It's quite sad that we still have "Lèse-majesté" and blasphemy laws in Germany in the 21st century :(
This case has created quite a media hype in Germany though, with comedians trying to top each other in violating this law now -- not sure if that's what Erdogan intended... "Nichtlustig" for example: https://www.facebook.com/NICHTLUSTIG/photos/a.186737799993.1...
The other artists are no violating the law though. In making fun of Erdogan trying to act against Böhmermann they are engaging in satire, criticism by exaggeration, which is wholly different and completely legal.
Well maybe they don't go exactly that far, although the Nichtlustig drawing seems to be at a similar level. Dieter Hallervorden calls him a terrorist (ok, that's hardly an insult given his treatment of the Kurds), Sonneborn "the crazy guy from the Bosporus" (and he is looking forward to see the Böhmermann's specific allegations investigated in detail by the German justice system). Mathias Döpfner (a comedian in a very special sense) writes "Ich möchte mich, Herr Böhmermann, vorsichtshalber allen Ihren Formulierungen und Schmähungen inhaltlich voll und ganz anschließen und sie mir in jeder juristischen Form zu eigen machen" (not sure how to translate this correctly.... "I fully agree and with all your insults and I would like to make them my own words in a judicial sense")
tl;dr: That article is severely misrepresenting various realities.
German here:
The dude didn't do satire. He straight-up went on a tirade of insults against Erdogan in a way that contained literally zero satire (i.e. criticism by exaggeration), and was found funny by approximately nobody.
He even declared he knew that what he was doing is illegal but he isn't actually doing it and only reading the "poem" as an "example".
It is obvious to basically everyone here that what he did was roughly equivalent to saying:
"I know it is illegal to call for all people with black skin to be murdered, for example with a speech that would roughly go like this: <insert 5 minutes of hate speech calling for the aforementioned> But what i did is different, see, since this is only an example!"
There are very few germans who're actually opposed to having Böhmermann be hit with the full legal force, since:
Our very first law states that the human dignity shall be inviolable. This means insulting someone without actually engaging in satire can be countered with a law suit, usually punishable with fines. Insulting a high-ranking foreigner representing their nation elevates the punishment to possibly a few years of jail, since suddenly that person is playing with the fate of the rest of Germany while also violating a person's dignity.
Well I am German too, and I am quite opposed. I think Böhmermann did a good job of creating a public discussion about our ancient Lèse-majesté law that should be finally abolished (together with similar blasphemy laws that somehow survived to this day). Also, Erdogan basically called for this by his ridiculous reaction to the Extra3 video.
P.S. Also, what exactly is the difference between the content of the article and your statement except for your added sentiment?
I never said there aren't people who do oppose it. :)
As for that law: Böhmermann could still be sued without it, just not have to worry about a jail sentence. And frankly, i prefer that over having Erdogan express his anger towards Germany differently, which is the whole reason this law exists.
If Erdogan is going to express his anger towards Germany in any way beyond a strongly worded protest, it will backfire. Let him have his hissy fit and ignore him.
If you disagree with the premise of my question and think i asked the same question, then it's fine for you to state that and have a dialogue on that point.
However pretending to answer my question, yet actually answering a completely different question is just very dishonest.
"Inability to control himself"? Sorry, I'm in the US, and I consider a free press to be a right, not something that you're supposed to "control yourself" to avoid "misusing" somehow.
I'll insult whom I please, in public. If I have a job in the media, and that isn't part of my job, I may get fired for it (free speech does not mean that my employer has to give me a platform). Also, others may view me negatively. Other than that, I'll say what I please without fear of consequences.
suddenly that person is playing with the fate of the rest of Germany while also violating a person's dignity.
Is it viewed as a bug or as a feature that a normal citizen can, in the framework of this thinking here, anoint themselves a kind of 'ambassador' for Germany and potentially have real foreign policy and diplomatic impact? And by the way, if that be so, would it not be reasonable to lodge a flurry of protests with the Erdogan's government in response to whatever random hooligans on the streets of Izmir say about Germany or Merkel?
Perhaps a reasonable compromise would be to hold highly conspicuous or famous people making statements in broadcast media to a different standard than ordinary citizens who merely face the chance of accidentally ending up on camera.
Keep in mind, it's not automatically criminal. The insulted person must go to the effort of actually filing a lawsuit to have anything happen, and it's unlikely for that to happen over some random dude talking on the street. The only reason Böhmermann is getting any attention is because he did manage to make it on national TV with this.
As for the questions: With or without the law, someone insulting a foreign dignitary on national TV can have serious diplomatic effects. It's just reality.
As for the second question: In two parts: Insulting the country is not covered by the german law, only direct persons. Further, if Merkel were insulted by whatever a turkish citizen is saying and Turkey has a law allowing her to sue those, then she could do it. If there isn't such a law she'd need to find other ways to deal with her anger if she has any such.
"Insulting a high-ranking foreigner representing their nation elevates the punishment to possibly a few years of jail, since suddenly that person is playing with the fate of the rest of Germany while also violating a person's dignity."
We'd better be very careful what we say about Kim Il Sung in Germany then! Ergodan seems to be running along the same track albeit with some way to go; luckily I'm not German or I'm in trouble.
German here too, everybody I know is behind Jan Böhmermann, both finding it good that he pointed the insanity of these laws, and giving Erdogan the middle finger.
So according to my anecdotal evidence you are actually in the minority with wanting this law enforced.
So how does this difference in our observations come from? Are you from the south or east, where people are typically more conservative? I'm from the north west.
East germany, and my up-bringing wasn't conservative (atheist as hell over here) but focused on taking personal responsibility, being honest and valuing politeness.
Yeah of course, communism doesn't go well with religion.
> responsibility, being honest and valuing politeness
Sorry but it sounds more like an upbringing that make you very conformist. Upholding a law that should have been abolished years ago just because it's a law actually delegates personal responsibility away to a book.
Haha, honestly, sounds like we just differ very fundamentally. There's basically nothing i agree with in how you communicate or what you communicate, so we'll just have to agree to disagree.
What's wrong with calling out the DDR as bad communism?
Socialism is great, Bremen tried to gain independence from Germany several times to found a soviet republic (räterepublik) which sadly failed each time because it was bloodily quelled by the german government.
However the authoritarian totalitarianism practiced by the DDR was completely unacceptable.
It's the same totalitarian attitude of Erdogan (the guy that also funded ISIS and attacked socialist kurds btw) that requires us to resist with everything we have.
And if it means binding his resources and attention with childish insults, then be it so.
> "I know it is illegal to call for all people with black skin to be murdered, for example with a speech that would roughly go like this: <insert 5 minutes of hate speech calling for the aforementioned> But what i did is different, see, since this is only an example!"
If it's not clear, criticising individuals is generally legal, inciting racial hatred is generally not. I'm not sure how the other things you've mentioned are relevant.
Recently, on a related thread, I said "Erdogan playing to the Turkish crowd, he knows that he's not going to get that guy cencored or anything in Germany", sort of (1). Now if he succeeds at getting him processed, I'll indeed be very surprised, and sad for Germany. I hope Germans won't let such a humiliating thing happen.
Although your remark is probably "inappropriate for HN", you remind me of one of my favorite series of TV commercials about some German car. They gently mocked Germans in some areas (like excessive seriousness), then ended with talking about "the things they do well, like German engineering." My mom is German and that series of commercials just had me rolling.
It's sad that the importance of free speech was understood by Socrates and Plato 2,400 years ago, but is still not grasped by so-called "free societies" like Germany.
Does Turkey realise they have basically no hope of joining the EU now? (Not just because of this incident, but all the similar incidents over recent years).
This case has created quite a media hype in Germany though, with comedians trying to top each other in violating this law now -- not sure if that's what Erdogan intended... "Nichtlustig" for example: https://www.facebook.com/NICHTLUSTIG/photos/a.186737799993.1...