Mr Erdogan Wants To Control All Media

PanHAM · Tue Mar 29, 2016 3:32 pm

rkei-bestellt-deutschen-botschafter-wegen-tv-satire-ein-050801366

Mr. Erdogan thinks that his power extends into Europe and cited the German Ambassador to the Turkish Foreign Office to demand that a Satire sketch shall be taken off the media.

Mr. Erdogan obviously does not understand that we have freedom of the press and censorship does not happen. Neither the Ambassador nor the German government can fulfill Mr. Erdogans wish.

What he does not seem to understand either is, that this sketch now mushrooms in the media. And it is really funny, Erdowi, Erdowo, Erdogan.

Whatta Clown.

http://de.nachrichten.yahoo.com/t%C3...re-ein-050801366.html

size=-4>[Edited 2016-03-29 08:35:20]

[Edited 2016-03-29 08:43:33]

OA412 · Tue Mar 29, 2016 3:36 pm

Reading the thread title, I thought you meant in Turkey. I didn't realize it was media outside Turkey as well. Turkey has long been rumored to finance outside interests to paint a rosy picture of the country, sweep things like the Armenian genocide under the rug, etc. I don't necessarily find this surprising. While I haven't looked at current statistics, Turkey has historically been one of the most aggressive countries with respect to silencing and jailing journalists.

Speaking of clowns, you know if you change it from https to http it'll be a working link? Big grin

[Edited 2016-03-29 08:38:57]

moo · Tue Mar 29, 2016 3:42 pm

Quoting PanHAM (Thread starter):
Mr. Erdogan obviously does not understand that we have freedom of the press and censorship does not happen.

Says the person hailing from the country where its illegal to use the swastika or other Nazi symbols in many many ways...

na · Tue Mar 29, 2016 3:49 pm

That song is so spot on, its obvious it makes an autocrat angry who doesn´t know much beyond "yes master, yes master". Its unfortunate that such type of persons dont die of sudden heart attack or stroke.

PanHAM · Tue Mar 29, 2016 3:51 pm

Quoting OA412 (Reply 1):
Speaking of clowns, you know if you change it from https to http it'll be a working link?

No, but thanks for the hint. I know it now, and thanks for calling me a Clown, the Moderators might be interested.

Calling a politician a clownis a valid use of free speech.

Quoting moo (Reply 2):
Says the person hailing from the country where its illegal to use the swastika or other Nazi symbols in many many ways...

Luckily enough Germany has managed to turn back and become a respected member of the civilized world. We could not have achieved that by allowing Nazi Emblems to be used by the few thousand block heads who still worship the "old" days. That's why These symbols and the Auschwitz lie are illegal.

Getting back to Mr. Erdogan, who has turned back a Democracy intp a dicatorship, what must be going on in that persons mind when he thinks that a emocartic elected government can foece the media to apply censorship.

moo · Tue Mar 29, 2016 3:59 pm

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 4):
Luckily enough Germany has managed to turn back and become a respected member of the civilized world. We could not have achieved that by allowing Nazi Emblems to be used by the few thousand block heads who still worship the "old" days. That's why These symbols and the Auschwitz lie are illegal.

Its still censorship and a restriction of free speech, or do you dispute that?

flyingturtle · Tue Mar 29, 2016 4:00 pm

Here it is, Mr. Erdogan - even with English subtitles!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2e2yHjc_mc

It was made by the Extra 3 magazine by the public TV station NDR. It's somewhat similar to the John Oliver show, but also with local reporting.

One example was a town where they built a railroad crossing and a motorway crossing in the *same* place, leading to a signalling nightmare... traffic signals might flash yellow for "pay attention, the usual right of way applies", which is not legal for a railroad crossing - so a railway employee has to stay there at all times and make sure no car is driving when a train comes.

David

Acheron · Tue Mar 29, 2016 4:01 pm

He will still be your "buddy", and while you bomb or sanction other countries for similar or even lesser violations of rights, Europe and the US will still be sucking up to Erdogan.

Because thats how hypocrites work.

flyingturtle · Tue Mar 29, 2016 4:04 pm

Quoting moo (Reply 5):
Its still censorship and a restriction of free speech, or do you dispute that?

Not being allowed to deny the Holocaust or not being allowed to write "Sieg Heil" or a swastika on your car is still a restriction of freedom of speech, YES.

But we're also a democratic country and we decided it's good for the society as a whole to make these restrictions. And Germany has even a Constitutional Court that is more powerful than the U.S. one. Concerning aviation, it once struck down a law that would have allowed the government to shoot down a hijacked airliner - because doing so would deny the passengers their dignity. The state would effectively hijack the passengers in order to avoid a disaster on the ground.

David

[Edited 2016-03-29 09:22:17]

OA412 · Tue Mar 29, 2016 4:24 pm

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 4):
No, but thanks for the hint. I know it now, and thanks for calling me a Clown, the Moderators might be interested.

Calling a politician a clownis a valid use of free speech.

I'll let them know.

All in good fun after all.

Quoting moo (Reply 2):
Says the person hailing from the country where its illegal to use the swastika or other Nazi symbols in many many ways...

Quoting moo (Reply 5):
Its still censorship and a restriction of free speech, or do you dispute that?

I've never understood this line of reasoning. Yes of course it's censorship, but then no country has truly unfettered speech. Speech comes with its restrictions no matter where you live. Given Germany's history, I really can't understand holding this one thing against them. The destruction wreaked by the party was such that leaving the wound open after the war would simply have legitimized a bankrupt viewpoint. This was the choice the country had to make to ensure that it never went down that path again. I think we can all agree that Nazism is a bankrupt and illegitimate ideology. It's not as though Germany is censoring all forms of political speech. And it's not as if this censorship is happening in a country such as Switzerland, where it wouldn't make any sense.

PanHAM · Tue Mar 29, 2016 4:31 pm

Quoting moo (Reply 5):

Its still censorship and a restriction of free speech, or do you dispute that?

No, but our Basic law in article 5 says that Censorship is illegal (findet nicht statt). . So far the Constitutional Court has not ruled that the restrictions you claim are not in line with Art 5 and I doubt the court ever will. On simple words, that means the court has sanctioned these restrictions. But if you wish you can come here and proclaim whatever you want, but don't complain when you get your passport stamped denying a re-entry and we wouldn't even lock you up, just kick you out.

.

.

flyingturtle · Tue Mar 29, 2016 4:34 pm

Quoting OA412 (Reply 9):
And it's not as if this censorship is happening in a country such as Switzerland, where it wouldn't make any sense.

In Switzerland, denial of any genocide is punishable, as in many European countries. It's because we're all members of a European human rights treaty which stipulates such a clause in the penal law. In the recent time, some people have been prosecuted for denying the Armenian genocide committed by Turkey.

Funnily, Turkey has laws that punish the recognition of the very same genocide.

David

na · Tue Mar 29, 2016 4:42 pm

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 6):
Here it is, Mr. Erdogan - even with English subtitles!

And where is the Turkish version? Maybe Erdogan then understands every word sung is the bare true.

OA412 · Tue Mar 29, 2016 4:44 pm

Quoting na (Reply 12):
And where is the Turkish version? Maybe Erdogan then understands every word sung is the bare true.

I think the version OP linked to is Turkish.

moo · Tue Mar 29, 2016 4:52 pm

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 8):
Not being allowed to deny the Holocaust or not being allowed to write "Sieg Heil" or a swastika on your car is still a restriction of freedom of speech, YES.

But we're also a democratic country and we decided it's good for the society as a whole to make these restrictions. And Germany has even a Constitutional Court that is more powerful than the U.S. one. Concerning aviation, it once struck down a law that would have allowed the government to shoot down a hijacked airliner - because doing so would deny the passengers their dignity. The state would effectively hijack the passengers in order to avoid a disaster on the ground.

All I'm hearing is "our reason is better than their reason". Not a great reason overall.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 10):
No, but our Basic law in article 5 says that Censorship is illegal (findet nicht statt). . So far the Constitutional Court has not ruled that the restrictions you claim are not in line with Art 5 and I doubt the court ever will. On simple words, that means the court has sanctioned these restrictions. But if you wish you can come here and proclaim whatever you want, but don't complain when you get your passport stamped denying a re-entry and we wouldn't even lock you up, just kick you out.

Ahh so its court sanctioned then? And no court has ever been wrong in the history of courts...

Quoting OA412 (Reply 9):
I've never understood this line of reasoning. Yes of course it's censorship, but then no country has truly unfettered speech. Speech comes with its restrictions no matter where you live. Given Germany's history, I really can't understand holding this one thing against them

I have no problem with the law, just the reasoning that "censorship" and "restriction of free speech" is ok in one situation but completely wrong in another. Its an evil law, you might be able to justify it, but its evil nonetheless and trying to laugh at someones request for censorship on the basis of being censorship is fairly significantly hypocritical in this instance.

"We find your censorship appalling while we find our own censorship downright necessary".

Francoflier · Tue Mar 29, 2016 4:55 pm

Quoting moo (Reply 2):
Says the person hailing from the country where its illegal to use the swastika or other Nazi symbols in many many ways...

Germany isn't trying to stop other countries from using them.

Quoting moo (Reply 5):
Its still censorship and a restriction of free speech, or do you dispute that?

If you want to argue that because Germany refuses to use symbols of a stigmatic past they very much try to distance themselves from, then it is a country which represses free speech, you are using a very bipolar, American-style rhetoric... GW Bush will be proud.

I wouldn't be the one arguing against Germany's record when it comes to free speech and free press.

As for Turkey, well it is taking a turn for the worst. Erdogan seems to like the sight of himself on the throne and would like to milk that teat a while. It always helps in those cases to stop that pesky free press from trying to ruin his plans...
It's funny that he thinks he can demand that from other countries though. It's always a wonder what go through the mind of those megalomaniac power-thirsty types.

Shame, Turkey could have been a great country again. But hey, islamist dictatorship it is. Won't be the only one.

OA412 · Tue Mar 29, 2016 5:07 pm

Quoting moo (Reply 14):

Right, but we have to draw a distinction here. Again, Germany's law is a form of censorship. No one is denying that. However, what Turkey is apparently asking is for foreign countries to abide by their censorship laws. That's quite different from Germany banning the Nazi party of holocaust denial. Those laws apply only to Germany, and Germany has never attempted to impose those laws upon other countries.

pvjin · Tue Mar 29, 2016 5:20 pm

Turkey is starting to look more and more like a country that very much deserves an EU membership, Erdogan has as little respect for democracy as those eurocrats in Brussels. I hope the membership negotiations start progressing again.

After Russia has destroyed ISIS I think Erdogan should make himself a caliph and restore the Ottoman Empire. Having an actual Islamic caliphate as a member of the EU would do real justice to the multicultural and diverse nature of our beloved continent.

aloges · Tue Mar 29, 2016 5:27 pm

Perhaps our esteemed friend from the Falkland Islands would understand the difference between the restrictions on freedom of speech in Germany and Turkey better if he considered the issue of genocides: In Germany, you cannot legally deny in public that the Nazis were guilty. In Turkey, you cannot legally point out in public that the Ottomans were guilty: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide_denial

flyingturtle · Tue Mar 29, 2016 5:47 pm

Quoting moo (Reply 14):
just the reasoning that "censorship" and "restriction of free speech" is ok

Just a question to think about in a minute of your (or everybody's) spare time: What is a just limit to freedom of speech? One example involves a public web forum, and the other one involves a private situation.

1. Imagine you have a cute, 12 years old daughter. And imagine one of your neighbours is member of a internet forum where he talks about seducing and fucking your 12 years old daughter. How should the admin of this forum react? How should the authorities deal with this discussion, or this internet forum?

2. Imagine that neighbour turning up at a BBQ meeting and tells you "Gee, your daughter looks so hot. I really get a hard-on when I see her. Can I help her doing her school homework?" How should you deal with your neighbour?

Well, freedom of speech does not mean you have to listen to him, and it certainly does not mean you have to understand or agree with him. But freedom of speech means being able to express one's thoughts without fearing any kind of retribution.

In the words of Adlai Stevenson III, former US ambassador to the United Nations: "A free society is a society where it is safe to be unpopular." You don't need any freedoms if you're doing or expressing only acceptable things.

David

[Edited 2016-03-29 10:49:55]

TK739ER · Wed Mar 30, 2016 4:55 am

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 11):
Funnily, Turkey has laws that punish the recognition of the very same genocide.

There are many things to argue in this tread but would you point me to this law please.

WearyDrover · Wed Mar 30, 2016 5:46 am

Quoting OA412 (Reply 16):
Those laws apply only to Germany, and Germany has never attempted to impose those laws upon other countries.

In 2008, Dr Gerald Fredrick Toben, an Australian citizen, was arrested at Heathrow Airport on a German arrest warrant for publishing material in Australia. German authorities argued that because the information on his web site was accessible to people in Germany he had committed an offence under their laws. The arrest warrant clearly alleged that he had "committed the offence in Australia, Germany and other countries."

On that occasion the Germany Authorities were not successful die to the British Court ruling that it was not an offence under Common Law to express an opinion.

Whatever one thinks of Toben's views, there is no doubt that Germany does on occasion seek to either restrict what is published overseas or punish those who publish the wrong opinion.

None of this justifies attempts by Turkey to pressure countries to restrict any criticism of his regime elsewhere.

[Edited 2016-03-29 22:47:31]

fr8mech · Wed Mar 30, 2016 5:56 am

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 19):
How should the admin of this forum react?

The admin can do whatever he wants. He is not the government and is not bound by The Constitution, or whichever document guarantees free speech in the jurisdiction involved.

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 19):
How should the authorities deal with this discussion, or this internet forum?

The authorities would probably have to wait until the potential offender takes some action. In fact, they may try to initiate the action by luring the potential offender into action.

I'm not an expert in this area, but I don't believe it's against the law until the potential offender takes some action to actually seduce and/or f**k the girl. Just talking (writing) about it, probably does not suffice.

Of course, I could be wrong, we do tend to err on the side of safety when it comes to our kids.

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 19):
"Gee, your daughter looks so hot. I really get a hard-on when I see her. Can I help her doing her school homework?" How should you deal with your neighbour?

How I would handle it is immaterial. I am not a government and am not bound by the restrictions placed on government. I am subject to the laws concerning assault and battery.

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 19):
But freedom of speech means being able to express one's thoughts without fearing any kind of retribution.

No, freedom of speech means being able to express your thoughts without fearing retribution or penalty from the government. You are still responsible for your words and/or actions. A private entity, say your employer, can take action because of what you say.

[Edited 2016-03-29 23:00:56]

WearyDrover · Wed Mar 30, 2016 6:24 am

Quoting TK739ER (Reply 20):
There are many things to argue in this tread but would you point me to this law please.

In the past Article 301 of the Penal Code has been used stifle criticism of the Government of Turkey and discussion of events in Armenia. Writers such as Orhan Pamuk and Altuğ Taner Akçam have been investigated under its provisions regarding "Insulting the Turkish Nation." Hrant Dink was also faced prosecution under Article 301 for "denigrating Turkishness", though he was brutally assassinated.

Article 312 has also been used to prosecute those believed to be 'inciting racial or religious hatred". Ironically Erdogan himself fell victim of that law.

There are other laws, including those supposedly related to terrorism and controlling what is available via the internet, in force and these can be used to stifle opinions supportive of Kurdish nationalism or recognising the Armenian genocide.

flyingturtle · Wed Mar 30, 2016 9:34 am

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 22):
I'm not an expert in this area, but I don't believe it's against the law until the potential offender takes some action to actually seduce and/or f**k the girl. Just talking (writing) about it, probably does not suffice.

"it's against the law" - I asked how the owner of that web forum should react. I didn't ask to give a legal analysis.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 22):
How I would handle it is immaterial. I am not a government and am not bound by the restrictions placed on government. I am subject to the laws concerning assault and battery.

Freedom of speech intends to protect you from two kinds of sanctions - those from the government, and those from social retributions. You can't take one of these things out of the concept. Adlai Stevensons quote ("A free society is a society where it is safe to be unpopular.") is still the best definition of freedom I've ever come across.

David

fr8mech · Wed Mar 30, 2016 9:52 am

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 24):
"it's against the law"

No, it's not...at least not in Kentucky. Reference KRS 510.155

(1) It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly use a communications system, including computers, computer networks, computer bulletin boards, cellular telephones, or any other electronic means, for the purpose of procuring or promoting the use of a minor, or a peace officer posing as a minor if the person believes that the peace officer is a minor or is wanton or reckless in that belief, for any activity in violation of KRS 510.040, 510.050, 510.060, 510.070, 510.080, 510.090, 510.110, 529.100 where that offense involves commercial sexual activity, or 530.064(1)(a), or KRS Chapter 531.

It seems too me that the potential offender has to do more than talk about it.

Again, this is valid in KY, I have no idea what the law says in other states, on a federal level or in other countries.

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 24):
and those from social retributions

Wrong. The First Amendment prohibits the government from acting against an individual, a private entity can do as it wants, so long as it remains within the law.

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 24):
"A free society is a society where it is safe to be unpopular."

And, I agree with that.

flyingturtle · Wed Mar 30, 2016 11:00 am

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 25):

You're missing many interesting points if you see freedom of speech only that way. We are actually much more (self-)censored by social norms and economic pressure (e.g. a newspaper cannot freely decide what to print - they still need the ad income and the subscribers) than by laws and government actions. There is no legal obligation but a virtue to let others speak their minds freely.

David

[Edited 2016-03-30 04:24:26]

helhem · Wed Mar 30, 2016 3:53 pm

I think Germany should be more free regarding free speech. As should Turkey. But the bigger limit to free speech comes from outside influences like financial considerations. Those outside forces are all have only their own viewpoints and agendas. Goverments play only a small part here.

But the issue is Erdogan wants to censor German tv in Germany. So Erdogan has very thin skin? I have seen some Turks living both in and outside of Turkey and they strongly dislike Erdogan for various reasons. As it should be expected the emotional attachment is not there with outsiders as much. Erdogan should worry about Turkey more. Isn't there a sizable minority of Turks many still with Turkish citizenship? Do these people have the ability to vote or are there special considerations? I am sure they have plenty of access to media and views opposed to Erdogan even without this german language tv programme.

PanHAM · Wed Mar 30, 2016 4:11 pm

Don't worry about civil liberties in Germany. No one in his right mind wants to promote that Nazi crap anyhow.

As tto the other tiems. The Emir is ill advised, had he said noting and just bit in s sour Lemon, no one except a few regional TV Viewers would know that Little song. Erdogan himself has made it popular, I guess wordwide Distribution by now.

Germany allows only one citizenship, a Turk who is a German citizen can vote and pick up his Turkish passport next visit in Homeland against a small bakshesh. That's why the Emir regarlarly holds election rallies in Germany filling Arenas. Disgusting.

De Gaulle tried that in Quebec once, in the 70s and he was politely told by the Canadian Government to stay in Paris. Unfortunately my government (I think it was Schroeder who messed that up) did not have the balls to Show him the place where he can screw himself.

fr8mech · Thu Mar 31, 2016 12:03 am

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 26):
We are actually much more (self-)censored by social norms and economic pressure (e.g. a newspaper cannot freely decide what to print - they still need the ad income and the subscribers) than by laws and government actions

As it should be. The government should concern itself with speech that clearly infringes on others' rights. In all other regards, the people should decide what they will or will not tolerate; and how they respond to speech they find distasteful.

The response can be as simple as changing the station or as complex as organizing a nationwide boycott. Self-censorship, on the individual level, or at the societal level is fine, government censorship is not.

Quoting helhem (Reply 27):
But the issue is Erdogan wants to censor German tv in Germany.

Ridiculous.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 28):
Don't worry about civil liberties in Germany. No one in his right mind wants to promote that Nazi crap anyhow.

Really? Then why doesn't Germany allow free speech on the matter? In my opinion, the folks that hold this viewpoint should be allowed to spout it, so the rest of us can see who they are and:

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 26):
(self-)censor

those folks. To quote Justice Brandeis:

"Publicity is justly commended as a remedy for social and industrial diseases. Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric light the most efficient policeman."

When the government suppresses these viewpoints, it just pushes them to the shadows where they fester and grow unnoticed, until they burst onto the scene and cause damage.

DocLightning · Thu Mar 31, 2016 12:40 am

Quoting moo (Reply 5):

Its still censorship and a restriction of free speech, or do you dispute that?

Freedom of speech has limitations and those limitations are defined differently in different countries, even democratic ones.

Even in Australia or the U.S., free speech does not permit one to incite violence. Free speech does not permit one to commit libel or slander or falsely report an emergency (cry "fire!" in a crowded theater). The boundaries may also shift from one situation to the next. Calling a grain broker a starver of the poor in an editorial might be protected, while saying the same thing to an enraged crowd outside a grain broker's home might not.

The German Constitution starts by stating that human dignity is the highest value of the nation and that this value supersedes all others. In Germany and in many European nations, open hate-speech ("Kill all the Muslims/Jews/Blacks/Australians") is considered outside the bounds of free speech and I am inclined to think that this is not a significant burden on free speech. Calling for mass murder, mass incarceration, mass deportation, or mass marginalization in no way furthers the purpose of a free society.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 29):
Really? Then why doesn't Germany allow free speech on the matter?

Because all such speech is done with the aim of curtailing the rights of others.

fr8mech · Thu Mar 31, 2016 12:48 am

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 30):
Because all such speech is done with the aim of curtailing the rights of others.

So? Would you silence those that disagree with you? Would you silence that that makes you uncomfortable? Just because someone is trying to curtail your rights, or mine, through his speech, doesn't mean that person must be silenced through government action. It means that his speech must be countered by your speech.

It's my opinion that it is a coward that seeks to bring the force of government to suppress speech he disagrees with.

DocLightning · Thu Mar 31, 2016 2:05 am

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 31):
So? Would you silence those that disagree with you?

If they're calling for millions to be rounded up and killed, yes. I happen to like the German model. I think it takes a pretty extreme viewpoint to merit censorship, but mss murder, deportation, internment, or marginalization has no place in a civilized society.

I'm willing to tolerate a lot. Science denialism, for example.

Would you be willing to tolerate my going to your wife and telling her that I saw you cheating? Or would you use legal means to silence that?

fr8mech · Thu Mar 31, 2016 2:26 am

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 32):
Would you be willing to tolerate my going to your wife and telling her that I saw you cheating? Or would you use legal means to silence that?

Exactly what legal means would that be? It could become a civil matter, but that would put the government (courts) in the role of arbiter. The government would not be silencing your speech. I'm not even sure the government could enjoin you from spouting that nonsense again...at least not outside the framework of the court.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 32):
If they're calling for millions to be rounded up and killed, yes. I happen to like the German model. I think it takes a pretty extreme viewpoint to merit censorship, but mss murder, deportation, internment, or marginalization has no place in a civilized society.

Then we disagree. So long as the speaker(s) do not incite violence through their words and/or actions, the government has no place putting a stop to the speech. The government should be allowed to condemn, clarify, educate, spout its own counter-arguments, but it can not, and should not be allowed to silence that speech.

Free speech should be uncomfortable. It should challenge us. Hell, it may even scare us, but it has to be allowed.

DocLightning · Thu Mar 31, 2016 2:54 am

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 33):

Then we disagree.

Yeah, we do. And that's OK.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 33):
So long as the speaker(s) do not incite violence through their words and/or actions, the government has no place putting a stop to the speech.

I would argue that calling for such things can only be intended to incite violence.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 33):
Exactly what legal means would that be? It could become a civil matter, but that would put the government (courts) in the role of arbiter. The government would not be silencing your speech.

Well, you could come after me for slander, for one thing. You could also come after me for damages from the resulting divorce. The government could enjoin me from doing such things again and if I did they could jail me for contempt.

fr8mech · Thu Mar 31, 2016 3:02 am

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 34):
Well, you could come after me for slander, for one thing. You could also come after me for damages from the resulting divorce.

Again, that is a civil matter.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 34):
The government could enjoin me from doing such things again and if I did they could jail me for contempt.

That's possible, I'm not sure. Slander is not a criminal act. It is a civil tort. Now, the court can demand the slander not occur while the court is hearing the case, but after? Maybe, if that condition is stipulated in the settlement.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 34):
I would argue that calling for such things can only be intended to incite violence.

I disagree. There is a difference between:

"All 'x' should be killed" and "Go kill all 'x'".

TK739ER · Thu Mar 31, 2016 3:21 am

Quoting WearyDrover (Reply 23):

Thank you for your answer, like you said Article 301 is a thing of past now, 312 isn't even close, what other laws and regulations like you mentioned? More specific please?

DocLightning · Thu Mar 31, 2016 3:48 am

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 35):

I disagree. There is a difference between:

"All 'x' should be killed" and "Go kill all 'x'".

A very small one, in my opinion.

fr8mech · Thu Mar 31, 2016 4:15 am

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 37):
A very small one, in my opinion.

Yes, but that's all it takes to sow that doubt when you're trying to prove intent.

PanHAM · Thu Mar 31, 2016 6:13 am

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 29):
Really? Then why doesn't Germany allow free speech on the matter? In my opinion, the folks that hold this viewpoint should be allowed to spout it, so the rest of us can see who they are and:

I couldn't explain it better than DocLightning did. Read reply 30 again and especially his remarks about the German constitution. Read it again and again until you understand it.

Now, back to the Intention of this thread, to Highlight a PR Desaster of a statesman who thinks that he is God. If Erdogan had said nothing, that 2 Minute TV Feature would not have hit the social media and YouTube and nobody would have talked about it.

But Mr. Erdogan decided to call in the German Ambassador and demand that the German Government take that sketch off the air. Which would be nothing less than a breach of the constitution. And this man is running a Country of 80 Million + with the Intention to join the EU. As Long as Mr. Erdogan is unable to accept the values of the EU he should not even think aout it. He should rather worry about his Country going down the drain with all the political Problems he created.

fr8mech · Thu Mar 31, 2016 6:23 am

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 39):
Read it again and again until you understand it.

I understand it, I just don't agree with it.

I am pretty much an absolutist when it comes to free speech. So long as your speech does not infringe on my rights, you can spout whatever nonsense and vitriol you want. And, I reserve the right to counter your nonsense.

Bottom line: Germany, Canada, UK and all the others that ban certain types of speech because that speech may offend some sensibilities are trying to impose on its citizens, not only what to think, but how to think. Today, in Germany, Nazism and Holocaust denial are banned...what about tomorrow?

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 39):
As Long as Mr. Erdogan is unable to accept the values of the EU he should not even think aout it.

Agreed. Any world leader that suggests it's OK to censor free speech is a tyrant, or a tyrant in the making. And, if that same person thinks he should have the power to sway other world leaders, me-thinks he has some broader ambitions.

seahawk · Thu Mar 31, 2016 6:37 am

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 28):
Don't worry about civil liberties in Germany. No one in his right mind wants to promote that Nazi crap anyhow.

About 20% of the voters in the last elections seem to disagree by voting AFD.

PanHAM · Thu Mar 31, 2016 8:32 am

Quoting seahawk (Reply 41):

About 20% of the voters in the last elections seem to disagree by voting AFD.

You cannot transscribe the result of the elections in 3 States out of 16 to the whole Country and I dare to say that only a fraction of their voters would back the Auschwitz lie or similar crap. That was a protest vote mainly against uncontrolled Immigration.
I doubt that on a federal lection the afD would reach 20% unless a nuclear plant is hit by a Tsunami again. or similar mishap occurs. The AfD is pretty much in the line of Linke and other Far Right/Far Left parties, against: USA EU Israel Anti Nato and pro Putin etc. On the bottom line they are the same crap

Atr the end of the day they do not have qualified personell to fill the seats they gain and the average voters realize that pretty quick.

flyingturtle · Thu Mar 31, 2016 8:59 am

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 29):
Self-censorship, on the individual level, or at the societal level is fine, government censorship is not.

So you're actually fine with the biggest restrictions on freedom of speech.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 32):
Would you be willing to tolerate my going to your wife and telling her that I saw you cheating? Or would you use legal means to silence that?

A very good question. Freedom of speech means that people can communicate freely. "I'm not impeding free speech by suing you, because I'm not a government entity." How hollow!

It's WE the citizens that defend our constitution by honoring its values. I can't see how I could both yell "Negroes, go home!" and enjoy the protections that are conferred to me by the constitution. I'm not the government, but I feel bound to the values of our constitution because I like to live in our country.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 40):
Today, in Germany, Nazism and Holocaust denial are banned...what about tomorrow?

Such speech has been banned since the end of World War II. Incendiary speech is also banned. As is calling people to commit criminal acts. As is distributing child pornography. And no, limits on freedom of speech have not been extended since YEARS. The German constitutional court has also protected far-right organizations when the government tried to ban them.

I have my problems with these bans, because I would like to debate a Holocaust denier and ask him for his convincing proof. But because Holocaust deniers rarely can be convinced - they deny a fact when they see it - banning such speech isn't doing much damage. (Though there has been one who dug in archives and traveled elsewhere, trying to find proof that the Holocaust never happened, and then returned as a legitimate Holocaust researcher, concluding that it really did happen.)

David

fr8mech · Thu Mar 31, 2016 9:05 am

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 43):
So you're actually fine with the biggest restrictions on freedom of speech.

Absolutely. Because, in the end, we police ourselves.

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 43):
Freedom of speech means that people can communicate freely.

No, it does not. Freedom of speech means that you are free to speak your mind without fear of government sanction. Freedom of speech has little or anything to do communication between "people".

seahawk · Thu Mar 31, 2016 9:26 am

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 42):
Atr the end of the day they do not have qualified personell to fill the seats they gain and the average voters realize that pretty quick.

Let us hope so.

MD11Engineer · Thu Mar 31, 2016 1:24 pm

Germany does not explicitely ban Nazi symbols, if used as propaganda (you can use them for scientific or educational purposes, e.g. in a history book. museum or in a movie, as long as Nazism isn't being glorified, but any propaganda and any organisation, which tries to aboish the constitution, and espcially aspects like democracy and the parliamentary system, as well as human rights. However he hurdles are set quite high and the final decision is being made by the constitutional court. Bnned organisations were e.g. the Communist Party of Germany, which in the 1960s fought for a Soviet system.

This law can e.g. also be used against Islamist hate preachers.

The reason is that we know that there exist people who incent others through propaganda to commit crimes, while pretending to be innocent-
You are free to state your opinion, as long as you at least pay lip service to the constitution.
Btw., the first 20 articles of the German constitution cannot be changed, even by a parliamentary majority, e.g. the parliament cannot decide to abolish itself and hand power over to a dictator or suspend the human rights.

And the danger still exists: A neighbour of mine is a Nazi. He firmly believes that parliament and politicians are only talking while fillig their pockets. He wants the parliamentary system to be replaced by a "Führer state", lead by a "benevolent" dictator as national socialism. He also believes firmly in the superiority of the white race and that it is destined to rule the world.

Finaly the articles in the German penal code banning activities of organisations, which oppose the German constitution, have been introduced on demand of the Western Allied powers, plus many of the fathers of the German constitution were imprisond under the Nazis and they also saw what Stalin was doing in Eastern Europe.

Jan

aerorobnz · Thu Mar 31, 2016 1:45 pm

Yet another Despot playing the world into a corner to disguise his own murky depths - he reminds me of Idi Amin, Gaddafi amd even Saddam in his ego and ruthless cunning to maintain power and influence. The EU have screwed themselves because they have made a deal with him to solve their little Illegal immigration issue. This is the kind of guy who would quietly get on with a genocide if he thought he could get away with it. Wait till he runs out of space and patience with all these refugees and all of a sudden he could make the EU look like a bunch of foolish twits when he just starts making the problem "disappear..."

pvjin · Thu Mar 31, 2016 1:50 pm

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 46):
Germany does not explicitely ban Nazi symbols, if used as propaganda (you can use them for scientific or educational purposes, e.g. in a history book. museum or in a movie, as long as Nazism isn't being glorified, but any propaganda and any organisation, which tries to aboish the constitution, and espcially aspects like democracy and the parliamentary system, as well as human rights. However he hurdles are set quite high and the final decision is being made by the constitutional court. Bnned organisations were e.g. the Communist Party of Germany, which in the 1960s fought for a Soviet system.

I suppose entertainment isn't a valid purpose? For example military flight simulators, such as IL-1946, typically don't include swastikas for German planes by default. I've always thought it to be because then they couldn't be sold in Germany.

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 46):
And the danger still exists: A neighbour of mine is a Nazi. He firmly believes that parliament and politicians are only talking while fillig their pockets. He wants the parliamentary system to be replaced by a "Führer state", lead by a "benevolent" dictator as national socialism. He also believes firmly in the superiority of the white race and that it is destined to rule the world.

Apart from the last white superiority part that doesn't sound much worse to me than all those anarchists who think any kind of an organized government is bad, or those who support a communist revolution of some sort. At least here in Finland anarchists are clearly a larger threat than neo nazis, simply based on the amount of property damage they've done during past few years.

Acheron · Thu Mar 31, 2016 3:06 pm

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 35):
There is a difference between:

"All 'x' should be killed" and "Go kill all 'x'".

Not really, no. Both incite violence.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net