The only reasons we are debating this at all is that nobody likes Erdogan and that the insult was offered by a comedian.
We're debating it because most of HN is in the United States, where people regularly go around saying far worse things about our President than calling him a "goat."
Anyway - Cameron was accused seriously to have received oral sex by the vehicle of a roasted pig just a month ago - and he did the unthinkable - shrug it off. No one was prosecuted in Germany. and i am sure their tabloids reported it.
It of course helped that most people - including those of us who very much would have loved for it to blow up much more than it did - realised that Lord Ashcroft very much had an axe to grind.
Cameron was "insulted" by a whole slew of people that way, considering all the attention the topic got. Erdogan has a single target to go after, legally speaking. And the applicable laws in both cases differ substantially, too.
I've seen people call Obama a monkey, the anti christ, dumbass, marxist, etc.
That was on national TV
Freedom of speech is core to the American political system, tbh I am quite surprised and disappointed to find out Germany is so regressive on speech.
For Merkel to personally get involved and say that the guy should be prosecuted is a hit against freedom of speech in germany, regardless of the outcome.
In this case Merkel was dealt bad cards: A law that should have been removed a long time ago puts the issue on her table. If she had opted to deny consent, it would have been a blow to the principles of separation of powers, the very thing many European governments - including Germany - are criticizing Poland, Hungary and Turkey for violating right now. It would have made her a total hypocrite.
So she has opted to stay out, and taken the opportunity to raise the issue of removing this paragraph.
I wouldnt have come to the same conclusion as Merkel.
And that's exactly as it should be. Free citizens of a free nation have every right to insult anyone they wish.
It's satire, about a political public figure. It's hard to find speech much more protected than that.
Europe does not have free speech. In myriad ways there are restrictions on speech, from prosecution of satire to the reprehensible "Right to be Forgotten" law.
O wouldn't put that in the same category as speech restrictions....
Well, to be pedantic, courts would probably apply more protections to direct political criticism than to mockery of a political figure him/herself. That is, you would receive more protection for: a) "This is a stupid policy that will harm public welfare" than b) "politician X looks like a monkey". But it's close.
Nonsense. Of course it does. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_10_of_the_European_Con... . Eg see [0] for a (successful) ECtHR case in France under A.10 relating to a similar no-insulting-heads-of-state law.
My guess it the only reason this one is still on the books is that it's almost never enforced (though IANAL). The ECHR doesn't examine laws proactively - someone has to bring a case - but then, that's the same as the US (and in the US it's apparently not unusual for legislators to attempt to pass laws they know will be overturned once actually used[1]...)
> In myriad ways there are restrictions on speech
Sure. Same as in the US: [2]. The restrictions in that article seem broadly in the same areas as those in A.10(2).
I'm not denying that US free speech protection is stronger than Europe - lines are drawn in a slightly different place: the US has stronger protection of free speech, Europe has stronger protection of privacy, among other things. But this is a long way from "Europe does not have free speech".
[0] https://www.article19.org/resources.php/resource/2315/en/col...
[1] http://www.mediaite.com/online/tennessee-gov-vetoes-nakedly-...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...
I am not a lawyer though, so take my post for what it's worth.
First, there is the case where we're talking (writing actually) about a person who is not reasonably considered a public figure--just a normal person. In this case the person would have to demonstrate that we wrote something about them that:
1. Caused actual damages to them (e.g. Caused them to lose a job, have their house burned down by an angry mob, etc.) 2. Was false
Writing that Joe Bob embezzles money while high on cocaine might result in him getting fired. Perfectly fine thing to write, assuming it's true. But libel if false and it loses him his job.
Justin Beiber and President Obama, on the other hand have both reasonably sought the limelight and would be considered public figures. For them to win a libel case, they would need to pass another hurdle and prove that what we wrote had malicious intent (i.e. that we expected damages to result from our false, damaging written statements).
To prove the third part is almost impossible. Public figures pretty much never expect to win libel cases.
At least, this is what I learned as an undergrad in a journalism law course.
But, the statement does need to be such that that a reasonable person might believe it to be true.
The deliberation between these freedoms is a matter of the political culture of a society. In Germany the opinion is shifting, and maybe not for the better.
Böhmermanns reaction was... and I am paraphrasing here: "What? You think this was insulting??? Mr. Erdogan, I can show you what an insult looks like, and german courts would regard it as insult:" (... and on this point in the show comes the poem...)
So... was the poem insulting, disgraceful and racist? Sure, in my oponion yes. But you can't look at it without the context, the whole show was trying to make.
It is like comparing Trevor Noah stating on the Daily Show that "of course we all know, Mexicans are racists and we need a wall" vs Trump saying the same thing. The first is comparable to what Böhmerman did (attacking racists, while simultaneously attacking Erdogan on free speech issues re:extra-3), while the later is actually racist slurs. Context matters.
Some might find this humor tasteless and insulting, but in my opinion this is covered by freedom of speech.
So are laws against blasphemy, witchcraft, etc. That doesn't make them at all legitimate in the modern world.
Then why cite the age of a law like them as evidence of the law's legitimacy?
> Though I still see no value in allowing people to call other people "goat f*rs" for sake of a political argument.
That places you in the very dangerous position of deciding what's a valid political argument and what isn't.
> bayesian_horse: Actually, laws against defamation and insults are very old.
> ceejayoz: So are other laws. So what? [paraphrased]
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11504575
> ceejayoz 3 hours ago | [-]
> So are laws against blasphemy, witchcraft, etc.
It hasn't been a problem, because normally, nations which have the respect of the German state to require such prosecution know better than to use it. On the other hand, accusing foreign heads of states of fucking goat on public television isn't exactly something people expected.
Erdogan has ensured that the oppression of his media will stay in European media for months.
>the screws are being tightened on free expression over much of Western Europe these days, not least as concerns potential offense towards a certain easily offended religion
If they did, probably every civil rights movement in the West could have been made illegal simply by the government declaring that the speech is not valuable. Fuck that.
~"That's not an insult, this is an insult: &@##$ @#$@#$."
He said, "&@##$ @#$@#$"! Burn him!
When in context the actual insult was said before then.
In France insults are usually allowed when it's a parodic context (such as in a play, a TV show, a movie or the like).