
Merkel Grants Turkish Request to Prosecute German Satirist - eloisius
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-15/merkel-allows-probe-of-german-comedian-over-erdogan-satire
======
geff82
Nobody seems to see how Merkel got this thing very right. 1.) Law says: you
may prosecute it. So she "allows prosecution", as she also can't ignore
diplomatic implication of doing otherwise. 2.) She also declares that the
government will get rid of this law. 3.) She will surely not pressure the
justice system in this case... 4.) The case will get dismissed as there is no
basis for punishment any more (in Germany, you are entitled to be punished
under the lesser harsh law when the law changes, and when the law disappears,
there will be no punishment).

I think this was an intelligent move. She complied with Erdogans request and
in return says a big "F __* Y __" by eliminating the law and saving the
comedian.

~~~
kafkaesq
_So she "allows prosecution", as she also can't ignore diplomatic implication
of doing otherwise._

Sure she can. People snub each other in politics all the time (even when
they're joined at the hip). It's called "setting boundaries", and letting
people know they can only count on so many indulgences from you. In fact, it
is precisely through their willingness to take a stand (even at the cost of
temporarily upsetting their allies or coalition partners) that stronger
politicians distinguish themselves.

But even if she didn't want to offend his sensibilities -- there are bigger
issues at play, such as the fact that Erdoğan is not only acting like a bully
in this case (as he normally does at home), but is expecting the German
government to do his dirty work for him. And hence, tacitly, to take "his"
side in the Great War of Values on openness, and freedom of expression.

That's why Merkel got it wrong. What she needs to do is both act to abolish
the law _and_ exercise her discretion in declining to prosecute this case.

~~~
andyjohnson0
Regarding the decision she had to make, Merkel had two choices. If she
declined to prosecute then she would be making a quasi-judicial decision in a
county where judicial decisions are rightly made by the courts, not
politicians. In passing the decision to the courts she is, in my opinion,
making a clear statement of German values: _this is how we do things - with
the rule of law_.

Which starkly contrasts with Erdoğan's contempt for the rule of law and
anything that gets in his way.

The German constitution guarantees freedom of expression and the case will
undoubtedly be dismissed when it reaches the courts.

(And I agree that laws such as this should be abolished.)

~~~
sesutton
The law[0] in question specifically says that the federal government has to
authorize the prosecution.

[0] [http://www.gesetze-im-
internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_stg...](http://www.gesetze-im-
internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_stgb.html#p1031)

~~~
germanier
Just because the law allows to interfere with the prosecution does not make it
morally right to interfere with the prosecution.

(By the way, prosecutors are anyway bound to instruction in Germany (usually
by the state governments). That doesn't mean the governments should actually
use that power.)

~~~
duaneb
The law does not "allow interference", the law requires someone initiating the
prosecution. Just because the law allows this does not make it morally right
to initiate it.

~~~
germanier
An authorization to prosecute is not the same as an initiation. The law
requires an initiation by the foreign head of state and an authorization of
the German federal government. But that's semantics anyway. You should rather
ask yourself, why should this law be treated any differently than all the
others? It's written into it but that's the best reason one could find.

~~~
duaneb
Because it allows for personal judgment by the german federal government
WITHOUT sidestepping the law.

------
ChrisBland
Turkey makes the claim that insulting the head of state is a 'crime against
humanity'. Turkey is a corrupt country and is committing 'crimes against
humanity' on a daily basis. My username is real name, I live in the US, please
come sue me. If you need to be insulted vs just stating facts, the party
leadership are doo-doo heads. For anyone not aware, here is LY HRW report on
Turkey. [https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2015/country-
chapters/turke...](https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2015/country-
chapters/turkey)

~~~
binarray2000
> Turkey makes the claim that insulting the head of state is a 'crime against
> humanity'. Turkey is a corrupt country and is committing 'crimes against
> humanity' on a daily basis. [...]

All true. But it doesn't stop the oligarchy [1][2] in your country to still
keep it in the NATO, have (at least one) military base there (Incirlik Air
Base), not say/do anything about the way it treats minorities, journalists
...its own citizens.

(remember the US slogan: "We bring freedom, democracy and human rights to the
world")

[1] [http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/videos/jimmy-carter-
u-s...](http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/videos/jimmy-carter-u-s-is-an-
oligarchy-with-unlimited-political-bribery-20150731)

[2] [http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-
echochambers-27074746](http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746)

~~~
irixusr
Don't forget turkey had the cojones to provoke the Russians by shooting their
plane and then commit a war crime by shooting sry the pilots.

They'be become a rogue nation more than any other.

~~~
binarray2000
Yeah... Cojones :-) Or coincidence:

2015-11-23: US air force general and the second-highest ranking military
officer visits Turkey "to discuss the Russian airstrikes on Turkmen-populated
areas in Syria.

[http://www.dailysabah.com/diplomacy/2015/11/23/us-air-
force-...](http://www.dailysabah.com/diplomacy/2015/11/23/us-air-force-gen-
selva-visits-ankara-to-discuss-terror-syria)

2015-11-24: Two turkish jets shoot down one russian over the Turkmen region in
Syria and Turkmen kill the pilot. Putin said that the russian military has
communicated flying routes to the US military.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Russian_Sukhoi_Su-24_sh...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Russian_Sukhoi_Su-24_shootdown)

------
Kristine1975
_" In a country under the rule of law, it is not up to the government to
decide," Merkel said._

"Mutti" is trying to deflect the blame again: In this very special case (§103
StGB), the law mandates that the government authorize the prosecution.
Otherwise there is no case.

~~~
danielvf
Here's the relevant law about deliberate defamation of foreign heads of state.
(Up to five years in jail OR a fine.)

[https://dejure.org/gesetze/StGB/103.html](https://dejure.org/gesetze/StGB/103.html)

Anyone know where the section is on the government required authorization of
prosecution?

~~~
morgante
How can Germany, an ostensibly free nation, have such a law?

If you can't insult political leaders, you don't have free speech. End of
story. Political speech is the _most_ important form of speech to protect.

~~~
bayesian_horse
You can actually insult political leaders all day long. Unlike less known
persons, which can sue for defamation. There was even a case in Germany where
someone argued for the assassination of a Politician, a clear crime, in other
words, and acquitted at trial because the target was a public figure.

And even if you couldn't, insults on that level are absolutely unnecessary to
discuss any issue.

~~~
morgante
> You can actually insult political leaders all day long.

Then why is there a prosecution moving forward for insulting a political
leader and a specific law which applies _only_ to insulting foreign political
leaders?

~~~
bayesian_horse
Because 1) there is a special law against defamation of a foreign nation's
representatives and 2) there is no specific exception written into any
applicable law, but courts have consistently ruled this way because of freedom
of speech etc

It is expected that there will be no punishment in this case.

------
interfixus
No sinister men with long coats and barking dogs at three o'clock in the
morning, but the screws _are_ being tightened on free expression over much of
Western Europe these days, not least as concerns potential offense towards a
certain easily offended religion.

[edit: typo]

~~~
bayesian_horse
Actually, laws against defamation and insults are very old. And this
particular incident falls clearly under the category of pure insults. Even
with a strong taste of racial slur ("goat ...").

The only reasons we are debating this at all is that nobody likes Erdogan and
that the insult was offered by a comedian.

~~~
rayiner
> The only reasons we are debating this at all is that nobody likes Erdogan
> and that the insult was offered by a comedian.

We're debating it because most of HN is in the United States, where people
regularly go around saying far worse things about our President than calling
him a "goat."

~~~
wil421
If this was in the US this would be considered Satire. So it's a form of
protected speech. Am I correct? Could someone still sue for libel?

~~~
morgante
Yes. A judge would almost certainly throw this case out if it were in the US.

It's satire, about a political public figure. It's hard to find speech much
more protected than that.

Europe does not have free speech. In myriad ways there are restrictions on
speech, from prosecution of satire to the reprehensible "Right to be
Forgotten" law.

~~~
SilasX
>It's satire, about a political public figure. It's hard to find speech much
more protected than that.

Well, to be pedantic, courts would probably apply more protections to direct
_political_ criticism than to mockery of a political figure him/herself. That
is, you would receive more protection for: a) "This is a stupid policy that
will harm public welfare" than b) "politician X looks like a monkey". But it's
close.

~~~
morgante
To be really pedantic, there are two layers of protection. Political criticism
is itself protected, but so is criticism of public figures (regardless of
whether that criticism is political or they are even political figures).
Politicians are simultaneously public figures _and_ subject to political
criticism.

------
mpweiher
I am not usually a Merkel fan, but I think this is a brilliant move, as it
sends two loud and clear messages:

1\. We are a country of laws, not of autocratic presidents. Therefore it is
the task of the judiciary, and _only_ the judiciary to decide this matter. I
have full confidence in the judiciary to do so and to come to the right
conclusion.

2\. And I have a pretty clear idea of what the right conclusion is: what the
Turkish president demands is ridiculous. In fact, the fact that we have a law
that allows him to demand this is ridiculous. We are therefore getting rid of
the law.

 _Not_ allowing the prosecution to go ahead would have sent the message that
autocratic decisions by the executive in judicial matters is the correct way
to proceed, regardless of which way the decision goes. It also wouldn't have
sent as clear a message as to the ridiculousness of the request as getting rid
of the law.

Again, not usually a fan, but this is damn good.

~~~
gaur
> Not allowing the prosecution to go ahead would have sent the message that
> autocratic decisions by the executive in judicial matters is the correct way
> to proceed

As many others have pointed out, the relevant law [0] explicitly requires an
autocratic decision by the executive before prosecution can start.

So in this situation, you are a country of laws being mediated by an
autocratic president. It is the task of an autocratic president, and
_possibly_ the judiciary, to decide this matter.

[0] [http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/14/obscure-
german-...](http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/14/obscure-german-law-
angela-merkel-recep-tayyip-erdogan)

~~~
mpweiher
>As many others have pointed out, the relevant law [0] explicitly requires an
autocratic decision by the executive before prosecution can start.

Exactly. This is why the law is an anachronism and needs to be repealed. And
why using it to get the "right" outcome would be inconsistent with the
principle of rule of law that says it needs to be gotten rid of.

------
pilif
_> In a state of law, it’s not the domain of the government, but rather the
prosecutors and the courts, to weigh individual rights,_

IMHO that's all that needs to be said. This is _exactly_ how it should be.
This is a problem for which laws were written and this is something the judges
should eventually have the power to decide upon.

If we don't like their decision, it's up to us to change the laws.

~~~
zeveb
I disagree: in a free state composed of free citizens, it is _every_ citizen's
duty to refuse to do something which he believes wrong: a law can only be
enforced because the police arrested someone, the gaolers incarcerated him,
the jury convicted him, the judge sentenced him, the warden took
responsibility for him (and the executioner killed him, in the case of capital
crimes). _Every one of these_ has the opportunity and the duty to refuse to
enforce an unjust law: the police officer can turn a blind eye; the gaolers
can refuse to accept the prisoner; the jury can refuse to convict; the judge
can refuse to sentence; the warden can release; the executioner can refuse to
work.

~~~
jdmichal
You are basically arguing for vigilante justice. There's a myriad of reasons
why this is a bad thing for society. For example, white supremacy groups not
being arrested or charged with crimes because all the cops and DAs and judges
are also white supremacists. If it's truly within their world-view that a
lynching is _not wrong_ , then according to your theory it's their
_responsibility_ to not arrest or charge for it. This viewpoint is directly
opposed to the rule of law.

~~~
Zikes
zeveb is arguing for nonviolent civil disobedience, which is a very far cry
from vigilante justice. Some of our greatest civil rights heroes are advocates
for civil disobedience, including Martin Luther King Jr, Rosa Parks, Mohandas
Gandhi, and Emmeline Pankhurst.

~~~
jdmichal
Yes, vigilante justice is probably a step too far, but only because it's
definition requires a lack of rule of law to start with. zeveb is basically
arguing that the morality of the individual citizens at each step of the chain
overrides the rule of law. The basic premise is the same between them: A
vigilante applies their own morality extra-judiciously, without regard for the
rule of law. It's the positive counterpart (applying law) of the negative
(nullifying law) that zeveb is arguing for.

Civil disobedience is also not correct. Civil disobedience is the refusal to
_obey_ laws, not the refusal to _uphold_ them. People participating in civil
disobedience do it with the understanding that they can (and should) be
prosecuted for such. They do so to act as martyrs.

~~~
Zikes
I have to apologize for the extreme and apocryphal example, but I honestly
can't think of a better one right now: there are quite a few people that have
been convicted as war criminals for "applying law" as they were ordered to do.

The law can be very wrong sometimes, and it's the responsibility of an ethical
human being to disobey such laws, whether by non-application or nullification,
until such time as those laws are corrected.

~~~
jdmichal
I actually think that's a great example; no need for apologies. (And, after
all, I did set the example with my original comment and white supremacists.)

My response would be that, in such cases, there exist two sets of conflicting
laws. The national law, which was _not_ being broken, and the supra-national
law regarding human rights and war crimes, which _was_. So that is actually an
example of rule of law being upheld, just not national law.

The bottom line is, you need to be really, _really_ careful when you start
arguing for "ethics" and "morality" as a basis for execution of law. For
instance, to make a concrete example: It could be argued that based on the
ethics and morality of the Nazis, that the mass murders committed under the
Holocaust were in fact them morally disobeying those supra-national human
rights laws. Who are you to say that the Nazi morality is wrong? You can't
point to the agreed-upon supra-national human rights laws, because you are in
fact arguing that law should be violated based on morality!

In fact, one of the ways to view law is as an _encoding_ of the morality of
the society it covers. Sometimes laws, being fixed entities, and society,
being ever changing, drift apart over time. Same as software drifts from the
requirements of business if not kept up to date. It usually takes an example
like this German one to point out the absurdity, and if the law really is no
longer part of the society's morality, becomes fairly easy for lawmakers to
fix. (As a reminder, this law being invoked is _very_ old -- from when Germany
was a monarchy and insulting dictator kings was morally a very serious crime!)

------
nanoman
I think this is the right move, regarding separation of powers. I trust the
German jurisdiction to do the right thing here.

Plus, she said that the law protecting foreign officials from defamation is
obsolete and they will void it.

~~~
rmk2
Have a look at this comment, especially:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11504522](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11504522)

Essentially, this has nothing to do with "regarding separation of powers",
since the law in question requires "und die Bundesregierung die Ermächtigung
zur Strafverfolgung erteilt", i.e. "that the federal government gives the
courts authority to prosecute". Without order to prosecute _from_ the
executive, the judiciary would have no legal grounds.

It would have been in line with both the word and spirit of the law if she
would have denied this authority.

~~~
nanoman
> It would have been in line with both the word and spirit of the law if she
> would have denied this authority.

You're technically absolutely correct, but essentially it is about separation
of powers. That is also the public perception.

Strategically and diplomatically it would be the wrong move to deny it - that
can only backfire in a much worse way than it does now. This will all blow
over.

Altough, I'm not so sure about the other suit which Erdogan placed using his
german attorney.

------
kyleblarson
During Erdogan's recent visit to Washington DC his security personnel
attempted to bring their thuggery to American protesters and journalists and
that did not work out so well:
[http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2016/03/turkish-
presidents-a...](http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2016/03/turkish-presidents-
arrival-brings-chaos-downtown-washington)

edit: fixed typo

------
mvdwoord
I would have had great respect if Merkel had taken a stand on this issue.
Regardless of letting the supposedly trustworthy courts of Germany decide on
this, this would have been an excellent opportunity to show the world what
European values are all about. It comes over as political cowardliness, but
this seems to be the norm now more than ever.

~~~
intrasight
Merkel is very pragmatic - hence her long tenure in office. This would have
been an excellent opportunity to show the world what European values are all
about except for the fact the Europe is currently beholden to Turkey to
address the migration crisis.

~~~
jayess
I'm not sure what European values even are. Europe used to be the land of the
enlightenment. That seems to have regressed substantially lately.

~~~
elcapitan
If I remember it correctly, Europe never was a "land".

------
bayesian_horse
It's a pity that most people don't understand the finer point s of the
decision, like that it is only a "permission" to conduct investigations, and
that the responsibility for anything else will be in the hands of a court. Or
multiple courts, probably.

~~~
sievebrain
I think people understand it OK.

Böhmermann very clearly violated that law, on television, deliberately. The
law makes no exception for intent. So if he hasn't violated the law then what
would? And unfortunately it says, quite clearly, it is punished by a jail
sentence. Unless German courts are an absolute joke he is going to rot in jail
for a while.

The only person who could have stopped that outcome is Merkel. And what has
she done? She has said in public, unambiguously that she doesn't want to do
this BUT IS DOING IT ANYWAY TO PLEASE ERDOGAN.

That's a huge problem for everyone in Europe. Germany is very powerful in the
EU. If the German leader is willing to publicly bend over and obey whilst
simultaneously protesting then Erdogan is realising that he has Germany (and
thus the EU) by the balls. What will he demand next?

~~~
Xylakant
> Unless German courts are an absolute joke he is going to rot in jail for a
> while.

The law says punishable with up to 5 years in jail or a monetary fine. "wird
mit Freiheitsstrafe bis zu drei Jahren oder mit Geldstrafe, im Falle der
verleumderischen Beleidigung mit Freiheitsstrafe von drei Monaten bis zu fünf
Jahren bestraft."

There's no way this will end up with a jail sentence.

~~~
sievebrain
I stand corrected.

I hope you are right. Nonetheless, I see no way he can escape punishment
unless the courts choose to ignore the law entirely by setting the fine to one
euro or something like that, which seems like an unfortunate thing for courts
to do in general, even if in this case it'd be highly convenient.

SO there is still no way around the fact that Merkel should not have done
this.

~~~
Xylakant
> I see no way he can escape punishment unless the courts choose to ignore the
> law entirely

It's actually quite well possible that there's no punishment in the end. The
case hinges on the question whether the poem and its presentation were satire
thus still protected or pure defamation. The scholars are divided about this,
but there seems to be a slight majority on the side of protected speech. Then
there wouldn't be an offense and thus no case and no punishment.

There's a lot of factors playing into this, Böhmermann was treading on the
line as he certainly was aware of, but in his favor the long standing rulings
accept that the tone of the critique can be adapted to the target or the
critique. Since Erdogan is known not to mince words, that plays into
Böhmermanns favor. Using the same words on the Dalai Lama would be a much more
clear cut case.

Things are going to be interesting in the next couple of month/years :) If
there's a court case I fully expect that to go up to the constitutional court.

------
phreeza
I think this is the way it should be done. Separation of power means the
judicial branch needs to make this decision. Looks like the legislative branch
will now revoke the law that lead to this, but either way, it should not be up
to the executive to make this decision.

~~~
golemotron
That's the 2D view of the situation. The 3D view is that she had a chance to
make a strong statement about freedom of political expression and she chose
not to.

~~~
chris_va
Short sighted, I think.

She is allowing the court system of Germany to correct its laws in a legal
way. She is trusting the German process to get rid of the law, which arguably
is an elegant and even more powerful statement on freedom than high handed
executive posturing.

~~~
k__
She has the fear that she loses her new political friend, so she has chosen to
let someone other decide.

I think it's right that the judges and not the regime should decide, but it's
convenient for her, so she does it, not because it's the right thing.

------
brakmic
I'm sure this entry will be downvoted very soon, but however, let's try it. :)

Well, now almost everyone in Germany talks about the Comedian and the Turkish
President ignoring the much bigger scandal popularized by the term "Panama
Papers".

I'm not from the "conspiracy lunatics" fraction but let's dissect this whole
stuff a little bit less emotionally:

a) In Germany we have very independent courts.

b) and a very stable democracy (which most of us are truly proud of)

c) and in fact we do have such a silly paragraph that 'protects foreign
diplomats' from being 'insulted verbally'.

d) The current government also announced that'll soon throw out this obscure
paragraph, which btw. was mostly used by the former Iranian Shah Reza Pahlevi
to attack its critics in Germany (that's why we call it 'the Shah Paragraph').

Anyway, I'm very confident that our democracy is stable enough to handle
anything, even the childish behaviour of a foreign head of state. By following
our laws, no matter how ridiculous the paragraphs may sound, we _protect_ our
democracy and dignity.

I'm not a fan of Merkel but one thing is clear: Our Chancellor is governing
our country while some others prefer to sue comedians. ;)

I'm not a very political person nor a member of any of our parties but I
always go to vote.

That's how we protect our democracy. By letting people vote, the government
govern, and courts do jurisprudence.

And we'll never ever sue our comedians. In fact, Erdogan helped us clean up
our constitution by throwing out a useless paragraph.

~~~
schlowmo
> "The current government also announced that'll soon throw out this obscure
> paragraph [...]"

I'm not sure if I would call 2018 (like Merkel announced) soon. At least it's
after her current period of governance (which will end September 2017).

~~~
germanier
The announced plan is to vote it into law this term but having it take effect
in 2018. This is not unusual, though I don't know why they would leave such a
long gap.

~~~
_ph_
My understanding is, that they don't want to interfere in any way with the
courts handle this case, but make sure that this law is not invoked again.

------
tehwebguy
Erdogan is a terrible leader, he's been arresting journalists critical of him.

Even Russia has taken shots at him, implying that Turkey is the means by which
IS is able to turn oil into cash and continue operations (my money is on the
next US president deposing him).

I just can't understand why Merkel would care what he thinks?

~~~
sakopov
Isn't Germany trying to make a monetary deal with Turkey to provide asylum for
"Syrian" immigrants? Considering that nobody else wants to take them I'm sure
there is quite a bit of ass-kissing required to get this working.

~~~
doczoidberg
German here. This is exactly the reason for Merkels decision.

A side note to the comedian Böhmermann: he did also the "Varoufakis Gate". He
is quite a genious satirist with real political influence.

------
mercer
I rather like the outrageous and ballsy response from one of Holland's biggest
comedians, especially considering that we have a similar law here (if I
understand correctly):

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6jW2cIMfos](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6jW2cIMfos)
(Dutch)

For those who don't speak Dutch: Teeuwen is expressing his outrage over the
fact that when Erdogan used to be a 'boy whore' in Istanbul, he was paid by
Teeuwen for sex. And even though Teeuwen 'stimulated' Erdogan, the latter
didn't return the favor (and do what he was paid for). He also says that many
other people have the same complaint, including our prime minister.

When the interviewer tries to clarify and explain to the viewer that this is a
satirical bit to make a point, Teeuwen insists over and over again that this
is the literal truth and that it's not satire.

Crass, but effective. In an interview a few days earlier Teeuwen actually
argued that this is what people should do en masse, especially in places with
such a law, and despite the risk.

If you consider that he is not an idiot and knows that there's a real risk in
doing these kinds of things, _and_ that a good friend of his (Theo van Gogh)
was actually murdered over insulting islam, it's an incredibly courageous
thing to do.

------
chris_wot
Here's a translation of what the comedian actually said:

[https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/4ebe9p/what_böhmerm...](https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/4ebe9p/what_böhmermann_said_english_translation/)

He appears to be telling Erdogan what would be illegal, and making up all
sorts of horrible things it is very obvious that Erdogan doesn't do,
interspersed with things he may well be guilty of, like beating up minorities.

Now should the German court object to Erdogan coopting the German legal
system, I wonder if a defence might be that in fact Bohermann was saying a
whole bunch of ridiculous things that are obviously untrue but that satirises
how sensitive the Turkish president is.

Now if the Turkish president says that it wasn't all untrue then he'll need to
admit to some malfeasance, which he clearly won't ever want to do. So the
Bohmermann can say that it was all absurdity and clearly as none of it was
true he proves his point that his criticism of Erdogan is valid and that he is
an over sensitive despot who is trying to prevent freedom of expression and
criticism.

Either way, no matter what the Turkish President does, the comedian wins. The
penalty is jail time, but just how long is the minimum and can the comedian be
pardoned? And if the comedian goes to jail and the law repealed, then it's
open season in Germany and every man and his dog will be throwing even _worse_
insults at Erdogan!

I can see a sort of German Streisand Effect occurring where the insults
ratchet up incredibly and an entire nation sticks there collective middle
finger up at the Turkish President, who as soon as the law is repeated will be
powerless to do anything about it!

Erdogan just can't win, even if he succeeds in jailing the comedian.

------
jessegreathouse
She should have told Turkey to shove it instead of appeasing them. When this
man gets exonerated by the judicial system it's unlikely that Turkey will be
satisfied and the result will be the same for relations between Turkey and
Germany. Dance with the one you came with, Merkel.

~~~
edko
I don't think so. She can always say that she did all that was in her power,
but the judges, those independent little devils, are beyond what she can
control. Everyone knows that nothing will happen to the comedian, otherwise
hell will break loose in German public opinion. In terms of foreign relations,
she made the best move.

------
techterrier
I'm not sure she could do anything else. However bad the limits on free speech
are, applying the law selectively is probably worse.

~~~
duaneb
She could push for repealing a stupid law. Insulting world leaders (especially
our own) is a celebrated past time for the western world. This is, after all,
the homeland of Martin Luther (warning, visual fart joke):
[http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17e3edby8mik5jpg/original.jp...](http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17e3edby8mik5jpg/original.jpg)

EDIT: does german law allow for pardons?

~~~
techterrier
I think that's happening too?

------
krylon
In Germany, we have a saying, "Getroffene Hunde bellen" (A dog, when hit, will
bark). If the poem had been directed at, say, Obama, he probably would have
been like, "whatever, I don't give a four-letter-word", and the whole thing
would have been properly ignored by pretty much everyone.

The fact that Erdogan goes apoplectic instead and is all like "off with his
head" is really telling more about Erdogan's ego problem than about the German
legal system or the media.

I think I learnt in elementary school to not let somebody else provoke me like
that. I have been told time and again that I am kind of naive, but I had
somehow assumed that a head of state would have managed that. It seems that
people never learn that the best way to deal with this would have been the
line Jeff Bridges gave in the Big Lebowski, when a character named Jesus
essentiallly goes on a rant: "Yeah, well, that's just, like, your _opinion_ ,
man".

------
hussong
For those interested in some of the finer legal aspects of the situation,
here's an interesting article in German (excellent discussion there as well):
[http://verfassungsblog.de/erlaubte-schmaehkritik-die-
verfass...](http://verfassungsblog.de/erlaubte-schmaehkritik-die-
verfassungsrechtliche-dimension-der-causa-jan-boehmermann/)

Böhmermann may have gone a little bit overboard on his exemplary
"Schmähgedicht" \-- unneccessarily long and nasty just to make a point, other
indicators are the music, the flag in the background and subtitles only for
the poem (making the example much stronger than the context / introduction) --
but given the context, he should be fine.

~~~
patall
Exactly, this and few other blogs, lawyers of satirical magazines and even
Erdogan lawyer have said that they do not expect much from this prosecution.
It is just, Erdogan has to go this now, else he loses his face. At some point
he will lose in the last instance and then tell his people: "See, these
germans hate us". If Boehmermann had to pay something, that would mean he had
increased his market value by some millions minus those maybe €5000 fine.

------
melvinmt
Contrary to popular belief there is no real freedom of speech in Europe, as
least not in the sense as Americans know it. You can still get up to 2 years
of prison time for insulting the King or a friendly Head of State in the
Netherlands (and Germany apparently), you can be prosecuted in French for
ridiculing the Holocaust (just look at the case for Dieudonné) and the list
goes on and on.

Erdogan is of course an insecure and manipulative guy who likes to get back at
anyone who mocks him, but he's also quite smart to be aware of and to use the
legal options that are available to him in Germany as well as in Turkey. If
you don't like it, and supposedly uphold liberal values, change the laws. It's
as simple as that.

~~~
hospes
>> You can be prosecuted in French for ridiculing the Holocaust.

I think that is a good thing, especially with rise of anti-semitism in
different parts of the world.

Ridiculing the Holocaust or any other Genocide is not a free speech, it is a
hate speech.

~~~
cbd1984
Hate speech is one kind of free speech, and be very suspicious of anyone who
tries to tell you otherwise: They mean to suppress dissent.

------
the-dude
Keep in mind here Erdogan's intented audience is his own people, not the
outside world.

------
mabbo
She's rolling the dice a bit, but it was her best shot.

If she very strongly was in support of his prosecution, she'd be seen as very
anti-free speech. If she blocked it entirely, Erdogan would be pissed off and
probably stop blocking refugees for her.

Her goal here is that the courts decide to throw out the law entirely when it
goes to trial (is that a thing in Germany? Can courts do that there?) or they
give a tiny slap on the wrist. Then she can say to Erdogan "Well, we tried to
stop him".

Worst case scenario here is that the comedian actually goes to jail. That
would probably end Merkel's career.

~~~
spriggan3
No, it's just shows that Merkel is desperate not to cross Erdogan, for
whatever reason and is ready to make Germany look weak to salvage whatever
deal she made with Turkey. It says a lot about our euro politicians.
Unfortunately there is no strong freedom of speech tradition is Europe, unlike
US where you can say almost everything without risking getting prosecuted by
the state. And it makes all the difference in my opinion.

------
tobltobs
This decision and the year long coverage of the now coming law suit will make
sure that 'Erdowahn goatfucker gangbang' will be in the google index for
decades.

Maybe Erdogan will be even the number one result for 'goatfucker' or 'gangbang
party' after this all settled down.

I don't know how this could be called a victory for Erdowahn.

Apart of this I really look forward to the process. This will be the best
satire ever, worldwide, at primetime.

I believe Böhmermann wanted just that and it would have been sad if Merkel
would have destroyed his evil genius plan.

------
dijit
Other discussion:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11504065](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11504065)

------
techterrier
As an aside, I'm really hoping the Streisand effect finally does something
useful.

------
venomsnake
_Turkey’s Deputy Prime Minister Numan Kurtulmus said on Monday that the German
comedian had committed a “crime against humanity” by insulting the Turkish
head of state. “No one has the right to insult” Erdogan, Kurtulmus told
reporters._

And if I call a sexual pose that includes extreme bending over and complete
submission "The Merkel" will I be prosecuted under German law too? That is a
risk I am willing to take.

~~~
rbehrends
> And if I call a sexual pose that includes extreme bending over and complete
> submission "The Merkel" will I be prosecuted under German law too? That is a
> risk I am willing to take.

Nah. Certain types of political satire in Germany are pretty much a contact
sport. You'll see much cruder and more direct imagery on carnival floats, for
example [1, 2, 3].

Warning: several images may be NSFW and/or cannot be unseen.

[1] [http://www.dw.com/en/the-political-side-of-
carnival/a-165896...](http://www.dw.com/en/the-political-side-of-
carnival/a-16589663)

[2] [http://www.ibtimes.com/rose-monday-german-carnival-mocks-
pol...](http://www.ibtimes.com/rose-monday-german-carnival-mocks-politicians-
satirical-parade-floats-photos-709650)

[3] [http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-epa04107803-a-political-
the...](http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-epa04107803-a-political-theme-float-
with-an-oversize-figure-depicting-67304248.html)

~~~
spriggan3
> Nah. Certain types of political satire in Germany are pretty much a contact
> sport.

It doesn't mean you can't get sued by the German state for these. Actually i'm
pretty sure you can. You couldn't in US (be sued by the federal state for
that). That's the difference between actual freedom of speech (USA) and some
vague tolerance that could change anytime (Europe). As a french, I can go to
prison if I insult the president publicly, a state prosecutor can sue me for
that, that's not freedom of speech. Now is it likely ? no, but the risk is
enough so that most people don't even attempt to do that, that's the vague
tolerance I'm talking about.

~~~
rbehrends
If the state really wants to screw you over, there are plenty of ways to do
that regardless. "Disorderly conduct" has been used as an ad hoc speech
suppression mechanism even in the US plenty of times; it may not hold up in
court, but by that time you've got an arrest record, a mug shot, and have
spent a night in jail. And often enough, it results in convictions [1].

Don't get me wrong, the German laws against insults are all kinds of silly,
but abusive government officials all over the world have long since figured
out that asking forgiveness rather than permission gives them a lot of leeway
regardless of how permissive the laws are.

[1] [http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/her-cop-cussing-ruled-
fi...](http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/her-cop-cussing-ruled-fighting-
words-not-free-speech)

------
pbhjpbhj
>German Chancellor Angela Merkel has cleared the way for the prosecution of
German comedian Jan Böhmermann (Wash.Post) //

>Chancellor Angela Merkel granted Turkey’s request to prosecute a German
satirist who derided President Recep Tayyip Erdogan (Bloomberg) //

The crucial statement of what Merkel has done to "clear the way" and what
action she took to "grant" Turkey's request to start a prosecution appears to
be missing from both stories? Can someone fill in this detail because without
it it just looks like "Merkel has not attempted to prevent democratic legal
processes from continuing in their normal course".

What's this really about?

Edit: someone on reddit informed that there's a statute protecting foreign
heads of state and that it requires the German parliament to 'allow' the
prosecution in some sense.

------
cm3
If laws weren't a chaotic accumulation of snapshots of ethics and morals at
some point but logical and reasonable instead, we'd have this:

Pros:

\- easy to understand and argue

\- no room for personal opinion, especially regarding ethics

Cons:

\- less income for crime+punishment system that has a whole industry around it
and in some countries even prisons operated as public companies

\- emotional views on penal system would go ignored

Precedent law is also highly questionable and dangerous. It's hard to
understand why laws do not apply to many, especially those mucking around and
making laws.

It could be very simple, but as long as there's no Vulkan (Star Trek) like
approach to these things, I'm afraid we'll always have laws that favor some
and punish others, regardless if the actions harmed anybody.

------
alt_rox_haxer
"Turkey’s Deputy Prime Minister Numan Kurtulmus said on Monday that the German
comedian had committed a “crime against humanity” by insulting the Turkish
head of state."

A CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY. ARE YOU JOKING.

This is what we have come to, folks.

------
dotcoma
Never learn a thing from history, Frau Merkel!

------
pmarreck
The speech in question was intentionally provocative/insulting, intentionally
illegal (it was even stated as such prior to it), and was barely satire, if at
all: [http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2016/04/13/a-dirty-
not...](http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2016/04/13/a-dirty-not-
particularly-funny-poem-just-turned-into-an-international-crisis/)

Worst of all, it wasn't even funny, unlike the video that enraged Erdogan last
month.

------
IkmoIkmo
I don't get why people go wild about this. Imagine I sue you for hate speech
against me... does the Chancellor get to decide to throw the case out? No. You
let it go to court. The judge looks at the case and judges, according to, ya
know, the law? Who are you to deny me that case?

If the law is sound, and it is, the case will get thrown out. But it'll be
done by a judge, not by a politician a priori.

It's a very simple separations of power story for me.

Further, the comedian will be protected under free speech laws. Case closed?

------
agounaris
Thats a disgrace for Merkel and Germany! Lets criminalise comedy...

------
CapitalistCartr
Yes, the poen is crass at best. The fight for freedom of speech isn't fought
at Michelangelo's "David", it's at Larry Flynt's "Hustler".

------
ck2
I saw Amanpour interview that Turkish president over his prosecution of
journalists that were exposing him.

He's an insecure little twit isn't he?

------
Jun8
Here's a video montage from _Der Spiegel_ of the the program:
[http://spon.de/vg9uR](http://spon.de/vg9uR). In a typical Jon Stewart fashion
Böhmermann says things and "check" with his "producer" which ones are illegal
to say.

------
nxzero
Appears, though not an expert, that a pardon would be possible, but a pardon
would require a conviction:

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardon](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardon)

------
blubb-fish
The "poem" was insulting - and Germany __has __that law. And with respect to
that it will be a German court which decides upon whether a punishment is
needed. I think that is fine.

------
venomsnake
Once you start paying the Danegeld, you never get rid of the Dane.

It was up to her discretion to allow the prosecution to continue if the
translations § 104a StGB given here are correct. She should have pissed
Erdogan.

------
ralfruns
If you would publish such a "poem" about anybody in Germany, you could be sued
for defamation. Just because you claim it is satire doesn't mean it is
protected speech.

~~~
patall
That is not the point. It was not claimed it is satire, it was claimed by
Boehermann (about 3 times in the one minute of the poem) that this is an
example of what is not allowed in Germany. He even said that this might get
zensored. You cannot take this poem out of context and then judge on it.

------
13of40
"(1) Every person shall have the right freely to express and disseminate his
opinions in speech, writing, and pictures and to inform himself without
hindrance from generally accessible sources. Freedom of the press and freedom
of reporting by means of broadcasts and films shall be guaranteed. There shall
be no censorship."

...but then...

"(2) These rights shall find their limits in the provisions of general laws,
in provisions for the protection of young persons, and in the right to
personal honor."

So it sounds like their constitution is pretty standard on this point: You
have an absolute, indelible right to freedom of speech (unless we decide it's
bad speech).

~~~
Kristine1975
The first articles of the german constitution are an exercise in weasel-
wording: "Human dignity", "moral law", "may only be restricted by a law"...

~~~
germanier
The German constitution needs to be interpreted as a document of its time. It
places "human dignity" (which is purposefully left open to a potentially
changing interpretation) above all other rights which are derived from it.

The constitutional court interprets all basic rights as broad, and all
restrictions which are allowed need be as small as possible while still
keeping the intent of the constitution. Interpreting the constitution is not
an easy task and takes a lot of practice.

~~~
Kristine1975
_> It places "human dignity" (which is purposefully left open to a potentially
changing interpretation) above all other rights which are derived from it._

Which is why marital rape was legal until 1997 /s

 _> The constitutional court interprets all basic rights as broad, and all
restrictions which are allowed need be as small as possible while still
keeping the intent of the constitution._

Not really. Otherwise marijuana would be legal, the paragraph making incest
illegal would have been abolished in 2008, the paragraph criminalizing gay sex
would never have existed etc.

P.S: What's with the seemingly random "You're submitting too fast. Please slow
down. Thanks" message?

~~~
germanier
I don't want to comment on the specific examples. Most of the cited laws don't
fit my personal view of justice.

Obviously there have been and still are some interpretations which are
outlandish. But this is what you get as soon as you start dealing with humans.
Overall, I firmly believe that the constitution even with its flaws is a
powerful document protecting the people.

------
halis
She's a coward, plain and simple. You don't compromise core principles just to
push an agreement through.

------
marcoperaza
No man should be dragged before court in shackles to answer for his mockery of
a politician. How pitiful for a great nation like Germany to be bullied into
this by Erdogan. This is truly a new low, even for Europe's already troubling
record on free speech. Germany desperately needs Turkey to save them from this
migrant crisis, but has no real leverage.

------
tdaltonc
Why does Germany have a law against insulting other countries' heads of state?

~~~
glasz
because we are sheep. nobody cares as long as there's no child porn.

i'm so bloody sick of my fellow gelantinous countrymen.

------
AKifer
Anyway, Putin's Russia is always a safe fallback for that guy.

------
lr4444lr
This is one of those times, despite all of the criticisms people on the other
side of the Atlantic have about us (some of which are perfectly legitimate)
that I am unabashedly proud to be an American, and of our laws and customs.

------
nmbr213
_hums 'Erdowie, Erdowo, Erdogan'_

~~~
iso-8859-1
Aren't you technically just humming Nina then? How does one hum a cover?

------
NietTim
I find this very worrying.

------
jackcosgrove
This is why Germany is still not fully western like the USA, UK, and France.
Too much authoritarian hangover from the lack of a modern revolution.

~~~
patall
Why? Just because we do not believe in this "free speech" thingy and trust our
judicative? If it has been serious defamation, he (Boehmermann) will get a
sentence (which he quite probable won't), if not he will not. Merkel just
states that she should not judge this and upholds the law. And honestly, this
is the best she can do because else the opposition in turkey will be have an
even bigger problem than now, because Erdogan will whine about it forever to
get nationalist support. Boehmermann has nothing to lose here, it is just a
question how much him market value rises. His only problem are dumb turkish
nationalists with their death threads.

------
nikolay
This lady has done such huge harm to Germany and to EU - where's the
democracy? Why is she still in power? Germany, wake up! You're destroying not
just your own country, but EU as a whole as well!

She invited the migrants and so caused the whole migrant crisis. This alone
costs EU billions, forced countries to start building walls, and made it kneel
down before Erdogan! Now, she's doing extra favors to him! Such a disgrace!

~~~
nikolay
[https://www.facebook.com/ALDEgroup/videos/10153893201220020/](https://www.facebook.com/ALDEgroup/videos/10153893201220020/)

