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

In article <v2l27f$17rb6$1@dont-email.me>,
James Kuyper  <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> 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.

They're working on it.  Thought control is just around the next corner.

... 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.

As immibis stated, they don't *have* "freedom of speech" in Germany.  And for
good reason - look what they did with it the last time they had it.

And your assuming that they do, falls under the category that I noted in an
earlier post - that people like you (and Davy) are making the classical
American mistake of assuming that what may be true here is true/applicable
everywhere.

--
The randomly chosen signature file that would have appeared here is more than 4
lines long.  As such, it violates one or more Usenet RFCs.  In order to remain
in compliance with said RFCs, the actual sig can be found at the following URL:
http://user.xmission.com/~gazelle/Sigs/ModernXtian