▲ -82 ▼ Fuhrious Fattie German politician sends Gestapo to arrest person who called her fattie (lemmy.world) submitted 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) by SecretiveSailor@lemmy.world to c/lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world 44 comments fedilink hide all child comments Oh how I wished this was satire, but its real LMAO. Really? You're gonna throw someone in jail just because they called you "fat"? That's real fa(t)cism.
[–] DmMacniel@feddit.org 12 points 10 months ago (1 child) Ah yes of course, we all are just neo-nazis here in Germany. Sod off arsehole and go back to actual fascist USA. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] SecretiveSailor@lemmy.world [S] -10 points 10 months ago (1 child) The nazis engaged in propaganda and punished people who spoke ill against their politicians. This is Nazi behavior. And since we're in modern times, they are "Neo Nazis". Neo means "new". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] DmMacniel@feddit.org 5 points 10 months ago* (1 child) Yeah no, Nazism has a meaning and this ain't it. Especially when you believe that free speech comes with free of consequences. Not even the US constitution says so. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] SecretiveSailor@lemmy.world [S] -9 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 child) Wtf does that mean? "free speech" literally means the ability to air ideas without the threat of violence or persecution. So yes, free speech should come without any legal consequence. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] DmMacniel@feddit.org 6 points 10 months ago (1 child) Wrong. Free speech means that nobody denies you your right to speak and or censoring you. Also that only applies to Congress, that they don't deny you those. And those amendments only apply in your country as other nations have different laws. Here is the actual text, see if there is any word of freedom of consequences: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SecretiveSailor@lemmy.world [S] -5 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 child) Threatening to throw someone in jail if they insult a politician IS a restriction of free speech. How else do you restrict free speech? They can't install blocking devices inside a person's vocal chords that prevents the speech from even occuring. This is like saying speeding is not restricted because people can still push the pedal beyond the speed limit. Of course they can! But there are state enforced consequences for it, which means that speeding is illegal (restricted). permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] DmMacniel@feddit.org 4 points 10 months ago Oh well, I tried and failed, there is no reason to continue trying to argue with you about this. But here is a solution: if a provider can't deal with laws and jurisdiction of other nations, they should make their platform restricted to their respective nation (geofencing, id verification). permalink fedilink source parent
[+] SecretiveSailor@lemmy.world [S] -10 points 10 months ago (1 child) The nazis engaged in propaganda and punished people who spoke ill against their politicians. This is Nazi behavior. And since we're in modern times, they are "Neo Nazis". Neo means "new". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] DmMacniel@feddit.org 5 points 10 months ago* (1 child) Yeah no, Nazism has a meaning and this ain't it. Especially when you believe that free speech comes with free of consequences. Not even the US constitution says so. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] SecretiveSailor@lemmy.world [S] -9 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 child) Wtf does that mean? "free speech" literally means the ability to air ideas without the threat of violence or persecution. So yes, free speech should come without any legal consequence. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] DmMacniel@feddit.org 6 points 10 months ago (1 child) Wrong. Free speech means that nobody denies you your right to speak and or censoring you. Also that only applies to Congress, that they don't deny you those. And those amendments only apply in your country as other nations have different laws. Here is the actual text, see if there is any word of freedom of consequences: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SecretiveSailor@lemmy.world [S] -5 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 child) Threatening to throw someone in jail if they insult a politician IS a restriction of free speech. How else do you restrict free speech? They can't install blocking devices inside a person's vocal chords that prevents the speech from even occuring. This is like saying speeding is not restricted because people can still push the pedal beyond the speed limit. Of course they can! But there are state enforced consequences for it, which means that speeding is illegal (restricted). permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] DmMacniel@feddit.org 4 points 10 months ago Oh well, I tried and failed, there is no reason to continue trying to argue with you about this. But here is a solution: if a provider can't deal with laws and jurisdiction of other nations, they should make their platform restricted to their respective nation (geofencing, id verification). permalink fedilink source parent
[–] DmMacniel@feddit.org 5 points 10 months ago* (1 child) Yeah no, Nazism has a meaning and this ain't it. Especially when you believe that free speech comes with free of consequences. Not even the US constitution says so. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] SecretiveSailor@lemmy.world [S] -9 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 child) Wtf does that mean? "free speech" literally means the ability to air ideas without the threat of violence or persecution. So yes, free speech should come without any legal consequence. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] DmMacniel@feddit.org 6 points 10 months ago (1 child) Wrong. Free speech means that nobody denies you your right to speak and or censoring you. Also that only applies to Congress, that they don't deny you those. And those amendments only apply in your country as other nations have different laws. Here is the actual text, see if there is any word of freedom of consequences: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SecretiveSailor@lemmy.world [S] -5 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 child) Threatening to throw someone in jail if they insult a politician IS a restriction of free speech. How else do you restrict free speech? They can't install blocking devices inside a person's vocal chords that prevents the speech from even occuring. This is like saying speeding is not restricted because people can still push the pedal beyond the speed limit. Of course they can! But there are state enforced consequences for it, which means that speeding is illegal (restricted). permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] DmMacniel@feddit.org 4 points 10 months ago Oh well, I tried and failed, there is no reason to continue trying to argue with you about this. But here is a solution: if a provider can't deal with laws and jurisdiction of other nations, they should make their platform restricted to their respective nation (geofencing, id verification). permalink fedilink source parent
[+] SecretiveSailor@lemmy.world [S] -9 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 child) Wtf does that mean? "free speech" literally means the ability to air ideas without the threat of violence or persecution. So yes, free speech should come without any legal consequence. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] DmMacniel@feddit.org 6 points 10 months ago (1 child) Wrong. Free speech means that nobody denies you your right to speak and or censoring you. Also that only applies to Congress, that they don't deny you those. And those amendments only apply in your country as other nations have different laws. Here is the actual text, see if there is any word of freedom of consequences: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SecretiveSailor@lemmy.world [S] -5 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 child) Threatening to throw someone in jail if they insult a politician IS a restriction of free speech. How else do you restrict free speech? They can't install blocking devices inside a person's vocal chords that prevents the speech from even occuring. This is like saying speeding is not restricted because people can still push the pedal beyond the speed limit. Of course they can! But there are state enforced consequences for it, which means that speeding is illegal (restricted). permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] DmMacniel@feddit.org 4 points 10 months ago Oh well, I tried and failed, there is no reason to continue trying to argue with you about this. But here is a solution: if a provider can't deal with laws and jurisdiction of other nations, they should make their platform restricted to their respective nation (geofencing, id verification). permalink fedilink source parent
[–] DmMacniel@feddit.org 6 points 10 months ago (1 child) Wrong. Free speech means that nobody denies you your right to speak and or censoring you. Also that only applies to Congress, that they don't deny you those. And those amendments only apply in your country as other nations have different laws. Here is the actual text, see if there is any word of freedom of consequences: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SecretiveSailor@lemmy.world [S] -5 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 child) Threatening to throw someone in jail if they insult a politician IS a restriction of free speech. How else do you restrict free speech? They can't install blocking devices inside a person's vocal chords that prevents the speech from even occuring. This is like saying speeding is not restricted because people can still push the pedal beyond the speed limit. Of course they can! But there are state enforced consequences for it, which means that speeding is illegal (restricted). permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] DmMacniel@feddit.org 4 points 10 months ago Oh well, I tried and failed, there is no reason to continue trying to argue with you about this. But here is a solution: if a provider can't deal with laws and jurisdiction of other nations, they should make their platform restricted to their respective nation (geofencing, id verification). permalink fedilink source parent
[–] SecretiveSailor@lemmy.world [S] -5 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 child) Threatening to throw someone in jail if they insult a politician IS a restriction of free speech. How else do you restrict free speech? They can't install blocking devices inside a person's vocal chords that prevents the speech from even occuring. This is like saying speeding is not restricted because people can still push the pedal beyond the speed limit. Of course they can! But there are state enforced consequences for it, which means that speeding is illegal (restricted). permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] DmMacniel@feddit.org 4 points 10 months ago Oh well, I tried and failed, there is no reason to continue trying to argue with you about this. But here is a solution: if a provider can't deal with laws and jurisdiction of other nations, they should make their platform restricted to their respective nation (geofencing, id verification). permalink fedilink source parent
[–] DmMacniel@feddit.org 4 points 10 months ago Oh well, I tried and failed, there is no reason to continue trying to argue with you about this. But here is a solution: if a provider can't deal with laws and jurisdiction of other nations, they should make their platform restricted to their respective nation (geofencing, id verification). permalink fedilink source parent
