Fight sovereignty of opinion - actual goal remains invisible

Deutsch

The sovereignty over opinion is an extremely contested area. To this end, the development of “other” opinions must also be extremely combated. This has been happening for some time, cleverly and subtly. The actual goal always remains obscured or invisible.

Inhalt / Content

1 Have and express an opinion
- 1.1 BVerfG rulings on freedom of expression
2 There are (flexible) limits
3 Morality takes precedence over the written norm
4 Statement punishable? “Dialogue with Islam not possible”
5 Punishable Islamophobia in prospect
6 The target group is still inconspicuous

Have and express an opinion

Having an opinion is one side of the coin. Proclaiming this opinion is the other side. An increasing restriction of “freedom of expression” has been observed for years. Today, announcing or simply sharing an opinion is only “permissible” if it is within the defined framework of the general narrative. In certain areas, a “deviating” opinion is either hushed up in the media or declared as “hate speech”. These agitators themselves use the stylistic device of “satire” to divide opinions. Simply slap the label “satire” on the complete defamation and social destruction and you wash your hands of pure innocence.

Court gavel — BVerfG has made clear rulings on freedom of expression

Since its inception and over the past decades, the Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfG) has had to judge and reprimand the overreach of the judicial and executive powers against the guaranteed freedom of expression on several occasions. From this point of view, freedom of expression should “actually” be guaranteed. Below are a few excerpts from the individual judgments:

BVerfG rulings on freedom of expression

Court ruling of January 15, 1958 – 1 BvR 400/51

On the basis of these considerations, the Federal Constitutional Court came to the conclusion that the regional court, in its assessment of the complainant’s conduct, had failed to recognize the special importance that the fundamental right to freedom of expression also has where it conflicts with the private interests of others. The regional court’s judgment is based on this failure to meet fundamental rights standards and thus violates the complainant’s fundamental right under Article 5 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the Basic Law. It must therefore be repealed.

Court ruling of March 10, 2016 – 1 BvR 2844/13

The courts correctly assumed that statements classified as factual statements are also protected by the fundamental right of freedom of expression, since they are a prerequisite for the formation of opinions (cf. BVerfGE 54, 208 <219>; 61, 1 <8>; 85 , 1 <15>).

It should also be taken into account that, in principle, the exaggerated expression of opinions is also subject to the self-determination protected by Article 5 Para. 1 GG (cf. BVerfGE 54, 129 <138 f.>). In particular, if there has been an immediately preceding attack on one’s honor, a response corresponding to this attack and having a similar effect may be justified (cf. BVerfGE 24, 278 <286>)..

Court ruling from February 4, 2010 – 1 BvR 371/04

Opinions enjoy the protection of freedom of expression, regardless of their merits, value or correctness. They do not lose this protection even if they are expressed harshly and exaggeratedly (cf. BVerfGE 61, 1 <7>; 85, 1 <14 f.>; 90, 241 <247>).

Court ruling of June 22, 1982 – 1 BvR 1376/79

This fundamental right guarantees, without explicitly distinguishing between “value judgment” and “statement of fact”, everyone’s right to freely express their opinion: everyone should be able to freely say what they think, even if they do not give or cannot give any verifiable reasons for their judgment (BVerfGE 42, 163 [170 f.]); At the same time, the purpose of expressing opinions is to have an intellectual impact on the environment and to have an opinion-forming and convincing effect. Therefore, value judgments that always have an intellectual effect, namely the aim of convincing others, are protected by the fundamental right of Article 5, Paragraph 1, Sentence 1 of the Basic Law.

There are (flexible) limits

Colorful clown — Prominent TV clown protects himself with ‘satire’

But freedom of expression does not mean a “free pass for verbal outbursts” that are clearly aimed at the area below the belt and want to deprive people of their dignity. The Federal Constitutional Court also made this clear. This applies to the representatives of propagandists who deviate from the mainstream as well as to the mainstream itself. The latter, however, likes to circumvent this limitation by labeling it “satire”. A good example is the regularly appearing TV clown (Opinion), who is supported by compulsory fees and who became very famous a few years ago after he published a insulting song about Turkish President Erdogan.

Back in 2015, the would-be comedian made himself the center of attention by claiming that he had faked the middle finger shown by Greece’s former finance minister, Yanis Varoufakis. However, the middle finger was real (Source). But it’s all just “satire”. Due to the now established artificial intelligence in the area of “reporting”, extreme caution is now required. A fake image can hardly be distinguished from the real one.

Morality takes precedence over the written norm

Morality has long taken precedence over written law. While the written norm is immovable as long as no legislator tinkers with it, morality is very flexible and can also be applied extremely dynamically. Above all, the question arose: who sets or defines morality?
In addition to morality that is not democratically determined by an individual or a small group, terms have been redefined in order to put their new meanings like a naked knife to the throats of the deviants of the formed mainstream. “Tolerance” is one such prime example. Anyone who is “tolerant” today welcomes something, accepts it and, under certain circumstances, even acts in the same way. At the same time, he points his accusing finger at those who do not follow this behavior.

In fact, “tolerance” describes something that you reject but still able to stand.
Tolerance is therefore not consent, but rather an expression of rejection, without any further consequences. In reality, the “tolerance” defined and practiced today is the “intolerance” frowned upon by the same people. Everything turned upside down.

This “post-modern” tolerance is a basic building block of today’s moral standards. Whatever comes along must be tolerated. Any deviation or dissenting opinion is “hate speech”. Freedom of expression guaranteed by the Basic Law and the Federal Constitutional Court? Void, because morality outweighs this norm.

This opens the door for these agitators to freely define who is violating “law and order”. Such blossoms have long been observed and this is increasingly affecting religion and especially Islam. Even writing a (half) verse from the Bible on the rear window of a taxi can earn the driver a fine. Displaying a Bible verse in a restaurant that calls for an exclusive relationship between a man and a woman can land you in prison. Charge: “Hateful language and homophobia.”

Statement punishable? “Dialogue with Islam not possible”

In Spain, the priest Don Custodio Ballester is now on trial for a “hate crime” because he criticized Islam in an essay in 2016 (Source). The title of this essay was: “The Impossible Dialogue with Islam.”
The priest emphasized that in Islam there are either Muslims or unbelievers. The latter would have to be subdued. The priest quoted a verse from the Koran, Sura 9:29:
“Fight against those who do not believe in God, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid what God and His Messenger have forbidden, nor adhere to the religion of truth – from those who have received the Holy Scripture – until they voluntarily or involuntarily do so pay any tax due.“

That obviously sounded like “hate language” to the prosecution..

Punishable Islamophobia in prospect

Little noticed by the general media, a novelty is developing in England that, if implemented, will probably very quickly find its way into the Commonwealth countries. Such “synchronization” could also be observed in the measures to combat a declared pandemic. A legislative proposal was submitted back in 2018, which has recently been taken out of the drawer. The wording:
“Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness.” (Source)

In short: Anyone who says something against Islam is a racist.
Freedom of speech? Nope! Because morality now takes precedence over the law.
The fact that a religion, in this case Islam, is defined as a race, or at least based on it, is completely absurd, but appears to be completely irrelevant to the justification. Because in contrast to “racism,” “racial hostility” presupposes the existence of races. Despite the desire for “colorfulness and diversity”. Reality and logic have never been points of reference for such “left-wing” views, but rather merely fictions or artificially created mental worlds. The “World Core Curriculum,” which was rolled out globally in the 1990s, has done a great job here(Info).

In fact, a level has already been reached that was considered funny and ironic just a few years ago. The former dictator Idi Amin is said to have said the following:
“There is freedom of speech, but I cannot guarantee freedom after speech!“

The target group is still inconspicuous

Logic and reality, madness and fiction, getting involved in this political and media hustle and bustle only leads from the rain to the fire. Because the “right-hand side” is “completely different”, but ultimately it’s not any better. Their ideas about morality have a Christian flavor, at least in the Western world. This is particularly evident in the “New World”. The “national Christians” or the “Christian right”, which are very strongly represented in the USA, rumble about Christian values, holding up one Bible or another, but are not much closer to the gospel than the opposing “red faction”. Also: “Just next to it is also wrong”.

The verbal battles between the “right (Christian)” and “left (woke)”, which are becoming increasingly violent and open, with all the accompanying effects, only serve to align as many people as possible into one of these two camps. Here the thesis, there the antithesis and in the end both are happy about the synthesis they have found. The remainder cannot come to terms with either the thesis or the antithesis, let alone the synthesis. These will probably also be those who will point out the error in this synthesis and insist on their own position, specifically that of the Gospel. The package of moral accusations has already been prepared for these “troublemakers”. They spread “hate language, exclude, are fundamentalists and extremists, endanger the common good, unsettle people, bring discord into society and – as wild as it may sound now – are enemies of the climate and therefore of the common living space.” Free expression? Oh, where from?! After all, morality trumps the law.

Revelation 12:17:
“And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.“

The opposing ideologies are still firing on all available cylinders. You just have to look a little closer to notice that the guiding threads of both groups have had a common starting point from the beginning, in Rome (Info).

For their power is in their mouth, and in their tails: for their tails were like unto serpents, and had heads, and with them they do hurt.
Revelation 9:19

Bible verses from King James Version

Fight for sovereignty of opinion – the actual goal remains almost invisible

Beitrag teilen