Sexistischer Affront, wenn epistemische Schäden bei Martina Musati, Arbeitsagentur Stuttgart, einfach so akzeptiert werden

Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart

Olgastraße 2
70182 Stuttgart

(cc Arbeitsagentur Stuttgart, JC München)

22. Juli 2019

Az. 16 Zs 988/19
Az. 112 Js 48272/19

Ermittlungsverfahren gegen Martina Musati wegen Nötigung u.a. (Beschwerde bei Google basierend auf dem Anti-Art. 5 GG NetzDG von Sozialist Heiko Maas & Konsorten)

Verehrtes schwäbisches Gericht,

Ich erhielt mit Schreiben vom 16.07.2019 von Oberstaatsanwältin Hartwig das verlockende Angebot, gegen ihren ablehnenden Bescheid beim OLG Antrag auf gerichtliche Entscheidung mittels Rechtsanwalts zu stellen.

Diesem Fall liegt zugrunde eine - selbstverständlich in Deutschland - anonyme Beschwerde einer dritten Person der neoliberalen Arbeitsagentur Stuttgart, nach der sich die im fortgeschrittenen Alter noch ledige beamtete Dame Martina Musati “diffamiert und verleumdet” fühlt durch Zitate aus Werken des eminenten französischen Sozialphilosophen Pierre Bourdieu und einem bekannten abgewandelten Prinzips aus der Welt des Business, dem Peter Principle. Mit anderen Worten, wir befinden uns mitten in einer mediokren Provinz des sedimentären Intellekts, auch bekannt unter dem Namen ‘Beamtentum’.

So ich das Angebot von Frau Staatsanwältin Hartwig überdachte, fielen mit zwei Aufsätze ein zum Thema “Epistemologie und Luft ablassen” (Venting as Epistemic Work), denn um Letzteres handelt es sich ja bei der Beschwerde bei Google in altruistischer Sorge um prä-menopausale Mamsell.

So heisst es im Papier "Venting as epistemic work” von Juli Thorson und Christine Baker (2019) im Abstractum (Google translate; Hervorhebungen durch mich):

“Wir behaupten, dass Luft ablassen eine epistemische Arbeit sein kann: Wenn man sich an die richtige Art von Person wendet, kann man Wissen über eine unterdrückerische Gesellschaftsstruktur, ihren Platz darin und darüber gewinnen, wie man den epistemischen Schaden, den sie verursacht, repariert. Um diese Behauptung zu rechtfertigen, definieren wir sowohl epistemischen Schaden als auch Luft ablassen und kontrastieren Luft ablassen mit verwandten Begriffen wie Beschwerden und Schimpfen. Anhand des Verständnisses von Code für Zeugnis, Dotsons Begriff des sprachlichen Austauschs und Frickers Unterscheidung zwischen Zeugnis- und hermeneutischer Ungerechtigkeit beschreiben wir, wann und wie Luft ablassen epistemisch ist. Wir diskutieren auch, wie sich Luft Ablassen von Bewusstseinsbildung unterscheidet. Wir schließen daraus, dass, obwohl ein Ziel des Luft Ablassens darin besteht, epistemische Schäden bei einzelnen Frauen zu reparieren, die positive epistemische Wirkung des Luft Ablassens Frauen auf die Bekämpfung hermeneutischer Ungerechtigkeiten vorbereitet.”

Dies ist offenbar bei der schwäbischen Staatsanwaltschaft nicht genügend berücksichtigt worden und dies scheint mir in Zeiten von genderspezifischen Themata, die den gesellschaftlichen Diskurs ja geradezu durchtränkt haben, ein arges Manko. Bei Arbeitsagenturen darf man ohnehin jeden epistemischen Anspruch diskontieren. Es muss als sexistischer Affront gewertet werden, wenn epistemische Schäden bei einzelnen Behörden-Frauen nolens volens akzeptiert werden.

Wie es der Zufall will, erschien ein weiterer Aufsatz zu diesem Thema, der bedauerlicherweise auch en passant arge Zweifel am Verstand besagter lediger Arbeitsbehörden-Beamtin Mademoiselle Musati aufkommen lässt. In "On the Successfulness of Venting and Its Venues" von Manuel Padilla Cruz, Universidad de Sevilla, wird zu bedenken gegeben (wieder Google translate):

“Schließlich setzt seine wesentliche Bedingung voraus, dass das Luft Ablassen ein Versuch des Luftablassers sein muss, dem Publikum zu erkennen zu geben, dass der fragliche Sachverhalt sie negativ beeinflusst hat, und eine Vielzahl von Gefühlen wie Empörung, Wut, Enttäuschung, Angst usw. hervorruft.”

Dies ist nun nirgendwo zu finden in dieser ridikülen Google Beschwerde und es muss unterstellt werden, wenn man die intellektuell äusserst dürftige Beschwerde bei Google durch diese teutonische Arbeitsbehörde liest, dass nicht einmal elementarste kognitive Intelligenz zu erahnen ist, geschweige denn die Lektüre von Pierre Bourdieu. Selbiges muss allerdings auch der schwäbischen Staatsanwaltschaft vorgehalten werden. Dies düpiert doch ein wenig, so doch die Deutschen das ‘Volk der Dichter und Denker’ sind.

Völlig untergegangen scheint mir bei der Stuttgarter Staatsanwaltschaft und es muss hier einmal mehr beklagt werden, wie üblich bei der beamteten Suffragette des neoliberalen Arbeitsverordnungsamtes Martina Musati, die folgende Beobachtung des Autoren:

"Andererseits sind Äußerungen öffentlich, d.h. wahrnehmbar, hörbar - Darstellungen von entweder anderen privaten Darstellungen - d.h. Gedanken, Überzeugungen - oder andere öffentliche - d.h. Äußerungen anderer Personen. Aus diesem Grund sind Äußerungen Metadarstellungen der eigenen Gedanken des Sprechers, aber sie können auch verwendet werden, um die anderen Personen zugeschriebenen Gedanken oder die Äußerungen, die sie (möglicherweise) hervorgebracht haben, zu metadarstellen.

Im ersteren Fall sind Äußerungen beschreibende Metadarstellungen; In letzterem Fall handelt es sich um attributive Metadarstellungen, sofern es eine (leicht) identifizierbare Quelle für diese Gedanken oder Äußerungen gibt. Wenn Äußerungen, die zugeschrieben werden, die Gedanken oder Worte anderer Personen widerspiegeln, können die Sprecher auch ihre eigene Haltung gegenüber dem Inhalt zum Ausdruck bringen. Das Spektrum der Einstellungen, die sie ausdrücken können, umfasst dissoziative, befürwortende oder hinterfragende. Die Äußerungen werden durch Äußerungen echoischer Metadarstellungen (Wilson 1999; Noh 2000; Sperber 2000)."

Diese Passage sollte die schwäbische Justiz motivieren, wohl bewusst diesem Schreiber, dass das Internet ja noch so richtig Neuland ist in DE, wie eine Immigrantin aus der DDR konstatierte:

"Das Luft Ablassen kann nicht auf traditionelle Formen sozialer Interaktion wie verbale Kommunikation von Angesicht zu Angesicht oder schriftliche Kommunikation beschränkt werden. Im Gegenteil, es kann in neueren, durch Technologie vermittelten Kommunikationsformen auftreten, die potenzielle Anbieter sicherlich nutzen können, um ein größeres Publikum zu erreichen und dessen Wirkung zu verstärken. Die neue und faszinierende Herausforderung, der sich Pragmatiker, Analytiker des vermittelten Diskurses und der Kommunikation, Forscher der neuen Technologien und an Entlüftung interessierte Sozialepistemologen stellen müssen, ist die Untersuchung und Erklärung der Dynamik neuerer technologiebasierter Formen des Luft Ablassens und ihres Beitrags zum Kampf gegen und Beseitigung von Ungerechtigkeiten und Ungleichheiten."

Es wäre ja nicht die Bananen Republik DE, wenn es in dieser Burleske nicht ein Kuriosum gäbe. So ist der beanstandete Blog Post mit dem Titel “Klage wg. Nötigung gg. Martina Musati. Mildernd ihr Mangel an Bourdieuschen Cultural Capital und damit Hindernis am Heiratsmarkt laut Harvard Studie" vom 29. Nov. 2017 in England (!!!) geblockt (https://www.lumendatabase.org/notices/18274558). Er ist NICHT GEBLOCKT in Deutschland.

Unter Berücksichtigung dieser eluzidierenden Aufsätze und reminiszierend meiner Erfahrung mit deutscher Justiz, halte ich das Angebot von Frau Staatsanwältin für wenig attraktiv als auch unter dem Aspekt der Opportunitätskosten, so doch ohnehin der Beschluss des OLG schon vorab feststeht. Bestätigt sehe ich mich durch den ersten Prinzen von Benevento, der erste Herzog von Talleyrand, französischem Politiker und Diplomat:

A court is an assembly of noble and distinguished beggars. 

Charles Maurice de Talleyrand-Périgord

In Ehrfurcht ersterbend unterthänigster

xxx
_______________
Venting as Epistemic Work
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02691728.2018.1561762
On the Successfulness of Venting and Its Venues
https://social-epistemology.com/2019/02/21/on-the-successfulness-of-venting-and-its-venues-manuel-padilla-cruz/

Saarlouis Napoleon and Foreign Minister munchkin Heiko Maas rallies for European Revolution

We switch live to the douchebag department on Twitter.

It's Heiko time, IOW time for some bullshit.

"The European flag is for me the banner of the free world. The EU should also be entitled to be at the forefront of freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law. Wherever I travel, we are envied for our European model around the world."

Apparently, he does not get around a lot.

And too bad, Heiko, that your hair is blown in the opposite direction. But hey, as they say in Texas, you are all fart and no ass.

This is the real thing and you would have seen Heiko nowhere.

"sexualization may be a marker of social climbing among women that track the degree of status competition in the local environment."

Heiko, se non ti lecchi le dita ...

Remember then Justice Minister und midget Heiko Maas' drive against sexualized advertisements and plan to ban it by a law in 2016?

That small Heiko is a fucking idiot with a penchant for older retreaded women is no secret but it is even more reassuring that there is now proof.

Income inequality not gender inequality positively covaries with female sexualization on social media

Significance

Female sexualization is increasing, and scholars are divided on whether this trend reflects a form of gendered oppression or an expression of female competitiveness. Here, we proxy local status competition with income inequality, showing that female sexualization and physical appearance enhancement are most prevalent in environments that are economically unequal. We found no association with gender oppression. Exploratory analyses show that the association between economic inequality and sexualization is stronger in developed nations. Our findings have important implications: Sexualization manifests in response to economic conditions but does not covary with female subordination. These results raise the possibility that sexualization may be a marker of social climbing among women that track the degree of status competition in the local environment.

Oh, poor Heiko seems to be wrong on so many counts.

Abstract

Publicly displayed, sexualized depictions of women have proliferated, enabled by new communication technologies, including the internet and mobile devices. These depictions are often claimed to be outcomes of a culture of gender inequality and female oppression, but, paradoxically, recent rises in sexualization are most notable in societies that have made strong progress toward gender parity. 

That's bad news for feminists and Heiko is a feminist with a shaved cunt.

Few empirical tests of the relation between gender inequality and sexualization exist, and there are even fewer tests of alternative hypotheses. We examined aggregate patterns in 68,562 sexualized self-portrait photographs (“sexy selfies”) shared publicly on Twitter and Instagram and their association with city-, county-, and cross-national indicators of gender inequality. We then investigated the association between sexy-selfie prevalence and income inequality, positing that sexualization—a marker of high female competition—is greater in environments in which incomes are unequal and people are preoccupied with relative social standing. Among 5,567 US cities and 1,622 US counties, areas with relatively more sexy selfies were more economically unequal but not more gender oppressive. A complementary pattern emerged cross-nationally (113 nations): Income inequality positively covaried with sexy-selfie prevalence, particularly within more developed nations. 

Sexualization drives sales

To externally validate our findings, we investigated and confirmed that economically unequal (but not gender-oppressive) areas in the United States also had greater aggregate sales in goods and services related to female physical appearance enhancement (beauty salons and women’s clothing). Here, we provide an empirical understanding of what female sexualization reflects in societies and why it proliferates.

And on that bombshell Heiko should consider anal tightening.

Bonzai Heiko Maas better shove "the image of Germany" into his fucking ass - #MeTwo

Federal Midget, Foreign Minister & 50-year old hag shagging Heiko Maas contaminated the already contaminated fake news gazette FAZ when he feigned concern about ze IMIJE of ze Fetterel Ripuplik:

Foreign Minister Heiko Maas (SPD) has expressed concern that the reputation of the Federal Republic could be damaged by the resignation of football player Mesut Özil. "It hurts the image of Germany, if the impression arises that racism is acceptable to us again," Maas said the "Bild" newspaper. "Unfortunately, the debate shows the bitter hostility migrants are still exposed to in our country." The number of xenophobic and anti-Semitic attacks is depressing. "That's just shameful for our country."

Heiko was assisted by another minister:

Federal Education Minister Anja Karliczek (CDU) meanwhile considers a "quiet and thorough discussion" on the integration of foreigners in Germany to be necessary. The newspaper "Tagesspiegel" she said, through the reactions to the farewell of Özil show that "now something breaks, which has been bubbling under the blanket for much longer, on both sides." There must be a social debate about "how we want to live together and what stands in the way of a tolerant approach". It is important to talk about values, rules and structures of integration.

 I felt addressed and the urge to respond. Perhaps it is the bond between Heiko and me, we both love road cycling and I would love to kill him on Stelvio, the Mortirolo, or Oetztaler.  Just saying. Anywho, here goes. Oh, there's more to come.

When I submitted the sub-let contract of my Tibetan daughter to the fucking Jobcenter the response was "not credible".

We are talking wellknown German institutionalized racism!

I felt it appropriate to copy Justice Min. @katarinabarley @BMJV_Bund

Gender equilibrium, ya know.

— Transnat. Socks Machine (@ErebusSagace) July 30, 2018

Mezza cartuccia and Foreign Min. Heiko Maas full of hypocritic shit

"The moral obtuseness of German firms panting after sales to a state whose official policy is destruction of Israel is striking, especially combined with German moral preening about pretty much everything." - Streetwiseprof

Mezza cartuccia and Foreign Min. Heiko Maas about Germany's trade interest with Iran:

"I do not see a simple solution to shield companies from all risks of American sanctions," Maas told Bild am Sonntag newspaper.

Germany wants to help its companies continue doing business in Iran after the U.S. decision to reimpose sanctions against Tehran, but it could be difficult to shield them from any fallout, Foreign Minister Heiko Maas said on Sunday.

The ridiculous douchebag who can not even address the UN in English easily switches position because Israel/Jews/Holocaust have always been a political and moral hypocritic prop for Germany.

The German foreign ministry said Saturday that Israel’s decision to withdraw its candidacy “is a further incentive for us to stand up for the interests and safety of our Israeli friends” if Germany wins a Security Council seat.

Let's hope them Germans get blocked.

What is the difference between negating gravity and negating the Holocaust? Or, being Heiko Maas.

Latest about Heiko Maas

- "A well-styled Nato-young male prostitute Heiko Maas" who feels "to be able to trample on any legality and the Basic Law".

„ein gut gestylter Nato-Strichjunge Heiko Maas“ und meinte, „jede Rechtmäßigkeit und das Grundgesetz mit Füßen treten zu können“. - Diether Dehm (Die Linke)

- The Venn diagram overlap of Heiko Maas and slutty bitches is growing.

- 'My investment in Auschwitz paid off. I am Foreign Minister now, bitches!'

- A typical Heiko Maas - Natalia Wörner exchange:

'You are loose down there.'
'You are too small.'

- Heiko Maas, or the Pussyfication of men.

- Heiko Maas' OCD

Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD) is a mental health disorder that affects people of all ages and walks of life, and occurs when a person gets caught in a cycle of obsessions and compulsions. Obsessions are unwanted, intrusive thoughts, images or urges that trigger intensely distressing feelings.

And here his, so far, biggest load of bullshit. The utility of Jews is almost without limits for a German politician.

Germany could follow inventive ways to stifle internet freedom - like Tanzania's

Socialist midget Heiko Maas' NetzDG was a good start. After all, what do you expect from a fucking socialist on things free speech. Now that speedneedle baller is gone and has discovered his Jewish roots/props at the For. Min., socialist Justice Ministress Barley could take a deeper look at the T-option.

Repressive regimes across the world have found inventive ways to stifle internet freedom, from deleting posts to blocking service. But Tanzania’s government has come up with a scheme that could prove even more draconian: it plans to charge hundreds of dollars a year for the privilege of blogging.

As part of new online regulations, bloggers will be required to pay hefty registration and annual licence fees that add up to roughly $920 — prohibitive for most in a country with a nominal per capita income of under $900.

In proportion to GDP, the Tanzanian registration and licence fee would be the equivalent of asking Americans to pay nearly $60,000 to start a blog.

H/T Marginal Revolution

What is the difference between negating gravity and negating the Holocaust? Or, being Heiko Maas

Heiko Maas, focusing on bull

Hold it, not so fast. This was first and foremost an attention seeker. Signaling.

Germany's new Foreign Minister Heiko Maas (he was Justice Min. the term before) from the 'Equipe 14 Percent™', aka SPD, visited Israel. On TV (I can not find the video) he was shown in a fairly small hall with Jewish couples and families and Maas claimed there that in his earlier life he had looked if there had been some in his wider circle of friends and family who had done something against Auschwitz in one form or another. While addressing the attending Jews he wore a slighty slimy smile a couple of times. A typical smile of his, btw. "I could not find anybody", he lamented. "I entered politics because of Auschwitz".

That sentence immediately reminded me of Tom Ford in one video a year or so after he had left Gucci: 'I could not find anything to wear, so I started Tom Ford'.

Both statements are obviously complete and utter bull. With 10,000 buckeroos in your wallet you will leave a boutique splendidly dressed. However, Tom Ford was selling something. His new brand. So was Heiko Maas! He was selling Auschwitz. That was HIS brand. As the new ForMin!

Fact is, Heiko Maas scraped through law school. There was no way a reputable law firm would have taken him. So he went into politics. Here is one of Germany's former top judges' verdict about the Heiko in German. It's worth reading.

Claiming an Auschwitz-based morphing into a politician is like stating I asked around in my neighborhood if there were any plumbers. Upon realizing the negative, I decided to become a scientist. Just looking at Heiko Maas and you know everything about the 'Pussification' of men. He is a douchebag and slimeball.

Now what is the difference between negating gravity and negating the Holocaust? None. In both cases you look stupid, except you may encounter a couple of bruises in the first. But there is a slight difference in Germany in that section 189 exists which makes denial a crime. No such thing when denying gravity or teaching your flat earth science to eager listeners. On the contrary, it gets funny.

By criminalizing the denial of the Holocaust is where the problem starts. The Holocaust runs the risk of being instrumentalized. 'Instrumentalizing' Auschwitz with empty public rituals as M. Walser called it. Also worth reading the abstract of  "The ‘Post-Holocaust Jew’ and the Instrumentalization of Philosemitism" by Thomas Altfelix:

"Post-war German philosemitism appears to be a good exemplar for this definition of ‘xenophilia’. It demonstrates the dangers of moving within an allosemitic cycle in which difference becomes a method of keeping otherness at bay through abstraction. The fear of a misremembrance of the Holocaust resulting from an abstract memorialization seems to provide a very solid political basis for perpetuating a philosemitic identity construction of ‘the Jew’ as abstracted Other."

And that is exactly what Heiko Maas did and what every politician does to the Holocaust and what section 189 elicits, abstraction.

Which leads to the ultimate question, Can people levitate?

 

The mystery of what drove German Justice Minister Heiko Maas to his towering presence and greatness uncovered

Finally there is scientific proof of the foundation of the Justice Minister's und His NetzDG Dudeness' uniqueness. It comes from beyond the pond.

People search for meaning when they approach a new decade in chronological age

Authors:
Adam L. Altera and Hal E. Hershfield -Stern School of Business, New York University, New York, NY 10012 and Anderson School of Management, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095.

This paper is the first to demonstrate, to our knowledge, that people audit the meaningfulness of their lives as they approach a new decade in chronological age, further suggesting that people across dozens of countries and cultures are prone to making significant decisions as they approach each new decade. The paper has broad implications for interdisciplinary science, because it demonstrates a striking pattern in human behavior that bears on, among others, the disciplines of psychology, medicine, sociology, economics, and anthropology.

Abstract

Although humans measure time using a continuous scale, certain numerical ages inspire greater self-reflection than others. Six studies show that adults undertake a search for existential meaning when they approach a new decade in age (e.g., at ages 29, 39, 49, etc.) or imagine entering a new epoch, which leads them to behave in ways that suggest an ongoing or failed search for meaning (e.g., by exercising more vigorously, seeking extramarital affairs, or choosing to end their lives).

Sounds convincing, right? Andrew Gelman begs to differ, but then again, he may just be jealous.

I think Andrew Gelman is wrong because: evidence, evidence and did I mention evidence? OK, one might maintain a study can in no way be proven right based on one person only. To which I say, we are talking THE HEIKO here! We are looking at the awesomeness of 175 cm from foot sole to balding crown. We are dealing with a triathlete.

Heiko Maas was born Sept. 19, 1966.

• In 2015, the Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection formed a working group on dealing with criminal content in social networks which resulted in the NetzDG.
• Heiko Maas stated in 2015 that he considers a statutory women's quota on the supervisory boards of listed companies and executive boards to be necessary. Bang!
• At the beginning of 2015, the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV) filed a complaint for unlawful disclosure of state secrets by journalists of the blog Netzpolitik.org. Crikey!
• Early 2016 he chucked his old bitch and eloped with a B-movie chick going by the name of Natalia Wörner.

I would venture to say that is damning evidence this study is rrright.

Natalia Wörner and her new crush

Oh, wait a sec., that is a different politician. Forgot his name.

I am concerned about German Justice Minister Heiko Maas' grasp of grammar, in particular punctuation.

Some baby 51 years ago

I am a little concerned about the German Justice Minister Heiko Maas. Yes, the NetzDG douchebag from Saarlouis. Not because he always makes an insecure impression when Merkel is around. He just is insecure. Just look at that photo at the end.

No, it is his grasp of grammar and in particular punctuation. He does not seem to be familiar with the functions of a comma, let alone commata. However, he is on a mission.

It so happened during New Year's night that the police of Cologne (was there what two years ago?) shot off a tweet in Arabic wishing a Happy New Year. They did not tweet the same wishes in Japanese, although quite some live in and around nearby Dusseldorf. Neither in Hindi, nor any African language for that matter. Which is kind of odd and smacks a little of attitudinizing.

In this scenario , a member of the AfD political party shot off a tweet in a reaction to that tweet in Arabic from the police. Hours later her Twitter account was suspended based on the NetzDG which went into effect on, you guessed it, Jan. 1, 2018. Oh, ze Germans are efficient.

Here it is as a retweet from the satirical Titanic which was also suspended.

via FAZ

Part of her tweet reads:

"... denn das letzte, was ich haben will, sind besänftigte barbarische, muslimische, gruppenvergewaltigende Männerhorden!"

and in English:

"... because the last thing I want to have is soothing barbarian, Muslim, gang raping men!"

Let's get back to smarty ass Heiko Maas who has never for a day worked as a lawyer. I would bet my non-existing Lambo on it, he has never read Wittgenstein:

"On the other hand it seems clear that where there is sense there must be perfect order. So there must be perfect order even in the vaguest sentence."

The Heiko could learn something about the function of the comma here.  Is the ridiculous minister sure the adjectives are coordinate?

Now with this in mind, let's get back to the AfD politician's sentence. It can as well be understood as to mean:

"... because the last thing I want to have is soothing barbarian men, Muslim men, gang raping men."

Would that be hate speech, you bloke of a minister?

Hundreds of complaints have been filed and the prosecutor is investigating for, hold your pants, SEDITION!

The case is fucking dead in the water!

Germany finds itself in a fickle state as it is unable to build a new government. New elections have to be avoided at ALL costs; the AfD would win even more votes and Merkel be dead in the water, the SPD in the teens and smarty ass back in Saarlouis.

Heiko with cleaning lady as Pallas Athena

Heiko, do not even try. You ain't got what it takes.

Absolutely slay!

The definition of The Cool

Why did the German Speedneedle Baller not think of this?

Like "a 2 year jail sentence is the proposed punishment for anyone impersonating a government agency, there are no provisions within the law involving the violation to be one that is intentionally deceiving"?

Perhaps because so far, no one has realized how hazardous to your health Germmany can be.

Too bad that Heiko's sexy ass is now planted on the opposition bench. There is hoping, inventive souls will dick around in the Mistress of Justice once the Jamaica Collision is operating in Berlin.

Thanks to those guys.

In der Legislaturperiode 2013/17 hatte Heiko Maas die höchste Mösenpräsenz, ich meinte Medienpräsenz sagen zu wollen

Just der Moment als Douchebag Heiko
ein Zelluloid Flittchen ortet.

Credit where credit is due, sagt man im Französischen glaube ich. Schliesslich ist wurde Heiko Maas als "der kleine politische Komet" gehandelt von einem Journalisten einer süddeutschen Gazette. Dem wurde der Rosenträger gerecht.

Wann immer der unpassendste Moment es ergab, dieser Retro-Schlüpfer aus Saarlouis war da. Wie die blonde Kuh wackelte er "blond und verliebt immerzu ständig durchs Bild". Fototermine waren sein Ding. Für Suitsupply könnte er sich qualifizieren.

Er verpasste dem Anzug von der Stange GQ Flair und wie es einem geziemt, der dem Werkeln eines Juristen in eigener Regie seine Abstinenz widmete, rutschten ihm auch locker von der Hand solch Rookie Sprüche wie

„Die Meinungsfreiheit endet dort, wo das Strafrecht beginnt."

Fatzke Heiko hat ein penchant, verbal in die Scheisse zu greifen als unbeleckter Jurist ohne jegliche Berufspraxis, dass man schon mal ganz übersehen kann, ein negativer Richterspruch setzt der Meinungsfreiheit Schranken auf.

Aber die H&M Bügelpuppe ist hauptberuflich von ganz anderem beseelt und das ist sein Tropus 'Hate speech'. Da geht dem Kleidelständer das Messer im Dreykorn Einreiher "For beautiful people' auf. Was HS nun wirklich ist, tangiert den altruistischen Abschlepper von einer cinematisch gestrauchelten Schnecke nicht wirklich, denn Der Heiko hat sich ein Netzdrehdurchnaziwerkungsgesetz gedrechselt in der schmerzlichen Erkenntnis, dass Muttis Open Border Demenz die Kommentarspalten der deutschen Wichserpresse zum Überschwappen bringt mit dem Effekt, ein negatives Bild im Ausland zu geben und zum anderen der deutsche Rassismus doch kaschiert werden muss.

Francis Underwood würde es so fassen: "I know you take a lot of pride in your manhood, Heiko, it's impressive. But as big as it is, Linda can still shut the door on it."

Nicht von ungefähr sah sich ein Thomas Fischer gemüssigt, dem Ruhestand sein 'Hallo, da bin ich' zu sagen, ging es ihm doch irgendwann auf die Klöten, seinen Zeit Blog über diesen Laufenden Meter aus der Grenzstadt zu überstrapazieren.

Ja und dann diese Unsicherheit von diesem Bengel, wann immer er im nächsten Dunstkreis von Mutti aus der Uckermark war. Er schwänzelte immer so schmierig.

Nicht, dass Jung Heiko zwei linke Hände hätte. Weit gefehlt, er lässt auch schon mal fremdfinanzierte Möbel im Westwing verrücken als Proll Litiker. So eine Provinz-Lynn Tilton hat schon mal Ansprüche, die über die drei mal tägliche Anti-Faltencrème hinausgehen. Dat kann in die Kohlen gehen mit so ner Schrippe, pflegeleicht geht anders.

Positive Seiten hat der Rosen-Bengel schon. Er scheisst nicht in die Umwelt! Das ist natürlich glatt gelogen, wie jeder Läufer weiss.

Hoffentlich findet er jetzt mehr Zeit, seine Eier rechts und links von der Speedneedle baumeln zu lassen und sein schon etwas älteres Cervélo auf 58/11 zu peitschen. Heiko, hoffe dich am Stilfserjoch zu sehen und dann fahren wir weiter runter nach Grosio und gehen sofort den Mortirolo an. Ich wart oben auf dich. Das ganze natürlich von München aus am Tag vorher.

Datemi un martello

Freedom for the Speech We Hate: The Legal Ins and Outs of the Right to Protest

German Justice Minister
and window dummy
Heiko Maas

"Practice shows that not too much, but too little, gets deleted," ... "We're at a crossroads. Should the digital revolution be allowed to continue to call our state, based on law and order, into question?"

Heiko Maas

So much from the old world.

. . . . .

Cross-posted from The Rutherford Institute.

Freedom for the Speech We Hate: The Legal Ins and Outs of the Right to Protest [SHORT]

By John W. Whitehead
August 22, 2017

“If there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other, it is the principle of free thought — not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate.”— Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes

James Madison, the father of the Constitution, was very clear about the fact that he wrote the First Amendment to protect the minority against the majority.

What Madison meant by minority is “offensive speech.”

Unfortunately, we don’t honor that principle as much as we should today. In fact, we seem to be witnessing a politically correct philosophy at play, one shared by both the extreme left and the extreme right, which aims to stifle all expression that doesn’t fit within their parameters of what they consider to be “acceptable” speech.

As a result, we have seen the caging of free speech in recent years, through the use of so-called “free speech zones” on college campuses and at political events, the requirement of speech permits in parks and community gatherings, and the policing of online forums.

Instead of encouraging people to debate issues and air their views, by muzzling free speech, we are contributing to a growing underclass of Americans who are being told that they can’t take part in American public life unless they “fit in.”

This attempt to stifle certain forms of speech is where we go wrong.

As always, knowledge is key.

The following Constitutional Q&A, available in more detail at The Rutherford Institute (www.rutherford.org), is a good starting point.

Q:        PROTEST?

A:         The First Amendment prohibits the government from “abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” Protesting is an exercise of these constitutional rights because it involves speaking out, by individual people or those assembled in groups, about matters of public interest and concern.

Q:        WHERE AM I ALLOWED TO PROTEST?

A:         The right to protest generally extends to public places that are owned and controlled by the government, although not all government-owned property is available for exercising speech and assembly rights. Places historically associated with the free exercise of expressive activities, such as streets, sidewalks and parks, are traditional public forums and the government’s power to limit speech and assembly in those places is very limited. However, expression and assembly in traditional public forums may be limited by reasonable time, place and manner regulations. Examples of reasonable regulations include restrictions on the volume of sound produced by the activity or a prohibition on impeding vehicle and pedestrian traffic.

Q:        CAN MY FREE SPEECH BE RESTRICTED BECAUSE OF WHAT I SAY, EVEN IF IT IS CONTROVERSIAL?

A:         No, the First Amendment protects speech even if most people would find it offensive, hurtful or hateful. Speech generally cannot be banned based upon its content or viewpoint because it is not up to the government to determine what can and cannot be said. A bedrock principle of the First Amendment is that the government may not prohibit expression of an idea because society finds it offensive or disagreeable. Also, protest speech also cannot be banned because of a fear that others may react violently to the speech.  Demonstrators cannot be punished or forbidden from speaking because they might offend a hostile mob. The Supreme Court has held that a “heckler’s veto” has no place in First Amendment law.

Q:        DO I NEED A PERMIT IN ORDER TO CONDUCT A PROTEST?

A:         As a general rule, no. The government cannot require that individuals or small groups obtain a permit in order to speak or protest in a public forum. However, if persons or organizations want to hold larger rallies and demonstrations, they may be required by local laws to obtain a permit.

Q:        WHAT CAN'T I DO IN EXERCISING MY RIGHTS TO PROTEST?

A:         The First Amendment protects the right to conduct a peaceful public assembly. The First Amendment does not provide the right to conduct a gathering at which there is a clear and present danger of riot, disorder, interference with traffic on public streets or other immediate threat to public safety.

Q:      AM I ALLOWED TO CARRY A WEAPON OR FIREARM AT DEMONSTRATION OR PROTEST?

A:         Your right to have a weapon at a protest largely depends state law and is unlikely to be protected by the First Amendment. Not all conduct can be considered “speech” protected by the First Amendment even if the person engaging in the conduct intends to express an idea. Most courts have held that the act of openly carrying a weapon or firearm is not expression protected by the First Amendment.

That said, even if possession of weapons is allowed, their presence at demonstrations and rallies can be intimidating and provocative and does not help in achieving a civil and peaceful discourse on issues of public interest and concern.

Q:        WHAT CAN’T THE POLICE DO IN RESPONDING TO PROTESTERS?

A:         In recent history, challenges to the right to protest have come in many forms. In some cases, police have cracked down on demonstrations by declaring them “unlawful assemblies” or through mass arrests, illegal use of force or curfews. Elsewhere, expression is limited by corralling protesters into so-called “free-speech zones.” New surveillance technologies are increasingly turned on innocent people, collecting information on their activities by virtue of their association with or proximity to a given protest. Even without active obstruction of the right to protest, police-inspired intimidation and fear can chill expressive activity and result in self-censorship. All of these things violate the First Amendment and are things the police cannot do to censor free speech. Unless the assembly is violent or violence is clearly imminent, the police have limited authority under the law to shut down protesters.

Clearly, as evidenced by the recent tensions in Charlottesville, Va., we’re at a crossroads concerning the constitutional right to free speech.

Yet as Benjamin Franklin warned, “Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech.”

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, ensuring freedom for those in the unpopular minority constitutes the ultimate tolerance in a free society.

If ever there were a time for us to stand up for the right to speak freely, even if it’s freedom for speech we hate, the time is now.

German Federal Justice Minister Heiko Maas, a socialist, breathing new life in 'The Big Lie' about Trump.

Upon being sworn in as Justice Minister

German Federal Justice Minister Heiko Maas (SPD) has sharply criticized the new statements by Donald Trump on the violence in Virginia. "It is unbearable how Trump is now embellishing the violence of the right-wing Horde of Charlottesville," said a statement from Maas, which his ministry published on Wednesday. "Nobody should undermine the anti-Semitism and racism of neo-Nazis." When it comes to right-wing propaganda and violence, there is nothing to relativize. "On the other hand, all democrats should have a clear attitude together."

Perhaps the Federal Justice Minister from tiny Saarlouis, who never worked a single day as a lawyer, could work up so much professionalism and read the full statement of President Trump. But hey, these are presumably his last weeks in office. Still, he is the guy that runs the #hatespeech trope against Facebook and Twitter. So it is clear where he stands on free speech.

And then he should listen to this fascinating discussion concerning Dinesh D’Souza’s new book, The Big Lie: Exposing the Nazi Roots of the American Left.

Leftist Fascism: Dinesh D’Souza and Stefan Molyneux

Here is another view:

It should not be surprising how the left conducts its march through institutions. It is really rather brilliant in conception and execution, although malign in effect and intent. There is a long term objective–in this case, the transformation of the US. But there is a coherent operational plan that concentrates force on a specific objective, and once that objective is taken, moves on to the next one.

Right now the ostensible target is the legacy of the Confederacy, but once the battle of the Confederate monuments is won, they will move on to the next target, which will inevitably include sooner or later every person in the American political pantheon, and every political, social, and economic institution that reflects the American past and tradition.

The left also masterfully personalizes the conflict, and ruthlessly presents the false choice between being on the side of the angels, or the side of the devils. In the current case, Nazis and white supremacists have been made the face of the anti-left. And now the left–with the assistance of many useful idiots, to whom I will turn in a moment–presents the false choice: if you are anti-left, well, that means that you are a Nazi or a fellow traveler thereof.

This is what’s happening here, and it’s as plain as day. Today it’s Robert E. Lee. Tomorrow it will be Lincoln and Washington and the Constitution and the Founding. The ultimate objective is the delegitimization of the American creed.

What is particularly sickening about this is that the most militant–and violent–of the leftists are being sanitized, and indeed lionized, because of their alleged anti-racist cred: anti-racism has become a license for vandalism and violence.

This is unbelievably stupid, and unbelievably dangerous. Antifa and the like are just the mirror image of the most retrograde white supremacists. Black bandanas=White hoods. Hammer and Sickle (which is displayed prominently at many Antifa and leftist actions)=Swastika. Both are anti-American. Both are anti-liberty. Both are committed to use violence in order to achieve their maximalist objectives. Nazis on the one side, Bolsheviks on the other. And it’s not as if either is hiding it: their regalia and flags advertise it.

Beware of socialists!

Some tweets with German Justice Minister & Teutonic Antiseptic Internet Guru Heiko Maas

Heiko Maas and German Constitutional Court, any idea how many more times my and my daughter's computers to be confiscated? Court order without name and signature of the judge!

How fucked up is your country, Justice Minister Maas?!

Free speech in Germany? You have got to be kidding.

Tweet to police Munich re.phone call in 2012

Tweet to Munich Police in reference to the criminal complaint of Christian Bockes from the Labor Agency Munich from 2012 (!) who has a hard time coming to terms with something called free speech in Germany.

Rather prefers the confiscation of a computer to get rid of some critical posts.

Yes, from 2012 as Bavarian Courts, the German Ministry of Labor in Berlin and my colluding "lawyer" did their best to keep it under wraps for all those years.

Free speech in Germany? You have got to be kidding.

Hitler admires German Justice Min. Heiko Maas

Hate speech makes me führerious.

Hitler calls German Justice Min. Heiko Maas

Just sacked Roland Freisler.
I count on you.

Put Heiko Maas in Innocuous Desuetude

Fatzke Heiko Maas

When "hate speech" is a trope for free speech.

Germany passes law against hate speech.

There is absolutely no doubt this sick law will not stand long.

The Federal Constitutional Court will kill the Network Enforcement Act

By Prof. Dr. Marc Liesching , published on April 27, 2017

Law areas: IT-Recht Internetstrafrecht 39 | 25964 views

The draft of the Act on the Freedom of Expression (MfBG), which has now been approved by the Federal Government with minor amendments and which has been provided with the misleading term "network enforcement law", will not be subject to a constitutional review by the Karlsruhe judges. This results from violations of all fundamental freedoms of Art. 5 para. 1 Basic Law, but also from a disregard of the principle of equal treatment. In addition, the Government's draft bill clearly overlooked the fact that the incorporation of Section 184b of the Penal Code into Section 1 (3) of the MfBG obliges the operators of social networks to become punishable by the ten-week storage of child pornography (Section 3 (2) no. 4 of the MfBG) (Section 184b (3) of the Penal Code).

I. Preliminary remarks

1. The designation of the MfBG as "network enforcement law"

A) enforcement of criminal law is the responsibility of the judiciary

The designation of a law for the improvement of the enforcement of laws in social networks (Network Enforcement Act - NetzDG), which was chosen in the draft, has nothing to do with the then proposed legal regulations. The term suggests that the enforcement and compliance with criminal law is governed by someone other than the judiciary itself, in particular the law enforcement authorities and criminal courts as well as the Federal Ministry of Justice.

B) Unfavorable in the case of law enforcement and supervisory authorities

Against this backdrop, the regulatory approach of massive reprisals against network operators is not justified by law, which would not be able to comply with the law enforcement tasks of the criminal law. However, the government draft says:

"Still too few criminal contents are deleted. A monitoring of the eradication practices of social networks carried out by jugendschutz.net in January / February 2017 has shown that the complaints of normal users against hate criminality and other criminal contents are still not dealt with immediately and adequately.YouTube is now in 90 percent of criminal cases deleted content. Facebook, however, only deleted in 39 percent of cases, Twitter only in 1 percent of cases ".

This raises the question of the competence and the personnel responsible for the protection of minors' rights in the area of ​​youth protection. Even more urgent is the question of whether the judiciary has succeeded in compulsory enforcement in 10 per cent of the criminal cases at Youtube, 61 per cent of cases at Facebook and 99 per cent of cases at Twitter. The consequence of the communication "criminal contents" by jugendschutz.net results in the opinion of the Federal Government and, moreover, also according to § 10 TMG just a criminal responsibility. In order to avoid a criminal offense, the judiciary, in particular the law enforcement authorities, should have initiated at least preliminary investigations.

full article here

German Justice Minister Maas, while Hitler had his SS and Roland Freisler, you have your rigged courts when it comes to free speech.

Case 2 (of 3 - all brought on by German labor agencies infringing my right to free speech)

cc Labor Minister Nahles,

No speech without permit
in Germany.

Justice Minster Maas,

It is now obvious that your country's labor agencies infringed my right to free speech on so far three occasions and altogether two computer confiscations. The last confiscation included ALL IT equipment.

It is further obvious that if the speech does not please, a German court's verdict is guilty by default. Why care about laws and ECHR decisions, when lies and rigged courts do the trick?

Your social-fascist Jobcenters, and I am referring here to the criminal one in Munich, show a peculiar disdain for publication of their racist and discriminating conduct when it comes to forcing young people into low-wage jobs. Your country is not exactly a paragon of integration, to say the least, and racism a well-received form of self-positioning among the populace. Among politicians it is a guarantee for votes.

Publication of picture of Himmler AND his quote is forbidden in Germany!

We have submitted a complaint about this particular case to the European Court of Human Rights with the Complaint No. 35285/16 as the German Constitutional Court showed no interest.

Germany's efforts of integration can best be described as an exercise in securing a pliable work force to ensure a cheap labor supply for its export oriented neoliberal economy. Any deviation and any critique has to be suppressed 'By all Means'. While Hitler had his SS and Roland Freisler, you have your courts.

In this particular case in 2015 the judge was again Mrs Bassler, same as in Case 1 in 2013. Oh, she was also judge in Case 3 in 2017! (more about that in another letter, and it will get really dirty. After all, we are talking about rotten Bavarian courts.) What a coincidence, wouldn't you think so, Minister? Based on a decision of the ECHR (Ferrantelli and Santangelo v. Italy, No. 48/1995/554/640) I objected to Judge Bassler for the reason of this being not a double but a triple (!) coincidence.

The template response came within 45 minutes in which Judge Mrs Hansen apparently set out to prove that a lie would be the appropriate response against a nasty blogger and it reads like this:

"From the point of view of a wise defendant (I am a sucker of this condescending drivel), the circumstances set out in the request for refusal are not capable of justifying the apprehension of the rejected professor.

1. The refusal of a judge for fear of bias is justified in accordance with Article 24 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If the respondent has reason to believe that the facts which are known to him are reasonable. That the rejected judge takes an inner attitude toward him which can adversely affect his impartiality and impartiality (RGSt 61, 67, BGHSt 1. 34. 36, 21. 85, 86). The referee must spend reasonable reasons for his rejection campaign, which is clear to any uninvolved third party (BGH JR 1957, 68).

2. The application for refusal is not based on the application of these principles.

.....

In fact, the dismissed judge worked in two previous proceedings against the accused (Az: 18 Ns 112 Js 203869/12, 18 Ns 112 Js 170286/14), which also ended with a conviction. This does not, however, give rise to any apprehension because, as is apparent from the business distribution plan valid for the year of receipt, the responsibility for the procedures at that time as well as for the current procedure from the internal court division of the District Court Munich I. This, in turn, is the outflow of the constitutionally protected right to the legal judge. The court internal business division assigns each procedure according to certain criteria to a criminal chamber. The assignment takes place upon receipt of the procedure without the participation of the judges and without the person of the accused or the judge. This was also the case here. The 18th Criminal Chamber was and is, among other things, responsible for appeals against judgments of the District Court in criminal matters pursuant to Section 86a. 90a para. 1 and 2, 130 and 187a of the Penal Code, so that the same applies to the three proceedings concerned. An action by the statutory judge does not give rise to any concern of bias."

Very well, except that it is a COMPLETE FUCKING LIE!

Enter the Decision of the Federal Court of Justice with the file number AZ 1 StR 493/16 of February 8, 2017 which proves Judge Hansen is a blatant lier! Am I surprised? Heck no, this is the well-known rotten judiciary of Bavaria.

In this decision the Federal Court of Justice stated in Paragraph 2 on page 2:

"The appeal has been successful with a procedural complaint under Section 338 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The appeal rightly submits that the 1st Criminal Court of the Munich District Court I, which ruled in this case, did not have the necessary internal distribution for the year 2015."

The Munich jury had evidently not a valid business distribution plan for years, that is, it had not determined which judge to adopt which procedure. This could lead to the fact that some trials had to be rewound against already condemned murderers. A Munich attorney had Complained about the wrong practice in a case and complained to the Federal Supreme Court.

The Munich jury may have passed judgments for years without any legal basis, the Sueddeutsche Zeitung wrote.

I reiterate firmly: No German infringes my right to freedom of expression!

Sincerely,