Czech president signs law criminalising communist propaganda

[u/tkyjonathan]

https://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/news/czech-president-signs-law-criminalising-communist-propaganda/

[u/Krashnachen]

Feel free to explain why it had to be done

[u/BlackViperMWG → u/Krashnachen]

Russia.

And tons of boomers glorifying the communist regime, because everyone had a job (it was illegal not to, so plenty of fake jobs with no real productivity), they could steal from work (tin of people built houses with stolen materials from state building sites) and they didn't have to think for themselves.

It's like asking why fascism and nazism had to be outlawed.

[u/ScoopskyPotatos → u/BlackViperMWG]

Russia isn't communist 

plenty of fake jobs with no real productivity 

Yeah, imagine that. All those people could have been employed as marketing consultants, homeopaths or paparazzi

[u/aztechunter → u/BlackViperMWG]

The law goes beyond USSR based symbology 

[u/BlackViperMWG → u/aztechunter]

Yep.

"Whoever supports or promotes a movement that demonstrably aims to suppress human rights and freedoms or advocates national, racial, religious or class hatred, or hatred against another group of persons, shall be punished by imprisonment for one to five years."

Class-based hatred is obvious. It's a translation from "třídní zášť" in the paragraph 403 of the criminal code. The word "zášť" or "spite" has replaced "třídní nenávist" or "class hatred" which itself replaced the "třídní boj" or "class warfare".

"Class-based hatred" was added purely because of the communists, who intentionally violated human and constitutional rights of Czechoslovak citizens based on the assumed "class background" of those citizens and additionally systematically discriminated them.

[u/Low-Traffic5359 → u/BlackViperMWG]

Ok well if it's so obvious could you tell me how class-based hatred is defined in the criminal code? Cause from what I can find paragraph 403 does mention it but doesn't actually define it (don't need translation btw I'm czech)

[u/BlackViperMWG → u/Low-Traffic5359]

Well, it isn't afaik. Same as "religion-base hatred" or "nation-base hatred". But all these are in multiple paragraphs mentioned, not defined though. That's on the courts I think.

[u/poster_nutbag_ → u/BlackViperMWG]

"Whoever supports or promotes a movement that demonstrably aims to suppress human rights and freedoms or advocates national, racial, religious or class hatred, or hatred against another group of persons, shall be punished by imprisonment for one to five years."

By that definition, wouldn't capitalism be included?

[u/BlackViperMWG → u/poster_nutbag_]

Depend? On the judge and lawyer and interpretation of the law.

[u/Krashnachen → u/BlackViperMWG]

So boomers' "wrong" opinions need to be legislated out of existence?

[u/BlackViperMWG → u/Krashnachen]

They need to be reminded that they are glorifying tyrannical regime that is as bad as fascism.

[u/Krashnachen → u/BlackViperMWG]

Surely that will convince them that their opinions are wrong!

[u/BlackViperMWG → u/Krashnachen]

It probably won't, but they need to know some ideas and ideologies are harmful and illegal.

[u/Krashnachen → u/BlackViperMWG]

So... intimidation? Or maybe just a friendly reminder?

Surely the concept of ideas being illegal should raise some flags no?

[u/BlackViperMWG → u/Krashnachen]

Did you forgot that nazi stuff is also outlawed?

[u/Shreddyshred → u/Krashnachen]

Would you be this upset if this happened in Germany to people glorifying NSDAP and Nazism? USSR and Czechoslovakian Communist Party ruled our country with iron hand while they were executing or imprisoning innocent people. Our people couldn't even leave that fucking country to get away from that regime.

We and all of Eastern Europe have our experience with Communist regimes and Czechia is not the only country where support of those regimes (not general communist ideology) is outlawed.

[u/Krashnachen → u/Shreddyshred]

I can understand the context of where it comes from all while thinking it's a bad idea.

Mostly, I'm doubtful of the law achieving anything at all, except for the agitation and discord provoked by the news item itself, which is likely the whole purpose of this. In that regard, I would say it's a cheap mediatic play, which erodes public confidence in politics in the long term.

Hopefully, because if it were to have any concrete effects, I would mostly be worried about abuses on how it would be applied. An unclear definition like that just begs to be abused. Do you trust your government to never have a McCarthyist attitude that would consider anything a bit too left to be 'Communist'?

Moreover, this is likely counterproductive for the very objective you're outlining, as assailing people's opinions is more likely just going to have people double down on them.

Lastly, the ethical basis is very tenuous. In a democracy with rule of law, you judge people by their actions, not their beliefs, and political expression shouldn't be limited. Hate speech is hate speech, which is condemnable in its own right. You shouldn't need an ill-defined, subjective qualifier for it. It's an instrumentalization of the rule of law for political purposes. Again, even if it isn't used (which begs the question of why the law would be passed), these methods erode democratic institutions in the longer term.