Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Topic closed!!!
Subject: »NEWS AROUND THE WORLD
So where does the freedom of speech end, and when do we have to watch out?
Right there where someone else's rights are being violated. So for instance threatening and calls for violence are outside free speech.
Right there where someone else's rights are being violated. So for instance threatening and calls for violence are outside free speech.
Boy dies after masturbating 42 times
http://m24digital.com/en/2011/08/26/unusual-boy-dies-after-masturbating-42-times/
http://m24digital.com/en/2011/08/26/unusual-boy-dies-after-masturbating-42-times/
Is fighting for you nation your right rubinho ?
I am just asking ,because that sentence "someone else's rights are being violated." can be very difficult to explain for various groups :-).
so if you can speak about defending your country in your TV and this can be ok with "freedom of speech" than I have question if some small groups in Spain, Ireland and other can talk on public for fighting for their nation too :-) ?
So it can be problem what is really someone rights....
I am just asking ,because that sentence "someone else's rights are being violated." can be very difficult to explain for various groups :-).
so if you can speak about defending your country in your TV and this can be ok with "freedom of speech" than I have question if some small groups in Spain, Ireland and other can talk on public for fighting for their nation too :-) ?
So it can be problem what is really someone rights....
Is fighting for you nation your right rubinho ?
How is this relevant with freedom of speech? Keep in mind that freedom of speech, freedom of thoughts and freedom of acting are three different things.
I am just asking ,because that sentence "someone else's rights are being violated." can be very difficult to explain for various groups :-).
It's very clear though.
so if you can speak about defending your country in your TV and this can be ok with "freedom of speech" than I have question if some small groups in Spain, Ireland and other can talk on public for fighting for their nation too :-) ?
I guess you are referring to ETA and IRA? That has nothing to do with freedom of speech, see above.
Edit: let me give you an example to show: you know I'm a Flemish nationalist and I want Belgium to disappear.
- I can say that I want Belgium to disappear
- I can say I hate the Walloons (which I don't, but I have the right to say that)
- I can't say I want to kill all the Walloons
- I can't say I want to attack the Walloons in order of gaining Flemish independence
- I can say Flanders must defend themselves when Flanders would be under attack
(edited)
How is this relevant with freedom of speech? Keep in mind that freedom of speech, freedom of thoughts and freedom of acting are three different things.
I am just asking ,because that sentence "someone else's rights are being violated." can be very difficult to explain for various groups :-).
It's very clear though.
so if you can speak about defending your country in your TV and this can be ok with "freedom of speech" than I have question if some small groups in Spain, Ireland and other can talk on public for fighting for their nation too :-) ?
I guess you are referring to ETA and IRA? That has nothing to do with freedom of speech, see above.
Edit: let me give you an example to show: you know I'm a Flemish nationalist and I want Belgium to disappear.
- I can say that I want Belgium to disappear
- I can say I hate the Walloons (which I don't, but I have the right to say that)
- I can't say I want to kill all the Walloons
- I can't say I want to attack the Walloons in order of gaining Flemish independence
- I can say Flanders must defend themselves when Flanders would be under attack
(edited)
Have some politics right to say that he will attack some country if their leader doesnt leave his country ?
(in spite of the fact that they were "friends" for last tens of years ? )
Have some politics right to say that homosexuality is not natural and not good ?
Have some politics right to say that necrophilia is not natural and not good ?
(or for both above ...that it is normal and ok ? )
Have some politics right to say that religious should be forgotten and not supported ?
Have some politics right to say that religious should be learn in elementary school in every class ?
...do you see, that people can have different opinion on "somebody else's right".
(in spite of the fact that they were "friends" for last tens of years ? )
Have some politics right to say that homosexuality is not natural and not good ?
Have some politics right to say that necrophilia is not natural and not good ?
(or for both above ...that it is normal and ok ? )
Have some politics right to say that religious should be forgotten and not supported ?
Have some politics right to say that religious should be learn in elementary school in every class ?
...do you see, that people can have different opinion on "somebody else's right".
Have you right to say that I should got perna ban for trolling ???
(I have right to play this game, so you have no right to say that I should be expelled, right ? )
(I have right to play this game, so you have no right to say that I should be expelled, right ? )
Have some politics right to say that he will attack some country if their leader doesnt leave his country ?
(in spite of the fact that they were "friends" for last tens of years ? )
Depends on the situation. If you want an answer, you'll have to explain it. Are you referring to Slovakia/Hungary?
Have some politics right to say that homosexuality is not natural and not good ?
Yes.
Have some politics right to say that necrophilia is not natural and not good ?
Yes.
(or for both above ...that it is normal and ok ? )
Yes.
Have some politics right to say that religious should be forgotten and not supported ?
Yes.
Have some politics right to say that religious should be learn in elementary school in every class ?
Yes.
See, only first one is 'difficult' because one would need more information.
(in spite of the fact that they were "friends" for last tens of years ? )
Depends on the situation. If you want an answer, you'll have to explain it. Are you referring to Slovakia/Hungary?
Have some politics right to say that homosexuality is not natural and not good ?
Yes.
Have some politics right to say that necrophilia is not natural and not good ?
Yes.
(or for both above ...that it is normal and ok ? )
Yes.
Have some politics right to say that religious should be forgotten and not supported ?
Yes.
Have some politics right to say that religious should be learn in elementary school in every class ?
Yes.
See, only first one is 'difficult' because one would need more information.
Have you right to say that I should got perna ban for trolling ???
(I have right to play this game, so you have no right to say that I should be expelled, right ? )
I do have the right to say you should get a perma ban. Don't see why I wouldn't have that right?
(I have right to play this game, so you have no right to say that I should be expelled, right ? )
I do have the right to say you should get a perma ban. Don't see why I wouldn't have that right?
I thought on France/Italy and Lybia maybe, but it doesnt matter!
Ok so, according to you answer I suppose that you will answer Yes also to saying in tv this statements:
- calling people for bomb attack to defend against aggresor
- persuading people that necrofilia is good thing
But really? Is this freedom of speech still?
I would answer no to previos statements, but you answered Yes, that is problem, everybody have different opinion on what statements can hurt somebody else rights.
Ok so, according to you answer I suppose that you will answer Yes also to saying in tv this statements:
- calling people for bomb attack to defend against aggresor
- persuading people that necrofilia is good thing
But really? Is this freedom of speech still?
I would answer no to previos statements, but you answered Yes, that is problem, everybody have different opinion on what statements can hurt somebody else rights.
I would answer no to previos statements, but you answered Yes, that is problem, everybody have different opinion on what statements can hurt somebody else rights.
No. You think those statements are wrong and therefore should be forbidden. I think they are wrong too (it's ridiculous to defend necrophilia), but that doesn't mean they violate someone else's rights. However, the act of necrophilia itself should be forbidden of course.
No. You think those statements are wrong and therefore should be forbidden. I think they are wrong too (it's ridiculous to defend necrophilia), but that doesn't mean they violate someone else's rights. However, the act of necrophilia itself should be forbidden of course.
because it is against the rules of sokker forum , something that you had to accept when entering this game.
Show me the rule I'd be violating by saying somebody should get a permanent forum ban or game ban.
Show me the rule I'd be violating by saying somebody should get a permanent forum ban or game ban.
hehehe,, I got 50 + 100 days of ban just because I said my opinion on mod system of banning.
So you are wrong at least in case of sokker rights :-DDDD
And I got warning that If I am talking something to mods they will take me my money.
(I hope, this is not violating sokker rules, please dont take me my money for my opinion)
So you are wrong at least in case of sokker rights :-DDDD
And I got warning that If I am talking something to mods they will take me my money.
(I hope, this is not violating sokker rules, please dont take me my money for my opinion)
hehehe,, I got 50 + 100 days of ban just because I said my opinion on mod system of banning.
Of course, there is a difference between criticizing the system of banning and saying someone should get a ban.
Of course, there is a difference between criticizing the system of banning and saying someone should get a ban.
Rubinho... statements which are supporting war, crime, not natural behaving and so.. should be forbidden.
All such a statements are violating somebody's else rights like right for safe, right for normal life, right for peace and so.
The most problematic are religion statements, because pro or against statments are always violating right of opposite group. One group think that all people have right to meet god, so supporting religious is needed and second group think that all people have right to have "clear head" without such a fairy tales.
One or another group will always think that other is violating his rights.
All such a statements are violating somebody's else rights like right for safe, right for normal life, right for peace and so.
The most problematic are religion statements, because pro or against statments are always violating right of opposite group. One group think that all people have right to meet god, so supporting religious is needed and second group think that all people have right to have "clear head" without such a fairy tales.
One or another group will always think that other is violating his rights.
I dont think that total freedom of speech is good thing. But It is very hard to make line what should be allowed and what not.