pull down to refresh

The problem is mostly the defamation laws. You still have broad freedom of speech protections but these become void if you address your savagery to another person/"identity".

So you could say "I think that rapists are disgusting pigs", but you cannot walk up to a rapist and call him a "disgusting pig". That would mean that a convicted rapist can sue you for defamation, and this gets taken seriously.

While I do feel that a lot of higher profile people that get in trouble with the law over this are doing it on purpose, because headlines, the imbalance is a serious issue. Especially since politicians are using this all the time against their critics.

As long as you politely resist, you'll be fine though lol.

248 sats \ 7 replies \ @freetx 25 Jan
While I do feel that a lot of higher profile people that get in trouble with the law over this are doing it on purpose though, because headlines, the imbalance is a serious issue. Especially since politicians are using this all the time against their critics.

The US solves this issue via the concept of "public vs private person".

Essentially being a "public person" means you largely give up your rights to slander / defamation since the concept is you willingly put yourself in the public sphere, thus there is a 'public ownership' portion of that...this mirrors in law the same idea that its not illegal to film someone on a public street.

Whereas a "private person" is one that still retains their ability to sue for slander / defamation.

The basic litmus test for public vs private is "making public statements", so that includes things like public speeches, writing articles, etc.

I know a very rich family who are very insistent on protecting their "private stature" as it relates to the law. Like even if they donate money to a charity and the charity wants to honor them by asking them to say a few words at their meeting, they refuse.

reply

Yes. Basically Anti-SLAPP. I'd say Germany needs this.

reply
116 sats \ 4 replies \ @freetx 25 Jan

This is one of the reasons why social media that forces you to use your real name is so dangerous to US citizens and its something that 99.9% of the populace doesn't understand.

When Jane Smith post a picture of her breakfast on facebook, she doesn't realize that she is crossing the line between private - public persona.

reply

Does it really work that way? I'd be surprised if posting food pics to Facebook all of a sudden make you meet the criteria for "public person"

reply

No, its a sliding scale of course, but the threshold becomes cumulative. That borderline is what becomes litigated....

A single pic of a bagel or commenting "so cute" on neighbors kids pics wouldn't pass the test.

But constant public commentary, an instagram page, X account, youtube account will at some point push you over the threshold of what a jury finds that you are now a public person.

reply

What if you use your pen name, say for X, but it doesn't take too much digging to discover your real name? Are you a public person?

reply
116 sats \ 0 replies \ @freetx 25 Jan

Well, I think what would happen is that your "pen name persona" would have a higher threshold for being able to claim defamation, and that could spill over to your real name.

For instance, you publish as Bill Smith, but your real name is John Jones....well "Bill Smith" can then be publicly talked about, criticized, speculated about, etc....One of those speculations might be: "Its a fake name, his real name is John Jones".

To add to this, even if you are famous (ie. a public persona) you can still sue someone for defamation. The difference is in the threshold for "actual malice".

Basically its assumed public people are going to be speculated about, so of a politician you can say: "Biden probably was involved with stealing money from Ukraine". Joe Biden as the President would have a very very high threshold to prove "actual malice"....whereas if you say that about a private persona the threshold would be far lower.

reply

Fascinating! Thanks for this. It would seem like a very hazy line between public / private, and who crosses over, and why. Like, what counts as a public statement could be argued over. Posting on Twitter, for instance? Hmm.

reply

Do those protections extend to people outside Germany? It seems like Trump could probably get lots of Germans locked up for what they've said about him.

reply

I'm sure that in exchange for recognizing the ICC he can get a lot of stuff done. Great deal lmao.

reply