←back to thread

Chat Control: Incompatible with Fundamental Rights (2022)

(freiheitsrechte.org)
833 points Bluestein | 1 comments | 18 Jun 24 09:34 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
mro_name ◴[18 Jun 24 10:16 UTC] No.40715944[source]▶
I wonder how it can be legal to repeatedly undermine constitution and push or vote for later high-court-nullified laws and be allowed to repeat as if nothing was wrong with that. Like drunk driving forever. We ban counter-constitutional activities outside parliament and authorities. Why not inside?

I am much for 3-strikes here.

replies(6): >>40716013 #>>40716069 #>>40716073 #>>40716129 #>>40716284 #>>40717138 #
chopin ◴[18 Jun 24 10:26 UTC] No.40716013[source]▶
0-strike. It should be expected that elected officials respect the constitution.
replies(3): >>40716066 #>>40716080 #>>40716345 #
dustfinger ◴[18 Jun 24 10:33 UTC] No.40716066[source]▶
I agree with 0-strikes. Elect officials should be under constant investigation for any form of nefarious behavior and they should be prosecuted as any citzen would be.
replies(2): >>40716075 #>>40716734 #
sneak ◴[18 Jun 24 10:34 UTC] No.40716075[source]▶
Do you understand what would happen to the system if politicians could be prosecuted for proposing laws?
replies(4): >>40716162 #>>40716323 #>>40716400 #>>40716539 #
1. dustfinger ◴[18 Jun 24 11:09 UTC] No.40716323{3}[source]▶
You make a good point, I was not clear at all on the scope of my statement. I am thinking about my own countries constitution. I am not familiar with UKs constitution [1], so I don't really know if "control chat" violates the UK's constitution or not. When I said "nefarious", I was in part referring to undermining a countries constitution, as it is illegal to do so. No, I think that proposing laws that clearly undermine the constitution should be stopped immediately at the time of proposal by the constitution itself. 0-strikes for the proposal. 0-strikes here was not meant to suggest the politician be thrown in jail or anything like that. But, I agree with you in that I was unclear.

Again, my statement above was poorly worded. This is what I meant by prosecuting for nefarious behavior: It is my belief that government behavior would be better kept in check if elect officials were under constant investigation for criminal acts. Society should have gauntness that their nation is being run by good actors. Those running our country should be legally obligated to be working towards making the society that they serve thrive, not using it as a platform for organized crime, influencing the outcomes of their personal investments, or traitorous behavior like ruining a nations economy to empower another nation.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kin...