![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Nothing is clearly illegal, not even for 115 years old judges. They need 3 years of research for almost everything, so this is just a fascist claim to legalise something massively illegal to the Grundgesetz freespeech paragraph — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:DC:CF37:1500:25D7:A913:D965:B70D ( talk) 14:16, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
I've just translated it 1to1 from German. If you have time, please help me with adding the sources.-- APS talk 12:46, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
There are 3 sections with criticism. Zezen ( talk) 06:05, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
There is an article in The Economist that might be worth using. January 13th 2018, "Freedom and its discontents," pp. 21~22 (no author given). Kdammers ( talk) 13:45, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
This article is very one sided.
You clearly get a very bad opinion over the NetzDG by reading it.
Violating human rights....
Tbh. I question the intellect of someone who says that.
Hence I think there should be other opinions as well to balance the article. Grgurel ( talk) 11:08, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Dear Wikipedians,
This article includes various harsh criticism of this Act which are unsourced. Even if they are sourced, they would, in their current form, push a strong POV against this Act as there is a lack of an opposing viewpoint in support of the law. I have removed the following criticisms. Please note that the burden to demonstrating verifiability lies with the editor who adds the material as per WP:PROVEIT. I believe these criticisms should not be restored until they are cited, and from the talk page, it seems they have been left as-is for over a year. Harry585 ( talk) 01:16, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Nothing is clearly illegal, not even for 115 years old judges. They need 3 years of research for almost everything, so this is just a fascist claim to legalise something massively illegal to the Grundgesetz freespeech paragraph — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:DC:CF37:1500:25D7:A913:D965:B70D ( talk) 14:16, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
I've just translated it 1to1 from German. If you have time, please help me with adding the sources.-- APS talk 12:46, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
There are 3 sections with criticism. Zezen ( talk) 06:05, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
There is an article in The Economist that might be worth using. January 13th 2018, "Freedom and its discontents," pp. 21~22 (no author given). Kdammers ( talk) 13:45, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
This article is very one sided.
You clearly get a very bad opinion over the NetzDG by reading it.
Violating human rights....
Tbh. I question the intellect of someone who says that.
Hence I think there should be other opinions as well to balance the article. Grgurel ( talk) 11:08, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Dear Wikipedians,
This article includes various harsh criticism of this Act which are unsourced. Even if they are sourced, they would, in their current form, push a strong POV against this Act as there is a lack of an opposing viewpoint in support of the law. I have removed the following criticisms. Please note that the burden to demonstrating verifiability lies with the editor who adds the material as per WP:PROVEIT. I believe these criticisms should not be restored until they are cited, and from the talk page, it seems they have been left as-is for over a year. Harry585 ( talk) 01:16, 6 January 2022 (UTC)