Germany starts enforcing "hate speech law"

[CXC3000]

So who's next to enact these laws? Canada?

Let's hope.

[Dave22reborn]

Is there anything wrong in hating racists and Islamophobes?



It is if you're presenting them in an unbalanced and unfair way. If you ignore the same from the indigenous population, then you'd be regarded as a racist.

Are you breaking the law if you hate straight, white males?

[Dave22reborn]

Let's hope.

So if I say that the majority of Muslims are inbred, is that hate speech? Even if I can use facts to support my claim?

Also, spoken like a true fascist, you should be proud.

[Gainzzz]

Great news, Germany leading Europe from the front.

Let's hope.

Muzzies in favour of shutting down free speech.

IS ANYONE SURPRISED?

ALL I KNOW IS WE NEED MORE OF THESE PARASITES IN EUROPE PRONTO!!!

[PSToolman]

I'm sure the guy who believes in an infinite number of genders, has no problem with something like this...

I'm not surprised since you don't seem to hear anything I say.

[meenman83]

"You're free to say whatever you want, as long as you don't offend me, otherwise we'll lock you up."

Unbelievable.

Little do they know if they go to certain countries there is no tolerance for outsiders and certain groups get tossed from buildings.

That is how you word stuff without naming names.

[Dave22reborn]

I'm not surprised since you don't seem to hear anything I say.

Do you agree or disagree with this new law?

[Dave22reborn]

Little do they know if they go to certain countries there is no tolerance for outsiders and certain groups get tossed from buildings.

That is how you word stuff without naming names.

Wonder what will happen in the bars, after the natives have one too many brews, and voice their disapproval with Merkel.

[meenman83]

Wonder what will happen in the bars, after the natives have one too many brews, and voice their disapproval with Merkel.

Schindler's List 2.0

[PSToolman]

Do you agree or disagree with this new law?

I think posting messages inciting violence should be a crime.

I don't think it's on the social media sites to enforce, but it is their prerogative.

[ceizer1985]

Truly shocked here...not really.

Muzzies in favour of shutting down free speech.

IS ANYONE SURPRISED?

ALL I KNOW IS WE NEED MORE OF THESE PARASITES IN EUROPE PRONTO!!!

Happy New Year to you and your family!

[RIKTER]

I think posting messages inciting violence should be a crime.

I don't think it's on the social media sites to enforce, but it is their prerogative.

Do you think evangelicals like Pat Robertson should be the ones determining what constitutes hateful language and the punishment that should follow?? Of course not, you, like anyone who favors this, is only in agreement as long as PC leftists and marxists are the ones solely in charge of that. Thats not even debatable. So, with that said, hopefully you can understand why right leaning people who oppose this. The reason being, we will have zero say in the definition of "hateful" language. As right leaning voters are the biggest threat to those who want to make this law in the first place.

[PSToolman]

Do you think evangelicals like Pat Robertson should be the ones determining what constitutes hateful language and the punishment that should follow?? Of course not, you, like anyone who favors this, is only in agreement as long as PC leftists and marxists are the ones solely in charge of that. Thats not even debatable. So, with that said, hopefully you can understand why right leaning people who oppose this. The reason being, we will have zero say in the definition of "hateful" language. As right leaning voters are the biggest threat to those who want to make this law in the first place.

That's quite a leap you're making there. This is what I meant when I told D22 he doesn't seem to be hearing what I say.

[CXC3000]

Are you breaking the law if you hate straight, white males?

Absolutely.

It's called racism.

[Dave22reborn]

Absolutely.

It's called racism.

So Buzzfeed shouldn't exist for example?

[RIKTER]

That's quite a leap you're making there. This is what I meant when I told D22 he doesn't seem to be hearing what I say.

Thats not a leap at all. Someone has to be the ones who define "hateful language that incites violence." and that someone will be far left ideologues. We both know damn well, because of that, right leaning voices will be the ones censored or worse yet put in jail.

[CXC3000]

So Buzzfeed shouldn't exist for example?

Have they actually said they hate White folk?

[CXC3000]

Thats not a leap at all. Someone has to be the ones who define "hateful language that incites violence." and that someone will be far left ideologues. We both know damn well, because of that, right leaning voices will be the ones censored or worse yet put in jail.

That's because the right-wing usually consists of racists and other forms of bigots.

[Malakaibeats]

Re. the bit in bold; Why take a chance on someone potentially causing mass violence (or any amount of violence) by what they say?

The point is, it's purely for the safety of the masses as well as the minorities. If there's a small chance certain speech could lead to physical attacks, then the best thing to do is to nip it in the bud (i.e. make it illegal).

Hate groups start off small then multiply if they're not kept in check. Would you take that risk and let it happen?

The problem with your reasoning, as well-intentioned as it may be, is where does it end? History tells us that repressing people's right to free expression, or any basic freedoms for that matter, always spirals out of control and ends badly, so that's definitely something to consider.

In any case, unless we sanitise language completely, there will always be someone, somewhere who can misconstrue, manipulate or distort someone's opinion to somehow justify and reinforce their bad actions, which could include violence. The problem is that person, not the free speech element. Limiting free speech, when it doesn't overtly and explicitly incite violence or any criminal behaviour, is wrong on every level and should always be challenged.

Take ISIS for example - it's widely claimed, especially in the Muslim community, that groups like ISIS misinterpret and manipulate parts of Islamic scripture to justify their barbaric actions. Do you propose that we make those passages and verses illegal, or should we just eliminate ISIS and stop them from proliferating? That's nipping the problem in the bud, not inhibiting freedom of expression.

[Neurotoxity]

If we say that free speech is allowed unless it becomes hateful speech, two related problems arise.

First is the necessity to define what hate speech is. By doing this, we are establishing culturally acceptable criteria to define it. We are in fact, censoring it. By definition then, we are disallowing free speech.

The other issue is by what methods and means do we make decisions regarding what hateful is, or means? My definition may not be compatible with yours, and others will disagree with both of us. Who decides?

Free speech is being free to speak what you will. The only valid form of control over speech that is generally considered to be offensive in a society, is the ability of members of that society to express their distaste for it, and for the people who use it. Putting that control into the hands of an arbitrary body of laws or individuals is not free; it is the very definition of censorship.

[I3igAl]

Thats not a leap at all. Someone has to be the ones who define "hateful language that incites violence." and that someone will be far left ideologues. We both know damn well, because of that, right leaning voices will be the ones censored or worse yet put in jail.

Hatespeech/Volksverhetzung has been around in Germany since 1959. It has already been decided.
There is a clear constitutionaö definition of this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volksv...tuent_elements
It was proposed by the same guy, who had banned the German Kommunist Party two years before.

Right leaning groups even extreme right wingers in Germany have existed for decades. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation...rty_of_Germany) They know how to write their programs without directly attacking other races.

(The law is still problematic, but most miscers simply keep misunderstanding, what it does while raging blindly at Germany.)

So Buzzfeed shouldn't exist for example?

Nope, but forcing them to delete articles directly promoting White Genocide or pay a fine could be considered reasonable.

[Neurotoxity]

The problem with your reasoning, as well-intentioned as it may be, is where does it end? History tells us that repressing people's right to free expression, or any basic freedoms for that matter, always spirals out of control and ends badly, so that's definitely something to consider.

In any case, unless we sanitise language completely, there will always be someone, somewhere who can misconstrue, manipulate or distort someone's opinion to somehow justify and reinforce their bad actions, which could include violence. The problem is that person, not the free speech element. Limiting free speech, when it doesn't overtly and explicitly incite violence or any criminal behaviour, is wrong on every level and should always be challenged.

Take ISIS for example - it's widely claimed, especially in the Muslim community, that groups like ISIS misinterpret and manipulate parts of Islamic scripture to justify their barbaric actions. Do you propose that we make those passages and verses illegal, or should we just eliminate ISIS and stop them from proliferating? That's nipping the problem in the bud, not inhibiting freedom of expression.

Freedom of Speech is a Right. But with every right comes a corresponding Duty.

Every Public Speaker is expected to use the ability to speak… to lift people up, rather than to put people down. A lot worse is to incite others to violence. I think public speakers who incite others to violence are in contravention of the law, and should be dealt with … sternly.

Where there are people there will be multiple opinions. However, we cannot use any power we have to hurt another human being. We surely cannot use the power to Speak in Public to make people do things that can go against the law.

Hate Speakers are the worst type of speakers. They have to be dealt with by law.

[CXC3000]

The problem with your reasoning, as well-intentioned as it may be, is where does it end? History tells us that repressing people's right to free expression, or any basic freedoms for that matter, always spirals out of control and ends badly, so that's definitely something to consider.

In any case, unless we sanitise language completely, there will always be someone, somewhere who can misconstrue, manipulate or distort someone's opinion to somehow justify and reinforce their bad actions, which could include violence. The problem is that person, not the free speech element. Limiting free speech, when it doesn't overtly and explicitly incite violence or any criminal behaviour, is wrong on every level and should always be challenged.

Take ISIS for example - it's widely claimed, especially in the Muslim community, that groups like ISIS misinterpret and manipulate parts of Islamic scripture to justify their barbaric actions. Do you propose that we make those passages and verses illegal, or should we just eliminate ISIS and stop them from proliferating? That's nipping the problem in the bud, not inhibiting freedom of expression.

Fair points you make. And in the same vein, would you grant Holocaust deniers the freedom of speech to spout their nonsense?

[Peter Ruby]

....and society continues down the slippery slope, inching closer to the complete elimination of free speech.

[EmmaW4tson]

For anyone with any doubts about the future of a society, a community or a country just look at what Muslims and their appologist supporters (traitors) do and what they demand.

They demand to be let in - First step on the invasion
They breed in numbers much higher than the regular population - demographics
They take control of areas, communities and towns

They demand criticism of their way of life to be outlawed - Second stage of an invasion

- So called hate speach is used as a cover to stop all criticism of Islam and third world migration. When people think third world migration its always twisted to Islamaphobia.

- Normal people become afraid for their safety, jobs and their family if they speak out because in todays day and age where you can instantly transmit pictures and streets of your enemies you can have some group turn up at your house and threaten you.

- The state gives these people full benefit of the doubt. Think I am making this up? Go look at the propaganda machine and security issue just for the UK. 1000+ people in 2017 alone arrested on terror related charges. No names, home town locations of faith attributed to these people but they are >>all<< lone wolves and none are linked

The media has learned to hold back certain details. For example "youths" is always attributed to inner city blacks and Pakistanis in the UK and for the US its black youths.

The multiple rapes of two women late last year where 1 woman was raped by a stranger and then again raped by a man driving a taxi as she was staggering around trying to get to safety was covered up but eventually they released details of the perps and they were men of Pakistani origin.

Another woman was gang raped and other strange men unknown to each other joined in. AGain, not a single white British male was involved but this gang rape was kept quiet.


- The state is enforcing against its own people. If you want Sharia law by my definition you are a usurper of the state and in the UK thats trying to usurp the crown and therefore you are not a citizen. However this ideology has the state in a headlock because the state knows the real deal and it is afraid it cannot keep a lid on the potential violence and anarchy that would escalate.

If they cracked down on fundamental Muslims it would force so many so-called peaceful muslims to go out and kill. They are already struggling to keep the numbers under control now and who knows what will happen if 10 times that number suddenly decided its time to kill?

So the best course of action is to make criticism of this ideology and its followers illegal and places Islam and muslims in a special group. Rape gangs are all powerful and the police wont stop them and they know it because at the end of the day who cares about some poor lower class white girls?

Its a creeping death where you are paralysed into inaction because the repercussions are so dire but the consequences of seeing demographs shift is even more so. When people say a conflict will come it will come later and it will be because those repercussions are not as dire as they once were because your certain death is the alternative.

These muslim shills here are the vanguard of this invasion like the shareblue shills are the vanguard of the globalists and you're doing yourself a disservice by even discussing with them.

Stop reading their words and watch what they do.

[NKWulf]

Fair points you make. And in the same vein, would you grant Holocaust deniers the freedom of speech to spout their nonsense?

yes. I dont agree or like what they say, but ill defend their right to say it.

[Gainzzz]

Fair points you make. And in the same vein, would you grant Holocaust deniers the freedom of speech to spout their nonsense?

Yes, retard. Then other people can laugh at them or present a counterargument. That’s how a free society works. I know the concept is strange to you people.

[TheRealCartman]

I don't know which (democratic) country you think that applies to, BM, but here in Britain, we have laws against inciting religious and racial hatred.

It's illegal for example to say 'I hate black/white/brown people and what they all they stand for'.

Stop taking the cultural and social norms of 7th century Arabia (and the wider world) and applying it to the 21st century please..

The problem is muslims in many countries still do regard what mohammed did in the 7th century as being correct when it should be universally condemned.

[Peter Ruby]

yes. I dont agree or like what they say, but ill defend their right to say it.

This. For example, I'd rather get my head stomped for saying something ignorant to my neighbor than have the government come for me. I can't believe anyone would disagree.

[Malakaibeats]

Fair points you make. And in the same vein, would you grant Holocaust deniers the freedom of speech to spout their nonsense?

While I absolutely disagree with their opinion, they have every right to express it because my opinion shouldn't inhibit their freedom, just like their opinion doesn't inhibit mine. I also think it's wrong to deny the possibility of debate, even with extremely contentious subjects such as Holocaust denial. I wouldn't make the pro-free speech arguments I make without supporting the concept across the board.