by Minoa » Mon Aug 21, 2017 6:29 am
by Benjabobaria » Mon Aug 21, 2017 6:33 am
Zizou wrote:it's the natives fault for getting beat the fuck up by raiders because the founder cted or they were dumb enough to make the del exec
Altino wrote:The number of "Benja this is amazing, I love it!!!" conversations and also "Benja wtf were you thinking, you're ruining my life" conversations we've had go so hard.
by Destructive Government Economic System » Mon Aug 21, 2017 6:40 am
Keshiland literally wrote:I would give it a no. A country that lies about how free, or how great, or how humanitarian it is can never be developed. Example, NK lies and says they are democratic and are not, the US lies and says we are free yet we incarcerate millions for a medical plant. See we are basically a larger more populated North Korea.
by Benjabobaria » Mon Aug 21, 2017 6:52 am
Zizou wrote:it's the natives fault for getting beat the fuck up by raiders because the founder cted or they were dumb enough to make the del exec
Altino wrote:The number of "Benja this is amazing, I love it!!!" conversations and also "Benja wtf were you thinking, you're ruining my life" conversations we've had go so hard.
by Laeden » Mon Aug 21, 2017 7:15 am
by United Muscovite Nations » Mon Aug 21, 2017 7:16 am
by Aidannadia » Mon Aug 21, 2017 7:19 am
Laeden wrote:The problem lies at the definition of ''racism'' of ''hate speech''. For instance, I could label anything that goes against my ideology as ''hate speech'', as usually the left-wing militants do. And that is problematic because I'd be using this expression to restrain your right to express your thoughts. I do think that we cannot use freedom of expression to insult one another, to abuse, defame or calumniate. Except for that, I believe we should have the freedom to speak whataver we please.
And yes, I do think that even nazis should have the right to express their opinions. If we take this right from them, we won't be dealing with the real issue, which is the very existence of nazis in the XXI century. We will be merely hiding it.
And it is extremely problematic to see social networks openly restricting what it unilaterally considers to be ''hate speech'' or ''racism''. I do think that a private network lacks the autority and, even more so, the legitimacy, to determine what is hate speech and to act against it. It is utterly regrettable that we're prohibiting some ideas, no matter how extreme or unfair they are, from the democratic arena. Everyone is entitled to the right of think and, therefore, to express his or hers thoughs.
by Dumb Ideologies » Mon Aug 21, 2017 7:22 am
by Mike the Progressive » Mon Aug 21, 2017 7:25 am
by Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States » Mon Aug 21, 2017 7:27 am
ARTICLE 10
Freedom of expression
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right
shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart
information and ideas without interference by public authority
and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States
from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema
enterprises.
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it
duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities,
conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and
are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national
security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention
of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for
the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing
the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for
maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
Subject to paragraph 2, it is applicable not only to “information” or “ideas” that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb the State or any section of the population. Such are the demands of that pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness without which there is no “democratic society”.
by Minoa » Mon Aug 21, 2017 7:30 am
Laeden wrote:If we take this right from them, we won't be dealing with the real issue, which is the very existence of nazis in the XXI century. We will be merely hiding it.
by Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States » Mon Aug 21, 2017 7:34 am
Laeden wrote:The problem lies at the definition of ''racism'' of ''hate speech''. For instance, I could label anything that goes against my ideology as ''hate speech'', as usually the left-wing militants do. And that is problematic because I'd be using this expression to restrain your right to express your thoughts. I do think that we cannot use freedom of expression to insult one another, to abuse, defame or calumniate. Except for that, I believe we should have the freedom to speak whataver we please.
And yes, I do think that even nazis should have the right to express their opinions. If we take this right from them, we won't be dealing with the real issue, which is the very existence of nazis in the XXI century. We will be merely hiding it.
And it is extremely problematic to see social networks openly restricting what it unilaterally considers to be ''hate speech'' or ''racism''. I do think that a private network lacks the autority and, even more so, the legitimacy, to determine what is hate speech and to act against it. It is utterly regrettable that we're prohibiting some ideas, no matter how extreme or unfair they are, from the democratic arena. Everyone is entitled to the right of think and, therefore, to express his or hers thoughs.
by Risottia » Mon Aug 21, 2017 7:59 am
Minoa wrote:There are also sharp continental differences between how we (in Europe) and our friends across the Atlantic interpret of freedom of expression: Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights recognises reasonable limitations to protect the safety and freedoms of others in a democratic society, while the US interpretation of the freedom of speech, at least according to the First Amendment, appears absolute.
What are the reasonable limits of freedom of expression?
by Dushan » Mon Aug 21, 2017 8:09 am
Minoa wrote:There are also sharp continental differences between how we (in Europe) and our friends across the Atlantic interpret of freedom of expression: Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights recognises reasonable limitations to protect the safety and freedoms of others in a democratic society, while the US interpretation of the freedom of speech, at least according to the First Amendment, appears absolute.
In my opinion, I agree that there needs to be a unified framework to tackle violence, hatred or racism on the Internet, but also to set guarantees to protect freedom of expression in general, as well as the right to privacy, and also clarify that such intervention may only be used to protect the safety and freedoms of others in a democratic society.
Minoa wrote:The main discussion point is as the title says: What are the reasonable limits of freedom of expression? In my opinion, I do not consider incitement to violence, hatred or racism as part of free speech, because allowing it unconditionally defeats the whole idea of being able to express ideas freely, without fear of violence or repression.
by Minoa » Mon Aug 21, 2017 8:09 am
Risottia wrote:Minoa wrote:There are also sharp continental differences between how we (in Europe) and our friends across the Atlantic interpret of freedom of expression: Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights recognises reasonable limitations to protect the safety and freedoms of others in a democratic society, while the US interpretation of the freedom of speech, at least according to the First Amendment, appears absolute.
It isn't absolute even in America. One cannot use the freedom of speech to disseminate State secrets, as example.
by Phoenicaea » Mon Aug 21, 2017 8:11 am
by Arumbia67 » Mon Aug 21, 2017 8:44 am
by Taostic Aesthetics » Mon Aug 21, 2017 8:51 am
by Major-Tom » Mon Aug 21, 2017 8:54 am
Mike the Progressive wrote:Jerking off in front of a school.
by Taostic Aesthetics » Mon Aug 21, 2017 8:56 am
Major-Tom wrote:Mike the Progressive wrote:Jerking off in front of a school.
Do you have something you'd like to share with us, Mike?
In all seriousness, I'd say inciting/taking part in violence, as several people have already said. The line should be drawn there. Or arguing that Creed is solid rock music, that should also be illegal.
by Major-Tom » Mon Aug 21, 2017 8:57 am
Taostic Aesthetics wrote:Major-Tom wrote:
Do you have something you'd like to share with us, Mike?
In all seriousness, I'd say inciting/taking part in violence, as several people have already said. The line should be drawn there. Or arguing that Creed is solid rock music, that should also be illegal.
Inciting hatred shouldn't be a limit. We saw this with Geert Wilder's speech in, 2014 if I remember correctly. These kind of things are way too open for interpretation.
by Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States » Mon Aug 21, 2017 8:57 am
Taostic Aesthetics wrote:There should be no limits on the freedom of expression.
by Taostic Aesthetics » Mon Aug 21, 2017 9:00 am
Major-Tom wrote:You're gonna have to elaborate.
by Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States » Mon Aug 21, 2017 9:04 am
Taostic Aesthetics wrote:Great Confederacy Of Commonwealth States wrote:Should whisteblowing be illegal?
Shouting 'bomb' in a crowded place?
You see the thing with freedom in my opinion is that freedom implies you do not harm others. The NAP is a good measuring point.
Whistleblowing shouldn't be illegal.
Shouting bomb in a crowded place shouldn't be illegal either, but you should be liable for the consequences.Major-Tom wrote:You're gonna have to elaborate.
tl;dr Geert Wilders asked his public whether they wanted less or more morrocans - crowd reacted with less less less, whereupon he reacted with ''we'll take care of that''.
He got fined afaik and found guilty of inciting hatred - which in my opinion, did not happen.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Bears Armed, Bienenhalde, Gun Manufacturers, Immoren, Plan Neonie, Soviet Haaregrad, Talibanada, Zancostan
Advertisement