←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 #
FpUser ◴[18 Jun 24 10:46 UTC] No.40716162{3}[source]▶
Well, proposed laws would need to pass constitutionality test done by some constitutional court stuffed by legal field experts. If passed, no prosecution can occur.

I could be prosecuted for driving if the result is death of pedestrian for example. I still drive. So why our fucking "servants" are special?

replies(4): >>40716186 #>>40716468 #>>40716769 #>>40722261 #
1. sneak ◴[18 Jun 24 21:16 UTC] No.40722261{4}[source]▶
They already do that now, there's even a defined procedure for it. They just do it after the law has already passed.