If one genocide is lesser in scale or severity it can be (and has been) argued it is downplaying it.

There are very few genocides you can directly compare to the Holocaust as its scale and speed was unprecedented even for the time.

I’m unsure you can compare any other genocide to the Holocaust in accordance with German law.

Have you read the post? There are 3 things you cannot say about Israel:

1. Israel is as bad as the nazis
2. Calling for the (violent) destruction of Israel
3. The slogan “From the river to the sea”

Anything else has zero risk and can be freely said.

The first one is objectively speaking a hyperbole so it’s not necessary for discussions. Use any other genocide to draw a parallel to such as the US’s genocide of the indigenous population. The second one can be interpreted too vaguely but you’re save if you just put the word “peaceful” anywhere when advocating for a one state solution. The third one is a slogan that shouldn’t be banned but is, so just don’t say it.

Yes, this law is too broad and designed to criminalize discussion about Israel. In a moderated forum this law is trivial to follow without changing the message behind any comment.

Sorry, I meant either confiscation of the domain or the server provider deciding to take everything down. The latter can be mitigated with backups but it will nevertheless result in long downtimes.

There’s generally no legal recourse or protection if any instance involved in hosting the site decides to break contracts. This sort of uncertainty sucks and has to be taken into consideration.

Simultaneously, you lose all rights to the site and risk a hostile takeover with no possible recourse.

It’s also significantly more effort to retain this level of anonymity from a state actor. I don’t even think there’s a single Lemmy instance which follows all those steps.

The thing is, as of right now German censorship doesn’t warrant this. Yes, it sucks you cannot freely speak about Israel. But frankly, since it only requires you to adjust your wording minimally without changing the message (“Israel should be destroyed” => “I support a one state solution where everyone in current-day Israel and Palestine can live freely, similar to how South Africa abolished apartheid.”) it’s really not worth it.

Should Germany turn fascist and ban all opposition, it is too late for feddit.org and their moderators anyways. If Germany doesn’t, feddit will be fine like this and reduce the strictness of these rules as German sentiment towards Israel slowly worsens over the coming years.

Not really.

You can’t become anonymous and retain site ownership. The site would’ve needed to be shut down and a new, somehow completely unrelated site would have to be started.

Besides, even if that were done you bet your ass a random German lawyer would immediately sue the new site for violating Impressumspflicht. That’s one quick way to get the police investigating your site. Your OPSEC better be close to “hosting an illegal streaming site” level.

Even German forums about piracy would rather have an impress and remove illegal content than remain anonymous and evade police - see tarnkappe.info.

According to §18 Medienstaatsvertrag only private websites are exempt from Impressumspflicht. A full name and address are required.

Maybe? Never did I argue about the morality of these laws. They exist and must be abided to avoid negative consequences.

Ensuring the existence of the instance has higher priority than free speech about Israel. As such I don’t see any issue on the admin’s side for removing potentially illegal comments.

Discussion about Israel’s genocide is still possible under German law. Just don’t mention nazis or the Holocaust and you are probably fine.

Notice the

for example

The commenter didn’t say anything about pigs obviously. I was providing an example where antizionism would be considered antisemitism by German courts.

You can make this statement, only the last sentence in the comment in question is at the very best in a legal gray area.

It is perfectly legal to be opposed to zionism, even in Germany. You may need to adjust your wording, since anti-zionism can and has been considered antisemitic if antisemetic rhetoric is repeated. The statement “All zionists are pigs” would be illegal for example since the Judensau is an antisemitic symbol.

And the servers are hosted where the administrators live (note: they are hosted in Austria, their laws are nearly identical to Germany though). It wouldn’t make much of a difference - German (& Austrian) admins can be prosecuted for any content accessible in Germany (or Austria), regardless of where the content hosted. Besides, it would only take a single court order to identify the admins, see Impressumspflicht.

You’re right, though I don’t know whether a court will see it the same. It could maybe be argued there is an implicit connection in the comment.

Also, Austria has similar enough laws. In mid 2024 someone was sentenced to 7 months on probation for equating zionists with nazis:

https://salzburg.orf.at/stories/3267915/

I suspect the last sentence violates German law. Equating Israel with Nazi Germany is illegal under German law as it is considered to downplay the Holocaust because the latter has killed several magnitudes more people than Israel. From a quick search, this has been confirmed at least once by a higher regional court where a cartoonist was fined one monthly income.

Advocating for a secular one-state solution has thus far never been considered illegal by any court. The IHRA definition is not German law and will likely never be.

Since the instance is hosted in Germany, comments must abide by German law even if you disagree with said law. The instance admins are personally liable if they do not remove potentially illegal comments so I don’t see why there is an issue.

You can create another Europe community on an instance which isn’t hosted in Germany where such comments are legal.

The comment - which isn’t edited - uses (c).

Whatever client you use replaces/renders © [bracket c bracket] as ©.

Gleichschaltung took a bit of time for the nazis.

The Night of the Long Knives is only applicable if the judge herself were a nazi who is seen as a potential threat due to being slightly differently aligned than the main faction.

It assumes the man is being imprisoned for just cause

Guantanamo Bay doesn’t rely on any cause though? It’s literally a US torture camp where nothing matters. No due process, no just cause, no nothing. It’s worse than CECOT in everything but scale.

Have you ever seen any country’s opposition figure successfully demand something from another country? I personally haven’t. Usually the government alone controls any and all foreign relations.

Hell, Israel has literally detained and deported two British MPs on a parliamentary delegation - not just a visit. And they’re part of the governing party, no less!

It’s genuinely not surprising that El Salvador reacts this way. It’s the literal default reaction to a nongovernmental politician demanding something.

And yes, I think it’s appalling that the I US deports anyone and everyone, legally or otherwise. This doesn’t affect El Salvador though since they detain whoever the US sends there. The US argues this man is a terrorist, therefore this is sufficient justification for them.

Had Britain started deporting migrants to Rwanda and a MP from the Green Party requested to visit someone “mistakenly” deported, they would’ve been denied access as well.

I just really don’t think there’s anything noteworthy in the rejection alone.

Potato potato

Why is it called the Unicode Emoticons Block when it only includes emojis? Checkmate atheist!

Wrong emoji. Should’ve used >:3

It should be fairly normal to decline a random politician from another country a request no one else gets.

It reeks a bit of American exceptionalism that US senators should get special rights. If a random politician from, say, the Netherlands asked to see someone held in Guantanamo Bay the US will do fuck all to accommodate this request.

My comment is not a justification for the deportation of that guy by the way. I just don’t think it should be notable, as random politicians usually enjoy much, much fewer rights than head of states.

That’s like the least noteworthy aspect of German anti-piracy action out there tbh.

There’s an entire industry around identifying people who torrent and fining them 4 digit amounts as well as forcing them to sign a declaration never to pirate again in their lifetime (which, when broken, results in contractual fines a magnitude larger). Don’t want to sign? Tough luck, have fun losing a lawsuit forcing you to sign it.

Paint. Yes. That’s what I saw. Paint.

There’s no way this is how Rumpelstilzchen is spelled in English…

duckduckgoes

IT IS. English takes every single French word, keeps its spelling but mangles the pronunciation but for Rumpelstilzchen the pronunciation is somehow more relevant than the spelling? It makes some sense, but the ending “stiltskin” is an abomination.

The meaning of “stilzchen” is “small stilt” by the way - so he should’ve be called “Grumblestilty” in English.