bump
german media is trying to censor it

>>94176
Seems pretty Nazi-istic for a nation so dedicated to trying to condemn its national socialist past.

>>94176
>could be fined three months' wages if found guilty of slander.

Are we sure this isn't a bad translation of legal terms into English?

Being fined out of your wages is a penalty from administrative charges, not criminal charges. Slander itself would be a civil charge, not a criminal charge (and not an administrative charge, though it a given administrative bureaucracy might use the term). Finally, if the charges were to be raised in a civil suit, then describing someone as mentally incompetent would likely be more appropriately called defamation, not slander.

I know German law isn't in the same lineage as Anglo but it still follows the basic common law system, so there's definitely something lost in translation here.

Since it was only two sentences at the top of the story, my guess is it wasn't a big issue to begin with. I bet anything the meaning was originally "administrative charges", as in, his police department fined him for dissing the chief executive in a formal setting.

>>94180
>>94181
He said she was insane and criminal.
He is beibg accused of "übler Nachrede" for which slander is probably a good translation.
As he clearly spread wrong information which is attacking someones honor the sentence is justified

>>94221
There are many possible reasons. For example:

1) In case some people want to read the article to gain context for discussion, but don't want to show approval to the publisher, it's polite for the OP to provide such a link.

2) If those reporting on the event are under pressure to change the article, an archive link will be more useful than a direct link.

3) In some cases, the direct publishing organization might apply a paywall to their article after some time. It's polite for the OP to provide an archive link in case this happens.

Now how about YOU come up with some reasons!

>>94239
Who the fuck cares man. They're clearly trying to shut the guy up for speaking his mind. Regardless of the context, it's thug-like bullying via a baseless fine.

>>94980
>They're clearly trying to shut the guy up
Do you know what slander is, son?

>>94991

Not that poster, but I went to journalism conferences and sessions on libel & slander -- they've pretty much never held up against political figures in the court of law in the U.S. or in modern Common Law. Not only is it it too difficult to prove (truth nullifies libel, and the burden of proof is on the claimant unless it's obviously frivolous), but "political speech" is one type of free speech that courts have ruled as almost untouchable.

>>94978
>wrong information

How could thinking it's a good idea to flood your prosperous country with uneducated third workers who hate you be anything but insane?

>>94980
It matters because he isn't being criminally charged for it like OP is trying to push, he's being disciplined by whoever his super is. Probably still trying to shut him up, but it's not some wacky 1984 shit.
Shittalking superiors in the military or police in America is a punishable offense as well, but you probably haven't served in either so I don't expect you to know that. Hell, you can make fun of the Waltons while working at Walmart and you'll probably get booted or disciplined as well.

>>95012
>(truth nullifies libel)
In US courts, yes. In several european countries, the truth literally isn't a defense in some "anti-racist" laws.