>In June 2020, the German police union filed a criminal complaint against the newspaper Tageszeitung, claiming that it had incited hatred by publishing a column comparing the police to “trash” that should be “thrown in the landfill.
Wow! As deplorable as it is, I'm unironically glad that teens are able to go around calling one another faggot-ass little-dicked cucks in the USA. I hope we can keep it this way.
Interesting point of view. I wonder if insults and depicting politicians as Hitler could still be considered as expressing legitimate opinions within a healthy democracy.
In any case, I really don't like that police officers raid someone's home just for a tweet.
I wonder if the author would defend one's right to incite violence against ethnic groups on the basis of the freedom of expression, arguing that it constitutes the bulwark of democracy.
To me it's clear that there are limits to what one should be allowed to say. Especially, people should have the right to stop associating with an individual that is saying or has said dubious things.
> Especially, people should have the right to stop associating with an individual that is saying or has said dubious things.
Only if. Usually this ends up being a total unstoppable assault on the persons, with no checks and balances, with no invovlement of justice system, by a large mob of people to have the right to destroy one's life, source of income, career, leading to spiraling depression and possibly suicide. This is just pure evil, cruel and despicable even if the person said something that would offend someone. Look, there is always someone that will be offended by your opinion. An ideology that wants diversity, but is afraid of following through with actual diversity of thought, silencing those that disagree is fundamentalist, unreasonable and unprincipled.
Calling someone a "Dick" (as in the article) does not deserve police response for hate speech.
That thing about a mob going out to destroy you for simply stating your opinion really seems like an exaggerated worry for me. It sounds scary, but it doesn't actually happen. You might lose your job for saying that for example women are less capable than men, but that's hardly a mob coming for you with pitchforks.
The author approvingly references the US Supreme Court ruling that incitement must consist of speech that provokes imminent lawless action. Is that too permissive a system for you?
To me it's clear that there are limits to what one should be allowed to say. Especially, people should have the right to stop associating with an individual that is saying or has said dubious things.
Those are two very different things. Freedom of association is generally considered to be a _part_ of freedom of expression, not something in tension with it.
And why is it clear to you? What line can you draw between legal and illegal speech that can't be misused by the government?
6 comments
[ 3.5 ms ] story [ 24.6 ms ] threadWow! As deplorable as it is, I'm unironically glad that teens are able to go around calling one another faggot-ass little-dicked cucks in the USA. I hope we can keep it this way.
In any case, I really don't like that police officers raid someone's home just for a tweet.
To me it's clear that there are limits to what one should be allowed to say. Especially, people should have the right to stop associating with an individual that is saying or has said dubious things.
Only if. Usually this ends up being a total unstoppable assault on the persons, with no checks and balances, with no invovlement of justice system, by a large mob of people to have the right to destroy one's life, source of income, career, leading to spiraling depression and possibly suicide. This is just pure evil, cruel and despicable even if the person said something that would offend someone. Look, there is always someone that will be offended by your opinion. An ideology that wants diversity, but is afraid of following through with actual diversity of thought, silencing those that disagree is fundamentalist, unreasonable and unprincipled.
Calling someone a "Dick" (as in the article) does not deserve police response for hate speech.
And why is it clear to you? What line can you draw between legal and illegal speech that can't be misused by the government?