[sunaookami]

>like journalists reporting about infiltrating a Great Replacement conference hosted by the second biggest political party here.

And making stuff up that was never talked about there to start a political movement to get that party banned? Yeah nice democracy and journalism there.

[immibis]

Were you at this conference?

[sunaookami]

You can ask the court that forbid repeating this made-up stuff ;)

[immibis]

Actually I can't ask a court whether you were at that conference without knowing your legal identity - care to share? And why should I expect the court to have a complete list of who was there, and to answer questions about that list? Seems much easier to ask you, and it's strange you don't want to answer.

[sunaookami]

What are you talking about? Pure nonsense. Discussions about "great replacement" never happened, that's an undeniable fact proven by court records and news media are not allowed to repeat these claims (324 O 439/24, 324 O 524/24, 7 W 78/24).

[immibis]

You might want to check your own source there. Seems to be the opposite of what you claim. The complaints were dismissed and the media is allowed to report.

https://rsw.beck.de/aktuell/daily/meldung/detail/lg-hamburg-...

But what does this have to do with your suggestion that I should ask the court whether you were at the meeting?

[sunaookami]

You might want to read the post again, the court claimed it not as a journalistic news article but as an opinion piece. And it's not the final verdict.

>whether you were at the meeting?

Where you? You are clearly missing the point.