this post was submitted on 21 Nov 2023
116 points (98.3% liked)
Leopards Ate My Face
3509 readers
887 users here now
Rules:
- If you don't already have some understanding of what this is, try reading this post. Off-topic posts will be removed.
- Please use a high-quality source to explain why your post fits if you think it might not be common knowledge and isn't explained within the post itself.
- Links to articles should be high-quality sources – for example, not the Daily Mail, the New York Post, Newsweek, etc. For a rough idea, check out this list. If it's marked in red, it probably isn't allowed; if it's yellow, exercise caution.
- The mods are fallible; if you've been banned or had a comment removed, you're encouraged to appeal it.
- For accessibility reasons, an image of text must either have alt text or a transcription in the comments.
- All Lemmy.World Terms of Service apply.
Also feel free to check out [email protected] (also active).
Icon credit C. Brück on Wikimedia Commons.
_portrait.jpg){kind=link}
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
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.
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).
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.