this post was submitted on 21 Nov 2023
112 points (99.1% liked)
Leopards Ate My Face
2892 readers
1 users here now
Rules:
- Don't be a dick
- Don't be a bigot
- On-topic only
- English only
- Mods' words are final
Rules subject to change, have a pleasant flight
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
(Edit: this was meant as a reply to an apparently now-deleted (?) comment about why he deserves the anonymity of having his last name abbreviated).
He deserves it for the same reason a single mother raising a kid that gets involved in an armed robbery deserves it: basic human rights.
The idea of those is that they are universal and you'd have to have a very good reason to supersede them. If they are not universal, then they are just "suggestions" and then we end up with exactly the kind of society that this guy wanted.
And yes, being a major political actor is a good reason to lose that anonymity (which is also how it's handled in European media, there is no reporting on Angela M. or Emmanuel M.).
But this guy is a not a public figure in any reasonable sense any more. He's a stupid old guy that was one of the founding members of a extreme-right splinter party of a right-wing popular party in 1967. That party was banned in 1988. So it (and he) has not been relevant to anything for 35 years. He tried to become relevant with this stunt, fucked around and found out.
In fact, reporting on his full name is probably what he wants: publicity is what he was attempting to achieve, but anonymity is what he deserves (both as a basic human right and as punishment IMO).
Is he charged with a crime or did he do a stupid international venture that is a continuation on the theme of his ridiculous political movement? Do leaders of racist boomer political movements deserve anonymity? Why couldn't he keep it confined to VierChan?
Edit: were it the case that his privacy was of primacy, why did it explicilty link him to his little "movement"?
Apparently by the Taliban, yes.
But in Europe that is not sufficient to lose the right to anonymity (and it shouldn't be, it's incredibly easy to get charged, no matter whether anything bad happened).
He isn't a leader of anything. Hasn't ever been (even when he was a founding member, he wasn't the leader).
He is a nobody (as he should be). And as such he deserves anonymity, yes. Just because he tried to change himself back into no-a-nobody doesn't mean he has succeeded.
Nazis are gonna Nazi.
Edit regarding your edit: yeah, that seems pretty fishy. I don't think they should have mentioned it, but with enough inside knowledge you'd probably find him by just "84 year old right-wing extremist blogger from Austria". That is (fortunately) not a huge population. I suspect (and this is purely speculation) that the authors don't think he deserves anonymity (so they include enough information to find out who it is), but do think they shouldn't "advertise" his cause (so they make it easy to ignore who he is). Similar to how media outlets in the US have finally decided to not publish the names of mass shooters: there is very little public benefit in publishing it and a very real risk of it encouraging others.
They're absolutely correct in that assessment and I will defend to the death (forgive my choice of words) the hilarity and their moral correctness for having done so. These people all wanna be famous anyway, how else was he planning on proving his point that its safe?
Also why should his cause be ignored? Evil florishes in darkness, I really don't get why you're defending this guy, particularly when I fee like its such a flimsy case.
Also these folks are born martyrs
Out of curiosity: when you first asked, did you want to have the reason explained or were you just in it to argue your position? Because we might have gone into this exchange with different goals.
You might have to refesh me as to which point you'e referring to. I'll try to lighten up a little, I'm just having a hard time containing my Schadenfreud. I kinda can't believe he didn't have any like-minded travel companions who similarly believed in his mission
Edit: something, something, friends and clerics along the way
This:
Oh, and don't get me wrong: My Schadenfreude is off the charts. I wouldn't actively wish this on anyone (despite all his crimes and stupidity there's a pretty good chance that the "charges" are in fact bullshit), but he's not very high up the list of people I'd shed a tear for.
It's just that I don't believe that tearing down privacy rights to drive an aggressive media frenzy for 24-hour news has shown itself to be particularly good at avoiding fascism.
He doesn't nor should he have a privacy right. He lost that the moment he began a public political movement in my view. Do you seriously refer to Merkel as Angela M? I think Europe has bigger problems than giving narcissists shade from their fame
Well, then we're in disagreement.
I suspect that might be one of degrees, but it could also be more fundamental. I don't have the desire to continue this to drill down exactly.
As for Angela M: you can find my answer to that specific question upthread.
Its ok dude, aha. Where can I read more about this "right to privacy" and who's covered or in which jurisdictions etc.
I actually mean that with 100% good-faith, I'm vaguely familar with the general concept (even in horrific crimes) but I don't see how it extends to an international context like what we have here.
If he tried to come to Canada would we not be allowed to publicize and document that according to the way things are done here or should we defer to Europe's niceties in covering the news in our own country?
The actual article about right to privacy in relation to media reporting is §7 of the Mediengesetz (literally "Media law"): https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/NormDokument.wxe?Abfrage=Bundesnormen&Gesetzesnummer=10000719&Artikel=&Paragraf=7&Anlage=&Uebergangsrecht=
That is the official and authoritative source, but it's also German and Legalese (and the nuance is definitely also in the application and comments, slightly similar to "case law" in common law countries, but not quite the same), so I doubt it's of much use. https://voez.at/politik-recht/rechtsinformationen/persoenlichkeitsrechte/ (or a Google translate version of it) can probably give you a better idea (that's a non-official site by the umrella organization of Austrian news papers).
It's also pretty important to note that the "Mediengesetz" doesn't restrict your average private citizen in what they can say: this is specifically about organization publishing media of any kind (news papers, books, ...).
The article linked to is from an Austrian outlet, so Austrian laws and customs would apply.
Other outlets that report on the same story are obviously not bound by Austrian law and I think I saw at least one "article" (it was really just a very terrible summary of some other source) that used the full name.
Even letters to the editor?
I don't quite understand what you're asking for. What about those letters?
Also: I suspect that if I understood I probably couldn't give you an answer, because I'm not well-versed enough in all the details to be able to go into the nitty-gritty. The majority of my understanding is from seeing the effects of the law in news papers (via redactions and corrections) and occasionally reading up on how it works.
Thanks for this, very detailed.
Not be crass, but does he plan to sue the paper or who actually enforces that if you are correct? Who has standing here?
I suspect he would like nothing more than this to be as public as possible, so I don't think he will sue. Since my interest in this only really extends as far as "haha, that guy" I'm also not going to actively look into it ;-)
I don't think "standing" exists as such in civil law countries (as most of Europe), that is mostly a common law term.
But AFAIK the only one who can sue for this are the "injured parties", i.e. those about which untrue or defamatory things were said or who's identity was revealed without proper consideration of the pros/cons (because the right to anonymity in this is far from absolute).
Since we're breaking out the big boy quotes:
Is the Taliban recognized as a legitimate State that has the power to criminally charge in an internationally recognized way? Can the Taliban call in favors from INTERPOL? Could be awkward...
He's not charged with a crime in Europe which would be the relevant jurisdiction, wouldn't it?
Sorry, founder, well in that case, I guess he gets a pass. Did the founder of the Nazis get the same courtesy or was it just the leader. Also, you're saying that political party founder's info is nowhere in public filings or records? Sounds problematic. People who like to stat anonymous don't usually found national political parties trying to usher in the "good ol' days" especially
See previous point, not sure the facts or law are on your side with that. That's more "table-banging" territory
There's that smile I love ;) I'm just glad we could agree at the end but sadly the "Junges sind Junges" defense is also not internationally recognized aha
He'll be fine, these guys are all about pulling onself up by their Nazi bootstraps and bootstrap their way to freedom and political autonomy. I have compelete faith in his competency to stand trial in Afghanistan, they tend to worry about that in passing judgement so he picked the right place to start his next political movement/chapter
I'm rootin' for him, this is a true UnterHund story
Anonymous or not, he can still serve as an example where human stupidity can lead one.