(July 10, 2014 at 1:50 pm)Blackout Wrote: Incitement of violence is a crime.

Apparently so are certain associations where you are. It's a thought crime.

It's not just an American ideal. Consult Article 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

(July 10, 2014 at 1:50 pm)Blackout Wrote: Incitement of violence is a crime.

That's true here too, but only if it's an immediate incitement to crime.

(July 10, 2014 at 1:50 pm)Blackout Wrote: I will repeat it, absolute individual rights do not exist, except maybe for the right to live, and even that one can be dis-considered in cases of self defense. Most rights can be restricted if there is a conflict of rights with another right. You have freedom of speech, you don't have the freedom to insult others.

Yes, actually we do have that right.

(July 10, 2014 at 1:50 pm)Blackout Wrote: With rights come duties, you have to respect others rights to fulfill your own. I guess in america individual liberties prevail, while here public order and security is above individual liberties.

Indeed there are differences. And yes we do put a higher premium on personal liberties.

(July 10, 2014 at 1:50 pm)Blackout Wrote: There are divergences, for instance europeans don't understand why americans have the 'right to bear arms', I don't know any country with such a right here in europe.

There are many Americans who don't understand why we have the right to bear arms. The NRA will tell you it is so that the people will retain the ability to rebel against the government. I'm not so sure. It's a contentious issue here.

(July 10, 2014 at 1:50 pm)Blackout Wrote: I guess in america individual liberties prevail, while here public order and security is above individual liberties.

Note that public order is a part of fascism, while individual liberties aren't. Maybe that's part of the reason that some European countries went fascist while America didn't.

(July 10, 2014 at 1:50 pm)Blackout Wrote: I guess in america individual liberties prevail, while here public order and security is above individual liberties.

Sounds like an authoritarian wet dream to me.

(July 10, 2014 at 2:06 pm)Cato Wrote:

(July 10, 2014 at 1:50 pm)Blackout Wrote: Incitement of violence is a crime.

Apparently so are certain associations where you are. It's a thought crime.

It's not just an American ideal. Consult Article 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

But the right of association is not above other rights, such as the right of equality independently of race or gender, so if an association as an objective of promoting it it is not allowed. Period. It doesn't mean I don't accept the american way of doing things, it's a different perspective.

Here is the german example:
"Article 9 [Freedom of association]

(1) All Germans shall have the right to form corporations and other associations.

(2) Associations whose aims or activities contravene the criminal laws, or that are directed against the constitutional order or the concept of international understanding, shall be prohibited."

---

(July 10, 2014 at 2:33 pm)alpha male Wrote:

(July 10, 2014 at 1:50 pm)Blackout Wrote: I guess in america individual liberties prevail, while here public order and security is above individual liberties.

Note that public order is a part of fascism, while individual liberties aren't. Maybe that's part of the reason that some European countries went fascist while America didn't.

Public order and security is essential to any society. It also exist in fascism, but that doesn't mean a democracy doesn't need public order.

---

(July 10, 2014 at 2:37 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:

(July 10, 2014 at 1:50 pm)Blackout Wrote: I guess in america individual liberties prevail, while here public order and security is above individual liberties.

Sounds like an authoritarian wet dream to me.

An authoritarian regime would be a lot better than america's oligarchy... And authority is a necessity in any society, sometimes larger authority will be needed, other times less authority will be enough. Freedom without authority is chaos, authority without freedom is tyranny, finding a middle ground between both should be the purpose

---

Quote:That's true here too, but only if it's an immediate incitement to crime.

Same here, but again I guess for us fascist associations are a direct incitement to crime, just think about paramilitary groups used by former leaders that persecuted the opposition,

Quote:Yes, actually we do have that right.

we don't, we have the right to criticize, not insult. If I call someone a cunt or a bitch on national tv can't I get sued?

Quote:There are many Americans who don't understand why we have the right to bear arms. The NRA will tell you it is so that the people will retain the ability to rebel against the government. I'm not so sure. It's a contentious issue here.

Rebellion or revolution is not legal, but of course that's usually how it is, you can't make a revolution or coup d' etat, but this is useless, since in practice if we abolished our government and made a new constitution the old one would become ineffective, and a revolution usually means a new constitution

(July 10, 2014 at 3:36 pm)Blackout Wrote:

Jenny Wrote:That's true here too, but only if it's an immediate incitement to crime.

Same here, but again I guess for us fascist associations are a direct incitement to crime, just think about paramilitary groups used by former leaders that persecuted the opposition,

I don't think you got just how immediate, immediate is. Throw a rock at that man now is immediate. We think people ought to throw rocks at that kind of man is not immediate. But even in that case, it is the persons who said the words and who have thrown the stones that have committed a crime. The group, could not be banned.

(July 10, 2014 at 3:36 pm)Blackout Wrote: we don't, we have the right to criticize, not insult. If I call someone a cunt or a bitch on national tv can't I get sued?

Nope. Those are matters of opinion and not actionable. Though if you call them something factual like a thief, you might get sued for it. The truth however is a defense to libel. Further politicians and other public figures have lessor rights when it comes to suing for libel. Google Times v. Sullivan.

(July 10, 2014 at 3:36 pm)Blackout Wrote:

Jenny Wrote:There are many Americans who don't understand why we have the right to bear arms. The NRA will tell you it is so that the people will retain the ability to rebel against the government. I'm not so sure. It's a contentious issue here.

Rebellion or revolution is not legal, but of course that's usually how it is, you can't make a revolution or coup d' etat, but this is useless, since in practice if we abolished our government and made a new constitution the old one would become ineffective, and a revolution usually means a new constitution

Rebellions are illegal, revolutions aren't. It's a matter of who wins.

Of course a revolution is not illegal if you substitute the constitution for a new one, that's how it works

The perspective is too different for comparison so there is no point in arguing further (Like I showed you in the MP I sent), let's just be happy both the US and europe are more or less free and our measures have been working for us, at least germany is doing pretty good after WWII. But the 'insult' part is really something I can't understand, if someone calls me a cunt on TV or in private I have the right to sue him/her, it's a crime.

(July 10, 2014 at 4:43 pm)Blackout Wrote: Of course a revolution is not illegal if you substitute the constitution for a new one, that's how it works

The perspective is too different for comparison so there is no point in arguing further (Like I showed you in the MP I sent), let's just be happy both the US and europe are more or less free and our measures have been working for us, at least germany is doing pretty good after WWII. But the 'insult' part is really something I can't understand, if someone calls me a cunt on TV or in private I have the right to sue him/her, it's a crime.

The part I don't understand is that you continue to claim you have free speech. You don't. If you're OK with that, that's your business, but don't pretend you have it. Saying that you have free speech except to espouse racism or fascism or to insult other people is contradictory. Of course you have freedom to say nice, conforming things. It's the insulting or opposing views which free speech measures are intended to protect. Without such protection, you don't have it.

(July 11, 2014 at 7:10 am)alpha male Wrote:

(July 10, 2014 at 4:43 pm)Blackout Wrote: Of course a revolution is not illegal if you substitute the constitution for a new one, that's how it works

The perspective is too different for comparison so there is no point in arguing further (Like I showed you in the MP I sent), let's just be happy both the US and europe are more or less free and our measures have been working for us, at least germany is doing pretty good after WWII. But the 'insult' part is really something I can't understand, if someone calls me a cunt on TV or in private I have the right to sue him/her, it's a crime.

The part I don't understand is that you continue to claim you have free speech. You don't. If you're OK with that, that's your business, but don't pretend you have it. Saying that you have free speech except to espouse racism or fascism or to insult other people is contradictory. Of course you have freedom to say nice, conforming things. It's the insulting or opposing views which free speech measures are intended to protect. Without such protection, you don't have it.

You are putting the problem in black or white - Either we can say anything or we can't say anything... That's not how it works, we are allowed to say and criticize anything, we are not allowed to insult or offend people on purpose, discriminate or promote hate and violence towards groups of people. If someone said I'm a cunt, I'd want to sue him for offending my honor and physical integrity and that's how it should be.

And europe by banning this behavior we are actually more free, because we ban people from promoting taking away others rights, therefore the probability of people losing their rights is less considerable. Good luck with your freedom of speech of people promoting taking away women's rights, gay rights and other groups rights, here we don't deal with that problem, see?

If you don't like, don't come live here, it's simple But don't claim we don't have freedom of speech because 2 or 3 category of speeches are banned or dis-promoted, there is no problem whatsoever in europe for people saying what they think, criticizing who we want when we want and expressing our ideas our creating parties - Actually some countries have a multipartidary system and not a 2 party system, it expresses better what people think.

(July 11, 2014 at 7:52 am)Blackout Wrote: And europe by banning this behavior we are actually more free,