267 réponses à ce sujet

[Fast Jimmy]

sorry, i cant respect nazi idiots.

Respect the right, not the individual who it protects.

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

I for one want to live in England so I can go to:

 

[Fast Jimmy]

If I were Jewish I would find a person wearing a Nazi symbol highly threatening, as they make a statement that THIS is okay:



And that it is not directly threatening to you doesn't mean it's fine and you should look the other way and allow it. Expressing hatred and somehow idolizing mass murder is NOT a right and should under no circumstance fall under freedom of speech/expression. Those rights do not lend you the right to be scum and hurt others.

That is a nice opinion to have, but thankfully the law works differently. Mostly because it was written by those who would secede and overthrow their government if their rights weren't respected and didn't want the fact that they openly talked about that to be grounds for imprisonment or death.


Because that's the path you walk - if you make hate speech illegal, then the only grounds you can do so on is that it offends you. And if a government has the ability to outlaw anything that offends them, it has the ability to oppress it's citizens limitlessly.

[Isichar]

Personally I prefer it when people share their ignorant and stupid beliefs (as long as it doesn't escalate with actions) I mean how else are you suppose to crush them with logic and educate them?

[Gorthaur the Cruel]

I really dislike the direction our country has taken, but all it takes is for one decent president like Reagan to fix the **** left by the previous doofus in office. Despite that I never plan on leaving. For all our nation's faults we're still the greatest superpower around. If Texas declared independence I may just consider changing my mind.

 

As for the whole should hate speech be protected or not argument. The first amendment exist to protect unpopular speech. As long as hate speech doesn't turn into violent action I'm fine with hate groups rambling on about (insert) supremacy from their basements.

[Riven326]

Because the Constitution should aim to protect all and make everyone feel safe, not just the hateful idiots. Freedom of speech and expression of beliefs is all well and good, until it verges into the territory of racism or discrimination. Those are also prohibited here by law, and so freedom should be weighed against these harmful beliefs. Could someone walk around in the US with a T-shirt giving a thumbs up to 9/11 without getting shot? You know, expression and all that.

The Constitution protects everyone, not just the people you dislike. To answer your question, yes. But let's be clear: if someone shoots you because they don't like the shirt you're wearing, it can hardly be called a failure on the part of the Constitution.

[BroBear Berbil]

Because the Constitution should aim to protect all and make everyone feel safe, not just the hateful idiots. Freedom of speech and expression of beliefs is all well and good, until it verges into the territory of racism or discrimination. Those are also prohibited here by law, and so freedom should be weighed against these harmful beliefs. Could someone walk around in the US with a T-shirt giving a thumbs up to 9/11 without getting shot? You know, expression and all that.

 

I guess this comes down to how Americans view rights as opposed to how the Dutch do.

 

Our rights are viewed as natural rights, and the Bill of Rights lists negative rights. That is, it lays out what the government shall not infringe upon rather than what the government grants us.

 

Nazis, communists, black panthers, and a whole host of groups are allowed to exist in the U.S. no matter how unpopular their views may be.

[Fast Jimmy]

Because the Constitution should aim to protect all and make everyone feel safe, not just the hateful idiots. Freedom of speech and expression of beliefs is all well and good, until it verges into the territory of racism or discrimination. Those are also prohibited here by law, and so freedom should be weighed against these harmful beliefs. Could someone walk around in the US with a T-shirt giving a thumbs up to 9/11 without getting shot? You know, expression and all that.

Getting shot by a citizen and being made illegal by the government are worlds apart.

Who decides when something is racist? Further more, who decides when something is discriminatory? Look at some of the Internet outcriers of the Patriarchy - should every major film, novel, album and video game of the past century be outlawed because they could be said it was part of a white, cis-gendered conspiracy or whatever?

The second you cross that line where ANYONE is making that decision, you begin taking steps towards fascism and legislating morality. You CAN'T do that. It's why a Constituion was made in the first place - democracy can't work without a set of rules where if half the people in the country go insane, things can still work. It's why amending the Constituion takes near unanimous approval - mob rule and knee jerk reactions should not, CANNOT, take away rights given to the citizens by the document.

I'm glad you don't like some of the content it protects - it's morally reprehensible. And the fact that morally reprehensible content is protected as long as it doesn't directly result in a crime or direct intent of a crime means it is working.

[Riven326]

Getting shot by a citizen and being made illegal by the government are worlds apart.

Who decides when something is racist? Further more, who decides when something is discriminatory? Look at some of the Internet outcriers of the Patriarchy - should every major film, novel, album and video game of the past century be outlawed because they could be said it was part of a white, cis-gendered conspiracy or whatever?

The second you cross that line where ANYONE is making that decision, you begin taking steps towards fascism and legislating morality. You CAN'T do that. It's why a Constituion was made in the first place - democracy can't work without a set of rules where if half the people in the country go insane, things can still work. It's why amending the Constituion takes near unanimous approval - mob rule and knee jerk reactions should not, CANNOT, take away rights given to the citizens by the document.

I'm glad you don't like some of the content it protects - it's morally reprehensible. And the fact that morally reprehensible content is protected as long as it doesn't directly result in a crime or direct intent of a crime means it is working.

 

What more need be said?

[Clover Rider]

If Texas declared independence I may just consider changing my mind.

Because that worked oh so well  before.

[Fast Jimmy]

What more need be said?

The ultimate irony? She doesn't seem to understand - when the darkness comes (and it always does) and madness infects the masses (as it always does), a law that was originally made to make Nazi hate speech illegal could then be wielded by those in power to strike out against the enemies of the state, the "others" that will be the scapegoat for seizing power. Except it won't be Nazis or racists, but any person or group that is seen as a threat.

By making it illegal to be a Nazi, it opens the door for REAL Nazis (or their future equivalent) to rise to power and abuse innocents again.

[Gorthaur the Cruel]

Because that worked oh so well  before.

Actually it did. When Texas declared independence it went from being under a Mexican military dictatorship with few political rights, to a republic that could freely govern itself. I'd say that went pretty well.

[Riven326]

The ultimate irony? She doesn't seem to understand - when the darkness comes (and it always does) and madness infects the masses (as it always does), a law that was originally made to make Nazi hate speech illegal could then be wielded by those in power to strike out against the enemies of the state, the "others" that will be the scapegoat for seizing power. Except it won't be Nazis or racists, but any person or group that is seen as a threat.

By making it illegal to be a Nazi, it opens the door for REAL Nazis (or their future equivalent) to rise to power and abuse innocents again.

Indeed. In fact, we saw it with the Nazi party itself when Hitler came to power. Any sort of criticism of the new regime was met with the Gestapo knocking down your door and hauling you off to jail. The only difference between then and now is that a new government was installed and the policies were reversed. So, now if you show support of Nazi Germany in public or in private and it is reported, you will be arrested and prosecuted.

 

It is kind of frightening how some people simply want to suppress others views just because they are different than their own. It makes me very grateful that I live in the United States. Many foreigners often say when they come here that we take it for granted.

[Clover Rider]

Actually it did. When Texas declared independence it went from being under a Mexican military dictatorship with few political rights, to a republic that could freely govern itself. I'd say that went pretty well.

Yet it didn't stay that way.

 

Wonder why?

[BroBear Berbil]

 

It is kind of frightening how some people simply want to suppress others views just because they are different than their own. It makes me very grateful that I live in the United States. Many foreigners often say when they come here that we take it for granted.

 

The people that have this kind of mentality are my biggest fear for the future. They also tend to be the type that believe in democracy (aka mob rule) absolutely.

[Fast Jimmy]

The people that have this kind of mentality are my biggest fear for the future. They also tend to be the type that believe in democracy (aka mob rule) absolutely.

I believe in democracy. I just don't trust it all that much.

[BroBear Berbil]

I believe in democracy. I just don't trust it all that much.

 

Good thing you live in a republic then.

[Dutchess]

Who decides when something is racist? Further more, who decides when something is discriminatory? Look at some of the Internet outcriers of the Patriarchy - should every major film, novel, album and video game of the past century be outlawed because they could be said it was part of a white, cis-gendered conspiracy or whatever?

 

A judge does. And nice way of turning something serious into a "conspiracy or whatever". We are not outlawing films, novels or video games based on a few knee jerk reactions. You can buy GTA V in the Netherlands just fine (if you're 18 or older) and go shoot prostitutes if that makes you happy. The first Article of our Constitution deals with discrimination and states that equal cases should be treated equally and that discrimination based on race, gender, sexuality or any other ground is prohibited. This was originally meant for Government-citizen relationships,  but in practice it's now also applied to regulate dealings between citizens. Again, it's about equal treatment. And when equal treatment collides with freedom of speech (Article 7 of our Constitution) the limits of freedom of speech have been reached. 

 

The second you cross that line where ANYONE is making that decision, you begin taking steps towards fascism and legislating morality. You CAN'T do that. It's why a Constituion was made in the first place - democracy can't work without a set of rules where if half the people in the country go insane, things can still work. It's why amending the Constituion takes near unanimous approval - mob rule and knee jerk reactions should not, CANNOT, take away rights given to the citizens by the document.

I'm glad you don't like some of the content it protects - it's morally reprehensible. And the fact that morally reprehensible content is protected as long as it doesn't directly result in a crime or direct intent of a crime means it is working.

 

And again, it's about equality vs. freedom of speech. Proclaiming hate-speech and inspiring hatred for a specific group based on gender, handicap, etc. is not a right and is by law a crime. 

 

Because that's the path you walk - if you make hate speech illegal, then the only grounds you can do so on is that it offends you. And if a government has the ability to outlaw anything that offends them, it has the ability to oppress it's citizens limitlessly.

And once again, it's still not about being offended, and that is not how it works. The government cannot outlaw anything that is/they find offensive. On the contrary. One can be offended without being discriminated. 

 

The ultimate irony? She doesn't seem to understand - when the darkness comes (and it always does) and madness infects the masses (as it always does), a law that was originally made to make Nazi hate speech illegal could then be wielded by those in power to strike out against the enemies of the state, the "others" that will be the scapegoat for seizing power. Except it won't be Nazis or racists, but any person or group that is seen as a threat.

By making it illegal to be a Nazi, it opens the door for REAL Nazis (or their future equivalent) to rise to power and abuse innocents again.

Oh well, this is just rich. I guess I'll go prepare my basement for when the Netherlands become North Korea. 

[Cheech 2.0]

As a Canadian I would never want to live anywhere else. Sure there're problems, but compared to many other countries they are small in comparison. I may visit different wonderful places, enjoy times with lovely people, but Canada will always be my home till the end.

[Riven326]

And again, it's about equality vs. freedom of speech. Proclaiming hate-speech and inspiring hatred for a specific group based on gender, handicap, etc. is not a right and is by law a crime. 

 

And once again, it's still not about being offended, and that is not how it works. The government cannot outlaw anything that is/they find offensive. On the contrary. One can be offended without being discriminated. 

Am I missing something here?

[SlottsMachine]

Where specifically do you live Cthulhu? Just curious.