Sweden mulls using hate crime laws to counter neo-Nazis

[Jaylock]

For the third time today on this page, 52% of Trump supporters believe blacks are "less evolved". Significant majorities believe they are "lazy", "violent", "criminal" etc.

So, yeah, the evidence suggests that a majority of you are racist because that's what most right-wingers actually say when asked. This faux outrage every time you get called racist gets tiresome. If you are really aren't a racist maybe you should do something to suggest you aren't actually a racist: for example not posting 24/7 about immigration, BLM etc etc and various other issues only racists are obsessed with.

So its racist to not want these radical groups rioting and causing violence and property damage? (yes that includes the small subset of neo-nazis that occasionally do their stupid protests too)

So its racist to not want people to illegally enter our country? Do you know how many problems EU countries are facing because of that very issue?

And lol on your "statistics." I'm a black conservative trump supporter and even I know those "statistics" are a bunch of BS.

Nice try though.

[Deleted]

What do you mean not even? I thought it was common knowledge that our government was special, and not in the good kind.

I mean, it was expected that 'hate-speech' laws will be abused and reinterpreted to fight 'any' speech in countries like that first, I just never expected it would happen that soon in general.

[sarahtasher]

Seeing how poorly antifa fairs in a 10 on 1 fight in their favor... I think you would just get blooded neo nazis...

- - - Updated - - -



Everything is to someone.

Nazis struggle immensely at killing people who are not defenceless crowds.

[Deleted]

And lol on your "statistics." I'm a black conservative trump supporter and even I know those "statistics" are a bunch of BS.

So could you explain to us how reuters-ipsos and Gfk market research deliberately manipulated their statistics despite using comprehensive verifiably effective population sampling methods? Are you saying they made them up? Because, you know those companies depend on producing accurate data for profitably, and it would be a major scandal if they were proven to be falsifying data? Or are you perhaps saying their methodology can be improved upon?-because they use fairly standard statistical tests and you could win a nobel prize if you could improve their methods!

Or are you just talking shit because you don't like the truth?

[primalmatter]

Nazis struggle immensely at killing people who are not defenceless crowds.

Not really... like ever... when they come in force with intent there...well you do know why they are despised right?

Your point makes no sense.

[ellieg]

Nazis struggle immensely at killing people who are not defenceless crowds.

Same with commies tbf. Pretty easy to just starve people to death when you dont let them leave your country.

[ParanoiD84]

Nazis struggle immensely at killing people who are not defenceless crowds.

Yeah sure we could see that in ww2, all those defenceless nations conquered and all those defenceless allied troops, lol you didnt think about that did you.

[ComputerNerd]

Hate-crime classifications are emotionally charged and rather pointless.

If someone causes harm to another, I don't really care what their motivation is. It doesn't change the fact someone was harmed.

Speech does not harm, however. No matter if it personally offends you or not. If these groups are going around assaulting/killing people, obviously you take them down. If they're saying a bunch of obscene shit, I really don't care.

And before some moron says I wouldn't say this if ISIS-sympathizers were rallying in my town, you're wrong. Radical Muslims are retarded just like Neo-Nazis or Westboro Baptist Church or whatever idiotic zealots you can imagine. But until they're actually physically harming people, providing aid to terrorist organizations which actually are killing people, or making real plans to harm people, they should be allowed to continue spewing their retarded garbage.

Yet speech is considered harmful in many existing cases, such as slander or verbal abuse.
The intent is the problem.
Speech isn't immune from causing harm.
If speech can fall foul of racism laws, then so can that.
What you define as "real harm" is very ignorant.
Because it isn't immediate and physical, does not mean it isn't causing it.

[PC2]

Yet speech is considered harmful in many existing cases, such as slander or verbal abuse.
The intent is the problem.
Speech isn't immune from causing harm.
If speech can fall foul of racism laws, then so can that.
What you define as "real harm" is very ignorant.
Because it isn't immediate and physical, does not mean it isn't causing it.

Does Sweden not differentiate between crimes and torts? In the US slander is a tort and verbal abuse is not a constitutional criminal charge.

[sarahtasher]

Yeah sure we could see that in ww2, all those defenceless nations conquered and all those defenceless allied troops, lol you didnt think about that did you.

Oh, so how convenient it to forget the difference between ''Nazi'' and ''Germans'' when it's time to lick the Aryans masters.

So, I will be very blunt : without the German army, the Waffen SS venerated by MAGAboys would have struggled to beat Belgium. . The Aryan studs of Das Reich despite having priority for new tanks and poaching constantly other divisions for drivers, mechanics, NCOs and gunners were way better at hanging defenceless French civilians than fighting in Normandy.

[ParanoiD84]

Oh, so how convenient it to forget the difference between ''Nazi'' and ''Germans'' when it's time to lick the Aryans masters.

So, I will be very blunt : without the German army, the Waffen SS venerated by MAGAboys would have struggled to beat Belgium. . The Aryan studs of Das Reich despite having priority for new tanks and poaching constantly other divisions for drivers, mechanics, NCOs and gunners were way better at hanging defenceless French civilians than fighting in Normandy.

More gibberish yay, i will soon be able to understand you after all your posts, well be there soon.

[ComputerNerd]

Does Sweden not differentiate between crimes and torts? In the US slander is never a crime and verbal abuse is not a constitutional charge.

I disagree. Slander and Defamation are as far as I can tell the same thing.

WHAT PLAINTIFFS MUST PROVE TO WIN A DEFAMATION LAWSUIT IN THE U.S.

To win a U.S. defamation lawsuit, the plaintiff, at the very least, must prove that the defendant:
Published or otherwise broadcast an unprivileged, false statement of fact about the plaintiff;
Caused material harm to the plaintiff by publishing or broadcasting said false statement of fact;
Acted either negligently or with actual malice;

FREE SPEECH V. DEFAMATION

In the United States, federal defamation law is closely tied to the First Amendment. As a result, federal slander and libel laws are more defendant-friendly in the U.S. than those in common law countries, like the U.K. and Canada. In short, opinion is not considered defamation in the U.S. That being said, false statements of fact that harm the reputation of an individual or business, aren't protected under Constitutional Free Speech provisions.

http://kellywarnerlaw.com/us-defamation-laws/

[PC2]

I disagree.

http://kellywarnerlaw.com/us-defamation-laws/

Except your link is agreeing with me. That's referring to how it's not a free speech issue. It's not saying slander goes beyond a tort.

[Magnagarde]

Speech does not harm, however.

Bet that is what the world said at the end of January 1933.

[Shibito]

INB4 "U NO GOT FREEDOM"

-sigh- Neo-nazism shouldn't be tolerated

neither should islamists but sweden accepted them back after syria

[sarahtasher]

More gibberish yay, i will soon be able to understand you after all your posts, well be there soon.

What is hard to understand ?

People aping the Nazis seems to forget all the time that the Nazis had a tool slightly above half-baked militias crewed by lunatics : they had the German army. The dudes screeching HUIL HUTLER and advocating mass genocide seems always to forget that they don't have a world power army backed a very powerful industrial complex.

[Jaylock]

So could you explain to us how reuters-ipsos and Gfk market research deliberately manipulated their statistics despite using comprehensive verifiably effective population sampling methods? Are you saying they made them up? Because, you know those companies depend on producing accurate data for profitably, and it would be a major scandal if they were proven to be falsifying data? Or are you perhaps saying their methodology can be improved upon?-because they use fairly standard statistical tests and you could win a nobel prize if you could improve their methods!

Or are you just talking shit because you don't like the truth?

Pollster companies have been proven to be wrong on MANY of the issues they claim to poll for statistics on.

One example being the fucking American election of 2016.

So yeah, many people don't put any faith in those polls because there is bias in the sampling methods, the poll questions, and they can skew the data to present their bias as they see fit.

I've taken statistics courses and in fact I have a dual major in finance and statistics, so I know a thing or two about polling and margin of error.

So please, stop with your bullshit painting of conservatives as racists because its just not true. Most conservatives and liberals don't care about random people. They care about their families and their friends to an extent. We just don't care if you are white, or black, or asian or blue, or what sex you are, or what your sexual orientation is, or how tall you are, or what country you come from.. We just want to be left alone to live our lives and provide for our families. Thats it. And we fight state institutions that try to limit those freedoms, and unduly tax us.

Just because people vote to increase taxes to provide for the entitlement / welfare / <insert program here> doesn't make it morally right. Stealing is still stealing no matter if you vote to do so or not.

[ComputerNerd]

Except your link is agreeing with me. That's referring to how it's not a free speech issue. It's not saying slander goes beyond a tort.

It is saying that there are slander laws in the US.
And slander or defamation are harm caused by factually untrue speech.
Hate speech announcing or claiming either your own superiority or someone else's inferiority do completely meet the definition of defamation in that quote I provided.
It does not need to be physical, monetary or other actions to cause harm, as per defamation.

[Magnagarde]

neither should islamists but sweden accepted them back after syria

As they should after "promoting democracy in Syria", really.

You know, the freedom-loving moderates with green bandanas that they replaced with black ones. The real victim here is the part of Europe that had no role in everything that is happening in Syria, but reaps the results of others.

[ParanoiD84]

What is hard to understand ?

People aping the Nazis seems to forget all the time that the Nazis had a tool slightly above half-baked militias crewed by lunatics : they had the German army. The dudes screeching HUIL HUTLER and advocating mass genocide seems always to forget that they don't have a world power army backed a very powerful industrial complex.

Indeed they had the german army thats why i corrected you for saying that all they did where killing defencless people witch is just not true. And this is not me defending them just correcting you.

Even if they where garbage i still enjoy reading about them just as i enjoy reading about the mongols butchering tens of millions in sieges and battles, do you really think i care about the people when i read about history? nah i just read it for the epicness of battles and whatnot.