The You Can't Make This Shit Up Department

[Dystopia]

And?

And as already noted, the danger is that something you do support may someday be deemed equal to hate speech.

That's the intention in the first place. We consider it equal to hate speeches, racist propaganda and promotion of social segregation... Didn't you see Marine Le Penn in France almost getting sued for hate speech for comparing Muslim immigrants with Hitler's occupation during the holocaust? You can use your free speech all you want but if you offend certain groups of people you can be fired. If I said 'All religious people are dumb and stupid' I could get sued by the church and other religious institutions, not to mention religious people.

It's just a short step from that to restricting access to websites such as this, where such things are said. Would you support such restriction? How about for racist or fascist sites?

We had a far right party and it was banned after evidence was presented that they were fascists and members of underground (not so much now) nazi organizations throughout europe... For atheists? No of course not, but how does atheism relate to fascism? Being an atheist doesn't make you go against democracy or fundamental rights, it just makes you lack belief in gods or disbelieve gods. We didn't lose rights because of atheism, we lost them because of fascism.

And this is not a short step since the constitution only forbids fascism associations, not any other kind of associations, so such a ban wouldn't apply to anything else. What happens here is the same in germany, and my bet is that there are probably similar restrictions in spain, italy and former fascist states, and probably france and so on and other formerly invaded countries.

I don't think something I support will be considered equal to hate speech, hate speech is not criticizing something, hate speech is deliberately promoting racism, hate and segregation of people. As far as I know, attempts to implement communism and marxism-lenininsm failed and gave origin to totalitarian regimes, yet communist and marxist-leninist parties are perfectly legal, so I don't think the restrictions go to far.

---

Jenny A to answer something I forgot to answer previously, here it is illegal to burn flag, not directly but as a crime of offense to national symbols. Of course you can mock and criticize the flag, but conducts that offend considerably national symbols are a crime punishable up to 3 years in prison.

Some people argued our president should be arrested because he accidentally waved the flag upside down

[John V]

We had a far right party and it was banned after evidence was presented that they were fascists and members of underground (not so much now) nazi organizations throughout europe... For atheists? No of course not, but how does atheism relate to fascism? Being an atheist doesn't make you go against democracy or fundamental rights, it just makes you lack belief in gods or disbelieve gods. We didn't lose rights because of atheism, we lost them because of fascism.

And this is not a short step since the constitution only forbids fascism associations, not any other kind of associations, so such a ban wouldn't apply to anything else. What happens here is the same in germany, and my bet is that there are probably similar restrictions in spain, italy and former fascist states, and probably france and so on and other formerly invaded countries.

I don't think something I support will be considered equal to hate speech, hate speech is not criticizing something, hate speech is deliberately promoting racism, hate and segregation of people. As far as I know, attempts to implement communism and marxism-lenininsm failed and gave origin to totalitarian regimes, yet communist and marxist-leninist parties are perfectly legal, so I don't think the restrictions go to far.

First you say that a person can be sued for saying "all religious people are dumb and stupid," now you say it only applies to fascism. Which is it?

---

Here's an interesting link:
http://www.legal-project.org/issues/euro...peech-laws
Excerpt:

Given the nebulous standards on which much of Europe's hate speech laws are based—indeed, there is not even a universally agreed upon definition for what constitutes hate speech—it is little wonder that such legislation has ensnared speech it was likely never meant to punish. Delineating the line between speech that is considered rude and that which is considered insulting for the purposes of criminal prosecution is an utterly subjective undertaking, and a distinction that governments are ill-suited to determine. Compounding the problem of these laws' arbitrariness is their selective application: while European authorities have at times appeared reluctant to go after Islamist firebrands spouting hatred, those engaging in legitimate debate about Islamism are frequently targeted for prosecution.

[Dystopia]

We had a far right party and it was banned after evidence was presented that they were fascists and members of underground (not so much now) nazi organizations throughout europe... For atheists? No of course not, but how does atheism relate to fascism? Being an atheist doesn't make you go against democracy or fundamental rights, it just makes you lack belief in gods or disbelieve gods. We didn't lose rights because of atheism, we lost them because of fascism.

And this is not a short step since the constitution only forbids fascism associations, not any other kind of associations, so such a ban wouldn't apply to anything else. What happens here is the same in germany, and my bet is that there are probably similar restrictions in spain, italy and former fascist states, and probably france and so on and other formerly invaded countries.

I don't think something I support will be considered equal to hate speech, hate speech is not criticizing something, hate speech is deliberately promoting racism, hate and segregation of people. As far as I know, attempts to implement communism and marxism-lenininsm failed and gave origin to totalitarian regimes, yet communist and marxist-leninist parties are perfectly legal, so I don't think the restrictions go to far.

First you say that a person can be sued for saying "all religious people are dumb and stupid," now you say it only applies to fascism. Which is it?

---

Here's an interesting link:
http://www.legal-project.org/issues/euro...peech-laws
Excerpt:

Given the nebulous standards on which much of Europe's hate speech laws are based—indeed, there is not even a universally agreed upon definition for what constitutes hate speech—it is little wonder that such legislation has ensnared speech it was likely never meant to punish. Delineating the line between speech that is considered rude and that which is considered insulting for the purposes of criminal prosecution is an utterly subjective undertaking, and a distinction that governments are ill-suited to determine. Compounding the problem of these laws' arbitrariness is their selective application: while European authorities have at times appeared reluctant to go after Islamist firebrands spouting hatred, those engaging in legitimate debate about Islamism are frequently targeted for prosecution.

Look you are relating things that are not meant to be related.

Fascism is forbidden by the constitution, but it's not illegal to be a fascist in your mind, and to talk about it at home, you just can't propagate it

Insulting all religious people is a crime either of offense to psychological integrity or offense to honor, you can't use your freedom of speech to insult people, and that applies to all individual people and social groups. If I say all religious people are stupid it's illegal according to civil law and probably will be according to criminal law if someone presses charges, the same will happen if I insult my president, a random person, atheists, vegans, gays, whatever. It doesn't mean you can't make critics, but you can't promote hate. Imagine the case of me with a headline saying gay people should be executed, I don't know how this would be in america but here it would be illegal

The constitutional principle that protects you from insults is the article protecting people's psychological integrity.

What I mean is, all groups of people including minorities are protected constitutionally and legally, but regarding fascism the constitution takes it one step further, but it doesn't mean only future victims of fascism are protected by law.

Check out this article from our constitution in english translation:
"Article 46

(Freedom of association)
1. Citizens shall possess the right to freely associate with one another without requiring
any authorization, on condition that such associations are not intended to promote
violence and their purposes are not contrary to the criminal law.

2. Associations shall pursue their purposes freely and without interference from the
public authorities and shall not be dissolved by the state or have their activities
suspended, except in such cases as the law may provide for and then only by judicial
order.

3. No one shall be obliged to belong to an association, or be coerced to remain therein
by any means.

4. Armed associations, military, militarized or paramilitary-type associations and
organisations that are racist or display a fascist ideology shall not be permitted."

[Cato]

All I got was that you are free to associate, except when the government says you can't.

[Jenny A]

We had a far right party and it was banned after evidence was presented that they were fascists and members of underground (not so much now) nazi organizations throughout europe... For atheists? No of course not, but how does atheism relate to fascism? Being an atheist doesn't make you go against democracy or fundamental rights, it just makes you lack belief in gods or disbelieve gods. We didn't lose rights because of atheism, we lost them because of fascism.

And this is not a short step since the constitution only forbids fascism associations, not any other kind of associations, so such a ban wouldn't apply to anything else. What happens here is the same in germany, and my bet is that there are probably similar restrictions in spain, italy and former fascist states, and probably france and so on and other formerly invaded countries.

I don't think something I support will be considered equal to hate speech, hate speech is not criticizing something, hate speech is deliberately promoting racism, hate and segregation of people. As far as I know, attempts to implement communism and marxism-lenininsm failed and gave origin to totalitarian regimes, yet communist and marxist-leninist parties are perfectly legal, so I don't think the restrictions go to far.

This is where not only our national philosophies, but you and I disagree.

I do not entrust the government with the power to ban any speech because I do not trust it (or anyone else) to determine what kind of speech is so dangerous that it should be banned. And speech includes: speaking in public in favor of any idea whatsoever including hate speech.

We too have examples of bad ideas which we still allow to be openly spoken of. Our country once had something as or more terrible than fascism: slavery. The Constitution forbids slavery. But it is quite legal to give speeches promoting the idea of slavery here. One could even start a campaign to get the 13th Amendment (which abolished slavery) repealed. No one does, at least as far as I know. But we also had a Civil War of succession. Speaking openly of succession is both legal and not terribly uncommon.

The fact that your constitution only bans one kind of speech--fascism is no guarantee that it won't ban other kinds of speech later. Didn't you tell me that your constitution is easily amended by the legislature?

It is banning the expression of certain ideas that opens the door to totalitarianism because it allows the party in power to repress all criticism. Banning dangerous speech is the hall mark of totalitarianism. Witness: Nazi Germany, the former Soviet, China, Korea, Iran. Banning public speech is not a tool I care to give any government for any reason.

[Cato]

The constitutional principle that protects you from insults is the article protecting people's psychological integrity.

People where you live must have translucent skin.

[John V]

1. Citizens shall possess the right to freely associate with one another without requiring any authorization, on condition that such associations are not intended to promote violence and their purposes are not contrary to the criminal law.

2. Associations shall pursue their purposes freely and without interference from the public authorities and shall not be dissolved by the state or have their activities suspended, except in such cases as the law may provide for and then only by judicial order.

3. No one shall be obliged to belong to an association, or be coerced to remain therein by any means.

4. Armed associations, military, militarized or paramilitary-type associations and organisations that are racist or display a fascist ideology shall not be permitted."

See the parts bolded. They make these provisions meaningless. Associations shall not be dissolved unless we pass a law authorizing it - seriously?

[Dystopia]

1. Citizens shall possess the right to freely associate with one another without requiring any authorization, on condition that such associations are not intended to promote violence and their purposes are not contrary to the criminal law.

The purpose of criminal law is to prevent crime, therefore an association promoting crime is not allowed, I don't see the problem, it clearly goes against the finality of criminal law

2. Associations shall pursue their purposes freely and without interference from the public authorities and shall not be dissolved by the state or have their activities suspended, except in such cases as the law may provide for and then only by judicial order.

some associations need a judicial order because they treat more serious matter of need to be analyzed first, for instance a foundation with welfare purposes must be authorized because the court will see if the money and patrimony are enough to fulfill those purposes and there are no underlying objectives

See the parts bolded. They make these provisions meaningless. Associations shall not be dissolved unless we pass a law authorizing it - seriously?

Associations can be dissolved if they threaten public order, that's how it works, these interventions from the State are rare. Some associations need authorization because they need to be analyzed before their approval, that's how it works. your bold doesn't change anything and specially considering this is an article in about 300 it's not going to change the whole course of the constitution without a systematic interpretation

---

We had a far right party and it was banned after evidence was presented that they were fascists and members of underground (not so much now) nazi organizations throughout europe... For atheists? No of course not, but how does atheism relate to fascism? Being an atheist doesn't make you go against democracy or fundamental rights, it just makes you lack belief in gods or disbelieve gods. We didn't lose rights because of atheism, we lost them because of fascism.

And this is not a short step since the constitution only forbids fascism associations, not any other kind of associations, so such a ban wouldn't apply to anything else. What happens here is the same in germany, and my bet is that there are probably similar restrictions in spain, italy and former fascist states, and probably france and so on and other formerly invaded countries.

I don't think something I support will be considered equal to hate speech, hate speech is not criticizing something, hate speech is deliberately promoting racism, hate and segregation of people. As far as I know, attempts to implement communism and marxism-lenininsm failed and gave origin to totalitarian regimes, yet communist and marxist-leninist parties are perfectly legal, so I don't think the restrictions go to far.

This is where not only our national philosophies, but you and I disagree.

I do not entrust the government with the power to ban any speech because I do not trust it (or anyone else) to determine what kind of speech is so dangerous that it should be banned. And speech includes: speaking in public in favor of any idea whatsoever including hate speech.

We too have examples of bad ideas which we still allow to be openly spoken of. Our country once had something as or more terrible than fascism: slavery. The Constitution forbids slavery. But it is quite legal to give speeches promoting the idea of slavery here. One could even start a campaign to get the 13th Amendment (which abolished slavery) repealed. No one does, at least as far as I know. But we also had a Civil War of succession. Speaking openly of succession is both legal and not terribly uncommon.

The fact that your constitution only bans one kind of speech--fascism is no guarantee that it won't ban other kinds of speech later. Didn't you tell me that your constitution is easily amended by the legislature?

It is banning the expression of certain ideas that opens the door to totalitarianism because it allows the party in power to repress all criticism. Banning dangerous speech is the hall mark of totalitarianism. Witness: Nazi Germany, the former Soviet, China, Korea, Iran. Banning public speech is not a tool I care to give any government for any reason.

It can't be easily revised, it needs 3/5 of voting to start a revision and then 2/3 to approve each article - And did you forget our material limits? Those limits can't be violated, therefore not a single revision can go against the principles I mentioned yesterday. Since keeping democracy is a revision limit, it's not possible for the government to implement a totalitarian regime without violating the constitution. This is why revision limits exist, to prevent the State from compressing rights

We have a disagreement alright, it's not useful to keep debating this, and it's equally useful for me to make philosophic statements regarding the legitimacy of the article forbidding fascist associations, I got to work with what I have got.

This ban is been here since 1976 and no more restrictions were added, no problems have arose from this article, the same happens in germany. Germany took it too far sometimes, they even banned a laser tag kind of game because it was against human dignity. Search the omega case of the ECHR (european court for human rights)

---

All I got was that you are free to associate, except when the government says you can't.

Yes, and the government says you can't if you threaten public order. So what?

[Cato]

All I got was that you are free to associate, except when the government says you can't.

Yes, and the government says you can't if you threaten public order. So what?

Punish incitement of violence then. It's also perfectly reasonable to require permits for use of public space for certain gatherings and uses, but you can't restrict association and then champion the idea of freedom of association.

[Dystopia]

Yes, and the government says you can't if you threaten public order. So what?

Punish incitement of violence then. It's also perfectly reasonable to require permits for use of public space for certain gatherings and uses, but you can't restrict association and then champion the idea of freedom of association.

Incitement of violence is a crime.

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, you have freedom of religion, you don't have the right to impose your religion, you have freedom of association, you don't have the right to form associations against public order, you have the right to a home, you don't have the right to demand a free home from the state, you have the right to work strike, you don't have the right to do it randomly because it can endanger essential services functioning. 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. 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.