Opinion of this ruling

[Tender Branson]

Austrian prosecutor: Call to kill Jews is legal criticism of Israel

Facebook postings from a Turkish man showing Adolf Hitler, with a statement praising the death of Jews, are a legitimate expression of criticizing the Jewish state, the spokesman for the prosecutor office in the city of Linz, Philip Christl, said on Tuesday.

“I could have annihilated all the Jews in the world, but I left some of them alive so you will know why I was killing them...,” Ibrahim B. wrote on his Facebook page in December.

Ibrahim, the 29-year-old owner of a hair salon in the city of Wels near Linz, attributed the quote to Hitler and posted a picture of the German dictator on his Facebook site. Ibrahim launched his pro-Nazi tirade in the context of criticizing Israel’s Operation Protective Edge war against Hamas last summer.

Christl described Ibrahim’s statements as merely expressing “displeasure toward Israel,” and not a glorification of Hitler, according to the Oberösterreichische Nachrichten paper.

Ibrahim, whose last name was not disclosed in the Austrian press, also called on Allah to annihilate the Jewish state, the newspaper wrote. The Austrian media said the quote attributed to Hitler was not an actual statement from the Nazi leader.

A Facebook user noticed Ibrahim’s postings and notified the police. The authorities opened an investigation into a violation of a law that outlaws the glorification of the National Socialists.

(...)

The uproar over the decision to dismiss the criminal complaint against Ibrahim appears to have prompted a senior prosecutor to re-evaluate the case, Der Standard reported on Wednesday.

http://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/Austrian-prosecutor-Call-to-kill-Jews-is-legal-criticism-of-Israel-390760

[Cory]

It's deplorable, but should be legal to begin with.

Freedom Ruling.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Awful and stupid ruling.

[IceSpear]

"Oh, so criticizing Israel makes me anti-semitic?!" seems to be the go-to defense immediately after someone goes on hate tangents about teh Jooz.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Hate speech is still speech, and thus should be protected. But the right to call for this idiots "annihilation" is also protected. Once the threats start coming in from the other side, this guy's tune is going to change.

[politicus]

Awful and stupid ruling.

If you got laws against hate speech they should be applied.

[Lief 🗽]

I'd have to see the actual wording of the law and the post this person made in its entirety.

[ag]

I strenuously object to a judge having to rule on this.

[Lief 🗽]

I strenuously object to a judge having to rule on this.

Who else would you rule on this? A jury? LOL

[ag]

I strenuously object to a judge having to rule on this.

Who else would you rule on this? A jury? LOL

Preferably, nobody.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

In a country with strict laws protecting offensive speech including hate speech under a general barrier of free speech, it would be a freedom ruling.

In a country with hate speech laws, it's a horrible ruling and a rather ominous portent.

[RFayette]

In a country with strict laws protecting offensive speech including hate speech under a general barrier of free speech, it would be a freedom ruling.

In a country with hate speech laws, it's a horrible ruling and a rather ominous portent.

[Associate Justice PiT]

In a country with strict laws protecting offensive speech including hate speech under a general barrier of free speech, it would be a freedom ruling.

In a country with hate speech laws, it's a horrible ruling and a rather ominous portent.

     Hate speech laws should be struck down in every country. While I don't approve of this way of doing it, I consider it to be a step in the right direction.

[Middle-aged Europe]

I strenuously object to a judge having to rule on this.

Thanks, Demi Moore.

[MaxQue]

In a country with strict laws protecting offensive speech including hate speech under a general barrier of free speech, it would be a freedom ruling.

In a country with hate speech laws, it's a horrible ruling and a rather ominous portent.

     Hate speech laws should be struck down in every country. While I don't approve of this way of doing it, I consider it to be a step in the right direction.

On which grounds? In some cases (I'm thinking of Germany), the ban on neo-Nazism speech IS in the Constitution, if I remember well.

[Antonio the Sixth]

In a country with strict laws protecting offensive speech including hate speech under a general barrier of free speech, it would be a freedom ruling.

In a country with hate speech laws, it's a horrible ruling and a rather ominous portent.

     Hate speech laws should be struck down in every country. While I don't approve of this way of doing it, I consider it to be a step in the right direction.

On which grounds? In some cases (I'm thinking of Germany), the ban on neo-Nazism speech IS in the Constitution, if I remember well.

Pit is a libertarian, so I'm gonna guess he believes in that "natural rights" bullsh*t.

[Middle-aged Europe]

In a country with strict laws protecting offensive speech including hate speech under a general barrier of free speech, it would be a freedom ruling.

In a country with hate speech laws, it's a horrible ruling and a rather ominous portent.

     Hate speech laws should be struck down in every country. While I don't approve of this way of doing it, I consider it to be a step in the right direction.

On which grounds? In some cases (I'm thinking of Germany), the ban on neo-Nazism speech IS in the Constitution, if I remember well.

It isn't.

Although Article 5, Paragraph 2 of the Consitution specifies that there may be restrictions to free speech.

These restrictions are outlined in Section 130 of the Criminal Code, in the provisions regarding Volksverhetzung ("incitement of popular hatred"). Paragraphs 3 and 4 of Section 130 specifically deal with justifiying, glorifying, approving of, trivializing, or denying the National Socialist regime or any of its crimes.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

In a country with strict laws protecting offensive speech including hate speech under a general barrier of free speech, it would be a freedom ruling.

In a country with hate speech laws, it's a horrible ruling and a rather ominous portent.

     Hate speech laws should be struck down in every country. While I don't approve of this way of doing it, I consider it to be a step in the right direction.

Except that they're not trying to repeal their hate speech laws, they're just making clear that their protections no longer apply to Jews.

[Cory]

On which grounds? In some cases (I'm thinking of Germany), the ban on neo-Nazism speech IS in the Constitution, if I remember well.

Well I guess that makes it moral and just then. Because you would totally say the same thing if the DPRK constitution said certain types of speech were banned. It's okay because their Constitution banned it.

What part of protecting unpopular speech being a core part of any Democracy don't a lot of Europeans understand? You figure of all people they would understand. But I guess as long as they personally agree with the ban then it's cool. Tools.

[politicus]

On which grounds? In some cases (I'm thinking of Germany), the ban on neo-Nazism speech IS in the Constitution, if I remember well.

Well I guess that makes it moral and just then. Because you would totally say the same thing if the DPRK constitution said certain types of speech were banned. It's okay because their Constitution banned it.

What part of protecting unpopular speech being a core part of any Democracy don't a lot of Europeans understand? You figure of all people they would understand. But I guess as long as they personally agree with the ban then it's cool. Tools.

Unlimited freedom of speech is a fine ideal, but in certain contexts it would have undermined any attempt at creating, stabilizing or maintaining democracy. Post-war Germany is an obvious case.

[Antonio the Sixth]

What part of protecting unpopular speech being a core part of any Democracy don't a lot of Europeans understand? You figure of all people they would understand. But I guess as long as they personally agree with the ban then it's cool. Tools.

Oh wow, thank God our enlightened American brothers are here to teach us dumb Europeans what democracy really is! We could never figure it out without you.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

"Oh, so criticizing Israel makes me anti-semitic?!" seems to be the go-to defense immediately after someone goes on hate tangents about teh Jooz.

So you're denying that Zionists love using actual anti-Semitism (like the subject of this ruling) to smear all criticism of Israel?

[Insula Dei]

Not a great fan of the policing of Facebook, especially when it comes to private profiles.

In as far as this specific case is concerned, the quotes from the article quite clearly do not constitute an incitation to violence and even constructing them as expressing approval of the Holocaust seems a bit arbitrary to me. (Well, the sentiment is certainly not in overly good taste, but what is literally being said is pretty clearly legal even when one accepts the premise that this sort of thing hate speech laws should be used to crack down on.)

[Associate Justice PiT]

In a country with strict laws protecting offensive speech including hate speech under a general barrier of free speech, it would be a freedom ruling.

In a country with hate speech laws, it's a horrible ruling and a rather ominous portent.

     Hate speech laws should be struck down in every country. While I don't approve of this way of doing it, I consider it to be a step in the right direction.

Except that they're not trying to repeal their hate speech laws, they're just making clear that their protections no longer apply to Jews.

     That's why I don't approve of this way of doing it; the whims of a specific prosecutor or judge or jury creates numerous asymmetries in enforcement that arbitrarily privilege certain groups within the law. Maybe in a year's time, this fellow will be convicted for similar statements because another prosecutor/judge/jury will have different ideas.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

"Oh, so criticizing Israel makes me anti-semitic?!" seems to be the go-to defense immediately after someone goes on hate tangents about teh Jooz.

So you're denying that Zionists love using actual anti-Semitism (like the subject of this ruling) to smear all criticism of Israel?

Anti-Zionists have been using "I'm not anti-semitic, I'm anti-Israel!!!" as a shield for blood libels for decades.