Isn’t it dangerous when the state intervenes to control “verbal violence”?
Isn’t it dangerous when the state intervenes to control “verbal violence”?
Isn’t it dangerous when the state intervenes to control “verbal violence,” because when we start to consider words as violence, where does it end?
"Who decides which words are allowed and which are not? Is this the first step towards thought policing?"
Today they are “violent” words and tomorrow they are “dangerous” thoughts.
Where is the freedom of expression that is enshrined in the German Basic Law?
As already reported by MFRadio.de, statements made by German prosecutors in a US documentary by CBS News are causing horror around the world. The TV documentary accompanied US journalists during the so-called "Action Day against Hate Crime on the Internet" - they were there live when apartments were searched and electronic devices such as cell phones and laptops were confiscated.
The reason for these measures? The citizen concerned had spread the "wrong" content on the Internet.
And he is not the only one: all over Germany, citizens are facing legal consequences for sharing cartoons, opinions or other content.
The news channel NIUS has already reported on numerous such cases. Thousands of criminal complaints were filed by politicians from the Greens and the SPD in 2023-24, and Federal Minister of Economics Robert Habeck filed more than 900 criminal complaints.
Habeck demands deletion and monetary compensation
Habeck's ministry also announced that it was pushing for the deletion of comments that were relevant to criminal law and demanding the signing of a cease-and-desist declaration and the payment of monetary compensation. Habeck would donate any payments "minus the costs incurred" - entirely to a non-profit organization, the "Welt" newspaper quoted the ministry as saying.
Habeck told the newspaper that hatred was poisoning the political discourse.
It is intended to intimidate and creates an atmosphere of fear. "
Robert Habeck, Vice Chancellor
" We live in strange times. In times where men can supposedly be women who give birth, children's book authors can be ministers of economics and words can be violence."
Here is a small excerpt of the most well-known reports to give an idea of the statements for which German citizens were searched, sued or convicted:
Habeck as a train station alcoholic:
Robert Habeck reported the journalist Rainer Meyer, alias Don Alphonso, because he felt insulted by a tweet. Meyer had written that Habeck's appearance "did not stand out negatively in a gathering of train station alcoholics". A district court initially sentenced Meyer to a fine of 3,200 euros. However, in the second instance, the Munich regional court ruled that the tweet was covered by freedom of expression.
Robert Habeck reported the journalist Rainer Meyer, alias Don Alphonso, because he felt insulted by a tweet. Meyer had written that Habeck's appearance "did not stand out negatively in a gathering of train station alcoholics". A district court initially sentenced Meyer to a fine of 3,200 euros. However, in the second instance, the Munich regional court ruled that the tweet was covered by freedom of expression.
Habeck as an idiot:
In November 2024, Stefan Niehoff was arrested for calling Economics Minister Habeck an "idiot" in a retweet. The criminal police searched his apartment after he was suspected of incitement. Niehoff was stunned that his freedom of expression resulted in such measures.
In November 2024, Stefan Niehoff was arrested for calling Economics Minister Habeck an "idiot" in a retweet. The criminal police searched his apartment after he was suspected of incitement. Niehoff was stunned that his freedom of expression resulted in such measures.
Student against anti-Semitism:
A student was prosecuted for pointing out the double standards in dealing with hatred of Jews. He had published a cartoon that addressed the different assessments of hatred of Jews. The student was charged with using symbols of unconstitutional organizations.
A student was prosecuted for pointing out the double standards in dealing with hatred of Jews. He had published a cartoon that addressed the different assessments of hatred of Jews. The student was charged with using symbols of unconstitutional organizations.
Ricarda Lang as a steamroller:
In Gmund am Tegernsee, a businessman was visited by the police because he had put up mocking posters about the Greens on his property. One of the posters showed Ricarda Lang sitting on a steamroller, which led to a house search and a fine of around 6,000 euros.
In Gmund am Tegernsee, a businessman was visited by the police because he had put up mocking posters about the Greens on his property. One of the posters showed Ricarda Lang sitting on a steamroller, which led to a house search and a fine of around 6,000 euros.
“Laurel and Hardy” post:
A man from Hesse was reported for a satire about the former Green Party leaders Ricarda Lang and Robert Habeck. The person concerned considers the reaction to be exaggerated and wonders whether we still live in a free society if even humorous satire can lead to criminal charges.
A man from Hesse was reported for a satire about the former Green Party leaders Ricarda Lang and Robert Habeck. The person concerned considers the reaction to be exaggerated and wonders whether we still live in a free society if even humorous satire can lead to criminal charges.
Habeck and the feces emoji:
In April 2023, a man from Saxony-Anhalt commented on a post by Robert Habeck with a feces emoji. This led to a fine of 600 euros for insult. Habeck himself had filed the criminal complaint after he felt his honor was violated by the emoji.
According to a report in the "Welt", Federal Minister of Economics Robert Habeck ( Greens ) has filed hundreds of complaints about so-called hate messages since April 2023. The more than 700 complaints were filed through the ministry and Habeck's parliamentary office, the newspaper writes, citing information also available to the dpa. Habeck is working with specialized law firms and the organization HateAid.
The concept of "non-violent communication" is not about how to interact with one another without using your fists - no, it is about communicating without hurting the other person. In a society that pretends to have freedom of speech, every person has the right to freely express their views, even if they do not please someone else. Hate is an opinion, just like disgust or even what falls under "group-related misanthropy" in left-wing circles.
In April 2023, a man from Saxony-Anhalt commented on a post by Robert Habeck with a feces emoji. This led to a fine of 600 euros for insult. Habeck himself had filed the criminal complaint after he felt his honor was violated by the emoji.
According to a report in the "Welt", Federal Minister of Economics Robert Habeck ( Greens ) has filed hundreds of complaints about so-called hate messages since April 2023. The more than 700 complaints were filed through the ministry and Habeck's parliamentary office, the newspaper writes, citing information also available to the dpa. Habeck is working with specialized law firms and the organization HateAid.
The concept of "non-violent communication" is not about how to interact with one another without using your fists - no, it is about communicating without hurting the other person. In a society that pretends to have freedom of speech, every person has the right to freely express their views, even if they do not please someone else. Hate is an opinion, just like disgust or even what falls under "group-related misanthropy" in left-wing circles.
The limit of what can be said is where what is said no longer represents an opinion but a call to real violence. An anti-Semite can insult me in an anti-Semitic way - that is not violence. If he calls for violence against Jews, however, he is clearly crossing a line. It's actually quite simple.
It becomes dangerous when the state intervenes to control "verbal violence," because when we start to see words as violence, where does it end? Who decides which words are allowed and which are not? That is the first step towards thought policing. Today they are "violent" words, tomorrow they are "dangerous" thoughts. Where does that leave freedom?
It becomes dangerous when the state intervenes to control "verbal violence," because when we start to see words as violence, where does it end? Who decides which words are allowed and which are not? That is the first step towards thought policing. Today they are "violent" words, tomorrow they are "dangerous" thoughts. Where does that leave freedom?
Sources: WELT/NIUS
Author: Thomas Weyermann
