It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussionWebsites Are Liable For Users Comments (147 posts)(147 posts)
(147 posts)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
This is my favourite topic
Posted June 17, 2015
avatar
Bookwyrm627: You weren't thinking of anyone in particular, were you? ;)
avatar
tinyE: Sadly more than one. :P
We have a pack of ass-hounds roaming around here? o.O
Posted June 17, 2015
avatar
ElTerprise: 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. --->
Well they have one ("Abzeichengesetz") but unlike in Germany it doesn't apply to depictions in media including video games.
I just read through, and yes they did, they even referred to freedom of speech, but a shame that they overturned there own decision, otherwise, which would have been far better, the ECHR would have overturned it and than the gaming industry would have a good case against suppressing their free speech in games......

I still hate it, that for Germany Nazis are forbidden, I mean, hey what better form of showing you are against Nazis then shooting them? ;)
Posted June 17, 2015
avatar
ElTerprise:
avatar
Goodaltgamer: I still hate it, that for Germany Nazis are forbidden, I mean, hey what better form of showing you are against Nazis then shooting them? ;)
I also think it's good for kids. Install in them at a young age that killing Nazis is not only good for society, it's also fun.
Posted June 17, 2015
avatar
tinyE: i'm not a troll and I really don't appreciate being called one. :D
Surprisingly, can't tell if sarcastic.

Dude, you're totally a troll. It's just that you stay on the right side of the apparently too-fine-for-many-people-to-see-when-they-cross-it line between trolling the general forum population and hunting down a specific person to make their lives a misery. You can go too far also, but you pull back pretty quickly and usually manage to keep it funny.

If we had more trolls like you and fewer angry, unbalanced stalkers the world would be a better, or at least funnier, place.
Posted June 17, 2015
avatar
Goodaltgamer: I just read through, and yes they did, they even referred to freedom of speech, but a shame that they overturned there own decision, otherwise, which would have been far better, the ECHR would have overturned it and than the gaming industry would have a good case against suppressing their free speech in games......

I still hate it, that for Germany Nazis are forbidden, I mean, hey what better form of showing you are against Nazis then shooting them? ;)
Well there is much easier solution which don't need a change of laws. It only needs one court ruling. From the moment would be acknowledged as art in germany, they would be exempted from the article 86a because the freedom of arts would apply to them.
Posted June 17, 2015
WTF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! X over 9000!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted June 17, 2015
avatar
bluesky777: WTF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! X over 9000!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Pardon?
Posted June 17, 2015
avatar
bluesky777: WTF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! X over 9000!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
avatar
ElTerprise: Pardon?
WTF times 9000+
Posted June 17, 2015
avatar
bluesky777: WTF times 9000+
Well i figured it out in the mean time :)
Posted June 17, 2015
avatar
bluesky777: WTF times 9000+
avatar
ElTerprise: Well i figured it out in the mean time :)
Saiyan's arrival and the destruction on free speech...................
Posted June 17, 2015
avatar
ElTerprise: 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.
avatar
Goodaltgamer: 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.....

avatar
Shadowstalker16: ''Harassment'' is defamation and or threat to use criminal force; in legal terms. Crying a false alarm in a theater is neither of those.
avatar
Goodaltgamer: 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.
It is a crime, but it is NOT defamation, and its NOT threatening to use criminal force. Key point being ''crime'' in layman's terms isn't use of criminal force.
Posted June 17, 2015
Indiana Jones and The Cult of The Evil Black Cubes...
Attachments:
wtf-cubes.jpg (36 Kb)
Posted June 17, 2015
avatar
de_Monteynard: 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.
OK point taken about the sarcasm, my apologies.

But, even if the ECJ ruled so, as every member state which signed up on the Council of Europe is by this treaty obliged to implement any further agreement. And as the this was indeed being signed and ratified by its members, means IMHO that the ruling of the ECJ sounds mood.

Or as mentioned in the article:

"I hope the irony is not lost that the ECJ is opposing the ECHR because its rulings might result in a loss of sovereignty,” said one ECR spokesperson in a statement."

So, if the countries signed up on the this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_the_Council_of_Europe, it means that the ECHR has the final say, whatever ECJ is saying. This was agreed in 1953....in Article 1 ;)

Yep only indirect access, which is for me the point of getting rid of ECJ, you can only reach it, IF a national court agrees with it, For is this for a F****ing logic? Nothing to do with right to a fair trial or similar.

Back to the point, so a court, which hasn´t the right to decide upon non-member states dares to put the EU as a entity?

As this state contracts predate its own existence, logically it can not decide upon this. Or in other words, as ECJ is ONLY EU, but ECHR is more, that is like a state judge trying to tell the supreme court what they are allowed to do.

As I mentioned, ECJ is EUROPEAN law only, ECHR is international law.

my two cents.



avatar
Shadowstalker16: It is a crime, but it is NOT defamation, and its NOT threatening to use criminal force. Key point being ''crime'' in layman's terms isn't use of criminal force.
What is your point?

[quote_81}
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.
[/quote}

You are saying now something different than before?

I said that your comparison is wrong, as both are crimes. and by the way also use of criminal force, if you shouted this as mentioned before intentionally .
Post edited June 17, 2015 by Goodaltgamer
Posted June 17, 2015
avatar
gunsynd: It's the end of free speech,now I can't say what I believe.Nor have an opinion.
Look out for moderators coming here to delete every second post.
avatar
immi101: defamation and hate-speech are not protected as free speech. if a website owner gets knowledge of such a user comment , he has to remove it.
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
Kill yourself, commie.
Posted June 17, 2015
avatar
awalterj: Indiana Jones and The Cult of The Evil Black Cubes...
Lol, and the black squares are derpy XD
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussionWebsites Are Liable For Users Comments (147 posts)(147 posts)
(147 posts)