-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
"Turkey asks Germany to prosecute comedian over Erdoan poem"
- Thread starter Ladekabel
- Start date
- Status
BrassDragon
Member
Who's the goat now?
Let's hear you bleat, Germany.
Let's hear you bleat, Germany.
Eh, we are not talking here about having to deal with disagreeing opinions or public outrage. We are talking about legal prosecution of satire, which is absolutely a legal restriction on the freedom of speech. And while there are valid reasons for such restrictions, we all agree that the law in this case is bullshit. Just because something is codified as law does not make it right.
The principle of freedom of speech—which is not only a legal and constitutional principle, but also an ethical one—has not been unreasonably violated by Merkel, but by the law. At most, the only thing wrong here is that people are blaming Merkel too much. I agree that Merkel did in principle the right thing. But apart from that detail, it is valid to see a violation of freedom of speech in this entire procedure and complaint about it.
No need to go in full hyperbole mode, thank you.
IdreamofHIME
Member
Time for Merkel to GTFO.
Yes, because the Chinese one isnt satire..it's fucking racist. If China had a float like that with Obama portrayed as a slave US media would want China fucking nuked.
People have "offended" or "ridiculed" foreign leaders all the time over the course of history in Germany. Erdogan is the first one to invoke this law. It's petty and small and laughably bad.
You think the people behind these floats deserve to be proscecuted too?
Yes, because the Chinese one isnt satire..it's fucking racist. If China had a float like that with Obama portrayed as a slave US media would want China fucking nuked.
Merkel does seem to go out on a whimper though.
Are there qualifications or explanations for the rationale of that restriction? If the law permits the government to reject a claim for any reason, then Merkel's agreement to the prosecution does look more debatable indeed.
Sorc3r3r
Member
Smh.
Sorry, but i find this situation extremely dangerous.
The whole migrants situation in here gave way too much power to Erdogan, he knows it, he's using it now and will in the future and the mismanagement of this crisis comes from Merkel policy as most influential european leader, when she has been pressured she has shown all her limits inside and outside Germany.
The fact the government has to give a go is in the law, if I am not mistaken. She would not have put herself above the law by not agreeing.
I'm flabergasted by the bolded part. Offcourse Freedom of Speech does not give you the right to be listened to or for people to agree with you. It does mean that you are free to offer your opinion withouth fearing people who don't agree with you proscecuting you. The fact you can proscecute someone for something he said goes straight against the idea of freedom of speech.
Offcourse, every freedom has it's limits. I am for instance not against anti-racism and hatespeech laws. I am also not against laws stating you can't (with bad intentions) hurt the reputation of someone by spreading lies. (Not sure what the term is in English, but here in Belgium it is called Laster & Eerroof (literally libel & theft of honor). It's something that sometimes goes to courts, and in some cases come to a conviction). But this case is none of those things. It was satire (the irony is, it was satire as a reaction to Erdogan asking to proscecute someone for making a song).
By allowing this to be proscecuted, Merkel and her government gave a very wrong signal to people like Erdogan, who, I must state, aren't actually the best examples of freedom of speech and press in their own country.
MisterFalcon
Member
I think thats a german Rosenmontagswagen.
No.
Wut? That's a satirical carnaval car that shows China in bed with the US (and it also refers to john lennon & yoko ono). It uses caricatures to make a point about the current state of our worlds economy/power, what's racist about it?
Luckily, in a working democracy, a proscecution is neither a judgement nor a prejudgement. It is the purpose of the judicial system to determine wether or not someone has acted unlawful. And I think the german court will rule in favor of the defendant. Which also will give us a precedent, black on white, on paper and official of what satire is allowed to do in germany.
BrassDragon
Member
Article 104 Strafgesetzbuch explicitely states the federal government has to authorize to prosecution.
But even so, people going 'well, it's the letter of the law, nothing you can do but obey the literal text' should seriously think about what their country's values mean to them.
In patently ridiculous cases like this one, the spirit of the constitution should always trump the letter of the law.
This is, above all, a moral issue not a legal one.
CadetMahoney
Member
She already said the poem was "deliberately hurtful" beforehand so that could give us some idea on her thoughts about it.
I am on the wait and see side of this after reading the article. I think the German Court will strike down the prosecutors under the freedom of speech.
Looks like a caricatured version of President Hu Jintao to me. What about it?
Looks like a caricatured version of President Hu Jintao to me. What about it?
Not especially, but the first decade of press over here basically lionized him for his currency and market reform.
I know how proscecution works. I am pretty sure the comic will not be convicted.
But the fact you can be proscecuted for satire is bad enough in itself, regardless of conviction. In a working democracy people should not be liable to proscecution for satire. (Here in Belgium the same law was abolished in 1995 for instance). There should not be a court going over something like this, there should not be a law that makes it possible to proscecute satire.
I'm sorry, but I'm pretty adamant in my opinions about stuff like this. I have the feeling that we are so easily abandoning things we took for granted in our 'fight' against terrorism (which this has loose ties too, as Merkel doesn't want to offend Erdogan because of the refugee crisis). We are slowly giving up our own freedoms, the freedoms we are actually suposed to protect against extremist cunts.
I can do you one better; Obama as a slaver.
The author of this cartoon was not imprisoned, nuked, arrested or proscecuted.
Well, it's a pity that such laws still exists. But they also declared that it would be removed until 2018. Given the current situation though and foreign policy climate, it is comprehensible why it is important to keep good relations with turkey, which means with Erdogan. We're not in a position where it would be clever to decrease our negotian power just to make a point. We're not going to lose any kind of free speech or rights over this.
Given all the circumstences this was the best compromise, and also a very predictive outcome.
Personally of course I'd have loved too see a guy like erdogan had been showed up by merkel, and it would have demonstrated the importance of our core values to the world. And maybe a few years agos, it would have happend like that. But I think turkey right now is too important as a strategic partner in the refugee crisis and the for the war in the middle east, that we cannot afford to officially affront them. And by them I mean Erdogan.
IdreamofHIME
Member
The "China men" hanging out at the back of the float.
But yeah, not racist. That's what Chinese people look like.
Not even the same thing. The outrage a few months back (on this board too) when that Japanese MP said Obama was fortunate he was from slaves is.
Stonewall Cornball
Banned
Germany sure has some really restrictive laws when it comes to criticizing people that deserve to be criticized.
Definitely not moving to Germany anymore.
Definitely not moving to Germany anymore.
To the best of my knowledge, legally speaking, the debate is not whether he should be prosecuted for his satire or not, but rather whether his poem can be classified as satire. If it is found to be satire, there is no case. His speech can be hurtful, but still protected under the constitution as long as it is a form of art.
Your loss when the hyperbole gets you so hard
Fair enough. I understand this story has two sides (like any story) and the truth is always more complicated. But it doesn't make me less angry. I also don't feel like the deal with Turkey is a good one, let alone we have actually a good partner in them in the war against ISIS (as they don't refrain from bombing the Kurdish troops actually fighting ISIS).
I'm also hard pressed to believe the whole refugee deal would fall on behalf of this poem, but I'm not an expert in diplomacy.
Stonewall Cornball
Banned
Um... ???
Uh, it's right there in the OP, mate:
When some shit like that is actually written into your legal code, how is that shit just hyperbole now?
Why would I want to live in a country that doesn't let me talk shit about other countries?
They are dressed up as Chinese and American people to fit in with their satirical float about Obama (USA) and Jintao (China) being in bed with each other. The straw hat is pretty well known from China. The same way as the guy on the left who looked like he was inside a American flag factory when it exploded is pretty well known from America.
If Jintao had bucktooth and extremely slanted eyes I would believe you.
Chairmanchuck
Member
Its not a caricatured version of Hu Jintao. Its a racist version. Imagine Obama would look like this:
That image of Hu Jintao portrays him how the US portrayed asian people 100 years ago. With that strange vietnamese farmer hat and an overbite but only with two teeth.
Sorry. No. Thats usually a vietnamese or burmese thing. I lived in China for over 3 years and my wife is chinese and no one in China is wearing a straw hat.
I mean they even had a South Park episode about that racist stereotype:
_______________________________________________
On topic: Sad state. That law only existed on paper till then. If you read law commentaries on that paragraph you will see that its a relict of the past and even lawyers, judges etc. thought it would never be used again...
A) Its about to go away as already announced
B) The court will most likely dont punish Boehmermann
C) You act as you go to jail as soon as you say something, which is incorrect. Its an ass old obsolete law which wasnt used for decades.
D) Nobody gives a shit what you say because nobody knows that you exist. Do you think honestly think the usual citizen gets punished?
E) Still tons of great advantages like the social system, worker rights, etc
Chairmanchuck
Member
As a law graduate (not sure how to say Jurist in english) I can tell you there are so many laws that need to be removed, but our government simply doesnt care. There are some nice articles by well known lawyers, law professors etc. about this, but our government sadly doesnt care...
The problem is that now Erdogan (his lawyers) found some law that could fit his case. It doesnt matter though, because (at least thats what I hope the judges will do) that they interpret that paragraph historically...
We even have the death penalty in one of our states (Hessen). It's overruled by federal law, but still...
cascardian
Member
So I know I was pretty glib about this in my previous post, but I'm honestly not sure if I would have dealt with this situation differently than Merkel did. It's not the first time comedy caused a diplomatic incident and this was certainly a fine example of that tradition. Once I read about the context in which this poem was presented, I was pretty impressed.
Remember that, as easy as it is to circlejerk about this on the Internet, if you're actually in the position to have to make the decision, you cannot just wash your hands of the diplomatic consequences of your actions. In the first place, it's hard to say whether Erdogan was truly offended or if this was merely an opportunistic attempt to gain political leverage in the on-going refugee politics situation. I wouldn't put it past him.
Outrage is easy, international politics are not. There are larger implications and I see Merkel is hinting at this in her speech. It's easy to see that her position was carefully considered--opposition ministers even advised against it. The truth is simply that Erdogan's request would not have had this much weight were the refugee crisis not involved.
Moreover, leaving it to the German justice system is not as bad a decision as people make it out to be. It is possibly the best way to defuse the situation. Erdogan will hardly be in any position to have leverage when the courts finally tell him to go cry them a river. I imagine this might even significantly backfire on Erdogan and anger the Turkish people (non-AKP voters at least), because he wasted time and resources on a matter of personal vanity via an old law nobody had even thought about in ages.
Thus I invite the outraged people in here to take a step back and think about this more deeply. I understand this can leave a bad taste in your mouth, but to, for example, announce the end of freedom of speech over this in Germany is childish and ignorant. I would be extremely surprised if anything of particular consequence now came of this case.
Remember that, as easy as it is to circlejerk about this on the Internet, if you're actually in the position to have to make the decision, you cannot just wash your hands of the diplomatic consequences of your actions. In the first place, it's hard to say whether Erdogan was truly offended or if this was merely an opportunistic attempt to gain political leverage in the on-going refugee politics situation. I wouldn't put it past him.
Outrage is easy, international politics are not. There are larger implications and I see Merkel is hinting at this in her speech. It's easy to see that her position was carefully considered--opposition ministers even advised against it. The truth is simply that Erdogan's request would not have had this much weight were the refugee crisis not involved.
Moreover, leaving it to the German justice system is not as bad a decision as people make it out to be. It is possibly the best way to defuse the situation. Erdogan will hardly be in any position to have leverage when the courts finally tell him to go cry them a river. I imagine this might even significantly backfire on Erdogan and anger the Turkish people (non-AKP voters at least), because he wasted time and resources on a matter of personal vanity via an old law nobody had even thought about in ages.
Thus I invite the outraged people in here to take a step back and think about this more deeply. I understand this can leave a bad taste in your mouth, but to, for example, announce the end of freedom of speech over this in Germany is childish and ignorant. I would be extremely surprised if anything of particular consequence now came of this case.
I am sure this was removed a couple of months ago, but yes, there are plenty of laws that need to go away
Terrible. Just wrong and terrible.
Plenty of germans talk shit about other countries all the time and Böhmermann is not actually convicted yet so your talk is hyperbole right now.
Paragraph 103 will also very likely get abolished.
She fucking didn't, though. She decided to allow Erdogan to press charges. She decided to make a judgement call by immediately condemning the bit as "intentionally hurtful". She played judge and jury and now the courts are left to play executioner.
Hope the same happens to the Beleidigung and Gotteslaesterungs paragraphs.
Calm the fucn down
You're such an opinion nazi
Dude, you can be sued in Germany for calling someone an idiot.
No, you're factually wrong. The way this law is designed explicitly undermines separation of powers. The government decides what to bring to court.
Chairmanchuck
Member
You can be, but the prosecution along with the court can decide not to go through with it if there is no public interest about that case.
Like in 99% of the cases, so usually nothing happens.
BrassDragon
Member
You make some fair points here but I can't agree with the assessment that Merkel's hands were tied by international politics and/or the letter of the law. There's always room to manoeuvre in diplomacy and high level politics and it's not unreasonable to expect better leadership and creativity from those in the highest offices.
For example, what if the government had formed a committee to advice on the matter before it allowed the prosecution to go forward? Ask a group of experts on law, international relations and philosophy whether: 1) a court case has any chance to reach a conviction, 2) satire/art is exempt from prosecution in this context vis a vis the European Court of Human Rights, 3) if these expressions from a private citizens are truly damaging to international agreements and relations based on many available precedents, 4) Turkish media and political commentators have been universally respectful towards foreign heads of state, particularly those of the USA, Israel, Russia and the Iraqi Kurdish state.
Give them a year to deliberate and have your diplomats explain to Erdoğan that this circumspect procedure will postpone the embarrassment of having a court publicly discuss his alleged penchant for fucking goats.
Not saying the above is the sword to cut a Gordian knot but I'm just trying to demonstrate that a little moral courage, leadership and creativity can go a long way.
I remain convinced that Merkel chose a cowardly path that deserves outrage.
WorriedCitizen
Member
That's exactly what she's trying to do tho. The poem didn't just appear in a vacuum. It was a consequence of the happenings that arose from her kissing the shoes of the dictator from Bosporus to begin with. Now she's going full circle instead of standing up for her people and the values she swore to protect. Don't tell me this is less important then a dubios refugee pact that anyone from left to right disagrees with anyway.
cascardian
Member
You're making a reductionist ad hoc statement that does not reflect the reality of what was and will be happening. To wit, I don't think the judges that'll be assigned would appreciate them being thought of as mere executioners. Sure, I understand your metaphor, but that doesn't make it any more accurate.
Thank you for the thoughtful comment. You might be right, but I think we don't have enough information about the diplomatic process to actually determine whether a course of action like this would be feasible right now. It seems to handwave away the concern of timeliness.
I won't argue that she chose an easy path out. If it was the wrong one, I can't yet say. It doesn't leave that impression on me for now.
Moreover, she might have already asked the opinions of the necessary people--we can probably agree that she didn't make this decision willy-nilly or just by herself. Sure, it wasn't as drawn out or public a process as you propose, but would that sort of thing actually help? I remain sceptical, but I nonetheless appreciate your creativity. I am interested to see how far the courts will go, what amicus briefs will be filed etc.
I'm sorry, but you'll have to help me out here: I thought the comedian was making fun of the abuses of said dictator, not of Merkel making it possible for him to ... do what? Commit the abuses? She wasn't the one who voted for him. What are you trying to say exactly? Sure, her refugee policy deserves a lot of criticism, but what exactly is your specific grievance with the refugee pact that was agreed upon (not that there aren't any, I can see Doctors Without Borders is making a stink about it)? It seems too early to make a big judgement call on it. Let's see whether everybody keeps their promises and whether that upper limit will hold.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked