Such a disgrace for our country, its news like these where Luxemburg's "socialism or barbarism" is really obvious
this post was submitted on 14 Apr 2025
71 points (100.0% liked)
Socialism
2977 readers
2 users here now
Beehaw's community for socialists, communists, anarchists, and non-authoritarian leftists (this means anti-capitalists) of all stripes. A place for all leftist and labor news and discussion, as long as you're nice about it.
Non-socialists are welcome to come to learn, though it's hard to get to in-depth discussions if the community is constantly fighting over the basics. We ask that non-socialists please be respectful and try not to turn this into a "left vs right" debate forum by asking leading questions or by trying to draw others into a fight.
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Hard agree!
From what I read online, it seems that they may have partaken in criminal offenses (read something about storming a building with improvised weapons), but deporting someone before their trial is due and they have been convicted, is not how it should work in a supposedly-civilised country!
Exactly. IMHO they should not be deported at all, but brought before a judge and, if breaking of law is confirmed, put into jail like any other person, deporting someone to a place where they get starved, shot or lynched should not be permitted in a civilized nation, but deported without a trial? This is just plainy not a fair democracy in any kind of sense, not even a rightwing one. This is Willkür
deporting someone to a place where they get starved, shot or lynched should not be permitted in a civilized nation
You're talking about the one American student who might get his student visa revoked? Because the other three are EU citizens and would only be banned from entering Germany (still a very harsh punishment and I don't think justifiable, especially without actual conviction). So they could still freely move in the rest of the Schengen Zone if I understood correctly.
I was talking more in general about turning to the American playbook, deporting Gaza protesters who are often are from precarious countries not strictly theese concrete 4. But deporting a trans person to proto-facist america is also not that nice. We also just deported a left protester to right extremist/ proto-facist Hungary and although a court literally ruled she can not be deported because she will face inhumane prison conditions and psychological torture, the Ausländerbehörde pulled through with it before the court could reached this decision.
Wow I just looked up the case of the Hungarian protestor, Maja T.. That's almost exactly the same stuff that's been happening in America lately. Despicable jow my country is failing in these areas, again...
Jap, this is the case i was referring to, thanks for adding a source
It is utterly shameful for Germany to be doing shit like this. Disgraceful.
"awww shit here we go again"
(For those who don't know, the Nazis got their ideas from the US right wing)
Soft Paywall.
Is this protestors who are on tourist, student and temporary visas?
EDIT: They are not citizens. Paywall bypass..
I don't think it is that simple. If we allow these people free speech then we risk setting a precedent for outsiders coming to Germany to support Far-Right rallies. Laws are double-edged.
When I travel to Asian countries I am warned in my Visa application to not participate in any political activity. I take risks anyhow but have been lucky.
So we better repress all political activism because it might be far right? The far right would applaud this concept and wouldn't need outside supporters if you fight for their cause.
EDIT: Also most palestinians living here can't become a permant resident because they would need certification from their state but Germany doesn't recognize their state as one.
Protests by non-citizens is what I wrote.
Yeah and thats what i meant.
I didnt assume you want to prevent ALL protest. This would be literally one of the worst dictatorships in existens, few of them actually forbid all and every protest.
Trying to exclude people without papers from democracy while not giving those people a fair chance to get papers is still the closest thing to racial segregation the international court allows
Oh wait, international law art.20 Nr. 1 actually sets protests as a universal human right.
Which international law is that?
Do you mean the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Article 20 says:
1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.
2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.
Universal declaration of human rights:
"Article 20
Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association. "
This in combination with art. 19 gives us the right to protest:
"Article 19
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
"
Source: https://www.ohchr.org/en/human-rights/universal-declaration/translations/english
TIL "US constitution guarantees the right to free speech to everyone in the US despite your citizen status" https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2025/0415/1507664-j1-activism/
Not that the constitution matters to MAGA.
Does Germany have a similar section of their constitution?
It does, but with a similar Problem as the US one: it garuantees freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, but only to CITIZENS. Cause what does a politician care about people who can't vote for him anyway -.-
Read again: The US one is irrespective of citizenship.
Well kinda yes and kinda no. The US constitution speaks of "the people" which is not defined legally, while some interpret this as "all people in the world", some interpret it as "all people with significant connection to the US" and some "all people of the political community, e.g. citizens"
While certainly better then Germany's version with "all Germans have the right..." Which is clearly more restrictive, its is not as clear cut in the US either - thus maga supporters label immigrants or dissidents as "aliens" which are in their interpretation not part of "the people"
https://harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/vol126_the_people_in_the_constitution.pdf
While I am certainly in favor of the first definition of "the people" you clearly don't interpret it that way in the fourth amendment (see US military in basically every war):
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Also
" When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.
"
Thanks again, I appreciate the intricacies.
However I am no longer in favour of free speech. I used to adhere to the Voltairean principle: “I wholly disapprove of what you say—and will defend to the death your right to say it.”
However the shitshow of social media which has enabled MAGA and SovCits has me reluctantly accepting that free speech was a fantasy, an especially attractive one for its simplicity.
All of us computer geeks in the 90's (and I do mean all) were evangelical about the internet ushering in a Renaissance in dissemination of truth. We were naive.
Of course the question of "Who should be the moderators?" arises but there is no simple answer. Am now worried Billionaires will convince the public that AI speaks only the truth.
All of us computer geeks in the 90's (and I do mean all) were evangelical about the internet ushering in a Renaissance in dissemination of truth. We were naive.
Hard disagree. The truth has come out, and the Internet has allowed more people than ever to see it... in all its glory and horror. Actually, we're still in the process: only 5.5 billion people have Internet access right now, that's 67% of the world population, we're still missing 1/3rd of the whole picture.
Just wait until you see what 90% of the truth looks like.
As for AI... it's safe (and who's going to read it this deep in the thread anyway?) to tell you a little secret: neuromorphic hardware.
The goal has never been centralized AI like what is being sold right now, not even the dream of an AGI, or some super-AI. The goal is giving every person a self controlled personal assistant capable of sifting through the Internet, or in other words: a smartphone with an NPU running an AI of their choice customized to their personal preferences. The goal is direct democracy where the interests of everyone are taken into account 24/365 on millions of subjects all the time. The goal is giving everyone access to millions of lifetimes worth of skill sets with zero training time. Moderators? You can get hardware with a modest NPU right this moment, download any number of LLMs, and decide for yourself. Moderators will be people capable of affording the hardware, which are already in the hundreds of millions; those billionaires can fuck off, the genie is out of the bottle and it's spreading fast (last I've seen, there's an estimate of a "Moore's law" where AI is growing at 100x efficiency per year, most people don't even remotely realize what that means).
Switzerland is the only country with low tech direct democracy. I only see a dystopia coming and the only way I can think of to defend against it is to have better education in schools.
Half of US cannot read beyond 6th grade level.
About 40% don't know it takes a year to orbit the sun (no they were not nitpicking about leap years).
A quarter don't even know the Earth orbits the sun.
You don't need neuromorphic hardware to get these facts right.
Don't get me wrong, the US is totally going towards a dystopia. I was talking about the remaining 95% of the world and the long term goals. The US has done its part, some US companies can still do some stuff, but the US as a country, or its monopoly-USD "billionaires", are no longer a relevant part of the equation.
Worldwide, NPUs and client-side AIs will lead the next changes. Some people in the US will have a chance to leverage those, learning will become a local query away, only limited by each person's curiosity. Keep in mind a full copy of the Wikipedia is only 100GB, all of Project Gutenberg is only 70GB, I have both and more on the same smartphone I'm writing this from (and it's not even a "flagship" model). There is a lot, and I mean A LOT of knowledge to be extracted from there, which just so happens to be part of the training data for chatbot AIs, meaning they're particularly suited for retrieving it.
You're right, you don't "need" neuromorphic hardware to get those facts right... but at the same time, you don't "need" those facts to use neuromorphic hardware to retrieve them as quickly as you can ask for, then get them with all explanations, related keywords, topics, plus links to sources for it all. With a simple text-to-voice, it will even help you read it!
I know, it may sound like the world upside down. Another way of seeing it, is as the pivot point of a balance, the joining of different ways of approaching knowledge. Interesting times lie ahead 😉
You sound as optimistic as we were in the 90's about the internet. We were naive about how it would play out.
Most people are not curious. That curiosity needs to be cultivated in school but it isn't. I gave you the statistics which indicate that.
First Earthers are on the rise. 2% of my GenX and 4% of Millennials.
While the US is certanly going the Propaganda and facism Route, I dont think free speevh is too blame. In a system where everyone is rather equal, and each voice gets heard an equal amount, free speech leads to better outcomes, as most people are good willing if not mislead, and less people trying to mislead, than trying to foster truth.
The problem is, that you have one man who dictates twitter, amazon, google, etc. Pp.and can decide what gets hear, what information rises to the top etc because they inherited a lot of money from their colonialist fathers or just were lucky.
Such few people with so few interest who have free speech and control which arguments are heard and which not for everyone else are the problem.
Its not free speech which isn't working, its the huge inequality which dooms all chancen on fair discourse.
Yes, inequality of free speech due to billionaires owning the platforms. But how could we eliminate that?
Isnt that obvious? Get rid of (massive) inequality. Like sure, if you work more or harder than someone else (regarding to your possibilities) or had to put in years of unpaid training/studying to get to that point you should maybe get a little more, and if you choose more free time even when you could do more you should maybe earn a little less, but people owning more than a whole town could earn in their lifetime? People hardly working at all and just profiting of other people working because they inherited a company or stocks from their grandfather being richer then a hard working normal person? That's just ridiculous! Its unfair, it fosters fascism, monopolies and poverty for the society. We have the Democratic state literally to make rules which foster a society which is best for the people. We should start using its power and simply make rules to prevent this.
There are enough resources for everyone in the world to live a life in honor and welfare, the problem is just how we distribute those recources
Thanks
Help a tired brain out. Are you making the stupid argument that pro-Palestine advocacy is incitement to discrimination and hatred and war propaganda for Hamas?
That was article 20. The other commenter said article 20 but didn't say which international law.
First they came for...
"we should adopt far right laws before the far right has the chance to do so"
Study material: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
what is being argued about here is forbidding protests by non citizens no matter their political stance. it has nothing to do with the tolerance paradox
Ah, whoops. I block JS and didn't notice that. Here's an archive. I did a quick search and didn't see any articles that mention what kind of visas they have.