Post #4423013

@jonah@mastodon.neat.computer There is one I (somewhat) agree with, regarding Section 86a and the political insult law (…) I don't think there is a need for me to comment on that, as everything I've stated is largely unaffected by this and still truthful. I appreciate your take on this though, I think it further clarifies the situation. Your other notes are largely semantics or stretches which I do not believe affect the facts or meaning of the story we shared in that episode. I think my analysis was very fair and strictly objective. I intentionally put my personal opinion on this matter in its own section. But since you haven't provided any specifics, I will point you to what I have already stated in my original post. As always, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but there is not much I can do if you disagree with what I perceive as facts based on the sources provided. In particular, your "fact check" regarding the UN does not negate what we or the article stated. The fact that Irene Khan's findings/report are not the official position of the UN does not change the fact that the investigation itself was performed under the UN's mandate by a UN appointed expert, constituting a UN investigation. According to the provided in the link: Let me begin by thanking the German Government for the invitation and for facilitating this official country visit. Where do you have the information that the investigation was launched by the UN? The topic discussed here also seems to have been a minor part of the investigation. I also have already highlighted that the special rapporteur is independent of the UN; correct me if I'm wrong.