>> Now, that is an interesting interpretation of the rule of law if I have ever seen one!
That isn't an "interpretation of the rule of law", that's a response to the bold statement that "We really need to teach [...] all those companies some manners and respect for our society".
Yes, we can introduce all sorts of stupid laws to make foreign companies do as we please or have them leave. No, we're not "teaching" them "manners and respect" for our society. We killed millions of people, not even a hundred years ago, but now we're the paragons of virtue? Give me a fucking break...
>> Because they do operate in Germany?
Clearly whatever they did was legal in however way they operate "in Germany", or there would have been a German court case.
> Clearly whatever they did was legal in however way they operate "in Germany", or there would have been a German court case.
Actually, what they did was not legal. Not appearing in court when a judge orders you to is not legal. It just so happens that it's not enforcable when the person ordered to appear happens to be in a different country. In order to limit the negative effects of this illegal behaviour, now more of their behaviour has been made illegal in such a way that if they don't follow those rules, it can actually be enforced.
> We killed millions of people, not even a hundred years ago, but now we're the paragons of virtue?
I don't see how this was relevant in any way to the discussion. What happened 100 years ago should of course be considered in discussions and in the law-making process today and it should not be forgotten, so that it will not repeat. But it isn't fair to still judge people born in a country where some of their grand(grand)parents did bad things.
It sounds like your argument is 'people should ignore our laws against hate speech because we're the people who brought about WW2 and the holocaust, so you shouldn't trust us on this stuff.'
Of more simply 'ignore laws that aim at preventing a repeat of a crime because of the commission of that crime.'
I'm not talking about this fantastic new hate-speech law per se, I'm talking about the broader attitude in Germany where we just expect foreign business to gratefully deal with all of our bullshit, because we really are a bunch of narrow-headed cultural hegemonists.
Imagine if Turkey asked Facebook to enforce Article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code. The reaction in Germany would be widespread ridicule, probably by some of the same people that demand this new law enforced because it's German law.
You do understand that one can object to the enforcement of a specific law (whatever country it is from) because one objects to the content of the law without objecting to the idea that souvereign countries can and should generally enforce their laws on everyone who influences what happens within their borders, right?
I'm not talking about this fantastic new hate-speech law per se
Then you should have made your general point at the outset. Surely it's clear that the law applies to people providing services to consumers in Germany.
Imagine if Turkey asked Facebook to enforce Article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code.
In Turkey? OK I guess. I haven't bothered to look up Article 301 or even whether it exists since I presume you're making a rhetorical point.
That isn't an "interpretation of the rule of law", that's a response to the bold statement that "We really need to teach [...] all those companies some manners and respect for our society".
Yes, we can introduce all sorts of stupid laws to make foreign companies do as we please or have them leave. No, we're not "teaching" them "manners and respect" for our society. We killed millions of people, not even a hundred years ago, but now we're the paragons of virtue? Give me a fucking break...
>> Because they do operate in Germany?
Clearly whatever they did was legal in however way they operate "in Germany", or there would have been a German court case.