Once this bullshit is over -abd one day it will- van we please criminalize calling politicians to be locked up? And I’m not talking about your average Lemmy calling for Trumo to be locked up because of too many to count crimes he committed, I’m talking about politicians calling for locking up other politicians only because you don’t like them.
If you have a following, first amendment no longer applies to you, you don’t get to say whatever bullshit that springs up in your head.
Germany has a law against Volksverhetzung; I’m pretty sure that would fall under it. Unfortunately they haven’t been very good at enforcing it, esp. on social media. Yet still some 'muricans screech that we’re against ❄️🍑 and therefore fascist - not understanding why and when that law was implemented.
That law should be applied to anyone with a following of more than 100 people. If you influence more people than you can on a small square then the rules should change and you shouldn’t be allowed to claim whatever shit you want and claim freedom of speech.
Volksverthetzung is about specific protected classes, which don’t include non-religious ideologies (and l’m not sure if “not american” is a specific enough identity either)
Calling for something reasonable after proven evidence is submitted that the person broke the law should not be criminalized, though even with that there is a time and place. Submit that stuff to a court, not to twitter.
Either way, I’m talking about making random unsubstantiated claims or over generalizing claims like “all Jews are evil because they all support genocide” which obviously is bullshit
Coming from a country that has similar laws: it’s about inciting hatred or violence.
Phrased as the previous commenter did, literally making it illegal to say lock them up, might not work.
But.
Saying Trump should be locked up for his crimes is not inciting hate or violence, because he has objectively committed crimes and the courts should do their job thankyouverymuch. Saying AOC should be locked up for made-up crimes based on made-up law is a different matter altogether.
But I’m aware that the US legal system has a looong way to go before it can accomodate for such distinctions.
It is different but do you expect a trial for person A saying person B should be locked up to first hold a mock trial for person B without access or standing to actually do so correctly before they can render a verdict on person A? Objectively unreasonable.
This is also massively prone to abuse. Even creating a plausible context for prosecuting someone creates the potential for effectively punishing critics even if everyone one of them gets off. This is further assuming that they actually get off even if innocent by your standards and mine.
Then there is the simple fact that based on US law this is sufficiently contrary to our laws that it would require a constitutional amendment which would be impossible to pass. It doesn’t matter if it could be passed in your country it certainly couldn’t be passed in this one.
Once this bullshit is over -abd one day it will- van we please criminalize calling politicians to be locked up? And I’m not talking about your average Lemmy calling for Trumo to be locked up because of too many to count crimes he committed, I’m talking about politicians calling for locking up other politicians only because you don’t like them.
If you have a following, first amendment no longer applies to you, you don’t get to say whatever bullshit that springs up in your head.
Germany has a law against Volksverhetzung; I’m pretty sure that would fall under it. Unfortunately they haven’t been very good at enforcing it, esp. on social media. Yet still some 'muricans screech that we’re against ❄️🍑 and therefore fascist - not understanding why and when that law was implemented.
That law should be applied to anyone with a following of more than 100 people. If you influence more people than you can on a small square then the rules should change and you shouldn’t be allowed to claim whatever shit you want and claim freedom of speech.
I’d make those rules a lot stricter as well
Volksverthetzung is about specific protected classes, which don’t include non-religious ideologies (and l’m not sure if “not american” is a specific enough identity either)
This would make it illegally to call for Trump to be locked up for the legitimate crimes has has and is committing and is obviously unconstitutional
No it would not.
Calling for something reasonable after proven evidence is submitted that the person broke the law should not be criminalized, though even with that there is a time and place. Submit that stuff to a court, not to twitter.
Either way, I’m talking about making random unsubstantiated claims or over generalizing claims like “all Jews are evil because they all support genocide” which obviously is bullshit
Coming from a country that has similar laws: it’s about inciting hatred or violence.
Phrased as the previous commenter did, literally making it illegal to say lock them up, might not work.
But.
Saying Trump should be locked up for his crimes is not inciting hate or violence, because he has objectively committed crimes and the courts should do their job thankyouverymuch. Saying AOC should be locked up for made-up crimes based on made-up law is a different matter altogether.
But I’m aware that the US legal system has a looong way to go before it can accomodate for such distinctions.
It is different but do you expect a trial for person A saying person B should be locked up to first hold a mock trial for person B without access or standing to actually do so correctly before they can render a verdict on person A? Objectively unreasonable.
This is also massively prone to abuse. Even creating a plausible context for prosecuting someone creates the potential for effectively punishing critics even if everyone one of them gets off. This is further assuming that they actually get off even if innocent by your standards and mine.
Then there is the simple fact that based on US law this is sufficiently contrary to our laws that it would require a constitutional amendment which would be impossible to pass. It doesn’t matter if it could be passed in your country it certainly couldn’t be passed in this one.
And we’re moving farther from that goal with every decision handed down by our Supreme Court.