blah the Prussian Posted November 4, 2015 Author Share Posted November 4, 2015 Does that sentiment extend to defending that violence after the fact? Maybe. I don't know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Makaze Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 What is the basis of your policy? Feelings, research, or something else? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blah the Prussian Posted November 4, 2015 Author Share Posted November 4, 2015 What is the basis of your policy? Feelings, research, or something else? Research, probably. Modern Germany proves that it is possible to severely curtail hate speech without going all Big Brother on everything. That being the case, why would you not do it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Makaze Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 Research, probably. Modern Germany proves that it is possible to severely curtail hate speech without going all Big Brother on everything. That being the case, why would you not do it? The potential for abuse is extremely high. There is no such thing as an altruistic government policy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blah the Prussian Posted November 4, 2015 Author Share Posted November 4, 2015 The potential for abuse is extremely high. There is no such thing as an altruistic government policy. Not if you have strict rules as to what constitutes hate speech. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Makaze Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 Not if you have strict rules as to what constitutes hate speech. We just concluded that those rules are not very strict in your policy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blah the Prussian Posted November 4, 2015 Author Share Posted November 4, 2015 We just concluded that those rules are not very strict in your policy. How? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Makaze Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 Does that sentiment extend to defending that violence after the fact? Maybe. I don't know. It doesn't hold up to even the most basic of questions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blah the Prussian Posted November 4, 2015 Author Share Posted November 4, 2015 It doesn't hold up to even the most basic of questions. Fine. Let me answer. It does extend to defending violence after the fact. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rapier Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 I'm in favor of censoring hate speech (any speech that explicitely promotes violence/aggression, persecution and prejudice toward individuals), because if we let these spread the chances of people actually taking the speeches into practice increases. I'd rather not wait for the bomb to explode, and there's no reason to let the bomb be because it doesn't bring any benefits to a democracy. Hate speech is antidemocratic in the sense that there is an isonomy of rights shared between all the populace guaranteed by our democratic ideals that is harmed by people acting to put others in a position of political inferiority. Therefore it shouldn't be accepted in any democracy. Then again, my notion of hate speech is very different from people who actually think saying mexicans are dumb is hate speech and who on basis of this compare the immature person who said so to Hitler. I blame the tumblr sociological effect on the minds of people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alazen Posted November 5, 2015 Share Posted November 5, 2015 (edited) There will always be racism or whatever form of institutional bigotry as long as there are people insisting they are anything more than human. Whether calling themselves ''black'', ''Japanese'', what have you. Edited November 5, 2015 by Alazen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Autumn Posted November 5, 2015 Share Posted November 5, 2015 (edited) If he had been shut down he might have never became a problem. What should have happened was that he be executed for treason in 1923, but whatever. As long as you have clear rules about what can or can't be censored there is little to no risk of tyranny. Hell, Germany today censors the Nazis, and they have remained a functioning democracy because of it. Also, I don't know which a West you live in, but where I come from, there is a good deal of hate speech rousing the population. Some examples: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miloš_Zeman https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Orbán https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigel_Farage https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_Le_Pen https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump That last one you probably know, but the first four are the leaders of extremely xenophobic parties in Europe. In the case of Zeman and Orban, both have actually been elected, and Le Pen, Farage, and Trump are quite popular. S I think it is safe to say that there is an ever present threat of hate speech within the West. You know who doesn't have a popular xenophobic politician? Germany, because it's laws against hate speech created a more tolerant culture. To get everything out there, what should be censored is anything calling for violence against anyone, including the government and white people. Yeah, but they get debated and laughed at. I don't know about the others, but I don't see how Trump is ever going to move the world with this many people treating him like an absolute joke, and protests WILL happen if he tries to build the wall of Trump. His comments about China are actually warranted too if you ever bothered to check the facts. As for Farage, he used to be the leader of UKIP, desiring independence from the EU and trying to not accept even more refugees that is currently overloading Europe's economic infrastructure can't be summed up as "xenophobia", they're good points, lol. Bullshit that laws against hatespeech created a more tolerant culture. That is a contradiction in and of itself- it's being less tolerant towards those with extreme ideas. Besides, in Germany they criminalized nazism and the questioning of the holocaust- Not hatespeech itself, just those associated with the Nazis. And guess what's happenning? You have neo-nazis in parties going under a different name, that's it. It's impossible to police this. Policing it will only limit non-extremists, the non-extremists that might make a difference if this ever goes to the vote, if they weren't brainwashed. To not be brainwashed you need people to call bullshit on the ideas, and people certainly have and will. Moreover, this absurd defense of something on the basis of feelings is why this kind of thing happens: http://www.wnd.com/2015/10/the-huffington-posts-hit-list/ You have the MEDIA singling out individuals because of what they say regardless of actions. If the west has got anything to be afraid of it would be the ban of free speech on the basis it would somehow help, which it obviously does not, because even in your examples, you have people debating them and mocking them for their obvious bigotry. For every bigoted conservative right extremist, there is a neo progressive left extremist. You can't say it's good to ban everyone's freedom of speech because of these extremists, especially because there is no such thing as altruistic government policy. Also, because this is such a slippery slope to be on who can you trust to implement "anti hatespeech" rules? I sure as hell don't trust the government, see Canada's bill C-51. Not to mention banning hatespeech is using force to silence people,people who no one would have taken seriously because of the sheer number of arguments they are humilated in. Silencing these people using force is quite the moral thing to do, don't you think. :v Edited November 5, 2015 by Autumn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blah the Prussian Posted November 5, 2015 Author Share Posted November 5, 2015 Yeah, but they get debated and laughed at. I don't know about the others, but I don't see how Trump is ever going to move the world with this many people treating him like an absolute joke, and protests WILL happen if he tries to build the wall of Trump. His comments about China are actually warranted too if you ever bothered to check the facts. As for Farage, he used to be the leader of UKIP, desiring independence from the EU and trying to not accept even more refugees that is currently overloading Europe's economic infrastructure can't be summed up as "xenophobia", they're good points, lol. Zeman and Orban won their elections. People are, in fact, taking them seriously. Also, UKIP isn't just about stopping more migrants, they also want to expel all current immigrants. Protests will happen, sure, but the government doesn't have to listen to them. Bullshit that laws against hatespeech created a more tolerant culture. That is a contradiction in and of itself- it's being less tolerant towards those with extreme ideas. Besides, in Germany they criminalized nazism and the questioning of the holocaust- Not hatespeech itself, just those associated with the Nazis. And guess what's happenning? You have neo-nazis in parties going under a different name, that's it. It's impossible to police this. Policing it will only limit non-extremists, the non-extremists that might make a difference if this ever goes to the vote, if they weren't brainwashed. To not be brainwashed you need people to call bullshit on the ideas, and people certainly have and will. People called bullshit on Hitler's ideas. Didn't stop him. Provide a source that shows how Neo Nazis are in new parties in Germany. Finally, how will policing it hurt non extremists? As long as they don't call for violence, they won't be censored. Moreover, this absurd defense of something on the basis of feelings is why this kind of thing happens: http://www.wnd.com/2015/10/the-huffington-posts-hit-list/ You have the MEDIA singling out individuals because of what they say regardless of actions. That source is hilarious. "Islamisization of the West"? Seriously? Here's a newsflash for you: Facebook can do whatever it wants with its site. So can the Huffington Post, according to your Libertarianism. Give me another source on this, preferably not including fear mongering about Muslims. If the west has got anything to be afraid of it would be the ban of free speech on the basis it would somehow help, which it obviously does not, because even in your examples, you have people debating them and mocking them for their obvious bigotry. For every bigoted conservative right extremist, there is a neo progressive left extremist. You can't say it's good to ban everyone's freedom of speech because of these extremists, especially because there is no such thing as altruistic government policy. Also, because this is such a slippery slope to be on who can you trust to implement "anti hatespeech" rules? I sure as hell don't trust the government, see Canada's bill C-51. Not to mention banning hatespeech is using force to silence people,people who no one would have taken seriously because of the sheer number of arguments they are humilated in. Silencing these people using force is quite the moral thing to do, don't you think. :v I am not saying it is good to ban everyone's freedom of speech. For example, I think you should be allowed to say "I hate Muslims." You should not be allowed to say "I hate Muslims, and we should kill them all." Here's a funny thing about governments: in modern democracies, you elect them. If they do something you don't like, its your own fault. Elect them out of office and elect in a government running a platform of getting rid of the security bill. If you think you can't trust the government, its your own fault. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoenix Wright Posted November 5, 2015 Share Posted November 5, 2015 (edited) Elect them out of office and elect in a government running a platform of getting rid of the security bill. If you think you can't trust the government, its your own fault. this is a gross simplification of the issue. if you take a survey of the us reps, often within their jurisdiction they are applauded (which is a primary reason why incumbency is so powerful in elections). however, outside one's jurisdiction, a rep's popularity falls off nearly exponentially. the clear conclusion to draw from this is that if i got to elect my own government, i'd have a much easier time trusting it. to lay blame on any single person for the election of an entire government makes very little sense, both rhetorically in argument (ie, using the example analogously to some bigger issue) and literally. if trump is elected president, against my wishes, i'd have done everything i could (as a voter) and still lost. it's not my fault that i can't trust the government that trump would help construct. it's in this same way that it's hard to blame an entire populace for its 'bad government' because you can bet some people would happy with whatever government he'd create. Edited November 5, 2015 by Phoenix Wright Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skynstein Posted November 5, 2015 Share Posted November 5, 2015 (edited) Freedom IMO is the ability to act autonomously and without external interference. It's a relative concept because it can be measured. No one has absolute freedom these days, but it's possible to have no freedom. Edited November 5, 2015 by Cerberus87 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blah the Prussian Posted November 5, 2015 Author Share Posted November 5, 2015 this is a gross simplification of the issue. if you take a survey of the us reps, often within their jurisdiction they are applauded (which is a primary reason why incumbency is so powerful in elections). however, outside one's jurisdiction, a rep's popularity falls off nearly exponentially. the clear conclusion to draw from this is that if i got to elect my own government, i'd have a much easier time trusting it. to lay blame on any single person for the election of an entire government makes very little sense, both rhetorically in argument (ie, using the example analogously to some bigger issue) and literally. if trump is elected president, against my wishes, i'd have done everything i could (as a voter) and still lost. it's not my fault that i can't trust the government that trump would help construct. it's in this same way that it's hard to blame an entire populace for its 'bad government' because you can bet some people would happy with whatever government he'd create. Yeah, you are correct. I meant that a population ha son right to complain, not the individual. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Autumn Posted November 5, 2015 Share Posted November 5, 2015 (edited) Zeman and Orban won their elections. People are, in fact, taking them seriously. Also, UKIP isn't just about stopping more migrants, they also want to expel all current immigrants. Protests will happen, sure, but the government doesn't have to listen to them. They don't, do they? Do you think the UK government is going to do a tiananmen square massacre? You think the rest of the world will let them get away with it? xD They're not China, they're the UK. Again idk Zemon and Orban, never heard of them and I'm sorry I'm in the middle of exams so I'll research them later. Also migrants are a serious issue, kicking them out for the sake of the failing economy might actually be a good idea. Not humane, very morally objectionable. But it would save the infrastructure. Besides (again I haven't researched this) but I really doubt UKIP want to kick legal migrants out of Britain. Britain is a very leftist libertarian country with a large immigrant voting base. :v People called bullshit on Hitler's ideas. Didn't stop him. Provide a source that shows how Neo Nazis are in new parties in Germany. Finally, how will policing it hurt non extremists? As long as they don't call for violence, they won't be censored. Because who gets to decide what is "hatespeech"? Your freedoms can be taken away in the name of anti-terrorism, they can be taken away for anti-hatespeech. http://www.alternet.org/world/inside-troubling-rise-fascist-parties-across-europe They're there. Fascism isn't going away, same way as communism isn't even though America used to hate it so much. xD That source is hilarious. "Islamisization of the West"? Seriously? Here's a newsflash for you: Facebook can do whatever it wants with its site. So can the Huffington Post, according to your Libertarianism. Give me another source on this, preferably not including fear mongering about Muslims. Who cares where a point came from, and how it is presented, I just clicked one of the links on the first page of my google search. A valid point is a valid point. Your hypocrisy is showing, it's okay if people get hurt by hatemobs as long as they're people you don't like. Besides, Libertarianism has free speech without political consequence as part of it's tenants. How can they be allowed to, according to libertarianism? Either way the Huffington post is inciting hatred against individuals. I see no rebuttal of that from you. I am not saying it is good to ban everyone's freedom of speech. For example, I think you should be allowed to say "I hate Muslims." You should not be allowed to say "I hate Muslims, and we should kill them all." Here's a funny thing about governments: in modern democracies, you elect them. If they do something you don't like, its your own fault. Elect them out of office and elect in a government running a platform of getting rid of the security bill. If you think you can't trust the government, its your own fault. So you're in favour of criminalising thoughtcrimes? xD And for the other points- as Mr Wright said, that's a oversimplification. Edited November 5, 2015 by Autumn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blah the Prussian Posted November 5, 2015 Author Share Posted November 5, 2015 They don't, do they? Do you think the UK government is going to do a tiananmen square massacre? You think the rest of the world will let them get away with it? xD They're not China, they're the UK. Again idk Zemon and Orban, never heard of them and I'm sorry I'm in the middle of exams so I'll research them later. I don't know, the rest of the world seemed pretty keen to let China get away with Tiananmen Square. Also migrants are a serious issue, kicking them out for the sake of the failing economy might actually be a good idea. Not humane, very morally objectionable. But it would save the infrastructure. Besides (again I haven't researched this) but I really doubt UKIP want to kick legal migrants out of Britain. Britain is a very leftist libertarian country with a large immigrant voting base. :v Wasn't it you who said it is the duty of the state to protect its people? If the British government were to do that to save the economy then they would be violating their supreme duty as a government. Because who gets to decide what is "hatespeech"? Your freedoms can be taken away in the name of anti-terrorism, they can be taken away for anti-hatespeech. I think the agreed upon definition for hate speech would suffice. Also, I'm not saying we should bug people's houses; hate speech in public should be a crime, but stopping it doesn't justify violating privacy. http://www.alternet.org/world/inside-troubling-rise-fascist-parties-across-europe They're there. Fascism isn't going away, same way as communism isn't even though America used to hate it so much. xD Precisely my point. These parties should be censored before they pose a threat. Who cares where a point came from, and how it is presented, I just clicked one of the links on the first page of my google search. A valid point is a valid point. Your hypocrisy is showing, it's okay if people get hurt by hatemobs as long as they're people you don't like. Besides, Libertarianism has free speech without political consequence as part of it's tenants. How can they be allowed to, according to libertarianism? Either way the Huffington post is inciting hatred against individuals. I see no rebuttal of that from you. So you know what the article doesn't say? What the HP is doing with this information. All it does is violate Godwin's Law, fear monger, and claim that the HP is working for ISIS. If the HP is using that info to incite hatred and violence, then it should be shut down. So you're in favour of criminalising thoughtcrimes? xD And for the other points- as Mr Wright said, that's a oversimplification. No, you're free to think that all Jews should be killed, just keep it to yourself, mkay? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Autumn Posted November 5, 2015 Share Posted November 5, 2015 (edited) I don't know, the rest of the world seemed pretty keen to let China get away with Tiananmen Square. "The UK is not China" Wasn't it you who said it is the duty of the state to protect its people? If the British government were to do that to save the economy then they would be violating their supreme duty as a government. Yeah, like expelling those who are not their people so their original people don't get screwed over. Like expelling illegal immigrants. :v I think the agreed upon definition for hate speech would suffice. Also, I'm not saying we should bug people's houses; hate speech in public should be a crime, but stopping it doesn't justify violating privacy. Agreed upon by whom. Precisely my point. These parties should be censored before they pose a threat. How. My point was they can't be censored. The only people you're going to impact are peaceful citizens ranting because they're venting about something. People who go "kill all muslims" but then goes back to jacking off in their basement. People who haven't done anything wrong, shouldn't be punished. So you know what the article doesn't say? What the HP is doing with this information. All it does is violate Godwin's Law, fear monger, and claim that the HP is working for ISIS. If the HP is using that info to incite hatred and violence, then it should be shut down. Well they were releasing the names and picture of people who were exhibiting x inappropriate behaviour and publishing it in the media in order to incite outrage. I ignored the rest. What are they doing with the info? *Publishing it*. No, you're free to think that all Jews should be killed, just keep it to yourself, mkay? If you don't want to hear it, you can walk away, mkay? Edited November 5, 2015 by Autumn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blah the Prussian Posted November 5, 2015 Author Share Posted November 5, 2015 "The UK is not China" Fair. Seriously, though, what do you think the world is going to do? Yeah, like expelling those who are not their people so their original people don't get screwed over. Like expelling illegal immigrants. :v But what about non illegal immigrants? Agreed upon by whom. What is the definition of agreed? What is the definition of upon? What is the definition of by? What is the definition of whom? How. My point was they can't be censored. The only people you're going to impact are peaceful citizens ranting because they're venting about something. People who go "kill all muslims" but then goes back to jacking off in their basement. People who haven't done anything wrong, shouldn't be punished. Peaceful citizens and Fascists are mutually exclusive. Inciting violence is doing something wrong. And I'm not talking about trolls, I'm talking about demagogues who can actually do some damage. Well they were releasing the names and picture of people who were exhibiting x inappropriate behaviour and publishing it in the media in order to incite outrage. I ignored the rest. What are they doing with the info? *Publishing it*. It's up there on social media. Are you saying these people didn't want people to know their beliefs? As long as the HP isn't advocating for violence against them, its fine. If you don't want to hear it, you can walk away, mkay? And then whoever was saying it gets supporters. And then he or she wins the election. And then suddenly I find myself in a concentration camp wishing that someone had opposed him in the first place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Autumn Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 (edited) Fair. Seriously, though, what do you think the world is going to do? Kick them out of peacekeeping groups, like G<insert number here> which is a humiliation, and sanction them. Things they did to Russia, and since the UK isn't Russia, their economy will fail even more. Though really a better question to ask is, "is this even possible", which is "no", because if they did that then everyone in Britain would be trying to leave. Britain is the country where even policemen don't carry firearms. I don't see it's goverment ever being able to do a Tiananmen square. Pretty sure the police force and the army would revolt against the system. xD But what about non illegal immigrants? I am pretty sure they're not going to expel non-illegal immigrants. That's retarded. xD Britain has a huge immigrant voting base, saying something like that is tantamount to political suicide. Which didn't happen because UKIP still got a fair number of votes in the most recent election. What is the definition of agreed? What is the definition of upon? What is the definition of by? What is the definition of whom? That's the problem isn't it. Even if you're doing it out of mockery, we have shown the government IS content with playing these kinds of word games and slippery sloping down on your privacy and freedoms. :v Peaceful citizens and Fascists are mutually exclusive. Inciting violence is doing something wrong. And I'm not talking about trolls, I'm talking about demagogues who can actually do some damage. You know, except for the example I just gave. Also, poe's law, satire of extremism is virtually indistinguishable from the real thing. It's up there on social media. Are you saying these people didn't want people to know their beliefs? As long as the HP isn't advocating for violence against them, its fine. Being on social media is different from being on the news. xD How do you know these people who posted on social media, with millions of posts every day, adding their voice to the collective- Wants to be brought out into the limelight, in a predominantly left wing newspaper, as individuals? And then whoever was saying it gets supporters. And then he or she wins the election. And then suddenly I find myself in a concentration camp wishing that someone had opposed him in the first place. Then debate it, like I do, lazy. What did you think I was going to say to an expected rebuttal like that. Edited November 6, 2015 by Autumn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blah the Prussian Posted November 6, 2015 Author Share Posted November 6, 2015 Kick them out of peacekeeping groups, like G<insert number here> which is a humiliation, and sanction them. Things they did to Russia, and since the UK isn't Russia, their economy will fail even more. Though really a better question to ask is, "is this even possible", which is "no", because if they did that then everyone in Britain would be trying to leave. Britain is the country where even policemen don't carry firearms. I don't see it's goverment ever being able to do a Tiananmen square. Pretty sure the police force and the army would revolt against the system. xD I will concede this point. I am pretty sure they're not going to expel non-illegal immigrants. That's retarded. xD Britain has a huge immigrant voting base, saying something like that is tantamount to political suicide. Which didn't happen because UKIP still got a fair number of votes in the most recent election. Fine. But what about the alternative of helping illegal immigrants become citizens? That's the problem isn't it. Even if you're doing it out of mockery, we have shown the government IS content with playing these kinds of word games and slippery sloping down on your privacy and freedoms. :v Slippery Slope Fallacy. Just because something happens doesn't mean it will be taken to its logical extreme. You know, except for the example I just gave. Also, poe's law, satire of extremism is virtually indistinguishable from the real thing. I am willing to get rid of satire of the most extreme, hateful views to remove the risk of Fascism or Communism taking over. Also, how does your example beat me? Being on social media is different from being on the news. xD How do you know these people who posted on social media, with millions of posts every day, adding their voice to the collective- Wants to be brought out into the limelight, in a predominantly left wing newspaper, as individuals? Fine. What law did the Huffington Post break? I would be semi okay with passing a law designed to prevent this kind of thing; it should be the job o fthe government to stop this kind of thing, not private newspapers. Then debate it, like I do, lazy. What did you think I was going to say to an expected rebuttal like that. What if I lose? Plenty of people debated Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini. All of them came to power. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tetragrammaton Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 I find this is interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blah the Prussian Posted November 6, 2015 Author Share Posted November 6, 2015 I find this is interesting. Utterly shameful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Autumn Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 Fine. But what about the alternative of helping illegal immigrants become citizens? The economy will fail. You can only take people in at a controlled pace so the economic infrastructure can keep up. Slippery Slope Fallacy. Just because something happens doesn't mean it will be taken to its logical extreme. Fallacy fallacy. Just because it's fallacy, doesn't it mean it doesn't have a point. It certainly could be taken to it's logical extreme and from I can see, there is nothing to stop it from being taken to it's logical extreme. I am willing to get rid of satire of the most extreme, hateful views to remove the risk of Fascism or Communism taking over. Also, how does your example beat me? Except it doesn't remove the risk of fascism taking over. Nazisim is a crime in Germany, but you still have fascist parties on the rise. I can't say it quite as well as the author of this blog says it, so I'll just quote it (I suggest you read it too. I can't word as well has he does //tears): "In a sense, hate speech restriction has become a means not of addressing specific issues about intimidation or incitement, but of enforcing general social regulation. This is why if you look at hate speech laws across the world, there is no consistency about what constitutes hate speech. Britain bans abusive, insulting, and threatening speech. Denmark and Canada ban speech that is insulting and degrading. India and Israel ban speech that hurts religious feelings and incites racial and religious hatred. In Holland, it is a criminal offense deliberately to insult a particular group. Australia prohibits speech that offends, insults, humiliates, or intimidates individuals or groups. Germany bans speech that violates the dignity of, or maliciously degrades or defames, a group. And so on. In each case, the law defines hate speech in a different way. One response might be to say: Let us define hate speech much more tightly. I think, however, that the problem runs much deeper. Hate speech restriction is a means not of tackling bigotry but of rebranding certain, often obnoxious, ideas or arguments as immoral. It is a way of making certain ideas illegitimate without bothering politically to challenge them. And that is dangerous." - https://kenanmalik.wordpress.com/2012/04/19/why-hate-speech-should-not-be-banned/ What law did the Huffington Post break? None, in Germany anyway. But it breaks laws if it was in America, because of the first amendment of the US constitution. Is this a problem? I think so. What if I lose? Plenty of people debated Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini. All of them came to power. It's pathetic if you lose to them in a logical debate on the level playing field. xDDD Their points are so logically horrible, in modern times you're not going to lose. :v They only won due to outside factors like WWI happening. Even if you do lose, like if you're a moron, then someone else will take up the plate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.