gapbetweenus @ gapbetweenus @feddit.de

Posts

2

Comments

664

Joined

2 yr. ago

They were fighting against first Sowjet and than US-American occupation.

Maybe bad faith interpretation of my argument on your side.

My right to travel is not infringed because I can walk.

Hateful people will be inspired by books and by speech to be hateful and to hurt others. Not sure why you draw the line at books, since also speech can be used as a lesson.

I would also there is fundamental differences between causing an immediate panick and voicing a hateful opinion. The later was times and times misused to silence governmental criticis. Sure - this time it might turn out different, since good guys are in power, but I highly doubt it.

So it's about how a law is applied. And you still don't see the potential danger of a law regulating speech? Guess we won't agree on this one.

I don't really see a benefit in people being forced to phrase their hateful opinions in a way to circumvent laws. In the end, Rowling won't stop spreading her bigoted hateful bullshit - in best case she will just phrase it a bit different, which actually might get some stupid moderates on her side.

And I'm arguing that it's a bad idea. Germany is a good example, banning holocaust denial did not stop AFD from raising and getting political power. We were not even able to forbid the damn NDP.

Maybe you are misunderstanding me, I'm not arguing for censorship of books but against censorship op speech.

Good question. But than again - not sure you want to be judged on sensitive topic by a group of peers, I'm not a huge fan of that concept to be honest.

Terrorist for ones are maybe freedom fighters for others - kind of sketchy line over there.

What could go wrong? Assange and Manning would like a word with you.

Kind of depends? There are books around that are rather direct in their hurtful message.

Oh no I'm embarrassing myself in the internet, how will I ever live that one down.

What could ever go wrong? Germany, there was something...

Than I will rephrase the question. Who should draw the line and do you trust people in power to draw it in a fair way? What if conservatives are holding that power against opinions they think are dangerous?

I see, since you are for outlawing books it all falls into places.

Where you draw the line? And who is drawing it? Will you be equally happy when conservatives will use the same tools against opinions they see as dangerous?

Sick people are inspired to violence by all kind of thing, are we going to outlaw Catcher in the Rye?

Absolutely, now it's the standard but limited email storage space was rather standard.

That's cryptic.

I'm from Germany, the only way insulting someone is going to be a criminal case is if you insult police. Otherwise it gets almost always dropped.

So you want the government to decide which ideas are ok and which should be banned? How could this ever go wrong.

So who is deciding what opinions are puting people in danger. US government for example thinks that whistleblowers Manning and journalist like Assange are puting people in danger.