Washington Post not unbiased either -- Hungary media law

Remove all ads!

No they are not. They do entertainment; they don't engage in political opinion journalism. They want to make money.

As for the rest, LKD has it just right. It is to me inconceivable how someone can be so impervious to the bloody obvious - that what like a duck, sounds like a duck, and poops like a duck, probably is a f*****g duck. As I see it one must be a drooling cretin* to insist in light of such a preponderance of evidence that it is ... probably a plank of wood, and that anyone who claims otherwise must be obsessed, should be ashamed of himself or is with the Hungarian opposition or some other hysterical inanity of the sorts that you so unkindly treated us to.

Spoiler

* a metaphor reflecting the extent to which his elaborations insult the intelligence of even well below average readers.

 

From what I can tell, that about sums it up for me also, LKD. Both sides have been well-fought, although the personal attacks are a bit unnecessary. A classic case of division between popularism and the political process versus Constitutionalism and law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutionalism

 

Double no. This is like the dead parrot skit, with Baronius trying to sell the late parrot, poorly if I may add, as alive and kicking. So either he is a dolt, or he is trying to goldbrick us. Equally likely if you ask me, and not mutually exclusive either.

You know, Hungary's media law only incidentally happens to be the harshest in Europe, in the most polarised country in South-Eastern Europe, where after highly divisive politics of the last decade the right thanks to a monumental blunder of the preceding government got a 2/3 of the seats in parliament and 52% of the vote and that generally experienced a right shift, since Jobbik, which is even righter, got another 16,7% of the vote.

You know, the NHMM is cracking down on Tilos for having played Ice T at the wrong time of the day a couple months ago, and threatens the station with a probably ruinous fine, but the Orbán government doesn't audibly object to people demonstrating (mobilised by Jobbik) in front of the national theatre, calling the director Robert Alfoldi a Jew and homosexual, and demanding he steps down for the crime of renting his theatre to the Romanian Cultural Institute - just as if such talk couldn't influence the development of minors in a negative way. Probably no problem because they brought their torches and pitchforks after 9pm.

Article:

Content recommendations, we had that. But I assure you, it is a plank ... quack, quack ... everything normal in Hungary, nothing to see, move along ...

 

No, you're obsessed because you're still suffering here... trying to prove what? Prove me something? Probably you say no. Then prove to readers? As you can see, they do not consider you (or me) as the teller of the TRUTH. They just acknowledge we both have points. They realized that for me and for Hungarians, theoretically seamless democracy is not a need now; we need a country which finally has some engine in it (while, of course, respecting everyone's rights; as opposed to what the media law and other criticism implies, the basic rights will not be violated here -- don't bother to disprove me, this is the point where we disagree).

To be brief, readers realized that non-Hungarians have a different viewpoint on the matter than Hungarians. This also has to do with the fact that non-Hungarians do not feel the changes directly on their skin (until their government follows Orban's novel approaches too ).

So the question remains, what are you trying to prove? Why do you suffer here "collecting" stuff? Hungary is finally led by Hungarians. You can have your opinion, that's all you can do (maybe you can send a letter to Merkel asking her to be more harsh )

 

Exactly, and you have proven that point, and those connected to it, very well.

This has been the tricky part. As Ragusa pointed out earlier, why the extraconsitutional approach for an issue that should be a matter of simple policy? What protects those individual rights is a Constitution and law, not just the "goodwill" of the ruling party.

 

That is how it works in a "normal" country; but the problem is, even until now, the Constitution and law did not protect properly: elite -- e.g. socialistic -- groups (and not just the top-top elite) were able to abuse it. E.g. in 2006, as I told, certain police officers made aimed shots on civilians that weren't the part of any hooligan group, and someone's eye got permanent damage. The law obviously prohibits such a police violence (or it derives from certain laws, details are not important now). Were the cases investigated? Yes. Were the policemen prosecuted? No, because they had no identifiers during the police operation. (Which is against the law too, but that is what the police did.) And the socialist government said that the police just did their job, and said that all protesters were hooligans (hell, there were peaceful grandparents with grandchildren, and moms with children). This was just an example that while in your country, it is not typical that someone is above the law (at least without consequences), here it has been "normal", unfortunately. So while Orban's party is implementing serious changes now legally, the Socialists did a lot of illegal or illegitim things (e.g. forging the numbers of the budget and lying to the country and to the European Union; stealing or hijacking a LOT of European Union money that was given to Hungary for precisely specified purposes, etc.).

I agree that it's critically important that the application of a law does not depend on the goodwill of those who interpret and execute it, but if that is a temporaryl sacrifice Hungary must undertake now TO CATCH WIND TO START THE SHIP, so be it. Yes, some people can worry if it stays "temporary" or not -- and I say: Hungary must take the risk for the time being. Or nothing will ever change here. Those who are clever from foreign countries when criticizing Orban will not feel on their own skin the changes of Hungary; but for the citizens whose everyday life is influenced, much is at stake.

About Orban's party stabilizing its power (and trying to extend it), that is what every party tries to do in every democratic country too, via CONSTITUTIONAL tools. The current (old) version of the HU constitution ALLOWS this, Orban and his party did not do anything that the Hungarian Constitution and law does not allow. Even in the USA, whenever the governing party could extend its power in various positions, it obviously tries to do so (possibly behind the scenes, so people doesn't hear much from it). There is nothing wrong when a party tries to extend its power (in time too) in various positions via CONSTITUTIONAL ways. And in Hungary, where 2/3 allows you to do a lot of things (even to change the constitution), I say that it's completely fine Orban makes a stricter control for the time being. Hungary became the land of cheat and swindling recently. Hungarians rather want a stronger control than the cheat that was here. Hard work did not have a value here. Cheat, on the other hand, was greatly tolerated by the socialist government (no wonder, they also cheated a lot).

To be brief: because the simple policy either wouldn't work or wouldn't be efficient (and if it's not efficient, Hungary will stay in the condition of catastrophic economy for ages).

---------- Added 12 hours, 59 minutes and 1 seconds later... ----------

Here is a photo to the "fans" (particularly recommended to Ragusa master) of Orbán Viktor giving a hand kiss to the U.S. Ambassador

 

A (solved) riddle for everyone:

Anyone wondering why the German and French government seem to be the loudest while Italy, Spain, United Kingdom and several others are pratically silent about the media law? Yeah, even UK, I'm talking of governments now, not some newspapers and journalist organizations.

Hint: extra taxes (and a few other cases, e.g. Alstom)
Solution:
- Germany/Austria: Aegon NV, Allianz SE, ING Group NV, RWE AG, EnBW AG, E.ON AG, Deutsche Telekom AG, OMV AG, ...
- France: Suez, Alstom, AXA and some others
If you don't believe, I suggest to make a simple calculation how much tax the above companies, and how much the rest (Spanish, Italian, British, ...) will pay. The ratio of the first group to the second will be high, I can promise.

Moreover, the most significant part of the tax will be paid by German companies...

...so Germans are furious to Hungary: they will lose immensely much money because of Viktor Orbán.

...And thus probably the general atmosphere in Germany is not so good regarding Hungary: Ragusa is the living example to this; his emotional obsession to "collect" stuff to prove how antisemitic, racist and dictatoric Orbán's government is. (Perhaps directly affected? Maybe he is a lawyer of Deutche Telekom and there won't be a wage increase or premium this year... )

 

Riight. The thing with the banks is all there is objectionable about Hungary. And it is the sole motive for foreign governments criticising Orbán. It is an international big money conspiracy by bankers against Orbán. You rely on mono causal explanations. It is quite unsurprising that as a result of such limited input the result of your tormented efforts is crap.

And then, you know, I have a hunch that Orbán will teach anybody about being stupid enough to invest in Hungary.

You remember that the Hungarian constitutional court ruled that (decision Nr. 1268/B/2010 from 26.10.2010) the retroactive special 92% tax they levelled on executive compensations is unconstitutional? Normally one would expect a government to then go and adjust their law so it is constitutional. Orbán did the opposite. He had his party modify the constitution and withdraw jurisdiction for such matters from the disobedient Supreme Court. Cynically Fidecz majority leader János Lázár argued that Hungary as a state under the rule of law had matured to an extent that it doesn't need such a broad role for the supreme court any more. Riight. Ooobviously.

That is emblematic for the approach Orbán has taken. The new taxes on foreign businesses are very probably unconstitutionally as well, but the Supreme Court cannot rule on that any more because it has been deprived of jurisdiction. Whatever happened to rule of law, freedom of property - there is now no longer a legal avenue to challenge the constitutionality of tax laws in Hungary. About time! The will of the people wills it so!

This will end up in the European Court and when it does, Hungary will lose, and it will not be because the French and the Germans lobby and conspire against dear leader but simply because his laws are in part very probably against European law. Considering that Orbán only wants to tax foreign banks and companies only, what I have in mind is this:

Spoiler

Article 65 (ex Article 58 TEC)

1. The provisions of Article 63 shall be without prejudice to the right of Member States:
(a) to apply the relevant provisions of their tax law which distinguish between taxpayers who are not in the same situation with regard to their place of residence or with regard to the place where their capital is invested;
(b) to take all requisite measures to prevent infringements of national law and regulations, in particular in the field of taxation and the prudential supervision of financial institutions, or to lay down procedures for the declaration of capital movements for purposes of administrative or statistical information, or to take measures which are justified on grounds of public policy or public security.
2. The provisions of this Chapter shall be without prejudice to the applicability of restrictions on the right of establishment which are compatible with the Treaties.
3. The measures and procedures referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall not constitute a means of arbitrary discrimination or a disguised restriction on the free movement of capital and payments as defined in Article 63.

Germany and France have a beef with Orbán not because of all the money French and German companies have in Hungary, but because Orbán is trying to finance his policies at their expense, and that in probable defiance of EU law (and probably Hungarian law as well, but alas, without a judge, no verdict on that ...). They expect Hungary to stand to its treaty obligations. Since the EU presidency (held by Hungary) sets the agenda we are not going to hear anything about that for the next three months, but that is just a postponement.

Another point, some people in Europe take seriously the other provisions in the EU treaties in general, for instance the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union:

Spoiler

Article 11 - Freedom of expression and information

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.
2. The freedom and pluralism of the media shall be respected.
...
Article 17 - Right to property

1. Everyone has the right to own, use, dispose of and bequeath his or her lawfully acquired possessions. No one may be deprived of his or her possessions, except in the public interest and in the cases and under the conditions provided for by law, subject to fair compensation being paid in good time for their loss. The use of property may be regulated by law in so far as is necessary for the general interest.

The outrage about Hungary's censorship law? All about money, no doubt.

 

You aren't just a lawyer who FIRST criticizes laws and THEN checks their exact text and wording, but you are also very very naive. Yeah, the biggest reason of the huge size of attacks is money, indeed. One day you will understand that money and interests control all these things, not your 100% "lawful" (= apparently-universally-objective, but actually subjective) approaches. You don't have any practical experience in international business, do you? Just following the world from behind the desk of a lawyer.

Fidesz
(as I already pointed out earlier)

98

You wanna bet in, say, 5000 EUR? I win if Hungary doesn't lose or the case even doesn't end up in the European Court. (You can suspect I know some things that you don't. I wonder if you dare to blindly take on such a bet. )

 

Ragusa, I have a question. Now, I'm not trying to equate the two things by any means, but your mention of Article 11 makes me wonder how exactly Germany goes about banning Nazi stuff. I mean, that would seem to go against free expression.

Now, of course, all rights have their limits. In the US, there's no ban against Nazis, but 'speech' must be qualified as something having a certain level of value or more, and not likely to endanger anyone's life, to be protected. But I'm wondering what those limits are in the EU to allow such a ban on Naziism, and whether Hungary could use that standard to defend their law. Any thoughts?

 

Hungary's critics are too quick to judge, by Viktor Orbán, Financial Times

Some pictures from the sh** (reality show) that will hopefully be fined to at least a few tens of millions of Hungarian Forints and will hopefully get darkening too (there were always hundreds of citizen complaints against this programme). Yeah, I don't want children may even accidently watch this useless ****. (Note: asterisks were added by me originally, not the SP filter.)

 

NOG,
holocaust denial is not protected free speech. Not to mention that it is factually false, it is justification of a dictatorship by denying its crimes. Our constitution is a response to and rejection of all that. Holocaust denial is an attack on the current constitutional order and thus not acceptable.

Our constitution has teeth to prevent the enemies of the constitution from abolishing it by using the means of freedom of speech to the end of abolishing the very constitution that grants it to them. We didn't have that under the Weimar constitution, when Nazis and Commies alike exercised the right to free speech, rampaging on the streets, calling for the abolition of the republic. It didn't work out so well.

The same cannot be said about criticism along the lines 'Orbán sucks because his laws suck'. That's just an inconvenience that Orbán and his fan boys here have decided is unpalatable to them, after all they have a revolutionary mandate now, if one asks them.

You see, Hungary as a state under the rule of law has under dear leader's firm hand and wise guidance matured to an extent that it doesn't need opposition, or oversight of a supreme court any more, after all, as true revolutionaries they embody the will of the people.

Typo. And this: You're aware you're not helping your case, are you? Strike that, of course you are not.

 

Don't you feel a double standard here, NOG? Don't these words just sound... weird (considering that, on the other hand, Ragusa doesn't accept Hungary's right to make a strict media law):

It's a double standard. What can be done regarding the Holocaust denial cannot be done by the media law of a democratically chosen 2/3 majority of the Hungarian goverment?

On a side note, Holocaust Denial is a crime in Hungary as well, just like in Germany. This is not true to many other European countries. (As we could see, Ragusa -- with his terrible incompetence -- even tried to imply in a previous post that Orbán cooperates with antisemitic groups etc. If that was so, how come that the law about Holocaust Denial as a crime was not changed/removed by Orbán's 2/3 majority? Obviously, Ragusa tried to imply a lie.)

 

No it's not weird, it just requires some thinking. And context. In particular the following sentence.

 

Not that it can't be understood... it's weird from your mouth.

Are you at work now? Lunch break is over, get to work! Posting in the Hungary media law topic will decrease your daily productivity. And worse, the obsession and strain you seem to have even may reduce your efficiency.

 

I have always time for the stupid, deranged and confused, and you. It's the fascination of the incomprehensible I guess.

 

Two points to those who still follow this topic:

1. Ragusa is proving his total incompetence and amateurism here:

He read it somwhere and believed exactly as it is. THE TRUTH (which I haven't told until now, hoping that perhaps Ragusa learns more about Hungary in the meantime ): the investigation of the case of playing the Ice-T song in question by radio Tilos is BASED ON THE PREVIOUS MEDIA LAW.

Consequently, the Ice-T case was not the application of the new media law at all. The previous law already stated that such songs cannot be broadcasted before 9 PM.

Nice job, Ragusa! Directly believing everything what you read in the press. Congrats, my lawyer friend!

2.

It seems I wasn't the only one who said that the practice shows how a law truly will work (and I'm not even a lawyer). Same is told by the President of the European People's Party (to those who don't know: this the biggest party in the European Parliament):

 

Oh dear, Ragusa. I'm afraid you loose - Baronuis found an entire two typos in one post! That's strike three, I fear. These typos clearly show that your points are invalid, because you are a lawyer after all.

 

You know, you are really laughable, Rotku. When I pointed out why Ragusa IMO looks like a bad lawyer, and he is generally amateur, I indeed offered multiple proofs (e.g. that he criticizes a law based on what he read in press, and didn't check its TEXT; about amateurism: he said the Ice-T song was sanctioned according to the new media law, when actually the previous law was applied... etc. etc. etc.) It's miserable that you try to misrepresent by points (or simply to use irony). Those were corrections, yes, nowhere I implied they are major ones or characterize Ragusa. Shame on you.

 

I understand Holocaust denial, since it's factually inaccurate on top of the rest. We do have slander laws, after all. It was more the general Nazi ideology I was curious about. It looks like the rest of your post on the matter can be applied to that, but correct me if my assumption is wrong.

So it's illegal to criticize the constitution? Or particular parts of it? Or to advocate it's change, or it's complete overthrow, or what? I'm not asking about the justification behind it, but about the mechanism. How does the law distinguish between the Nazi ideology and, for example, someone that want's to legitimately change how the voting process works because they don't think it adequately represents people group X? I'm hoping that the system is still set up to be flexible and allow for change to a certain extent.