Pastor Latzel and the limits of freedom of speech

[Estro Felino]

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

 

[Estro Felino]

Juridically*, freedom of speech is freedom of thought, first of all.
A person has the right to express their own opinions, because our freedom is an absolute concept.
And it can manifest itself in multiple forms. Speech is one of these. And the speech includes writing, and typing of course, besides speaking.

It is clear that people's freedom terminates when other people's freedom is present.
So, the jurisprudence says that, unless the speech harms specific, determined people, who can suffer the so called hedonic damage, a person is entitled to say whatever they like about a specific subject.

Pastor Latzel's view was a personal opinion about the political situation and the social implications of alleged LGBT lobbies. He did not mention specific people. He did not mean to harm specific, determined people, ergo he is not absolutely guilty of anything, according to the law of my country,

*according to the law of my own country,

 

[Sirona]

Germany is trying to atone for the acts committed by the Nazis, and homosexuals were one of the groups particularly affected, along with other marginalized groups such as "gypsies", Jehovah's Witnesses, or Communists.
The fundamental right of freedom of religion is not unlimited in Germany, but must be balanced with other rights from the point of view of human dignity, which is the supreme value of the Basic Law.
I think calling homosexuals "criminals" violates their human dignity. That's easy.
Personally, I believe that if you hate something, you should not hide behind your religion as an excuse.
And the term is Staatsanwalt (state attorney) , not Staatsrechtsanwalt.

 

[Bathos Logos]

I don't think there should be any legal repercussions unless it can be demonstrated that someone lost business or health or suffered some level of decrease in some practical/physical "well-being" metric. And even then, a case must be made, and judged fairly by a system of law (libel/slander would probably be the appropriate accusation, and not "hate speech" - which is a "crime" that, as you have implied, goes against the grain of freedom of speech, which I, personally, highly prize)

However, I think anyone opposed to his viewpoint should take him to task. Debate him outright, and decry him for the hatred he is espousing himself to and trying to spread. He should be tongue-lashed, in other words. Profusely and unabashedly shamed by all of those around him who disagree. People should use his name directly as an example of such bigotry, and spread the word in inter-personal communications that he is a malicious actor. Not necessarily publicly on any platform, so as to keep him from being able to make his own case for libel/slander. Just word-of-mouth ruin the poor fool. That'd do the trick. And my best guess with all this publicity on the matter is that this is already in the works. So good. He's likely getting his.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

The laws covering hate speech were established. To stop the many public and private battles against specific classes of individuals and groups of people in society.

Hate speech and other prejudicial actions against specific groups no longer need to be individually tested in court.
If the speech or action fits the legal definitions of the various laws, then the perpetrators will be legitimately tried for a Hate Crime. This almost always outweighs the perpetrators right to freedom of speech.

They can in general say what they like. But if what the say breaks the law, they should expect to be prosecuted.

 

[Estro Felino]

The laws covering hate speech were established. To stop the many public and private battles against specific classes of individuals and groups of people in society.

Hate speech and other prejudicial actions against specific groups no longer need to be individually tested in court.
If the speech or action fits the legal definitions of the various laws, then the perpetrators will be legitimately tried for a Hate Crime. This almost always outweighs the perpetrators right to freedom of speech.

They can in general say what they like. But if what the say breaks the law, they should expect to be prosecuted.

This is a very interesting juridical matter, indeed.
In Common Law systems such as the UK, judges have an incredible discretional power. That is, they have the power to use their own discretion and standards to rule about a case. Both in civil and penal cases.
So they can decide whether a case will be qualified as a "hate speech case" or not.

The word hate is very generic. It doesn't mean anything, since hate is mostly used as synonym of dislike, detest, and I guess anyone has the right to dislike.


In our Civil Law system, in the Napoleonic juridical tradition, each theoretical case has to be explained in advance by the law. Explained in incredible detail, so the judge's discretion is practically absent. Because the judge studies the factual case and will rule that it deals with "hate speech" only if there are the same circumstances as those described in the code ( theoretical cases).
Our legal framework entails that there is "hate speech" only when a person specifically declares that he means to harm a person or a group of people.
So disliking a certain group of people is not to be considered hate speech.

Pastor Latzel's speech is absolutely not to be considered hate speech, according to the Italian Law. Because he speaks of something which is juridically inexistent: that is Godly Justice.
Since God and Afterlife are undemonstrable notions, they do not exist according to the Law.
So he can say whatever he likes about how God judges homosexuals.

 

[ChristineM]

The pastor should be entitled to his freedom of speech in just the same way the judge is entitled to his freedom to impose the law.

And yes, the pastor exercised his freedom of speech as did the judge

 

[Twilight Hue]

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 seminary 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

I think the widespread attack on speech is out of control these days.

Sucks to be a German Pastor apparently.

 

[Twilight Hue]

The pastor should be entitled to his freedom of speech in just the same way the judge is entitled to his freedom to impose the law.

And yes, the pastor exercised his freedom of speech as did the judge

Independent judges now? Boy it's getting dangerous out there.

 

[Stevicus]

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 seminary 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

In America, I believe the standard used is the "clear and present danger" standard. Unless one is directly advocating or encouraging violence or other lawlessness, then I think it would generally be allowed.

For example, if he was overtly calling on his congregation "Let's go out and kill homosexuals," that would probably be actionable. But anything short of that, like saying there's a "homo-lobby," that doesn't seem to cross the threshold.

It would have to be something obvious and blatant, not subtle things which could be interpreted in various ways.

 

[Estro Felino]

In America, I believe the standard used is the "clear and present danger" standard. Unless one is directly advocating or encouraging violence or other lawlessness, then I think it would generally be allowed.

For example, if he was overtly calling on his congregation "Let's go out and kill homosexuals," that would probably be actionable. But anything short of that, like saying there's a "homo-lobby," that doesn't seem to cross the threshold.

It would have to be something obvious and blatant, not subtle things which could be interpreted in various ways.

Exactly.

 

[ChristineM]

Independent judges now? Boy it's getting dangerous out there.

I take it you didn't read my post Freedom to impose the law.

 

[ChristineM]

Besides there is something I do not understand about atheists.
If an atheist believes no God and no afterlife exist, why do they care if someone says a X category will go to Hell?
And yet they do care

It is like someone told me : "tomorrow Aliens will abduct you"
Since I believe ETs are fairy tale...I mean...I would burst out laughing...

Typically because no one likes threats (and it is a threat in the mind of the speaker)

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Juridically*, freedom of speech is freedom of thought, first of all.
A person has the right to express their own opinions, because our freedom is an absolute concept.
And it can manifest itself in multiple forms. Speech is one of these. And the speech includes writing, and typing of course, besides speaking.

It is clear that people's freedom terminates when other people's freedom is present.
So, the jurisprudence says that, unless the speech harms specific, determined people, who can suffer the so called hedonic damage, a person is entitled to say whatever they like about a specific subject.

Pastor Latzel's view was a personal opinion about the political situation and the social implications of alleged LGBT lobbies. He did not mention specific people. He did not mean to harm specific, determined people, ergo he is not absolutely guilty of anything, according to the law of my country,

*according to the law of my own country,

Then don't use your law on another country's law. I thought you are not an universalist, but a nationalist. Then live up to that.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Besides there is something I do not understand about atheists.
If an atheist believes no God and no afterlife exist, why do they care if someone says a X category will go to Hell?
And yet they do care

It is like someone told me : "tomorrow Aliens will abduct you"
Since I believe ETs are fairy tale...I mean...I would burst out laughing...

Because if you follow social science that can lead to actual psychological harm and even suicide in people.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Exactly.

But this is Germany. Are you the judge of the German people?

 

[Estro Felino]

Typically because no one likes threats (and it is a threat in the mind of the speaker)

I don't believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster's existence.
So I would not care less about the Flying Spaghetti Monster's threats

 

[Heyo]

Pastor Latzel is an Evangelical Pastor

Just FYI to our friends on the other side of the pond: the "Evangelische Kirche in Deutschland" is what you call "Lutherans". They are very liberal and open for LGBT people. Some churches (depending on "Bundesland" (state)) perform gay marriages, others don't but neither condemns gay lifestyle. I.e. aside from his secular hate speech accusation the pastor has to face an ecclesiastical hearing.

 

[Estro Felino]

Because if you follow social science that can lead to actual psychological harm and even suicide in people.

This is surely relevant. But Pastor Latzel is not a state authority. He is a priest and said those things in the context of a religious class.

 

[Estro Felino]

Just FYI to our friends on the other side of the pond: the "Evangelische Kirche in Deutschland" is what you call "Lutherans". They are very liberal and open for LGBT people. Some churches (depending on "Bundesland" (state)) perform gay marriages, others don't but neither condemns gay lifestyle. I.e. aside from his secular hate speech accusation the pastor has to face an ecclesiastical hearing.

That's exactly the point. Thank you for bringing it up. Since there is the separation between church and State, in Germany, a Pastor is supposed to be held accountable before his own Church only, and not before the State given that we are dealing with a religious Unterricht. Seminar.