Comment by tashbarg
3 months ago
Regarding the Pinocchio thing: Local police said „that‘s probably insult“ and sent it to public prosecutors. Public prosecutors investigated and said „nope, free speech“.
I really don’t see the problem.
3 months ago
Regarding the Pinocchio thing: Local police said „that‘s probably insult“ and sent it to public prosecutors. Public prosecutors investigated and said „nope, free speech“.
I really don’t see the problem.
If you can disturb enough people that think differently, independent of the final result, you can end up silencing them. Is the same that happens with bogus DCMA claims in Youtube channels, when they negative reviews of products. For a normal guy, having the police showing up, going to court, lawyer, etc, can be a significant burden. I DO see a problem.
Indeed, police misusing their authority is a problem, and they require constant oversight. But this is true completely independently from if you need to provide an age to order drugs online.
No authority was used (or misused). Anybody can report a crime and prosecution is required, by law, to investigate.
Yes, I agree.
But I can not see how the legal framework could be better. Insults are illegal. Prosecution needs to look into all reported cases.
The problem with “insult is illegal” is that is hard to define insult. I beg to differ, that is a good system. The full explanation is here: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oS9Ey3C_E-U&pp=ygUgQXRraW5zIG9...
> Prosecution needs to look into all reported cases.
The ramifications of that sentence in terms of cost, effort and possibly other nuances, makes me shiver.
Note how a minimal misbehavior of a relatively small portion of the population could render any police and judicial system totally inoperative. Just 2000 people across the country go doing light insults to random people… again, I can think of much better systems.
1 reply →
The investigation and the threat against your freedom and safety (the implication of prison is always that you'll be harmed in there) WAS the punishment.
Sure, but the fact remains that it was referred for criminal prosecution. They didn't follow through, this time, but the victim still had his "lesson" about insulting his betters.
And Germany really did sentence people for calling Mr. Habeck "Schwachkopf", which is about as mild an insult as you can find.
> And Germany really did sentence people for calling Mr. Habeck "Schwachkopf", which is about as mild an insult as you can find.
Did not know about this, here is the wiki: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwachkopf-Aff%C3%A4re
His house was searched because of it, but he did not get sentenced for it.
Reminds me of Pimmelgate https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Grote#Umstrittene_Reaktio...
There is a strong hint in the search warrant, that they knew about the distribution of Nazi materials.
Just calling someone Schwachkopf doesn’t get prosecutors to investigate further.
2 replies →
Germany really did not. Where do you get such nonsense?
The guy was sentenced for distributing forbidden Nazi materials.
The initial insult investigation was dropped, because of it being insignificant.