American neo-nazi got punched by german in Dresden

[Pannonian]

You could say that, sure. Comparing a country to a single individual is logical, in some heads. Few, but some.

Yeah, sorry, i misread your original statement. Apologize for the wrong equivalency.

Not sure if this was virtue signaling though. According to the german press this guy walks into the bar at 7.30 in the morning and throws the hitler salute several times - So, i wouldn't be surprised if this person was a bit annoying. Not that they guy who beat him up was right, he is being sought after by the police and i hope they find hi. It just seems all were drunk, one of them was annoying, and someone made a bad decision. I suspect if no nazi salute was in play it would've played out the same - drunk people fight each other, but because the nazi salute was involved e all now know about it. Otherwise it would have been not even an article in the local news.

Don't think the american tourist did it once in good spirits, then was assaulted by some SJW, at least according to the german papers, that is far less likely.

- - - Updated - - -

You have no idea.

Source? Because my personal experience of 33 years definitely says something different.

[Alexeht]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ute-in-germany



How ironic

Why do so many people from all around the world don't get that if you visit a country you have to play by its rules?

Well whoever punched this guy didn't play by german law as well.

[Elim Garak]

While I think that the german laws on nazi images are silly relics, freedom of speech cleary has shades.

You are confused. Regulated speech has shades. Freedom of Speech does not. Regulated speech with no regulations equals freedom of speech.

[Endus]

You are confused. Regulated speech has shades. Freedom of Speech does not. Regulated speech with no regulations equals freedom of speech.

So, things you necessarily think are "free speech" and should be protected under the law;

Luring a child with promises of candy and toys.
Threatening to kill people.
Constant verbal harassment of a specific individual.
Inciting riots.
Verbally defrauding people.
Child pornography (at least, owning it/handing it around).
Maliciously misleading advertising.
The elimination of all forms of copyright, trademark, and patent protection.

And so forth.

There's a reason no developed country in the world backs that kind of obviously harmful lunacy.

[Elim Garak]

So, things you necessarily think are "free speech" and should be protected under the law;

Luring a child with promises of candy and toys.
Threatening to kill people.
Constant verbal harassment of a specific individual.
Inciting riots.
Verbally defrauding people.
Child pornography (at least, owning it/handing it around).
Maliciously misleading advertising.
The elimination of all forms of copyright, trademark, and patent protection.

And so forth.

There's a reason no developed country in the world backs that kind of obviously harmful lunacy.

No, you are as confused as always.

1. Luring child where and for what purpose? If the purpose is illegal - no speech regulation is required.
2. Threatening to kill people should be legal. Threatening to kill people and being ready and capable to do it right now - is illegal but again it's not the speech that's the crime here.
3. Harassment is illegal, regardless if it's speech based or action based. Again HARASSMENT, NOT speech.
4. Inciting riots should be legal, but if it leads to an actual riot - then it should be punished.
5. Stealing and scamming is already illegal, doesn't matter with what tools you perform the act, talking or a staring menacingly.
6. Child porn has nothing to do with speech
7. Maliciously misleading advertising - you mean all the current advertising? I don't get it. How is it related to speech exactly? Also it's done by a business entity not individuals. Again it's the scam part that is illegal not the speech. Lying is not illegal, scamming people is.
8. Copyright should be abolished, so should trademarks and patents. But neither of those has anything to do with freedom of speech anyway.

[Zandalarian Paladin]

Not really equivalent with being run over by a neo-nazi.

And frankly, that guy was drunk. Call the police ffs, it's illegal to do that sign in germany in the first place.

[Noradin]

No, you are as confused as always.

1. Luring child where and for what purpose? If the purpose is illegal - no speech regulation is required.
2. Threatening to kill people should be legal. Threatening to kill people and being ready and capable to do it right now - is illegal but again it's not the speech that's the crime here.
3. Harassment is illegal, regardless if it's speech based or action based. Again HARASSMENT, NOT speech.
4. Inciting riots should be legal, but if it leads to an actual riot - then it should be punished.
5. Stealing and scamming is already illegal, doesn't matter with what tools you perform the act, talking or a staring menacingly.
6. Child porn has nothing to do with speech
7. Maliciously misleading advertising - you mean all the current advertising? I don't get it. How is it related to speech exactly? Also it's done by a business entity not individuals. Again it's the scam part that is illegal not the speech. Lying is not illegal, scamming people is.
8. Copyright should be abolished, so should trademarks and patents. But neither of those has anything to do with freedom of speech anyway.

So regulations only count against "free" speech when it fits your fancy.

[Endus]

No, you are as confused as always.

1. Luring child where and for what purpose? If the purpose is illegal - no speech regulation is required.

Until you touch the child, it's "just speech". Nothing wrong with luring the kid away into your van, unless you actually drive off with them, so parents who catch you in the act have no legal recourse.

That's your argument as to how things should be, at least.

2. Threatening to kill people should be legal. Threatening to kill people and being ready and capable to do it right now - is illegal but again it's not the speech that's the crime here.

And, in this case, is all that's happened. If I have a gun, and I say "I'm going to shoot you in the face", in your argument, that should be legal, because it's "just speech". It only becomes illegal if I actually shoot you, because up to that point, it's "just speech".

3. Harassment is illegal, regardless if it's speech based or action based. Again HARASSMENT, NOT speech.

Harassment is, fundamentally, speech. You're 0/3 so far.

4. Inciting riots should be legal, but if it leads to an actual riot - then it should be punished.
5. Stealing and scamming is already illegal, doesn't matter with what tools you perform the act, talking or a staring menacingly.

You literally just advocated that starting riots is fine and that defrauding people is fine, because both are just speech. You can't just declare harmful types of speech to be "not-speech" and act like you've made a point; you haven't, you've just demonstrated that not even you believe your own claims.

6. Child porn has nothing to do with speech

Definitively untrue. Pornography is defined as "speech", like any other medium for communication.

7. Maliciously misleading advertising - you mean all the current advertising? I don't get it. How is it related to speech exactly? Also it's done by a business entity not individuals. Again it's the scam part that is illegal not the speech. Lying is not illegal, scamming people is.

No, you've explicitly stated that scamming people is legal, because it's just speech.

Why can't you remain consistent?

8. Copyright should be abolished, so should trademarks and patents. But neither of those has anything to do with freedom of speech anyway.

First, copyright and trademark law are entirely based on speech rights. They couldn't exist as concepts outside of that.

Second, so you're okay with people stealing ideas and trademarks for themselves. You wouldn't have any issue with me opening a McDonald's burger joint that was visually identical to the big corporation? That's totally legal and should be fine? Because again, no developed country in the world agrees with that nonsense.


You have a serious problem with recognizing what speech is. You falsely try and justify your supposed defense of unlimited free speech by trying to declare that obvious forms of expression (child porn, verbal fraud, harassment) are magically not speech, even though they clearly and definitively are.

That betrays the weakness of your premise. Not even you believe in unlimited free speech, despite your claims. You just want to change the definition of "speech" somehow, as if that isn't just semantic wordplay.

[Varitok]

Oh is that the plan now? Call it a roman salute? It lost that meaning a long time ago, It's like if I go out with a swastika on my chest and say its a Buddhist symbol. That won't work anymore, It's been to appropriated for hate. It's not like the guy did it as a fucking roman salute to honour his roman ancestors.

[ranzino]

Oh is that the plan now? Call it a roman salute? It lost that meaning a long time ago, It's like if I go out with a swastika on my chest and say its a Buddhist symbol. That won't work anymore, It's been to appropriated for hate. It's not like the guy did it as a fucking roman salute to honour his roman ancestors.

oh, if you are a buddhist, you are entitled to show it, even in Germany. authorities would look into the issue, but fair guess you are off the hook in this case.

[Elim Garak]

Until you touch the child, it's "just speech". Nothing wrong with luring the kid away into your van, unless you actually drive off with them, so parents who catch you in the act have no legal recourse.

That's your argument as to how things should be, at least.

Luring is not speech. The person will not be sentenced for what they said. They will be sentenced for what they achieved.
How hard can it be to understand the distinction between an act and speech?
And don't tell me what my argument is if you don't get it.

And, in this case, is all that's happened. If I have a gun, and I say "I'm going to shoot you in the face", in your argument, that should be legal, because it's "just speech". It only becomes illegal if I actually shoot you, because up to that point, it's "just speech".

Read again, if you point a gun at me and say you gonna kill me - I am legally allowed to kill you first in self defense.
SPEECH HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.

Harassment is, fundamentally, speech. You're 0/3 so far.

More like 3/0. Google harassment. I dare you. Fundamentally speech my ass is fundamentally speech and you are talking, do you like my ass? The mental gymnastics... they deserve to be in Olympics.

You are WRONG. That's all.

You literally just advocated that starting riots is fine and that defrauding people is fine, because both are just speech. You can't just declare harmful types of speech to be "not-speech" and act like you've made a point; you haven't, you've just demonstrated that not even you believe your own claims.

You literally fail to read AGAIN. What is it? Is your main language French or something?
Act is illegal, speech is not.
There are no harmful types of speech. You just fail to separate speech from the act.

Definitively untrue. Pornography is defined as "speech", like any other medium for communication.

Who the fuck cares how some dimwit defines pornography? It is not speech. Mediums for communications are not speech either. This forum is not speech. My post is.

No, you've explicitly stated that scamming people is legal, because it's just speech.

L2read, seriously
I said scamming people is illegal. Speech is not. Explicitly.

Why can't you remain consistent?

Dafaq? consistent like you in your reading comprehension failures?

First, copyright and trademark law are entirely based on speech rights. They couldn't exist as concepts outside of that.

Who the fuck cares? Not speech.

Second, so you're okay with people stealing ideas and trademarks for themselves.

It's only stealing is it's defined as stealing. Words, they have meaning.
Ideas worth nothing. Implementation is king. Humanity will prosper if copyright trademarks and patents go away.

You wouldn't have any issue with me opening a McDonald's burger joint that was visually identical to the big corporation? That's totally legal and should be fine?

Yes, it should be totally legal and fine. If your burgers are better people will eat your burgers. If your burgers are shit people will eat other burgers. Easy.

Because again, no developed country in the world agrees with that nonsense.

What does it suppose to mean even? Things change for the better, it takes time. Some hundred years ago it was ok to own people in developed countries.
Your argumentation is that of a 5th grader

You have a serious problem with recognizing what speech is. You falsely try and justify your supposed defense of unlimited free speech by trying to declare that obvious forms of expression (child porn, verbal fraud, harassment) are magically not speech, even though they clearly and definitively are.

You have a serious problem with recognizing what speech is, all you have is what you've been told by authority figures.
Also you can't read. Figures.

That betrays the weakness of your premise. Not even you believe in unlimited free speech, despite your claims. You just want to change the definition of "speech" somehow, as if that isn't just semantic wordplay.

Speech is what people say. Not my fault that a bunch of morons lumped all the irrelevant stuff together and you ate it.

[Endus]

Read again, if you point a gun at me and say you gonna kill me - I am legally allowed to kill you first in self defense.
SPEECH HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.

Speech has everything to do with it, because all that has occurred at that point is speech.

You are completely inconsistent on this. You claim to want unlimited free speech, but really, you just define speech you don't like as "not-speech" as if that changes a damned thing.

More like 3/0. Google harassment. I dare you. Fundamentally speech my ass is fundamentally speech and you are talking, do you like my ass? The mental gymnastics... they deserve to be in Olympics.

You are WRONG. That's all.

http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictiona...arassment.aspx
"Unsolicited annoying, alarming or abusive conduct or words which are threatening, and which are prohibited by law."

So unsolicited annoying words that are threatening would count as "harassment". And that's just speech.

How about another?

https://definitions.uslegal.com/h/harassment/
"Harassing behavior may include, but is not limited to, epithets, derogatory comments or slurs and lewd propositions, assault, impeding or blocking movement, offensive touching or any physical interference with normal work or movement, and visual insults, such as derogatory posters or cartoons."

The bits I put in bold are speech. So again; criminal harassment can be based solely on speech.

Try again, maybe?

Who the fuck cares how some dimwit defines pornography? It is not speech. Mediums for communications are not speech either. This forum is not speech. My post is.

"Some dimwit" meaning "literally every single legal system in the developed world, including the USA".

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/05/19/...ml?eref=rss_us

Just as a for-instance.

No, pretty sure you're just not using words properly.

[Elim Garak]

Speech has everything to do with it, because all that has occurred at that point is speech.

Irrelevant. The gun pointed at me is the core of the issue here and it's not speech. If you point a gun at me and say "good luck", what's the threat here? Speech or the gun? Words are irrelevant as you can see. They are background for the action. IF you point a gun at me and say "Imma kill you" but then change your mind - is it a crime? I say no.

You are completely inconsistent on this. You claim to want unlimited free speech, but really, you just define speech you don't like as "not-speech" as if that changes a damned thing.

I am EXTREMELY consistent. Unlimited free speech is a tautology. Free speech is unlimited. I define not-speech as not-speech.

http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictiona...arassment.aspx
"Unsolicited annoying, alarming or abusive conduct or words which are threatening, and which are prohibited by law."

So unsolicited annoying words that are threatening would count as "harassment". And that's just speech.

How about another?

https://definitions.uslegal.com/h/harassment/
"Harassing behavior may include, but is not limited to, epithets, derogatory comments or slurs and lewd propositions, assault, impeding or blocking movement, offensive touching or any physical interference with normal work or movement, and visual insults, such as derogatory posters or cartoons."

The bits I put in bold are speech. So again; criminal harassment can be based solely on speech.

Try again, maybe?

"The law states that harassment is when a person behaves in a way which is intended to cause you distress or alarm. The behaviour must happen on more than one occasion."

Has nothing to do with speech. Speech can be used as a tool for harassment. But speech itself is not harassment. It's the harassing intent, the act.

I suspect you fail reading again so I will give you a practical example:
If I call you a cunt - it's not harassment. If you ask me to stop calling you cunt and I stop - everything's fine. If I call you a cunt again and again - that's harassment, but it's not the word "cunt" that is harassment it's my repeated use of it to harass you.

Pretty simple eh? But go on prove it to be complex.

"Some dimwit" meaning "literally every single legal system in the developed world, including the USA".

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/05/19/...ml?eref=rss_us

Just as a for-instance.

No, pretty sure you're just not using words properly.

There's not a single country with freedom of speech, so why do you even bring them up as an authority in the matter? They are not.

[Endus]

"The law states that harassment is when a person behaves in a way which is intended to cause you distress or alarm. The behaviour must happen on more than one occasion."

Has nothing to do with speech. Speech can be used as a tool for harassment. But speech itself is not harassment. It's the harassing intent, the act.

All you did was show that the speech has to be more than once, not that it wasn't speech.

I suspect you fail reading again so I will give you a practical example:
If I call you a cunt - it's not harassment. If you ask me to stop calling you cunt and I stop - everything's fine. If I call you a cunt again and again - that's harassment, but it's not the word "cunt" that is harassment it's my repeated use of it to harass you.

Pretty simple eh? But go on prove it to be complex.

You realize that you've just admitted that someone doing nothing but speaking could be committing a crime?

Right; you've admitted that some speech should be criminal, and that restrictions on some speech are legally justifiable and have merit, contradicting all your prior claims to the contrary.

There's not a single country with freedom of speech, so why do you even bring them up as an authority in the matter? They are not.

Just objectively false. Freedom of speech is widespread throughout the developed world. You're making up a nonexistent and internally-contradictory concept, trying to label it with a term that's already in widespread use, and then accusing the entire world of being "wrong", rather than admitting you are making stuff up.

[Elim Garak]

All you did was show that the speech has to be more than once, not that it wasn't speech.

#facepalm

You realize that you've just admitted that someone doing nothing but speaking could be committing a crime?

#picardfacepalm

Right; you've admitted that some speech should be criminal, and that restrictions on some speech are legally justifiable and have merit, contradicting all your prior claims to the contrary.

#picard&rykerfacepalm

Just objectively false. Freedom of speech is widespread throughout the developed world. You're making up a nonexistent and internally-contradictory concept, trying to label it with a term that's already in widespread use, and then accusing the entire world of being "wrong", rather than admitting you are making stuff up.

Pass on the cool aid.

[Surfd]

There was nothing to dodge. I gave you a list you didn't like it as was expected and went completely bananas trying to show everyone how right you are.

You gave me a list of seven items. Five of them had absolutely nothing to do with a nazi salute, and would literally require someone to intentionally work to misconstrue the gestures to be such. One of them was literally the specific reason I disqualified because it would pretty much be impossible to randomly do (demonstrating the salute specifically for demonstration's sake), and the last one was an attempt to generate a false equivalency between two different salutes from two totally different contextual eras.

It had nothing to do with not "liking" your list, and everything to do with the fact that your list was irrelevant garbage. If I ask you for a list of sports cars, and you reply back with "Boat, train, truck, bicycle, Model-T ford", then obviously I am going to call you out on your bullshit.

- - - Updated - - -

Irrelevant. The gun pointed at me is the core of the issue here and it's not speech. If you point a gun at me and say "good luck", what's the threat here? Speech or the gun? Words are irrelevant as you can see. They are background for the action. IF you point a gun at me and say "Imma kill you" but then change your mind - is it a crime? I say no.

You do realize that this statement is inherently stupid right, not to mention would also be pretty much directly contradictory to this gem you posted just a little bit further up the page:

Read again, if you point a gun at me and say you gonna kill me - I am legally allowed to kill you first in self defense

Since when are you legally allowed to kill someone in self defense if they haven't done anything wrong?

IF they point a gun at you, say "Imma kill you", and then change their mind, but you shoot them in self defense, then THEY have done nothing wrong (cause they changed their mind, which according to you means they have committed no crime), and YOU have just committed MURDER, as you have no way to prove they were actually threatening you, since according to you, their words are irrelevant since speech can not be inherently threatening, and their actions were never followed through on, which means you were never actually in danger.

And you accuse us of mental gymnastics? riiiiiiiggght.

[Mormolyce]

Then 99% of the population should be in prison.

Of Germany? Doubt it.

[Deleted]

It's definitely something you should expect in the part of the city where this happened. Doesn't matter if you call it the Roman Salute or the Gloxon Greeting from that one sci-fi show. It's illegal in Germany (context matters) and if you still try to get away with it specifically there in Dresden, you have to calculate for getting punched for it. But really just to avoid any confusion about getting punched or not, maybe just not do it at all. In Germany specifically but really just anywhere.

I'm not saying it was good or justified, but play stupid games, win stupid prices. I don't feel pity for the tourist and don't have a problem with the assailant (who might have been just as drunk, given where it happened) remaining unknown (I assume "nobody saw")

I shouldn't expect to be assaulted for a fucking hand gesture. Germans need to get their priorities straight.

[Masark]

I shouldn't expect to be assaulted for a fucking hand gesture. Germans need to get their priorities straight.

"Not allowing a genocidal ideology even a toehold" seems like something that deserves a fairly high priority.

[Seranthor]

What's with the clickbait title? The article says he was “strongly under the influence of alcohol”. He could have just made a dumb, drunken decision. It doesn't mean he's a Neo-Nazi.

But would you have clicked on it if the title was 'Drunk American does something dumb and gets punched'?