German police raid 36 homes over hateful postings on social media

[Freighter]

But do you have a right to freedom of speech there in your Constitution or social laws? Apparently not.

It exists, it's more restricted than USA though.

http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/aol/downl...3-d4e0e94ebc85

Freedom of speech, assembly and association
14.—(1) Subject to clauses (2) and (3) —
(a) every citizen of Singapore has the right to freedom of speech and expression;
(b) all citizens of Singapore have the right to assemble peaceably and without arms; and
(c) all citizens of Singapore have the right to form associations.
(2) Parliament may by law impose —
(a) on the rights conferred by clause (1)(a), such restrictions as it considers necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of Singapore or any part thereof, friendly relations with other countries, public order or morality and restrictions designed to protect the privileges of Parliament or to provide against contempt of court, defamation or incitement to any offence;
(b) on the right conferred by clause (1)(b), such restrictions as it considers necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of Singapore or any part thereof or public order; and
(c) on the right conferred by clause (1)(c), such restrictions as it considers necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of Singapore or any part thereof, public order or morality.
(3) Restrictions on the right to form associations conferred by clause (1) (c) may also be imposed by any law relating to labour or education.

[Mifuyne]

The amount of black and/or white thinking is astonishing high on these forums.
It's just the "left" throwing facts that gloss over things to the "right" as they do exactly the same thing in return.
Shows you how they are in the end far more similar than they think.

[StayTuned]

Currently, I support closing borders and trying to help these people fight on their home turf.

If they don't want to fight for home, why should we give them ours?

Mh, as someone who comes from a family that fled war in Yugoslavia, and as someone who has talked to many, many people who were directly involved in that bloody war, all I can say is that I have a deep sympathy for all people who want to escape war.

Home is really just what you define for yourself. If you are born in a war zone, why do people have the innate obligation to fight for that country? Much rather would I have it if they decided to pursue a more intellectual, fulfilling life somewhere else.

I agree that it would be the ideal solution to build their countries up again, free them from radicals and for once actually install a democracy in the middle east. But... we know how well "we" are at doing that. Look at Iran, Afghanistan, Irak, Libya, and now Syria... I've probably even missed a couple of them.

That's why I am very hesitant in regards to military interventions, or even just military deals (weapon sales etc) to these regions. They are fuel for more fire.

Instead I believe that at this point in time, we have to accept things as a simple fact of life - that the situation is as it is -, and we have to be very careful not to fall into a state of shock.

Now is the time to invest into much better infrastructure at the borders (we need to know who is coming), we need to be very strict in regards to deportations already at the borders, recognizing people who have no legitimate reason to be acknowledged as a refugee under EU law.

We have to immediately work on our international communication with other police and intelligence forces to prevent terror attacks as good as possible, so that we do not turn into a Turkey 2.0 in terms of how frequently we are hit.

We have the obligation to not allow the refugee crisis to sensibly damage our ideas of freedom and peace, but we also have to make sure that the unknown people who are currently inside of Germany turn into no threat for us.

At the end of the day, you cannot even legally or morally close all the borders because if you do so, and no consequences for you are enforced onto you, we can immediately throw all of our values and laws into the bin, because it would immediately mean that nobody will uphold the EU laws and regulations anymore.


Bottom line is, this process will take years, it will be expensive, but I strongly believe that at the end of all this, we will have a better society because we have proven to us and the world that we can manage a crisis of such humongous scale that it isn't even funny anymore.

But for this we need the right people in the right positions. As of right now I am sick and tired of the international politics flinging shit at each other, shooting down jets, jerking off to stupid embargoes... etc. Whichever way I look, I see no country and no politician actually working on a real solution, and that is to stop the cause of the refugee crisis: the wars in the middle east.

[Deleted]

Well this is the same country which doesn't let you stick your hand above you at a 45 degree angle.

You also have to scream "Heil Hitler" to make it illegal. Hyperbole much.

[Aquinan]

Let's all be honest here, if they were truly trying to get rid of all hate speech, and speech that incites violence, religious texts would be outlawed.

Give that man a cookie.

[zenkai]

Crime must really be low in Germany to use police resources like this.

[Deletedaccount1]

You also have to scream "Heil Hitler" to make it illegal. Hyperbole much.

That's not true nor would it change my point even if it were.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/w...w/48147552.cms

[Grimreaper]

Just to throw this one out there. The law works both ways.

If a white person uses racist speech against a non-white person, they could get in trouble.

If a non-white person uses racist speech against a white person they could get in trouble.

So long as no one is some sort of protected class, I see no problem with it.

LOL, as if...

[Deleted]

Maybe their government will start giving out helicopter rides soon. Half price and all.

[Kiri]

Studying the mindset and behavior of liberals/far left people, it's scary how dangerously close they are to true fascism exhibited by the Nazis and the Muslims.

Let's show the similarities of Nazi, Islamic and Liberal ideologies:
- Do not believe in freedom of speech.
- Believes that opinions that go against the government/religion or hurts peoples' feelings must be punished by fining, imprisonment and even death.
- No tolrance for a certain skin color, in the liberal's case it is the white man, they are seen and portrayed as evil in almost every liberal/far left teaching in an universe, every media/article written by a liberal/far left and in movies too.
- Will use physical and lethal force to enforce their regulations/laws/opinions on the populace.
- Will routinely change laws to fit their own warped narratives and views in order to keep control over the local populace.
- Desire to change the world to their views and will hate certain countries for not complying with their views and will threaten or imply that they may declare war on those countries.
These are some of the points I can think at the top of my head, I believe the laws being discussed in here have good intent and heart but it is way too easy to abuse and exploit to create more followup laws to seize more power until it becomes literal fascism.
These things are always a slippery slope, you give these things an inch and people will take a mile. It's dangerous, this law right now is against inciting hateful violence against people, aggression and destruction of property, but how long will it be before a followup law states that it is absolutely illegal to have a mere OPINION? To say that you believe in a certain thing? JUST believing in it, not inciting violence or hate crimes, just for the mere thought of it?
How long will it take before these laws are made so that these people are deported to concentration camps or to death camps?
How long will it take before this law allows leeway to other laws that prohibit the freedoms of the populace in a country?
It is a very slippery slope, guys.

First off, you are not studying liberals, you are studying what you think liberals are. So that is strike one.
But to answer the question you poised: the law has been in place for decades and no one has even thought about creating that follow-up law that you fear so much. Just going more and more radical is something that can be applied to any law.
Like, take a law against sexual harassment. First, physical harassment if punishable, then verbal, then thought, then death camps etc.
Vapid argument is vapid.

[Kathandira]

LOL, as if...

The sentence after the one you bolded is my disclaimer. The situation should be as I stated, but there is the issue with the last bit in some countries.

"So long as no one is some sort of protected class"

[Mifuyne]

LOL, as if...

If only.
10char

[Karon]

Human dignity is the highest valued right by German standards. Every other law is overshadowed by this law. It has nothing to do with Gestapo, nazi, right wing, left wing or any other bullshit.

It's about being a decent human being.

[Deleted]

That's not true nor would it change my point even if it were.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/w...w/48147552.cms

You dont know what you talk about. Noone who just lifts the right arm without the provable intention to make the hitler salute has been punished.

[Krigaren]

But do you have a right to freedom of speech there in your Constitution or social laws? Apparently not.

Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences of speech.

That said, our court rulings here in the USA have been woefully inadequate thus far when it comes to implied threats. Basically the way it works here is that a threat has to cause harm outside of the threat, such as "disruption". It's why yelling "Bomb!" in an airport isn't protected free speech since it would cause a complete shutdown of an airport, but sadly emailing someone to say, "I'm going to cut your children apart and rape your wife in front of you, then watch as they slowly die" isn't. Nor are racial threats to violence.

It's a pretty huge gap in our legal system that needs to be patched over, imo.

[Cybran]

Crime must really be low in Germany to use police resources like this.

https://www.ft.com/content/b5a8867e-...fe35c?mhq5j=e1

Germany has seen a big increase in crimes committed by asylum seekers, a development that is likely to be seized on by the populist Alternative for Germany as it campaigns against Angela Merkel’s liberal refugee policy in this year’s Bundestag elections.

Figures released by the interior ministry showed that some 174,000 immigrants from non-EU countries were suspected of carrying out crimes last year, a 52 per cent increase on 2015.

Germany has admitted more than 1m refugees since 2015, many of them fleeing civil war in Syria. Officials stress that the vast majority are peaceful and law-abiding.

But they have also identified a hard core of repeat offenders who contributed to a small increase in violent crime in 2016.

Concern has grown about the implications of the refugee influx for domestic security, especially after a Tunisian asylum seeker with ties to the militant group Isis killed 12 people by driving a truck into a crowded Christmas market in Berlin last year.

A wave of sexual attacks in Cologne on New Year’s Eve in 2015, believed to be carried out by men of North African origin, also fuelled fears that the surge in immigration could trigger higher rates of sexual crime.

The crime statistics, released on Monday, showed that immigrants were responsible for 35 per cent of cases of pickpocketing, 11 per cent of home break-ins, and nearly 15 per cent of cases of grievous bodily harm.

It's rising fast, because of the middle easterners and africans.

[Ghostpanther]

It exists, it's more restricted than USA though.

http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/aol/downl...3-d4e0e94ebc85

Freedom of speech, assembly and association
14.—(1) Subject to clauses (2) and (3) —
(a) every citizen of Singapore has the right to freedom of speech and expression;
(b) all citizens of Singapore have the right to assemble peaceably and without arms; and
(c) all citizens of Singapore have the right to form associations.
(2) Parliament may by law impose —
(a) on the rights conferred by clause (1)(a), such restrictions as it considers necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of Singapore or any part thereof, friendly relations with other countries, public order or morality and restrictions designed to protect the privileges of Parliament or to provide against contempt of court, defamation or incitement to any offence;
(b) on the right conferred by clause (1)(b), such restrictions as it considers necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of Singapore or any part thereof or public order; and
(c) on the right conferred by clause (1)(c), such restrictions as it considers necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of Singapore or any part thereof, public order or morality.
(3) Restrictions on the right to form associations conferred by clause (1) (c) may also be imposed by any law relating to labour or education.

I can see that. Thanks for the info. The morality part is interesting. As such can be subjective. We have freedom of religion here, so when it comes to what is moral or immoral, we have to be careful.

[StayTuned]

Far from everyone are moderates. The political state of the west are encouraging further political polarizing. Being moderate just pisses both sides further of.

If someone want to discuss like in your example, none should be allowed to censor it because it's not moderate enough.

Debate is not a popularity contest, even though you probably consider it to be in this liberal haven where leftism are regarded equal to moderateness. Totally in contradiction to reality where leftists are extremely violent, full of hate speech and clearly are most of the time only out to cause trouble. Like the commies who's allowed to run rampant. Fairness completely disregarded.

You wish for something that's not possible. When left wing want to kill all nazis and nazis want to restore great Europe, you approve of the lefties.

But what is that great Europe? Europe only knows two states of being: Mono Ethnic (we know how that worked out) and Multicultural.

Europe has never been in a better state than right now. We are the most prosperous we've ever been, we have the lowest crime rates we've ever had, we are in the most peaceful time Europe has ever experienced.

So whenever I hear that story of restoring the Great Europe again, I do have to ask the serious question: The Europe of which year exactly are they talking about?


And hardcore leftist / black bloc members are insane people who I would count into the same category of people as Nazis. Whoever wishes harm on anybody is in the wrong, period.

[Doctor Amadeus]

I approve of this 100% punish people for actions like this not who they are. Keep hateful comments to yourself by yourself. Instead of being free to spread your misery to others

[Freighter]

I can see that. Thanks for the info. The morality part is interesting. As such can be subjective. We have freedom of religion here, so when it comes to what is moral or immoral, we have to be careful.

We have freedom of religion here too...