I see, I was unaware of that, glad to have that straightened out.

Who says the internet is only for porn?

Well i'm not a 100 percent certain about it - but that's what i know about the court.

If it involves human rights or rights related to it, yes it can and it already had overruled. As per the contracts, the ECHR is the top most body. Not the states are to be protected, but the people.

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.

Yeah figured that.

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.

Just a quick post about the difference between the ECHR and the ECJ. The ECHR was created by the Council of Europe, which was itself founded in 1949 and nowadays deals mostly with human rights issues in its numerous forms. Its members are not only EU Member States, but also countries like Turkey and the Russian Federation.

The ECJ on the other hand, is the top judiciary body of the European Union and settles disputes when it comes to the interpretation/implementation of EU Treaties and legislation. It accepts cases from the EU Institutions, Member States and citizens.

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).

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.

Hey no insult intended ;)

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?

No, this one is NOT for citizens, you can not go there.

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.
No, best comparison, would be a guy walks into a theater and starts to shout fire, and if the owner of the theater is not reaction on a complaint, guess what will happen?

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.

Don't worry :)

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.

''Harassment'' is defamation and or threat to use criminal force; in legal terms. Crying a false alarm in a theater is neither of those.

Good ;)

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.....


You might want to read up a bit:

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.

The most recent seems to be in 2006 and the BGH overturned the verdict in 2007. If they wouldn't have done that the law would've been changed by the ministry. ---> http://juris.bundesgerichtshof.de/cgi-bin/rechtsprechung/document.py?Gericht=bgh&Art=en&sid=35c128165c4d9b6d237d8a68878c3644&Sort=3&nr=39349&pos=1&anz=2
Well they have one ("Abzeichengesetz") but unlike in Germany it doesn't apply to depictions in media including video games.

Sadly more than one. :P

Believe it or not, the EU has obtained legal personality with the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, which also included provisions for the EU as an entity to "accede to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms" (Article 6.2 of the Treaty on the European Union). Due to legal difficulties, however, this has not yet occurred. This is why I said that the EU is not legally obliged to change its legislation as a result of this ruling.

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.

Generally, free speech limits government control over opinions and the sharing thereof. Private companies and people can basically react how they please to whatever your opinion is.

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]