Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ###

On 22/05/2024 17:15, James Kuyper wrote:

On 5/21/24 12:10, immibis wrote:

On 21/05/24 17:48, James Kuyper wrote:

It also doesn't apply outside the legal system. If you actually
witnessed a crime, you're not required to pretend that the perpetrator
is innocent, and if you've witnessed something exonerating, you're not
required to accept the decision of a court that incorrectly found
someone guilty.

>
In Germany you may be required to. ...

 No one can force you to believe that the court was correct in its
decision. They may prohibit you from expressing that opinion, but they
can't prevent you from holding it.
 

... Implying that someone committed a
crime which a court found them innocent of may be considered defamation
or insult.

 That's ridiculous - one of the most important purposes of freedom of
speech is to be able hold government officials accountable for failing
to do their job correctly.

Court authorities (judges) are not government officials.  Courts should hold government officials accountable, while like all national bodies the courts should be answerable to relevant government departments.  And governments should be answerable to the electorate.
There's only three national systems that I can claim to know anything about (and I don't claim to be remotely expert on any of them) - Norway, the UK (including the partially autonomous Scotland) and the USA.  It is easy to find aspects of all of these that are clearly contrary to basic democratic principles and common sense for a modern, free and open democratic society.  (And that's assuming everything is working as intended, disregarding inefficiencies, lack of resources, loopholes, corruption, or other abuse that invariably makes things worse.)  I would not expect Germany or anywhere else to be different in this way.
But no matter what rules are in place, any choice of freedoms is always a balance.  One person's freedom to criticise a court decision, or to call someone a criminal when a court found them innocent, will always be at odds to another person's right to a life free from such accusations.
I don't know the details of German law, and I don't know if I would agree with the balance it has picked here - but I do know that different countries make different trade-offs in such cases and that no one has a monopoly on the "right" choices.  (But everyone is free to their opinion on such choices.)