Current Events > Twenty-nine German police suspended for sharing pictures of Hitler

(+) Yeah! (+)

@UnfairRepresent Here's the full text of the law you keep citing: https://dejure.org/gesetze/StGB/86.html
Nowhere does it say 'bringing up', 'talking about' or 'joking about' nazis is forbidden. Mere mentioning nazis does not advance the endeavors they once had, therefore it's not forbidden by this law.

How are you so bad at this?

---

UnfairRepresent posted...

You will never respond to any of this.

correct

UnfairRepresent posted...

You'll just join a mob and scream insults

^ Hey now that's completely unfair!

FlameTurtle posted...

Hey Choco, have you been arrested yet?

yes

---

Why do you @UnfairRepresent refuse to tell use where you lived in the UK or Germany?

---

Why do you @UnfairRepresent refuse to tell use where you lived in the UK or Germany?

---

the law you keep posting states that symbols and propaganda for certain groups are banned. Nothing more.
Somehow, you keep saying that means you aren't allowed to talk about these groups in Germany in any context unless educational.

You are pulling that completely our of your ass and as long as you do that, there is no point in trying to argue with you anymore.

There are literally Neo Nazis marching in the streets with police protection and you still think you are correct.


---

Hornezz posted...

@UnfairRepresent Here's the full text of the law you keep citing: https://dejure.org/gesetze/StGB/86.html
Nowhere does it say 'bringing up', 'talking about' or 'joking about' nazis is forbidden. Mere mentioning nazis does not advance the endeavors they once had, therefore it's not forbidden by this law.

How are you so bad at this?

You're being hyperliteral

And the 2nd amendment doesn't say "you're allowed to have guns"

Except it does

As I said in the post you ignored, the law covers anything that could be considered distribution of propaganda for unconstitutional groups such as the far right which includes verbage

You CAN be arrested for being verbally pro the far right, there are no free speech protections

Choco posted...

correct

Exactly

You know you are wrong and lying
---

spikethedevil posted...

Why do you @UnfairRepresent refuse to tell use where you lived in the UK or Germany?

Choco posted...

Why do you @UnfairRepresent refuse to tell use where you lived in the UK or Germany?

---

Why do you @UnfairRepresent refuse to tell use where you lived in the UK or Germany?

---

Every time he disappears for a bit I think he is googling locations in the UK and Germany but then nope no response to a very simple question.

---

UnfairRepresent posted...

Exactly

You know you are wrong and lying

Exactly

You know you are wrong and lying

---

ALIEN_WORK2HOP posted...

the law you keep posting states that symbols and propaganda for certain groups are banned. Nothing more.
Somehow, you keep saying that means you aren't allowed to talk about these groups in Germany in any context unless educational.

You are pulling that completely our of your ass and as long as you do that, there is no point in trying to argue with you anymore.

There are literally Neo Nazis marching in the streets with police protection and you still think you are correct.

Lol you just ignored the fact ,Your own source called the groups unconstitutional

And the fact that group matching in the street was nearly banned by a constitutional court for breaking the law and only not because they figured arresting them would do more harm than good

You can't just make completely incorrect points, ignore how they are wrong and then repeat them again

Also the links (you ignore) Express that the iconography is not linked solely to flags and instead anything that can be considered distribution of propaganda

Funny how "there is no point arguing with you" only occurs after you have been proven wrong and have no counter point

Guess you're going to call the German Constitution an alt right meme too now?
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

You can't just make completely incorrect points, ignore how they are wrong and then repeat them again

lmao

Choco posted...

yes

#freechoco

---

Choco posted...

Why do you @UnfairRepresent refuse to tell use where you lived in the UK or Germany?

---

spikethedevil posted...

Why do you @UnfairRepresent refuse to tell use where you lived in the UK or Germany?

---

UnfairRepresent posted...

You're being hyperliteral

Seems kinda important when discussing laws, huh.

As I said in the post you ignored, the law covers anything that could be considered distribution of propaganda for unconstitutional groups such as the far right which includes verbage

You CAN be arrested for being verbally pro the far right, there are no free speech protections

Bringing up Nazis isn't propaganda. Joking about Nazis isn't being pro far right. You're moving the goal posts.

Nobody gets arrested for merely talking about Nazis. The law doesn't support your claim and you still haven't posted a single example of that happening. Because you are lying.

---

Hornezz posted...

Bringing up Nazis isn't propaganda. Joking about Nazis isn't being pro far right. You're moving the goal posts.

Nobody gets arrested for merely talking about Nazis. The law doesn't support your claim and you still haven't posted a single example of that happening. Because you are lying.

This is double think

"If they get arrested then their verbage was propaganda, if they don't then they were just talking about it"

Even if they say the same thing. The fact is there are no free speech protections and you factually CAN be arrested for it.
---

Choco posted...

Why do you @UnfairRepresent refuse to tell use where you lived in the UK or Germany?

---

The law is pretty clear on what it defines as propaganda. Talking about nazis isn't it.

and you factually CAN be arrested for it.

This is a lie.

I do miss the days when posting false information as fact was considered moddable on here.

---

What a shit hole of a topic lol
---

Hornezz posted...

The law is pretty clear on what it defines as propaganda. Talking about nazis isn't it.

lol no it's not.

86 StGB Dissemination of Means of Propaganda of Unconstitutional Organizations

Whoever domestically disseminates or produces, stocks, imports or exports or makes publicly accessible through data storage media for dissemination domestically or abroad, means of propaganda:
of a party which has been declared to be unconstitutional by the Federal Constitutional Court or a party or organization, as to which it has been determined, no longer subject to appeal, that it is a substitute organization of such a party;
...
means of propaganda, the contents of which are intended to further the aims of a former National Socialist organization,
shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than three years or a fine.

How is that clear?

Further the aims of any fat right party or substitute by any means of propaganda?

Thats vague and unquantifed as fuck. intentionally so

Hornezz posted...

I do miss the days when posting false information as fact was considered moddable on here

lol half the users in the topic would be deleted

especially that guy who used a quote calling far right groups unconstitutional as his argument for them being constitutionally protected

not me the one who is actually linking the law and Constitution
---

@UnfairRepresent Why do you refuse to tell us where in the UK and Germany you lived?

---

UnfairRepresent posted...

Thats vague and unquantifed as fuck. intentionally so

Vague only to you, not to anyone else in this topic or anyone involved in German law apparently. Is it because you have trouble reading?

Constitution

You keep using this word wrong.

---

Hornezz posted...

Vague only to you, not to anyone else in this topic or anyone involved in German law apparently. Is it because you have trouble reading?

"Its not vague to the people who lie and use doublethink"

ok. Its intentionally vague to reality though

Go on then since no one else (including the law) can, quantify the difference between being arrested for talking about the far right and being arrested for talking about the far right but its propaganda?

You do that and I'll post examples

And he was never seen again
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

Go on then since no one else (including the law) can, quantify the difference between being arrested for talking about the far right and being arrested for talking about the far right but its propaganda?

So you have difficulty understanding the difference between "talking about" and "spreading propaganda in favor of" and you want someone to explain these basic things to you. Glad you acknowledge where the problem lies.

---

spikethedevil posted...

@UnfairRepresent Why do you refuse to tell us where in the UK and Germany you lived?

---

See that's a doublethink cop out answer

"Oh it's so easy to do this that I can't do it and no one else can either including the law!"

That's "God works in mysterious ways" Bullshit. You're literally just arguing that it by default becomes propaganda solely if someone is arrested for it.
---

Lol this topic is hilarious, will read again.

---

Why is your ability to provide examples of your claim conditioned on me qualifying terms that you introduced to the discussion?

---

if it were pictures of Stalin, would they have been promoted instead?

---

Benderill0 posted...

if it were pictures of Stalin, would they have been promoted instead?

You okay there bud?

---

Benderill0 posted...

if it were pictures of Stalin, would they have been promoted instead?

yikes
---

Benderill0 posted...

if it were pictures of Stalin, would they have been promoted instead?

The fuck? @Benderill0

---

It was just a question...

---

Why do you think they would of been promoted? @Benderill0

---

Asking a question that's stupid beyond all relief to own the libs

That's an old af account with very low karma too
---

Hornezz posted...

Why is your ability to provide examples of your claim conditioned on me qualifying terms that you introduced to the discussion?

I didn't introduce any terms. The intentionally incredibly vague laws did. The ones you pretend aren't vague yet you cannot explain them, nor can anyone else.

And your handwave dissmisal is "well if someone is arrested for talking about the Nazis then obviously it was propaganda but I can't quantify what that actually means, now give examples that aren't."

Which is a silly thing to ask.

By definition you cannot reason with doublethink.
---

@UnfairRepresent Where di you live in the UK and Germany?

---

I dunno what 'di' means.

Princess Di? She died decades ago
---

Did* You know exactly what I meant so answer the damn question @UnfairRepresent Where did you live in the UK and Germany?

---

spikethedevil posted...

Why do you think they would of been promoted? @Benderill0

Why, because the glorious red army, let by Stalin, defeated the scourge of nazism, that for so long plagued the nation of Germany. Don't you think that'd be worthy of some sort of congratulatory measure?

---

Benderill0 posted...

Why, because the glorious red army, let by Stalin, defeated the scourge of nazism, that for so long plagued the nation of Germany. Don't you think that'd be worthy of some sort of congratulatory measure?

Stalin also committed a genocide and is also considered a monster so no, no it does not. but hey you're probably not that accounts original owner and just decided this topic needed two shit posters in it.

---

spikethedevil posted...

Stalin also committed a genocide and is also considered a monster

ok yeah, sure but which one is worse?

---

UnfairRepresent posted...

I didn't introduce any terms. The intentionally incredibly vague laws did. The ones you pretend aren't vague yet you cannot explain them, nor can anyone else.

You introduced "talking about", "bringing up", and "joking about" into the discussion. The law doesn't mention those terms at all. You made the claim they were illegal actions. But before you can provide evidence, it's on me to to quantify your terms for you? Requiring such a ridiculous condition sure sounds like you're trying to dodge the burden of proof.

You can't find any examples of people being convicted for mentioning Nazis because they don't exist. Because you are lying. Put up or shut up.

---

Benderill0 posted...

Why, because the glorious red army, let by Stalin, defeated the scourge of nazism, that for so long plagued the nation of Germany. Don't you think that'd be worthy of some sort of congratulatory measure?

Did you think this was a clever post?

---

This wouldn't have happened if Germany had kept more Third Reich statues erected.

/s

---

Hornezz posted...

You introduced "talking about", "bringing up", and "joking about" into the discussion. The law doesn't mention those terms at all.

This is disengenious as fuck

"The second amendment says that Americans are allowed to own guns."

"No it doesn't! It says the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed! You're the one that brought 'allowed' and 'own' into this!"

"What does that mean?"

"That Americans are allowed to own guns."

No the law doesn't use the term "Talking about" however it covers talking about.

What kind of nonsense argument of yours is this?

You made the claim they were illegal actions. But before you can provide evidence, it's on me to to quantify your terms for you? Requiring such a ridiculous condition sure sounds like you're trying to dodge the burden of proof.

You can't find any examples of people being convicted for mentioning Nazis because they don't exist. Because you are lying. Put up or shut up.

I can find several but you'll just go "No those are spreading propaganda! not talking about!" and handwave them.

Hence why first I challenge you to quantify the difference (Since the law also doesn't) and you cannot do that.

So I'm not going to waste my time until you remove your lazy pathetic doublethink handwave which you never will.
---

So you're comparing a (completely irrelevant) constitution to a penal code, yet I'm the one being disingenuous? It was clear from your previous posts that you can't tell the difference between the two, even after it's been pointed out to you twice.

Even if there's a supposed vagueness in the law, surely you can find examples of jurisprudence that clarify it, no?

UnfairRepresent posted...

I can find several but you'll just go "No those are spreading propaganda! not talking about!" and handwave them.

"I'm not gonna post evidence because you will disprove it!" lol

Stop lying.


---

Hornezz posted...

So you're comparing a (completely irrelevant) constitution to a penal code, yet I'm the one being disingenuous?

Yes

Even if there's a supposed vagueness in the law, surely you can find examples of jurisprudence that clarify it, no?

No because it's intentionally vague. It has never been clarified just like you right now cannot quantify it. The entire point is to stop the rise of the far right. It's not supposed to be clear cut. It's supposed to be open ended so the government can come down on instigators. That's the entire point, it's a lack of free speech protection.

"I'm not gonna post evidence because you will disprove it!" lol

Covering your eyes and going "lalalalalala" isn't disproving anything
But thank you for proving (yet again) that I am 100% right to call you out on what you were going to do. Say there are no examples, then when presented with examples go "That doesn't count" then claim you "disproved it"

Hence why you can't quantify the law
---