EU is ahead of the US

[giblets]

White criminals never seem to get called "thugs"

[Lorizael]

A Lie Can Travel Halfway Around the World While the Truth Is Putting On Its Shoes

Moral of the story: don't wear shoes

[Kidlicious]

White criminals never seem to get called "thugs"

Are you serious?

[Aeson]

Moral of the story: don't wear shoes

Then say you are wearing shoes, so you can travel faster!

[Dinner]

They are going to define hate speech as anything they don't like and then use it as a weapon against legit politival debate. That is why hate speech laws have no place in a free society. Theor only purpose is censorship.

[BeBMan]

Voicing political dissent should not be limited at all - but making up stuff like "this pizzeria is the HQ for Clinton's child sex ring/whatever" isn't exactly voicing political dissent. The reason why speech should not be limited is that open society relies on open debate - but routinely and professionally organized lying on a grand scale damages open debate as well.

If one has a perfect solution for this prob I give out a virtual cookie

[Pekka]

No censorship on speech, unless it is a clear crime such as threats to a specified individual.

So yes, even terrorist speech, let it roam; I mean at least it's easier to track them down. Not like it does not exist. People with stupidity should be able to show just that. I am a liberal but all this political correctness thing makes me more conservative, but on this particular issue.

If you're a racist, sexist idiot, good for you.

I do not believe people will become something else because of what they read on the internet. Unless they're stupid, in which case the problem is not the internet, but the education system or other social inequalities. When young people become radicalised, it is not because someone wrote something hateful, they have other issues as well. No one goes to a website to have sudden enlightement, "Ohh so it was the women's fault all this time... and so now misogny is the solution". This is not to say text or art has no effect on people, it might trigger some, but the seed is somewhere else and we will fail rooting it from public speech or text. And the price is too high with the who gets offended the easiest, we will always be prisoners of the most radical opinions and there's always an ******* who wants to be more strict.

So yes, even the CIS white male privilege thing? The can believe it, say it, maybe it has some truth to it. And we take it. And just try to be more constructive back. No need to upset lezzies, they wants what we got between our legs anyway.

[Pekka]

Deleting is problematic enough, but creating alternative narratives is downright disgusting and this kind of bullcrap should be thrown out of any reasonable society when it was first mentioned. With tar and feathers.

[Proteus_MST]

No censorship on speech, unless it is a clear crime such as threats to a specified individual.

So yes, even terrorist speech, let it roam; I mean at least it's easier to track them down. Not like it does not exist. People with stupidity should be able to show just that. I am a liberal but all this political correctness thing makes me more conservative, but on this particular issue.

If you're a racist, sexist idiot, good for you.

I do not believe people will become something else because of what they read on the internet. Unless they're stupid...

You actually highlight the problem ... people are stupid (at least lots of them)

This is why you had so many idiots in western society who got recruited by IS via Internet (and that is men and women, despite one would assuem that especially women, grown up in western society, would be appalled by everything they heard about ISs treatment of women)

It also is the reason why Trump won, why so many americans still defended Bush jrs lies regarding Iraq, when Bushs claims about Iraqi chemical weapons and ties to AL Kaida were false ... and also why you have idiots who belöieve in flat earth or claims that pizza restaurants are frontends for child-sex-trafficking

[OneFootInTheGrave]

So you need an "enlightened" someone in the thick of bureaucracy to make the decisions for everyone, what to read and what not to?

Allright.

[giblets]

Many countries already have such enlightenment, when will the US catch up with China and North Korea?

[Kidlicious]

You actually highlight the problem ... people are stupid (at least lots of them)

This is why you had so many idiots in western society who got recruited by IS via Internet (and that is men and women, despite one would assuem that especially women, grown up in western society, would be appalled by everything they heard about ISs treatment of women)

It also is the reason why Trump won, why so many americans still defended Bush jrs lies regarding Iraq, when Bushs claims about Iraqi chemical weapons and ties to AL Kaida were false ... and also why you have idiots who belöieve in flat earth or claims that pizza restaurants are frontends for child-sex-trafficking

The thing is that the regular news manipulates people just as much as alternative news. Even so they couldn't get Hillary elected. And I doubt Trump got elected because of fake news on facebook. I was worried about all this talk in my country, because it is suspicious. But then I found comfort in the fact that they lost the election.

[giblets]

Wow, maybe there is no conspiracy after all?

[Dinner]

So, you would protect the speech the terrorists from IS use in order to get people in the western world into Salafism/Islamism and recruiit them as terrorists and fighters?

Honestly, no one has a right to immigrate and and it is virtually impossible to reliably seporate so called good muslims from bad muslims so I would just avoid the whole problem and restrict virtually all muslim immigration. Again, there is no right to immigrate and every country has a right to control its borders so no one loses any rights that way. As for jihadists already here, I would say anyone promoting Islamic fundamentalism is a terrorism supporter and so is already guilty of a crime which they should be jailed for without exception.

As for so called hate speech we already have laws reguarding actual criminal acts so go after those. The danger with so called hate speech laws is they inevitably result in legit political debate being censor on spurious grounds as we have seen in Germany. It maybe well intentioned but its results are no less evil. The response should be stronger speech not censorship. The exceptions are actual calls for violence which should never be tolerated.

[giblets]

Was Dinner always this fascist?