Germany Raids, Shuts Down Far Left Website.

[Slant]

case is on appeal already, dont hold your breath.

Oh, but of course it is on appeal. Nobody ever doubted that. We'll see how much he ends up with, but I doubt he'll get acquitted suddenly. Remember, he has to lose at least half a year of prison time before we can even debate parole.

- - - Updated - - -

Remember when the left was pro-free speech? Ah...the good old days...err...the good old years...err...the good old decades...err...the good old centuries.

What changed, in the minds of Liberals, to cause such authoritarianism over speech? They used to quote Voltaire and fight for free speech. Now they are completely and totally against free speech, to a man and to a woman. What made this happen?

We started to let people like you speak in public, which dumbed down general intelligence and people forgot to think about values and instead had to waste their time telling guys like you to fuck off. Is my guess. But I could be wrong...

[Flarelaine]

That's the point though. These idiots have no message. They're hooligans and brawl tourists. They arrive from abroad and know they can get a good fight with the police here. And most of them are stupid enough to think they can get away with it, because they're not from Germany. Well, that dutch dude now has 2.5 years in a German prison to rethink his position and ponder about how law prosecution doesn't give a shit about his opinion.

I've been thinking about this... Face covering is now verboten in most of Europe, so couldn't the police begin rounding them up on sight before they start smashing stuff?

[Slant]

I've been thinking about this... Face covering is now verboten in most of Europe, so couldn't the police begin rounding them up on sight before they start smashing stuff?

Covering your face isn't forbidden just like that. That law restricts hiding your identity in protests, rallies and marches (what we call demonstrations). So, when are you member of a protest? Usually when you walk with the protest, right? What about the dude next street? He's happily smashing up cars, walks into the protest, ducks and pulls away his cover. Good luck identifying him.

Do it the other way around, nice chick is in the protest, walks out of it into the next street, looks around, nobody sees her, she pulls up the cover and starts smashing shit up. Then walks back, dives into the crowd, removes the cover and she's legit again.

You could probably round them up on sight, that would be easy enough. Last time police did that, it ended up in a huge scandal and legal battle going right to the court... look up "Hamburger Kessel" for that fun story. The gist: The police have done false imprisonment by encircling a group of violent protesters and thus also detaining innocents along with the violent elements. Add do that the water canons and you have assault and abuse of authority and all that jazz that the police really doesn't want to hear.

TL;DR: It's complicated.

[Noradin]

There's nothing in the Times story that says the people they raided actually participated in any violence. But they say that the website referred to police as "pigs" and "murderers" and that activity on the site intended to "legitimize violence against police officers."

According to this, a lot of forum members here would be in trouble. Likewise, people supporting the whole "punch a Nazi" would also be in danger.

To summarize: "Third party heresay did not include evidence of wrongdoing that would hold up in court, thus it must be a conspiracy to jail random bystanders." Is that about right?

The Times is not the police, nor an omniscient and neutral arbiter. Just because the Times didn't provide evidence does not mean there cannot be any, and they are investigated for the organisation of violence, which is not the same thing as violence, anyway.
Are you intentionally trying to misrepresent this and mislead us, or didn't you read carefully enough?

[Ravenblade]

Oh, but of course it is on appeal. Nobody ever doubted that. We'll see how much he ends up with, but I doubt he'll get acquitted suddenly. Remember, he has to lose at least half a year of prison time before we can even debate parole.

A lot people get parole for worse things these days.

[Slant]

A lot people get parole for worse things these days.

Yes, but a lot of people don't piss off the general population and justice system like that. Sometimes, attitude does get into the account.

[Ravenblade]

Yes, but a lot of people don't piss off the general population and justice system like that. Sometimes, attitude does get into the account.

The intent for vandalism or attacking police forces should of course be appropriately punished, but given that 2.5 years is usually given for minor robbery cases I find it hard to accept how someone can get away with a few hundred Euros for what could have ended up as attempted homicide. Sadly this is Saxony for you, cases like these usually get very, very mild punishment. I'd scold myself for false accusations if I hadn't been following a lot of these cases over the last year myself.

I personally believe there is a lot political pressure on courts right now to state harsh examples in order to prevent excesses like at the G20 again. A pointless endeavour if you ask me but Lothar Die Misere does want it that way.

[Toogoodman]

http://reason.com/blog/2017/08/25/ge...ar-left-websit



Lately, I've seen a lot of people acting as though free speech was just a polite way to hide hate speech. The thing about free speech is that it's equal to everyone. You can't just shut something or someone because you disagree with them.

And it's not an issue with just the left, either. A large portion of the right wishes to silence the left, too. When you decide, as a society, to allow censorship of ideas - whatever the cover is, like hate speech - you open yourself to abuse.

What if Trump decided to arrest people who disagreed with him under that law? Remember that person who made the bloodied Trump head?

Censorship is nice when your side is in control. But as soon as it's the enemy, it becomes the evil that we need to fight.

When will we realise that free speech is a nonpartisan issue - it's something we're all concerned about, and we should all be concerned by the aura of censorship looming over our heads.

Its become a partisan issue because people on the left want to suppress dissent, but dont understand that in the process theyre suppressing themselves in the long run.

[Tijuana]

Oh, but of course it is on appeal. Nobody ever doubted that. We'll see how much he ends up with, but I doubt he'll get acquitted suddenly. Remember, he has to lose at least half a year of prison time before we can even debate parole.

- - - Updated - - -



We started to let people like you speak in public, which dumbed down general intelligence and people forgot to think about values and instead had to waste their time telling guys like you to fuck off. Is my guess. But I could be wrong...

I have not insulted you, or called you names. Why not keep it civil, instead? Are your arguments so weak, that they need to be propped up by baseless ad hominems?

[Slant]

I have not insulted you, or called you names. Why not keep it civil, instead? Are your arguments so weak, that they need to be propped up by baseless ad hominems?

Sometimes in life, there's nothing left but ad hominems. I'm done wasting time arguing with you, instead I'll just point out that you're wasting everyone's time every single time you post. You have nothing to say, you lie, you are generally dishonest, the meaning of words either eludes you or you just don't care and use them very much like other people use "green stuff" for salad, you mix and match, whatever sounds best at the time, regardless of meaning, context, heck.. you don't even give a shit if it makes sense just reading that sentence by itself...

So no, my arguments are not weak. But I've not got the time or leisure to battle idiocy with quoting dictionaries. You should be out of the age where people need to explain words to you if you want to post here. If not, go ask your parents what I mean.

[Forogil]

Interesting to note how the violent G20-protesters are described as foreigners (in contrast to law-abiding Germans) - and then reading complaints in the press about the police being harder on foreigners.

People like Poggenburg, Höcke and Arppe are clearly far-right firebrands. Especially Landolf LadigBernd Höcke is and he has been massively subdued by his own party because had he been continuing with his pseudo-intellectual Rosenberg-style speeches he'd have probably ruined any chance of the AfD seeing something more than the doors of the Reichstag building from the outside.

New parties always attracts "interesting" personalities. But by saying that these persons are far to the right (and part of AfD) you also indicate that AfD as a whole isn't that far to the right - compared to e.g. CDU.

[Tijuana]

Sometimes in life, there's nothing left but ad hominems. I'm done wasting time arguing with you, instead I'll just point out that you're wasting everyone's time every single time you post. You have nothing to say, you lie, you are generally dishonest, the meaning of words either eludes you or you just don't care and use them very much like other people use "green stuff" for salad, you mix and match, whatever sounds best at the time, regardless of meaning, context, heck.. you don't even give a shit if it makes sense just reading that sentence by itself...

So no, my arguments are not weak. But I've not got the time or leisure to battle idiocy with quoting dictionaries. You should be out of the age where people need to explain words to you if you want to post here. If not, go ask your parents what I mean.

I don't generally like to get in to the mud with people like yourself. I tend to prefer not to insult people, as it guarantees you can never change their mind, after having done that. However, I will say a couple things in that regard.

Thinking that everyone who disagrees is lying, is a sign of a very weak mind. Not being able to see the other side shows ignorance, but that's nothing compared to thinking there is malice anywhere there is disagreement. These are the ideas of a profoundly simple mind. I don't know if you are just being lazy, and don't care to offer a counter fact, or if you are incapable of the coherency needed to refute a specific point. But, either way, it seems all you have to offer this forum, is name calling, insults, and emotional outbursts. Thank you for showing what you are really all about, and making the decision to ignore you an easy one. Bye Felicia.

[Ravenblade]

Interesting to note how the violent G20-protesters are described as foreigners (in contrast to law-abiding Germans) - and then reading complaints in the press about the police being harder on foreigners.


New parties always attracts "interesting" personalities. But by saying that these persons are far to the right (and part of AfD) you also indicate that AfD as a whole isn't that far to the right - compared to e.g. CDU.

It's been vice versa the AfD actually turned far right when moderate people left and Höcke, Petry, von Strolch & Co. were the ones left in charge. With no type of moderation left to keep things in check all things drifted to the far right quickly. Basically, especially in the East, they have been siphoning away NPD members and people who sympathized with their stances. Eventually this will end up in another split, already there are cracks in the layer. Höcke's 2nd in command already withdrew from position because, according to her, the party is turning into a strict one-opinion party dominated by far right ideologies too quickly. I wouldn't be so sure if it isn't basically happening right before my housedoor (proverbially speaking of course). Right now they are keeping the lid tightly but this will change after the election. Höcke's companion, Reinhold Oberlercher already prophecied the AfD isn't supposed to stay forever, it's just a flow-water heater for anything - much more radical - that is to follow after.

[Slant]

I don't generally like to get in to the mud with people like yourself. I tend to prefer not to insult people, as it guarantees you can never change their mind, after having done that. However, I will say a couple things in that regard.

Thinking that everyone who disagrees is lying, is a sign of a very weak mind. Not being able to see the other side shows ignorance, but that's nothing compared to thinking there is malice anywhere there is disagreement. These are the ideas of a profoundly simple mind. I don't know if you are just being lazy, and don't care to offer a counter fact, or if you are incapable of the coherency needed to refute a specific point. But, either way, it seems all you have to offer this forum, is name calling, insults, and emotional outbursts. Thank you for showing what you are really all about, and making the decision to ignore you an easy one. Bye Felicia.

I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm saying you're outright lying. You do not have a valid opinion to disagree with. That is what I'm saying. Liberals are not against free speech. Period. That's the end of the line. There is no "diverting opinion" possible. Do you not understand it? Your perverted idea of free speech does not comply with the dictionairy or what the rest of the world thinks. That is what I'm saying. You're inventing a crazy premise in your head and start making wild accusations based on that. That's dishonest. And now you're pretending to be a victim, with me the super evil dude so harshly insulting you. Like that's really new to you...

Call me simple, but I'm hardly simple. But I'm also not overly complex. When I see bullshit, I call it bullshit. And you're full of it.