SakashiroRebecca HailBy declaring an entire country a banana republic
That's not what I did, but feel free to continue misquoting me.
Rebecca HailStop cherry picking, Saka. If you want to respond, respond to the entire post or just admit that you don't know what you're talking about.
SakashiroRebecca HailStop cherry picking, Saka. If you want to respond, respond to the entire post or just admit that you don't know what you're talking about.
It's quite ironic that you accuse me of polemicizing, considering the numerous personal insults you keep directing at me. I would like to remind you that I wasn't responding to a comment of yours; you responded to mine. I wasn't looking for a conversation with you. You approached me with a question, and then you kept insulting me for the answer I gave you. What exactly were you hoping to achieve?
Rebecca HailTelling you that you don't understand what you're talking about isn't an insult, much less when it's true. And yes, you are polemicizing, alongside an entire array of other bad discussion practices like repeating false information, not properly reading your own sources and the mentioned cherry picking.
What I hoped to achieve was to convince you that games in Germany are not subject to political censorship. But that should be pretty obvious, so I'm wondering why you're asking that.
SakashiroRebecca HailTelling you that you don't understand what you're talking about isn't an insult, much less when it's true. And yes, you are polemicizing, alongside an entire array of other bad discussion practices like repeating false information, not properly reading your own sources and the mentioned cherry picking.
What I hoped to achieve was to convince you that games in Germany are not subject to political censorship. But that should be pretty obvious, so I'm wondering why you're asking that.
I've backed up everything I said with links to sources, including some in your own language.
Are you telling me that the sources are fake news?
That the people I mentioned were not convicted and fined?
That the law isn't applied selectively?
That the selective application of the law isn't politically motivated?
What exactly is your problem, Rebecca?
Is it something personal? Did I hurt your patriotic feelings? If so, I apologize.
However, I will not continue this conversation if all I hear from you is "you don't know what you're talking about". Because you are calling into question my ability to read newspaper articles. And that I consider a personal insult. If you're hoping to drag me down onto that level, I'm afraid I have to disappoint you. We either continue in a respectful way, or not at all. Your call.
Rebecca HailThose sources do not back what you claim they do.
Rebecca HailAdditionally to that you made implications alongside that, that are plainly untrue, such as implicating that depicting Angela Merkel had anything to do with the verdict that was made.
Rebecca HailIn the end the only thing your sources back, is that a law was enforced and acted upon but not much more.
Rebecca Hail
That the law isn't applied selectively?
It is. In accordance to the exemptions defined within the law and the fundamental rights granted by the german basic law. That's not a politically motivated selection, it is a selection on a legal basis.
XeknosWhat a strange argument. A non-German cherry-picking cases to try and win against two actual Germans.
How odd.
XeknosWhat a strange argument. A non-German cherry-picking cases to try and win against two actual Germans.
How odd.
SakashiroRebecca HailThose sources do not back what you claim they do.
What exactly did I claim that they did not back up?
Rebecca HailAdditionally to that you made implications alongside that, that are plainly untrue, such as implicating that depicting Angela Merkel had anything to do with the verdict that was made.
What verdict are you talking about?
SakashiroIf you depict Angela Merkel with a swastika, German courts will convict and fine you.
In light of this, the Court considered that the domestic courts could not be reproached for not finding any connection with the text and the policies which the Nazi symbols stood for, nor could it be reproached for concluding that Mr. Nix had used the picture as an “eye-catching device”. It added that this “gratuitous use of symbols was exactly what the provision sanctioning the use of symbols of unconstitutional organisations was intended to prevent, as it was meant to pre-empt anyone becoming used to certain symbols by banning them from all means of communication”. [para. 54] The Court held it had no reasons to depart from the assessment of the domestic courts that Mr. Nix had not clearly and obviously rejected Nazi ideology in his blog post.
Rebecca HailIn the end the only thing your sources back, is that a law was enforced and acted upon but not much more.
No, my sources back up that Merkel + swastika led to convictions, while Gauland + swastika and Trump + Nazi salute got a pass. Regardless of your opinion about Mr. Gauland or Mr. Trump, this is selective application of the law.
Rebecca Hail
It is. In accordance to the exemptions defined within the law and the fundamental rights granted by the german basic law. That's not a politically motivated selection, it is a selection on a legal basis.
Please explain the legal difference between Trump/Gauland + swastika/Nazi salute on one hand and Merkel + swastika on the other.
The Court noted that, under German law, no criminal liability arose where the use of symbols of unconstitutional organisations was meant to serve civil education, to combat unconstitutional movements, to promote art or science, research or teaching, to report on current or historical events, or serve similar purposes. Moreover, the Court observed that the German Courts restricted the scope of these exceptions to uses that did not contravene the provision’s purpose, including where it was obvious and clear that the person using the symbol is opposed to the ideology behind it. The Court considered that “exemption from criminal liability where opposition to the ideology embodied by the used symbol is ‘obvious and clear’ constitutes an important safeguard for the right to freedom of expression.”
Rebecca HailSakashiroRebecca HailBy declaring an entire country a banana republic
That's not what I did, but feel free to continue misquoting me.
Stop cherry picking, Saka. If you want to respond, respond to the entire post or just admit that you don't know what you're talking about.
Effie TrinketXeknosWhat a strange argument. A non-German cherry-picking cases to try and win against two actual Germans.
How odd.
The whole discourse is a little odd. Bless them both for their stamina though!
XeknosWhat a strange argument. A non-German cherry-picking cases to try and win against two actual Germans.
How odd.
Rebecca HailYou fail to realize that Angela Merkel herself had nothing to do with that verdict.
Rebecca HailTo explain it simply, the display of the swastika + Gauland in the game is covered under freedom of arts, as the game clearly was an art project. {...} The display of Trump with the nazi salute is covered under the exception of reporting on current or historical events and freedom of arts.
Rebecca HailThe general attorney refused to investigate because of the outdated precedence and thus the legal framework changed.
