It's a defamation case. Journalist David Bendels posted a doctored picture of politician Nancy Faeser holding up a sign saying, "Ich hasse die Meinungsfreiheit" ("I hate freedom of speech"). Faeser filed criminal charges against Bendels for "üble Nachrede und Verleumdung" (defamation).
Bendels was sentenced to a 7 months suspended sentence and a fine of 1500 Euros, has to remove the image and apologize to Faeser. Bendels will appeal the decision.
I'm going to guess that this will be overturned on appeal. Every country has stupid courts that make bad decisions. I think this is kind of an edge case between satire and defamation, since Bendels is ostensibly a real journalist who reports on real facts—it seems odd to me that he would publish doctored pictures. Still, I think this will lean towards satire in the end, since I don't think most reasonable people would assume the picture of Faeser was real.
Having to clarify satire ruins its point. In a case against a man who creatd a fake Facebook page of his police department and was subsequently raided, the Onion submitted this amicus brief: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-293/242292/2022...
It's really quite interesting to read at some point, but I believe that nobody should have to "clarify it was doctored". Because that image was also very obviously fake - it's literally a meme template, and nobody should be prosecuted for that. I do have to question your judgement if you believe that is real.
I honestly don't really understand how it is not obvious, so I question if those decisions are made in bad faith. It's literally a meme template, and that's somehow not obvious?
I'm not speaking from a legal standpoint, I'm speaking from a common sense moral one. We cannot cater to the most mentally challenged in society to make sure they cannot harm themselves.
Satire is entirely ruined once you put a /s behind it. Let me quote the Onion here -
The court’s decision suggests
that parodists are in the clear only if they pop the bal-
loon in advance by warning their audience that their
parody is not true. But some forms of comedy don’t
work unless the comedian is able to tell the joke with
a straight face. Parody is the quintessential example.
Parodists intentionally inhabit the rhetorical form of
their target in order to exaggerate or implode it—and
by doing so demonstrate the target’s illogic or absurd-
ity.
Put simply, for parody to work, it has to plausibly
mimic the original.
The Online Safety Act in the UK has been discussed here before and it is part of a general trend to prevent "harmful" speech including specifically "legal but harmful speech".
After the man posted the image, Robert Habeck (the politician in question) made a criminal complaint. When the Criminal Police investigated the case, they found additional evidence against the man, which prompted the search. His house was not searched for calling Habeck an idiot, but calling him an idiot triggered the investigation, which triggered the search.
>The politician in question has filed more than 700 criminal complaints about what people have said about him
I'm not sure why that matters in the context of this discussion. He is free to file as many criminal complaints as he wants, no? Living in a free society means that idiots can do idiotic things like filing 700 criminal complaints.
>The problem is that merely insulting someone can be a crime at all
I disagree that this is a problem per se. Pretty much all jurisdictions across the world have laws like that. It really depends on how exactly the law is implemented.
In fact, American libel and defamation laws are, in some ways, more problematic than many European ones simply because of how the legal system works. If you are sued in a place with no SLAPP laws, the mere lawsuit can be so expensive that it can have a chilling effect on free speech, even if the defendant ultimately wins the case.
(I do agree that laws singling out politicians are stupid.)
It's kind of analogous to the old taxi drivers who took pride in having a sixth sense knowing which route to take you, vs uber drivers who just blindly follow their navigation
Some of them might have had a really good mental map; but the majority would just take inefficient routes (and charge you some random price that they put into their counter) — plenty of reasons to dislike Uber but having a pre-set price, vetted/rated drivers, and clear routing for a taxi service is a massive plus in my opinion.
I can vouch for a large amount of usage in LATAM, people that won't bother with instagram (like older folks) eat it up, just swipe and you're watching your nephews birthday photos, just like Mr Facebook intended
The selfish / selfless binary is a bit simplistic to explain corruption.
If your brother killed someone, would you turn him over to the authorities? You can't answer this question by checking how selfish someone is - both options can be considered selfless acts.
If I remember correctly (can't find a source), places that answer yes to that question tend to have higher trust in institutions and lower rates of corruption
"The selfish / selfless binary is a bit simplistic to explain corruption."
Corruption is selfish gain. If one eschews corruption because they realize that it harms the society-at-large, then they are acting selflessly. If one eschews corruption because they're afraid of being caught and punished, then the legal system has prevented societal harm, by preventing corrupt selfishness by a public servant.
As to your hypothetical, I like my friend from Lousiana's saying, "If my aunt had a d*k, she'd be my uncle." Of course, in 2024, that saying is looking a bit ragged.
That said, extreme hypotheticals are not going to get to the bottom of this issue of corruption. It's the ordinary, everyday corruption that erodes society, not having to turn one's brother over to the authorities for murder. And ordinary, everyday corruption is both selfishness, pure and simple, and a failure of society to emplace the necessary checks to prevent it.
But most people misunderstand love as merely the feeling one has about another person or creature.
Love's highest manifestation is, however, an action that serves another person's happiness. It can be something that lessens a person misery or discomfort, or actually makes them happier in some way. It can be as simple as a warm smile on the street or giving something to them. Intention is important, and how it is received is irrelevant. The universe is sublime, and there is no end to our learning, if we so endeavor to plumb its depths.
Every human being's life is the result of such selflessly compassionate service, for, as infants, we must be given everything or we perish. For years. There is nothing tangible received for that giving, unless one understands how very tangible inner peace and happiness is. Understanding our place in this moral universe makes such happiness the only thing that matters, to those of us who actually understand. Know that no one is forced to comprehend or accept this most sublime of laws, just as there are flat-earth folks, too, who refuse to look through a telescope. We all have the choice to be as foolish (and unhappy) as we wish.
reply