It would still make zero sense if he wrote in chalk on a sidewalk in Berlin. Government suppression of speech always makes zero sense and is always wrong, whatever the jurisdictional issues might be.
I agree it's wrong, but how does it make "zero sense" for a country to enforce the laws that have been duly and legally enacted? Isn't that a feature of national sovereignty?
A homeowner in Seattle wrote in chalk outside a judge's house on the sidewalk during the foreclosure crimes of 2008. The Court sent the U.S. Marshalls to houses of homeowners who were defending their homes in court. The words, apparently, we not threatening any violence toward the judiciary.
I have another angle on that. In addition to free speech, we here in the US (also uniquely) enjoy a statutory protection for possession of firearms. And I possess over 100 of them. However, if I was caught in Germany with an AR-15 and prosecuted, I wouldn't be very surprised, and I would expect to see very few expressions of sympathy or surprise from, well, from anyone (hell, I can't even take an AR-15 fifteen miles up the road into California).
The only reason I have so many guns is because I live in the US. If I lived in, say, France (where I once attempted to emigrate) I wouldn't have any guns at all, probably.
And I would be much more careful about what I posted on the Internet.
Again, if you had an AR-15 in Germany that would be a PHYSICAL thing. What this American did was post to the international internet company based in the U.S.........just words. Nothing physical, not a German tweet. Not a German company.
IтАЩm sorry, but IтАЩm really having trouble understanding your objection. What difference does тАЬphysicalтАЭ make? What if he had posted child porn? What if he had emailed explicit threats of violence?
I completely agree that the German law about Nazi symbology is an unambiguous and counterproductive restriction on speech and would never fly in the U.S. because of the first amendment. And I agree furthermore that this particular application of it is counter to the original intent of the law, and is an attempt to stifle speech that is counter to the preferred narrative for reasons completely unrelated to that original intent, and it is selective prosecution to boot in light of the array of similar uses of the symbology described in this post. Shame on them for that.
But WTF is this business about whether the violation is тАЬphysicalтАЭ?
He's an American citizen posting to an American website. What about that is German jurisdiction? Same with the U.S. trying to prosecute Assange. Assange is not subject to U.S. law. He's an Australian posting to a website. Nothing to do with the U.S. other than exposing U.S. secrets.
What the hell does Germany have jurisdiction over an American website?
WAHomeowners тАФ Germany has jurisdiction over any person who lives in Germany, and CJ Hopkins lives in Germany. ThatтАЩs how Germany has jurisdiction. In addition, HopkinsтАЩs post was aimed at a German government official. I think itтАЩs pretty obvious Germany has jurisdiction. Hopkins himself has commented here and I donтАЩt see him questioning GermanyтАЩs jurisdiction over him.
Whoa. The EU has regulations regarding all online speech generated by those living in the EU. Providers, like Twitter (X), are NOT allowed to allow anything on its network that runs afoul of their rules. If found guilty they are required to fork over a large %, I believe it's 15% of world-wide revenue. This is how countries can use social media providers to be their voice and not the individuals.
I know. But in very narrow circumstances, and I suspect the rules are different for foreigners (as they are here). Anyway, if I showed up at Munich Airport with an AR-15 in my luggage, things would not go well for me. Which is why I won't take an AR-15 to Germany (or even California).
A Dutchman who is smoking pot in Alabama is doing so in the real world. Posting tweets is on the internet and not out in public. It makes zero sense.
It would still make zero sense if he wrote in chalk on a sidewalk in Berlin. Government suppression of speech always makes zero sense and is always wrong, whatever the jurisdictional issues might be.
I agree it's wrong, but how does it make "zero sense" for a country to enforce the laws that have been duly and legally enacted? Isn't that a feature of national sovereignty?
Yes, but one would hope that the laws would be transparent and evenly applied.
Here comes the 'transparent' word?
A homeowner in Seattle wrote in chalk outside a judge's house on the sidewalk during the foreclosure crimes of 2008. The Court sent the U.S. Marshalls to houses of homeowners who were defending their homes in court. The words, apparently, we not threatening any violence toward the judiciary.
If the facts are as you described, that made zero sense and was wrong.
It's still illegal.
I have another angle on that. In addition to free speech, we here in the US (also uniquely) enjoy a statutory protection for possession of firearms. And I possess over 100 of them. However, if I was caught in Germany with an AR-15 and prosecuted, I wouldn't be very surprised, and I would expect to see very few expressions of sympathy or surprise from, well, from anyone (hell, I can't even take an AR-15 fifteen miles up the road into California).
The only reason I have so many guns is because I live in the US. If I lived in, say, France (where I once attempted to emigrate) I wouldn't have any guns at all, probably.
And I would be much more careful about what I posted on the Internet.
Again, if you had an AR-15 in Germany that would be a PHYSICAL thing. What this American did was post to the international internet company based in the U.S.........just words. Nothing physical, not a German tweet. Not a German company.
IтАЩm sorry, but IтАЩm really having trouble understanding your objection. What difference does тАЬphysicalтАЭ make? What if he had posted child porn? What if he had emailed explicit threats of violence?
I completely agree that the German law about Nazi symbology is an unambiguous and counterproductive restriction on speech and would never fly in the U.S. because of the first amendment. And I agree furthermore that this particular application of it is counter to the original intent of the law, and is an attempt to stifle speech that is counter to the preferred narrative for reasons completely unrelated to that original intent, and it is selective prosecution to boot in light of the array of similar uses of the symbology described in this post. Shame on them for that.
But WTF is this business about whether the violation is тАЬphysicalтАЭ?
He's an American citizen posting to an American website. What about that is German jurisdiction? Same with the U.S. trying to prosecute Assange. Assange is not subject to U.S. law. He's an Australian posting to a website. Nothing to do with the U.S. other than exposing U.S. secrets.
What the hell does Germany have jurisdiction over an American website?
Germany has jurisdiction over people living in Germany.
WAHomeowners тАФ Germany has jurisdiction over any person who lives in Germany, and CJ Hopkins lives in Germany. ThatтАЩs how Germany has jurisdiction. In addition, HopkinsтАЩs post was aimed at a German government official. I think itтАЩs pretty obvious Germany has jurisdiction. Hopkins himself has commented here and I donтАЩt see him questioning GermanyтАЩs jurisdiction over him.
"Nothing to do with the U.S. other than exposing U.S. secrets."
Very, very funny.
Whoa. The EU has regulations regarding all online speech generated by those living in the EU. Providers, like Twitter (X), are NOT allowed to allow anything on its network that runs afoul of their rules. If found guilty they are required to fork over a large %, I believe it's 15% of world-wide revenue. This is how countries can use social media providers to be their voice and not the individuals.
BTW, besides the point, but an AR-15 is legal in Germany if you have a hunting license or if your using it for sport.
I know. But in very narrow circumstances, and I suspect the rules are different for foreigners (as they are here). Anyway, if I showed up at Munich Airport with an AR-15 in my luggage, things would not go well for me. Which is why I won't take an AR-15 to Germany (or even California).
NO it is not!