The US electoral system with its primaries is complex from a European perspective. Even more difficult to understand is the income of the Republican Trump. If you ask the followers of the currently leading Republican US presidential candidates what they admire about him, then falls almost inevitably the sentence: “He says what others do not dare.” (And no, I will not mention the name of the candidate and certainly not link – for hygienic reasons).
In similar form this admiration seems to be true for the choice of words of the leader of a new political movement that seems apparently to undermine the brink of general decency in Germany. This statement “says what others do not dare to say,” is from the perspective of her utter ends first, of course easy to translate: “… (XYZ) says what I have not yet dared to say.” And implies is thus : XYZ is a (n) fighters (in) for my freedom. And fighters for freedom of expression are still real heroes, right?
Short and full answer: Yes! People have for freedom of speech (not the same as now read on Wikipedia) their lives and more often risked their freedom and integrity.
The freedom to have their own opinion and they can also say this openly, is anchored in the US, for example, as the highest constitutional law (First Amendment); in Germany it is guaranteed by Article 5 of the Basic Law. And rights are not claimed or voluntarily given up, wither and fall apart quickly. But that does not automatically every person who expresses what it comes to mind, for freedom fighters. Firstly, the use is one – fought by others – Right not automatically a struggle for the right itself.
But in this particular case I would still insist that the narrators have the right (even if they have not won). The question is: why these things were spoken before? First, I would doubt this “suppression” times: All the xenophobic, the simplistic-Populist what the popular Pöbler (no, I call continue no name, still put no link!
One must have lived in the past six months on another planet to not knowing at least, who I’m talking – but a look in the newspaper is enough to make this catch) recently passed in mass events by itself, had long been the airspace conquered over the pub, was issued and given the nod as truth among peers.
The complaining as missing courage to do so also in the larger circle, had come not through fear of persecution or lost consequences – at least not before serious consequences – but more likely by the fact that the so speaker very exactly the bigotry were aware that they thus contributed to the review.
What they admire in these political Hetzrednern, is that they no longer have themselves to say what they thought a long time, and what they might previously at least a little ashamed. Now you can connect a “opinion” is simple – it is the “freedom” of followers inside.
But perhaps they should do first time realized that not everything that is said is also worth to be told. That sometimes there are good reasons not to keep a statement automatically good just because it was made at all. It cannot be a coincidence that I am just stumbled across this article in the Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences: Pathological Joking or witzelsucht Revisited. And no, “witzelsucht” is not a premature April fool’s – it’s a real pathological condition caused by organic damage to the frontal lobe. Not that I assume the here continue unnamed politicians that they have pathologically recordable brain damage. Their motives are probably much simpler and superficial (and here is a hint of what might lie at least in the German species of these populists behind); but it helps sometimes to keep in mind that not everything that comes from a mouth – and no matter how many cameras to capture it – an opinion. Sometimes it’s just garbage that needs to get out. And should therefore be ideally stored on the garbage heap.