Europe, Boring Until it's Not

[TheReal_ND]

Until this day I would have never thought that the overt racism we saw in times past would rear it's ugly head again. THIS IS THE CURRENT YEAR

RIGHT WING NATIONALIST ITALIANS ARE A PEOPLE OF PEACE

[Montegriffo]

How do you stop suicidal terrorists? You stop them from wanting to be suicidal terrorists by not wanting them to be suicidal terrorists.

I don't want them to be suicidal terrorists, unfortunately this seems to have no effect.
Limiting the rights of hate preachers to encourage them to be suicidal terrorists seems like a reasonable infringement of the right to free speech.
Of course, ending discrimination, alienation and demonisation against them may also help.
In court this week the judge concluded that the man found guilty of driving into a crowd of worshipers at the Finsbury Mosque was radicalised by reading hate filled far right literature from the likes of Britain first and direct communication from Tommy Robinson so it works both ways.
Even in the US there is no absolute right to freedom of speech, there are many things you can't say without being prosecuted. If I were to stand on a street corner calling for people to kill all Muslims I would be breaking the law. I see the banning of hate speech as a natural extension of that prohibition.

I may be wrong, but I'm fairly certain than even in the US, outright inciting people to commit murder is a crime. Here's the thing with the line between incitement to murder and outlawing the more generalized term of "hate speech": You speak of ending discrimination, alienation and demonization as a solution to ending radicalization. I agree. Let's call it showing respect of people's differences. If you ban a hate preacher down at the local mosque for calling Jews blood sucking Christkillers who murder innocent Muslim children during dark kabbalistic rituals, you're definitely alienation him and all Muslims who, if not hate Jews, at least strongly dislike them. The natural extension of banning incitement to murder-laws, is not another law, it is to get those who engage in hate speech to discuss openly , and with you, their beliefs and through that, you can persuade everyone listening in - and potentially even the "hate speakers" themselves, that they're wrong.

It should be the law's duty to punish those who harm others, but it should be society's duty to prevent people from harming and wanting to harm others. A polite society is a society that freely wants to be polite, not a society that is only polite because the law tells you to, or because a stranger might shoot in the face for not saying "please".

The House of Lords passed amendments[6][7] to the Bill on 25 October 2005 which have the effect of limiting the legislation to "A person who uses threatening words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening... if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred". This removed the abusive and insulting concept, and required the intention — and not just the possibility — of stirring up religious hatred.

The law as it works in practise does not simply outlaw hate speech, what it does is outlaw inciting others to hatred. Your example would fall under this and I would agree with it as it would certainly incite others to hate Jews and could easily lead to acts of violence against them. I would suggest that anyone making that statement is already alienated from society.
I would contend that one of the duties of the law is to prevent a breach of the peace and a statement like the example you gave could easily lead to one.

[TheReal_ND]

Right so make a law banning voicing an opinion while destabilizing demographics because surely racism is a modern trend and if you nip it at the bud everyone will become peaceful with the others.

Idiot

[Speaker to Animals]

Italy is trying to fix this. They are offering old stone homes for 1 euro if you can afford to refurbish them and live there for some number of years. One town in Sardenia is doing it with a deadline to apply coming up on the 7th. Some other towns are doing it. The homes look pretty small, but the 30k euros or so to refurbish them wouldn't be more than the typical mortgage either.

It sort of seems like Europe is going to find ways to eventually send the Muslims back, and attract more whites to fix the demographics. It makes sense in that the US is a lost cause at this point, and Europe still has hope if they stop importing Muslims and target white Americans, Canadians, and maybe even Auatralians.

[Montegriffo]

Right so make a law banning voicing an opinion while destabilizing demographics because surely racism is a modern trend and if you nip it at the bud everyone will become peaceful with the others.

Idiot

Did you not read what I just wrote?
It is not illegal to simply voice an opinion, it is illegal to incite others to hatred.
Encouraging one part of a society to hate another is exactly what lead to the rise of fascism last time around.

[TheReal_ND]

Inciting violence is already illegal in America if you are White.

I'm not even sure why you're still banging the drum over there. You literally don't have any rights.

[Montegriffo]

[BjornP]

The law as it works in practise does not simply outlaw hate speech, what it does is outlaw inciting others to hatred. Your example would fall under this and I would agree with it as it would certainly incite others to hate Jews and could easily lead to acts of violence against them. I would suggest that anyone making that statement is already alienated from society.
I would contend that one of the duties of the law is to prevent a breach of the peace and a statement like the example you gave could easily lead to one.

You mark our disagreements out pretty well. We disagree about something as fundamental about the purpose of law. You make no distinction between law and society it seems, which is a convenient way to excuse the individual from any personal responsibility as a participating member of society. If the law is the ultimate arbiter of what's considered polite and proper behavior, words, acts and sexual preference, you don't need to make any individual moral choice of your own. You don't need to make any individual effort to show respect, because the law has already dictated that as long as you don't say X,Y, or Z in an A, B or C way, you're not a bad person who's breaching anyone's peace.

"The peace" is only meaningful when the people choose, when they genuinely WANT to keep the peace between them. It is never the law that's keeping the peace, Monte. When you show consideration to other people, assuming you do, you hopefully don't do that because there's a law either demanding that you do, or because a law punishes you for not doing so.

[TheReal_ND]

Our Supreme Court has already ruled that it's perfectly ok for a clansmen to shout NIGGER on a bullhorn until he's blue in the face on public property.

You may not like peak freedom but this is what it looks like.

[BjornP]

Encouraging one part of a society to hate another is exactly what lead to the rise of fascism last time around.

That and their fantastic ability to keep the peace by outlawing the offending parts of society.