Germany’s history informs its current laws. That much is undeniable. But it doesn’t excuse the over-correction applied by legislators in hopes of heading off another Hitler. And it cert…
from the be-the-stasi-you-wish-to-see-in-the-world dept
So just because people you don’t like express concern about something means that it automatically must be false? This type of “logic” is very dangerous. And prosecution clearly does happen a lot. Literally 10 cases a day in one German state according to the article and only 0.5 of those cases actually result in conviction, which means that clearly this is used to intimidate and punish people generally rather than a sincere attempt to enforce the law.
Lol, no one who just “expresses concern” will be sued in Germany. It will always be insults and incitement to violence that will lead to this.
However I would say that there have been trials because of really “easy” insults, started by politicians. And here you’ve got a point IMO that these laws are also used for intimidation. As a politician you should be able to tolerate some insults without having to sue each and every offender out there.
95% failure to convict indicates the defendants may have shown rehabilitation and regret so the judge applied jurisprudence. I know this may be a foreign concept to a US american but in the civilised world, prison is a rehabilitation solution, not a “for profit” slavery distributor to help GAP and McDonald’s get free labour.
So just because people you don’t like express concern about something means that it automatically must be false? This type of “logic” is very dangerous. And prosecution clearly does happen a lot. Literally 10 cases a day in one German state according to the article and only 0.5 of those cases actually result in conviction, which means that clearly this is used to intimidate and punish people generally rather than a sincere attempt to enforce the law.
Lol, no one who just “expresses concern” will be sued in Germany. It will always be insults and incitement to violence that will lead to this.
However I would say that there have been trials because of really “easy” insults, started by politicians. And here you’ve got a point IMO that these laws are also used for intimidation. As a politician you should be able to tolerate some insults without having to sue each and every offender out there.
95% failure to convict indicates the defendants may have shown rehabilitation and regret so the judge applied jurisprudence. I know this may be a foreign concept to a US american but in the civilised world, prison is a rehabilitation solution, not a “for profit” slavery distributor to help GAP and McDonald’s get free labour.