Subject: »NEWS AROUND THE WORLD

Cause in my country, weekly, there are people on TV and in the newspaper who say nationalism is dangerous for democracy. Our former prime minister Verhofstadt (leader of the liberals in the European Parliament now) even said that the consequent result of the idea of identity (which is a key aspect of nationalism) always leads to the chambers of Auschwitz ... Should this be forbidden too?'

i dont know, as I said. I just dont like totally freedom of speech. so I have no answer...

i dont know, as I said. I just dont like totally freedom of speech. so I have no answer...

But you do know that being aggressive against religion on TV should be forbidden? Then aggressive arguments against nationalism or any other political idea should be forbidden too. Unless you handle a double standard.
(edited)

no... that my example was just example, this all is about that I think that totally freedom of speech is bad thing. Our society is able to read and hear to any bullshits, so somebody should have control on media and it is same with freedom of speech of individuals, people are able to say anything and a lot of it can be very dangerous.

And I think that being punished for a non-violent opinion is dangerous. This puts the doors towards an authoritarian regime wide open.

Current system in the world is like this:

1. I can go in park and talk about somebody very ugly bulshits like that he f... his mother, that he has leprosy, that he has 2cm long dick and so...
2. police can not make anything but that hurted person can make court with me and ask for me apologize and financial fine maybe
(but hundreds of people will hear just what I am talking, nobody will care if I had true or not)

but I like more system, that second point should be:
2. called police will stop me talking this and ask me for evidence, if I have no evidence police give me fine and forbid me to say such a bullish.

In second case we dont have freedom of speech, but it is better.

yes, I dont think that democracy is good system, but it is better than communism :-).
I dont think that every person should have right to vote :-)
and I dont think that people can talk whatever they want, no matter if they have evidence or if it is dangerous for society or not.

People need some kind of limits and control. But not such huge like we had in communism :-).

Democracy is far from being a good system. However, it is the only system that has proven that it can work. Therefore, democracy is the only possible system for me.

but I like more system, that second point should be:
2. called police will stop me talking this and ask me for evidence, if I have no evidence police give me fine and forbid me to say such a bullish.

Okay, what about this:
1) Someone says communism would solve the financial and economic crisis.
2) Police: have you got proof? Person: of course not, that can't be proven unless you try it. -> fine and person is forbidded to say that
Or
1) Someone says conservatism would solve the financial and economic crisis.
2) Police: have you got proof? Person: of course not, that can't be proven unless you try it. -> fine and person is forbidded to say that

So no political ideas can be said, as they can't be proven.

my case hurt somebody, just by talking...

your case just show something, you make no changes just because of your talking.

Okay, what if I say I'm hurt by someone who says communism is the solution and liberal conservatism is bad and stupid? Just like a religious person is hurt when someone says God is imaginary and religion itself is stupid.

another example.

Can I talk about how I like drugs, sex with animals and killing in TV every day on the street ?

It is not about tempting another person, it is just about how I like it, but people are listening to me and somebody can get taste to try it too.
I think this should be forbidden.

Can I talk about how I like drugs, sex with animals and killing in TV every day on the street ?

You can talk about it, yes.

and I think that no ... this is bad for society, ..... you can talk about it with your friends maybe or not very loudly in pub, but not on the street. Somebody should say stop, that is the difference between our opinions.

ok...stop spamming :-)

You didn't answer this:

Okay, what if I say I'm hurt by someone who says communism is the solution and liberal conservatism is bad and stupid? Just like a religious person is hurt when someone says God is imaginary and religion itself is stupid.

You cannot objectively determine what is hurting and what is not, as it is for each person different. Therefore, hurting (non-physically of course) should not be punishable.

@ Mitch:

You are not a member of staff. Please refrain in the future from comments like that, especially since your understanding of the rules is problematic.

that are two different case, not equal.

I can allow this:
- people talking about advantages of communism and fail of conservatism
- people talking why is religion useless and so or people talking that religion should be at school and connected with state and so..

I can not allow this:
- people talking in not polite way, very aggressive about why is communism better, talking in such a rude style that he is hurting people who like communism maybe
- people insulting or "disparaging" religion and people in faith in ugly style of communication or people who have too much fanatics opinions for having religions everywhere as a law, with too much fanatics methods how to achieve and so


This is all about limits. But we need limits. Limits must not have be areas, but just style of their speech or so.....


for example. I can tell to somebody at the forum here that he is small and looks quite ugly. But I can not tell that he is moth.fu... and so... There are limits in freedom of speech.
Or I can tell that some players here are faking talent of junior players, that they are lying and public not true jumps but I can not tell here how to cheat and have 100 multyaccounts or how to hack the game.
Do you see that there are limits and that are good and needed?