AOC Squad

How?

For someone who doesn't live in the U.S., you seem overly concerned with our politics. Is that because in Europe you're not allowed to meme or is it that you can't disparage your own politicians? Does the lack of protected free speech in Europe frustrate you, so that you take it out on us?

If I were you, I would be more concerned about your own backyard. Ursula von der Leyen is scary. An unelected EU Commission President, who is a rabid globalist, who wants to build an EU Army and disband all other militaries, doesn't like nation-states and thinks Brussels should control every aspect of life. That would not be a situation I would want to live in.

"For someone who doesn't live in the U.S., you seem overly concerned with our politics"

American Politics is my hobby. You guys are fun to watch and comment on

" Is that because in Europe you're not allowed to meme"

Ha. Funny joke

"or is it that you can't disparage your own politicians?"

Buddy, you haven't seen a German Comedian make fun of the establishment. What you have in America is watered down at best.

"Does the lack of protected free speech in Europe frustrate you"

"https://fra.europa.eu/en/charterpedia/article/11-freedom-expression-and-information"

"Article 5[Freedom of expression, arts and sciences] (1) Every person shall have the right freely to express and disseminate his opinions in speech, writing and pictures and to inform himself without hindrance from generally accessible sources. Freedom of the press and freedom of reporting by means of broadcasts and films shall be guaran-teed. There shall be no censorship. (2) These rights shall find their limits in the provisions of general laws, in provisions for the protection of young persons and in the right to personal honour. (3) Arts and sciences, research and teaching shall be free. The freedom of teaching shall not release any person from allegiance to the constitution."

From the German constitution

" Ursula von der Leyen is scary."

Hey, our Ex defense Minister is a lot of things. But scary she is not. Also funny, when she was introduced the Right Wing populists where very supportive of her.

"An unelected EU Commission President"

All EU Commission President's are not directly elected and I agree that that is not good. The Head of the EU commission is suggested to Parliament (Who are directly elected) by the various heads of State (Who are all democratically elected). If you want to push for an EU Commission President you should vote in your member state for the party you support And I don't know if you noticed but she won by a margin of only 6 votes.

"a rabid globalist"

Having Pro-European ideals doesn't make you a Globalist

"who wants to build an EU Army and disband all other militaries"

Sounds like a good idea. A unified European fighting force would definitely show Other Foreign powers that EUrope is not to be trifled with.

"doesn't like nation-states and thinks Brussels should control every aspect of life."

HAHAHAHAHA, where did you hear that little conspiracy theory? Is she a Federalist?

I also forgot this one.

A district court in Munich recently gave a German journalist, Michael Stürzenberger, a six-month suspended jail sentence for posting on his Facebook page a historical photo of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, shaking the hand of a senior Nazi official in Berlin in 1941. The prosecution accused Stürzenberger of "inciting hatred towards Islam" and "denigrating Islam" by publishing the photograph.

Arrested for posting a historical photo. A picture of something that is factual and actually happened. If this is free speech, then I am confused.

"Michael Stürzenberger,"

That NSPD sympathizer? He can rot in hell.

" (Section 90)"

"call your President a NAZI"

Just make a sign that say Prz ist Nzi.

Oh no. Poor President.... Stauffacher? Steiner? Steinmeier? Whoever. No one cares about the federal President. He serves a Ceremonial role at best. I wouldn't even know why anyone would want to insult him.

" (Section 90a)"

Well why would you treat the flag bad?

"Try burning a the Geman flag in protest"

Why would you do that. Actually recently burning any national flag has become illegal. Damn, I had an extra stock of American flags just sitting there.

"Rewarding and approving crimes (Section 140)"

Says anyone who rewards or approves crime can be charged

"insulting somebody is punishable under Section 185"

Actually it only is when your already commiting another crime, but I hae yet to hear about anyone being charged this

"Hate speech is illegal. Section 130"

Its great. We don't have any "send her back" and Trump would have lost his office if he had tweeted what he did as an official in Germany

"Holocaust denial is punishable according to Section 130"

I see no problem with this

"Representation of Violence is illegal. Section 131"

Yeah its sad

"Blasphemy is illegal under"

Actually, I don't know where you gt it, but it just says Insulting any Religions in such a manner as to disturb Public peace is punishable

" You can't even have demonstrations unless prior approval is given by the government. "

Yeah. Its just bureaucracy. I have yet to see the police refuse a Demonstration based on Political reasons.

"Your free speech is given to you by the government with exceptions."

I revise my previous statment

We have Freedom of Speech. But we shut up the Nazis. ;) I have yet to see the Government censor anyone except for Right Wing and Left Wing Radicals and so long as they continoue to shut up clear rcaists, Nazis and Communists I am happy with what I have.

I mean what are Constitutions, but inalienable rights given to us by the Government?

And remember Your Second Article Protects violence our Second Article guarantees Personal Freedom.

"I also forgot about the terrible EU Articles 11 and 13 and the censorship of Social Media"

Yeah they are bad. I can only hope the New Parliament rescinds those. Although the Christ Democrats promised to not enforce it in Germany (A likely promise seeing as they were the only ones in Germany to vote for it)

"Michael Stürzenberger,"

"That NSPD sympathizer? He can rot in hell. "

Don't know him, don't care. The point is he published a factual historical photo and was arrested. That is not freedom of speech.

"I mean what are Constitutions, but inalienable rights given to us by the Government?"

Not quite. The first 10 amendments of the U.S. Constitution are called the Bill of Rights. In the U.S. these are called "Negative Rights". Meaning we are born with these rights and do not need the government to grant them.

However, your Basic Law is different. It is a law given by the government and can be restricted by another law.

For instance, in your Basic Law, the following proves my point.

Article 2 [Liberty]
(1) Everyone has the right to free development of his personality insofar as he does not violate the rights of others or offend against the constitutional order or morality.
(2) Everyone has the right to life and to physical integrity. The freedom of the person is inviolable. Intrusion on these rights may only be made pursuant to a statute.

The last line states they can intrude on this right pursuant to a statute

Article 5 [Expression]
(1) Everyone has the right to freely express and disseminate his opinion in speech, writing, and pictures and to freely inform himself from generally accessible sources. Freedom of the press and freedom of reporting by means of broadcasts and films are guaranteed. There may be no censorship."

Again Section 2 of the same article states. "These rights are subject to limitations in the provisions of general statutes,"

Even Article 4 [Faith, Religion, Conscience, Creed] the last line states "Details are regulated by a federal statute."

So your Grundgesetz says you have these rights unless they pass a law taking them away. You have no censorship EXCEPT whatever they want to censor.

Unlike the first amendment of U.S. Constitution which states

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

My government is specifically prohibited from making any law to restrict our freedom of speech, religion, or assembly.

Your government can restrict liberty, assembly, religion, and speech, and it does.

This is why I call OberstGylbert a Nazi. Trying to intrude on other countries and take their freedoms away.

Get this through your head, Gylbert, I don’t want your country does and whether you approve of it. That’s your country. Leave us alone.

"The point is he published a factual historical photo and was arrested. That is not freedom of speech."

True, but he posted that to draw parallels between them and Nazis, even though that is clearly not the case, and not for educational purposes. If I were to present a Picture of Nazis and Frenchpeople and say that that's why they are bad, I'd also be charged.

"You have no censorship EXCEPT whatever they want to censor."

Abos**tley. We can't let every moron talk. Half of the Left wing radicals are litterally Stalinists in disguise and the Right wing radicals are literally Neo-Nazis (The Third way movement for example)

However it is important to note, that while there are indeed laws curtailing certain freedoms for certain radical groups, Das Grungesetz will trump any law in court. additionally restrictions on freedom of expression is not used to discourage dissent in most democracies, but is only used to protect the state or protect other important interests such as the protection of minors. Repression, that is to say sanctions after the expression of opinion, is usually only permitted for the protection of higher and equal ranking of other goods, but only on the basis of a law that sufficiently limits the lawfully passed legislation.

General restrictions on freedom of expression (not exhaustive), especially German law:

-the protection of personal dignity against insult or slander

-the disclosure as secret classified information

-the excessive criticism of own or foreign highest state representatives such as head of state, courts or sometimes even simple officials

-the limits of morality and the protection of minors

-the limit of public security (in the US, historically often quoted prohibition of the abusive exclamation "fire" in a theater)

-unfair competition by discrediting the product or service of a competitor.
the unauthorized disclosure of copyrighted information (eg Article 5, paragraph 2, p.1 GG: barrier of "general laws", the copyright law is such a law because it does not have a specific opinion)

In addition, depending on the constitutional tradition, there may be considerable differences in the state's reluctance to repression: in contrast to the relatively cautious US, most European countries are moving significantly further. Thus, in contrast to the USA, racial discrimination in Europe is usually also punished by private individuals

" We can't let every moron talk. Half of the Left wing radicals are litterally Stalinists in disguise and the Right wing radicals are literally Neo-Nazis (The Third way movement for example)"

That mentality right there is why my friend, you don't have true freedom of speech. You accept that speech you don't like can be censored.

It is the same problem here in the U.S. Some people believe that if they don't like what is being said, or it is not in line with what they see as "acceptable" then it should be censored.

Free speech means all speech must be heard. Not just speech you agree with.

Someone once said, “I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it to the death." (I think it was Voltaire, but not sure)

This is a cornerstone of our belief in the rights of the individual. Political correctness is destroying our God-given right to express our thoughts without fear.

We have gone from a nation of confident individuals to something politicians and the media can mold, control and ignore.

What you call free speech doesn't match what we call free speech.

Yes your Grundgesetz says there is no censorship, but according to the Strafgesetzbuch you can't;

Disparage the federal president (Section 90) or the state and its symbols (Section 90a) -
Try burning a the Geman flag in protest or call your President a NAZI.

Rewarding and approving crimes (Section 140) - don't say throwing milkshakes is ok.

Insulting somebody is punishable under Section 185 (A rather broad statement. Who decides what is insulting)

Hate speech is illegal. Section 130 (I never understood who is allowed to define what hate speech is) Our Supreme Court has ruled that hate speech is still protected speech.

Holocaust denial is punishable according to Section 130 (The German guilt)

Representation of Violence is illegal. Section 131. This section was used as the legal basis for confiscating all horror movies and a few video games such as Mortal Kombat, Manhunt, and Condemned.

Insult to organizations and representatives of foreign states is illegal(Section 103). You better not insult President Trump again or I will report you. (I think this may have been repealed, but not sure)

Blasphemy is illegal under (Section 166) (Don't say the Prophet Muhammad was a pedophile and bigamist)

You can't even have demonstrations unless prior approval is given by the government. The Love Parade decision (1 BvQ 28/01 and 1 BvQ 30/01 of 12 July 2001)

You even censor video games. In games like Soldier of Fortune, Half-Life, Team Fortress and Turok: Dinosaur Hunter characters were turned into robots while in Command and Conquer: Generals the portraits of the Generals which are photos of real actors were turned into robots and a suicide bombing unit was turned into a bomb on wheels. While others such as Grand Theft Auto has removed bleeding and removed other gameplay modes. The games Wolfenstein 3D or Mortyr are out banned.

Your free speech is given to you by the government with exceptions. Our free speech is a right that the government can't take away or restrict.

And Ursula von der Leyen's policies are scary. I doubt Hungry, Poland, Italy, the UK, the Scandinavian countries, and others are too keen on her "United States of Europe".

"And Ursula von der Leyen's policies are scary"

No they are not... well to a European. I can see how America might fear a united Europe

" I doubt Hungry, Poland, Italy"

I doubt Hungary, Poland or Italy are very keen on Europe in general.

"the UK," Is leaving the EU to become America's bitch so who cares

"Scandinavian countries,"

What? Sweden and Denmark are very pro European countries.

""United States of Europe""

No. That is a terrible name. It would immediately draw Parallels between the original US. The European Federation sounds much more badass

"No, they are not... well to a European." You think so?

According to the latest Eurobarometer that I can find, November 2018, less than 42% of all Europeans trust the EU. Only 43% have a positive image of the EU.

The EU has not issued a Eurobarometer since then. (Maybe they didn't like the results?)

Greece, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Slovenia, Hungry, Poland, Slovakia, Croatia, Romania Latvia, Czechia, Estonia, Malta, Croatia, and Italy, are all much lower in trust and image.

Being the only candidate on the ballot, von der Leyen only won by 56 votes out of 710. Almost 50% of the EMP's are now from a conservative or nationalist party. It should be an interesting year.

Not quite the happy family Brussels would like you to believe.

BTW "United States of Europe" is a direct quote of Ursula von der Leyen.

"According to the latest Eurobarometer that I can find, November 2018, less than 42% of all Europeans trust the EU. Only 43% have a positive image of the EU."

Odd chrome-extension://oemmndcbldboiebfnladdacbdfmadadm/http://www.europarl.europa.eu/at-your-service/files/be-heard/eurobarometer/2019/election2019/EB915_SP_EUROBAROMETER_POSTEE19_FIRSTRESULTS_EN.pdf

"The EU has not issued a Eurobarometer since then. (Maybe they didn't like the results?)"

Lol no

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/at-your-service/de/be-heard/eurobarometer/post-election-survey-2019-first-results

"Greece, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Slovenia, Hungry, Poland, Slovakia, Croatia, Romania Latvia, Czechia, Estonia, Malta, Croatia,"

Would you look at that, all East Europeans and all dependant on EU money. I'd say don't bite the hand that feeds you, but the Eu doesn't seem to care

"Being the only candidate on the ballot, von der Leyen only won by 56 votes out of 710."

She won with 9 more votes after a majority

"Almost 50% of the EMP's are now from a conservative or nationalist party."

lol only if you count the Christ Democrats (Merkel's Party btw) as Conservatives. The Actual Conservative party only has 8%. Counting the Nationalists as well you would only reach 17.9%

Interesting Reading

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/870029/eu-news-brexit-eurosceptic-europe-map-vote-election-germany-czech-republic-austria-latest

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/870029/eu-news-brexit-eurosceptic-europe-map-vote-election-germany-czech-republic-austria-latest

Yes, nothing new there.

"She won with 9 more votes after a majority"

LOL. She was the only candidate and barely got a majority vote.

Yes. It wasn't an election. It was a conformation by parliament, and she got the worst result in the History of the Commission

See, I am not the only one who thinks she is scary.

I don't understand why Europeans accept being ruled by unelected eurocrats. To me, that is not any form of democracy I know of.

When you only have one handpicked candidate to choose from, that is not democratic, it that is more like China, or North Korea.

In fact, the whole EU Commission setup seems undemocratic. When the elected EMP's can't even propose or write laws, that is wrong. As in this case, the EMP's seem more of a rubber stamp for whatever the Commission wants to do.

"See, I am not the only one who thinks she is scary. "

Yes I am sure many East European autocrats fear a Strong European Union.

"I don't understand why Europeans accept being ruled by unelected eurocrats."

Well, our Heads of states, who we all vote for, choose the Candidates for the Commission from a handful that run as the face of the various European Parties. So while we don't directly elect them, we do elect the people who d, so Home elections can help Shape European policy

Now Ursual Von der Leyen is a special case because she didn't run in the elections.

She was suggested by the Visigrad states(Is this the right way to write it?) (Poland, Hungary, Checzk Republic, Slovenia) after it turned out that East Europe didn't want to have any of the Candidates that ran in the election. It was a big reason why she nearly failed the Confirmation vote through the Parliament.

Many viewed it, me included, that West Europe was bowing down to east Europe. The Greens didn't want her and neither did the Christ or Social Democrats. The Conservatives were 100% behind her, atleast in the beginning. It was assumed that Ursula Von der Leyen would be more Conservative, since she was a Christ Democrat herself. But she campaigned day in and day out to garner the support of the Majority of Pariament and scrapped off a win. But she sure did kick the Visigrad states in the balls with her coiming out to be a Pro-European Politician.

"When you only have one handpicked candidate to choose from,"

Well yes. the suggesting of the EU Commission President is in no way Democratic. They might be suggested by Democratically elected officials, and confirmed or denied by a Democratically elected parliament, but the Canidate in and of itself is not Democratically elected

"In fact, the whole EU Commission setup seems undemocratic."

Well it isnt. No one is pretending that the EU Commission is a Democratically elected body. The Commission president then chooses the Commissioners, I think one from every state

" When the elected EMP's can't even propose or write laws, that is wrong"

Well now your underselling Parliament. No one, except the EU Parliament may pass laws. Sure they can't draft them, but they can block them, resulting in the Comission working closely with a special panel from Parliament to hammer out laws that the Parliament then debates on before passing

"BTW "United States of Europe" is a direct quote of Ursula von der Leyen."

She should have said European Federation. Sounds better in my mind

"Only 43% have a positive image of the EU."

Only 48% Trust the EU. 10% don't know and the rest distrust it

I also forgot about the terrible EU Articles 11 and 13 and the censorship of Social Media.