Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Understood. But does the convention specifically contradict part of the German law in question? Or perhaps especially the two articles of the Basic Law I cited?
It doesn't matter what German Law says, you can still appeal to the European Court of Human Rights, and most decisions are therefore finally settled in the European Courts or through interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights. The European Courts can overrule national courts.
Hate speech? What is it? Who defines it? If I voice disagreement with someone else's views, is that HATE SPEECH?
Instigating/inciting/organizing/promoting/encouraging a violent crime is against the law in US. Its hate speech. We have had certain restrictions on 'free speech' for some 100 years now, and we have been doing just fine.
Instigating/inciting/organizing/promoting/encouraging a violent crime is against the law in US. Its hate speech. We have had certain restrictions on 'free speech' for some 100 years now, and we have been doing just fine.
The Left, like Loretta Lynch wants to broaden the definition to statement in which they disagree. It is tyranny.
Hate speech? What is it? Who defines it? If I voice disagreement with someone else's views, is that HATE SPEECH?
good questions.
Just look at the some of the posters here (let alone bottom feeding politicians), whould you want them to determining what words are acceptable or not?
This is no different than book burning.
The answer as usual:Private property rights- those who own the medium call the tune. You are free to avoid the words if so offended.
The article implies that Congress (presumably as the theoretically voice of the people) gets to define it, and can instruct the federal agencies to take steps to enforce the laws. Also the Courts (Judicial) and the quasi-judicial panels of federal agencies also get to decide what harassment is as well.
Also, even the SCOTUS rules that speech presenting a "clear and present danger" of causing a riot or lawbreaking is not protected freedom of speech. Presumably, that could include speech clearly designed to hurt, harm, or severely exclude others well outside reasons of defense of self or others.
Do you honestly think merely expressing disagreement is hate speech? "I disagree we should have a law that equalizes school funding among rich and poor districts" somehow doesn't fill the bill. Now if you were advocating verbal abuse of this person outside the scope of self-defense (slander, libel, making it difficult to impossible for him or her to carry out job duties, causing severe emotional or psychological distress), then that could be at least harassment or even hate speech.
But the point here is to tell you "who gets to define it" and "what is it". I gave my answer above.
good questions.
Just look at the some of the posters here (let alone bottom feeding politicians), whould you want them to determining what words are acceptable or not?
This is no different than book burning.
The answer as usual:Private property rights- those who own the medium call the tune. You are free to avoid the words if so offended.
That's funny because the Social Media companies and their executives were quite as little lambs when the Parliamentary Home Affairs Committee laid in to them last year.
They are being told in no uncertain terms that they will be subject to fines and criminal prosecution and under new laws they will be defined as publishers and be held to account in the same way as those who publish in the UK.
Also, even the SCOTUS rules that speech presenting a "clear and present danger" of causing a riot or lawbreaking is not protected freedom of speech. Presumably, that could include speech clearly designed to hurt, harm, or severely exclude others well outside reasons of defense of self or others.
That is what I was trying to explain to Pilot, but it didn't reach him. The SC has been saying this since 1919.
That is what I was trying to explain to Pilot, but it didn't reach him. The SC has been saying this since 1919.
I understand what you are saying. What I am saying is the LEFT wants to expand Hate Speech to be defined as anything in which they DISAGREE. For example, saying you don't like illegal aliens, and/or refugees being imported is racist, and hate speech. It is a political position, yet Democrat politicians, and bureaucrats are calling it HATE SPEECH.
Not a bad idea, though like all things, open to grey areas of interpretation, and thus potentially manipulated. Still, the alternative, as shown in this nation, is hate sites masquerading as news sites, which has its own obvious problems. There are no easy answers and will never be so long as people are willing to make up their own facts, as one can see by a quick tour around this right-wing forum.
So, you are fine with the government deciding what is fake or real? And what is hate speech or just an opposing opinion?
You would have loved living under Stalin.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
