Should companies owned by Chinese or with large Chinese shareholders fire employees who voice anti-PRC sentiments?
It's your persception that it's "anti-China". In any case, it's highly questionable saying that China is trying to maintain Tibetan culture and it deserves a human rights pat on the back. I can not believe you wouldn't find that eye-brow raising. I mean, c'mon, we're talking about reality. In any case, this isn't about freedom of speech or the press. She is hired to do a job, not express her personal feelings or opinion. While that might be difficult to grasp why a company might not like that - it's really about they way they want to report. FOXNews takes a conservative tilt, so they hire people to express that view. It's not objective, but that's ok because that's what their reporters are paid to do. If a reporter doesn't report the way they want to - that they have every right to suspend or terminate them - just like any other job. But are you seriously going to talk about objectivity considering there is no such thing in the Chinese press? It's not even close to the same thing.
Article 5 (Freedom of expression) of the German constitution: "Everyone has the right to freely express and disseminate their opinions orally, in writing or visually and to obtain information from generally accessible sources without hindrance," states paragraph one of the law. "Freedom of the press and freedom of reporting through audiovisual media shall be guaranteed. There shall be no censorship."
In the U.S. - if you voice anti-Bush statements - technically you can be fired. Your political affilations even in the U.S. are not protected. There are cases of people who have revealed they are communists and have been fired.
By the gov't. In Germany, the Gov't doesn't run the press. The gov't can not censor anyone. She is free to report as much as she likes and print her opinion of video tape it and distribute it....but the media outlet doesn't have to carry it.
Despite your spin attempts, the exact text of the article did not distinguish between governmental and private entities. But it was rather blunt on what cannot be done...
It's not spin, it's a document by the gov't. It can't apply to private industry. Just think - if someone guy went on the air and started saying all sorts of crazy things, do you think he can't be fired???? That's not what free speech is about. You don't have a clue do you?
Were her comments removed/blocked from the air? What exactly was the text that was censored? If she thinks she has a case, she should file a suit. If that is legitimately what the law means, then she will undoubtedly win. That's what an independent judiciary is all about. Perhaps a German lawyer like SJC can articulate how this law has been interpreted in the past. Do you know anything about this law and freedom of speech in practical terms in Germany outside of this one specific case? Or are you making a snap judgment based on your own incomplete information and your own individual interpretation (see previous discussions - "I decide trucks aren't armaments. Therefore it is so."). Regardless, if it had happened in the USA it would be perfectly legal and not a violation of her free speech protections. If she has a case under some tricky loophole of German constitutional law, as you were discussing, she should pursue it. That doesn't mean that it violates the spirit of 'free speech' as I or anybody else in the western world means the words. If you think you can tear that all apart as worthless on the basis of a technicality, you really don't understand.
Except she didn't go on air saying all sorts of crazy things. She said the CCP lifted 400 million out of poverty, that is a fact. She said Angela Merkel is galvanizing relationships with Beijing, that is also a fact. She said the CCP is doing a lot to protect the Tibetan culture, that is also a fact since the 90's. It would be something else altogether if she bullsh1ted on the air. I would reckon that dissenting opinions would disappear pretty fast if everyone is fired (aside from accused of "courting" the Chicoms) for having one. Actually I would love to have someone analyze the case. No tongue in cheek. Just wanting to learn. You know, if I recall correctly, even by the link you provided, those trucks were at best "dual use." Far cry from armaments that you so pathetically claimed. But apparently you chose to interpret it as otherwise... Except for it didn't happen in the US. And according to the text of the constitution, it wouldn't be a loophole either. You on the other hand, is trying to find one. But in regards to "free speech," it actually fits my suspicions perfect, that you are entitled to it until the populace disagrees with you.
Btw, just for a frame of reference, just so that I'm not "interpreting things": http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censoring censor Function: transitive verb Inflected Form(s): cen·sored; cen·sor·ing Listen to the pronunciation of censoring \ˈsen(t)-sə-riŋ, ˈsen(t)s-riŋ\ Date: 1882 : to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable <censor the news>; also : to suppress or delete as objectionable <censor out indecent passages> Furthermore: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/suppress Main Entry: sup·press Listen to the pronunciation of suppress Pronunciation: \sə-ˈpres\ Function: transitive verb Etymology: Middle English, from Latin suppressus, past participle of supprimere, from sub- + premere to press — more at press Date: 14th century 1: to put down by authority or force : subdue <suppress a riot> 2: to keep from public knowledge: as a: to keep secret b: to stop or prohibit the publication or revelation of <suppress the test results> 3 a: to exclude from consciousness b: to keep from giving vent to : check <suppressed her anger>4obsolete : to press down5 a: to restrain from a usual course or action <suppress a cough> b: to inhibit the growth or development of6: to inhibit the genetic expression of <suppress a mutation>
I'm not going to disagree with you, but that is kind of a subjective judgment. Should we appoint you as final arbiter of what is acceptably crazy to fire people in Germany for? I'm sure the people of NAMBLA think their views are perfectly rational and justifiable. Explain. Here is the text of the USA constitution: [rquoter] Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. [/rquoter] Can you explain how what happened in Germany violates the 1st Amendment of the Constitution of the USA? Respectfuly, I've tried to think about how you might be right and I just can't see it. It happens all the time. Google a little bit and you can find handfuls of stories about reporters fired for their personal views. Off the top of my head, for notible cases there are a whole bunch of Fox reporters who moved somewhere else en masse after being fired, as well as a fairly famous CNN commentator who went to work for al Jazeera English Language because he was considered too 'out there' for mainstream media to touch. My guess is that the difference here is if the story didn't have to do with China, you wouldn't care. Honestly, how much do you care about freedom of press stories unless they have something to do one way or the other about China? She is still absolutely entitled to it. Deutche Welle isn't required by law to help her disseminate it, though. At least not in the USA.
If these ideas were suppressed, then how did so many Germans and German advertisers hear about them and get upset at her for disseminating them?
I'm not judging at all, which is why I pulled up Article 5, just so I don't have to judge. Geez, and I thought I made it ample clear posting the text. Why the hell would an alleged (see how I give space for explanations) violation of the law in Germany have anything to do with the US constitution? It happens all the time. Google a little bit and you can find handfuls of stories about reporters fired for their personal views. Off the top of my head, for notible cases there are a whole bunch of Fox reporters who moved somewhere else en masse after being fired, as well as a fairly famous CNN commentator who went to work for al Jazeera English Language because he was considered too 'out there' for mainstream media to touch. My guess is that the difference here is if the story didn't have to do with China, you wouldn't care. Honestly, how much do you care about freedom of press stories unless they have something to do one way or the other about China?[/quote] Actually I'm well aware of them. But please, if you're gonna be biased, at least have the dignity to say "we're biased," instead of the usual "we're free, you're just brainwashed line." And like I said, it didn't occur in the US. The US constitution wouldn't mean **** here. You're not reading careful enough. Her opinions were "put down by authority or force." That it occurred after the thought is merely an afterthought.
I'm sure you find this hard to believe, but I genuinely believe in freedom of speech as explicitly defined by the Constitution of the USA. For me, the rules of freedom of speech don’t change in Germany. They are the same. It is not just the letter of the law but an ideal. I genuinely believe in that fixed definition of freedom of speech. There is a real, tangible difference that I see, in the application of government media control between the USA and China that I believe is bad, even if you think I'm a stupid doody head for believing it. This isn’t some idea made up retroactively to give me a chance to bash China. There really is an ideal there that I genuinely believe in. I believed in it and valued it before I ever thought of how it might apply to China. I wish you could understand that it is something that I genuinely value, not some made up idea to give me a chance to bash China. As soon as someone can write nasty things about the Chinese government without getting thrown in jail in China, I will honestly be happy. Based on what I believe in and always have believed in, what happened in Germany is not a violation of freedom of speech. That is why some letter of the law interpretation of the German Constitution, even if you turn out to be right, would be a loophole to me. I'm sure you can probably find cases where even I would agree free speech is violated. Fine. You suck too, so we don't suck as bad isn't a particularly compelling argument, at least to me.
Gotta love Europe...They're so liberal and tolerant when racism and xenophobia are shown towards Arabs, Muslims, and Africans, but don't deviate from the official party line when it comes to China or you'll be suspended and possibly fired and don't deviate, not even slightly, from the official party line when it comes to the Jewish Holocaust or you run the risk of being thrown in jail because of your opinion. What a bunch of hypocrites.
Did she get arrested by secret police and get sent to a work labor camp for re-education I wonder? MFW doesn't understand the concept of freedom of speech, what a shocking revelation.
