Politician Forces German Wikipedia Off the Net

Stephan Schulz writes "A German Member of parliament for a left-wing party, Lutz Heilmann, has obtained a preliminary injunction against the local chapter of the Wikimedia foundation, Wikimedia Deutschland e.V., forbidding the forwarding of the popular http://wikipedia.de to the proper http://de.wikipedia.org. Apparently Heilmann is not happy with the fact that his Wikipedia article (English version) contains information on his work for the former GDR Stasi, the much-hated internal secret service. Wikimedia Germany displays a page explaining the situation, and has announced that it will file an objection to get the injunction lifted. The German Wikipedia has more than 800,000 pages, and is hosted, like all Wikimedia projects, by the Florida-based Wikimedia Foundation, and hence beyond the effective reach of at least German politicians and judges."

Comments

Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[Opportunist]

She knows how well that works.

Frankly, I am living close to Germany and until now I didn't know that guy. Ok, I'm not the leftmost person on this planet, but maybe he just wasn't that important. Now, though, I do. And I know that he's probably not the nicest person to be around.

I also wonder how many have considered voting for his party and now, learning about this and what kind of people are inside it, won't touch it.

Not to mention that, if you really insist, you can still choose a different copy of Wikipedia to get information about him. Ok, granted, not in German, but is there anyone in Germany using the internet and NOT able to read English?

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[Brian Gordon]

I don't think anyone's really surprised that this came out of Germany. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_Federal_Republic_of_Germany
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Germany#Freedom_of_Speech
It's scary really. I said only a few days ago that I would never visit or stop over in Germany.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[lukas84]

It's the same in almost every European state - most anti racism laws undermine Free Speech.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[Brian Gordon]

But wikipedia.de (which presumably is the one that the general public of Germany is familiar with) doesn't, and it's not even allowed to link to de.wikipedia.org

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[ushering05401]

First the security tools, now this... I used to want to emigrate to Germany.

Instead of having national moments of silence to commemorate calamity after the fact, how about we do it before, like now.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[MichaelSmith]

wikipedia.org links to de.wikipedia.org on the front page.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[corsec67]

most anti racism laws undermine Free Speech.

Could you have a anti-racism law that doesn't undermine free speech?
One of the basic premises of free speech is that offensive speech should be allowed.

A big part of anti-racism laws is to prevent offensive speech as it relates to race, right?

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[Anonymous Coward]

In fact, any google search returns de.wikipedia.org sites. You'd never notice wikipedia.de is down.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[Tubal-Cain]

wikipedia.de seems to be explaining the situation on it's home page (or it's telling a funny joke--I don't read German), so any Germans that don't know about de.wikipedia.org yet will soon enough.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[Brian Gordon]

Well of course; laws saying that you can't discriminate when hiring don't undermine free speech, though that same employer should be able to have a ferociously racist personal blog. But the point lukas84 is making is that anti-racist-speech laws violate free speech and are bad laws.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[HappySmileMan]

Hitler wasn't really that left wing, he had some left wing policies but overall I'd definitely not call him left-wing.

Olame-a "I'll give everyone 5000$" is trying to do the same in America.

oicwutudidthar, how clever, I'm sure you've influenced everyone's vote for 2012, now that we know that he is both lame and trying to emulate Hitler/Stalin/Mao, you're proof of his plans for genocide are very convincing.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[lukas84]

Well, the whole McCainObama Election thing was very interesting to watch from here (Switzerland).

I'll have to admit that i didn't particularly like McCain, but Obama seemed worse - he wants to introduce most of the problems Europe has to the US, which so far i saw as a better country as they didn't seem to make the same mistakes as most European countries (they made others, of course).

The problem that seems to be the same here and in the US is that politics is more often steered into the subjective "People" direction than an objective "Policies" direction.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[HappySmileMan]

A big part of anti-racism laws is to prevent offensive speech as it relates to race, right?

Well yes, but I for one think that it's stupid, they should be about stopping violence and discrimination, not someone making nigger jokes.
Of course once you try to stop violence people claim you must stop "incitement to violence", which is a blanket term they use for nigger jokes and using the word "black" instead of "coloured".

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[Alex Belits]

anti-racist-speech laws violate free speech

True.

and are bad laws.

Not necessarily so. Elevating free speech over other rights is a part of American ideology, however it is not universally accepted, certainly not in Europe or Asia.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[Artraze]

>> most anti racism laws undermine Free Speech.
> A big part of anti-racism laws is to prevent offensive speech as it relates to race, right?

Right, but another big part is preventing discriminatory actions, like not hiring someone because of their race. Also, hate crime legislation (where the punishment is escalated if the victim's race plays a prominent factor). I can't see either of these as being protected speech. Thus, the 'most'.

(Incidentally, I would personally say that very few anti racism laws actually undermine free speech. Especially since it only takes a couple laws to cover all speech related racism, and lots more to cover all the other cases.)

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[Anonymous Coward]

Not necessarily so. Elevating free speech over other rights is a part of American ideology, however it is not universally accepted, certainly not in Europe or Asia.

I wouldn't really attribute it to regions, and instead to groups.

Left-Wing prefers to undermine peoples freedoms for "the good cause", like in this case, morality. Without considering the impect.

Right-Wing prefers individual freedoms over the hissy-fits of a a few minorities. Like drawings of certain prophets, or jokes about our strongly pigmented fellow men.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

Actually the anti-racism laws are used to suppress certain political viewpoints. They're not used against individuals, but mostly against political parties.

Or at least that's the case here. This was obvious before any such law was passed, but the lefties were in power.

For example associating "socialism" with "national-socialism". THEN they will invoke said laws. Associating islam, an ideology stating DIRECTLY that "there must always be war" with war, that will get those laws invoked. An ideology with hate spewing mosques everywhere, the ideology of the most hate filled and intolerant places on this earth, complaining about that, that will get "anti-hate" laws invoked.

Saying some unpopular group should get killed, like saying Americans should get slaughtered in Iraq, and another few 9/11's should happen, will be protected as "free speech" until death.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[lukas84]

preventing discriminatory actions

Something which, in many cases, is just not possible a pure hippie mindfuck.

Let's assume we have a small business owner with a 5 employees. He wants to hire a 6th. He'll never hire someone whom he dislikes because of race, so why not allow him to write that down?

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[lukas84]

Switzerland still exists.

But they are starting to ban pornography on ALL mobile phones here (wonder how that works on internet enabled smartphones) and of course violent video games.

It's all downhill from here. The hippies are winning :)

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[narcberry]

I dunno, Hitler may have said he was a socialist, but he didn't throw very many parties. I'd say he wasn't a people person, but I did not know him personally.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[Jerry]

For Americans "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech,"

abridge /brd/ [uh-brij]
-verb (used with object), abridged, abridging.
1. to shorten by omissions while retaining the basic contents: to abridge a reference book.
2. to reduce or lessen in duration, scope, authority, etc.; diminish; curtail: to abridge a visit; to abridge one's freedom.
3. to deprive; cut off.

Defining someone else's utterance or writing as "hate" speech (politically incorrect) and then outlawing it is an example of abridgment, which destroys freedom of speech. That political expediency can be abused by some other group which may happen to gain power to make illegal those who, for example, publicly state that God does not exist, thus silencing YOUR freedom of speech.

A similar farce exists in China, where freedom of speech and religion are guaranteed under their constitution but not respected by those in power, so people are regularly fined and/or imprisoned for speaking against the government or for practicing a religion not recognized by the party in power.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[IceMonkiesForSenate]

Using that logic North Korea is a democracy. After all, what does DPRK stand for? What Hitler created was not socialist, or communist. In fact he hated those forms of government (part of the reason he attacked Russia in the first place). Germany during the late 30's and 40's was a fascist regime, as was Italy. Yes, Hitler's rhetoric talked of social justice, but that was what he did to get himself into power. The Germans of the time were willing to follow him because of his message of hope. In the end the NAZI party did nationalize some of the countries industry (a socialist move for sure), but to say that Hitler was a socialist is a corruption of the word. Facisim != Socialism

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[BobNET]

Did you know that North Korea real name is the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea".

The longer a country's name is, the less likely it is to be true...

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[Captain Splendid]

Oh right ... it translates to "socialist".

Both Hitler and yourself can keep calling him and the nazi party socialist all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that the country was run pretty much as a Totalitarian regime focused on unilateral warfare, hyper-patriotism and strong law & order credentials, which is about as far from socialism as you can get.

Thanks for playing!

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[flnca]

Associating islam, an ideology stating DIRECTLY that "there must always be war" with war, that will get those laws invoked.

It's because not all Muslims are supportive of war, and they'll be the first to feel offended when hearing something like that.

An ideology with hate spewing mosques everywhere, the ideology of the most hate filled and intolerant places on this earth, complaining about that, that will get "anti-hate" laws invoked.

You should do some research into how many Muslim preachers have been imprisoned for inciting hatred against other people, and how many are under surveillance by the Constitution Protection.

Saying some unpopular group should get killed, like saying Americans should get slaughtered in Iraq, and another few 9/11's should happen, will be protected as "free speech" until death.

That would also constitute incitement of hatred. BTW, I live in Germany and have never heard anyone saying something like that. The USA is still immensely popular in Germany.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[HappySmileMan]

And the GDR was called the German Democratic Republic. That must mean it was a democratic republic right?

I wouldn't called extreme racism, homophobia etc. left-wing.

There's also the matter of his constant public speeches about how the left-wing movements were Jewish attempts to topple him and how socialists must be destroyed for Germany to prevail.
He arrested all trade union leaders and enforced a pay freeze on all workers.
Of course he did claim prior to the election that we would do just the opposite and give workers more control, but dishonesty seemed to be one of his faults.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[harmonica]

Say, that word, nazi, what does it mean again ? Oh right ... it translates to "socialist".

They weren't socialists even though they called themselves that.

Transferring ownership of means of production exclusively to the state and then creating "social justice", the central part of the nazi policy, what's that according to you ?

Left or right ?

That wasn't a central (or any) part of the Nazi policy. The Nazis forced companies in some cases to go along with their needs, esp. during the war, but they weren't against private property. Some rich industrials were responsible for sponsoring the Nazi party early on--they wouldn't have done that for "socialists".

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi#Nazi_economic_policy

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[rugatero]

Remember the rule that 19 out of 20 computer users are pathetically systems-illiterate.

Be that as it may, de.wikipedia.org is still very easy to find.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[flnca]

I don't think anyone's really surprised that this came out of Germany. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_Federal_Republic_of_Germany http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Germany#Freedom_of_Speech It's scary really. I said only a few days ago that I would never visit or stop over in Germany.

These laws are necessary. Had they not existed after WWII, the Commies or the Nazis would've eaten Western Germany for breakfast. Besides, the Axis Powers have had a say in the design of Basic Law (Grundgesetz). Nonetheless, without those laws, we would've seen both right-wing and left-wing extremists in parliament. Thankfully, we were spared, thanks to the laws. Those parties should realize that protecting democracy is a noble goal. We do not want any dictatorship ever again. We had enough of that, I guess.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[the_other_chewey]

Germany serves as a reminder of what will happen to a country if you vote far-left too long.

Uhhh... what?

The head of state (and the chancellor) are from what is considered the center right. Far-left parties
never were in power. And last I checked, Germany was doing a lot better in this financial meltdown than
the US (which doesn't mean they are doing incredibly well, just a lot better).

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Say, that word, nazi, what does it mean again ? Oh right ... it translates to "socialist".

It doesn't "translate" it is a contraction for "National Socialist."

Here's an interesting quote for you - "Nazism makes out is is subversive. The most terrible white terror against people and socialism the world has ever seen takes on a socialist disguise. To this end its propaganda must develop a revolutionary facade with trappings of the Paris Commune."

Looks like their pseudo-revolutionary cover suckered you right in, even 60 years later.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[mustafap]

>Left-Wing prefers to undermine peoples freedoms for "the good cause"

>Right-Wing prefers individual freedoms over the hissy-fits of a a few minorities

Nice balanced argument. You're a 14 year old idiot, aren't you?

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[mustafap]

>so people are regularly fined and/or imprisoned for speaking against the government

Are you aware that there is a difference between speaking out against a government, and speaking out against a race?

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[flnca]

He wants to hire a 6th. He'll never hire someone whom he dislikes because of race, so why not allow him to write that down?

Because that would be very popular among his racist buddies, and then, bam! Nazi Germany once more. In fact, in the former GDR regions, companies of racists do already exist, and they spread like wildfire in some regions. This must be stopped as soon as possible. But I guess, they are already under surveillance by the Constitution Protection. We don't want a second Nazi Germany. And you neither, I guess.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[DiniZuli]

I'm from Denmark.
Compared to many people from USA (not all), the majority of people in Denmark are "socialists" (again not everyone). All parties that we can vote for - even the ones we place on the far right on our own political scale, would belong among the democrats in USA. Nearly all political parties in Denmark, would be called leftish in USA. It has been like this for many many decades and I would say that we are doing pretty well, with our national health care system, common wealth, education, etc., etc. - I would even say we are doing better than USA. In Denmark, Nazis, racists and the like are almost always placed on the far right on the political scale.
Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Mao and others like them, might have SAID that they were socialists and making leftish policies. But they weren't/didn't. They were not anywhere near it. They would like people to think so - and I can see they even got to some of you too. A shame.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[smidget2k4]

Hate speech is generally more than "politically incorrect." Usually hate speech is defined as being intended to incite violence against someone. For example, if I gave a speech and used an ethnic slur for each group of people I talked about, sure, I'd be in bad taste, but it wouldn't be hate speech. Now, if I gave that same speech minus the ethnic slurs, but was rallying the crowd and telling them they should kill these groups, that would be hate speech.

It is the same idea as not being able to yell fire in a crowded theater. You have the freedom of speech until it harms someone else.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[rtb61]

You are obviously terribly confused. A political party is defined by it's actions not by the labels it chooses to advertise under. So the German Nazi party was far right, as private corporations functioned and profited during that whole period. All the arms manufacturers were private none of them where nationalised, citizens retained private ownership of resources and assets (at least the single group approved of by the party).

As for any associations with the intelligentsia, I see you have failed to hear of junk science, people who basically will trade upon their qualifications and say or write what ever they are paid to say or write. Technically Bill Ayers in his youth put forward his own opinions and with the impatience of youth expressed them in a questionable manner, behaviour which he had long since matured out of.

Now as for the whole gamut of right and left political bias, technically in a global sense the US does not have a leading left wing political party as the democrats and centre right and the republicans are far right, to see actual centre left political parties in action running countries you have to look overseas, Canada, Australia, England, etc. The outer edges of right and left politics has always demonstrated itself to be destructive, a grand deceit based upon propaganda and lies to empower and enrich a minority at the expense of the majority, from Hitler and Stalin, to Bush and Cheney, some of course are far more destructive than others but they have all been equally self serving and, any limits upon their actions have been forced upon them by outside influences rather than their own consciences.

A good indication of how centre a party is defined by it's willingness and hence the politicians of the parties willingness to be open to criticism, open to questions and open to ideas and not resorting to censorship to protect the facade they have created to hide their true nature.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[ronocdh]

Say, that word, nazi, what does it mean again ? Oh right ... it translates to "socialist".

I hate to nitpick, but it actually would translate to "National." The party name was the Nationalsozialisten, which translates, obviously, as "national socialists."

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[jellomizer]

Fix the problem by not talking about it, yea that works.
By making racist speech illegal all it does is hide all the racist people in society, they are still racist still finding their racist niches, and still can be dangerous. All it does is trying to force people to ignore the problem then actually confronting it.
Hey if you know the guy is a racist then you have a decision to associate yourself with him or not and accept the consequences for the actions. But if you don't you can much easier be seduced.

Also it creates a taboo with the hate just gets deferred somewhere else.
Ok Color of the skin is out, as well as religion. However you can still get people with disabilities, or education, smarts, choice in dress, types of music you listen to, the Operating Systems you prefer to use at home, what text editor you use.....
Silence doesn't fix the problem it defers it.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[the_other_chewey]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_Federal_Republic_of_Germany [...]
It's scary really. I said only a few days ago that I would never visit or stop over in Germany.

Yes, totally scary. Excerpt from the above link: "According to the Reporters Without Borders Press Freedom Index, however, Germany is currently ranked 20th in the world in terms of press freedom."

I had a look at that list

A couple of entries (completly biased and handpicked), just to put this into perspective:

• 1 Iceland
• 18 Canada
• 32 Taiwan
• 44 Israel (Israeli territory)
• 47 Nicaragua
• 48 United States of America

• ...

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[ozbird]

The longer a country's name is, the less likely it is to be true...

"United States of America" - hmm, I think you're on to something.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[Atlantis-Rising]

So, since we're working from a dictionary interpretation, then, Congress should feel itself free to create laws abridging the freedom to express one's self in text, or on the internet, or..?

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[flnca]

The message at wikipedia.de explictly states "we're not allowed to link to de.wikipedia.org", hence anyone with half a brain can simply type the other address into the browser.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

*sigh* Conveniently forgetting that I did NOT, in fact, claim the similarity was only in name ...

Care to answer the "policy" part too ? There is more of a match between nazi's and socialists than merely the name.

More than enough people "switched" from socialism to nazism. That's because it wasn't a switch at all.

More than enough policies by the nazi's are still pushed by lefties today. That's because they ARE "progressive" policies.

Nazism, like socialism today, was a youth movement that played amongst young people and on university campuses, with MUCH less support in the general population.

The leader of the nazi party, adolf hitler, was, like socialists today, hailed as a "man of peace", a man of "social justice" all over the world, europe, america even the fucking middle east, right up until the second year of world war 2. He was even nominated for a nobel peace prize. He even had the leader of the islamic world visit him to help rally muslims into the SS (you see the muslims had no problems with that whole killing Jews thing). ...

Germany during the late 30's and 40's was a fascist regime, as was Italy. Yes, Hitler's rhetoric talked of social justice, but that was what he did to get himself into power

People keep saying that about every last lefty leader. Today Chavez, Kim Joung Il. Or even the child-killer called Che Guevara.

The problem is not that those people have bad intentions. The problem is that lefty politics enable them. It's really simple : lefty politics -> everybody money for nothing -> nobody works anymore (gradual process), except for ideological reasons, in the army or whatever movement they have -> nothing gets produced anymore -> not even food -> politicians "divide" the food (and everything else) amongst the "most worthy" (themselves) -> millions die

Fascim = Socialism = a central state controlling the economy, the people, everything

And yes, that's not to say that socialism in a state, which is called communism, doesn't differ in a few details from "national-socialism". But the basic principle for running the state is the same.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[flnca]

The hippies are winning :)

Read up on history, man. The hippies were those that brought you pornography and freedom of sexuality in the first place.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

You mean like the USSR ? Lefty politics necessitate totalitarianism. After all, by default people trade. Communism and socialism can only be imposed by force of arms, unlike capitalism.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[dcollins]

Have you noticed, in the US in the last 8 years: (1) inability to protect us from terrorist attack, (2) war against the wrong country, (3) inability to win that war, (4) new torture centers, (5) widespread spying on our own people, (6) corruption of our agencies dedicated to science and oversight, (7) corruption of agencies trying to protect us from disastrous hurricanes et. al., (8) infiltration of religious principles into our government, (9) commencement of holding people in prison forever without a trial, (10) destruction of our financial system?

To me, this looked like the very first election that was actually about policies instead of personalities in my ~40 years in the US. Note that Democrats (Obama's party) also won many Congressional and Senate seats across the board, so it's clearly not just about one person's personality.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

As long as those minorities aren't into any of that icky gay stuff... A fairly small slice of the right are actual libertarians, most of the rest are just authoritarians or theocrats who happen to hate taxes.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[Meumeu]

Germany serves as a reminder of what will happen to a country if you vote far-left too long.

Let me guess... it becomes the richest country of its continent?

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[Zibri]

Yes, it's actually states in North Africa, which struggles each other.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

In this case, it's even better than the Streisand effect. Consider, if somebody accuses you of being a creepy authoritarian prick, censoring him is, perhaps, not the most effective of rebuttals.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[im_thatoneguy]

The flat tax includes "rebates" which means after all the rebates get added back on everybody pays the same amount as under an income tax system. Wow! What an amazing revolution? Start from scratch in order to get back to where it started... no that's not right.... it's because in the middle of the switch we magically make an additional 40% in revenue while cutting the tax rate dramatically on the wealthy (Just like Bush's tax cuts... wait...).

It's a slight of hand and it's a perpetual motion machine in disguise. We need a 2nd law of thermodynamics analogy for the economy.

Anyway two problems with your two problems. First your problem with the income tax system could be fixed easily. Progressive but non-stepped tax system. Fine. Take out brackets I don't care. If you work 35 hours vs 40 hours. It should be more linear not jumpy. I agree. But that doesn't mean you have to take out the progressive curve on taxation.

Second "education". There are only two choices. Education without standards and Education with standards. You can't have education with mandatory standards and benchmarks but also propose children learn whatever the fuck the teacher feels like. Hence STATE mandatory guidelines.

I know I don't expet an AC to actually understand the things they talk about but you can't fault the federal government for working towards totalitarianism when the thing you complain about isn't even overseen by the federal government.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[dogmatixpsych]

Stalin, Lenin, and Mao were leftish. They were socialists, they didn't just say that they were. Communism and socialism are "leftish" ideologies. Fascism is on the other end of the spectrum. The main thing that Hitler and the other 3 had in common was the fact that they were dictators and were all extremists.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[Captain Splendid]

You mean like the USSR ?

No, the USSR did shit Hitler only dreamed about. At least Hitler let the white middle class mostly alone. In the USSR, you weren't safe no matter who you were until at least '57.

Lefty politics necessitate totalitarianism.

You can keep saying it, but it doesn't make it true.

Communism and socialism can only be imposed by force of arms, unlike capitalism.

No, capitalism can only be imposed by force of threat of poverty, which to me, is much more insidious. Money (wealth) is a weapon, too.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[Tony Hoyle]

Only an american could describe hitler as left wing....

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[ushering05401]

The hippies are winning :)

Probably a cultural difference, but the American Hippies I have met live in forests in places like Arcata, CA. They are often naked in 'public' ie:the forest.

Some of them use cell phones, but many shun them for radiation concerns, and all of them I know well enough to judge would think regulating standard pornography is insane.

That being said many of them are leery of technology in general because they see it as a symptom of our cultural debasement... said debasement being why they are in forests in the first place.

I often get flak from Hippies for being a programmer not because programming is wrong, but because they don't like 'corporations,' whatever that means, and they think programmers only program for corporations (I am self employed and serve very small niche markets). Open Source can change this attitude, but naked people in forests don't have much to offer the Open Source movement at the current time, so it will have to be gradual.

For the record, I knew one hippie with a custom solar set up on her van. She powered an ancient 286 with a photovoltaic cell/battery setup. I hope she was using Linux. The one time I hung out with her she was beating on a drum around a campfire without any clothes on.

Anyhow, sorry for what is happening in your country. If you are ever in America and looking to meet some Hippies you can visit Black's Beach near San Diego on the full moon. I have not been in the area for a while, but there used to be mad hordes of naked Hippies that congregated there for a monthly drum circle on the night of the full moon.

P.S. Beware of Hippie chicks, yo. Feeding hungry Hippie chicks garners good favor with the Gods of the road, but don't let them follow you home unless you already have beads and tassles hanging from everything you own.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[Brian Gordon]

You'd best be trolling. The left wing is famous for preserving personal freedoms and forcing businesses to follow policies that favor the people. The right wing is concerned with safety and financial stability and leeway at the national-corporate level, at the cost of many civil rights.

stereotypically, in rough order:
Left wing = environmentalists, civil rights advocates, poor people, young people, gay people, anti-war protesters
Right wing = rich people, conservative/traditional (usually older) people, religious people, business owners/executives

Basically you have it completely backwards. The far extreme right is called fascism and the far extreme left is called socialism. The thing about prophets was defended by left-wingers concerned with free speech, and the thing about undermining freedoms for the common cause was fascist italy/germany killing jews and gypsies.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[ushering05401]

Yikes, sorry for the extra tag, long Saturday.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[ScrewMaster]

The longer a country's name is, the less likely it is to be true...

"United States of America" - hmm, I think you're on to something.

No, it's not the length of a country's name that matters at all. If you want to get a better idea of a particular nation's governmental system, look for the keywords "democratic" and "republic". The United States of America has neither of those words in its name ... although it is both of them.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[Brian Gordon]

Also remember that while personal sacrifice for The Party occurs in a socialist context, Marxism is supposed to be about bringing the wealth to the people. It just didn't really work out in practice.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[Heddahenrik]

The divided states of North America
The barely united queendom of small Britain and some part not really on Ireland
The party's one party state of China
The secular dictatorship of Iran

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[novakreo]

Elevating free speech over other rights is a part of American ideology

Yes, they even have special zones to practice it in!

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[roguetrick]

Jesus Christ! The world is not "left wing" and "right wing". For example, lets call communism a situation without property ownership and capitalism a situation with it. Now which of these needs to be imposed by force of arms? Both!

Get rid of this left wing/right wing bullshit and think of economic policies as just that: economic policies. Then think of social policies as social policies. It is NOT that god damn HARD.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[MrMista_B]

Someone who's 'far-right', anywhere else in the world, in America would be considered 'moderate' or 'left-leaning'.

Think about that for a few moments, and realise what that means.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[Stephan Schulz]

Say, that word, nazi, what does it mean again ? Oh right ... it translates to "socialist".

No, it does not. It translates as "National Socialism". It's about as socialistic as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is democratic.

Transferring ownership of means of production exclusively to the state and then creating "social justice", the central part of the nazi policy, what's that according to you ?

..except that the Nazis did not transfer the ownership of themeans of production exclusively to the state, which is why companies like IG Farben or Krupp made record profits.

Hitler was a fucking nobel peace prize laureate due to a leftist "professor", with a questionable past.

Strike three. You are out. No, Hitler was not a Nobel peace prize laureate. He was apparently nominated, but the nomination was withdrawn even before it could have been rejected.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[Daimanta]

"Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Mao and others like them, might have SAID that they were socialists and making leftish policies. But they weren't/didn't. They were not anywhere near it."

Hitler wasn't.

Stalin, Lenin and the other Communist leaders were all to close to being socialist and we have seen what has happened to those countries. Some factions of Socialists sing the internationale(communist song), others still have images of communist leaders. If you look at their policies regarding class struggle, income distribution, power of the state etc. they all match. It is mostly the means with which the factions are willing to work that makes the difference. Socialists are softish and wish to implement their via refendums and elections. Communists want a violent takeover and extermination of any opposition or viewed opposition. In Europe right parties always have to distance themselves from the extreme-right(and nazi-Germany in particular) while the left gets a "free out of jail card". Look at the article about the former Stasi-agent who is trying to silence nasty remarks about him. He is part of Die Linke(The Left) and apparently they have no problem whatsoever with working with a guy who has helped dissappear people. Beware of socialists because they wear sheep's clothes.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[ScrewMaster]

As a nigger, I must say that you even mentioning the word "race" is offensive to me.

Go Speed Racer. Go Speed Racer. Go Speed Racer ... go!!!!

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[Heddahenrik]

Think about that if you allow people to spread threats to others freely, then you suddenly have less free speech.

So putting all damn KKKs behind bars, would surely increase the general freedom in the USA.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[ScrewMaster]

The message at wikipedia.de explictly states "we're not allowed to link to de.wikipedia.org", hence anyone with half a brain can simply type the other address into the browser.

Well, if we assume that a significant number of German citizens have at least one intact frontal lobe, none of this really matters then does it.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[UltraAyla]

I wouldn't really attribute it to regions, and instead to groups.

In this case, the regions are groups - these cultures often have very different ideas of social norms

Left-Wing prefers to undermine peoples freedoms for "the good cause", like in this case, morality. Without considering the impect.

Right-Wing prefers individual freedoms over the hissy-fits of a a few minorities.

You've got to be kidding me. You must not have been paying attention to the U.S. over the last decade and a half. In the United States, the right wing pushes social limits for morality and security while the left wing pushes fiscal limits on individuals in order to expand government reach.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[Stephan Schulz]

Only those of African descent...

God thing than that we all are of of African descent.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[Brian Gordon]

You can make rational arguments against the State and it's pretty irrational to argue against a race. That's the only difference- free speech (and more importantly, of course, free thought) is a basic "human right" and the ability to make any argument should be absolutely guaranteed, no matter how illogical. Keep in mind that racism was a major force in shaping our social landscape today. So was Christianity, and both defy logic. Strange theories have resulted in refined, better theories, so they shouldn't be treated with contempt just because some of us have moved on. We can't just retroactively outlaw every theory that's not in vogue, especially knowing that most of the things we believe today will be out of fashion in just decades. America at least is still a fairly sexist society, with gender roles firmly defined and transgenderism and (to a somewhat lesser degree) homosexuality widely viewed as a travesty. I suspect this will be utterly gone in a matter of 50 years, like upstanding 1950s citizens' passionate beliefs about women not wearing slacks. Does that mean we throw conservatives in prison? Of course not, just let them catch up, it won't take long. And who knows, maybe we'll move into a more conservative era instead of a more liberal one, and society will be wanting to throw slashdot in prison until we conform to them.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[alzoron]

What you just described is already taken care of with laws against inciting riots. Why do we need more laws covering the same thing? It's like having a law against apples, and another law against red apples.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[Wizard Drongo]

yep.

/ Posted from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and her Isles and Dominions.
Although we've dropped the later bit as of the last 50 or so years...

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[Sapphon]

Being "left" or "right" has nothing to do with whether you're fascist or not. Fascism is an expression of total authoritarianism, which it is perfectly possible to combine with an attitude of socialism. They're two separate axes on the political compass.

Note that on the above chart, Dr. Angela Merkel (current German chancellor) is, in fact, "right". She's just not as right as most other Western leaders, leading to the impression that she is, in fact, "left".

Lutz Heilmann is even further left (his Party is called "The Left"), and on the Authoritarian/Libertarian scale doubtlessly up nice and high.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[Brian Gordon]

If you don't want another dictatorship then don't vote for another dictator. If neo-nazis would have "eaten western germany for breakfast" then that obviously means a majority of your population wanted nazi leaders, and that your government defends its power against the direct will of the people. How is that protecting democracy?

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[badriram]

Let me clarify that for you, Free speech is not just an american thing. It is infact one of the corner stones of Liberty, when you give it up you give up a lot more.

Let me quote John Stuart Mill (British) since you think Liberty is a American thing...

"The object of this Essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right... The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign."

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[Ethanol-fueled]

The Spanish-language equivalent to BET would probably be called "El Telemundo de La Raza."

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[Brian Gordon]

How about because it was wartime and the nation's press had been forced for years to hire nazi sympathizers and write pro-nazi content? The Allieds didn't want them printing nazi propoganda when Allied soldiers were risking their lives to keep people under control. Yeah it's a blatant violation of civil rights, but you have to give a certain amount of leeway to military forces or they can't do their job. If they thought controlling the local press was as important as air superiority and defending river crossings, then that's their prerogative, especially since GERMANY LOST and the winner in a war can do whatever they want. International politics is weird.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[aproposofwhat]

Sorry, but you're almost entirely wrong.

Nazionalsozialismus translates to 'National Socialism', but in fact it was a form of corporatism, in which industry was used as a tool of the state - not nationalised, but incoroporated deeply into the state itself.

Something similar is happening in Britain, as the 'third way' morphs into the Fourth Reich - the ties between state and industry are becoming closer, and the will of the Neues Arbeit elite is expressed through the actions of private industry.

You're talking nonsense - please don't bother.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[Luscious868]

It is so ....

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[Skuldo]

The UK isn't much of a Kingdom either.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[aproposofwhat]

Thanks for clearing up the Ayers thing - I've never heard of Bill Ayers, and I didn't ever recall A J Ayer (who was a proper philosopher) discussing old Adolf.

As the old song goes -

I don't care what the Weatherman says,
If the Weatherman says it's raining,
You won't find me complaining...

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[sumdumass]

So lets say I'm well off financially and we become a leftist socialist state. No one is going to take my money to give to those less fortunate then me? I can keep all my money, make as much as I want without fear of the government threatening my freedoms with guns and people carrying them? Or is it a situation where it will happened to everyone but me? How about you?

No, capitalism can only be imposed by force of threat of poverty, which to me, is much more insidious. Money (wealth) is a weapon, too.

You have swallowed too much koolaid and don't seem to have any desires left within you. If you refuse to work for yourself or provide for your family, then why do you deserve money or food from anyone else? Even in a socialist state, you would be required to work and given to by an accounting of what your worth to the over all contribution you make. You would still be poor and in poverty- but I guess you would feel good about it or something right?

The benefits of capitalism is that it allows you a way out. It allows you to apply yourself and better your situation. It isn't always possible until you see the possibilities and you can make things worse by making the wrong decisions. It isn't even always easy, You have to apply yourself but the opportunity is there. Where is the opportunity in a socialist state? If you work harder then everyone else beside you, where or how do you benefit? Does someone magically reward you for doing a better job and give you more then them? Oh wait, that would be a capitalist value.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[Ykok]

I'm quite sure Hitler would not have agreed with you there. Take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism for a definition of Nazism. As it says Nazism borrows from both wings. Furthermore nazism has historically had more support from the right wing, thus always received the most critisism from the left.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[aproposofwhat]

Damn - I wish I had mod points today.

That's the most elegant argument against 'hate crimes' I've seen in a long time.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[AmberBlackCat]

No, he just lives in Peru.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[davolfman]

Left wing has a tendency to write laws as a solution to problems. Need I remind you which president signed the DMCA?

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[jcr]

So you're saying that Bush and the Republicans are left-wing?

Let's see... Massive new domestic entitlement program? Check. Nationalization of the finance industry? Check. Suppression of civil lberties? Check.

Yeah, Bush is a pinko.

-jcr

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[jo_ham]

Goodness me.

Is this the new Karl Rove strategy to get the Repubs back in the white house in 2012? Re-categorize Hitler as left wing, and thus by extension, connect Obama and his ideals with one of the most reviled men in history? (as was already done earlier in this thread).

Even Godwin's law can jump the shark.

I can see the TV campaigns now. *shudder*

As black and white as you want to paint it, and it seems that in the right wing anti-Obama world, there's only "you're either with us, or you're a terrorist/communist/socialist/baby-killer/muslim/america-hater", but it's just not that simple.

The fact that Palin's entire argument during the presidential campaign consisted of throwing mud at her opponent, and trying to get him hated by association, is further evidence of this. The fact that it backfired on her means there's at least some hope for the future of humanity.

I consider myself pretty left wing, am totally in favour of a national health service and a welfare state, but that does not mean that I want to take everyone's cows and then dole them out, one per person. It seems like you can't advocate a social system that helps those less privileged members of society without being called a "dangerous subversive who wants to destroy democracy and the free market".

The free market is doing a good enough job destroying itself it seems. Less time at the $200,000 per head banquets near sun soaked beaches and more time begging the Government to bail them out I think.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[jcr]

You can say it to a cop or a judge in any country on earth. The question is whether they'll beat you up or kill you for doing so.

-jcr

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[aproposofwhat]

Sorry, but you're being silly.

here is a reasonable estimate of those killed by Yawveh and his followers - have the Islamists done anywhere near that figure?

Islam is a religion of peace - even the name means 'supplication' - Judaism on the other hand is the most hate-filled evil religion ever spawned.

Please go away and read your history, twit.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[jo_ham]

And the largest exporter in the world I believe.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[m.ducharme]

You totally forgot to mention that Hitler was backed by corporations and some aristocracy before he took over, and in bed with Corporate Germany during/after the war. You think that just because he called his party the "National Socialist" Party that he really meant it? Have you forgotten he was the greatest propagandist of his era?

He didn't nationalize large industries in Germany, he printed piles of money to pay the corporations for their work on his war, and made their owners filthy rich (until the currency collapsed, of course, doesn't this sound familiar to you?). A lot of those corporations still exist, in some form or other, but they keep that part of their corporate history quiet, you can be sure. This is totally opposite to Stalin and the Communists, who simply took over the corporations and executed the owners.

Fascism =/= Socialism, sorry, you need to go get some education in that regard. Fascism == Authoritarianism, and Communism == Authoritarianism, but guess what, socialism doesn't automatically equal authoritarianism (unless you've been brainwashed by the current champion propagandists in the US, that is). As hard as it is to believe, you can have a socialist, liberal government. Of course, in these troubled times, when all nations are leaning hard to the authoritarian side, thanks to Mr. Bush and his advisors, Tony Blair, John Howard, etc, examples are hard to come by.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[giorgist]

No such thing as bad exposure ...
You never knew him so you wouldn't have voted for him. Now a lot more people know him, and amongst those people there will be some voters. I recon he is in front on account of this

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[russotto]

Yeah, Bush is a pinko.

Naa, a fascist, for the reasons you quote. Rather similar in effect (total government control), but those rich people willing to play along don't get shot under fascist regimes like they do in communist regimes. Probably short term more efficient that way, as you don't lose all your knowledge and expertise right off the bat.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[Collapsing Empire]

We accomplish this in the USA by banning the actual discriminatory practices. If you want to talk about another ethnic group in a demeaning way or deny the holocaust, you're free to do that here.

If you want to target an ethnic group for criminal activity - our laws cover that.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[parabyte]

It is all more smoke than fire, only forwarding from www.wikipedia.de to de.wikipedia.org is affected, you can still access wikipedia under de.wikipedia.org from Germany. So actually not much is blocked, and when you go to www.wikipedia.de, you are even given the URL that still works.

And it is only a preliminary injunction, which probably will be lifted soon. It has happened already, but this futile symbolic act will probably just last a few days. In Germany, the courts do generally favor the right of every person to defend himself against defamatory speech, and are often quick with such injunctions to limit the damage the press can do to individuals.

It is a conflict between different human rights, the right to free speech, and the right of any human individual to live in dignity.

Actually the the Article 1 of the German constitution is one of the most beautiful and touching sentences I have ever seen in any piece of legislation:

"Human dignity is inviolable."

Free speech is important, but human dignity comes first.

Although the whole thing is stupid, I can not say the court did act on behalf of the powerful to suppress free speech, on the opposite, it did what it could to protect the rights of an politician who is not in high esteem with any of the established parties. The guy is from a small left wing party, the successor of the communist party of east germany. They get around 5% of the votes in whole Germany, and up to 20% in some parts of the former east.

Hope this makes a few thing more clear.

p.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[bitrex]

That being said many of I have not been in the area for a while, but there used to be mad hordes of naked Hippies that congregated there for a monthly drum circle on the night of the full moon.

I hear nerve gas is good for infestations like that.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[Anonymous Cowpat]

"East Yemen; isn't that a democracy too?"
"Its full name is 'The People's Democractic Republic of East Yemen' "
"Oh, I see, so it's a communist dictatorship then"

-Sir Humphrey Appleby and Sir Richard Wharton, Yes Prime Minister, "A Victory for Democracy"

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[Miseph]

Oh woe is you, unable to make infinite amounts of money and not give anything back. How about this, you do that without any public roads, any public education 9including for anyone in your employ, directly or otherwise, without publicly funded police and fire fighters protecting you, without a national military keeping your economic interests safe from interference, and without the benefit of any sort of regulations or laws to protect you while you sit on your enomous pile of money you have out in the woods with nobody else around, and you can stop paying taxes.

In the mean time, quit pretending like not having any taxes at all would work, or that you are so oppressed by having to contribute a portion of what you earn to the community in order to retain the benefits of being a part of it. You aren't the only person who counts, and if you're too much of a greedy shithead to accept the idea that, say, everyone deserves medical care when they are sick or injured, even if you don't get to keep every last cent you make, then I don't see why the impetus should be on the rest of us to explain why you're a total douchebag.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[ta bu shi da yu]

Oh yay, let's all classify others on a simplistic and misleading two-dimensional political scale. Hey, at least it helps us from having to use our brains to comprehend the world around us.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[Smauler]

Ok... you seem to be arguing against taxation of all forms here. That's an interesting argument.

You're obviously talented enough to get by reasonably well. Many people do not have the talents to better themselves. They cannot become high paid workers. Also, their jobs have to be filled. There has to be someone doing low paid menial work, and those people cannot save enough for a rainy day. When something goes wrong (eg. they get injured at work, and cannot continue), the state IMO should step in, at least to some degree.

You would not be as well paid as you are without people less well paid than you. You also would not be able to live the life you're leading without people less well paid than you. Those people are way more likely to need the safety net than you, so it's all very well sitting on you pedestal saying you'd be ok, but you would not be there without those people.

Now, I am not necessarily advocating that the amounts the state steps in now are correct, but without state intervention, I believe there would be a much higher crime rate due to desperation of those not getting subsistence wages. Crime affects everyone, and if you believe we can just forget about those in poverty and it will not affect us, you're living outside of reality.

You also seem to be advocating Laissez faire capitalism, which does not work. Ever.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[parabyte]

This guy, Lutz Heilman, would be right now the least liked politician in whole Germany, if someone would care. Even his own party does not like him because he did not properly disclose that he worked for the Staatsicherheit, the secret police in Communist Germany. His political career is fucked since 2005, when the German news magazine "Der Spiegel" disclosed it, and now he probably has nothing to loose. The facts in the wikipedia are based on solid sources, so I don't think the court will decide in his favour. And not that it really matters in this case, but he is also avowed gay and a lawyer.

p.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[Frozentech]

East Yemen ? Is that anywhere near the former "South Yemen", aka People's Democratic Republic of Yemen ? Before reunification with North Yemen (formerly Arab Yemen Republic ) it was in fact, a Marxist dictatorship. There is no "East Yemen".

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[Frozentech]

That's because the term Fascist has become utterly misused in the United States. It pretty much has devolved to mean "bully", rather than a political-economic system.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[flnca]

If you don't want another dictatorship then don't vote for another dictator. If neo-nazis would have "eaten western germany for breakfast" then that obviously means a majority of your population wanted nazi leaders, and that your government defends its power against the direct will of the people. How is that protecting democracy?

Because this is about rooting out the underlying mindset. You cannot have such parties have any say in policy. Once such a party gains publicity, it continues to do so, possibly gathering more support. Hitler's Nazi party started out very small, and quickly gained influence thanks to Hitler who was viewed as a talented speaker. One of the Nazi guys was quoted as saying "My, does that guy have a big mouth!" even before they were popular. From then on, with much bullying, the party gained support and was elected properly in 1932. Hence the sentiment We Cannot Let This Happen Again. Every country can turn into a dictatorship pretty quickly if people are unhappy (the Financial Crisis of 1929 ff. being the reason at that time). That's why, I as a German, am all for these laws, and I wouldn't want it any other way.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[Toll_Free]

No, the big part of anti-racism is to grant equal rights between races... Or classes, depending on what part of the earth your on.

I don't believe free speech is touched. If it was, the KKK wouldn't be allowed to march in the US... But, they are. We also wouldn't be allowed to say the word NIGGER, but it is said all the time in rap music.

Hope that helps to fix any ambiguity.

--Toll_Free

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[Toll_Free]

anti-racist-speech laws violate free speech

True.

and are bad laws.

Not necessarily so. Elevating free speech over other rights is a part of American ideology, however it is not universally accepted, certainly not in Europe or Asia.

I Asia, you can 'disappear' for excersizing free speech.

In Europe, that mostly stopped about 20 years ago, give or take, depending on which country your in now.

--Toll_Free

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[Toll_Free]

Except that the KKK IS allowed to hold public rallies in the USA.

--Toll_Free

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[Toll_Free]

Those parties should realize that protecting democracy is a noble goal. We do not want any dictatorship ever again. We had enough of that, I guess.

Or the fine citizens of Germany are tired of getting their asses handed to them on a friggin platter because they let some idiot rise to power, and then feeds on the egos of the homeland to get them to do whatever he wants.

Sheeple are everywhere, not just Germany.

--Toll_Free

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[sumdumass]

Oh woe is you, unable to make infinite amounts of money and not give anything back. How about this, you do that without any public roads, any public education 9including for anyone in your employ, directly or otherwise, without publicly funded police and fire fighters protecting you, without a national military keeping your economic interests safe from interference, and without the benefit of any sort of regulations or laws to protect you while you sit on your enomous pile of money you have out in the woods with nobody else around, and you can stop paying taxes.

Lol.. I pay for public roads and all the infrastructure I use I have no problem with that. That wasn't the question but it does bring up another, why is it I should have to pay for someone else to do nothing? And why is it that when someone brings up the question of keeping the money they earned that asshats like you want to distort the situation to exclude public services. You see, I'm not like you and others thinking they will get a free ride if we could only take from the rich and give to the poor, I don't mind paying my way. What I do mind is working harder just so you don't have to.

Now you know damn well I wasn't talking about not paying taxes, I was talking about the concept that socialism isn't promoted by guns and violence like Captain Splendid attempted to make.

In the mean time, quit pretending like not having any taxes at all would work, or that you are so oppressed by having to contribute a portion of what you earn to the community in order to retain the benefits of being a part of it. You aren't the only person who counts, and if you're too much of a greedy shithead to accept the idea that, say, everyone deserves medical care when they are sick or injured, even if you don't get to keep every last cent you make, then I don't see why the impetus should be on the rest of us to explain why you're a total douchebag.

Actually, I am the only person who counts. Well, me, then my family when it comes to my money. But if you knew how to follow a thread, you would know I wasn't complaining about paying taxes, I was making a statement about how taxes are collected in a socialist environment.

So here is a question that I'm sure you won't answer, Who are you to say that someone else counts over and above me when it comes to my money? What gives you the right to lay claim on the money I earned over limiting yourself to money you earned? Why would I have to take care of your family just because you are incapable of providing for them? You see, I don't understand why or how people like you can asses an obligation on me when you don't take care of yourself or your own families like I do. What is this line of thinking, are you special or something? What gives you the right to take from me to give to others, why not just give your own to them?

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[mapkinase]

He was "not important" enough. I think you nailed a reason why many homosexuals seek that kind of exposure.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[Kjella]

stereotypically, in rough order:
Left wing = environmentalists, civil rights advocates, poor people, young people, gay people, anti-war protesters
Right wing = rich people, conservative/traditional (usually older) people, religious people, business owners/executives

When trying to make up stereotypes in an article about Europe, you'd better watch out. For example, in the US there's a rather extreme religious right. Here in my country the Christian Party is considered a centre party, and if anything it's leaning left not right. Civil rights is also very questionable - many of the socialists on our left are fairly socially liberal but will easily give up privacy rights and let the state micromanage - in many ways they're worse than our right. Looking at the age stats, young people are really just polar on both sides of the spectrum, with the older towards the center. The rest is pretty much correct though.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[kaos07]

No, Communism doesn't equal authoritarianism, especially in the same sense as fascism. How could an ideology seeking to take power away from the rich minority and give it the majority, as well as calling for the dissolution of the State itself be considered "authoritarian"?

"Socialism" could be authoritarian or not, depending on the flavour. There are literally dozens of different types of socialism. Some anarchic, some authoritarian. And some in the middle.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[jcr]

Fascists are pinkos. They differ from communists only in matters of rhetorical style.

-jcr

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[Captain Splendid]

You have swallowed too much koolaid and don't seem to have any desires left within you.

What the? Where do you come up with this shit? As a bonafide (trying to recover) workaholic, I can only laugh at your projection.

If you refuse to work for yourself or provide for your family

Oh, okay, you completely misunderstood the sentence of mine you quoted. Fucking time waster.

Does someone magically reward you for doing a better job and give you more then them? Oh wait, that would be a capitalist value.

This is why I rank capitalism with all the other cults. The inverse of that sentence isn't true either. Have fun believing it.

It allows you to apply yourself and better your situation.

It also allows travel in the other direction, but that rarely makes it into the brochure, doesn't it?

Money is the most powerful weapon in the world. Why should we let the 1% of the world who own all the guns lay down the law?

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[AdonaiElohim]

"Olame-a "I'll give everyone 5000$" .... Hey moron: The only politician who has ever, ever mailed a check to everyone in the damn country was George W. Bush. And he did it more than once. You know it, and we all know it. Now shut the fuck up.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[PatrikDh]

Interesting tidbit you apparently missed from that Wikipedia article:

"According to the Reporters Without Borders Press Freedom Index, however, Germany is currently ranked 20th in the world in terms of press freedom."

For reference, the US is ranked 48th, well behind pretty much all or Europe (most of which are in the top 20), and trailing places such as Costa Rica, Namibia, Ghana, Uruguay, Nicaragua, etc...

http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=24025

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[ta bu shi da yu]

Oh come on - just because you don't like my opinion does not make it a troll. The previous posters were literally saying someone is "left-wing", "right-wing" or "moderate". What exactly does that mean nowadays? For instance, what do you call an anti-death penalty, anti-abortion and pro-gun control person? Right wing? Left wing?

The best example of this sort of stupidity was when Kyra Phillips complained that her Wikipedia article made her look like a "right-wing commie".

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[sdpuppy]

The US tax system taxes higher earnings harder, but no way will you lose money if you work more hours. (DIsregarding loopholes, deductions, etc) The tax system is tiered - so after you've earned a certain amount of money, the money you earn after that is taxed at a higher rate.

So, for example (for simplicity - not using real values) - lets say that the tiers are at $25K (10%), $50K (15%), $75K (20%) and you earned $75K.

The first $25K that you earn would be taxed at 10% = $2.5K goes to Uncle Sam.

The next $25K is taxed at 15% = $3.75K. The last 25K you earn is taxed even higher 20%, $5.0K.

Total taxed owed would be $11.25K - but you see the amounts that you earn below each tier is taxed at the lower rate, so there is no way that you will lose money by working extra hours. It just gets harder and harder to earn more money as your income goes up; you effective salary after taxes is less for the additional hours that you work once you pass these tiers.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[SleepingWaterBear]

Not to mention that, if you really insist, you can still choose a different copy of Wikipedia to get information about him. Ok, granted, not in German, but is there anyone in Germany using the internet and NOT able to read English?

Ohh, it's worse than that even. Germans can still access de.wikipedia.org and read it in German there, they just can't access it through the convenient wikipedia.de address. Since this address is apparently quite popular, all this idiot has done is ensure that a whole lot of people using Wikipedia will now know the name Lutz Heilmann (which is mentioned on the placeholder page at wikipedia.de), while completely failing to prevent information from being transmitted.

It's true that the placeholder page doesn't tell you that you can still get wikipedia at the other address (presumably for legal reasons), but so many people use wikipedia that the news about that is bound to spread. It boggles the mind how thoroughly this guy has screwed up.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[flnca]

Or the fine citizens of Germany are tired of getting their asses handed to them on a friggin platter because they let some idiot rise to power, and then feeds on the egos of the homeland to get them to do whatever he wants. Sheeple are everywhere, not just Germany.

Indeed, it can happen everywhere, so some folks in other countries should open their eyes (if they have not already done so). But no, we are not tired of getting them asses on our platters, there's a lot of work to do, and we will do it. Every person convinced of being a democrat is worth it.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[Petrushka]

The longer a country's name is, the less likely it is to be true...

Like "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" ...

Hm, come to think of it, you have a point.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[sumdumass]

Ok... you seem to be arguing against taxation of all forms here. That's an interesting argument.

What I seem to of been doing to you and what I was attempting to do was two separate things. I don't mind paying for the necessary services and utilities we need. The statement I made was in response to a comment in which the GP dismissed the claim that socialism is enforced through the end of a gun and the threat of violence. I asked how he could claim that if I didn't want to pay the taxes for the socialism. The only answer of course is that they would come with guns and take my money and probably my freedom if not my life.

You're obviously talented enough to get by reasonably well. Many people do not have the talents to better themselves. They cannot become high paid workers. Also, their jobs have to be filled. There has to be someone doing low paid menial work, and those people cannot save enough for a rainy day. When something goes wrong (eg. they get injured at work, and cannot continue), the state IMO should step in, at least to some degree.

Low paying menial work are jobs best fill as transition positions. These are positions filled by people looking for work experience and use them as stepping stones to better jobs. I was making $11 an hour working in restaurants in 1992 when leaving high school. I played the system, worked hard, took promotions and raises as they came, and if they didn't come, I looked for other work. Minimum wage when I stated working was $3.35 an hour, it was $5.25 when I left restaurants and moved on to better things in which I was making around $25 an hour. Now the point isn't to brag about my abilities or anything but to illustrate that the mundane low level BS jobs are stepping stones for people to learn how to become good workers and move on to the better paying jobs or fill the time as extra income later in life. I recently bartender for a friend who had someone quit about an hour before the Saturday night shift. Of course I got paid a little more then regular staff did on the hour but we split almost $300 at the end of the night in tips alone. This isn't because we were special or pretty or anything, it is because we went the extra mile for the customers and bust our asses to keep them happy and not waiting on drinks. People can and do have options and can move up even if it is in pay alone. The people in a slow economy who are looking for jobs tend to be the people some other company didn't want but that's ok because I have found that some people excel under different styles of management.

As soon as you start thinking there is nothing better, nothing will get better. You or anyone has to see that there is the ability for more even if it means doing something they wouldn't like to do. And no, Life hasn't always been a bed of roses for me, I have lost jobs, went unemployed for months on end, lost homes and cars because of it, taken jobs making less then minimum wage just to get food on the table and so on. When I speak of opportunity, I am speaking from experience. I'm not where I would like to be financially, but I'm not in bad shape either. The main thing is not to expect anything from anyone but yourself. You tend to not be as disappointed and see a lot more of what you would consider success.

You would not be as well paid as you are without people less well paid than you. You also would not be able to live the life you're leading without people less well paid than you. Those people are way more likely to need the safety net than you, so it's all very well sitting on you pedestal saying you'd be ok, but you would not be there without those people.

Sure I would be paid as well without them. The only difference is that the money might not buy as much. Like I said, those jobs are stepping stones. People stuck in them are so because of the so called safety net. It used to be that employers were expected to pay a salary

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[Mjec]

There is no "East Yemen".

Correct. Because when insulting countries in your TV comedy, it's generally best to keep them fake.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[HansieC]

... to see actual centre left political parties in action running countries you have to look overseas, Canada, Australia, England, etc.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. England certainly doesn't have a party with representation that is centre left, and even in Canada and Australia (NDP and Greens respectively) the parties are by no means major ones and certainly not in government. To really look for a centre left party you need to look to places like Sweden (Social Democrats, the biggest party there although not currently in power), but really, even in Europe there aren't any real centre left parties (let alone proper left wing). http://www.politicalcompass.org/euchart

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[flnca]

Except the Nazi party already existed when Hitler joined it, and strong inflation was only between 1929 and 1933 (following the Black Friday, which was a stock exchange collapse just like the one we're seeing now).

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[narcberry]

Huh? You lost me at united.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[fnj]

You're right. Use of simplistic labels is the last refuge of a scoundrel, and the FIRST refuge of a typical brain dead American citizen.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[fnj]

Clinton is not commonly held to be particularly leftist, if the word even has much meaning.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[narcberry]

Because the new law against red apples also included $5M in new spending to some of our private companies.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[flnca]

That's utter nonsense. First of all, socialism has nothing to do with communism. And communism per se has nothing to do with violence. That there have been a number of bloody revolutions to achieve the "dictatorship of the proletariate" is not Karl Marx's fault. Literally, "dictatorship" means to "have the say". Historically, however, dictatorship was almost always enforced by violence (except, like, in ancient Rome, when Caesar proclaimed a dictatorship without bullying people into participation). Strictly speaking, none of those so-called "communist" countries ever were truly communist, because there always was a rich ruling elite that kept making itself richer. What they did is to strip all property from everyone else, and made sure they stayed in poverty. It's cynical to relate those dictatorships to socialism or even communism, for they had nothing to do with either.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[narcberry]

I keep telling that to all these dumb chicks at work. If they want me to stop talking about their perky little bits, they should come into my office and *confront* me.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[m.ducharme]

Yes, but during the war, there was a good deal of inflation (not to Great Depression levels), as the Nazi's printed more and more money to pay for the war. The collapse didn't take the form of a traditional currency deflation, it took the form of the collapse of the war.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[m.ducharme]

Communism in the form espoused by the Soviet Union was certainly authoritarian, unavoidably so, since the Communist policy was not to benefit the majority, but to benefit the State. I do agree that Communism in its pure form (which may or may not actually be achievable) is functionally equivalent to anarchy, and is thus contrary to authoritarianism.

I agree that socialist policy can be either authoritarian or libertarian. I would go so far to say that socialism is policy beneficial to the people as a whole (not necessarily to the State), and that where the interests of the whole and the individual coincide, the related socialist policy is libertarian. Conversely, where the interests of the whole and the individuals conflict, the socialist policy tends to the authoritarian. But

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[wisty]

That's right. The US may be right wing (oppressive) on civil rights, but the government is very left wing with it's big spending. Especially the Republicans, who spend like drunken sailors, leaving a big mess for the Democrats to clean up. But yeah, you just get dumber every time someone says the word "left" or "right" in a political debate. It means that they see the world in terms of pro-socialist or anti-socialist, which is flat out irrelevant these days.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[flnca]

Fix the problem by not talking about it, yea that works.

No-one says we can't talk about it, in fact we're doing that all the time.

By making racist speech illegal all it does is hide all the racist people in society,

I don't know about yours, but our election system guarantees anonymous voting. So, how would it make a difference in that department if racist speech was legal?

All it does is trying to force people to ignore the problem then actually confronting it.

Quite to the contrary.

Hey if you know the guy is a racist then you have a decision to associate yourself with him or not and accept the consequences for the actions. But if you don't you can much easier be seduced.

I don't know about you, but I know a racist when I talk to him/her. No matter what speeches s/he has listened to.

Also it creates a taboo with the hate just gets deferred somewhere else.

How so? If someone's a racist, they're still a racist, no matter what laws abound. And likewise, if someone hates, say, chocolate, they will.

Silence doesn't fix the problem it defers it.

Bullsh*t. Personal conviction is obvious from speech and actions. And despite having these laws, we do not keep quiet about the problem. Why should we? It is an issue we face every day. It is privately and publicly discussed.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[flnca]

BTW, ultra-right wing Germans flock to the NPD and REP parties (nazis) and ultra-left wing Germans support either no party at all (anarchists) or The Left party (communists and socialists and members of worker unions) or Bond '90 / The Greens (communists, socialists, anarchists, environmentialists). So, it's quite obvious who's voting for what. This also applies to the middle ground (SPD for worker unions and the unemployed, CDU/CSU for Christians and entrepreneurs, and FDP for capitalists). Quite an obvious political landscape, I'd say. And there's definitely no secrecy about it.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[flnca]

Yeah ... international politics is weird. We are actually quite glad that the Axis Powers came to save us. And we also gladly implemented those laws. I think (apart from Nazis) no-one views that as a violation of civil rights. We wouldn't have had them that long if those laws hadn't been in place.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[flnca]

Hmmm ... you think Germany lost the war because of money? That's an interesting perspective. I always thought it was because Hitler sent millions of soldiers into Russia to perish in the wintry cold.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[kaos07]

Calling the ideology of the Soviet Union "communism" is akin to calling Hitler's Germany "socialism" (which is what kicked off this debate, funnily enough).

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[Opie812]

In an attempt to keep things simple (based on your post you need it). I'll address one component of each 'ism to show you how they are diametrically opposite.

Fascism:
"Our Nation/nation is the greatest in the world. Let's make an empire." (See Italy, Germany, Japan circa 1925-45)

Communism:
"Workers of the world unite."


See the difference?

What you're infact referring to is totalitarianism. You see, the USSR was communist in name only. In reality it was totalitarian...which shares more with the type of fascism we saw in the early 20th century.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[k8to]

Whether or not hate crimes are a wrongheaded concept is not an issue on which I have a strong stand.

However, it is possible to craft anti-hate laws which essentially make it harder to incite violence in code. For example, a campaign of hatred is mounted without explicit calls to violence, but with inciting of violence being its aims. Supporters of hate crimes who are both genuine and considered would be attempting to achieve a reduction in this type of activity.

I don't claim the existing hate crimes are well crafted. Most of the ones I've reviewed essentially step up penalties for existing actions when they are racially (or similar) motivated. Some say this is completely unreasonable, because it is about intention. However, we have different crimes for killing people depending upon various types of intention from no crime, through wrongful death and manslaughter up to first degree murder. It seems that a more insightful debate is required to convince me either way on hate crimes.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[rocketPack]

Say, that word, nazi, what does it mean again ?

THAT's how left he was. He had his own Ayers behind him.

Funny, according to the Wikipedia article on Nazism, the Nazi's:

incorporated elements from both political wings

and...

formed most of its alliances on the political right.

Oh yes, they also stood strongly for:

opposition to economic liberalism and political liberalism

Soooo... yeah, THAT's how "LEFT" they were. By the way, did it ever occur to you that they might've just called themselves whatever was going to get them into power? What they called themselves ("National socialists") really has nothing to do with who they were, what they believed, or what they did.

Kthxbye.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[sean4u]

What you just described is already taken care of with laws against inciting riots

I'm not sure it is. Riots are often not aimed at any person or group of persons - it's hard to find a victim of a riot. If your car is torched during a riot, you're the victim of criminal damage. Maybe someone incited the riot, but are they really liable for incitement to criminal damage in the case of your car? "Kill Salman Rushdie" is incitement to murder, clearly. "Purge the world of the scourge of gingas" is a hard one to call. I'm not sure if many jurisdictions have specific laws against genocide. It's easy (you know what I mean, I hope) once someone dies - someone is guilty of murder, but is the ginga-hater guilty of incitement in the specific case of the dead ginga? I guess it depends how awful you think genetic-composition-based hate is. It certainly lies somewhere between the diffuse crime of incitement to riot and the specific crime of incitement to murder.

IANAL by the way. I no longer have the mane of a ginga either, age is drawing my tricolour coat towards drab with white highlights.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[Joren]

You're right. Use of simplistic labels is the last refuge of a scoundrel, and the FIRST refuge of a typical brain dead American citizen.

Irony noted in bold for your reading pleasure

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[the_womble]

The Soviet Union in its early years looks like it did benefit the majority. It got worse as it went along.

One thing that went wrong was Stalin's getting into power - bearing in mind that he was someone Lenin warned against.

Of course, any system that centralises power is vulnerable to someone evil taking control.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[jcr]

In an attempt to keep things simple (based on your post you need it)

Fuck you too, sunshine.

I know the differences in their rhetoric, I'm talking about what they do, not what they say.

You see, the USSR was communist in name only.

Bullshit. The USSR slaughtered people by the millions to terrorize their people into obeying the state, just like every other communist regime. That line of propaganda about "Oh, but they're not the REAL communists! REAL communism is good!" was already threadbare when the New York Times was running Walter Duranty's pro-Stalin propaganda.

-jcr

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[sean4u]

Fix the problem by not talking about it, yea that works.

I had to reply to this - it's modded Insightful. Where I grew up, the Race Relations Act really did work. No law stops anybody talking (to friends in the pub, for example) about race, only against using race to discriminate in a substantial way. When I was a kid, nignogs were the butt of jokes on peaktime TV, and if you didn't like one riding on your bus, you could beat him up and throw him off in broad daylight, while wearing your bus corporation conductor's uniform. I saw that happen twice when I was about 10 years old. A couple of years later, a lot of my school friends were rushing home to put their DMs on to go 'paki bashing' with their mates.

Making racial slurs and discrimination illegal doesn't fix the underlying problem - possibly something to do with 'birds of a feather', I don't know I'm not a social scientist - what it does is it gradually makes that kind of barbaric behaviour socially unacceptable, as a kind of inoculation against ending up on the wrong end of the law.

You are kind of right, a lot of racists are hidden in the society I grew up in, but they're hidden in prisons, and lost-all-hope housing estates, and aren't-dying-quick-enough blue-rinse villages. And don't even get me started on arguments based on comparing genetic composition to lifestyle choices (like religion, vi/emacs, masturbation, gay sex, alcohol etc).

Silence doesn't solve the problem, but it does mean I mostly don't have to listen to the people who want to blame someone else for their own problem, and neither do my children. Things have improved a lot where I come from, since it was open season on darkies, I expect it will only continue to get better, now that they're people, just like me.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[howlingmadhowie]

Elevating free speech over other rights is a part of American ideology, however it is not universally accepted, certainly not in Europe or Asia.

not necessarily so. try running an advert for atheism in the us.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[uhlume]

Funny, hell; try "Insightful".

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[aaron alderman]

When Obama gives everyone $5000 its socialism.
When Bush gives everyone $5000 its a stimulus cheque.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[MooUK]

Figurehead monarchy, actual power resides in the democraticly-elected parliament. It's still a kingdom (or queendom if you want to be picky).

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[jhol13]

This would be true only if there were no copycats and if nobody ever followed a leader or his/her text as ultimate truth.

Alas, there are. People are not born racists, they grow up to be. Racists speeches given by charismatic persons can and do affect some. (not you and not me, but some).

So should racist speeches be prohibited? There are pros (it decreases amount of racism) and cons (freedom of speech).

Unfortunately we cannot pick both.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[KDR_11k]

I also wonder how many have considered voting for his party and now, learning about this and what kind of people are inside it, won't touch it.

Naah, the PDS was always known as being the new name for the SED (the party that ruled the GDR and established the StaSi). Their name change to "Die Linke" seems to be mostly a popularity stunt to get away from the old image and try to get some popularity with young voters. Not sure how that worked out for them.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[lukas84]

Islam is a religion of peace

You're aware that this sounds like sarcasm, right?

Both Islam and Christianity are, when taken at face value, highly violent and hate filled.

The difference here is that there are very few who still take Christianity at face value (and the rest are considered fringe nutjobs).

With Islam on the other hand, many still take it at face value, wear Burkas, don't eat Pig, etc. pp.

So what's the problem here? Christianity has evolved in the last few hundred years to become placebo religion without too much meaning left, some kind of social activity/club. Which is, imho, perfectly fine.

Oh, and of course there are people who believe in Islam, don't wear Burkas and eat Pig. But they're considered fringe Nutjobs. Islam never did evolve. They're stuck 500 years in the past.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[troll8901]

Does it involve facing the *naked* truth?

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[KDR_11k]

Morality? No. Hate speech is considered an attempt to incite violence. It doesn't matter if it's moral, it's considered a matter of public safety. There's also a rule against using the freedom of expression in an attempt to destroy democracy.

Also our right wing here are the christian fundamentalists (moderate) and the fascists (extreme), neither of which really believes in individual freedoms. In fact the left/right division is simply who they want to restrict, the left (for the proletariate, aagainst the bourgeoisie) wants to restrict the rich to help the poor, the right (for the bourgeoisie, against the proletariate) wants to restrict the poor for the gain of the rich. That's where the terms come from. Wikipedia says the terms bourgeoisie and proletariate have different definitions in the US which might explain why the country is leaning to the right more while calling itself centrist or even left leaning.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[truckwash]

Not to mention that, if you really insist, you can still choose a different copy of Wikipedia to get information about him. Ok, granted, not in German, but is there anyone in Germany using the internet and NOT able to read English?

The German site is still there:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lutz_Heilmann
just not at 'wikipedia.de'

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[rtfa-troll]

Abortion doctors are not normally killed in riots. Riot laws do not cover all cases of incited attacks against people. It's not even sufficient to require direct incitement. This is one of the problems with recent terrorism laws. In order to cover as many as possible such cases they cover also things like having materials describing terrorism which might be for research or personal interest only.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[KDR_11k]

It's not just people saying things you don't like, it's people saying things that are meant to increase discrimination against you, possibly to levels that include violence. There's no right to be not offended but there is a right to not have someone preach that you are a subhuman and should be enslaved.

There is also the rule against "undermining the democratic and free order of the republic" which is implicit in other countries anyway. Go on the street in the USA and preach to people that they should overthrow the government and install a dictator, look how long you last if the police or FBI take you seriously.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[KDR_11k]

The neo-nazis are allowed to hold rallies here too, they just can't demonstrate for things that violate the law and they can't assemble when it's considered too dangerous (neo-nazi rallies attract left extremists like punks and need a massive police force to keep the two sides apart from each other and avoid a riot).

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[shutdown -p now]

The party did, but the program with which it came to (and won) the elections was Hitler's brainchild. There was really very little left after the old NSDAP after Hitler except the name.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[broccolator]

Ok, granted, not in German, but is there anyone in Germany using the internet and NOT able to read English?

About 95%, actually. Only very few Germans can speak (or even read) enough English to understand simple texts. Most speak enough English to tell you the directions to the next train station, but reading and *cough* understanding *cough* wikipedia articles in English? No way. Once you cross the border to the Netherlands or Denmark, however, you stand a very good chance to have an English language conversation beyond topics as "Where's the loo?" (Disclaimer: I was born and raised in Germany and still live there.)

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[shutdown -p now]

That's an interesting question. If a country will, in a true democratic fashion, slip into rampant nationalism, and then racism (while still remaining democratic) - would you say that "democracy failed" and that a coup is needed, followed by a period of dictatorial rule to make sure that the Nazis are rooted out?

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[KDR_11k]

Neo-nazis can march here too, they're just limited in what they can write on their signs and usually there's about ten times as many protestors who want to beat the nazis up.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[hughk]

The Soviet Union in its early years looks like it did benefit the majority. It got worse as it went along.

My own feeling is that things came to pieces around the time that Bolsheviks seized power from the Mensheviks. Before there was the possibility of a democratic socialism but afterwards, all were equal, but some more equal than others!

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[bytesex]

You have to understand where Mr. Oelewapperke comes from: he's not an American, he's a European, part of a neo-conservative movement that is becoming increasingly popular around here, trying to outdo their neocon-idols in the US ten years after the fact (but then again, we're always a bit behind the times, aren't we). These people roam internet-fora to express their total dislike for socialists everywhere at the merest hint of somebody sharing something, instantly building straw-men in the form of comparisons to Stalin, Mao and Che. And their favourite talking point: Hitler was a lefty.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[damburger]

Bollocks to that. The commitment to free speech in the US has always been shallow, as has your commitment to other freedoms. Remember always that your 'land of the free' was founded by slave owners.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[kagebe]

the Allied Powers came to save us.

Fixed that for you.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[jordoex]

In my province, there was a party a number of years ago called the Social Credit Party. They were considered right wing. To put in short what rtb61 said, the notions of what is Right and Left in politics differs with what is considered the middle ground in the given city/state/country.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[mpe]

Could you have a anti-racism law that doesn't undermine free speech?
One of the basic premises of free speech is that offensive speech should be allowed.

Especially given that banning anything has all sorts of negative consequences. These consequences being often ignored by those who advocate said banning.

A big part of anti-racism laws is to prevent offensive speech as it relates to race, right?

In practice such laws tend to be quite selective and not ban racism which is politically correct at the time of the law's creation.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[ta bu shi da yu]

Actually, I know more than a few atheist friends who are against abortion, and they have considered the issue without recourse to divinity.

You really fail to understand the point I was making - you cannot label another person in such a simplistic manner. I do welcome your post, because you quite neatly made my point for me.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[ta bu shi da yu]

Indeed, it is not just Americans who make the mistake of looking at the world in terms of left and right sides of a supposed and ill-defined political spectrum.

More interestingly, it was a bunch of Americans on Kuro5hin that pointed out the ridiculousness of such a system. See this article and this article.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[slash.duncan]

Why do we need more laws covering the same thing? It's like having a law against apples, and another law against red apples.

That's easy. With multiple laws in place of one, the number of laws violated and thus the counts one is or can be charged with multiply dramatically. With a single action, the person who undertook it may violate twenty laws, and have twenty counts registered against them (or whoever LEA chooses to target).

That give them a lot of negotiating flexibility. Consider, even if you didn't do it, and they had some circumstantial evidence and a witness saying you did, would you be tempted to take the offer of dropping all counts but one with say a 1-2 year jail term, provided you plead guilty to it, knowing even if you are acquitted, you'll be rotting in jail during the trial for close to a year anyway, but if you get convicted on even one of the other counts, it's a twenty year jail term?

Many people decide it's not worth the trouble to fight it under those conditions, and LEA and the prosecutor get to stamp a nice SOLVED/CONVICTED on the case file, making them look good, regardless of whether they got the right man or not. ... And there's lots of cases where a guy chose to fight it and lost, only to be declared innocent when the DNA evidence and further examination points at someone else a decade or two later. All that time, some poor homeless guy perhaps guilty of passing out drunk at what became the crime scene is framed, while the real criminal is still walking the streets, free to commit more crime.

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad we have the LEA, and it often works the other way as well, but unfortunately, neither the system nor the individuals that form it are above cynical manipulation of the multiple counts thing to get someone to plead guilty without a trial simply due to the risks, and while certainly many of them ARE guilty, some as equally certainly are NOT.

It's all a game. Pray you don't end up on the wrong side of it. (Of course, keeping your nose clean of petty crime does help in that regard as well, but when that petty crime might be copying a song for a friend, or breaking the encryption to be able to play a DVD you rent or buy on an open-source-only system...)

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[ta bu shi da yu]

Really? I think you are somewhat missing the point of my last point. You can't say that if you are right-wing you are evil and if you are left wing you are full of goodness and light because left and right is ill-defined, simplictic and allows propagandists to categorise and brand the views of others without having to provide and evidence. Worse, it allows you to shout down or ignore a viewpoint without intelligently debating them or addressing the issues they raise.

But you don't have to believe me: why don't you define what you mean by right-wing and left-wing?

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[Cassius Corodes]

I don't know how someone would not know this unless they have never worked...

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[KDR_11k]

Allied powers. The Nazis were the axis.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[mpe]

She knows how well that works.

Or he could talk to broadcaster Mike Read. Whilst someone coined the term "Streisand effect" in 2005. The effect of attempts to censor information resulting in that information gaining a much wider audience. (Adding "on the Internet", makes about as much sense as a patent for something which has been done for a long time with "with a computer" added.) This isn't really anything to do with technology it's an attribute of human behaviour.
Other examples include movies such as The Exorcist, Life of Brian, Last Temptation of Christ. The effect is also clearly described in the novel "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix".

I also wonder how many have considered voting for his party and now, learning about this and what kind of people are inside it, won't touch it.

Especially those from what used to be called the DDR.

Not to mention that, if you really insist, you can still choose a different copy of Wikipedia to get information about him. Ok, granted, not in German, but is there anyone in Germany using the internet and NOT able to read English?

IME there arn't that many Germans who don't understand English. No doubt there are cached copies of the German text available too.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[AlanS2002]

Defining someone else's utterance or writing as "hate" speech (politically incorrect) and then outlawing it is an example of abridgment, which destroys freedom of speech.

Communication is an act and should always be held as accountable as any other type of act.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[ta bu shi da yu]

Oh come on. Obama hardly tried to subvert the government in a coup before he tried again to gain power.

Sorry to nip this little meme in the bud, but go look up "Beer Hall Putsch" in Google before you look more silly than is entirely necessary.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[Carewolf]

No, not really. Medicine is one of the strong industries in Denmark. By citizens Denmark produces more patents and earns more Nobel prices than the US in Medicine (by a factor of 4). Most of the large US medical companies has research centers in or near Copenhagen in the so-called "Medicon Valley", and Novo Nordisk one of the largst pharmaceatical companies is danish. One of the benefits of free education is a highly educated population ideal for research and development.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[Frnknstn]

The left-wing / right-wing classification was originally describing the political situation in France in the late 1700s. I agree it is now woefully inadequate to describe modern politics. However, the definition has changed over time, allowing it to maintain some relevance. In modern politics, there are most often two major parties in a given jurisdiction, one of which will paint itself as left wing (American Democrats), and one which will paint itself as right-wing (American Republicans). Thus, it can sometimes be a useful shorthand.

If you had bothered to read the post you were replying to, you would see the following:

Someone who's 'far-right', anywhere else in the world, in America would be considered 'moderate' or 'left-leaning'."

The key word is 'considered'. Yes, left-wing / right-wing is a woefully shallow tool for political comparison, but the GP post is correct (if a bit exaggerated), especially prior to Obama. The policies of the American self-styled 'left-wing' are closest to the self-styled moderates in the rest of the western world.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[ta bu shi da yu]

If you had bothered to read the post you were replying to, you would see the following:

Someone who's 'far-right', anywhere else in the world, in America would be considered 'moderate' or 'left-leaning'."

The key word is 'considered'. Yes, left-wing / right-wing is a woefully shallow tool for political comparison, but the GP post is correct (if a bit exaggerated), especially prior to Obama. The policies of the American self-styled 'left-wing' are closest to the self-styled moderates in the rest of the western world.

Interestingly, if you had bothered to read my post, then you would see that it annoys me when I see anyone consider anyone else in terms of the left-wing/right-wing divide.

As you state, the left/right divide is "now woefully inadequate to describe modern politics" - thus I cannot possibly see how it could be considered "useful short-hand". If anything, it allows people who know no better to label someone imprecisely and not actually speak out against the actual reasons behind why they don't like or disagree with the politics or policies of a party or politician. I don't know about you, but I'd rather a debate against someone who says "I don't like George W. Bush because he went to war in Iraq on faulty intelligence and was willing to undertake covert surveillance against his own citizens", as opposed to someone who says "I hate George W. Bush because he's a right-wing fucker".

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[bsDaemon]

Mussolini's father had been active in the Communist Party in Italy, and his paper, Il Popullo, (spelling?) started out as a Socialist paper, only later breaking due to support for Italy in WWI while the Anarchists were on the rise and against the war.

It's pretty much all the same at that level. The only real difference between Marxism and Fascism/National Socialism comes down to the dialectic. Marxists are materialist/economists about history, while Fascists and Nazis believe in heroism and the quest for glory.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[Frnknstn]

What exactly does that mean nowadays?

Since around World War Two, Communism has been considered the extreme of the left wing, and Fascism has been considered the extreme of the right wing. In modern times, you don't often hear people explicitly quantify the left-wing and right-wing zeitgeist, because stupid people vilify words like 'social' and 'deregulation', muddying the political discourse. Even as I right, some idiots who read this post will have read the previous sentence and said 'Socialism is evil? Why is this commie defending it?' or something similar about the evils of deregulation.

Nowadays, left-wing normally refer to policies are believed to benefit the power of all individuals equally (wealth redistribution, personal freedom), and right-wing policies are believed to maintain or expand existing social structures (conservatism).

The key to understanding this is that the policies themselves are not inherently left wing or right wing, but rather their motivations are. The most recent example of this is free trade: Twenty years ago, free trade was championed by liberals as a way to bring down economic barriers, eliminating the differences in the wealth of nations. Now, so-called 'fair trade' policies are the left-wing stance, to prevent the economic might of richer countries from crushing poorer ones.

What do you call an anti-death penalty, anti-abortion and pro-gun control person?

Uhhh... either a liberal, or a left-leaning moderate: The world is not black and white, and it depends on their motivations.

Left wing and right wing are not absolutes, but rather extremes on a scale. People are not required to 'pick sides' in the way they live their everyday lives, only at election time. People can even chose different policies with identical motives. You are not required to agree with every policy your party supports; you only chose them because they were the best of a bad bunch.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[mpe]

Let me clarify that for you, Free speech is not just an american thing. It is infact one of the corner stones of Liberty, when you give it up you give up a lot more.

It was an already well understood concept when the US Consitution was written.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[mpe]

For what it's worth, as someone from the Netherlands, I can say with a reasonable amount of confidence that most of the citizens actually would rather see freedom of speech trump most, or all, other rights. It's just the government that wants to set all kinds of bizarre limits and gets its knickers in a twist when people contest existing limits. How this can be, in a supposedly democratic nation, is hard to fathom, until you realise that most of the Dutch vote what they think they should vote (left, right, Christian, ...) rather than on the issues.

It's probably also the case that government tends to attract people with athoritarian leanings. Even in an otherwise fair electoral system having any element of self selection for political candidates means that you are very unlikely to get a government which reflects the public.
What appear to be "bizarre limits" are typically the results of politicans, already out of touch with the public, being influenced by lobby groups with very extreme (even insane) points of view.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[Frnknstn]

I did read your post, and I saw that it annoys you when you see anyone consider anyone else in terms of the left-wing/right-wing divide. I replied as I did because I believe that you were wrong, both because you are getting irritated at the post to which you replied, and in your floccinaucinihiliplification of the classification.

Once again, the post you replied to did not pass any judgment on anyone's policies; it claimed that the people in America who call themselves left wing, have the most in common with people who call themselves moderate or right leaning in the rest of the Western world.

Even if I cannot convince you that there is some worth in the classification, it does not change the truth of the original post. If we strip out the words that charge you so emotionally, we could get the following:

The flavours that are considered spicy in Western Europe have more in common with the moderately spicy and bland flavours in Southeast Asia.

Once again, it's an issue of perception: The idea of a single Scoville Scale for food is inadequate in a professional culinary discussion, but that doesn't change the fact that most curries in Belgium could do with a few more chillies.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[mpe]

Remember always that your 'land of the free' was founded by slave owners.

With the US currently being "number one" when it comes to holding people in prison.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[kocsonya]

The Sovie Union was *not* communism. It was socialism (which, in turn, is *not* social democracy), a temporary state until communism can be built. This whole idea of socialism was not ni the original Marxist stuff, it was a later addition. Read a bit of Lenin (his most prominent book that has been translated to English is the "State and Revolution") and it will be much clearer. As of the 80's they finished putting down the basis of communism, if you listened to the blurb from the 1st of May speeches.

To put it in picture: in the East-European countries at the end of the war by and large there were 2 major leftwing parties: the communists and the social democrats. The former wanted to have a socialist state (i.e. dictature of the proletariat - an openly authoritarian system) so that they can build a communist state, where the dictature simply disolves. The social democrats had an ideology pretty much like the Scandinavian model (so what you have in Sweden or Norway). In every single country the communists pretty much got rid of the social democrats (of course, the Soviet military presence was kind of helpful...) and then 40 years of socialism followed. Of course, humans being humans, even at the very early stages some animals, as Orwell so brilliantly put it, became more equal than the others...

An other common misconception is that in communism you can't have property. That's not true. You can have personal property, what you can not have is the means of production. That is, you can't have a factory. You can't have the equipment with which you can exploit others. Yes, it is silly, especially with today's technologies, but Marx lived more than a century ago and at that time the "factory owner" and "factory worker" were much clearer categories, the most glaring difference being the ownership of the factory.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[mpe]

Basically you have it completely backwards. The far extreme right is called fascism and the far extreme left is called socialism.

Political extremism can look very similar regardless of if it is left wing or right wing. It's been suggested that "left" and "right" are actually on a circle rather than a straight line.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[slysithesuperspy]

No, capitalism can only be imposed by force of threat of poverty, which to me, is much more insidious. Money (wealth) is a weapon, too.

That is just pure ignorance. If you are alone on an island then you don't need to trade so that's fine, but then if someone else comes along what do you do? The island is small so you will bump into each other occasionally. Do you a) trade with him voluntarily or do you b) force him to give over whatever he produces into a pile with whatever you produce then decide how to use it? With option b because you force him to put it into a pile you demonstrate that you are using force, that is the Hitler and Stalin way of doing it. You are the dictator.

Perhaps lefty politics doesn't necessitate totalitarianism but it does necessitate the use of force or the threat of force, which is a tool of totalitarianism.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[kocsonya]

I guess it *is* a republic, but are you sure about the democratic bit? I have my doubts... I heard something about some illegal wiretaps, as in the government illegally listening to telephone conversations of citizens... Of course I might have been mistaken and the news was about the Stasi or the Securitate or something, after all, a *democratic* country would never allow its government to illegally spy on its citizens...

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[flnca]

That's an interesting question. If a country will, in a true democratic fashion, slip into rampant nationalism, and then racism (while still remaining democratic)

That's exactly how the Nazis came to power in the first place. They were democratically elected in the Weimar Republic.

would you say that "democracy failed" and that a coup is needed, followed by a period of dictatorial rule to make sure that the Nazis are rooted out?

Of course not, we have the Constitution Protection and our laws for that. This makes sure Nazi influence stays limited.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[Chrisje]

You have more than a few atheist friends? Because I sure as hell don't.

I only have a few atheist friends. Recent calculations estimate that Atheists are 2.3% of the world population. Mind you, there's a difference between non-religious and atheist, and then there's a difference between agnostic, weak atheists and strong atheists.

44% of my country is registered as non-religious (I am Dutch) but only 25-30% of the country claims to be atheist, while quite a few of those are weak atheists or religious apologetics.

Having said that I am a strong atheist. And I have a some friends. Most of whom are either atheists, agnostics or (and this deserves mention) secular Jews. But I only have two friends whom I would classify as a strong atheist, and out of those none are opposed to abortion.

There is also a difference between using abortion as the default birth control (which is slightly immoral) and using it in situations where the birth control failed, in case of rape or incest, or in case of a general mental or physical defect that would harm the child.

I guess what I'm saying is that your post didn't prove any point except that both you and your fellow debater deal in anecdotes and sweeping generalizations.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[Haeleth]

No such thing as bad exposure ...

Right, that's why nobody in American elections ever runs campaign ads that focus on the other candidate.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[flnca]

Ah, ok. Thanks! ;)

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[mpe]

There are people behind bars for questioning the holocaust - they never threatened anyone with extermination - they only asked questions and gave unpopular opinions.

Most likely asking the "wrong" (or at least politically incorrect) questions. Including such questions as "Where's the evidence that XYZ happened in the way claimed?"
The real "hate speach" would appear to be labling skeptics as "deniers". Especially in respect of a subject where decades old propaganda and fraudulent claims are involved.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[Brown]

I understood his post to be referring to the 80-85% loss in value of the currency that was a *result* of Germany's defeat, rather than making a claim that it was the cause of defeat.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[ta bu shi da yu]

You wrote:

Once again, the post you replied to did not pass any judgment on anyone's policies; it claimed that the people in America who call themselves left wing, have the most in common with people who call themselves moderate or right leaning in the rest of the Western world.

Really? The post reads:

Someone who's 'far-right', anywhere else in the world, in America would be considered 'moderate' or 'left-leaning'.

I see nowhere in that sentence where it talks of someone who describes themselves as "left-wing" or "right-wing". The post reads:

"Someone who's 'far-right'"

This person is "far-right", they are not claiming to be this but that is what they are.

"in America would be considered 'moderate' or 'left-leaning'"

In the U.S. other people ("would be considered") say they are "moderate" or "left-leaning".

Incidently, I looked up the word "Floccinaucinihilipilification", but it appears that it's spelt "Floccinaucinihilipilification". Very amusing. However, while you feel that I was annoyed by the comments (and yes, I was!), it appears that you are also getting annoyed as you feel that I did not "[bother] to read the post [I was] replying to", an act you appear to have accomplished yourself. Perhaps in the process of getting annoyed about my remark you interpreted that which was not there?

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[mpe]

So should racist speeches be prohibited? There are pros (it decreases amount of racism) and cons (freedom of speech).

There is another con. If they are prohibited then it's impossible for the speaker to be heckled or otherwise critiqued. The speeches will still take place, in private, before a carefully vetted audience, with "security" to deal with any "undesirables" who might manage to infiltrate.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[Haeleth]

So lets say I'm well off financially and we become a leftist socialist state. No one is going to take my money to give to those less fortunate then me? I can keep all my money, make as much as I want without fear of the government threatening my freedoms with guns and people carrying them?

Yes, that sounds about right.

For example, Sweden is generally considered a leftist socialist state, and yet somehow it managed to produce IKEA, whose owner is the 7th richest person in the world, and has not yet had all his money taken away from him. (True, he currently lives in Switzerland, but he's got a heck of a lot of property in Sweden that the socialists could easily seize, if that was what socialists actually do. Which it isn't.)

Okay, you will now argue that Sweden isn't really socialist. Which is true, in a sense; it isn't at the utter extreme end of the socialist spectrum. But that's kind of the point. Democracies tend not to go to that extreme. In practice, they never get beyond kinda-socialist-but-still-capitalist-really (like Sweden), or, in the other direction, mostly-capitalist-but-still-a-bit-socialist (like the USA). We merely use "socialist" to describe the former case because it's a convenient shorthand. And so we've now reached what we call the "real world", where socialism is a successful political movement, not an evil bogeyman hiding under your bed and waiting for you to go to sleep so it can steal your piggy-bank.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[flnca]

ok.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[CaptainZapp]

What you just described is already taken care of with laws against inciting riots.

As usual in life things are not that black and white as you point them out.

For example: Denying the holocaust, which is illegal in a lot, if not in most European countries, may not incite violence per se, it arguably does construct the basis from which it's but a small step into violence and acting out towards a minority.

Personally, as an European, I have mixed feelings on the issue. In principal I believe, that dick headed arguments should be argued on their lack of merits. Given European history however such laws are not only understandable, I even go so far to support them, alas reluctantly.

It seems that here's an irreconcilable difference in perspective between Americans and Europeans. While Americans may believe that free speech is almost absolute, they also seem to believe in the right to legislate morality. For example: I can freely buy a dildo in Düsseldorf, while according to the state attorney you should not be allowed to buy one in Texas. In Texas you can also be sent to the slammer for four years for the possession of 15 XTC tablets. A substance, which is not even classified as a hard drug here around.

Personally I prefer from being prohibited to deny a genocide publicly. But your perspective may vary, of course.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

This is such unfair a comment one simply doesn't know where to begin.

The owner of IKEA is living in switzerland BECAUSE otherwise the socialists WOULD take his money away (something the swiss have prided themselves on for hundreds of years that they do not do this, they even refused the EU because of it).

Seizing property btw, is something that the socialists in sweden DO. You should check their laws about empty buildings. They do not have the balls to randomly seize property, or seizing all property (which really is the same thing) like real socialists do, because that would collapse their state, and they're not yet delusional enough to ignore that. Not yet.

And yes, there are rich people in socialist states :

I could name Kim Yong Il, who is a very rich man (certainly compared to the people around him), and while he lives in a communist state, nobody is taking his money away from him.

Stalin was a very rich man, who literally stole the food out of the mouths of the poor in the "socialist paradise". Right down to the point where 60 million poor starved.

The leaders of the socialist institutions in Sweden, btw, are also VERY rich people. They don't know their job, nor do they even try to. Rather they build out their political careers.

There are other problems, all basically come down to having the force of arms behind "normal" corporations, which is the way it has to be in communism (because competition cannot be allowed). The problem is that force that is always involved in socialist policies. An example : in Holland you can get dialysis (if you need this, you die without). However once you turn 65, you cannot get dialisys anymore in any hospital, at any price. Anyone with kidney problems (which is a lot of people) ages to 65 years and 6 months or so in Holland, and not a day older. If you try to buy it, which is obviously not cheap, you run the risk of getting arrested, both the patient and the docter, and getting incarcerated WITHOUT dialisys. The one guy they did this to did not survive to see his trial. Isn't socialist healthcare grand ?

So let's not pretend socialism solves the rich/poor divide. On the contrary, it makes it so much worse people die.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[ta bu shi da yu]

Well, in that case - I'd like to recommend you as an excellent candidate to my anecdotes and sweeping generalizations club, and warmly encourage you to join!

The only point I was making was that the labelling of people in a simplistic fashion is not particularly intelligent. I used a plausible example of someone who holds to a number of strongly held views, and simply asked whether they should then be labelled left or right on the political spectrum. Unless I badly misunderstood you, it appears you responded that the only people who could hold such positions were "religious nutjobs", at which point I noted that I had a number of friends who are atheists and who did not agree with abortion, are against the death penalty yet believe that they should be able to bear arms unfettered from the government. The interesting thing about my comment was not that I know a few atheists in a vast sea of believers/non-believers, but that your argument that only a religious nutjob could hold all those positions was proven false.

So, while the statistics on the true population of atheists in Denmark is interesting, it's not actually relevant to anything I said and it does not disprove anything I said. On the other hand, I do find it ironic that you don't believe the statistics you quoted and tried to disprove it... with an anecdote.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

Fascism = Socialism
Socialism = Facism

There are a few tiny accents that differ, that's all. Both in fascism and socialism an individual has no power, nor property. In both cases unelected people from the state decide who has what and who does what. Both have a fuhrer.

(oh and not that anyone cares, but obviously Bush is neither. For starters, he is laying down all his power in januari. NEVER has a fascist or socialist leader done so, unless forced by arms)

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

Not even in rhetorical style. That's something they like to say now, but like Obama, Hitler's speeches in the 1930's were all about "social justice" and how "unfair" society was.

(the difference is that Hitler was right, Germany wasn't being treated fairly back then, while arguing that the US's people aren't being treated fairly is beyond stupid)

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

That's because there already is a name for the political-economic system of fascism : a socialist state.

A state under a single individual (whether fuhrer or president), that allocates everything, both property and people according to a central plan, made by the state.

Both fascism and socialism did the same political-economically. Including the endlosung/gulag/"engineered famines"

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

Please explain how forcing people to give up all the fruits of all their labor is "libertarian" ... Because all lefties ever mention is names, they never touch upon the contents of their ideology.

So : how do you force everyone to share all the fruits of their labour "with everyone" (and who decides, because if the deciders are corrupt, which they always are, obviously you haven't solved anything).

Always the same with leftists. Lefty politics is "peaceful", as long as they're not in power ... after that ... terms like "endlosung" or "gulag" are generally used.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[someone1234]

I don't know from where you got your information, but as far as i know, English is much more widespread in Germany, than lets say, France.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[shutdown -p now]

That's exactly how the Nazis came to power in the first place. They were democratically elected in the Weimar Republic [wikipedia.org].

That election, while reasonably fair, wouldn't properly count as fair by today's standards (voter intimidation etc). Also, NSDAP did receive the plurality of votes, but not the majority. I was thinking more along the lines of majority here.

Of course not, we have the Constitution Protection [wikipedia.org] and our laws for that. This makes sure Nazi influence stays limited.

Yes, but what if the majority of people in the country actually want to amend the constitution to remove all that stuff? Constitution is not some magic piece of paper that is self-enforcing - if the population at large wants it to be changed, it will be changed, even if it itself forbids some changes. For example, a constitution of Iran similarly forbids any kinds of changes to itself that are contrary to Islam and Shari'a. Wonder how long that one will last there. Germany constitutional provisions forbidding referendums and change of constitution are in the same category - effectively useless against what they're supposed to guard.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[the_raptor]

Be less ignorant. Socialism is not the same as "command economy" (what you are calling socialism). Socialism at its base means the "workers" are in control of "production", but in Soviet style communism the State decided it was the "workers" and implemented a command economy.

Socialism can also be anarchic communes in which there is no central authority, but the workers in a particular production unit are in charge of controlling that unit.

Also Hitler hardly socialised the country prior to engaging in total war (during which every other nation basically socialised the economy to the same degree).

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[|DeN|niS]

An example : in Holland you can get dialysis (if you need this, you die without). However once you turn 65, you cannot get dialisys anymore in any hospital, at any price. Anyone with kidney problems (which is a lot of people) ages to 65 years and 6 months or so in Holland, and not a day older. If you try to buy it, which is obviously not cheap, you run the risk of getting arrested, both the patient and the docter, and getting incarcerated WITHOUT dialisys. The one guy they did this to did not survive to see his trial. Isn't socialist healthcare grand ?

source: http://www.nierstichting.nl/ziekte/feiten_en_cijfers

Dialysepatiënten per leeftijdsgroep (2006)
Leeftijd Aantal Percentage
0-15 37 1%
16-44 812 14%
45-64 1.898 34%
65-74 1.439 25%
75+ 1.471 26%

2910 people disagree with you (out of the total of ~5600 Dutch people dependant on dialysis for survival).

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[yfkar]

Duh.

Hitler's Nazi Party was one of the famous parties ever and he wanted the whole world to take part in it. I'm sure you have heard of it. He obviously preferred having one big party instead of many small ones. ;)

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[purpledinoz]

I live in Germany now, and I would say I feel more free than in the United States. I feel free to walk around at night and not worry about getting mugged or attacked by someone carrying a gun. I feel free to go to the bar and not worry about driving home, since I can just take the tram. I feel free to drink my beer outside without worrying about getting fined by the police. Sure, there are crazy rules here, such as not being allowed to recycle on Sundays, but it's very safe here and people are very non-violent and don't have guns. In my day-to-day life, I worry a lot less than I worry in the United States.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[Peil]

I think you could do with reading the actual definitions of communism and authoritarian government and not the differences.

We have NOT seen a true communist government anywhere yet, but we have seen totalitarian states - just because they say they are communist doesn't mean they are, or would you suggest that North Korea is truely a Democratic Republic?

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[Shamenaught]

It's probably also the case that government tends to attract people with athoritarian leanings. Even in an otherwise fair electoral system having any element of self selection for political candidates means that you are very unlikely to get a government which reflects the public. What appear to be "bizarre limits" are typically the results of politicans, already out of touch with the public, being influenced by lobby groups with very extreme (even insane) points of view.

That's a Score 5 Insightful if you ask me. Laws aren't there because the politicians made them, but because people asked for them.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[OriginalArlen]

A lot of those corporations still exist, in some form or other, but they keep that part of their corporate history quiet, you can be sure.

Ain't that the truth...

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

What does that mean "workers in charge" ? How are conflicts resolved ?

We all know what answer the unions have to that question. Incidentally it's the same answer all socialist states had.

Besides, we all know that "progressive" socialism is simply : "give me stuff for free, force others to work for it (ie tax them)" nothing more. It's getting to the point where I'm having trouble believing it was ever different. Then again, given how Marx himself lived (leeched of his family) perhaps it never was different. What are your thoughts on that ? Socialism started with someone leeching off of others. It is about leeching off of others. It is only supported by leeches (like Ayers). The only real stronghold of socialism is university campusses and government handout centers, filled to the brim with people who don't want to take care of themselves, but party and complain.

Needless to say, it (to say the least) does not lead to better circumstances for anyone.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[meringuoid]

Communism and socialism can only be imposed by force of arms, unlike capitalism.

Capitalism is also imposed by force of arms. In this case the force in question is the police force, which enforces capitalist notions like 'private property'.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[zombie_monkey]

To those who modded this insightful, I'm not entirely convinced he was being sarcastic.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[thebitch]

Not to mention that, if you really insist, you can still choose a different copy of Wikipedia to get information about him. Ok, granted, not in German, but is there anyone in Germany using the internet and NOT able to read English?

Fun thing is only wikipedia.de was blocked. de.wikipedia.org was always accessible. Or maybe I missed something but last time I checked I didn't use a proxy in another country.

I guess some people will never grasp the internet.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[flnca]

Also, NSDAP did receive the plurality of votes, but not the majority. I was thinking more along the lines of majority here.

There would have been no difference in the outcome.

Constitution is not some magic piece of paper that is self-enforcing

Of course not, it is enforced by law, and by the Federal Constitutional Court. You might want to read up on Germany a little to learn something about how the system actually works.

if the population at large wants it to be changed, it will be changed, even if it itself forbids some changes.

We have a delegative democracy, i.e. the will of the people doesn't directly affect policy. Even if the Federal Government would turn Nazi, there are enough safeguards in place to overthrow the government. A Nazi government would be illegal, and arrest warrants would be issued and enforced. So, let's say the shady version of Nazis, the NPD for instance, would win elections. Then the Constitution Protection service would still monitor them, and if they would spew hatred, they would have something to arrest them. Then there's the BND (Federal Messaging Service, our CIA), and they could arrange for some stuff. Not to mention the prosecutors and judges etc.; there could even be emergency warrants to prohibit the offending political party. And if all of that still isn't enough, there's still all the people left that would not support the government and would organize riots and/or civil war if necessary.

For example, a constitution of Iran similarly forbids any kinds of changes to itself that are contrary to Islam and Shari'a. Wonder how long that one will last there.

Except Iran is a de-facto dictatorship.

Germany constitutional provisions forbidding referendums and change of constitution are in the same category - effectively useless against what they're supposed to guard.

No, they're not useless, otherwise they would not be in place. In fact, they served us well in the past 59 years.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[Teancum]

It seems that here's an irreconcilable difference in perspective between Americans and Europeans. While Americans may believe that free speech is almost absolute, they also seem to believe in the right to legislate morality.

This all fits with what you consider to be morality. The laws about hate speech and denying the holocaust certainly sound like attempts to legislate morality to me.

Texas is its own strange state with a very independent streak in its legal code. Just because something is legal nor not legal in Texas has little to do with anything in the rest of America.

Or to put this in a "sound bite" or "bumper sticker slogan":

Texas: Bigger than France.

I think that sums it up rather clearly. And it is. The population of Texas is about a third of France, but who is quibbling over details here. It would still be a major world power (and a nuclear power at that) if it were an independent nation.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[Moldiver]

Actually it was the result of the fusion with another party called "WASG".

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[TheP4st]

*cough*patriot*cough*.*cough*act!*cough*

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[rtb61]

Wrong scale, the scale I reffered to is the simple left right scale, where the centre is really just the average.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[tenchiken]

He co-opted the trade movements. Just like his party outlawed the catholic church and it's parties, his trade unions made the other ones illegal. He was anti-communistic.

However:
I wouldn't called extreme racism, homophobia etc. left-wing.

That's why you fail here. You assume definitions have not changed since the 40s. Socialism reflects that the government controlled the economy with a iron fist. Fascism meant that the government controlled society with that same iron fist.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[tenchiken]

Socialism refers to the means of production. As the means of production was controlled by the government, yes.. it was a socialistic country.

Remember that fascism was basically enforced socialism. For example, Hitler really was a few steps to the left of FDR, with a nasty racist tendency to boot.

There is nothing that prevents Socialism from being nationalistic or hyper-patriotic.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[tenchiken]

Only a historian. you mean.

The reality is that Hitler was "left" on a scale we would use now - he believed that all enterprise should benefit the German people and society (socialist) while also believing that society should only permit that which was good for the German state (fascist).

It's instructive to look at FDR during this same period. He had many of the same politics, and the same sort of nationalistic bent. The racist ideology, wet dreams about Aryianism and expansionist attitude he thankfully did not have. Hitler's policies a great deal of the time were similar to FDR's policies only a few more steps towords government control. Not to mention a thugracray behind it as well.

Anyways, isn't all of this far far afoul of Godwin's law?

(answer: yes)

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[shutdown -p now]

The will of the people always directly affects the policy. If you think that the existing German constitution (and all the agencies that are dedicated to protecting it in its present immutable form) would survive a popular (i.e., supermajority) opposition, you are simply deluded. All those organizations you mention would simply be dismantled - purely democratically, of course - and then the constitution itself amended.

And if anyone tried to resist that, well, wouldn't it then become an anti-democracy putsch?

If you don't like Iran as a comparative example, then how about Turkey? That one is a democratic country, but the military intervenes every now and then when the voters elect the candidates that are "too undemocratic" to preserve the regime.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[Fred_A]

I dunno, Hitler may have said he was a socialist, but he didn't throw very many parties. I'd say he wasn't a people person, but I did not know him personally.

Besides, everybody disses Hitler, but frankly we mostly knew the guy during the war.

*ducks and runs*

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[Brian Gordon]

Well yeah Left and Liberal aren't synonymous but in modern politics, almost everywhere in the world liberals have filled the Left side of the economic-politic spectrum while conservatives have traditionally been right-leaners.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[Brian Gordon]

Yeah but can you carry a gun to protect yourself? Europeans sure have the upper hand when it comes to reasonable controlled-substance laws and humane prisons, but America has freedom of expression cornered. And I'm not convinced that safe neighborhoods make up for not being able to recycle on sundays :P

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[INowRegretThesePosts]

Be less ignorant. Socialism is not the same as "command economy" (what you are calling socialism). Socialism at its base means the "workers" are in control of "production", but in Soviet style communism the State decided it was the "workers" and implemented a command economy.

Socialism can also be anarchic communes in which there is no central authority, but the workers in a particular production unit are in charge of controlling that unit.

Jesus. We have been hearing the same rhetoric from a truckload of far-left parties worldwide. Every time people point at the monstrosities caused by Stalin, the leftist says "Be less ignorant. Do you know about Karl Marx at all? We are not Stalinists. We are Trotskists/whatever"

The point is, every single nation that entered socialism met human disasters. Soviet Union, its satellite states, China, Cambodia, Cuba... Every time socialism is tried, we have disaster, even though the far-leftist claims "but *this* time will be different". After having tried a couple dozen times and failed *dramatically*, shouldn't the idea just be considered a failure?

A government may implement social uplift policies and still respect democracy, law, freedom and individual rights. That would be center-left.

But every party that goes against democracy, by (for example)
1) Advocating an armed revolution
2) Supporting, either financially, diplomatically or strategically, violent revolutionary groups such as the FARC
3) Supporting groups that "do social justice with their own hands", such as Brazil's "Landless Workers Movement"
4) Supporting dictators such as Fidel Castro or Hugo Chavez

is reviving a failed ideology that has been attempted numerous times and failed drastically every time.

We should have realized by now that attempts against democracy lead to disaster, and leave aside the marxist idea that "democracy doesn't work, the masses are fooled by the elites and the media. We will only achieve socialism through an armed revolution".

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[INowRegretThesePosts]

No, Communism doesn't equal authoritarianism, especially in the same sense as fascism. How could an ideology seeking to take power away from the rich minority and give it the majority, as well as calling for the dissolution of the State itself be considered "authoritarian"?

Because the means of "dissolving the state" is through an armed revolution?
Because the ideology openly states "democracy does not work because the masses are fooled by the elite and the media, and the only way to socialism is through an armed revolution"?

Because *every single time* this was attempted, the result was a frightening totalitarian state that never reached the supposed communist utopia?

Because the ideology thinks that the end of achieving monetary equality justifies *any* mean?

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[Hal_Porter]

Hmm, an overpowerful state murders dissidents. That state is destroyed by foreign military action. Its successor sets up a Constitution Protection department to keep an eye on dissidents and limit their free speech. What could possibly go wrong.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[LordLucless]

Actually, the left-right political scale is one-dimensional.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[INowRegretThesePosts]

You have successfully trolled me. I will answer (thus feeding you). Congratulations. I hope, though, you grow up and get a better pastime.

While I don't like the policy of Sweden (I am center-right, not center-left like Sweden), Sweden is *center*-left, not *far*-left. The GP was referring to Marxism. Sweden is not Marxist. Sweden is not far-left. They have democracy, political freedom, and a good degree of individual rights. Although I strongly disagree with the excessive taxation (it is so high that it hampers the individual right to private property; and it tends to be economically inefficient, although there are cases of very developed countries with huge taxation - like Sweden) there is an enormous difference between Sweden (from what I know of the country) and far-left.

I made myself clear enough. There must be democracy and law. To make a violent revolution, to support groups like FARC or dictators like Fidel Castro, to support groups that do "justice with their own hands", is not democratic.

If the people of Sweden democratically decide to have huge taxes to pay public services, that is a totally different story. They are still a lawful democracy.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[Lars T.]

Actually, the party was still called DAP when Hitler joined.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[INowRegretThesePosts]

So being "homophobic" means he was right wing?

Both right and left at that time were against homosexuals, but only the totalitarian regimes would actually massacre them.

You might check what happened in Cuba.

Only recently the left started to defend homosexuals. Some decades before, it was completely different.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[flnca]

The will of the people always directly affects the policy. If you think that the existing German constitution (and all the agencies that are dedicated to protecting it in its present immutable form) would survive a popular (i.e., supermajority) opposition, you are simply deluded. All those organizations you mention would simply be dismantled - purely democratically, of course - and then the constitution itself amended.

Well, we'll see about that, don't we? Occasionally there have been amendments to the Basic Law, but most change requests are rejected. Let's hope we'll keep a watchful eye over that development. The freedoms we enjoy today are the most we ever had, and let's hope people will not want any less. There has been an erosion of rights in the social system under Schroeder, but according to some, these changes were necessary to keep financing the social system. For instance, there's been more pressure to the unemployed to find work, but as a result (and due to much statistical juggling) we have the lowest unemployment rate since the reunification (however, the number of people on social support is still high). The economy can only create so many jobs. Without reasonable incentive to the economy, this won't change.

If you don't like Iran as a comparative example, then how about Turkey? That one is a democratic country, but the military intervenes every now and then when the voters elect the candidates that are "too undemocratic" to preserve the regime.

And rightly so. None of the secular Turks and certainly none of the Europeans want Turkey as a god state. Also, regime critics are still persecuted ... this should not happen in a democracy. In Germany, we do not have such a problem, thankfully. You can hate the government all you want, but if you spew hatred against another people, then you might be running into problems.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[mpeskett]

Compared to Europe, American politics doesn't even have a left wing - just a right wing and an ever right-er wing.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[INowRegretThesePosts]

last I checked, Germany was doing a lot better in this financial meltdown than
the US

What? Their recession is stronger (and their prior economic growth was weaker) than the US one, so
where did you get that from?

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[flnca]

Hmm, an overpowerful state murders dissidents. That state is destroyed by foreign military action. Its successor sets up a Constitution Protection department to keep an eye on dissidents and limit their free speech. What could possibly go wrong.

Well, the purpose of this is to create a Chilling Effect to dissuade certain political groups from thinking about increasing their influence. It's all in the name of democracy. If you don't want democracy, I certainly do.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[INowRegretThesePosts]

The US Democrats are between center-left and centrist, absolutely not center-right. A center-right party would not have those policies of favoring the unions, protectionism, abortion, public healthcare, high taxes...

Not that any one of these factors alone define a party as leftist. For example, public healthcare can fit the ideology of a center-right party. But all these factors taken together show that the US Democrats are absolutely *not* center-right.
They are between center-left and centrist.

As for the Republicans, they are simply "right", as the term "far" usually indicates totalitarianism (Stalin was far-left, Mussolini was far-right).

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[Lars T.]

Capitalism = Organized Crime
Organized Crime = Capitalism
It's no coincidence they finally jailed Al Capone for tax evasion.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[interiot]

The Streisand effect was particularly strong. In the last two days, his Wikipedia article has been translated into 10 new languages. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] That's hard to achieve without doing something really stupid.

The immortal words of Nelson spring to mind.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[Opportunist]

I could agree if he wasn't a leftist polticians. Left leaning people are not really on the lookout for the strong hand ruling with an iron fist...

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[Lars T.]

Yeah but can you carry a gun to protect yourself?

Yes, if you have a permit - but most people don't want to, because there is no need. Mostly because not every idiot gets a permit.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[Falconhell]

"God thing than that we all are of of African descent".

Damn christian creationists never stop do they? (-:

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[lennier]

"The only real stronghold of socialism is university campusses and government handout centers, filled to the brim with people who don't want to take care of themselves, but party and complain."

Well, those and the Pentagon.

The United States military-industrial complex is one of the best examples of old-school command socialism. A centralised, planned economy, largely driven by external taxpayer funding and Government allocations of huge amounts of money. Those who join the system have all their needs taken care of, but in return must obey a strict hierarchy, and dedicate all their work and efforts to 'the cause'. Low standards of living for the frontline workers are covered by lots of rhetoric about 'honour', 'duty' and 'sacrifice' for the good of the collective.

That's not just a coincidence or some strange freak of irony. The creators of Marxism took their inspiration for how to run an economy from the already existing militaries of the day, and then from examining industrial production lines and 'Taylorist' scientific management. They just extrapolated the trends which began in the 19th century, and which have culminated in the Pentagon system.

It always amuses me how right-wing Americans like to talk so much about freedom, individuality, and never being submerged in a collective -- and in the same breath, and with the taxes they swear Big Government will never take from them, and with literally the blood of their firstborn children, ardently support the world's most expensive and well-armed rigidly authoritarian socialist collective. They quote Rand darkly about the evils of 'Government men with guns' and happily 'support the troops' who are those same men. They think propping up such an antithesis of all their individualist beliefs 'preserves their liberty'.

Gotta either laugh, or cry.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[lennier]

"And Ireland? That's just horrible. And did really well back when it was ruled by English monarchists."

Except for that noted example of socialist economics, the Potato Famine.

Oh wait, the famine was worsened by merchants lobbying government to *drop* export barriers? Silly me, that can't be. Only Stalin would do something as heinous as exporting food during famine.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[Brandybuck]

I never blame a people for the inanities of their government. I was recently in Germany and I loved it. It's a wonderful place with wonderful people. But their government sucks. Being a very efficient government, it sucks very efficiently.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[lennier]

"Do you a) trade with him voluntarily or do you b) force him to give over whatever he produces into a pile with whatever you produce then decide how to use it?"

Or do you c) voluntarily decide not to *trade* but to *share* what you both have produced?

That would be voluntary socialism, as practiced by families and many tribal societies and volunteer groups, including open source projects.

Or do you d) seize control of the only freshwater stream on the island and build a poison-tipped fence of spears around it, on the grounds that 'it wasn't owned before' and the first person to take control of it (you) is the 'discoverer' and 'rightful owner', then using your poison-tipped spear make sure that the other guy can't 'steal your hard-earned water', and then when he's dying of thirst, drive whatever bargain he will agree with short of death, to take control of all his other possessions?

That's called 'enclosure of the commons' and is how capitalism actually works today, as opposed to how it works in Ayn Rand novels. Plenty of hard men with guns (such as the Mafia) see no conflict with making money and 'trade', as long as they get to set the terms of the trade.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[Brandybuck]

Free speech is not being elevated over other rights. Natural rights include the right to life, liberty and property. Free speech falls under "liberty", the right to act freely without interference so long as you do not yourself interfer with the liberties of others. One should have the full and unhindered right of speech, so long as such speech does not interfer with the rights of another.

The "right" not be offended is not a natural right. It is a political privilege that exists only through the use of political power gained through political gamesmanship.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[mjwx]

The longer a country's name is, the less likely it is to be true...

You mean Trinidad and Tobago and Equatorial Guinea are not really as they are described?

Thank you sir, you have opened our eyes.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[Opportunist]

The "National Socialist German Workers Party" (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, NSDAP) was anything but what was in its name. I've never ever seen a party that managed to lie in every single word in their party title.

It was not national. Hitler sacrificed southern Tyrol which was part of Tyrol until the end of WW1 when it was given to Italy (and still remains there) to have Mussolini as an ally (he was the Italian leader, you might know). Now, Southern Tyrol was predominately inhabited by Germans (or people of German descent), simply because it has been a part of Tyrol (and thus the Austrian-Hungarian monarchy) until the end of WW1. How can something be national(istic) if they don't give a rat's ass about uniting the nation, i.e. people of the same descent, in the same state?

It was not social. It was anything BUT social. One of the first political victims when the NSDAP rose to power was the socialist party and its members.

It was not German. Might surprise you, but it wasn't. Hitler was not a German, he was Austrian. The fascist idea he copied from Mussolini, an Italian. Although, if anything in that party's name is at least halfway correct, it may be the "German" part.

It was certainly not a workers party. Hitler got his backing from large industry and financial leaders, and he repaid them by pretty much eliminating all worker protection. The politics were clearly aimed towards maximizing industry output, no matter what cost, and no matter how working conditions are.

And it wasn't even a party. Well, it was as long as Hitler had to play by parlamentary rules to get elected (yes, believe it or not, he did actually seize power "legally", by abusing the flawed parlamentary system in place). The parlament assembled just once after his "party" gained majority, only to make him dictator. After that, you can't really speak of a party in the traditional sense anymore.

So don't read too much into party names. Usually, they don't necessarily represent what the party is about.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[Opportunist]

I'd rather say the difference in the two systems are basically economic, not necessarily in their social view. When you look at it, there was a lot of hero and person cult in socialist systems.

I'd say the difference is mainly that in a communist country, companies are under the rule of the state, owned by the state and produce what is dictated by the state. In a fascist country, companies are still privately owned. They may produce what the country wants, but more out of getting a deal rather than being ordered to do so.

There's generally much more economic freedom in a fascist country. Not personal freedom, but economic.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[Opportunist]

Old joke: What's the difference between socialism and national socialism? The same difference as between jacket and straight jacket.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[Hal_Porter]

I don't disagree with you on democracy.

The problem with the German approach is it doesn't work properly. The US has been far more liberal in allowing extremist groups free speech and they are politically marginalised. In Germany the far left and far right seem to have increased influence since reunification.

I could accept some sort of draconian restrictions on extremist groups if they are close to taking power - like the British crackdown on the Union of Fascists just before WWII or the one on the far right and violent Islamists now. However the current legal attack on the BNP and the Islamists is based on enforcing laws against incitement against individuals. The German idea of banning political symbols and parties seems to me to be highly counterproductive.

Essentially the UK approach makes it safer to organise as a non violent political party but less safe to incite violence. Essentially the BNP is allowed to organise provided its spokesmen don't cross the line into incitement in public speeches. Sinn Fein seems to have made the transition from a political party which gave at least tacit support for terrorism to one which is now wholly inside the political process and their violent 'Unionist' opponents have done the same. Now I hate the BNP, murderous Northern Irish sectarian parties, the Islamists and the Commies but I can see that the UK way of allowing them to operate as legal parties is better than the German one.

The German approach of outright bans actually does the opposite - it forces non violent extremists out of the political system and into the violent territory outside it because it all extremist parties are equally illegal, regardless of whether they incite violence or not. Also in the German model there is no way for mainstream parties to negotiate with parties that oppose the constitution, even though in the UK it was this negotiation that brought the Northern Irish sectarians into that system in the end by convincing them that disowning the terrorists was in their interests. And terrorists that have been disowned by their political allies can be dealt with as a law enforcement problem.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[Opportunist]

Umm... by not caring? That and being unable to understand that tax system. People just grab their wages slip and moan about taxes. Understanding them? What for, you can complain without understanding, can't you?

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[flnca]

The problem with the German approach is it doesn't work properly. The US has been far more liberal in allowing extremist groups free speech and they are politically marginalised. In Germany the far left and far right seem to have increased influence since reunification.

Of course it increased after reunification. We reunified with the GDR. In the GDR, people had almost zero contact with foreigners, and there are regions that are almost all white. Racist sentiment has continued to exist after WWII in the GDR, because the GDR did do nothing about it. Then there are the former SED members who formed the PDS party (and are now part of Die Linke / The Left). Hence, our laws are more necessary than ever. If we would abolish those laws now, we would have NPD and DKP in parliament, probably along with REP, MLPD, and PDS. Because NPD, REP, DKP and MLPD, along with former PDS members are being watched by the Constitution Protection, they cannot realistically dream of overthrowing the democratic government. Otherwise, Germany in its current form, would've been destroyed within years. So, quite to the contrary: It worked extremely well so far. There was a discussion about prohibiting the NPD once again (like its predecessors), but it was reckoned that watching them would be less dangerous. Finding and destroying the covert Nazi internet-based networks is one of the major tasks that law enforcement faces. So, as I told before, these parties exist in public in Germany despite the laws, attempting to weasel around law enforcement. But law enforcement is onto them. So, there's not much difference between what is done in the UK and Germany. Those parties, like NPD, REP and PDS have been sitting in regional parliaments already, BTW.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[RealGrouchy]

I'd say he wasn't a people person, but I did not know him personally.

Not "but", but "because". QED!

- RG>

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[AK Marc]

If the path to fascism is a capatilist society where the corporations buy the politicians, compared to a dictatorship where the politicians buy/nationalize all the corporations, does it really matter? If not, why then all the worries about socialism when the same can happen just as easily under capitalism?

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[davolfman]

What the right wing does has no bearing on my point. I don't particularly like either of the big two right now.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[XDirtypunkX]

No, fascism is not just total authoritarianism. You can have a totally authoritarian communist state that is not fascist. Basically, fascism is the combination of "right" and "authoritarian" where as most implementation of communism have been "left" and "authoritarian".

Fascism is an expression of a particular kind of nationalism (a kind associated with the right), subverting the will of the individual to the will of the state and that of the elite which are the meritocratic rulers of the father land. The meritocratic rulers have control of the means of production and operate in it's interests. Fascism also persecutes those with left wing ideologies, because they endanger the ability of the meritocratic elites to safely rule.

The economics of fascism involve a state corporatist coalition, where by the state grants the elite writs by which they can build a monopolistic corporation that owns the means of production and can work for the fatherland.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[Alpha830RulZ]

just gets harder and harder to earn more money as your income goes up

Actually, it gets harder and harder for a bit, and then it gets easier, then it levels out. The US tax rate maxes out at a flat rate of, I believe, 28%. The marginal tax rate climbs above that rate for a bit, as income climbs, until the average rate hits 28%, then the marginal rate drops to the average rate. The reason the marginal rate climbs above 28% is to make up for the first several $1,000 of income that are taxed at less than 28%.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[Alpha830RulZ]

Well, there is the economic dimension (capitalism vs less free market approaches) and the managerial role of government (more paternal, vs less intrusive), the later of which admittedly has become less differentiating among the US parties in recent years.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[AK Marc]

I pay for public roads and all the infrastructure I use I have no problem with that.

So we've established that you'll steal other people's money at gunpoint for your own benefit.

So here is a question that I'm sure you won't answer, Who are you to say that someone else counts over and above me when it comes to my money?

So, you are allowed to benefit from stealing someone else's money, but if they benefit, then it's a horrible immorality.

What gives you the right to lay claim on the money I earned over limiting yourself to money you earned?

What if the answer is "nothing, but it is in your benefit to fund those programs anyway."

Why would I have to take care of your family just because you are incapable of providing for them?

Well, you have two choices. Fund some form of support, or sentence them to a horrible death from starving, exposure, or something like that. You'd choose to let everyone die as long as they don't get their hands on your precious precious money. And you think the person you were responding was screwed up...

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[jcr]

We have NOT seen a true communist government anywhere yet,

Yes we have. We just haven't seen one that delivers what the communists and their apologists promise. True communism is the destruction of individuals for the collective. It's stupid, it's evil, and so is anyone who supports it.

-jcr

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[sumdumass]

So we've established that you'll steal other people's money at gunpoint for your own benefit.

Lol.. Nice try but not. I pay my taxes and probably a hell of a lot more then you do. However, the road use taxes are collected at the pumps when I purchase gasoline, not at the point of a gun. I'm not stealing anything from anyone, when I drive down a road, I burn the gas in which covers the expense of my car using that road.

So, you are allowed to benefit from stealing someone else's money, but if they benefit, then it's a horrible immorality.

Nice non answer there. Like I said previously, your off on this and it just shows your talking shit. Let me ask you again and see if you have the balls to answer it.

So here is a question that I'm sure you won't answer, Who are you to say that someone else counts over and above me when it comes to my money? What gives you the right to lay claim on the money I earned over limiting yourself to money you earned? Why would I have to take care of your family just because you are incapable of providing for them?

What if the answer is "nothing, but it is in your benefit to fund those programs anyway."

It isn't in my benefit to fund those programs. It isn't in my benefit to find half the programs on the federal lever that I am participating in the funding of right now. But if the answer is nothing gives you the right, then stop trying to make me. You see, I am a free man, I decide what is in my interests, not you. If you have no right over me, then you have no ability to determine my interest.

Well, you have two choices. Fund some form of support, or sentence them to a horrible death from starving, exposure, or something like that. You'd choose to let everyone die as long as they don't get their hands on your precious precious money. And you think the person you were responding was screwed up...

Well, your definitely into logical fallacies today aren't you. I have more then two choices, I can ignore them, I can help them personally, I can educate them, I can give them jobs, I can send them to jobs, I can do any number of things other then what your attempting to limit me to. Nothing in a free world is your way or the highway. Especially when I can't choose the highway choice.

You want to claim I'm screwed up when you just want to take from me to give to someone else neglecting that you can do the same with yourself. The problem is that things happen for a reason. Correcting the reasons that people become unemployed or whatever with provide far more help for them then you passing out handouts with someone elses money. But hell, don't listen to me, I'm the evil guy who thinks it isn't right and you are the nice guy who will be arguing the same arguments 30 years down the road when the handouts haven't fixed anything at all and done nothing but people who are productive into positions closer to those who aren't.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[ta bu shi da yu]

Oops. So true. Silly me!

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[AK Marc]

It isn't in my benefit to fund those programs.

"What if 'A'?" and you refuse to answer the question, and instead contradict the premise. Money spent on a number of programs reduce total cost. Education costs decrease prison costs. Education costs decrease medical costs. So, if you are saying that stealing from you at gunpoint is ok for some, but not others, you are really trying to impose your will on everyone. Whether it saves you money is irrelevant.

I have more then two choices, I can ignore them,

Yes, that was one of the choices.

I can help them personally,

That was the other choice.

I can educate them,

Again, that was covered.

I can give them jobs,

I see a pattern. You ignore my words, and instead make up your own. I'll stop pointing out that these are all covered. My statement was really just an emotionally charged version of: "you have two choices, you can help them, or you can not help them." You have stated that you have more than one way to help them. Great. But that doesn't change the fact that there are two and only two choices, and thus it isn't a false dichotomy. Unless you can help someone while not helping them. Perhaps that was your argument.

You want to claim I'm screwed up when you just want to take from me to give to someone else neglecting that you can do the same with yourself.

What I do is irrelevant to you. You posted first, and with some pretty kooky ideas, so I'm asking about them. That you don't like the questions doesn't change the fact that you presented them, and I'm challenging them. That you want to not answer and turn it all back on me is an answer, and it's the one I thought you would give. I never said whether I wanted to take from you or not. So, quit lying about that. I'm stating that taking from someone for roads, schools, the military, welfare, universal health care, whatever is all the same. You either take to pay for things, or you don't. You have stated that you are for taking to pay for things, so now it's only a question of what you are willing to pay for. My views aren't relevant to your answer.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[Carewolf]

Okay, sure the US gets more Nobel prizes. Please read what I wrote more closely, I am talking about Nobel prizes per citizens (million citizens really). The US is 50 times larger than Denmark and would if all things where equal win 50 times more often. Reality is that the US actually only wins 10 times more. Honestly though it _is_ a silly comparison, but is also silly to suggest that a wealthy western country like Denmark would be backwards or behind in science, just because we pay a slightly higher tax.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[sumdumass]

"What if 'A'?" and you refuse to answer the question, and instead contradict the premise. Money spent on a number of programs reduce total cost. Education costs decrease prison costs. Education costs decrease medical costs. So, if you are saying that stealing from you at gunpoint is ok for some, but not others, you are really trying to impose your will on everyone. Whether it saves you money is irrelevant.

I see you still refused to answer my questions and instead insist on throwing your broken logic around. So let's play this game, First of all, there is nothing showing that education costs reduce prison costs. In fact, with school system in the US, it probably means that teachers will end up being payed more for producing less intelligent student while passing the blame off on the parents who have to work two jobs to make ends meet and pay their tax bill.

Second, I didn't say that stealing from me at gunpoint was ok ever. I said I willfully pay for certain things. This means I give it away, they aren't taking it from me. I don't have withholding and haven't for a number of years. I fill out the forms, make my quarterly estimated payment and make up the difference at the end of the year.

have more then two choices, I can ignore them,

Yes, that was one of the choices.

I can help them personally,

That was the other choice.

I can educate them,

Again, that was covered.

I can give them jobs,

Now your just acting stupid. Do you really not see the difference between me doing something of my own free will and being forced to do something because you declared your morals are somehow superior them mine and caused the government to take my money to give to you or someone else? You don't see the differences where I suggested options other then ignoring them, that I was attacking root causes of the problems?

I see a pattern. You ignore my words, and instead make up your own. I'll stop pointing out that these are all covered. My statement was really just an emotionally charged version of: "you have two choices, you can help them, or you can not help them." You have stated that you have more than one way to help them. Great. But that doesn't change the fact that there are two and only two choices, and thus it isn't a false dichotomy. Unless you can help someone while not helping them. Perhaps that was your argument.

Hmm.. Lets see, I ignore your words and make up my own, well, I guess I'm stuck going back to asking the question you still refuse to answer, Who are you to say that someone else counts over and above me when it comes to my money? What gives you the right to lay claim on the money I earned over limiting yourself to money you earned? Why would I have to take care of your family just because you are incapable of providing for them? I think I will add another too, Who are you to claim that only your words count or that only your views are valid?

And no, your statement wasn't the same. You see, providing support verses sentencing them to death. I can help them without providing support whatsoever at all. I certainly can do it without the government taking my money to do it. I can provide them with opportunities, I can point them to were the opportunities are. Nothing came from my pocket, I'm going to expect an honest days work for an honest wage. It costs me nothing to say they are hiring over there or try not spitting during the interview. It costs me nothing to tell them they can enlarge my garden and plant vegetables in it for their consumption. If anything, I can talk them into weeding my portion while they are doing there and I would end up profiting. And yes, sometimes ignoring them is helping them too. Sometimes people need to learn that they are responsible for their own well being and not someone else before they start taking the appropriate steps to do so. Eith

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[Alex Belits]

Most of Universal Declaration of Human Rights is well outside of anything supported by US laws. If anything, US is farther from implementing it than any other wealthy country.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[Alex Belits]

Natural rights include the right to life, liberty and property.

Where did that crap come from? Not even US Constitution mentions this particular list.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[V for Vendetta]

I wouldn't really attribute it to regions, and instead to groups. Left-Wing prefers to undermine peoples freedoms for "the good cause", like in this case, morality. Without considering the impect. Right-Wing prefers individual freedoms over the hissy-fits of a a few minorities. Like drawings of certain prophets, or jokes about our strongly pigmented fellow men.

So, it's definitely a regional thing, because over here (Germany), the right wings are the ones who like to regulate everything, especially personal freedoms, because they think restricting personal freedoms is the way to go to either prevent crimes from happening or allow "quick 'n' easy" solving a case.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[Frnknstn]

At the risk of sounding condescending, I assert that every act of reading requires interpretation, and we now both assert that that the other interpreted the original post incorrectly.

From your reading, you claim that the post talks only about the rest-of-world people who are somehow inherently right-wing, and Americans who other people consider to be moderate.

My contention is that with that narrow reading, you would be correct in your rage and it would be true that the original post is worthless. However, I take the use of quotation marks around 'far-right', 'moderate' and 'left-leaning', and the use of the word considered to mean that the original poster did not intend for such a narrow interpretation, and that he meant 'people who could be considered far-right, moderate, or left-leaning by any reasonable measure'.

That would still leave us with the issue: is there any 'reasonable measure' that would allow us to ascribe the hated labels to people? Yes, the trivial case of people who self-identify with these labels. That is why I chose to present those specifics to you: not to prejudice any other specific reading, but to show that there was a reasonable interpretation that you ignored in order to deprecate the labels themselves.

With my broader reading, the original post attains at least some worth. By giving the original poster the benefit of the interpretive doubt, you can find common ground, and build a discussion around it. That is why I believe my reading to be correct.

That said, I must reiterate that I agree with you in principle that the labels 'left-wing' and 'right-wing' are not inadequate descriptors, and should never be used to prejudice one's opinion of another.

And I apologise for the spelling error. It is hard to spot a single wrong character in a large bank of letters, something of which you will no doubt be aware when you realise that you failed to transcribe my original misspelling correctly ;)

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[AK Marc]

I see you still refused to answer my questions and instead insist on throwing your broken logic around.

Your questions were never asked of me, but of someone else. I saw the general tone of your post, and asked you questions about it. You didn't answer my questions, but responded with ones of your own. Since I was the first to ask you a question, and you haven't answered mine, why should I be required to answer yours first?

Now your just acting stupid. Do you really not see the difference between me doing something of my own free will and being forced to do something because you declared your morals are somehow superior them mine and caused the government to take my money to give to you or someone else?

I see a difference. However, I wasn't talking about that difference. Either help of some kind will be offered, or it will not. That's it. Whether the help is Robin Hood robbing you and providing it, the government robbing you and providing it, you paying the Red Cross to provide it, or you providing it yourself is irrelevant to the point stated. You don't like the only answer, so you claim it is a false dichotomy when it is not. They either get help from you of some type, or they do not. There is no grey in there. The next point would be to discuss some types of help, perhaps a discussion on compulsory help vs voluntary help and how that relates to other compulsory things you've listed as acceptable, like robbing people at gunpoint for funds for road.

And yes, the KOOKY IDEAS was commenting on the opts idea that socialism isn't taking things by force.

The first Socialism was all about voluntary pooling of resources for the greater good. There was no force in there. Capitalism is the one that is based in force. You claim land, and if I don't agree with your claim, you assert it with force. Force is necessary for every step in capitalism. Someone makes a contract with you? The thing holding them to that is threat of government force. To claim one uses force and the other doesn't is absurd. Both are based in completely voluntary systems. Both have only resulted in systems that require force. To claim that a perfect deployment of one is better than a flawed implementation of another is useless rhetorical mental masturbation. There is no difference between the two as regards to force. That was my point the whole time, and you are so much a nutjob that you can't even see that as a reaonable enough point to even acknowledge, let alone discuss. You think that I'm a socialist (rather than the realist that I am) and have shut down your brain. Well, maybe based on your comments, you've shut down your brain many years ago. It's all knee-jerk now for responses from you. "Socialism bad, mmmkay."

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[sumdumass]

Your questions were never asked of me, but of someone else. I saw the general tone of your post, and asked you questions about it. You didn't answer my questions, but responded with ones of your own. Since I was the first to ask you a question, and you haven't answered mine, why should I be required to answer yours first?

Well, actually, I did ask them of you in my first response to your first response. But you are correct in that I was mistaking you for the person I was originally talking to. Of course you jumped in the conversation when the questions were asked and ingored them in favor of imposing your own so I can just as easily say why should I be required to answer yours first?

I see a difference. However, I wasn't talking about that difference. Either help of some kind will be offered, or it will not. That's it. Whether the help is Robin Hood robbing you and providing it, the government robbing you and providing it, you paying the Red Cross to provide it, or you providing it yourself is irrelevant to the point stated. You don't like the only answer, so you claim it is a false dichotomy when it is not. They either get help from you of some type, or they do not. There is no grey in there. The next point would be to discuss some types of help, perhaps a discussion on compulsory help vs voluntary help and how that relates to other compulsory things you've listed as acceptable, like robbing people at gunpoint for funds for road.

Well, there is a difference and it matters because the entire premise of my arguments revolve around the idea of someone taking what is mine and giving it away verses me deciding what to do with what is mine. Your concept of help being just help is actually foreign to the discussion and has nothing to do with the entire premise of my original statements. You see, when you inject yourself into a thread, you either need to follow along or be specific when your changing directions. Otherwise we end up talking past each other like we just did. Now obviously, I'm not stepping into a twisting of the words trap and making a generic statement about helping someone because I'm the one who decides what to help with and when if it is my money. Taking my money by force, whether your the government, some evil corporation, some robin hood gang or whatever, is still wrong. As for existing programs and uses of taxes, I think it goes too far and we aren't spending the money effectivly but I don't mind paying them for the most part.

The first Socialism was all about voluntary pooling of resources for the greater good. There was no force in there. Capitalism is the one that is based in force. You claim land, and if I don't agree with your claim, you assert it with force. Force is necessary for every step in capitalism. Someone makes a contract with you? The thing holding them to that is threat of government force. To claim one uses force and the other doesn't is absurd. Both are based in completely voluntary systems. Both have only resulted in systems that require force. To claim that a perfect deployment of one is better than a flawed implementation of another is useless rhetorical mental masturbation. There is no difference between the two as regards to force. That was my point the whole time, and you are so much a nutjob that you can't even see that as a reaonable enough point to even acknowledge, let alone discuss. You think that I'm a socialist (rather than the realist that I am) and have shut down your brain. Well, maybe based on your comments, you've shut down your brain many years ago. It's all knee-jerk now for responses from you. "Socialism bad, mmmkay."

Lol.. Here we are full circle again. I don't care about the first hippy commune. I care about the reality I live in. If I don't pay the taxes to support the socialism, I am forced to by the threat of violence and the loss of freedoms. Socialism can't exist on a without the use of forc

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[BgJonson79]

If there are limits, how is it free? After all, speech has never hurt anyone. Only actions do.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[BgJonson79]

Like Karl Rove, right?

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[AK Marc]

Of course you jumped in the conversation when the questions were asked and ingored them in favor of imposing your own so I can just as easily say why should I be required to answer yours first?

If you are going to whine that I didn't answer your questions, then you should have answered mine. To whine that someone else hasn't done that which you are unwilling to do is hypocritical. I wasn't "requiring" anything other than you than a self examination of your hypocricy in not answering mine and blaming me for not answering yours. Anyway, you pretty much said you did not expect an answer for them, so I wasn't going to bother. A question asked for which no response is expected is a rhetorical question and does not need any responses.

I don't care about the first hippy commune. I care about the reality I live in.

Then tell me what capitalist society exists without threat of violence in support of capitalism. If you can give me a good example, then you'll have a point. Otherwise, you are pointing out a feature of all governments and blaming one and only one type for what exists for all.

No, I don't use force, I present the property deed and then go to court if there is still a dispute.

Court is force. If they don't do what you demand, then you will go to court until they are physically removed from society. That's force (or threat of force). But if you can't even define "force" then I guess there is no chance of educating you. You have made up your mind and sealed it off.

And no, I didn't claim that the capitalist system didn't have force in it, I claimed that socialism isn't isolated from it.

Ideal socialism is forceless. So, someone may make mention that it is forceless, and the proper response is "possibly theoritically, but not in reality." But if your repsonse is "liar, all societies that are socialist are full of violence" indicates a lack of understanding of the situation, and an inability to make a coherent argument. Also, the manner in which it was stated at the point I read your post, the first in the thread I read, indicated that there was an implication that socialist was violent and capitalism isn't. Since you seem to continue to defend capitalism as non-violent (somehow implying a court order served by a policeman that will arrest you at gunpoint if you don't comply, and kill you if you resist is non-violent), it seems you are unable to view the governments in any rational way. You have decided which is best, and you will make sure that you only support the best one, even if you are forced to exclude important necessary information in doing so. There is very little functional difference between a modern practical capitalist society and a modern practical socialist society.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[sumdumass]

If you are going to whine that I didn't answer your questions, then you should have answered mine. To whine that someone else hasn't done that which you are unwilling to do is hypocritical. I wasn't "requiring" anything other than you than a self examination of your hypocricy in not answering mine and blaming me for not answering yours. Anyway, you pretty much said you did not expect an answer for them, so I wasn't going to bother. A question asked for which no response is expected is a rhetorical question and does not need any responses.

Do you have some sort of reading comprehension problem? Why don't you go back and look a little. I did answer your questions idiot. It may not have been the way you wanted them answered but they were answered. Go troll somewhere else if you that fucking stupid. BTW, I wasn't whining, I was attempting to call you on your logic which us screwed anyways.

hen tell me what capitalist society exists without threat of violence in support of capitalism. If you can give me a good example, then you'll have a point. Otherwise, you are pointing out a feature of all governments and blaming one and only one type for what exists for all.

Why? I have never said it didn't. What I said about capitolism is that it offers opertunity which socialism doesn't. You even attempted to twist the use of force when it isn't there. Your teachers and probably your parents or whatever looser raised you should be taken out of the game, they seriously failed with you. Paying attention doesn't actually cost you something out of your pocket, it is an expression that your doing due diligence with your attention. If you would have payed attention, even in the very last post, I specifically mentioned that I was talking about the ops declaration that socialist don't have the forced at gun point. You see, your not paying attention and your talking past points already made that you should already be aware of. and to think, you actually question why I called you an idiot. Here your attempting to argue I said something I never said even after I already told you that once before. What is it with you? Are you so ignorant that I need to draq you picture? If you want to argue the points I have made, I will argue them. But don't make up points or wonder off to some other bullshit expecting me to answer.

Court is force. If they don't do what you demand, then you will go to court until they are physically removed from society. That's force (or threat of force). But if you can't even define "force" then I guess there is no chance of educating you. You have made up your mind and sealed it off.

Bullshit. Court isn't force. They don't take your freedoms away over a land dispute. You don't need to pull guns like you said originally. Your reaching too far now.

Ideal socialism is forceless. So, someone may make mention that it is forceless, and the proper response is "possibly theoritically, but not in reality." But if your repsonse is "liar, all societies that are socialist are full of violence" indicates a lack of understanding of the situation, and an inability to make a coherent argument.

Oh, so you directly copy and past the parts where I said I didn't claim capitolism is without force yet you still didn't get the fucking clue when you asked my above. Your a real work there.

BTW, Ideal socialism only exists in your head. It doesn't exist outside i, our conversation is proof. If I don't want to participate, you will either have to force me to, or force me away from it. This magical Socialism is great if just everyone would get alone bullshit is just that, bullshit that has no connections to reality. Now your attempting to say but man, you just don't understand it like I do. Forget about the real world impementations and the history that we have availible, you want to criticize me simply because I can't immag

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[Dave Tucker Online]

Any law that restricts someone's freedom (other than to prevent them from using force on others) is a bad law, or rather, morally wrong, regardless of continent.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[VJ42]

NEVER has a [...] socialist leader done so, unless forced by arms)

I think you'll find that that's Untrue

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[rtb61]

Hmm, universal health care, USA, 'NO' not ever but you have had democrats in power many times. Tariffs are a typical conservative policy designed to 'protect' existing industrialists, don't confuse the current US administration with conservatives, they were simply con men fronting for s select group of wealthy individuals ie. protect financial companies, oil companies and media companies but don't give a rats about automakers or other manufacturers. Abortion is neither left nor right it is a matter of personal choice as for high taxes, be careful, as you must combine state and federal taxes to get a realistic overall taxation level in the US and when you do, taxation is very high in the US regardless of party in power all that varies is the biases in what they choose to spend it on.

In a global sense, the democrats to date are very much centre right (just off centre towards the right) and the republicans I don't really know where you really do put pseudo Christian lobbyists on the political scale, technically for the bunko artists they are, they really belong on criminal scale but, the far right is a convenient place to park them, this is likely to change as real republicans are now starting to take actions to regain control of their political party ie. make a very public showing of throwing those individuals who have betrayed the party in prison for their corruption (a worth while political tactic to regain popularity).

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[Miseph]

"Lol.. I pay for public roads and all the infrastructure I use I have no problem with that. That wasn't the question but it does bring up another, why is it I should have to pay for someone else to do nothing? And why is it that when someone brings up the question of keeping the money they earned that asshats like you want to distort the situation to exclude public services. You see, I'm not like you and others thinking they will get a free ride if we could only take from the rich and give to the poor, I don't mind paying my way. What I do mind is working harder just so you don't have to."

And if, hypothetically speaking, you make more money than others by use of this infrastructure, would it be fair to insist you pay a greater portion of the cost for building and maintaining it? What if you having more money means you have more assets to protect and therefore a greater interest in law enforcement, as well as costing more for them to protect, wouldn't it themn be fair for you to pay a greater portion of that cost? What if you make more money by hiring people who have been educated in public schools than those employees do (and if you're not, then you can not bother replying since you are clearly incompetent), should you not pay a greater portion of the cost of this service which is enriching you more than it is enriching others?

If we simply allow the poor and "lazy" (because clearly the only way to be poor in a capitalism is to be lazy, it couldn't possibly have anything to do with various other factors outside of anyone's control, or with the fact that industrial capitalism actually requires poverty in order to function properly, that might refute your entire fairy tale economic model) to simply die of easily treatable illnesses and injuries because they lack the ability to pay grossly inflated medical expenses while not working for extended periods, I'm sure that will do wonders for your bottom line, right? I can't imagine any real downside to that for anyone who isn't poor, because losing 2/3 of the population can only ever help us make more money.

What if the only thing keeping your pompous ass from being shoved against a wall and shot is the fact that there is some sort of publicly funded safeguard from total poverty? Who is really helped most by the tiny fraction of our government spending that actually is given as handouts? Have you ever seen one of those checks, do you have any idea what a paltry sum it really is? The funny part is that I don't normally bother trying to defend welfare benefits, because I don't really believe in them anyway (at least not the way they are done, there need to be more strings attached), but invariably you people bring it up as if there is anything even remotely similar between public education, transit and road services, law enforcement, medical care and emergency response and welfare programs, so I figured I'd let you in on the big secret of why they even exist.

"Now you know damn well I wasn't talking about not paying taxes, I was talking about the concept that socialism isn't promoted by guns and violence like Captain Splendid attempted to make."

No, I don't know that. In fact, you gave every indication you WERE talking about not paying taxes, and for you to say otherwise now is more than a little silly. And no Socialism isn't promoted by guns and violence any more than anything else is, and I would daresay that there are a lot of socialist governments out there that are far less abusive and violent to their citizens than ours. What gives you the idea that Socialism requires an authoritarian government? I know that it can't be that every Socialist country has gone that way, because that isn't actually true (FYI, the USSR, China, North Korea, Cuba etc. are not the only socialist countries around or in history).

"Actually, I am the only person who counts. Well, me, then my family when it comes to my money. But if you knew how to follow a thread, you would know I wasn't complaining about paying taxes, I was making a statement about how taxes ar

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[sumdumass]

And if, hypothetically speaking, you make more money than others by use of this infrastructure, would it be fair to insist you pay a greater portion of the cost for building and maintaining it? What if you having more money means you have more assets to protect and therefore a greater interest in law enforcement, as well as costing more for them to protect, wouldn't it themn be fair for you to pay a greater portion of that cost? What if you make more money by hiring people who have been educated in public schools than those employees do (and if you're not, then you can not bother replying since you are clearly incompetent), should you not pay a greater portion of the cost of this service which is enriching you more than it is enriching others?

Well, I can see what your doing but it isn't working. You see, the use of the roads and infrastructure is there for anyone to use. When I drive more, I already pay more, when I mail more stuff, I pay more, when I build more buildings, I pay more for building permits and title fees. You see, the argument that the same rates is not more when someone used it more is stupid because it completely neglects that you already pay more when you use more. The argument of you should pay more of a percent for your use if also twisted because the use is there with the opportunity is there and it is there for anyone to use or take advantage of. It's not my fault or problem that you aren't using it as much.

Also, when I have more assets, I'm already paying more. More land means more taxes, land that is worth more means more taxes, 10% of $10 is $1, 10% of $100 is $10, more is more. If your talking about non-taxed assets, then your still off. You could have 27 sets of silverware that will seat 16 people each. You would probably have more then me as far as assets go(that would be 17*16 or 432 knives, 432 forks and so on or) , should you now pay more now even though it costs you less the $200? Should the police and fire or ambulatory services ignore you while they service me because I pay more? Actually, they should treat us equally whether it is my one house I pay propery taxes on or your 3 houses that you pay property taxes on. Or which ever of the 5 cars I own when I am driving just one of them. BTW, I paid taxes on each car when they were purchase, I pay the taxes when they are registered with the state, so five cars means 5 times as much being paid. There is no reasons to charge me $20 more per car because I have 5 of them.

Your logic is flawed from the start when it is examined.

If we simply allow the poor and "lazy" (because clearly the only way to be poor in a capitalism is to be lazy, it couldn't possibly have anything to do with various other factors outside of anyone's control, or with the fact that industrial capitalism actually requires poverty in order to function properly, that might refute your entire fairy tale economic model) to simply die of easily treatable illnesses and injuries because they lack the ability to pay grossly inflated medical expenses while not working for extended periods, I'm sure that will do wonders for your bottom line, right? I can't imagine any real downside to that for anyone who isn't poor, because losing 2/3 of the population can only ever help us make more money.

Are we allowing the poor and lazy to simply die right now? No we don't there are actually laws that specifically say that you cannot deny emergency medical treatment based on the ability to pay. The poor in the US are actually taken care of quite well. The poorest people in the US are still within the world's top 25% of the richest people. Our poor are richer then 75% of the world. Think about that, then tell me again why someone thinks they need to take more of my money and give it to someone else?.

What if the only thing keeping your pompous ass from being shoved against a wall and shot is the fact that there is some sort of publicly funded safe

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[Brandybuck]

Please look up "natural rights". The enumerated three came from Locke, but was in some of the earlier drafts of the Constitution, before they replaced "property" with the more poetic "pursuit of happiness".

In a sense, all natural rights derive from the concept of self ownership. We own our bodies, not the public or the state. If our body is our property, then we have the right to defend it against death or damage (right to life), the right to use it to act, so long as that act does not interfer in the same rights of others (right to liberty), and the right to use its labor to create things and trade them (right to property). These rights are called "natural" because we get them merely by being alive, and not by the benevolent act of governments.

Other "rights" are in fact privileges, and require taking them from someone else. For example, the "right" to housing can only exist if the housing (or its use) can be taken from its owner. The "right" to a living wage can only exist if wages can be coerced from employers. Etc, etc. I'm not saying that these things are not important, only that they are not natural rights.

Apropos this topic, the "right" not to be offended can only exist by curtailing the rights of others to speak.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[Sapphon]

If I could give you some of the positive moderation from my comment, I would, but I'm afraid your quality answer will remain at Score: 1.

Thanks anyway! I appreciated the response :-)

holy crap

[Brian Gordon]

I want to know who these judges are that keep granting absurd injunctions. Is it really enough to just ask to take down any site you want? Wikileaks, and now wikipedia itself? Has anyone checked if this judge is still alive and it's not just his clerk rubber stamping a signature on every piece of paper that lands in his inbox? If he is alive I'd like to see him sitting in a defendant's chair intead of pompously in his dubious majesty up on the big throne.

Re:holy crap

[techno-vampire]

I want to know who these judges are that keep granting absurd injunctions. Is it really enough to just ask to take down any site you want?

Whoever this judge is probably subscribes to the same school of thought as that judge in Kentucky who ordered a batch of domain names transferred to the state.

Oops

[sakdoctor]

Thankfully for Lutz Heilmann, who formerly worked for the Stasi, attempting to censor information does not cause it to be widely publicized.

There should be a name for that.

Re:Oops

[Tubal-Cain]

Stasiand effect?

Re:Oops

[Brian Gordon]

YHBT

Re:Oops

[future assassin]

> Thankfully for Lutz Heilmann, who formerly worked for the Stasi, attempting to censor information does not cause it to be widely publicized. There should be a name for that. Lutz : One who tries to censor information about his or hers political crimes.

Re:Oops

[JoCat]

>

Thankfully for Lutz Heilmann, who formerly worked for the Stasi, attempting to censor information does not cause it to be widely publicized.

There should be a name for that.

Lutz : One who tries to censor information about his or hers political crimes.

We should concatenate the two:

Slutz: One who tries to censor information about his or her political polyamorality in office.

So what's the problem?

[Tubal-Cain]

forbidding the forwarding of the popular http://wikipedia.de/ to the proper http://de.wikipedia.org/

So what part of that is he claiming is illegal?

Re:So what's the problem?

[wild_quinine]

So what part of that is he claiming is illegal?

The defamation he's about to recieve on his wikipedia page.

Re:So what's the problem?

[Kjella]

According to the page they have put up instead, the german company has been forbidden from forwarding to any site that contains the accusations against him. Not linking to the accusations, but any forwarding. Under that ruling, they definately couldn't forward to google.com either...

Re:So what's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone editing his page should be careful to sticking to the facts, else they just justify its removal as well as degrading the stature of Wikipedia. German news agencies should get a copy of the wiki at the time when Heilmann complained and check all the info on it, then report on it noting the parts he specifically complained on including the findings of their own research. It wouldn't hurt for academia and the general public to join in on this as is their duty as citizens.

It needs to be made clear to politicians and bureaucrats everywhere that their very positions permit or even demand microscopic public inspection of their actions. If they are going to act to ban negative comments on themselves then the comments need to be at a minimum unprovable as facts or better yet provably false. If comments are found to be provably true then the response to the government official(s) involved should be harsh.

Re:So what's the problem?

[ScrewMaster]

According to the page they have put up instead, the german company has been forbidden from forwarding to any site that contains the accusations against him. Not linking to the accusations, but any forwarding. Under that ruling, they definately couldn't forward to google.com either...

As an American who has been following the irrational behavior of our courts on Internet and technology-related issues, I must say that this indicates we have no monopoly on drain-bamaged judiciary.

Re:So what's the problem?

[Menkhaf]

No, the German press shouldn't have to check all the info. The information is available on the internet from a country foreign to Germany. The German press shouldn't have to be involved in this case in any way.

Re:So what's the problem?

[narcberry]

The defamation he's about to recieve on his wikipedia page.

I think we can PENIS expect people to edit objectPENISively and with a bit of responsPENISibility.

Re:So what's the problem?

[saibot834]

To clarify a few things: This is NOT a final judgment. In Germany, we have a "Einstweilige Verfügung" (preliminary injunction), so if Mr. Heilmann wants to shut wikipedia.de down, he goes to a judge and the judge may approve in urgent cases, without asking the opposite side. This is only temporarily until there is a hearing with both sides arguing, and also, if it turns out that Mr. Heilmann was wrong, Wikimedia Deutschland has entitlement to damages that were caused by the "Einstweilige Verfügung".

So, cool down, this process is nothing special and it doesn't mean that Germany supports censorship.

Another detail: Wikimedia Deutschland is a nonprofit organisation, not a company. They work together with the American Wikimedia Foundation.

Re:So what's the problem?

[jrady]

This Blockhead is not whinging about his stasi-membership, he whines about being accused of not having finished his degrees. calls that defamation!
sometimes, i, as a west-german want the wall back!
unluckily for him, his closing down was done jsut before the weekend, so his antics have received wide publicity during the weekend. Now it is open to see for everyone what a bunch of stasi-minded idiots the "linke" party are.
and the closing down will be raised by monday anyway....

Re:So what's the problem?

[knuermpf]

He can't do anything against the servers, because they are not situated in Germany, his only option is forbidding the forwarding. That he does. Nevertheless the page displayed says implicit; to visit the german wikipedia use http://de.wikipedia.org/

Re:So what's the problem?

[AK Marc]

Another detail: Wikimedia Deutschland is a nonprofit organisation, not a company.

There is no such distinction in the US. Non-profits are often corporations, incorporated under rules not much different from for-profit corporations. I'm not sure if you are saying there is some distinction between an "organization" and a "company" or if you are saying there is a difference between a non-profit corporation and a for-profit corporation. The only real difference in the latter is that the non-profit is prevented by law from paying dividends. Non-profits even have to be run essentially like for-profits, in that they have to take in more than they spend, or they will go under.

How can this happen?

[thetoadwarrior]

If it's true then what judge in their right mind would block a site for telling the truth?

Re:How can this happen?

[techno-vampire]

In principle, at least, it could happen in Britain if the truth were considered sufficiently defamatory. Unlike in America, the truth is not an absolute defense there against libel and if you can persuade a judge that you were defamed you can win a libel suit even if what was published was the plain, unembellished truth. If, let's say, you had photographic evidence of a politician cheating on his wife and put them up on the web, he could sue and the judge would probably end up ordering them taken down. I doubt that anybody would go this far, but there's nothing in their law to prevent it.

Re:How can this happen?

[thetoadwarrior]

True but as far as I'm concerned if something is 100% unexaggerated truth then it's not defamatory or if it was then the person who committed the act is to blame not the person that reported the truth.

Re:How can this happen?

[techno-vampire]

You might not consider an ugly truth defamatory, but dictionary.com doesn't agree. If it injures your reputation, it's defamatory, even if (especially if) it's true. And, alas, in some parts of the world, that's more important than the truth. If you find it hard to live with, I suggest that you stay well away from places that think that way.

Re:How can this happen?

[eggnoglatte]

Well, as I understand it (and as the summary states), it is a preliminary injunction. Decisions made in such injunctions are often questionable, since they do not include full fact-checking, which is left to the main court proceedings. I am sure similar things could happen here (Canada), or in the US, although I would certainly hope that the final ruling would reverse the decision.

Re:How can this happen?

[k8to]

In american law, such things are not libel, but they are still defamatory.

Your definition is out of step with most.

Re:How can this happen?

[pjt33]

IANAL, but from what I gather (and can find online) In a civil suit for libel under English law, truth is an absolute defence: however, it is not so in a criminal suit. I'm not sure what the necessary condition is for a criminal offence to be committed, but I've never heard of a case of criminal libel being tried.

Re:How can this happen?

[u38cg]

Nope. Truth is an absolute defence in civil cases, which is all there is in Britain. However, there are privacy implications under case law; read up on Max Mosely if you're interested.

Re:How can this happen?

[techno-vampire]

If so, British Law has undergone a major change in the last few years because one of the grievances that led to the American Revolution was a case in which a colonial lost a libel case because the judge (and plaintiff, I might add) refused to allow the truth as a defense. The rich, in England, have long used threats of suit for libel as a way to keep their dirty little secrets out of the newspapers, which wouldn't work if what you wrote was true. IANAL either, but AIUI, you can present the truth as a defense there, but it's not an absolute defense as it is in LeftPondia. Note that I'm referring to suit for libel, BTW, not criminal charges.

Re:How can this happen?

[techno-vampire]

Wikipedia does not agree with you. It says that in England the truth is "an allowable defense," but that a defamatory statement is to be presumed false until proven otherwise by the defendant. Scroll down a little, and you'll see that in America the truth is "an absolute defense." That means that in America, if you can prove that what you wrote is true, you can't be guilty of libel, but in Britain you can.

Re:How can this happen?

[pjt33]

English law, not British law. Scottish law is probably different. Just one of the many complications.

The American Revolution was a fair few years ago. Since then there have been at least 7 Acts of Parliament with the word "libel" or "defamation" in their title (plus the Slander of Women Act 1891), and who knows how many other relevant changes in statute and common law. In terms of criminal suits it seems that "justification" requires that the statement not only be true but also in the public benefit. It may be that this is also the case for civil suits, but I haven't been able to resolve this question in a couple of hours of investigation.

However, even if I was initially correct, threats of libel suits still work because a libel suit, unusually, places the burden of proof on the defendant. If the person in question is willing to commit perjury (vide Jeffery Archer vs Daily Star) then newspapers have to tread carefully.

Re:How can this happen?

[AK Marc]

If it injures your reputation, it's defamatory, even if (especially if) it's true.

I think the implication was that I can't defame you for reporting that you cheated on your wife. You defamed yourself, and I'm just re-printing your previous defamation. Yes, that doesn't exactly fit the dictionary definitions, but it is a logical perspective for someone to hold.

Re:How can this happen?

[u38cg]

Bandying about technicalities here. If I claim that techno-vampire eats babies and enjoys it, and he sues me, then all I need to do in court is produce a video of him enthusiasticly cooking up toddlers and the case is over. The difference with America is that in Britain, if I don't turn up in court, I will automatically lose. In America, techno-vampire has to prove that he doesn't like the meat of innocent children (for example, by providing testimonies from reliable people that he is and has been for many years a committed vegetarian).

Re:How can this happen?

[dcam]

That is not entirely true. Under English law something is considered libel or slander if it lowers your opinion of that person. However it is not actionable if it is both true and in the interests of the public to know.

So in the case of the politician it would definitely not be actionable.

Germany does not have enough respect for freedom

[Anonymous Coward]

of speech.

That's obvious with their thought crime laws. It's at the other extreme of the political spectrum than in the 3rd reich, but still tyrannical, and modeled after the belief that the state knows best. Much of the world is actually this way.

I wish instead of an english pariliament system after the war, they introduced more the American concept of freedom there after WW2 with a bill of right blocking off the government from intruding in certain areas. A clear deliniation where you can tell the government to stuff it, that they are not the gods of destiny.

I say this as a German eyeing the EU in brussels wearily, as they churn out law after law while having no directly elected representation. They know want to ban funny shaped fruit and vegetables from the supermarket. Idiotic bureacrats.

All doubts are gone

[Charles Dodgeson]

People may have doubted whether a former DDR Stasi employee would reform or continue with old ways of treating the public. Now all questions about this particular thug have evaporated.

Re:All doubts are gone

[10101001 10101001]

I always thought that Dance Dance Revolution was grueling, inhumane, and generally evil, but I never imagined they had connections to the Stasi. Now it all makes sense!

Re:All doubts are gone

[AceofSpades19]

People may have doubted whether a former DDR Stasi employee would reform or continue with old ways of treating the public. Now all questions about this particular thug have evaporated.

Dance Dance Revolution?

Re:All doubts are gone

[Lars T.]

Yeah, but this also makes the point that a former DDR Stasi criminal still has a lot of power.

The same power any citizen has - are you saying that isn't the case in the USA?

FAIL!

[Chris Snook]

If you don't want publicity associating you with the Stasi, this probably isn't the best method of challenging the accusation.

Re:FAIL!

[Kjella]

It reminds me of this epic failure. God, has it really been that long...

Re:FAIL!

[clickety6]

If you don't want publicity associating you with the Stasi, this probably isn't the best method of challenging the accusation.

Yep, the best method is not to join the Stasi in th first place...

Not a good idea....

[jawtheshark]

If you really have a shady background, the internet will surface the truth. So, either you deny and have the consequences, or you admit your faults and people might start to respect you that you're an upstanding person.

Re:Not a good idea....

[narcberry]

If you really have a shady background, the internet will surface the truth.

Or google you and post the first hit as undeniable truth about you.

Summary wrong: porn, not Stasi

[Badge 17]

It's well-known that he worked for the Stasi, it seems, but he didn't like the claims that he didn't finish his university degree, or that he worked for a porn-related business (I don't know if either of these is true). The reason he's dealing with the forwarding is that wikipedia.de is under German jurisdiction, but de.wikipedia.org is not.

The lesson here is: totalitarian repression is A-OK, but porn is over the line.

German article here:

Re:Summary wrong: porn, not Stasi

[Badge 17]

Oops, I mean: German article here

domain name

[bzuro]

why don't you guys just transfer the domain name to some foreign body (wikimedia naturally comes to mind), out of the german jurisdiction?

Re:domain name

[wikinerd]

I really wonder why they need a .de domain name at all, isn't the .org domain enough? But I also wonder why they should have any domain name at all. DNS relies on central servers not controlled by you, which is a bad thing because whoever controls these servers can influence you, and this is one of the reasons I dislike DNS. I see nothing wrong in setting up a non-DNS site with an IP address or multiple IP addresses as its address. That way your site is totally independent from the DNS system.

Re:domain name

[bzuro]

i can see the ad say "check out the 82.135.225.*** for the new videos!!!". i call that THE copywriters nightmare...

Re:domain name

[jibjibjib]

There are two main problems with that: Nobody wants to remember an IP address, and if you somehow lose your IP address (e.g if that server/network/ISP goes down) then redirecting it to another one is more complicated than just changing DNS records.

Re:domain name

[wikinerd]

Yet it seems like people work ok with long telephone numbers. I fail to see how IP addresses would be worse than telephone numbers that everyone uses anyway.

Re:domain name

[CableModemSniper]

Is it possible for a .de domain to be outside of German jurisdiction?

Re:domain name

[narcberry]

Since it's a choice to use DNS, I don't see what your point is.

Re:domain name

[saibot834]

That's exactly what I proposed. However, the rules of DENIC (who manage all .de domains) say, that the owner of a .de domain must have a legal address in Germany. So, if the Wikimedia Foundation takes over, that doesn't really solve the problem. Perhaps another way to combat those "Einstweilige Verfügungen" (preliminary injunction) would be a declaratory judgment or a "Schutzschrift" (which should give some protection against specific "Einstweilige Verfügungen"). I'm quite sure the lawyers of Wikimedia Deutschland will work something out.

Re:domain name

[cpghost]

Is it possible for a .de domain to be outside of German jurisdiction?

No, because the registry for .de domains, DENIC, remains within German jurisdiction. They can always be ordered by a judge to suspend a specific .de domain, no matter where its servers or admins may be.

Of course, DENIC could (in theory) relocate outside Germany and ICANN could decide to let them manage the .de ccTLD anyway; but how likely would that be?

BTW, the root of the DNS itself is under U.S. jurisdiction, since ICANN is controlled by the U.S. Department of Commerce.

Lutz Helimann, ex Stasi?

[blind biker]

I didn't know that. Now I do. And so do a few tens of thousand other people who would have not known, if he had not tried to have the German Wikipedia shut down.

In fact, I bet that most of the readers of the German Wikipedia didn't know that Lutz Heilmann was a Stasi, and now they do.

Who the fuck elected this crooked fully-employed ex-Stasi to the Bundestag, though?

Re:Lutz Helimann, ex Stasi?

[MichaelSmith]

Who the fuck elected this crooked fully-employed ex-Stasi to the Bundestag, though?

German people, I assume.

Re:Lutz Helimann, ex Stasi?

[PolygamousRanchKid]

Who the fuck elected this crooked fully-employed ex-Stasi to the Bundestag, though?

I work with some folks from the former east Germany ... frighteningly, a lot of them seem to look back on the communist days as "good times." There is even a word in German for this: Ostalgie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostalgie).

Of course, all of them work now in the former west Germany now.

It's kind of creepy, when I think who the hell would shoot to death people trying to escape their country.

Re:Lutz Helimann, ex Stasi?

[fph il quozientatore]

Who the fuck elected this crooked fully-employed ex-Stasi to the Bundestag, though?

Never been to Italy, haven't you?

Re:Lutz Helimann, ex Stasi?

[jacquesm]

or to the US or the Netherlands for that matter.

Re:Lutz Helimann, ex Stasi?

[INowRegretThesePosts]

It's kind of creepy, when I think who the hell would shoot to death people trying to escape their country.

Absolutely. I mean, the message this sends could not be more clear
1) People are desperately trying to escape. It must not be good to live there.
2) The police violently stops them.
2.1) This is a horrible violation of human rights, and this disrespect for human rights is probably
  one of the reasons for the place being bad to live
2.2) If the government is this desperate at stopping people from escaping, them it must be *really* bad to live there

Speaking of that, a gigantic irony is Fidel Castro making a tremendous effort for his athletes to excel at sports competitions, and the athletes taking the opportunity of not going back.

Translation?

[Tubal-Cain]

Is there anyone here that can translate wikipedia.de's homepage for us?

Re:Translation?

[Snowblindeye]

Is there anyone here that can translate wikipedia.de's homepage for us?

Here you go, translation of wikipedia.de's current page:

In accordance with the injunction granted by the district court in Luebeck on Nov 13th 2008 to Lutz Heilman, member of parliament (Left Party), the Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. is forbidden from "redirecting the internet address wikipedia.de to the internet address de.wikipedia.org" as long as "under the internet address de.wikipedia.org" certain statements are published about Lutz Heilmann. Until further notice the service of wikipedia.de will have to be discontinued in its existing form. Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. will appeal this injunction.

The Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. is not the publisher of the "Wikipedia" which is published under de.wikipedia.org and has no influence over its content. Instead, Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. is a non profit organization to further free knowledge, which simply educates about the usage of Wikipedia. The operator of the Encyclopedia is the Wikimedia Foundation, a foundation that is incorporated in Florida, USA with headquarters in San Francisco.

If you want to support us, you can donate for us. More information under http://spenden.wikimedia.de/ That you for your help.

Our thanks go to JBB Lawfirm for the fast and competent help.

Re:Translation?

[rk87]

Due to an interim decision by the Court of Lübeck on November 13 2008, initiated by Lutz Heilmann, MdB (Die Linke), is the Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. forbidden from "redirecting the Internet address wikipedia.de to de.wikipedia.org", as long as there are certain statements about Lutz Heilmann on de.wikipedia.org. Therefore, until further notice the offering of wikipedia.de must be discontinued. Wikipedia Deutschland e.V. has filed for an appeal.

Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. is not the provider of the Wikipedia residing under de.wikipedia.org, and has no influence upon the content in the online encyclopedia. Rather, Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. is a non-profit association for the advancement of free knowledge, which merely advances the use of Wikipedia. The operator of Wikipedia is the therein identified Wikipedia Foundation, an incorporated foundation in Florida, USA, with its seat in San Francisco.

Re:Translation?

[ta bu shi da yu]

Thank you, Google translate.

Re:Translation?

[ta bu shi da yu]

Thank you very much, Google translate.

Re:Translation?

[C18H27NO3]

It's pretty funny the way Google Translate parsed the German to this: "If you want to support us, please let us send a donation." Well, if they think donating to me will help support them then I am all for helping out.

Working for them is not an indiscression

[MikeRT]

You can't work for an agency like the Stasi and just apologize for it. To be forgiven, you must don sackcloth, repent and repudiate what you once stood for. If this politician hasn't repudiated everything--everything--the Stasi stood for, he should be hounded for life for having worked for them.

Re:Is Obama's past on wikipedia ?

[cbiltcliffe]

Obama got elected because right wing policies have killed the US over the last 8 years.
I agree with you that leftist policies suck when implemented poorly. Guess what? Right wing policies suck when implemented poorly, too.

I'm sick to death of all this partisan bullshit. "It's all the Democrats' fault!!" "No, it's all the Republicans' fault!!" Guess what, you blind morons? It's politicians' fault!

The problem is not left or right wing. The problem is politicians, as a rule, horribly suck at implementing good ideas properly. They'd much rather write legislation that bandaids symptoms rather than fixing the root cause of a problem.
They'd much rather take input from industry insiders who have a vested interest in a certain outcome, rather than looking at what's best for the country as a whole.

All of them.

Obama was elected. Suck it up and deal. You can vote him out again in four years.

Until then, fuck off.

Re:Is Obama's past on wikipedia ?

[Tubal-Cain]

Does anybody ever wonder if these trolls might be Obama-supporters attempting to show non-supporters in a bad light through their idiocy?

He successfully took down another site

[cjfs]

... his own.

Please contact the server administrator, [no address given]

Re:He successfully took down another site

[quarterbuck]

Either his site has been hacked or he is apologizing . His webpage now has a single page message in german
Google translation says "No further legal steps against Wikipedia "
Zur Beendigung der juristischen Auseinandersetzung mit dem Wikimedia eV erklärt Lutz Heilmann: To end the legal dispute with the Association Wikimedia Lutz Heilmann explains: Nachdem die falschen, ehrabschneidenden und deshalb mein Persönlichkeitsrecht verletzenden Inhalte weitgehend aus dem entsprechenden Artikel entfernt wurden, habe ich gegenüber dem Wikimedia eV erklärt, dass ich keine weiteren juristischen Schritte unternehmen werde und die Weiterleitung auf die Wikipedia-Inhalte unter http://de.wikipedia.org/ wieder geschaltet werden kann. After the false ehrabschneidenden and therefore my personality right infringing content largely from the corresponding articles have been removed, I compared the Wikimedia eV explained that I no further legal steps will be and forwarding to the Wikipedia content http://de./ wikipedia.org again can be. Wikimedia eV kann also ab sofort die Inhalte der freien, nicht kommerziellen Internet-Enzyklopädie Wikipedia wieder über die URL www.wikipedia.de Wikimedia eV may ie immediately the contents of the free, non-commercial Internet encyclopedia Wikipedia again on the URL www.wikipedia.de zugänglich machen. access. Ich bedaure außerordentlich, dass durch die von mir beantragte Einstweilige Verfügung des Landgerichts Lübeck die deutschen Wikipedia-Userinnen und -User in den letzten 24 Stunden keinen direkten Zugriff mehr auf die Wikipedia-Inhalte hatten. I am extremely sorry that I have requested the Interim disposal of the District of Lübeck, the German Wikipedia users and users in the last 24 hours no longer have direct access to Wikipedia content had. Mir ging es dabei keineswegs um Zensur, sondern schlicht um eine wahre Tatsachen-Darstellung. I went there to be no censorship, but simply a true representation of facts. Der juristische Weg hat sich dafür insoweit als problematisch erwiesen, als durch die Struktur von Wikipedia die anderen Userinnen und User in Mitleidenschaft gezogen werden. The legal route has advocated so far proven to be problematic than the structure of the other Wikipedia users and users in affected are. Das war nicht meine Absicht. That was not my intention. Gemeinsam mit Wikimedia eV werde ich nach anderen Wegen suchen, um den offenen und freien Charakter von Wikipedia so weiter auszugestalten, dass Persönlichkeitsrechte gewahrt bleiben. Together with the Wikimedia eV I will be looking for other ways to open and free nature of Wikipedia develop so that privacy rights are safeguarded.

Re:He successfully took down another site

[Opportunist]

Yes, no legal steps against wikipedia. He did not say he'll drop the charges against the editor. Who didn't do anything but repeat what a German newspaper reported.

Wonder why he didn't consider taking on a publisher with more financial means than $deity himself but would rather try to tackle some Joe Shmoe Nobody...

It's a sad say when alleged leftist politicians learn things from the RIAA.

Re:He successfully took down another site

[Lars T.]

He isn't apologizing, the Wikipedia editors basically did what he wanted - because they actually agreed he was right. According to them, none of the passages he complained about belonged in (German language) Wikipedia article according to the policies. And before somebody asks - no, his part about his membership in the Stasi was not removed, because that was never one of the things he complained about.

Reliably sourced and encyclopedic?

[davidwr]

Now that he's going to be America's next Pres, you can argue that just about anything more than what's on his breakfast table is encyclopedic, but without reliable sources it won't stay on Wikipedia.

Get it on CNN or even a local newspaper and you can put it on Wikipedia. Well, until you get into an edit war then Wikifacts yeilds to Wikitruth, which is whichever side can out-revert the other without getting on the wrong side of the arbitration committee.

.de is the German national domain

[davidwr]

Getting the domain registrar for .de to shut down or redirect the domain would be the next step.

Encyclopedia Dramatica?

[davidwr]

With a name only 1 letter away from LULZ he's prime fodder for Encyclopedia Dramatica.

Ironically, the article about him says

There is currently no text in this page, you can search for this page title in other pages or edit this page.

IT'S CENSORSHIP! It's censorship I say!

He did it...

[sagematt]

for the lutz

Re:Is Obama's past on wikipedia ?

[Alex Belits]

I don't think, Republicans need any help in looking bad.

Title is wrong.

[jcr]

Change "Politician" to "STASI snitch".

-jcr

Re:Title is wrong.

[blind biker]

Change "Politician" to "STASI snitch".

You are wrong, he wasn't a Stasi snitch, he worked fulltime for the Stasi! He recruited snitches (which usually meant, he forced them into submission by blackmailing them). He was the worst kind of slime an autocratic regime can produce.

Re:Title is wrong.

[jcr]

I stand corrected.

That of course is even more disturbing. Being a snitch should be enough to keep anyone out of parliament. Being a full-time thug should have landed that asshole behind bars for the rest of his life.

-jcr

wtf?

[benjonson]

Secret police types are opposed to open information? Next thing we'll be reading is that bunny's are cute.

Re:Is Obama's past on wikipedia ?

[lukas84]

Where was this talk when Bush was in office?

You should've known that left-wingers only think that their's a right to complain when something happens that doesn't agree with their view.

This problem is the same everywhere in the world.

Actually...

[tmk]

Mr Heilmann didn't have a problem with Wikipedia publishing information on his work for the former Stasi. It's one of few facts in the article he does not complain about. He had some problems with enemies in his own party and with the yellow press. And he insists he had never interrupted his university education.

Re:Mr. Heilmann's party

[Lonewolf666]

Ok, I'm not the leftmost person on this planet, but maybe he just wasn't that important. Now, though, I do. And I know that he's probably not the nicest person to be around.

I also wonder how many have considered voting for his party and now, learning about this and what kind of people are inside it, won't touch it.

I can tell you more about his party:
The "Linkspartei" (literally translates as "left party") consists partly of former members of the SPD (moderate socialists) and partly of former members of the SED (the ruling party of the old East Germany dictatorship). Plus probably some other people from the far left political spectrum.

Personally, I consider them unfit to govern a democratic country (and probably a non-democratic either, considering the collapse of East Germany). The only political camp I have a worse opinion of are the neo-Nazis.

Re:"Anti-hate" laws are not -at all- anti hate.

[Vexorian]

Obama won, fucking get over it, thanks.

Lutz or Clutz

[Ronald Dumsfeld]

Surely this is political suicide? The German Wikipedia - as I understand it - carries a great deal of clout in the form of goodwill it has fostered.

Censor THIS!!!!!.....

[IHC Navistar]

From English Wikipedia:

"Lutz Heilmann (born September 7, 1966 in Zittau) is a member of the German Parliament, the Bundestag, for the far left[1] party Die Linke. Following his election in 2005, strong controversy erupted when it was revealed by the magazine Der Spiegel that he worked for the Stasi (infamous East German secret service) from 1985 to 1990.[2] Heilmann only left Stasi after it was dissolved following the fall of the communist regime. Heilmann narrowly survived an impeachment by the party electorate following his untruthfulness about his Stasi career prior to becoming MP.

He became a member of the communist party of the German Democratic Republic, the SED, at a time the party was still hardline totalitarian, in 1986, and has remained a member of its successor parties (SED-PDS, PDS, Die Linkspartei.PDS and now Die Linke), although he left the party in 1992 and rejoined in 2000.

Heilmann is the only official full-time Stasi employee to be elected MP to the Bundestag (although several other Die Linke politicians have been "unofficial" Stasi informants[3]).

Involvement with Wikipedia.de

On November 13, 2008, he pressed charges against Wikimedia Deutschland e.V., causing a preliminary injunction which bars the internet address www.wikipedia.de from being redirected to de.wikipedia.org as long as certain information about him is included in the German Wikipedia in the article Lutz Heilmann. He also took legal action against three Wikipedia users who had worked on the article. According to Spiegel's online service, Heilman objected to claims that he had not completed his university degree, and that he had participated in business venture involving pornography.[4] The report also suggests that the Wikipedia article had been repeatedly altered in line with his claims by an anonymous user operating within the Bundestag building, but Heilmann denied having been involved in an edit war.

Re:"Anti-hate" laws are not -at all- anti hate.

[flnca]

I've seen at least 3 distinct translated copies of the Qu'ran, despite the book says there must be only one Qu'ran text. So it might be possible there are multiple versions of it, some with a message of love, and others with a message of hate. The one at Submission.org appears quite positive, for instance. Two other copies I've seen were much different. So, anyhow, I guess, anyone who preaches hate is under surveillance in Germany, and I hope they manage to lift that threat from us. I've seen as many positive Muslims as negative ones, and I guess it's our obligation as Christians to do something about it. After all, the Roman Catholic Church was full of hate-mongering bastards for centuries, and this need not happen all over again with Muslims.

Completely false summary

[br00tus]

That Heilmann worked for the German Democratic Republic's Ministry for State Security has been well known for a while, he is objecting to claims on Wikipedia that he was a pornographer and the like, which there is very little evidence of. Of course, the person summarizing this making bullshit up has a much better chance of getting people up in arms over it, lying always helps in mud-slinging since the point of mud-slinging is to throw as much mud as possible and see how many uninformed people will believe any stuck, debunking lies is mostly a waste of effort.

In terms of free speech in Europe this is very minor, people are jailed for analyses of Nazi treatment of Jews during World War II that don't follow a set pattern. If people are being sent to jail for writing in Europe, I don't see why closing down a press or web site is that big of a deal. From my understanding of things, many Nazis tended to be barbaric, so I would be skeptical of apologetic books on how nice concentration camps were, but I don't think people should be jailed for it, or the books and presses even shut down.

Re:Completely false summary

[Sapphon]

Mod parent up. It's been known since 2005 that Heilmann worked for the Stasi. The Left (his political party) even had a vote about whether to keep him or not when the issue arose; relatively obviously, the voted to keep him.

It probably won't stop the ill-informed /. crowd from dragging out some old cliches about Germany, socialists, leftists, Nazis and so forth, but it would be nice to have discussion of the actual issue.

Re:Completely false summary

[cyxxon]

In terms of free speech in Europe this is very minor, people are jailed for analyses of Nazi treatment of Jews during World War II that don't follow a set pattern.

Citation please?

Re:Completely false summary

[ta bu shi da yu]

I believe he is referring to David Irving.

Re:Completely false summary

[OriginalArlen]

Yes, yes, it's all so clear to me now. This is why European social democracy is reviled the world over as a repressive, authoritarian, freedom-hating anti-democracy, where human rights and personal freedom mean nothing, and America is seen as a shining beacon of freedom truth and justice.

Re:Completely false summary

[br00tus]

Please quantify "people", how many?
Please explain if "don't follow a set pattern" = "don't follow truth".

People: David Irving, Ernst Zündel, Horst Mahler, Pedro Varela, Jürgen Graf, Germar Rudolf. And I can think of more that were jailed as well. People like Robert Faurisson were not jailed, they were put on probation. I should add, once EU countries start jailing people for this, the number of people openly engaged in it tends to fall off.

You say the set pattern is jailing people who "don't follow truth". If every book, article and so forth published that "didn't follow truth" were jailed, then there would be a lot of people in jail. So obviously that is not the set pattern. I'm not sure what ministry of the government would be the one to determine what historical truth was, and to jail people who go against the truth, perhaps we should go back to the days where the church controlled the truth, and the local authorities took care of the Giordano Bruno's and Galileo Galilei's who went against the official truth that the sun revolves around the earth.

Re:What Rights?

[Meumeu]

And maybe that's why Europe and Asia has a long history of despotic strongmen. Order over freedom tends to get that for you.

Or maybe it's because Europe and Asia have a quite longer history than America...

Re:What Rights?

[Timmmm]

At least we have a long history!

Re:What Rights?

[Tumbleweed]

And maybe that's why Europe and Asia has a long history of despotic strongmen. Order over freedom tends to get that for you.

As opposed to our *recent* history of them, of course. Fortunately, those of us in the U.S. are about to get rid of our despotic strongmen, along about January 20 of next year. No more of the "You better watch what you say," or "Anyone against us is unpatriotic" type of people. Mindless jingoism doesn't look good no matter what country you're from.

Re:What Rights?

[ScrewMaster]

And maybe that's why Europe and Asia has a long history of despotic strongmen. Order over freedom tends to get that for you.

Or maybe it's because Europe and Asia have a quite longer history than America...

You're both right, of course. You're trying to excuse Europe's long history of Empire-building and despotism by saying, "Well, they've just had a long history so it's happened more times." Well, that's true ... but it also means the Europe has had more time to learn from its mistakes, and didn't. The GP is correct (as were our Founding Fathers.) If you try to impose order, an arbitrary will upon a population, you inevitably degrade the individual. Some consider that to be a worthwhile tradeoff: our Founders did not.

Taxi anyone??

[RobertLTux]

and how many folks around are not grabbing a dump of the current wiki.de as a just in case measure??

Summary is wrong

[canajin56]

Or at least misleading. While he MAY not like the fact that they link him to the Stasi, the reason for the injunction is that the German Wikipedia page claims he never finished his university degree, and was involved in pornography in some way or other. The fact that he was in the Stasi was well known, and caused a political shitstorm when it first hit the presses, though he somehow managed to evade impeachment. He denies having not finished his degree, as well as his involvement in a pornography business. Whether or not they are true is unknown to me, but it DOES say so on Wikipedia (without sources)!

Re:Germany does not have enough respect for freedo

[ultranova]

I wish instead of an english pariliament system after the war, they introduced more the American concept of freedom there after WW2 with a bill of right blocking off the government from intruding in certain areas. A clear deliniation where you can tell the government to stuff it, that they are not the gods of destiny.

They couldn't. Germany, as a state, didn't exist after WW2; it was occupied territory controlled by the winners. For obvious reasons, they engaged in a campaign of de-nazification, which meant banning some speech. The current situation is simply a continuation of that.

Mod parent up

[Esteanil]

n/t

Re:"Anti-hate" laws are not -at all- anti hate.

[aproposofwhat]

Yeah, and we couldn't find the exact same ideas in the Old Testament.

Get over it, idiot - most monotheistic religions are a poison on mankind, and you're part of the problem.

The dumbest thing about this

[Anonymous Coward]

is Wikipedia's self-censorship. German Wikipedia deleted all references to the injunction in the article because it would be "implicit POV" (whatever that might be), and they're trying to silence discussions on the talk page because they're supposedly not pertinent. In German we call this "the scissors inside your own head". They're once more the most powerful instrument of censorship.

Re:Germany does not have enough respect for freedo

[sa1lnr]

But the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Commission isn't.

Re:Germany does not have enough respect for freedo

[Skuldo]

Bananas: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6481969.stm

It's a german language and NOT a german wikipedia

[muuh-gnu]

>hence beyond the effective reach of at least German politicians and judges.

Actually, it isn't.

German admins, though knowing that de.wikipedia.org is just a german language wikipedia and not a _german_ wikipedia, still enforce every fucked up ruling that gets out from german courts. By doing this, they effectively force every german speaker on the internet, even people from other german speaking countries, to obey silly german laws and court rulings and censor information which may even be perfectly legal outside Germany. Its like Saudi-Arabian admins from Fuckupistan were allowed to censor the worldwide Arab language wikipedia just because it had "Arab" in its name. German nazi-Admins in their best tradition of "vorauseilender Gehorsam" (hurry-ahead obedience) censoring swiss authors on a server located in the USA, give me a break. Why is such a idiocy even allowed by the Wikimedia central??

Re:Is Obama's past on wikipedia ?

[Toll_Free]

Judging from your mastery of the Engrish Rangrage, you don't think.

Hence the comma, seperating the thought.

--Toll_Free

Australian Internet Censorship

[SlightOverdose]

This, my friends, is precisely why I'm against any form of internet censorship, particuarly the one proposed by the Australian Government. As an Australian citizen, it scares the hell out of me that a politician could block a website purely because it is critical of him/her

Re:Is Obama's past on wikipedia ?

[AdonaiElohim]

Where's the 5000$ you promised ? The 5000$ that bought so many idiot votes, let's see it.

Again: The only American politician who has ever sent everyone a check in an attempt to buy idiots' votes was George W. Bush. Also, just in case you're curious, everything else you posted is wrong and stupid.

Re:Is Obama's past on wikipedia ?

[cbiltcliffe]

Did either of you pay the slightest bit of attention to anything I said before the last line?

They're all assholes.

Bush is an asshole.
Obama is an asshole.
Kerry's an asshole.
McCain's an asshole.
Palin's an asshole.
Clinton - both of them - are assholes.
Perot was an asshole.
Ron Paul, yes, even the mighty can-do-no-evil Ron Paul, is an asshole.

If your career is a politician, you're an asshole. Plain and simple.

When Bush got elected, I said the same thing. Had McCain won this election, I'd have said the same thing.

As for me needing to fuck off? I did. I live in Canada.

And Harper? He's an asshole, too.

Re:What Rights?

[arth1]

And what, exactly, gives you the impression that this will change?
The typical American dualism, where we think that if it's not one thing, it must be the opposite? I'm sorry to tell you that the world doesn't work that way, and that the enemy of your enemy can be your enemy too.

MODERATORS WITH BRAINS NEEDED

[fnj]

+1, insightful

Re:MODERATORS WITH BRAINS NEEDED

[ta bu shi da yu]

Thank you :-)

Re:Is Obama's past on wikipedia ?

[cbiltcliffe]

You patronizing, obnoxious shitcocks.

I'm not even close to a socialist.
I'm not a leftist.
I'm not a commie.

If anything, I'm a conservative.
Yes, that's right. My views are more Republican (not neo-con Republican, but classic Republican) than Democratic. But because I told you to suck it up since Obama got elected, you all decide I'm a red party Russian, and go off all partisan about leftist bullshit.

THAT'S WHY PARTISAN BULLSHIT PISSES ME OFF, ASSHOLES!!!!!!

Anybody who disagrees with you for any reason at all must be an idiot, and must be with "them."

As to your statement that leftist policies don't and cannot work, even when implemented properly, explain this to me:

Canadian government run healthcare.

Yeah, that's right. We all get free health care, paid for by the state. And because of that, nobody in the entire country wants to go out and get a job, because after all, the only reason to get a job in any other country is to get free health care benefits, right?

The problem is, you see "leftist policies," and immediately think "extreme communist socialism." Because you're one of the aforementioned partisan assholes, anybody on the other side is an extreme radical, because that's the only way you can make them look foolish in your own mind.

There are some things that make sense to have socialized. (Yes, this comment coming from a conservative.) There are plenty of things that don't make sense to have socialized.

Taking your logic (illogic?) to it's extreme, all leftist policies are bad, therefore all government-funded anything is bad.

Then who the hell builds the roads, dickhead?
If you want the government to build roads, then you must agree with the communists, because OMGLOLCATS PEOPL AR GTINGG THERE RODES FOR FREE!!! COMMIESRUSSIANSTAKINGOVERDAMMITT!!!111!1ONE!!!

You all suck.

Re:Is Obama's past on wikipedia ?

[cbiltcliffe]

Since you're too simpleminded to get the meaning out of a complete sentence, I'll explain it to you.

Reagan was partly responsible for the shitty healthcare and sucky education systems.

Bush is responsible for continuing that, and added in the idiotic wars.

Re:What Rights?

[MindlessAutomata]

America was founded by Europeans, for the most part. It's not like it just popped into existence by people who knew no history. In fact, history played a great part in why they shaped our government the way they did, rightly or wrongly.

Re:What??

[Bambi Dee]

Because they weren't breaking the law at the time. (Short version)

German chancellorate history

[jonaskoelker]

Germany serves as a reminder of what will happen to a country if you vote far-left too long.

Your facts are not the facts of reality. If you read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chancellor_of_Germany you will see that since 1949, you'll see that there are five from CDU (centre-right), three from SPD (left) and one from FDP (centre-right). If you look at the federal presidents, it's five-two-two.

Germany is not far left.

Re:What Rights?

[seriesrover]

True in one sense, but European history is filled conflicts, largely due to geography allowing nations to assert power over other nations. This then leads to "bad blood". Lets remember WW2 was mostly induced by the reminants of WW1. However what I think has "saved" the US from despotism is its governmental system which is extremely formalized, including a devolved separations of power. The British system, for instance, is very much a developing system without even a written constitution.

Re:What Rights?

[DesScorp]

"Fortunately, those of us in the U.S. are about to get rid of our despotic strongmen, along about January 20 of next year."

You realize that you just defeated your own argument, don't you? If you can vote them out, then are they despots? Despots don't tend to stand for things like free elections, and George Bush and his party have lost two in a row without sending the Army to void those elections. Just because you don't like the guy doesn't qualify him as a tyrant.

Re:On the other hand

[lukas84]

No matter, most of continental europe will muslim and the minority (the old majority) will wish they had been more like the United States. The next 40 years will not be good ones for Europe

Which is exactly what many people in Switzerland (and several other European countries) are heavily afraid of.

While Switzerland has a rather popular party that tries to combat some of these problems (SVP, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_People's_Party) and it's a rather widespread opinion, the fact remains is that many people are afraid of talking about the fact that they voted for the SVP (which a rather large part of Switzerland did!).

It's interesting to see how this will go out - whether we will ultimately sacrifice ourselves for the multi-cultural/integration values instigated by left-wing parties, or whether we will survive with our own independent culture.

WOW

[thexile]

This news is full of Godwin!

Same in the US

[aepervius]

You have anti obscenity law. Heck in some state (was it texas?) you even had anti sodomy law, making some form of conscensual sex between adult forbidden. The Europe out of historical reason supress some freedom (hate speech) whereas the US out of other historical & cultural reasons suppress sex and obscenity.

Frankly I prefer to be forbidden to say "jew are to be killed" rather than being forbidden to have the sexual act I want with my girlfriend, or to be heavily fined because of another nipplegate or even having my neighbors being actively fought with the law to forbid him marrying with another man, HECK or even having various education board promote creationism, or even being forced to hold a money promoting a god etc... Naturally you are free to have another opinion ;).

Re:Same in the US

[lukas84]

Well, you're right, the US has it's share of problems too. That's not really surprising, and i don't think it matters much.

Which one's the lesser evil doesn't matter much, as long as it's an evil, it must be fought.

Re:Is Obama's past on wikipedia ?

[bytesex]

Well I agree that they rather pale in comparison to Afghanistan and Iraq, but during Reagan there *was* Grenada, Beirut and Panama. But I suppose that by now just killing a few hundred people cannot be properly called a 'war' anymore. That's just 'collateral damage' from an 'incident'.

Re:HITLER was facist = ULTRA RIGHT WING

[ta bu shi da yu]

Your muddled thinking means that this debate will go nowhere. But that's OK, because anyone who thinks that defining someone within an ill-defined two-dimensional political axes is probably not worth debating.

Re:We don't need 10000 doctoral dissertations ...

[jacquesm]

What an unbelievable load of crap. The biggest difference between former east and west Germans (now there are only Germans) is that they were less educated and a lot more poor. If you think whatever country you live in does not have a 'secret police', whatever it's name then you're really not informed as well as you make it seem.

East Germany was very much under the boot of the USSR, just like Poland, Hungary and a host of other countries that are now part of - or about to become part of - the EU. America and the rest of Europe carry at least as much responsibility in the creation of the monster called Nazism as do the Germans, but it would take a politician with some real brass ones to openly admit that. The Germans have been pushed into a position of collective guilt which the current generation should carry absolutely no blame for. Since you're posting on /. I assume you are not one of the last remaining people that fought in the resistance, so you also had no dog in that fight.

Be objective.

With 99% of the people in those countries there is absolutely nothing wrong, maybe they could do with a bit of education, about the consequences of voting blindly and being influenced by propaganda.

Psychopaths exist in any culture, all it takes is a good dose of fear, some propaganda and a charismatic leader to make a majority of the populace in almost any country in the world vote for a totalitarian regime. Look at what has been happening in the US over the last 8 years.

Once you've got that it will take major force from outside or a revolution to get rid of them again.

Go see the movie 'the wave' (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0083316/) and read some history books.

The seriously ugly thread that you see running through Germany is running through most of society, like it or not.

Should be tagged "bad title"

[Timosch]

As it's also written in the summary, he has *not* forced de-wiki offline, but only a redirection which hardly anybody uses anyway. By the way, this is only a preliminary injunction.

The loss was too big

[Nicolas MONNET]

There is not a perfect dichotomy between "perfectly free eletions" and "despotism." In the middle lies "tweaking results," "voter intimidation," "caging," "Diebold" and "The Supreme Court's Bush v Gore".

In the past two elections in the US, the margin was high enough to overrule the tweaking.

Re:The loss was too big

[DesScorp]

Well, reason doesn't seem to be enough to overrule your paranoia.

Re:What Rights?

[mpe]

unfortunately the argument of "Either you are with us or you are against us." is still 100% Valid. You either support terrorism and the acts that terrorists do, or you do not support terrorism, and you want to do anything within means and power to abolish the fear that terrorism instills.

the "you are with us or against us". Also tends to imply "If you don't support the measures we advocate against terrorists then you must be supporting terrorism".

Re:What??

[shutdown -p now]

That excuse didn't fly for NSDAP members, why should it be any better for the Stasi?

Heilmann releases statement

[Thimo Langbehn]

Lutz Heilmann has released a statement on his previously unavailable website http://www.lutz-heilmann.info/. According to the text, he has lifted the forwarding restrictions and will refrain from further legal actions against Wikimedia e.V. . Furthermore he regrets the problems caused to german wikipedia users.

Wikimedia should send him a bunch of flowers,

[fenkt]

for all the donations he raked in.

Re:Traitors and Soviet occupation criminals

[shutdown -p now]

I don't know about illegitimate, really. The West has backed the USSR during and after WW2, and did not complain back then - now is a bit too late. Nor are the collaborators "traitors" - what state did they betray, the Third Reich?

It doesn't matter in the slightest, though. A "legitimate" regime can just as well be criminal if it commits crimes against the people it rules. By that definition, I'd argue that the old GDR regime was criminal, and any willing collaborators should be considered criminals as well, just as Nazi collaborators were. Really, most of the Easter Europe has dealt with this much better than Germany did - look at the post-liberation anti-communist purges in the ruling elites of Poland, Baltic countries, etc.

Germans doesn't always speak English

[jopsen]

Offtopic, but just to answer you question:

Not to mention that, if you really insist, you can still choose a different copy of Wikipedia to get information about him. Ok, granted, not in German, but is there anyone in Germany using the internet and NOT able to read English?

Yes, there is... I'm not one, I'm Danish... But I do sometimes get mails in German from people who are either too lazy or stupid to write in English...
I usually tell them to please write in English, as I would hate to use my rusty German, a language I by the way hated in school :)

it was more *after* he took over

[Trepidity]

The NSDAP had multiple wings prior to the takeover, of which the socialist wing (concentrated in the working-class-dominated SA "brownshirts") was one of the largest and most powerful. Hitler didn't have backing of the corporate and aristocratic class initially: they saw him as a nut who might be useful.

*After* Hitler had gotten into power, the SA's agitation for socialist reform of the economy, and especially its calls to replace the old conservative army with itself as the new German army, led to strong pressure on Hitler to dissociate himself from them. Hence the Night of the Long Knives, in which most were murdered, purging the party of its socialist element. After that, Hitler received strong support of the conservative business and aristocratic classes.

Re:it was more *after* he took over

[Lars T.]

Nice theory, but without the massive support from corporations, the Nazi party would have gone bankrupt long before they got anywhere in elections - and even then they couldn't get to power without the support of several conservative parties.

Re:it was more *after* he took over

[Trepidity]

I'm not aware of any evidence of that historically, despite being fairly familiar with the historiography of this era. The pre-power Nazi Party did receive donations from anti-Semitic small businessmen who liked its racial message, but prior to about 1933 or 1934 it received virtually nothing from large corporations: certainly not during the period (1926-1930) when the socialist Strasser brothers had major leadership positions in the party. Even after Otto Strasser's expulsion in 1930 mollified some businessmen, the conservatives still spent more effort trying to split and coopt the Nazis than support them: e.g. von Schleicher tried to appoint Strasser to a position in his government in 1932 in order to weaken Hitler.

As far as I know 1934, and especially the Night of the Long Knives, is agreed upon by most historians as the turning point where Hitler purged the socialists and threw his lot in with the business and aristocratic conservatives, who thereafter duly supported him.

Re:it was more *after* he took over

[Lars T.]

http://www.dhm.de/lemo/objekte/pict/d2z02541/index.html. Fritz Thyssen was "a small businessman"? This is interesting a rundown of major supporters of the NSDAP from 1930-32. The large majority of money actually came from foreign businesses, only about 20 million RM from Germans.

definitions I suppose

[Trepidity]

If you define Communism as purely a Marxist idea, i.e. nothing outside the works of Karl Marx (and maybe Engels), then it's somewhat underspecified, so could be a lot of things.

The most prominent use of "communism", both in practice and among Marxist theorists, is rather Marxism-Leninism, which has a specific political program involving a "vanguard party" that will seize power in the name of the masses and shepherd the transition to communism. It's not too hard to see how this vanguard party, which is purposely intended to be smallish, tight-knit, and fully controlling of the political process in the initial stages, could lead to authoritarianism if the promised transition never happens.

you linked to a rebuttal of your own quote

[Trepidity]

Your link goes to a book chapter that starts with that quote as an example of "Marxist and liberal denial of fascism's revolutionary credentials", then goes to argue that this is a mistaken view.

Re:you linked to a rebuttal of your own quote

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Regardless, if marxists and liberals are in opposition to the nazis, it should be clear that the nazis were really not anything even remotely "socialist" as OeLeWaPpErKe claimed.

Re:Is Obama's past on wikipedia ?

[cbiltcliffe]

Well, no, I can't change your first amendment rights, because, as I stated, I live in Canada. I'm a Canadian citizen, not American. That means I can vote to change Canadian laws, but not American.

But you're apparently a complete simpleton, so you don't really understand this.

And I don't really give a flying shit if you believe anything I've said.

I know that politics sucks, partisan politics sucks shit, and politicians are all assholes.

And you, Mr. AC, are a pool of nasty, putrid, foul smelling butthole vomit. With a bad attitude to boot.

Re:Is Obama's past on wikipedia ?

[cbiltcliffe]

That's the most well debated, sensible comment I've read all day.

You must be a communist.

Re:Is Obama's past on wikipedia ?

[cbiltcliffe]

I'm not a raving lunatic, but I'm certainly pissed.

However, my angry, but well designed argument was completely ignored by Asshole Coward in favour of mudslinging.

Just like American political commercials:

"My opponent sucks. Vote for me."

No wonder you like partisan politics. You can't form anything more than a 2 dimensional thought in that atrophied little brain of yours.

Re:Traitors and Soviet occupation criminals

[Lars T.]

Lutz Heilmann betrayed his country, Germany. He served the Russians.

The Stasi was (East-)German, not Russian.

Re:Germany does not have enough respect for freedo

[pbaer]

America has thought crime laws too, they're called "hate crimes". If you kill someone because he fucked your wife, that's bad, and you'll go to jail. If you kill someone because he's black, and you hate black people, that's extra bad, and you'll spend more time in jail.

*headscratch*

[magus_melchior]

I have no clue what the political landscape in Germany is like, so mudslinging might stick more readily there. A certain candidate on this side of the Atlantic, however, made it a point never to attack his opponents in the elections, while taking the effort to put the truth out there in regard to various attacks made against him. Where his opponent was being hypocritical, he was quick to exploit the opportunity when the opponent attacked, making his political defenses seem like jujitsu or judo. The end result was, the candidate seemed so comparatively squeaky clean in terms of public perception (despite the odds against him, and despite a couple of questionable moves in the Senate) that the opposing party's campaigns went ape-shit trying to bring him down by any means necessary. That predictably backfired, and the candidate is now our President-elect.

Of course, Heilmann's baggage certainly hurts him here. It would depend on the Germans' perspective-- would they see a legal challenge/protest against the site without the takedown as weak and indecisive, or defensive and just? Do they look favorably on a ham-fisted approach to silencing critics, particularly by taking them down?

Re:Germany does not have enough respect for freedo

[LordVader717]

Congrats, you found a Government body which isn't directly elected. Nobody would expect that /sarcasm

Okay, the Commission has exclusive legislative initiative. But every law has to be ratified by the parliament.
The GP's comment just seemed to be another ill-placed, uninformed and completely offtopic jab at European Union like we have been bombarded with from the media.