Die Verfassung von Saudi Arabien (German Edition)

NetzDG and ‘hate speech’

And, in practice, blunders also followed. The House of Saud lost its lethal regime-change drive in Syria and is bogged down in an unwinnable war on Yemen, which on top of it prevents MBS from exploiting the Empty Quarter — the desert straddling both nations. The Saudi Treasury was forced to borrow on the international markets. Theoretically, it was shift away from oil; selling off part of Aramco; and an attempt to bring in new industries.

1. .
2. Erreichen die Vereinten Nationen durch die Strategie der Penetration eine Verbesserung der Menschenrechtslage? Südafrika und Uruguay (German Edition)!
3. Sexonomics;
4. The inside story of the Saudi night of long knives!
5. .
6. A Wing and a Prayer;

Cooling off dissatisfaction was covered by royal payoffs to key princes to stay loyal and retroactive payments on back wages to the unruly masses. Yet Vision cannot possibly work when the majority of productive jobs in Saudi Arabia are held by expats. Bringing in new jobs raises the question of where are the new skilled workers to come from.

Nayef — who replaced Bandar — is close to Washington and extremely popular in Langley due to his counter-terrorism activities. His arrest earlier this year angered the CIA and quite a few factions of the House of Saud — as it was interpreted as MBS forcing his hand in the power struggle. The CIA regards him as totally worthless.

Some sort of stability could eventually be found in a return to the previous power sharing between the Sudairis without MBS and the Chamars the tribe of deceased King Abdullah.

Many exciting things are already planned for next week on Verfassungsblog. In cooperation with the Asser Institute in The Hague, we will host an online symposium we are quite excited about, on the role and position of constitutional courts in counter-terrorism cases. All the best, and a successful week to you!

Den Mittelteil noch einmal bitte. Anscheinend geht es bei der rule of law nicht um die Rechte, die der Togolese aus Art. Sondern genau um welche Rechte? I see your point. On the Right to be Forgotten and the Right to be for myself. Must have to do with the rule of law… And why are Africans resisting a deportation in Ellwangen a threat to the rule of law? Or… These are all terribly difficult questions.

We welcome your comments but you do so as our guest. Please note that we will exercise our property rights to make sure that Verfassungsblog remains a safe and attractive place for everyone.

• The statute in a nutshell.
• Before Their Time;
• Ruined Lives!
• NÄCHSTE TERMINE!

We expect comments to be matter-of-fact, on-topic and free of sarcasm, innuendo and ad personam arguments. Racist, sexist and otherwise discriminatory comments will be deleted. Comments under pseudonym are allowed but a valid email address is obligatory. In case of doubt comments will be published after an email to the stated address has been answered. The use of more than one pseudonym is not allowed. Against this backdrop, it is difficult to sustain an argument that the potential for unintended side effects of NetzDG are a unique or would as such suffice to find it unconstitutional.

Social media platforms are hardly a free speech paradise: Overall, the NetzDG might after all form part of a civilizing influence on online debate, instead of having a one-sided chilling effect on freedom of expression. The fact that to date social media and online interaction more generally, has created a space for a significantly more laissez faire approach to expression is neither here nor there on the question of constitutionality.

The obligations to delete illegal content are based on well-establish limits to freedom of expression, to which NetzDG chiefly adds a more robust enforcement mechanism. The constitutionality of NetzDG may to a considerable extent rest on an evaluation of the complaints management infrastructure that social media operators develop.

Should it consistently, and inevitably, lead to a chilling effect on freedom of expression, then the argument for unconstitutionality grows stronger, but is in my view by no means straight-forward. Conversely, the Federal Constitutional Court would be less likely to take issue with this novel regulatory approach if the deletion of legal content is limited to individual, non-systematic mistakes.

🏆5-0! RUSSIA vs SAUDI ARABIA🏆 (World Cup 2018 Parody Goals Highlights)

Ultimately, the goal must be to limit the divide between the online and offline world as far as possible: I am not following here. The view that a suppression of "loud and radical" voices could be a legitimate goal of limitations on freedom of expression was categorically rejected by the Federal Constitutional Court in its Wunsiedel judgment. Similarly, the ECtHR has regularly held that freedom of expression also applies to views that "offend, shock or disturb the State or any sector of the population". Unless I am misunderstanding this and something else entirely is implied, the goal of shaping public discourse is not a permissible goal of limitations on freedom of expression.

While this obviously does not make other rationales impossible, I do not think that this particular dog is going to hunt.

A Hymn to the Rechtsstaat

Also, I would question that the fact that social media are "hardly a free speech paradise" can be made into an argument to allow the state to deputize them for purposes that the state itself could not pursue. By that token, most any restriction on freedom of speech could be legitimized by the simple expedient of putting the onus of enforcement on private actors. The main problem here is that any single private actor cannot effectively censor anything, due to competition with other private actors; but the state is not limited in such a fashion, as the universality of laws prevents competition in the marketplace of ideas to be an effective escape hatch from potential censorship.

Thanks for engaging with my piece and for your thoughtful comments, Katja. A few quick rejoinders, if you will indulge me:. Wunsiedel rejected the suppression of loud and radical, but legal expression the same goes for the ECtHR rulings.

What counts and what doesn’t

So it does not really touch on my argument, unless and to the extent that you argue that 'overblocking' will occur. In that case however, I would humbly ask you to show me the evidence of that. This in turn makes the limited attempt of NetzDG to enforce German criminal law online seem far less problematic. Private actors are not asked to delete legal content, only to live up to their existing legal obligations to delete: I do not think that is deputizing them in an effort to suppress expression in any real sense, nor do I think it falls under the definition of censorship.

Human Dignity and Constitutional Identity: Is the Crime in the Eye of the Beholder? The statute in a nutshell The NetzDG provides compliance regulations for social media platform operators with at least two million users within Germany. An assault on freedom of expression?



A limited free speech environment The argument is that freedom of expression does not necessarily equate to a right to access to any specific means of expression. Conclusion Overall, the NetzDG might after all form part of a civilizing influence on online debate, instead of having a one-sided chilling effect on freedom of expression. A Risk Worth Taking? A few quick rejoinders, if you will indulge me: We welcome your comments but you do so as our guest.