336
Free Speech Crackdown: Germany Deports Bob Vylan Frontman for Anti-Israel Chants (theintercept.com)
submitted 3 months ago by to c/aboringdystopia@lemmy.world
54 comments fedilink hide all child comments
✊ 1 👏 1
 

The frontman of British punk rap band Bob Vylan was denied entry to Germany, detained at the Berlin airport, and ultimately deported to the United Kingdom last month due to his pro-Palestine statements.

German federal police justified deporting the band’s vocalist on June 15, referencing a performance at the Glastonbury Festival in England in 2025 where Bob Vylan led a chant of “Death, death to the IDF,” or the Israel Defense Forces.

A police file on Robinson-Foster obtained by The Intercept alleges that he disseminated antisemitic narratives and Hamas propaganda that could “radicalise certain segments of the [German] population” and serve as “ideological justification” for terrorist groups or individuals. It also says that Robinson-Foster poses a threat to Germany’s public security and public order. Allowing him into the country would cause “considerable reputational damage” by creating the impression that Germany was making “no effort to prevent the spread of the propagated antisemitism and the associated calls to violence.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 14 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (11 children)

Alright I'll bite. First of all, no one gives a fuck about what Andrew Tate has to say. He's documented raping and facilitating the rape of children.

Edit: no one is acting on laws based on Andrew tates words, he would be stopped, hopefully, because he is a danger to children

That said, although it's normal for countries to do it, that doesn't make it right.

I'm not here to say this specific case is right or wrong, but this reasoning falls short.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [+] -13 points 3 months ago (8 children)

    I see it like this:

    This musician: Hello, I'm a foreign citizen. Can I enter you country to spread this message among your citizens?

    Germany: No.

    I think it would be completely fine to block manosphere influencers, antivaxers, holocaust deniers and white supremacists from entering like that so I have to agree that stopping pro-Palestinian activists is also fine. It's part of the governments policy, not some fundamental right. If Germans disagree with this policy they can elect different government.

    It's different for German citizens, they do have the right to talk about anything they want. Foreigners don't simply have some fundamental right to enter Germany as they wish. Not sure about EU citizens but here we're talking about UK.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 22 points 3 months ago

    I think it would be completely fine to block manosphere influencers, antivaxers, holocaust deniers and white supremacists from entering like that so I have to agree that stopping pro-Palestinian activists is also fine.

    One of these is not like the others - grow some fucking morals.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (6 children)

    Yeah I guess that's where we differ. Aside from immediate danger and schotastic terrorism, free speech should reign.

    All of those people can absolutely go fuck themselves and drown in cold tar, but once you start to accept censorship, you're going to lose.

    Side note, that musician or any person for that matter will never come close to what the Internet already spreads. It's theatre.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [+] -8 points 3 months ago (5 children)

    I'm sure philosophers argued about this many times already. Personally I don't think we need to allow people to spread misinformation in order to 'win'. For example we're constantly flooded by anti-EU propaganda from Russia that is actually moving a lot of people to support the far right but we shouldn't do anything to address it because 'free speech'. I don't buy it. It's just a 'slippery slope' type argument. I think we're perfectly capable of limiting harmful content without losing all freedoms. And we should. Obviously simply letting government decide what citizens can and cannot say publicly would be terrible but I'm completely fine with them not letting all the foreigners enter EU and say whatever they want.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 12 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (4 children)

    Obviously simply letting government decide what citizens can and cannot say publicly would be terrible

    but I'm completely fine with them not letting all the foreigners enter EU and say whatever they want.

    These are the same thing.

    I think what you're looking for is better education. It's the only way shit like this gets better. Ban it? People get upset and allow fascism. Allow it? Fascism.

    The only way fascism takes root is with people that aren't educated about it. It's why the far right bans and burns books, or in my case in the US they have been defunding education for decades.

    Blanket bans or arbitrarily allowing or denying people entry is not a solution.

    Side note, I do appreciate you talking this out

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [+] -8 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    No, foreigners are not citizens. You're an absolutists that see any, even the smallest, limit to any right as equally bad. I think some limits are OK and they don't mean we lose that rights. We don't have to let foreign agents spread propaganda in our countries to protect free speech of our citizens. Sure, the government gets to decide who's the foreign agent and what's considered propaganda but I'm fine with that. I think long term limits like that actually help us preserve democracy and protect us from oppression, not lead to it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 3 months ago* (1 child)

    Especially in cases where people try to bring attention to genocide in Palestine?

    And what is the difference between citizen speech and foreigner speech?

    Really, define that line.

    Edit: and also, no absolutist, I've defined what I think is acceptable carveouts. We can define further, and I'd be all for that, but just denying people speech because you disagree is never the answer, especially when it's about what this case is about.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] -4 points 3 months ago

    Especially in cases where people try to bring attention to genocide in Palestine?

    Why especially? Sadly also in cases like that, yes. German people are perfectly aware of their government stance on Palestine. If they want to see foreign, pro-Palestinian artists they have to elect different government. Blocking foreign artists does not endanger the right of Germans to vote in free elections. I mean, some people will say that it does but that's extreme view I disagree with.

    And what is the difference between citizen speech and foreigner speech?

    I already explained. Foreigners don't have a fundamental right to enter any country they want. You have visas and many rules around immigration. The government can decide not to let someone in if they think their presence is not beneficial. That's based on current policy, not rights. Policies are set by current government. Rights are guaranteed by the constitution. In a democracy people elect a government and it sets policy within the constraints of the constitution. Changing constitution is more difficult. In my opinion this is system working as intended. If majority of people in the country doesn't wont pro-Palestinian artists to perform in their country they can elect government that will ban them. As you pointed out, it will have little effect in practice. Banning citizens from talking about something is way more dangerous because it can have real impact. That's why it's protected by the constitution.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent