Pastor Latzel and the limits of freedom of speech

[mikkel_the_dane]

Interesting...but I guess a freedom of speech case would have been more fitting.
For instance, do you know Rasmus Paludan?

Yeah, and it ends in politics and morality. I get what you are saying and still view it differently. In Danish law you are in general not allowed to say a negative overgeneralization about a group of people. That is where it ends.
Example of the difference:
Some people in group A have the following problematic behaviour if they indeed have that, then it is okay.
All people of group A are in effect evil, dangerous and so, because they all do this thing X. That is rarely the case, because it is an overgeneralization.

Basically you can critique that actually behaviour of the actual people, but you can't say something, which is not true of the everyday world.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Pastor Latzel is an Evangelical Pastor who has been accused of hate speech by the German justice: the Staatsanwalt (prosecutor) considers him guilty of spreading and teaching homophobic propaganda, and basically he is a Volksverhetzer, that is, a person who pushes for hate speech .

His students witnessed he said that there is a Homo-Lobby that does anything to propagandize homosexuality, all this happened during a seminar about marriage.
German pastor’s sentence for hate speech against homosexuals prompts different reactions

What do you guys think?
What do you guys think the limits of freedom of speech are?
Please, explain and provide with examples

He is allowed his opinion. Except in a totalitarian regime like the UK is becoming.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

He is allowed his opinion. Except in a totalitarian regime like the UK is becoming.

Well, it was in Germany.

 

[Estro Felino]

Yeah, and it ends in politics and morality. I get what you are saying and still view it differently. In Danish law you are in general not allow to say a negative overgeneralization about a group of people. That is where it ends.
Example of the difference:
Some people in group A have the following problematic behaviour if they indeed have that, then it is okay.
All people of group A are in effect evil, dangerous and so, because they all do this thing X. That is rarely the case, because it is an overgeneralization.

Basically you can critique that actually behaviour of the actual people, but you can't say something, which is not true of the everyday world.

Thank you. This clarifies a lot.
This reasoning is perfectly understandable.

But Pastor Latzel basically affirmed that he thinks
1) that an alleged homo-lobby exists which he calls "devilish".
2) and he condemns the gay pride parades, the rainbow flags flying on city hall buildings.


Well... if this homo-lobby does not exist, he has not insulted anybody.
As a priest, he has the right to consider those things unchristian.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Thank you. This clarifies a lot.
This reasoning is perfectly understandable.

But Pastor Latzel basically affirmed that he thinks
1) that an alleged homo-lobby exists which he calls "devilish".
2) and he condemns the gay pride parades, the rainbow flags flying on city hall buildings.


Well... if this homo-lobby does not exist, he has not insulted anybody.
As a priest, he has the right to consider those things unchristian.

I doubt he called it "devilish". He more than likely called it, in effect absolutely for how reality really is, devilish. That is no allowed, because it is not true of the everyday world and it in effect makes those humans less in absolute terms.
Be honest about what is at play in general terms. You are for such laws not allowed to judge people to be something they are not for the everyday world. It is a secular worldview. You are allowed to have a different lifestyle than them and say you don't like that, but you are not allowed the universal absolute judgement, which is not a case for the everyday world.

 

[Estro Felino]

I doubt he called it "devilish". He more than likely called, in effect absolutely for how reality really is, devilish. That is no allowed, because it is not true of the everyday world and it in effect makes those humans less in absolute terms.
Be honest about what is at play in general terms. You are for such laws not allowed to judge people to be something they are not for the everyday world. It is a secular worldview. You are allowed to have a different lifestyle than them and say you don't like that, but you are not allowed the universal absolute judgement, which is not a case for the everyday world.

That is exactly the point. Bravo.
If those words had been pronounced by a politician, this politician would have been held accountable for those words, for sure.
On so many levels...depending on the severity of the terms used. Because the secular law implies that LGBTs need to be protected and respected by the State, and by its representatives (politicians).

But Olaf Latzel is a pastor. And we have the separation between Church and State, so what ecclesiasticals say, is not said on the State's behalf.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That is exactly the point. Bravo.
If those words had been pronounced by a politician, this politician would have been held accountable for those words, for sure.
On so many levels...depending on the severity of the terms used. Because the secular law implies that LGBTs need to be protected and respected by the State, and by its representatives (politicians).

But Olaf Latzel is a pastor. And we have the separation between Church and State, so what ecclesiasticals say, is not said on the State's behalf.

But that is not relevant, because he has not special protection for being a priest. He is a citizen and all citizens are covered by that law.

 

[Estro Felino]

But that is not relevant, because he has not special protection for being a priest. He is a citizen and all citizens are covered by that law.

I profoundly respect the juridical tradition, and legal system of your country.
The Napoleonic school sees things differently, for instance the French law has always given Charlie Hebdo magazine unlimited freedom of expression through that publication.

 

[Luchito Prays]

OK, their sexual orientation is part of their personality.

That is a well given answer by the judge, but the preacher's opposition to such sexual orientation can't be punishable, people is entitled to their own opinion.

The Pastor said what he said at the church, to the fellowship. He can say the same in a private party, a seminary in a convent, etc,. However, he can't do the same if he was a public figure given speech to people. Governments are not to promote or go against any sexual orientation.

Problem is that some governments do, like here in America, Biden and others.promoting sexual orientation like homosexuality, lesbianism, and the others which are not heterosexuality. Have you hear Biden as president promoting the family with male husband and female wife?... lol.

The preacher is right. Let him be.

 

[Estro Felino]

OK, their sexual orientation is part of their personality.

That is a well given answer by the judge, but the preacher's opposition to such sexual orientation can't be punishable, people is entitled to their own opinion.

The Pastor said what he said at the church, to the fellowship. He can say the same in a private party, a seminary in a convent, etc,. However, he can't do the same if he was a public figure given speech to people. Governments are not to promote or go against any sexual orientation.

Problem is that some governments do, like here in America, Biden and others.promoting sexual orientation like homosexuality, lesbianism, and the others which are not heterosexuality. Have you hear Biden as president promoting the family with male husband and female wife?... lol.

The preacher is right. Let him be.

He was acquitted
Pastor Olaf Latzel von Volksverhetzung freigesprochen

cne.news

 

[Heyo]

He was acquitted
Pastor Olaf Latzel von Volksverhetzung freigesprochen

The DA has one week to decide if he wants to escalate it to the next instance.

The text also has additional information that wasn't mentioned here. He was accused by the church and there is an open disciplinary action going on. The church has now (if not escalated by the DA) a secular opinion to inform their further decisions in the case.

 

[Estro Felino]

The DA has one week to decide if he wants to escalate it to the next instance.

The text also has additional information that wasn't mentioned here. He was accused by the church and there is an open disciplinary action going on. The church has now (if not escalated by the DA) a secular opinion to inform their further decisions in the case.

It turns out Judge Goehner's ruling explains that the context was exclusively religious, and so his statement is to be considered within the limits of freedom of religion. Freedom which entails the juridical possibility to condemn a particular category of people.
And I add: as I had said three days ago, this judge is absolutely right, because there is the separation of Church and State and what the EKD says is juridically irrelevant. Since the courts of the Federal Republic of Germany deal with secular matters only.

That said, if I have correctly understood, this was the Appeal, right? Second degree of judgment?
Is there a third degree, as in Italy? Before the Supreme Court, the Bundesgerichtshof?

 

[Heyo]

That said, if I have correctly understood, this was the Appeal, right? Second degree of judgment?
Is there a third degree, as in Italy? Before the Supreme Court, the Bundesgerichtshof?

It was the appeal. Pastor Latzel was convicted to pay € 8100.00 in the first instance.
A possible further appeal would be tried before the "Oberlandesgericht" (still not the last instance). The "Oberlandesgericht" doesn't judge on the case, only on correct procedure. It may push the case back to the lower instances.
Oh, and the "Bundesgerichtshof" is not the Supreme Court, that would be the "Verfassungsgericht". It's complicated and I'm not a lawyer.

 

[Estro Felino]

It was the appeal. Pastor Latzel was convicted to pay € 8100.00 in the first instance.
A possible further appeal would be tried before the "Oberlandesgericht" (still not the last instance). The "Oberlandesgericht" doesn't judge on the case, only on correct procedure. It may push the case back to the lower instances.
Oh, and the "Bundesgerichtshof" is not the Supreme Court, that would be the "Verfassungsgericht". It's complicated and I'm not a lawyer.

Well...the BVG exclusively rules on the unconstitutionality of laws. The Bundesgerichtshof is the Supreme Court of Appeal for error of law from trial decisions of the Landesgerichte and the Oberlandesgerichte.

It is not that different than our judicial system. We too have a Constitutional Court (similar to the Bundesverfassungsgericht) and a Court of Cassation (similar to the Bundesgerichtshof).

What I like about Germany is that these supreme courts are all in different cities.
We have everything in Rome.

 

[Heyo]

Well...the BVG exclusively rules on the unconstitutionality of laws. The Bundesgerichtshof is the Supreme Court of Appeal for error of law from trial decisions of the Landesgerichte and the Oberlandesgerichte.

Exactly. Our friends in the US may think of the Supreme Court as a constitutional court, that is the BVerfG (sic). Afaik the SCotUS is also the highest court of appeal so has also the function of the BGH.

 

[Estro Felino]

Exactly. Our friends in the US may think of the Supreme Court as a constitutional court, that is the BVerfG (sic). Afaik the SCotUS is also the highest court of appeal so has also the function of the BGH.

Exactly.