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.
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.
I’m sorry, but I’m really having trouble understanding your objection. What difference does “physical” 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 “physical”?
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 — Germany has jurisdiction over any person who lives in Germany, and CJ Hopkins lives in Germany. That’s how Germany has jurisdiction. In addition, Hopkins’s post was aimed at a German government official. I think it’s pretty obvious Germany has jurisdiction. Hopkins himself has commented here and I don’t see him questioning Germany’s 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.
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.
I’m sorry, but I’m really having trouble understanding your objection. What difference does “physical” 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 “physical”?
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 — Germany has jurisdiction over any person who lives in Germany, and CJ Hopkins lives in Germany. That’s how Germany has jurisdiction. In addition, Hopkins’s post was aimed at a German government official. I think it’s pretty obvious Germany has jurisdiction. Hopkins himself has commented here and I don’t see him questioning Germany’s 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.