 by Goodaltgamer
ElTerprise
Registered: May 2011
From Germany
Posted June 17, 2015
It is just that especially a few of those German laws contradict European law.
I am just thinking of the law, that displaying Nazi-symbols is forbidden, EVEN if it is to criticize like Neo-Nazis. I don´t know if you remember the case, where the German high-court ruled that a anti Nazi T-shirt was illegal just because of this?
Funny thing is, if they would have bought it in like the Netherlands, that would hemper trade and would be illegal IMHO, just to mention one point there, also like freedom of expression etc.....
For the trial, nobody really knows how they will decide, the German courts have said legal, what for a surprises....
But other judges from other countries already asked WTF?
I remember that but the decision has since been overturned iirc. And Austria has a similar law if i'm not mistaken.
Well i this law along the possibiliy to ban organisation and parties might be one those tricky things in the process of continued european legislation.
Shadowstalker16
Jaded optimist
Registered: Apr 2014
From India
Posted June 17, 2015
If you have chosen: He will go to jail, then you are correct.
The difference is, the internet, here a newsforum, is a PUBLIC place, same as theatre, so different rules. In a closed place, so just private different story.
Goodaltgamer
New User
Registered: Oct 2014
From Germany
Posted June 17, 2015
I remember that but the decision has since been overturned iirc. And Austria has a similar law if i'm not mistaken.
Well i this law along the possibiliy to ban organisation and parties might be one those tricky things in the process of continued european legislation.
WTF? Has it been really overturned? Got any link? AFAIR, it is still in place.....And no, Austria doesnßt have this stupid law, that´s why they are complaining about the stupid geolock ´feature´....They can´t play Woflenstein the new order with Nazis.....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater
and the like.
It is always considered a crime, as you are miss-using services like police, fire brigade and similar. That is a crime in itself. If you intentionally do it, you will be punished by the court.
Plus endangerment of public and so on.
Post edited June 17, 2015 by Goodaltgamer
Bookwyrm627
ADD Jumping Bean
Registered: Nov 2013
From United States
Posted June 17, 2015
They say: "...the low likelihood of a prosecution of the users who posted the comments."
I hear: "Someone has to pay for that comment!"
You weren't thinking of anyone in particular, were you? ;)
I hear: "Someone has to pay for that comment!"
You weren't thinking of anyone in particular, were you? ;)
ElTerprise
Registered: May 2011
From Germany
Posted June 17, 2015
WTF? Has it been really overturned? Got any link? AFAIR, it is still in place.....And no, Austria doesnßt have this stupid law, that´s why they are complaining about the stupid geolock ´feature´....They can´t play Woflenstein the new order with Nazis.....
Well they have one ("Abzeichengesetz") but unlike in Germany it doesn't apply to depictions in media including video games.
Bad Hair Day
Find me in STEAM OT
Registered: Dec 2012
From Other
Posted June 17, 2015
I hear: "Someone has to pay for that comment!"
de_Monteynard
Technologist
Registered: Jul 2010
From Slovenia
Posted June 17, 2015
Seeing how the EU has not yet ratified the European Convention on Human Rights, it is not (officially) bound by the ECHR ruling in the sense that it would now have to change the e-Commerce directive. As others have pointed out, the case and sentence are very specific. Furthermore, the ECHR has always erred on the side of caution when it comes to freedom of speech/hate speech in comparison to the US Supreme Court (far too much if you ask me).
And where the hell did you get the information that EU hasn´t signed the convention?
It is up to the members to sign up and ratify it. And just in case:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Rights
You see this nice little picture on the right hand side in this link, yeah the blue colour, which is all over Europe, they all signed up and ratified it, even those countries like Turkey and Russia.
In addition, the ECJ is accessible by citizens and there have been numerous cases brought before it by citizens suing the state or businesses because of a breach of EU legislation. Nevertheless, you would be right in saying that they only have indirect access, as they must go through the national court system, with national courts sending requests for preliminary ruling to the ECJ.
Also, your argument would be far better served if you avoided the sarcasm. It does not help anyone and may put people off an otherwise valid point.
Post edited June 17, 2015 by de_Monteynard
Gilozard
Registered: Apr 2011
From United States
Posted June 17, 2015
Not sure why that is controversial? *shrug*
if you think that won't allow you to voice your opinion anymore, you might want to rethink the way you participate in a discussion :p
good of free speech?I understand certain things are taboo and usually stay out of
it,unless I see something wrongly stated.Oh well,this is the future and it's been
coming a long time and nothing I can do to alter it.
Unless you live in the EU, where apparently a politician's ability to get away with crimes (seriously, this is what the 'defamation' ban amounts too) counts for more than people's ability to communicate.
There are no places where anyone has the right to spout off whatever, wherever.
Obligatory XKCD:
[url=]http://xkcd.com/1357/[/url]
Post edited June 17, 2015 by Gilozard