Europe, Boring Until it's Not

[Montegriffo]

And people were thrown in prison under that law simply for informing the public about the Muslim rape gangs that infested multiple English cities while the state and corporate media refused to say anything about it, and the police were terrified to do anything about it lest they also be branded "racists".

Are you referring to Tommy Robinson (not his real name)?
If so you are lying. Yaxley Lennon was convicted of contempt of court and later acquitted on appeal. He has never been found guilty of informing the public. He was never prosecuted under the incitement to hatred law, you are simply trying to misinform.

[StCapps]

That is a ridiculous standard to use to argue against a law. It only needs to be shown that it has the potential to cause harm.

Speaking of ridiculous standards, I can show that this post has the potential to cause harm, doesn't mean it's should be banned or restricted. You fookin moron.

Ban the bible, some people who commit crimes claim religious justifications. Ban Catcher and The Rye, someone might assassinate a famous musician after reading it. Ban Marilyn Manson, someone might shoot up a school after listening to him. Fucking clown show, that shit is the dumbest standard ever. Free speech doesn't radicalize anyone, they radicalize themselves with their own thoughts, the onus is on people to not become radicalized, not on people to avoid saying anything that could potentially lead to someone eventually radicalizing, as the latter is a standard that can never be met be anyone, no matter how little hate they express themselves with.

The standard is not whether you can show something Capps. The standard is that it can be shown in a court of law, after due process, to the satisfaction of a magistrate.

You have far too much faith in a court of law, after due process, to the satisfaction of a magistrate when it comes to restricting fundamental human freedoms. That's your problem, no faith in individual liberty, tons of faith in government regulations and employees to not infringe on important human rights when they have proven to do so over and over again despite your misplaced faith.

Your standard sucks, and you are far too trusting of the government.

[Montegriffo]

Speaking of ridiculous standards, I can show that this post has the potential to cause harm, doesn't mean it's should be banned or restricted. You fookin moron.

Ban the bible, some people who commit crimes claim religious justifications. Ban Catcher and The Rye, someone might assassinate a famous musician after reading it. Ban Marilyn Manson, someone might shoot up a school after listening to him. Fucking clown show, that shit is the dumbest standard ever. Free speech doesn't radicalize anyone, they radicalize themselves with their own thoughts, the onus is on people to not become radicalized, not on people to avoid saying anything that could potentially lead to someone eventually radicalizing, as the latter is a standard that can never be met be anyone, no matter how little hate they express themselves with.

The standard is not whether you can show something Capps. The standard is that it can be shown in a court of law, after due process, to the satisfaction of a magistrate.

You have far too much faith in a court of law, after due process, to the satisfaction of a magistrate when it comes to restricting fundamental human freedoms. That's your problem, no faith in individual liberty, tons of faith in government regulations to not infringe on important human rights when they have proven to do so over and over again.

Incitement to hatred in order to cause division in society is not a fundamental human right. Why would you make such a claim?

[StCapps]

Incitement to hatred in order to cause division in society is not a fundamental human right. Why would you make such a claim?

That is covered under free speech, it is a fundamental human right. Free speech does not only apply to speech you happen to not hate, you may not like people to use their speech in such a way, but that shouldn't make it illegal. Free speech inherently applies to offensive speech you find hateful, if it didn't, free speech wouldn't need to exist, because no one would want to ban or restrict speech that isn't offensive. Free speech exists as a constitutional right in order to protect speech you don't like, get over it and stop pretending that isn't the case.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

You have to address the idea, and explain why it’s a bad one.

Yeah? Easy peasy, like that?

Hey Monte, everyone has been addressing your idea and explaining to you why it's bad... you all sorted out yet?

No, I still hate hatred and am still intolerant of intolerance.

The problem with these chuckle heads is they are, deep down, total moral relativists. There are no important moral distinctions between any states, the UK is more or less exactly the same as authoritarian China. America is slightly better only in so far as it doesn't function like a well ordered state.

They also resent the lawful order that protects them and allows them to thrive, and labor under absurd fantasies about how successful they would be as Ubermensch, free from onerous restrictions... like not being able to say nigger on youtube without being demonetized.

Oh lord, let these shackles fall from us, so we can escape from speech prison.

[StCapps]

Yeah? Easy peasy, like that?

Hey Monte, everyone has been addressing your idea and explaining to you why it's bad... you all sorted out yet?

No, I still hate hatred and am still intolerant of intolerance.

The problem with these chuckle heads is they are, deep down, total moral relativists. There are no important moral distinctions between any states, the UK is more or less exactly the same as authoritarian China. America is slightly better only in so far as it doesn't function like a well ordered state.

They also resent the lawful order that protects them and allows them to thrive, and labor under absurd fantasies about how successful they would be as Ubermensch, free from onerous restrictions... like not being able to say nigger on youtube without being demonetized.

Oh lord, let these shackles fall from us, so we can escape from speech prison.

Your mind reading sucks. Literally no one here believes any of your above stated nonsense, you create a strawman so you don't have to argue against a position that isn't flat out retarded, because you have no good argument and need the softer fake competition in order to feel you're still right somehow.

[Montegriffo]

Incitement to hatred in order to cause division in society is not a fundamental human right. Why would you make such a claim?

That is covered under free speech, it is a fundamental human right. Free speech does not only apply to speech you don't hate.

It's a clearly defined restriction to free speech. It is not unique, there are many other limits on free speech, incitement to violence for example. The speaker himself need not commit an act of violence to be guilty of a crime. You are simply engaging in a thin end of the wedge fallacy.

[StCapps]

It's a clearly defined restriction to free speech. It is not unique, there are many other limits on free speech, incitement to violence for example. The speaker himself need not commit an act of violence to be guilty of a crime. You are simply engaging in a thin end of the wedge fallacy.

Not in America it isn't and for good reason. Incitement to violence is a clearly defined restriction, hate speech laws are not, incitement to hate is a clearly vague restriction that is nowhere near as clear as inciting violence, which is why smart nations don't hold people to that ridiculous standard.

Hate speech is free speech, whether you like it or not.

[Montegriffo]

Yeah? Easy peasy, like that?

Hey Monte, everyone has been addressing your idea and explaining to you why it's bad... you all sorted out yet?

No, I still hate hatred and am still intolerant of intolerance.

The problem with these chuckle heads is they are, deep down, total moral relativists. There are no important moral distinctions between any states, the UK is more or less exactly the same as authoritarian China. America is slightly better only in so far as it doesn't function like a well ordered state.

They also resent the lawful order that protects them and allows them to thrive, and labor under absurd fantasies about how successful they would be as Ubermensch, free from onerous restrictions... like not being able to say nigger on youtube without being demonetized.

Oh lord, let these shackles fall from us, so we can escape from speech prison.

Everyone hates the law until a crime is committed against them. Fuck the police unless someone steals my shit, at which point it's ''lock them up and throw away the key''.

[StCapps]

No, I still hate hatred and am still intolerant of intolerance.

The problem with these chuckle heads is they are, deep down, total moral relativists. There are no important moral distinctions between any states, the UK is more or less exactly the same as authoritarian China. America is slightly better only in so far as it doesn't function like a well ordered state.

They also resent the lawful order that protects them and allows them to thrive, and labor under absurd fantasies about how successful they would be as Ubermensch, free from onerous restrictions... like not being able to say nigger on youtube without being demonetized.

Oh lord, let these shackles fall from us, so we can escape from speech prison.

Everyone hates the law until a crime is committed against them. Fuck the police unless someone steals my shit, at which point it's ''lock them up and throw away the key''.

You are the one who wants to lock them up and throw away the key if they say anything you find to be "hate filled" and a court of law agrees with you. The rest of us don't want people locked up for that, look in the mirror, and stop projecting your own faults on everyone else.