World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
Yes you can only ban them if they threaten the democratic order. Or to be more precise:
Which (if you don't know German) basically means
Now I believe that the AfD does fit those criteria (unconstitutional position for sure, but them working together with militant neo-nazis etc. should fill the second criterium as well). But that's just my opinion and in this situation it does not count as much. The process here is that the court will decide wether or not the AfD fits these criteria and based on that they will be banned or not banned.
This is the important distinction to what you've outlined. It's not "banning political opponents" it's banning opponents of the constitution. I'm also not saying everyone with opposing views should be jailed I'm saying a party that opposes the constitution should be banned according to the constitution.
Yes, I'm familiar with that part of your legislation.
Approximately everyone else here except for you sees AfD as a target for banning because "they're radical far right". No, sorry, bad idea.
Even banning an anti-democracy party at first might be a bad idea. Better go figure out why is anyone voting for them.
Banning an anti-democracy party is an absolute last-resort measure. It only exists in Germany because this is how Hitler came to power, so the idea is to prevent that scenario from repeating. I can see the point, however it is yet to be proven that such bans would actually help preserve the democratic order.
That's correct but in my opinion that's a great argument to push for a ban. As you say that's how Hitler came to power with the NSDAP, so it would only be correct to use this law to try and prevent history from repeating itself. If we find out in the court that the law currently doesn't apply it will be a win for the AfD of course but I believe and hope that it won't be and that they will be banned. But if we don't try and enact the law now how long do we wait? Till they are in government? Till they enacted emergency laws ...
Also, again, I do not believe this a definite solution to the "problem" of AfD and right wing movements in Germany. I do however believe it will be a big blow to the Right and might give us some room to move into with progressive ideas.