Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit
sneak | on: Afroman found not liable in defamation case
This wasn’t a 1A case, it was a civil defamation suit. He won because they failed to prove defamation, NOT because the judge threw out the lawsuit because of a violation of constitutional rights.

Separately: saying something shitty or unpopular that you disagree with isn’t someone abusing their rights to free expression. Expressing unpopular viewpoints that others consider abusive is exactly the point of such rights.

There’s a REALLY BIG reason it isn’t “freedom of expression, except for expressing racial hatred”, and it’s not because we like racism. Germany sometimes bans entire political parties that they declare unconstitutional. Now imagine that power in the hands of Trump. You can see what Putin did to Navalny for a preview.

waysa | parent | next
> Germany sometimes bans entire political parties

You make it sound like Germany bans political parties every other year.

Germany formally only ever banned two parties:

- Socialist Reich Party (SRP), 1952 - Communist Party of Germany (KPD), 1956

For context: The Federal Republic of Germany was founded in 1949.

There are current discussions about banning - or evaluating a potential ban of - the Alternative für Deutschland (AfD). If the ban went through (I think it won't), it would be the first in 70 years.

shadowgovt | parent | next
Perhaps interesting here is that some of the things he said were definitely not defensible via "truth is an affirmative defense." But it's ultimately up to the jury, and they can also find him innocent because a reasonable person wouldn't be offended by outlandish accusations.

(Ultimately, though, they can find him innocent for any reason. If they decided he should walk because you can't legally offend cops, that's fine too.)

loading story #47440328
ceejayoz | parent
> Now imagine that power in the hands of Trump.

The Germans would argue such powers prevent the Trumps.