|
ArchangeI posted:Wait, there are semi-serious media companies that literally use the word "shitstorm"? Yes and they will probably ditch the quotation marks around it soon enough, eventually using it like just another anglicism. As for why they don't have a German word for it, it's probably because the whole shitstorm use started on the internet in this mysterious "Netzkultur" of the "digital natives". Maybe the use of net lingo in the news media will go down when the next election functionally kills what's left of the Pirate Party in Germany.
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2013 17:10
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 01:37 |
|
|
Lucy Heartfilia posted:And here is the Wahl-O-Mat for the election (in German): I somehow feel this one is even worse than the ones before. It spares out a lot of important topics and still asks loaded questions to an annoying degree. It's also somewhat pointless when apparently I agree with every party I choose to something between 60 to 50 percent even after setting up important issues. (For the record, it hilariously recommended me to vote for SPD, which I swore to never do again.) Zohar posted:To the Germans here, how accurate is this (very negative) article about the German Greens? http://newleftreview.org/II/81/joachim-jachnow-what-s-become-of-the-german-greens That's a pretty accurate description. The Green party has basically become the party of the established middle-class and capitalized on themes close to that demographic, i.e. "feel good policies that do not affect my social standing or finances". A popular example for this one is Green lobbying for more wind energy and then Greens and their voters being vehement in fighting against any infrastructure for that being build close to their precious Eigenheims.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 29, 2013 12:49
|
|
|
It should, however, be noted that both the SPD and the Greens are fine cooperating with the Linke on the state level if it suits their interests. For what it's worth, the SPD/Greens in NRW even worked with the Linke under a non-coalition agreement that left the SPD/Greens as an administration without a majority in the state parliament. And I do not really buy that is has anything to do with former SED personnel, because the SPD absorbed large sways of SED remnants as well. If personnel is an issue, it's due to the WASG merger weakening the political position of the SPD and therefore the Greens back in 2007.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 29, 2013 13:49
|
|
|
My Q-Face posted:How did I qualify as a leftist by German standards? You're probably a secret communist sleeper agent.  Compared to other countries current day Germany has very few polarizing issues. The big parties partly agree on many policies with only minor deviations. This means that a lot of the statements used in political questionaires such as this one will score you points for multiple parties regardless of your answer. Additionally, some statements in the questionaires are vague enough to be practically meaningless. Other statements might score you points for one political direction, despite your reason for (dis)agreeing with the statement being fundamentally different from the party's reasoning, e.g. pragmatism regarding European matters instead of actual preference for a wider and deeper union. Furthermore, the questionaires do not take into account whether parties make actually good on their alleged promises and asks few enough questions, that you might have just gotten an outlier that would not reflect your actual political leanings. (Also, the Pirate Party basically promises everything to everyone. I got them at a ridiculously high percentage as well.)
|
|
#
¿
Aug 29, 2013 21:26
|
|
|
wayfinder posted:Yeah, thank god for the F—http://www.fdp-calw.de/StellHomoEhe.htm Verily, the Mainlinie is our very own Mason-Dixon line. 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2013 14:25
|
|
|
I tried watching this after the first posts hit, but I still cannot stand these duels. Especially not Maybrit Illner's attempts to do critical journalism. I can understand interrupting politicians when they are dodging an issue, but repeatedly interrupting during the first two sentences and injecting word fragments mid-statement is neither professional nor useful for getting information out of politicians. Besides, you cannot make somebody eat their words, if they are still in a position to remodel those words.ArchangeI posted:He really looks like a minister of finance trying to do his boss' job. Foreshadowing! 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2013 20:16
|
|
|
Smirr posted:I think Steinbrück's "telling it like it is, politeness be damned" shtick is starting to morph into "do I look like I give a poo poo?". I can't really blame him for that. He has to justify himself before journalists that argue and interrupt on the level of unmoderated blog commentators. Hell, even the gimmicky commentary tiles on the ARD stream have a standard than the moderation panel. Also, congratulations on not understanding how our social security systems and the Besoldung of government workers work, ARD.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2013 20:33
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:Seriously, the moderation of this is a god drat disgrace. I liked how they complained at length about the difference in speech time favouring Merkel, while interrupting Steinbrück more often and did not make any actual attempts of equalizing the time. And that's not even taking into account that Merkel was not even called out for - unnecessarily - making stuff up during the Syria part of the duel. Raab really was the only saving grace of the panel for his "I want a strong SPD, but I think we all know there is not going to be a chancellor Steinbrück." Oh well. At least there is only one Kanzlerduell this year.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2013 21:18
|
|
|
From what I could gather before going to work people liked Steinbrück more than Merkel by a slim margin. Probably won't be enough to get the SPD more than 30 percent, though.dreamin' posted:I skipped the debate because it was only ever going to be terrible but reading today's papers they all seem to agree that Raab was the true winner Apparently, not even German journalists care that much for German journalists anymore. Though Raab coming out on top is still less embarassing than people not knowing which colours make up the German flag and going Web 2.0 over Merkel's jewelry.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2013 13:57
|
|
|
Torrannor posted:And the bigger clout of the CSU probably means that there will be no path for gay marriage even in a Grand Coalition. There is no path for gay marriage in any realistic coalition because there are constitutional problems with expanding marriages that way. I fully expect marriages and civil unions to exist independantly from each other but with the same rights and obligations for a very long time.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2013 19:08
|
|
So, here is to hoping the Constitutional Court continues to eliminate the differences between civil unions and marriage.
|
Perestroika posted:Out of curiosity, why is that? I'm by no means a constitutional scholar, but article 6 of the GG (which I guess is what you're referring to?) only grants a special protection to the institution of marriage and family and does not actually make any mention of the genders of the people involved. Is there some other law where that is actually legally defined that way? No, there is no other party in the constitution explicitly defining marriage, as used in the constitution, as being between a man and a woman. The institution of marriage only encompassing what is commonly known as "traditional marriage" is the result of legal interpretation, which takes into account the historic and legal context as well as the originally intended function of the norm. How a phrase is used during everyday conversation years after the passing of a law has little influence on this. So people calling civil unions "Homoehe" does not retroactively influence the legal meaning of the word "Ehe" in article six. If common usage of words would be the sole deciding factor of legal meanings, absurd consequences would follow. In this case, you could make the argument that since common language uses the phrase "Vielehe" article six also protects the right of a person to marry multiple other people at the same time. A similiar issue arises when people are talking about Art. 5 I 1 -"Eine Zensur findet nicht statt." A lot of people call the cutting and rating of media censorship. But that does not make it a censorship in the legal sense of Art. 5, because Art. 5 was only ever intended to ban the classical "Zensur" of old, where publications had to be approved before before being published. Finally, this is an excerpt from BVerfGE 115, 1 (Rn. 60). Bolding mine. (Online version) Bundesverfassungsgericht, Beschluss vom 06.12.2005, Az. 1 BvL 3/03 posted:Bei der Ausformung der Ehe muss der Gesetzgeber die wesentlichen Strukturprinzipien beachten, die sich aus der Anknüpfung des Art. 6 Abs. 1 GG an die vorgefundene Lebensform in Verbindung mit dem Freiheitscharakter des verbürgten Grundrechts und anderen Verfassungsnormen ergeben (vgl. BVerfGE 31, 58 [69]; 105,BVerfGE 115, 001 (018) BVerfGE 115, 001 (019)313 [345]). Zum Gehalt der Ehe, wie er sich ungeachtet des gesellschaftlichen Wandels und der damit einhergehenden Änderungen ihrer rechtlichen Gestaltung bewahrt und durch das Grundgesetz seine Prägung bekommen hat, gehört, dass sie die Vereinigung eines Mannes mit einer Frau zu einer auf Dauer angelegten Lebensgemeinschaft ist, begründet auf freiem Entschluss unter Mitwirkung des Staates (vgl. BVerfGE 10, 59 [66]; 29, 166 [176]; 62, 323 [330]; 105, 313 [345]). Mit diesem sich aus Art. 6 Abs. 1 GG ergebenden Gehalt der Ehe steht in Einklang, wenn der Gesetzgeber verhindert, dass auch gleichgeschlechtliche Partner die Ehe schließen können, wobei er dabei bisher ganz offensichtlich von der personenstandsrechtlichen Geschlechtszuordnung der Partner ausgeht. Um dem Nachdruck zu verleihen und die Ehe von anderen Rechtsinstituten abzugrenzen, ist es auch legitim, Regelungen zu treffen, mit denen der Gesetzgeber versucht, schon den Anschein zu vermeiden, die Ehe stehe auch für gleichgeschlechtliche Partner offen.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2013 00:05
|
|
|
 Bi-Lingual Posting Ahead e X posted:Art.6 doesn't prohibit gay marriage, it's just that the term 'marriage' doesn't include gay people, as it was used to exclusively refer to a union between man and woman when the article was written, so it doesn't provides a constitutional right for gay people to get married. That was the point of the 1993 ruling, resulting from the Aktion Standesamt. However, that does not actually forbid changing that definition. If they get a 2/3 majority, they could probably change the constitution to include a definition saying, "Marriage also includes partnerships of the same sex". Without a constitutional change, that is doubtful. Art. 6 GG ist kein bloßes Schutzrecht gegen den Staat. Der Schutz von Ehe und Familie ist auch eine sogenannte Einrichtungsgarantie hinsichtlich der Ehe. Das bedeutet, dass der Staat die Einrichtung "Ehe" im Kern als rechtliches Institut aufrechterhalten muss. Insofern ist es gerade die Zielrichtung von Artikel 6 GG, dass der Gesetzgeber eben nicht alles einfachgesetzlich dem Zeitgeist anpasst. Er muss das Rechtsinstitut der Zivilehe bewahren und darf es nicht in seinen Grundzügen ändern. Er kann also zum Beispiel grundsätzlich das Alter der Ehefähigkeit hoch- oder runtersetzen, aber er könnte zum Beispiel nicht erlauben, dass die Ehe von vorne herein auf Zeit geschlossen wird, wie es in manchen Kulturkreisen üblich ist.("auf Dauer angelegte Lebensgemeinschaft") Entsprechend würde der Gesetzgeber wohl auch daran gehindert sein, die Zivilehe für gleich- und verschiedengeschlechtliche Personen zu öffnen. Das alles berührt aber, wie auch schon von elwood gesagt, nicht die Möglichkeit des Gesetzgebers ein entsprechendes Rechtsinstitut wie die Lebenspartnerschaft zu kreieren. Das Bundesverfassungsgericht hat in seiner Entscheidung zur eingetragenen Lebenspartnerschaft im Übrigen ausdrücklich festgestellt, dass die Lebenspartnerschaft als separates Institut das Institut der Ehe nicht verletzt. Denn zwei Personen können miteinander entweder nur die Ehe oder nur eine Lebenspartnereschaft eingehen. Denn Erstere setzt Verschiedengeschlechtlichkeit voraus, während letztere Gleichgeschlechtlichkeit voraussetzt. ArchangeI posted:Wouldn't the more recent decision by the BVerfG regarding the Ehegattensplitting at least imply that it has moved on from its traditional interpretation? I mean, they've had decision declaring a ban on homosexuality to be constitutional in the 60ies, and I have my doubts that they would still judge the same today. Not at all, the decision on "Ehegattensplitting" has nothing to do with how the legal term "Ehe" in article six has to be understood. Die Verfassungwidrigkeit der Regelungen zum Ehegattensplitting rührt aus dem allgemeinen Gleichheitsgrundsatz und nicht aus dem Schutz von Ehe und Familie. Das Bundesverfassungsgericht hatte bereits vorher entschieden, dass der Gesetzgeber nicht gehindert war ein Rechtsinstitut zu normieren, welches die Lebens- und Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft zweier Personen gleichen Geschlechts rechtlich absichert. Fraglich war, ob es sich bei der Ungleichbehandlung im Rahmen der Einkommenssteuerveranlagung um eine verfassungswidrige oder um eine verfassungsgemäße Ungleichbehandlung handelte. Denn das Grundgesetz verbietet nicht jede Ungleichbehandlung. Verfassungsrechtlich unzulässig ist lediglich die Ungleichbehandlung von Wesentlich gleichem. Ob zwei Sachverhalte im Wesentlichen gleich sind hängt immer auch davon ab, in welchem Kontext wir uns befinden. Für den Kontext der Steuerveranlagung sieht das Bundesverfassungsgericht die eingetragene Lebenspartnerschaft und die bürgerliche Ehe als im Wesentlichen gleich an. Denn der Gesetzgeber hat für gleichgeschlechtliche Partner eben ein der Ehe entsprechendes Rechtsinstitut eingerichtet. Hierzu war er zwar nicht verpflichtet, aber wenn er ein solches Institut schafft, dann darf er es nicht einfach willkürlich in Situationen anders behandeln, wo kein praktischer Unterschied zur bürgerlichen Ehe besteht. I'm also pretty sure they would not decide the same way regarding criminal laws against homosexual behaviour anymore. It's actually a really interesting if somewhat complex decision to read. It also has some passages where the court explicitly says that their assessment on the matter might change with what science on sexuality will discover. frankenfreak posted:You'll find the FDP shares go down with less education. It's hard to gently caress somebody over if you can't even get the key to the shabby motel room. 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2013 21:02
|
|
|
I'd like to apologize to everybody from Bavaria. On numerous occassions, I have called Bavaria an undemocratic one-party state of hickfolk. Thankfully, the electoral district of Bayreuth has shown me the errors of my way. Nobody gets more passionate about voting than the Bavarians!  
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2013 21:32
|
|
|
frankenfreak posted:The site won't load for me. Care to tell where exactly this magical polling station is? A place called Emtmannsberg, where they apparently count write-in votes from other districts.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2013 21:53
|
|
|
Perestroika posted:The impression I get is that even inside the CDU there are a fair few voices in favour of proper SSM. It seems (or at least I hope) that much of the leadership is mostly just blocking it for fear of alienating their conservative base rather than any particular conviction of their own. I wish the FDP had put more pressure on them while they still mattered. Merging marriage and civil unions into one new type of marriage just isn't worth it politically. Functionally, civil unions are almost equivalent to marriages right now. And the constitutional court is pretty much guaranteed to follow up their current line of arguing to enforce equal standing in the remaining areas. Trying to make a new gender-neutral institution of marriage would only give the hardline conservatives another opportunity to take shots against homosexuals. Not to mention that a lot of other laws that referred only to the "old" marriage had to be changed for clarification's sake, because otherwise people would complain about those applying to the "new" marriage as well. Torrannor posted:Well, this may be true but the text passage is still rather ambiguous. And the constitutional court can use any of the still pending cases against marriage discrimination to declare same-sex marriage compatible with the relevant part of the Basic Law. Doubtful. The current civil unions ("Lebenspartnerschaften") are already compatible with the Basic Law. And the constitutional court is unlikely to decide about a hypothetical form of marriage ("Ehe") that would be open to people of the same sex as well as people of the different sex, because the constitutional court can only decide about stuff that is brought up to him. Randler fucked around with this message at 13:49 on Sep 17, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2013 13:39
|
|
|
Decriminalizing the sexual abuse of minor was a position a lot of people on the political left lobbied for, and some still do. But it only started to get some public attention recently, despite it being somewhat common knowledge. Hell, even the local SPD candidate for my electoral district was pushing for it and apparently nobody in the SPD cared about it.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2013 13:58
|
|
|
Am I the only one here who actually wants the next administration to be CDU-FDP again? 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2013 13:53
|
|
|
Simply Simon posted:Why? I have no trust in the current SPD's ability to govern whatsoever. The SPD always was best at sabotaging itself, but since Schröder it feels like every few months some Genossen try to drag the pary in a new direction kicking and screaming. The absurd amount of infighting the SPD has makes them unelectable for me. If I vote SPD today, I just cannot be sure that tomorrow they won't do a 180°. Furthermore, there is a significant amount of stuff SPD politicians did, that do not mesh with my political views at all, chief amongst them the SPD trying to jump on the anti-immigration bandwagon with Sarrazin's made-up statistics and the blatant dishonesty the SPD has shown with regards to the military engagements in Kosovo and Iraq. (The incompetence of the current NRW administration is a strike against the SPD for me as well.) So with me firmly being against any SPD involvement in the federal government, rooting for CDU and FDP is the only valid choice. The fact that Merkel is pretty good at taking down any of the more hardline conservatives to stiffle competition is just making it easier for me.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2013 14:17
|
|
|
Wengy posted:I was in Leipzig yesterday and it was interesting to see how many young people flocked to the CDU stands in the Innenstadt. Who the gently caress votes CDU and isn't already a senior, I just don't get people. I'm probably biased because I hail from the black heart of Westphalia, but the Junge Union is way more organized and accessible than their SPD counterpart. The fact that the JuSos are generally way more radical in their politics probably does not really help them attracting young people in a country where the political mainstream is dominated by middle-of-the-road positions.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2013 18:10
|
|
|
Geokinesis posted:I do find it strange the younger voters not voting more for parties that had actually backed the idea of a proper minimum wage. Proper minimum wage is somewhat misleading, though. While there is no universal statute setting a minimum wage, there are a lot of situations where minimum wages already exist. For example the Arbeitnehmer-Entsendegesetz, Tarifverträge and the Berufsbildungsgesetz explicitly or implicitly set minimum wages even before you consider that German civil law also bans exploitatory wages. Personally, I think the problem is less the lack of a universal minimum wage and more with the state encouraging "400 Euro Job". (Thanks, SPD! )
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2013 18:51
|
|
|
weavernaut posted:Yeah, Die Linke are so loving radical. There still is bad blood from the SPD/WASG split on both sides. And the experiences of Kraft's minority government in NRW are probably not going to help convincing the SPD in relying on the Linke either. On the semantic side of things, yes, Die Linke is radical, because they aim for great structural changes.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2013 01:58
|
|
|
Zeit Online gives a short breakdown on which demographic voted for which party. Choice quote on AfD demographics. Apparently the young and educated are more likely to vote for them than the old and unemployed. quote:Unterdurchschnittlich war ihr [The AfD.] Ergebnis bei den Arbeitslosen und formal Niedriggebildeten. Ihre Hochburgen sind die süd- und ostdeutschen Bundesländer. In insgesamt sieben Ländern schaffte sie den Sprung über die Fünfprozenthürde.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2013 17:57
|
|
|
The Piratenpartei, just like the AfD, has a habit of whining about the established parties opressing them. Some time ago they raised a constitutional complaint ("Verfassungsbeschwerde") against numerous sections of the ParteiG regarding the financing of parties by public funding. The Bundesverfassungsgericht has now released its decision regarding this matter. For best effect, I suggest reading it yourself. They court threw the complaint out because apparently the Pirate Party cannot find time in their busy schedule to actually sign a document giving their attorneys actual power of, well, attorney.  That clown party really can't die off soon enough.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2013 14:57
|
|
|
elwood posted:http://www.vice.com/Fringes/kingdom-of-germany What? A foreign nation occupies German soil? To the Panzerbrigade! Seriously though, sovereign citizens are the worst kind of Querulanten you can get. You have some hardline believers and some people who stand to make money from it at the top, but the bottom tier members are basically recruited from people you kind of feel bad for. Some people just cling to strange beliefs once something has gone wrong in their live. Failed business, bad divorce or a health scare and suddenly they think the state is out to get them and that everybody has been understanding the law wrong but them. It's kinda the same pool of people cults, men's right activists, American Freepers or the German Grundrechtepartei. As sad as some of those people individually might be, though, they are still trying to smear and undermine like your ordinary extremists from the left or right, so they should be treated as such. In case anybody wants to read more on the Reichsbürger people, this German website is a pretty good start,KRR-FAQ.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2013 13:19
|
|
|
weavernaut posted:Help a dumb ex-pat, how annoyed should I be by people insisting Germany is a Christian nation. Rule of thumb is one third Catholic, one third Protestant and one third non-Christian with non-Christian religions like Judaism and Islam making up something between five and ten percent of the population. Non-believers are also more popular in the Eastern parts of Germany, due to the GDR history. Furthermore, of the two third registered as following a Christian faith significantly fewer people are actually practising their religion, while a lot of those people consider themselves religious/spiritual without relying on the organized religions overly much.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2013 22:12
|
|
|
eviljelly posted:I'm annoyed that a purportedly secular country functions as an arm of the church. It really irks my American separation of church and state sensibilities. This is where you are wrong, though. Germany does not consider itself a secular country with a strict separation of State and Church. The state is merely neutral on matters of religions. eviljelly posted:I don't understand the German obsession with Sundays though. (...) Social policies limiting work on Sunday have a long tradition in Germany. Furthermore, the protections regarding Sundays are guaranteed in the Basic Law as well as in the constitutions of (most?) states, so making the Sunday a normal workday would not only require a shift in opinion but also a change of the various constitutions.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2013 13:40
|
|
|
Two things happened today and one of them is shocking.  1.) Probing negotiations are over. There will now be coalition negotiations between the CDU and the SPD. 2.) 1. is apparently considered a top news story by Spiegel Online.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2013 19:20
|
|
|
Torrannor posted:You should take comfort in the fact that Germany is heavily spying on it's own citizens as well. So some of the outrage over the American surveillance state are quite hypocritical. Can you go into more details regarding that, because I have never seen that issue being raised in the news media before.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2013 19:38
|
|
|
MesozoicStoic posted:Here you go: German government malware Quellen-TKÜ is (or rather would be) an investigative measure used against individual suspects with warrants by the ordinary criminal courts. Neither its scope nor its inteded use are at all comparable to the suspicion-independant general tapping of communication nodes that has been executed by the Obama administration. Therefore I still fail to see how one can claim that Germany is heavily spying on its own citizens to such a degree that complaining about Obama's "eavesdropping" could be considered hypocritical. And for what it's worth, not even domnestic G10 surveillance would even come close to the expansive Five Eyes surveillance that is the current talking point.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2013 16:06
|
|
|
Things I found relevant: - Europa-GmbH (p. 25)  - "Europa muss sich bei der Normsetzung zurücknehmen" (p. 25) - Limited Net Neutrality (p. 49) - Easier "Allgemeinverbindlichkeitserklärung" of Tarifverträge (p. 68) - Germany will comply with the respective EU directive and (re)implement the Vorratsdatenspeicherung (p. 147) - Harmonizing of Staatshaftungsrecht (p. 154) Guilty posted:The Dual Citizenship is a huge loving backwards step. Furthermore, you missed the no marriage equality, and no full adoption rights. Dual Citizenship is bad and should have been abolished. Coalition agreement says they will actively work to abolish discriminations the Lebenspartnerschaft faces compared to the Ehe. Opening the institution of marriage to same-sex partners still faces constitutional concerns, so I'm not surprised they did not mention that in the agreement. Randler fucked around with this message at 15:31 on Nov 27, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2013 14:48
|
|
|
hey santa baby posted:This is the first time I hear something like this. As someone who is currently trying to get dual citizenship I'd like to know more. Dual citizenship does not play nice with the current understanding of democracy. While it is not 100% accurate, describing it as a problem of "conflicting loyalities" comes close enough. Though there are additional problems of dual citizenships. Especially in the areas of welfare policies and which countrie's laws apply to which person. (Yes, it's not a given that - for example - a German court would apply German law in a lawsuit against a non-German.) § 29 StAG - which the coalition intends to abolish - requires children of non-Germans who have nonetheless gained German citizenship (by way of $§ 4 III, 40b StAG) to decide whether to keep German citizenship or the non-German citizenship. It basically results in a way to get a conditional citizenship which is arguably not in compliance with Art. 16 I 1 GG. Additionally, the requirement of giving up one citizenship after having already received German citizenship only applies to children of two non-German parents, while children with only one non-German parent are allowed to keep both citizenships. This does not seem reasonable considering that German citizenship laws are constructed in a way to limit dual citizenships as much as possible. I would have preferred for them to abolish §§ 4 III, 40b StAG alltogether and then decide whether they want to switch over to ius solis as the baseline. Even with keeping the current ius sanguis approach to citizenship it would have been preferable to create a new law for children of non-Germans born in Germany. They could for example make it so that fulfillment of the requirements of § 4 III StAG would entitle the child to get German citizenship, once it has revoked its non-German citizenship. (In the same way it is required for other naturalizations including the priviledged ones, § 12 StAG.)
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2013 15:23
|
|
|
Simply Simon posted:Is there a complaint other than "it might create headaches in interpreting certain laws"? I'm all for letting people choose their own identity, if that includes two countries of origin, let them. Related to the understanding of democracy and nation states of which the concept of modern state citizenships stem from, yes. The state's desire to have a clear-cut citizenship situation is, however, under the German constitution already a valid complaint for the legislative to only allow dual-citizenships in execeptional cases. (compare BVerfGE 37, 217. Rn. 116 ff.) That does not mean, however, that the state is required to ban dual-citizenships. If there was a political majority for it to change, they could. Just like it would be possible, though in my opinion not advisable, to switch over to a full ius soli approach for citizenship.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2013 14:20
|
|
|
eviljelly posted:So... that's a "no"? Randler posted:Related to the understanding of democracy and nation states of which the concept of modern state citizenships stem from, yes. Disagreeing with a reason does not mean the reason suddenly disappears. (Especially as they were partly listed in the BVerfGE I cited.)
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2013 14:29
|
|
|
Torrannor posted:So non-German EU citizens voting in local elections in Germany is bad as well? Muncipal elections do not result in the forming of a legislative body, therefore they do not have to play by the same rules as parliamentary elections on the state and federal level.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2013 17:02
|
|
|
elwood posted:Now, this will be interesting to follow from a legal standpoint: Lawblog.  I don't expect them to sue for their claims. While U+C apparently belongs to the firms that do not limit themselves to writing out-of-court letters, I see neither a financial nor a preventative incentive for the rights holders to push this to trial.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2013 09:21
|
|
|
Grim Up North posted:Could you please explain your emoticon? I don't read his blog but I always assumed it was a good one. If Lawblog were in English, it would have a mockthread. Lawblog content has a significant amount of factual errors. Their severity ranges from annoying (e.g. failure to accurately represent the type of decision) to essential (e.g. failure to accurately represent the content of a decision). When talking about judical decisions, a lot of times Udo Vetter seems to rely on press releases and news articles while making wide statements implying they are backed up by the decisions which have not yet been made available. Furthermore he likes to give legal opinions and summaries on matters which fall outside his expertise. While technically all lawyers are supposed to be knowledgable in multiple core fields of German law, in reality that knowledge gets lost after being specialised for many years. (By his own admission, he does not take non-criminal cases.) As a result, his articles on non-criminal matters are often incorrect. What personally annoys me the most, however, is that his articles tend to be obviously partisan. He neglects mentioning different legal standpoints even if those are held by the higher courts and his thoughts on proportionality often do not adress significant aspects. He also publishes terribly written articles by another author, which are marked with (pbd). The less said about those, the better. The comment section of his blog is a place where hope goes to die. If you are somewehat familiar with German internet culture, the people there are basically relatives of the famous "Heisetroll" species of internet idiots. They aggressively try to bully and silence anybody not agreeing with the blog owner as well as anybody who tries to set their misguided notions of what German law entails straight. Politically the comment section has a lot of left wing "gently caress the police" types, while also attracting a fair share of right wing populists and the occasional section of men's rights activists. A small, and usually dwindling, amount of commenters is actually alright. Some people just go there to make fun of the aforementioned idiots, while some stupid people like myself are actually trying to give constructive information about the legal topics adressed. I'm angry. Angry about blawging. Randler fucked around with this message at 10:20 on Dec 6, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2013 10:16
|
|
|
Whelp, looks like the LG Köln might have screwed up big time. According to "Die Welt", they might have mistaken the streaming users for ordinary filesharers. Still don't understand why apparently nobody has released one of the § 101 IX UrhG decisions yet.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2013 17:17
|
|
|
Nobnob posted:I wonder if there is any change possible, especially regarding the new elected parliament. Huge changes to the current copyright laws are very unlikely. Various international treaties and European directives require certain standards to be met. As Germany is required to comply with those, changes on a fundamental level are unlikely. The new coalition has, however, plans to limit the arguably frivolous practise of mass sending cease-and-desist letters to private citizens in response to filesharing. (I also disagree that current German copyright law is inhibiting too many innovations, as it is still very similar to the copyright law of other developed nations due to said international treaties and European harmonization in the field.)
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2013 03:17
|
|
|
Nobnob posted:It's relatively similar to other developed nations, yes, but as a german you really feel the disadvantages this system contains. In school some things are just not allowed to be shown (as they are in other countries aswell afaik) but sometimes it's just too far. Imho especially in educational systems things like music, findings and worksheets should be free to show for educational purposes. German copyright law already limits exploitation rights of the copyright holder in order to facilitate the use of protected works in educational contexts, though. While those limits do not mean the use of protected works is free as in "free beer", it is free in the sense that the right holders are unable to prevent the use of their works. While those usually require reimbursements, those are significantly lower than what they would have to pay for to get a "proper" license to use a protected work. The reimbursement system for educational purposes works through the collecting societies, like the GEMA, similary to how the reimbursement for private copies works by a percentage of storage medium prices going to the societies. Making such uses "free" by removing reimbursements would probably violate constitutional rights in addition to already mentioned international and supranational laws. One noteworthy exception in educational settings is the use of texts explicitly designed for use in educational settings. One has, however, to consider that places of education are the entire market for those products. Would you allow schools to just copy textbooks, there would not be a market for text books at all. Regarding YouTube, the GEMA gets an undeserved bad reputation. It's a collecting society, which could be simplified as being similar to a union for creators of protected works. The GEMA has bargaining rights, because the original creators want the GEMA to have those. Nothing stops the creators from trying to enforce their copyrights on their own. As a matter of fact, some music labels tried to make their own organization for licensing certain music producuts. They were very insistent on their new baby not being a collecting society. Because collecting societies are legally limited in negotiating. They basically have to offer everybody in the same position the same price and are not allowed to deny licenses. As a matter of fact, GEMA has no problems getting agreements with other services, including Google's own Google Music. GEMA required removal of a few videos as a warning sign, to which Google reacted by blocking a lot of content off to German customers while falsely implying they were required by the GEMA to do so.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2013 15:56
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 01:37 |
|
|
Perestroika posted:Not to mention that the sum they demand is by their own admission made up of like 15€ for actual damages and ~230€ attorney's fees. Would they even be able to sue for such a small claim if their targets just completely ignored the Abmahnung? It seens like they're just hoping for a number of people to fold and pay and then run off into the night with the money secure in a swiss account. Expecting for people to pay up without a lawsuit is basically how the cease-and-desist business works with regards to private persons that infringe on copyrights on the internet. And yes, they could file a lawsuit even if they only want to make claims that sum up to 245 Euros. I don't even understand how people could assume that the legal system does not work for small claims.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2013 12:58
|
|