|
#1
●
08-10-2012, 12:10 AM
| ||||||||
 My Rank: PRIVATE Poster Rank:14759 female Join Date: Jul 2012 Posts: 6 Mentioned: 0 Post(s) Quoted: 0 Post(s)
| ||||||||
|
Threatening Rape = Free Speech?
<iframe width="640" height="480" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/QCVSJYInNTo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
|
|
#4
●
08-10-2012, 07:15 AM
| ||||||||
 ★ Legacy Member ★ Poster Rank:90 Professional Vaginalist Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 17,179
Contributions: 18
Mentioned: 20 Post(s) Quoted: 5836 Post(s)
| ||||||||
|
Re: Threatening Rape = Free Speech?
 Ignorance at it's finest...  |
|
#5
●
08-10-2012, 08:02 AM
| ||||||||
 My Rank: LANCE CORPORAL Poster Rank:3179 Female Join Date: Jul 2012 Posts: 119 Mentioned: 0 Post(s) Quoted: 6 Post(s)
| ||||||||
|
Re: Threatening Rape = Free Speech?
I just love how free speech seems to cover everything in some places. Jesus tittifucking Christ, limit it. Germany has limited it just fine and reasonably, outlawing personal insults (asshole, ******, whore, cocksucker), racist slurs, slander/libel, and "dangerous threats" (rape, violence, death), and of course, unconstitutional Reich slogans (Sieg heil, Heil Hitler, other Nazi slogans). I don't see anything wrong with that. You can live a very happy, fulfilling life without attacking people left and right. Though I gotta say the 750 Euro fine for giving someone the finger in traffic, is over the top harsh.
|
|
#6
●
08-10-2012, 11:32 AM
| ||||||||
 My Rank: FIRST SERGEANT Poster Rank:385 Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 3,082 Mentioned: 0 Post(s) Quoted: 144 Post(s)
| ||||||||
|
Re: Threatening Rape = Free Speech?
Just another joke courtesy of religion. Religion is for the ignorant and poor. Fact
|
|
#7
●
08-10-2012, 04:28 PM
| ||||||||
| My Rank: PRIVATE Poster Rank:13034 male Join Date: Jan 2012 Posts: 8 Mentioned: 0 Post(s) Quoted: 0 Post(s)
| ||||||||
|
Re: Threatening Rape = Free Speech?
Free Speech does cover everything. And it should never be limited. If someone is threatening someone other, than go to fucking police and tell them about that threat so he can be dealt with but don't limit the speech. Filtering language, making it dumber and forbid you to speak about certain stuff is what will cause 1984. |
|
#8
●
08-10-2012, 04:34 PM
| ||||||||
| My Rank: LANCE CORPORAL Poster Rank:3179 Female Join Date: Jul 2012 Posts: 119 Mentioned: 0 Post(s) Quoted: 6 Post(s)
| ||||||||
|
Re: Threatening Rape = Free Speech?
Nothing has caused 1984, because 1984 the year lies in the past and 1984 the events are fictional, but getting away with hate speech and racist slurs did contribute to Hitler's success and that of many others like him. So much for your political concerns. Germany has no freedom issues for restricting hate speech and personal insults. It's called "being legally required to respect another person's integrity" and doesn't seem like a bad concept to me or any sane, intelligent person who does manage to communicate without deliberately hateful blows below the belt. There is rarely ever a need or excuse for that, so why should people get away with this when all it boils down to, is bullying? |
|
#9
●
08-10-2012, 06:04 PM
| ||||||||
| My Rank: PRIVATE Poster Rank:13034 male Join Date: Jan 2012 Posts: 8 Mentioned: 0 Post(s) Quoted: 0 Post(s)
| ||||||||
|
Re: Threatening Rape = Free Speech?
You people fear the truth. And will ban it everywhere it might occur. What is bad at saying something to someone about something he did? It makes people get away with many things just because he wasn't named for what he was because no one can out of fear getting into jail or worse, getting killed. 1984 is based on the book "We" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_(novel) ) and that was based on what a certain kind of people, who can not be named anymore, did to my people. This is what the western world is going to, a dystopia, free of hate. |
|
#10
●
08-10-2012, 06:31 PM
| ||||||||
 My Rank: LANCE CORPORAL Poster Rank:2112 Male Join Date: Mar 2011 Posts: 228 Mentioned: 0 Post(s) Quoted: 1 Post(s)
| ||||||||
|
Re: Threatening Rape = Free Speech?
What? That's such a meaningless statement. You said earlier that free speech should never be limited. I disagree. Hate speech should never be protected speech; it's not necessary in a democratic society, therefore it needs no protection. Look at Glimmerveen and Hagenbeek v The Netherlands, the applicant wanted 'all black people out of Holland'. Why should that be protected; it's nothing more than unlettered racial hatred. Good job the Court agreed and held it wasn't protected speech. Their reasoning (which I agree with) is that it contributed to the destruction of rights and freedoms of others. Another example? Lehideux v France, concerning the dissemintaion of Holocaust denial material. It's an undeniable historical fact, to deny it is offensive and not worthy of protection. |
