The moment a famous refugee meets a right-wing nationalist

[Deleted]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/magazin...ng-nationalist

A Syrian refugee and a candidate for a right-wing nationalist party disagree about a new German law that promises to crack down on hate speech online. What happened when they met in real life?

Quite an interesting watch I found

[primalmatter]

Is there a non video article?

[Deleted]

Is there a non video article?

No blame BBC

[Rudol Von Stroheim]

Nonsense. I blame you for something beyond your control.

Now on topic Germany's "hate speech" is just a waste of resources. Resources that could be used elsewhere.

Being the flaming liberal that I am, any kind of excessive control over speech has never been my bag. I understand that there are consequences with your speech and so on, like you know, threatening to kill the POTUS or something might get you investigated but actually, intentionally trying to restrict speech is not okay with me - period. I don't give a shit if you think Hitler himself will rise from his grave if enough pro-Nazisms are spouted over Facebook.

[Ehrenpanzer]

Being the flaming liberal that I am, any kind of excessive control over speech has never been my bag. I understand that there are consequences with your speech and so on, like you know, threatening to kill the POTUS or something might get you investigated but actually, intentionally trying to restrict speech is not okay with me - period. I don't give a shit if you think Hitler himself will rise from his grave if enough pro-Nazisms are spouted over Facebook.

As a fairly conservative leaning person, I totally agree with this. Both sides should be allowed to express their opinions without fear of government or legal reprisal, that being said, freedom of speech is often confused with freedom from consequences for your speech i.e your boss fires you for attending a KKK rally...

[Deleted]

I doubt anyone cares of what a refugee has to say regarding laws in Germany.

[Acidbaron]

Hate speech is not about freedom of speech, it is about intentionally attempting to entice people to commit acts of violence towards a group or individual.

Plenty of laws have been altered to also include the internet.

[Freighter]

Hate speech is not about freedom of speech, it is about intentionally attempting to entice people to commit acts of violence towards a group or individual.

Plenty of laws have been altered to also include the internet.

Most certainly not.

[Rudol Von Stroheim]

Hate speech is not about freedom of speech, it is about intentionally attempting to entice people to commit acts of violence towards a group or individual.

Plenty of laws have been altered to also include the internet.

That's a vague, slippery area and it's why many do not agree with any kind of arbitrary defining and disciplining of speech.

[Kuntantee]

People who have problems with banning hate speech are the ones who actively make comments involving hatred. Doesn't take a genius to realize why the most prominent opposers of such "bans" over "freedom of speech" are the far-right groups and nationalists.

[Acidbaron]

That's a vague, slippery area and it's why many do not agree with any kind of arbitrary defining and disciplining of speech.

"Hate speech is speech which attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as race, religion, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, disability, or gender.[1][2] In the law of some countries, hate speech is described as speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it incites violence or prejudicial action against a protected group, or individual on the basis of their membership of the group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected group, or individual on the basis of their membership of the group. "

I gave you a definition based on the key elements out my head that's the wiki description if you are from a western nation you can look up the exact definition in your language laws.

- - - Updated - - -

Most certainly not.

Hai, i also like to make short posts to up my post count and get some attention!

[Rudol Von Stroheim]

People who have problems with banning hate speech are the ones who actively make comments involving hatred.

You only proved my point as you seem to be stretching the term "hatred" rather thin based upon your own world views. This is why categorization and enforcement of speech laws is inherently dangerous. If the pendulum swung hard enough towards the right, you might find something as seemingly harmless as "conservatard" as a form of hate speech. I mean, after all, you're inciting others and feeding their lesser impulses in order demean, belittle, and potentially even dehumanize.

- - - Updated - - -

"Hate speech is speech which attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as race, religion, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, disability, or gender.[1][2] In the law of some countries, hate speech is described as speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it incites violence or prejudicial action against a protected group, or individual on the basis of their membership of the group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected group, or individual on the basis of their membership of the group. "

I gave you a definition based on the key elements out my head that's the wiki description if you are from a western nation you can look up the exact definition in your language laws.

Again, this is rather vague and doesn't make it any better simply because it is in fact law. You can, you know, argue against things that are codified.

[Holofernes]

As a fairly conservative leaning person, I totally agree with this. Both sides should be allowed to express their opinions without fear of government or legal reprisal, that being said, freedom of speech is often confused with freedom from consequences for your speech i.e your boss fires you for attending a KKK rally...

The highest good of the german constitution is the freedom and dignity of a human person, and therefore speech that attacks this dignity must be forbidden.

Expressing opinions is perfectly legal in germany. But not if they are against the law, for example holocaust denying, or racist / antisemitic / nazi propaganda.

It is forbidden to incite hate, propagate enemys of the consitution, and it is forbidden to insult people. Insulting a person is seen the same as hitting it with a fist or shooting it, because persons do actually have rights in germany.

We dont randomly shoot People (like it happens in the US on a daily bases, were shooting or telling someone to do so seems to be under the "free speech catagory" , and we dont randomly insult. Hurting a persons feeling or honor is a crime.

Freedom of speech is only free as long as it doesnt hurt persons or denies historic facts like holocaust / genocide or is racist in germany.

But, as we are not that morally prude, we can have naked bodies and bare tits in TV at all times, and we even have naked women doing adds for yogurt.


Freedom of speech is stopped where it attacks the dignity of person, because a persons right of beeing a natural, unharmed person is valued higher than The right of said person to say /writ someting or physically attack another person.
.

[Freighter]

"Hate speech is speech which attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as race, religion, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, disability, or gender.[1][2] In the law of some countries, hate speech is described as speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it incites violence or prejudicial action against a protected group, or individual on the basis of their membership of the group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected group, or individual on the basis of their membership of the group. "

I gave you a definition based on the key elements out my head that's the wiki description if you are from a western nation you can look up the exact definition in your language laws.

- - - Updated - - -



Hai, i also like to make short posts to up my post count and get some attention!

As far as I know it's only USA which has it as enticing others to commit acts of violence. Here in Singapore we prosecute people for speaking of religions/race/ethnicity in a manner that offends their sensitivities, even without any incitement to violence.

See: http://www.straitstimes.com/singapor...mmissioner-for for an example.

[Babadoo]

There is 28 countries in EU and only place they wanna go is either Germany or Sweden. That sums up their honesty, money talks.

[Kuntantee]

You only proved my point as you seem to be stretching the term "hatred" rather thin based upon your own world views. This is why categorization and enforcement of speech laws is inherently dangerous. If the pendulum swung hard enough towards the right, you might find something as seemingly harmless as "conservatard" as a form of hate speech. I mean, after all, you're inciting others and feeding their lesser impulses in order demean, belittle, and potentially even dehumanize.

- - - Updated - - -



Again, this is rather vague and doesn't make it any better simply because it is in fact law. You can, you know, argue against things that are codified.

Vague cases can be ignored. Judges are trained well enough for that. Outright hate speech should be a crime. You are not going to claim that no hate speech can be classified as such, right?

[Acidbaron]

You only proved my point as you seem to be stretching the term "hatred" rather thin based upon your own world views. This is why categorization and enforcement of speech laws is inherently dangerous. If the pendulum swung hard enough towards the right, you might find something as seemingly harmless as "conservatard" as a form of hate speech. I mean, after all, you're inciting others and feeding their lesser impulses in order demean, belittle, and potentially even dehumanize.

- - - Updated - - -



Again, this is rather vague and doesn't make it any better simply because it is in fact law. You can, you know, argue against things that are codified.

When you form a proper argument why it should not be i'll gladly reply back on why it should be or side with you on keeping or altering the law.
Merely being opposed to hate speech laws because it is some sort of "freedom of speech" enemy is not a good argument in any way, same goes for slippery slope arguments they are weak and are nothing more then empty words.

You are arguing the definition, i provided you with the tools to find out what hate speech really is, if your intend is to further assume what you think it is and build an argument based on that, have fun with that i rather not participate in discussions people pull out things out of thin air because it suits them.

- - - Updated - - -

As far as I know it's only USA which has it as enticing others to commit acts of violence. Here in Singapore we prosecute people for speaking of religions/race/ethnicity in a manner that offends their sensitivities, even without any incitement to violence.

See: http://www.straitstimes.com/singapor...mmissioner-for for an example.

Good thing this is neither about those two nations you mentioned, but good attempt you are at least trying to stick with the topic! Maybe next post it will actually be on topic!

[Freighter]

Good thing this is neither about those two nations you mentioned, but good attempt you are at least trying to stick with the topic! Maybe next post it will actually be on topic!

You were talking about what is hate speech, I disagreed with what you said. That differs from nation to nation and as far as I know, USA is the only one where hate speech is criminalized where it's only enticing others to commit acts of violence that is considered prosecutable. Other nations that criminalize it covers far more than what USA does.

Do you not remember your own post?

Hate speech is not about freedom of speech, it is about intentionally attempting to entice people to commit acts of violence towards a group or individual.

Plenty of laws have been altered to also include the internet.

I said it's not.

[Acidbaron]

You were talking about what is hate speech, I disagreed with what you said. That differs from nation to nation and as far as I know, USA is the only one where hate speech is criminalized where it's only enticing others to commit acts of violence that is considered prosecutable. Other nations that criminalize it covers far more than what USA does.

I was talking about the topic, what speaks about hate speech in Germany thus western europe. You might as well be speaking about what it means on Mars.

[Endus]

Again, this is rather vague and doesn't make it any better simply because it is in fact law. You can, you know, argue against things that are codified.

No, but it does mean you should drop the "I support free speech instead" non-argument, and instead focus on the specific character of the particular speech in question, and why you think it deserves to be protected.

Hate speech laws are predicated upon the harm principle. You have to explain why you think that harm should be legally allowed, not fall back on "but free speech is good", which isn't an argument anyone was arguing against in the first place.

So go on. Explain why people should be allowed to call for and advocate for the genocide of entire classes of people without legal repercussion. Without any fallacious claims of it being a "slippery slope" to anything else, which isn't an argument at all; make your argument on the character of the hate speech itself.