A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
The ruling is seen by some as a blow to Germany's fight against right-wing extremism, although for others it could be proof of the country's high standards of free speech.
Yes, nothing says free speech like repressing pro-Palestinian demonstrators under vague security rationales.
A truly laughable proposition
Assholes should be allowed to publish media, too.
For almost any topic there is a group who wants to ban it, because they don't like it. Lets please everyone. And In the end there is nothing left.
I mean we can't allow everything. But there needs to be a good reason, backed by a law and a judge's verdict.
That's not the point tho. In Germany, to prevent another dictatorship, there are laws that forbid going against the constitution, which also guarantees free speech and the right to a personal opinion (Art 5). This medium is constantly publishing unconstitutianal propaganda and sometimes even trying to incite coups that would lead to abolishment of the constitution. So they are actually attacking free speech among other freedoms, like equality and religious freedom.
The Bundesverwaltungsgericht says no. And constitutional scholars state that one has to endure uncomfortable and ugly opinions (Freiheit Tag und Nacht aushalten, goes the saying, I heard.)
It is stated that hate speech and anti-constitutional tendencies are protected under free speech as long as they are not personal insults or Incitement to ethnic or racial hatred. The Bundesverwaltungsgericht came to the verdict, that compact didn't do that, I guess? My last data point stems from a comment by Tilmann Steffen in die Zeit about the begin and the goals of the trial.
To be clear, I'm worried about the current up-rise of right wing parties and groups in Europe (and about the success of the politians who make these extremist statements their own, to gain influence). But I wouldn't want to ignore constitutional rights to protect the constitution.