An interesting issue here is whether a group using “new” media like youtube as its publishing outlet should be subject to the same rules as traditional press. It is the flip side of the question of whether Assange is a journalist.
1 Like
Just for context: Germany does indeed not allow “free speech”, the constitution (article 5) allows “freedom of expression of opinion”, which IMHO carries a minor but noticeable difference. It makes it easier to take action against hate speech or spreading fake news. Denying the Holocaust is a criminal offense.
What AKK is probably (I’m just guessing here) referring to is the German Press Code (PDF english version), which actually does not regulate opinion pieces. It is probably more of an unwritten code of conduct, that something like this would probably not happen in the classical press.
Today news emerged, that IMHO can be used as a nice counterexample: In January, Germany decided to abandon coal in 2038 (Kohleausstieg). Today, a few days after the EU election, several members of the governing CDU requested to cancel this plan and carry on using coal after this date. Had they made this plan public before the election, the votes for the CDU probably would have been far worse.
If aggressive swinging of opinion will ever get regulated, I think we should demand that politicians stick to the promises they made prior to an election, and inform the public about drastic changes in THEIR opinion beforehand.
4 Likes
I don’t think I said anything even in mild tension with what you said. I was just pointing out that “misinterpret” is not a good description for the difference in attitudes. The speech-protective American is well aware that other countries have different standards: they wouldn’t be decrying the standards of other countries if they didn’t know that.
1 Like
Eine shitshow?
1 Like
Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer.
Apparently.
4 Likes
Soon they’ll go wireless.
6 Likes
The American view, as expressed by the founding fathers, is that the Freedom of Speech is universal (“unalienable”) and God-given (with no particular claim that the Deity who granted it is associated with any particular religion, specifically not Christianity or Islam).
The ten amendments were meant to be an incomplete list of rights; specifically, the founding fathers believed that their lines regarding that all rights not granted to the state or nation by the people remained within the purview of the people would protect those rights not enumerated. The amendments themselves were an afterthought only tacked on to make people happy because of course those freedoms would be acknowledged.
(Remember, from a strict US constitutional view, rights flow from the Deity to the people to the government; the government cannot grant rights but instead recognizes the rights that the people already had.)
Sadly, most Americans do not understand this themselves. 
(ETA: and of course this has no legal bearing in Germany, just saying this to explain why US citizens find restrictions on rights annoying…)
2 Likes
There are no quiet periods. We have hysterical periods before elections. The rest of the time everybody just SHOUTS AT EVERYONE ELSE!
5 Likes
In touch boomer here. I’m gonna call out a group of my peers who shouted me down after I put a great deal of effort, along with hundreds of others, in qualifying the Green Party for the ballot in California and other states. And I ran for the State Assembly and worked real hard to recruit Ralph Nader in '96. But those folks said no, stick with Clinton, Feinstein, Boxer and all the other mid-right Democrats. And they still say it. We were watching Green Parties grow in a hundred countries worldwide. A truly global movement begun more than 30 years ago. And most middle class white voters said not now. Can I say I told you so?
3 Likes
Please. He is clearly using his MacBook to film this.
(On a more serious note, that of all things should not be part of the criticism. As his inability to dye his hair in a proper blue.)
2 Likes
As Germany has written law, not case law, you can look it up. As far as I understood the brief discussion in German media, the answer is no. As long as they don’t publish regular sequential videos, they don’t fall under the definition by the Rundfunkstaatsvertrag, i.e. they are no Rundfunkveranstalter and hence not subject to the same rules as traditional TV and radio.
2 Likes
As much as I generally support any suggestion to look it up, in this case looking it up won’t help.
That’ll tell you what the law is. The question was about what it should be.
You’re right, Youtube videos don’t count as Rundfunk - but if they did a show like the one in question probably would fall foul of §25 (1) and, at least in AKK’s view, (2).
So, the question posed is “should” Youtube videos like this be subject to a rule like that?
2 Likes
No.
worked real hard to recruit Ralph Nader in '96
Hell no. (Not that he mattered much in '96.) And for those who agree with Nader that the Democrats and Republicans are equally bad, @KathyPartdeux has given us a useful thread for that:
1 Like
What did you achieve that materially improved people’s lives?
Electing Bush doesn’t count.
2 Likes
But the answer would still be a firm no, since they are not Rundfunk? If this feels like circular argumentation to you, let me try to rephrase:
Even if you change the status of YTers to be Rundfunk the text you cite still does not apply. They don’t transmit a Vollprogramm by any means, and a Spartenprogramm would be exempt. (2) is more interesting, but still does not apply since the text is talking about the whole program, not one video.
The question if different legal rules apply if and individual’s uttered opinions have an audience of 12, or 12 million, is just utterly stupid. And Ms. Kramp-Karrenbauer is mostly receiving the expected reactions, from bewilderment to anger. With notable exceptions in some traditional news outlets which are, erm… Influencing the public opinion in a slightly biased manner? As in “leaning towards conservative party politics”?
1 Like
I think you’re being too literal.
The question is about changing the law. The law could be changed in all sorts of ways.
One way would be the version you suggested where the definition of Rundfunk is changed but nothing else.
Given that as you say, that would achieve little (although one could argue about whether they do transmit a Vollprogramm or whether that is necessary since in my view 25 (2) would cover a single programme/video).
Sendung ein inhaltlich zusammenhängender, geschlossener, zeitlich begrenzter Teil
eines Rundfunkprogramms
ETA: submitted too early:
If one were to want to change the rules, clearly something much wider would be required.
As in a complete revamp of how the internet and people posting on it are regulated.
Does someone who posts certain kinds of videos count as a journalist? Are they a broadcaster? if not, should they be subject to similar restrictions? What if they have more viewers than the ARD? Do they then count as a broadcaster? Should they then be subject to more or different restrictions (or have more rights and protections) than if their viewership consists of their mum and a dog?
Those are all the sorts of questions that a law change would need to grapple with.
2 Likes
I tried to convey in my final statement that it could not be changed in “all sorts” of ways. At one point or another, it would collide with other law, including the Grundgesetz.
I don’t think I’m to literal here. Unless you fundamentally want to change the way an individual’s public statements vs. journalism vs. broadcasting are legally defined, and regulated (and self-regulated), in accordance with the German Grundgesetz, the whole discussion is obsolete. You might even have to change the latter, I assume.
Ah, your edit arrived before I hit reply.
Seems we are on the same page.
Kramp-Karrenbauer said something and didn’t even consider half of what we did, apparently. If she wanted to signal that the CDU hasn’t understood the internet, and that the advise given by more than 90 German YTers is hitting the nail on the head…she did quite well.
ETA: I just had a look at the “open letter”. 3.6 million views. I haven’t heard about most of the signees. Also don’t know if they mirrored the video.
2 Likes
I think this is the whole point of the discussion, and this is exactly what AKK said. As much as I dislike many of her opinions, the shitstorm that broke loose on her was totally exaggerated. Which in itself proves the potential and the danger of discussing stuff on the 'net. Maybe things are best the way they are, but you should at least be able to ask for a discussion about it.
So, back to “President” Trump, who will probably start WW3 with a tweet…
My post above, which spun off this subthread, was not meant to be Germany-specific, but to consider a general concept-question that is sensible everywhere whatever the law. That said, the question whether German law could ever recognize new media as publishing or broadcasting organs is akin to what philosophers call the “black swan problem”.
1 Like
Hey now, there is nothing wrong with using a fax machine.
