No government has any just authority to stop people from speaking the truth. Wolfgang Werlé and Manfred Lauber are murderers, and as big of scumbags as that makes them, I have a lot more loathing for a German Government that suppresses it citizens from suppressing the truth.

Germany's attempts to suppress people from communicating facts are disgusting and should not be disobeyed. It's unbelievable to me that anyone seriously debates this. Is it also illegal in Germany to mention that Hitler killed 6 million people?!?!

Disobedience of this law is the only morally acceptable course of action.
 

Funny, I get the same feeling when READING to chapter 11. Maybe we'd all be better off if the book just ended right there!

Canada and England do not have our malpractice litigation mentality, which raises costs as doctors practice "defensive medicine". Neither has the high costs of introducing new medications associated with our FDA, which results in the same pills being substantially cheaper in Canada than in the US. Both offer lower quality service, with rationing, and less access to innovative procedures. The problem with a state run insurance plan is that that the state has never made anything more efficient. Ever. It's really astounding to me that people continually propose government takeovers of things.

The way to reduce health care costs is to find waste in the system and eliminate them through process improvement. Everything else is a shell game.

How are we supposed to evaluate your statements if you don't say HOW running distro A is a pain in the ass, and how distro B fixed it. From the fact that you don't even try to explain this I think we're left with the obvious conclusion: distro A doesn't meet your requirement of being distro B.

This is completely bogus. A) you assume without explanation that that all events can be placed in a series, which is highly suspect since many sets exists for which this is false. For example, what if events occur at every real number time value t for t>0. B) Even if events have 0 or 1 predecessor events that caused them, there is no guarantee that any "first" event exists. Perhaps every event has a predecessor. Consider a chain of events, each causing the next that occur at times 1/2^n.

1500 employees -- so what. As long as they reasonably believe they are speaking the truth I think this is protected by the First Amendment. If the evidence they have indicates he did lie on his expense reports, then they did not humiliate him, he humiliated himself and they just shined the light in. If there was any malice here, it was this employee STEALING money. I'm always amazed by the complete crap that liberal judges come up with.

What really happened here is that Mr Big Vice President was accused of calling a loser a loser. These idiot judges simply can't tolerate the fact that inequality exists in life and so they punish the successful guy and attempt to subsidize the loser. Never mind that he has an absolute right that no legislature or court can take away to speak the truth - to the whole world if he so desires. Liberals must punish success to elevate losers in order to achieve "fairness". This kind of fairness will lead us to shared misery.