Talk:Der Giftpilz
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. | |
| This article falls within the scope of the Interfaith work group. If you are interested in Interfaith-related topics, please visit the project page to see how you can help. If you have any comments regarding the appropriateness or positioning of this template, please let us know at our talk page.
|
||
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate, you can edit the article. You can discuss the Project at its talk page. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary at in the comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. |
[edit] Estonian KarS §151
Estonian authorities have investigated Lauck's activities in promoting this book's Estonian language translation under §151 of Estonian penal code, which criminalises incitement to social hatred. Petri Krohn linked "incitement to social hatred" to hate speech, and so did Ghirlandajo. This is a severe distortion of the issues at hand.
Incitement to social hatred is a form of incitement to crime, with social context being made more explicit and particular crime-executors irrelevant than in the old-fashioned crime of incitement. Hate speech, a concept mainly from modern Anglophone political landscape, is instead, an expression of hatred, and the legal issues implicit deal largely with limiting such expressions. Both the concepts and their legal scopes are quite different.
For example of a border case, let's consider a politician's statement that he hates gays. Under most concepts of hate speech, this would qualify. Under any incitement standard, it would not qualify. In order to qualify as incitement to hatred, the politician would need to explicitly state, or very clearly imply, that he intends his listeners or readers to also pick up that hatred, and act upon this. Digwuren 11:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
