German police raid 36 homes over hateful postings on social media

[LaplaceNoMa]

That seems rather stupid.

Nah, 'stupid' is the idea that someone can obstruct the freedom of others.

[Freighter]

Nah, 'stupid' is the idea that someone can obstruct the freedom of others.

Nope, it should be obvious to shut the instigators up if it causes social unrest.

- - - Updated - - -

Selectively, that is, by the governments.

Currently it is more like "Group A can not be spoken out against or criticised, bashing group B is fine, though.".

I let you work out which group represents which.

You can't speak bad about any group here on the basis of race, ethnicity or religion. You can criticize though.

[LaplaceNoMa]

Nope, it should be obvious to shut the instigators up if it causes social unrest.

Nope. When one group of people shuts another in the name of 'unrest', it's called fascism. And we, as the human civilization, should be well beyond that. If someone doesn't infringe on your freedom of speech or property, you have no right to use aggression against them. Forcing someone to shut up is impossible without using aggression. Therefore, any form of censorship is basically one group of people forcibly making someone bend to their will, and it's as far from 'freedom' and 'liberty' as things can get.

[Freighter]

Nope. When one group of people shuts another in the name of 'unrest', it's called fascism. And we, as the human civilization, should be well beyond that. If someone doesn't infringe on your freedom of speech or property, you have no right to use aggression against them. Forcing someone to shut up is impossible without using aggression. Therefore, any form of censorship is basically one group of people forcibly making someone bend to their will, and it's as far from 'freedom' and 'liberty' as things can get.

What? No, it's not called fascism. You're not some ultra nationalist just because you want to stop people from agitating others.

[Sharein]

Nope, it should be obvious to shut the instigators up if it causes social unrest.

- - - Updated - - -



You can't speak bad about any group here on the basis of race, ethnicity or religion. You can criticize though.

Yeah, but certain people of the political spectrum even take constructive criticism as -horrible razism!!1-

No wonder we never get any constructive discussions about the social problems that are.

That is why we need a proper legal definition of racism.

[Freighter]

Yeah, but certain people of the political spectrum even take constructive criticism as -horrible razism!!1-

No wonder we never get any constructive discussions about the social problems that are.

So ignore them, vote for others. Shouldn't be hard.

[Granyala]

Saying something never directly affects or harms anyone. If someone needs bully-proof windows, he's free to lock up inside his house. Shutting others in the name of someone's hurt feelings is called fascism regardless of the reason.

Until they post WHAT was said, it's pretty redundant to discuss about whether the action was justified or not.

In general I disagree though. Free speech has limits, esp when one is a public figure which has influence over the weak minded which might naively act upon what one is saying.

[LaplaceNoMa]

What? No, it's not called fascism. You're not some ultra nationalist just because you want to stop people from agitating others.

No, you are a fascist for thinking that one opinion is more 'right' than some other, and one group of people has more rights than the others. 'Agitating' something is not 'forcing' them; person A is free to say *anything*, and if some person B acts on A's words, only B can be held accountable (unless he was acting at A's gunpoint).

- - - Updated - - -

Free speech has limits

Uh-huh. More news at eleven.

[Freighter]

No, you are a fascist for thinking that one opinion is more 'right' than some other, and one group of people has more rights than the others. 'Agitating' something is not 'forcing' them; person A is free to say *anything*, and if some person B acts on A's words, only B can be held accountable (unless he was acting at A's gunpoint).

Hahahahaha.

[Sharein]

So ignore them, vote for others. Shouldn't be hard.

There's too many of them to ignore.

[Granyala]

Uh-huh. More news at eleven.

What you are advocating is not freedom.
It is called "anarchy" in which the strong basically rule over the weak.

[LaplaceNoMa]

What you are advocating is not freedom.
It is called "anarchy" in which the strong basically rule over the weak.

Well, freedom is impossible when someone has a monopoly on aggression (in other words, state), so yes, freedom IS anarchy.

[Granyala]

Well, freedom is impossible when someone has a monopoly on aggression (in other words, state), so yes, freedom IS anarchy.

Then you can keep your "freedom", because most people would be off a lot worse in such a system.

[Freighter]

Well, freedom is impossible when someone has a monopoly on aggression (in other words, state), so yes, freedom IS anarchy.

The ones who can do most violence would have monopoly on aggression in anarchy.

[LaplaceNoMa]

Then you can keep your "freedom", because most people would be a lot worse off in such a system.

The only ones who would are those who are currently getting by by exploiting people who actually pay for all the 'free stuff'.

The ones who can do most violence would have monopoly on aggression in anarchy.

No, that's the definition of any state-based system.

[Freighter]

No, that's the definition of any state-based system.

No, in anarchy the one group which is most capable of doing violence would be the one with monopoly on it under threat of destruction to anyone else who would engage in it... Human nature, why would you allow others to do violence if you're the king of the hill?

[Granyala]

The only ones who would are those who are currently getting by by exploiting people who actually pay for all the 'free stuff'.

Yah, in other words: the majority of the population.

[Tennis]

Are people actually upset that a country takes "threats, coercion and incitement to racism" seriously?

Yeah. This is really troubling how people are against this.

[Noomz]

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/web...20-gwv6h2.html

It's nice some country takes online interactions seriously and shows that there are consequences to your behavior.

[luxz]

No, you are a fascist for thinking that one opinion is more 'right' than some other, and one group of people has more rights than the others. 'Agitating' something is not 'forcing' them; person A is free to say *anything*, and if some person B acts on A's words, only B can be held accountable (unless he was acting at A's gunpoint).

Oh man, if that's really your definition of fascism, then I have bad news for you. I mean you seem to think your opinion is above those of others around here, right?

To educate you a little about the "freedom" you seem to care so much about. Freedom means that you van do whatever you want, right? So what happens if someone using his freedom is interfereing with yours? For example, someone talks online shit about you and is speaking lies and you lose your job. He can totally do that, free speech, Yeah? You dont have the freedom to work at your job, maybe your whole branch an mir, cause your resume is tainted.

You See, freedom has borders where it violates another one's freedom. That's basically Kant btw. Now the state is there to make sure everyone gets as much freedom as possible with out restricting another one's freedom. Its instrument for that is the law.
In anarchy theres no law. So whoever takes his freedom first and with the most force gets it. The other ones lose out. So in anarchy there is actually less freedom overall. Because as I just said, you're taking away freedom from others to fuel your own.

Free speech is not easy to evaluate in this regard. Is someone limiting your freedom if he is inciting violence against a group you are part of? I'd say yes. What if someone says gay people are scum? Is gay people's freedom under attack by such remarks? I'd say yes. But that s very much debatable. And we didnt even start about laws, etc.

But that ideologically infused, political locker room talk you are spreading around here has no basis for debate. It actually is just a way for you to choke out real conversation. In that way you actually are the closest to fascism that ive read around this thread.