Posted on 11/05/2018 8:17:33 AM PST by Olog-hai
The head of Germany’s domestic security service has been dismissed for a speech in which he criticized government parties, Interior Minister Horst Seehofer said on Monday.
Seehofer said the speech made by Hans-Georg Maassen, in which he accused the Social Democrats (SPD), junior partners in Chancellor Angela Merkel’s coalition, of “naivety” and harboring “radical left” elements, was unacceptable. […]
Germany’s ruling coalition had agreed in September to transfer spy chief Maassen to the Interior Ministry following accusations that he harbored far-right views. …
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
Speaking the truth is a revolutionary act.
But if he had called the AfD “radical right” he would have been lauded and praised to high heaven.
He was not fired for criticizing the far left; the man was fired for revealing state secrets. s/
Under these rules, the top 50 U.S. DOJ, FBI and CIA officials would all have to step down immediately.
I don’t know the intricacies, but the Hatch Act is supposed to block Civil Servants from campaigning or acting in a “political” manner. Politicians are not covered — they can be active in political events. But government bureaucrats cannot. I believe this may become relevant soon, because our intelligence community is blatantly politicalized. .
He’s exactly correct of course......but you’re not allowed to speak the truth in Germany without paying a price for it.
That’s the way their “freedom of expression” is designed. And this comes from West Germany; note how it is not dissimilar to the USSR constitution and the way it rendered such freedoms (hence East Germany too).— German Basic Law, Article 5
- 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 guaranteed. There shall be no censorship.
- 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 honor.
- Art and scholarship, research, and teaching shall be free. The freedom of teaching shall not release any person from allegiance to the constitution.
To know who rules over you find out who you can not criticize.
So he can be accused of being “far right”, but if he accuses someone of being “radical left”, that is a nein-nein?
That’s what’s apparent here.
The Basic Law was approved on 8 May 1949 in Bonn, and, with the signature of the occupying western Allies of World War II on 12 May, came into effect on 23 May. [wikipedia]
"With a little help from their friends" then...
Yes; most of the same leftists got involved in the American Committee on United Europe as well. Seeking to undo WWII as quickly as they could.
There is no place on earth where there is Free Speech without any limitations whatsoever, including the US. The limitations there are just "hidden" in case law.
Notable case in point, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.'s opinion in the United States Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States in 1919, which held that the defendant's speech in opposition to the draft during World War I was not protected free speech under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. - a.k.a. the "shouting FIRE in a crowded theater" case. And the list goes on... libel, slander,...you get the idea...
FYI:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/92/Map_of_the_Legal_systems_of_the_world_%28en%29.png
There’s never a time when natural rights are not under attack. Putting it in writing, however, solidifies a top-down attack thereupon by the government, particularly by allowing “the provisions of general laws” to nullify them plus rendering the rights in “positive” language.
Right. The threat is always present - and executed. By elected representatives, who can be removed at the next election, or by not elected judges (and those do write stuff - and their case law is already put in writing - Roe v. Wade ring a bell?).
Now imagine an USSC fully staffed by Clinton/Obama, no voter has a say whatsoever... 9:0...for decades to come... choose your poison...
About that "putting it in writing" - again: Different basic law concepts, but the outcomes are often similar. The remedies, perhaps not so much.
Still a difference between judicial activism and a constitutional article. Take note that a pre-Roe time did exist, as did a pre-Plessy time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.