If following a law slightly restricting freedom of speech - which is fully compatible with the German constitution may I add - ensures the existence of the instance, then yes, following this law is a moral good.
Besides, wrong laws should be followed, provided the law is not unjust in its very foundation (such as a law mandating the dealth penalty). That’s the Radbruch formula which is a core of German jurisprudence since WW2 which allows for prosecution of “legal” crimes and mandates disobedience of unjust laws.
This current law - or rather the interpretation of it - is objectively wrong. Its foundation - the criminalization of antisemitism and Holocaust denial - however is not unjust in its very being.
You can be assured feddit.org will never follow any “law, no matter how wrong it is” - as that would be illegal.
Well what about: germans should respect germans laws, and not tell me, belgian, what I can call nazi or not.
Beside it’s bullshit. You can frame any law as having a fair purpose. In its current form, it’s weaponizing the remembrance of the holocaust to downplay and justify the current genocide. It is used to push the rhetoric according to which the genocide was self-defense and that without israel the jews would get killed. It’s constantly conflating the israeli state and the jewish people (that’s antisemitism), saying that wishing for the end of the former means wanting to kill the later.
In general germans people should really shut the fuck up about genocide.
Except that on a German instance you must abide German laws. If it were a Belgian instance, Belgian laws would have to be followed. You can call anyone and anything a nazi outside of instances hosted by Germans.
For similar reasons, calls for the death of billionaires are removed on lemmy.world because that violates laws where that instance is hosted.
The Radbruch formula is not bullshit though, as it explicitly defines when disobedience of laws is mandatory. Slightly infringing on freedom of speech is not a valid reason, as it doesn’t violate fundamental rights that cannot ever be restricted by laws - most notably the freedom to live and being free of bodily harm.
If following a law slightly restricting freedom of speech - which is fully compatible with the German constitution may I add - ensures the existence of the instance, then yes, following this law is a moral good.
Besides, wrong laws should be followed, provided the law is not unjust in its very foundation (such as a law mandating the dealth penalty). That’s the Radbruch formula which is a core of German jurisprudence since WW2 which allows for prosecution of “legal” crimes and mandates disobedience of unjust laws.
This current law - or rather the interpretation of it - is objectively wrong. Its foundation - the criminalization of antisemitism and Holocaust denial - however is not unjust in its very being.
You can be assured feddit.org will never follow any “law, no matter how wrong it is” - as that would be illegal.
Well what about: germans should respect germans laws, and not tell me, belgian, what I can call nazi or not.
Beside it’s bullshit. You can frame any law as having a fair purpose. In its current form, it’s weaponizing the remembrance of the holocaust to downplay and justify the current genocide. It is used to push the rhetoric according to which the genocide was self-defense and that without israel the jews would get killed. It’s constantly conflating the israeli state and the jewish people (that’s antisemitism), saying that wishing for the end of the former means wanting to kill the later.
In general germans people should really shut the fuck up about genocide.
Sure, I agree with nearly everything you said.
Except that on a German instance you must abide German laws. If it were a Belgian instance, Belgian laws would have to be followed. You can call anyone and anything a nazi outside of instances hosted by Germans.
For similar reasons, calls for the death of billionaires are removed on lemmy.world because that violates laws where that instance is hosted.
The Radbruch formula is not bullshit though, as it explicitly defines when disobedience of laws is mandatory. Slightly infringing on freedom of speech is not a valid reason, as it doesn’t violate fundamental rights that cannot ever be restricted by laws - most notably the freedom to live and being free of bodily harm.