CJ Hopkins certainly didn't "bring" me. I flew from Scotland of my own volition to witness this judicial process deeming it to be an important case for free speech and freedom of the press. The outcome was just.
For someone who seems to be pretty interested in the writings of a satirist, you sure take every possible remark extremely seriously. And they say Germans have no humour... :D
I am not quite sure what you are referring to. It depends on the case, of course, but you usually get an attorney provided for free if you don't have one (in criminal law cases like this one, which was a Strafbefehl proceeding). As far as I understand this case, the state prosecutor originally wanted jail time, so I would interpret § 408b StPO to apply here, meaning a lawyer would have been provided.
Yes, I do agree with you on that. But once it has happened, you'd really need to defend yourself, no matter how much money you have, because having a conviction on your record is pretty bad and causes issues when looking for jobs and other things. So there really isn't so much of a chilling effect here, as there would be in civil law. Because you are very incentivised to fight it anyway.
With criminal law, once someone reports a crime, it's pretty much all automatic. Since the police must investigate and the prosecutors generally have not much of a choice and have to indict as well.
This is why I really don't understand Hopkins' "I like this law, but I am angry they prosecuted me" stance. The problem is the law. The prosecution is pretty much automatic and wasn't in any way surprising (my point from the start of this whole thing). If you want maximum free speech and you want to be able to use a swastika without any fear of prosecution, then you need to be against this law. If you are for it, prosecution like this is an expected side effect. This is why I am generally opposed to this law, BTW.
It's a catch-22. If the State were out to get Hopkin's, it would've mattered. As it turns out, a low level bureaucrat probably had a personal bee, and his malice was easily dismissed i.e., the Law worked logically. Because I've had experience with it not working (14 charges), I'm extra happy that it worked out for Hopkins, and the ironic outcome of him getting more subscribers.
You wrote well, as you did before this, which is why I recommended you. You shouldn't have been attacked. I just disagree that a prosecutor should have found it worth pursuing, considering the law has leeway.
That's terrific. In my country, a public lawyer arrives with a sense of doom. And despite the law guaranteeing one, I've been denied public legal defence in all my cases (which involved politicians attacking me for exposing their corruption). Furthermore, having a general practitioner is not the same as having an expert in freedom of speech cases. Of course, I expect Germany to be better (but not perfect).
It's always preferred to pick a lawyer who is a specialist and more motivated (the result of being paid more than the normal public defender rate).
As for the cases you are referring to, I can't say anything about that. I don't even know what country we are talking about. In Germany, I would hope press freedoms would be a defence. Although, it does sound like you are talking about civil law and that really isn't at all comparable to Hopkins' case.
South Africa. Criminal and civil. Have had a prison sentence hanging over me for 2 years now, and they can easily activate others. Seems they wanted me to keep quiet, so I just sit in limbo, and mostly write about overseas.
Not about knowledge of the Law, just that if the State wants to get you, they can. I was relating my experience. That doesn't appear to have been Hopkin's scenario, thankfully a storm in a teacup, and the Law working out.
CJ Hopkins certainly didn't "bring" me. I flew from Scotland of my own volition to witness this judicial process deeming it to be an important case for free speech and freedom of the press. The outcome was just.
For someone who seems to be pretty interested in the writings of a satirist, you sure take every possible remark extremely seriously. And they say Germans have no humour... :D
Something might have been lost in translation here but otherwise.......honestly- you are not doing yourself any favours here.
What translation? Is English not your native language?
The context of the article is applaudable. Why not simply applaud?
👏
Good. Let's see whether his book can be bought again in Germany.
Thanks for the update.
Fair play, Fabian!
Thanks for attending like you said and for providing a professional dispassionate account of the proceedings.
How many news outlets did you contact? Do you have connections, what was their response?
Bonus News - TRUDEAU loses another Supreme Court case ...butt still wants to use taxpayer cash to fight for his WEF controllers...
It served a totalitarian purpose. Despite the win, the average Hans and Anneke don't have the money to defend their righteous speech.
I am not quite sure what you are referring to. It depends on the case, of course, but you usually get an attorney provided for free if you don't have one (in criminal law cases like this one, which was a Strafbefehl proceeding). As far as I understand this case, the state prosecutor originally wanted jail time, so I would interpret § 408b StPO to apply here, meaning a lawyer would have been provided.
My inference was that the average person would be intimidated by the government charging them (regardless of right or wrong)..
Yes, I do agree with you on that. But once it has happened, you'd really need to defend yourself, no matter how much money you have, because having a conviction on your record is pretty bad and causes issues when looking for jobs and other things. So there really isn't so much of a chilling effect here, as there would be in civil law. Because you are very incentivised to fight it anyway.
With criminal law, once someone reports a crime, it's pretty much all automatic. Since the police must investigate and the prosecutors generally have not much of a choice and have to indict as well.
This is why I really don't understand Hopkins' "I like this law, but I am angry they prosecuted me" stance. The problem is the law. The prosecution is pretty much automatic and wasn't in any way surprising (my point from the start of this whole thing). If you want maximum free speech and you want to be able to use a swastika without any fear of prosecution, then you need to be against this law. If you are for it, prosecution like this is an expected side effect. This is why I am generally opposed to this law, BTW.
It's a catch-22. If the State were out to get Hopkin's, it would've mattered. As it turns out, a low level bureaucrat probably had a personal bee, and his malice was easily dismissed i.e., the Law worked logically. Because I've had experience with it not working (14 charges), I'm extra happy that it worked out for Hopkins, and the ironic outcome of him getting more subscribers.
Since it seems very hard to get my point across in the comments, I have written some more on this to clarify my viewpoint: https://eyeonthepress.substack.com/p/a-note-to-readers-on-the-cj-hopkins
You wrote well, as you did before this, which is why I recommended you. You shouldn't have been attacked. I just disagree that a prosecutor should have found it worth pursuing, considering the law has leeway.
That's terrific. In my country, a public lawyer arrives with a sense of doom. And despite the law guaranteeing one, I've been denied public legal defence in all my cases (which involved politicians attacking me for exposing their corruption). Furthermore, having a general practitioner is not the same as having an expert in freedom of speech cases. Of course, I expect Germany to be better (but not perfect).
It's always preferred to pick a lawyer who is a specialist and more motivated (the result of being paid more than the normal public defender rate).
As for the cases you are referring to, I can't say anything about that. I don't even know what country we are talking about. In Germany, I would hope press freedoms would be a defence. Although, it does sound like you are talking about civil law and that really isn't at all comparable to Hopkins' case.
South Africa. Criminal and civil. Have had a prison sentence hanging over me for 2 years now, and they can easily activate others. Seems they wanted me to keep quiet, so I just sit in limbo, and mostly write about overseas.
I have zero experience with the laws (or much else for that matter) in your country, so I will refrain from commenting.
Not about knowledge of the Law, just that if the State wants to get you, they can. I was relating my experience. That doesn't appear to have been Hopkin's scenario, thankfully a storm in a teacup, and the Law working out.