Doesn't that fall under "misandry from extreme feminists"?

There is no "right" way of thinking. And there are no "right" or "wrong" opinions. There are, however, lies and truth, and the way people act on these lies and truths. Hate speech has never covered opinions. It does, however, cover opinions that are dressed up as facts that are plainly and deliberately false.

I really don't care when somebody points out that a rapist was Muslim or a con artist was Nigerian. What I do care about is when people use such stories to make outrageous claims about how Muslims are all women-beaters and rapists or how all Africans are dishonest. And if I'm honest, I don't care much about these outrageous claims in their own right either. But when the intention behind them is to incite people to burn down refugee homes, chuck rocks at anyone looking remotely dark-skinned in the street, there's little choice but to "protect" people from these "wrong opinions".

Let's take an example: you remember that story about the supposed war veteran in the UK who supposedly admonished a Muslim woman in a supermarket for criticising someone for wearing a Union Jack lapel pin? It never happened. In fact, it was adapted from some story about an Iraq War veteran, which also never happened. Yet I had people on Facebook re-posting it left, right and centre and quoting it as truth ("fuckin' Muslims" and so on), and received little but abuse and denials when I posted proof of its falsehood.

Now consider WHY that "story" was posted. Sure, it's debatable whether it classes as hate speech, but it is most definitely propaganda, designed to rile up the masses against Muslims.

From my own standpoint, I will treat people's opinions with respect when they learn to base their opinions on easily-proven facts instead of easily-disproven lies. If people demonstrate themselves to be so gullible as to believe things like this, then they deserve to be treated as children.

And yes, I have first-hand experience of having to clean up shit caused by people believing everything they read on Facebook.

While I don't like Bunny's post anymore than you (it's a douchebag post through and through), something about this gets me. You block anyone who doesn't endorse JerkMuter but don't block the people who actually offend and annoy you.

I'm totally fucking lost here, and yes, I know you can't see this post. :P

Why post if you are on her list?

I talk to everyone. If they want to block me that's their fucking problem. I not going to change just to suit their fragile egos.

Actually,we need a thread for the Jerkmutered that are discriminated against.

So, a legal hate speech and non-terrorist propaganda are okay?
So, its okay to swear and lie if you are on the bright side?

....

The main reason I am against such "hate speech" laws is because in practise they seem to be very selective and vague what is considered as "illegal hate speech".

The best known case in Finland is this one:

On 20.5.2008, a Finnish magazine "Kaleva" wrote about a shooting case in Rovaniemi (in northern Finland), saying that "killing people intoxicated seems to be a Finnish national, maybe even a genetic, trait".

People complained about this article, but it didn't cause any actions anywhere. Hence, a known Finnish "anti-multicultural" politician, Jussi Halla-aho, wrote a similar article in his blog, where he clearly stated it is a test whether the Finnish juridical system has double-standards on hate speech. He wrote, copying the way Kaleva magazine wrote his news article, basically "robbing people and living on welfare seems to be a somali national, maybe even a genetic, trait". Over and over again he made it clear this is a test to see if this kind of slander is allowed similarly towards somalis, as it is allowed towards Finns.

He got a conviction for saying that out loud, as it was considered as bashing of the somali community. In essence, his experiment succeeded, the law is not the same for different kinds of hate speech, depending on the target.

I also very much dislike the Finnish "religion peace law" which basically says you are not allowed to say bad things about any religion, as if they are all above any critique, just because they are religions.

Damn 1984...

Hail to the Queen, baby!

Which is all fine, it's just some trans-atlantic poking/teasing ;)

^This should be taught at schools!
Unfortunately not in EU ones, as these tend to be quite bigots against anything that isn't "minority-tolerant".
Unless of course the minority is within a Muslim country that is, then the Muslims are always good and benevolent no matter what they actually do to said minority - as it's a cultural issue EU (and by their standard western world in whole) should not involve.

Or that all Finns are violent drunkards.

The thing is that I want to believe people being smart enough to make their own opinions, and not take such "hate speech" as some kind of undeniable fact, just because someone says so. Trying to curb such "hate speech" (not providing counter-arguments) just has the opposite effect that what was intended, some people might think maybe there's some truth to it because someone is trying to prevent the message.

IMHO you are mixing up things. Saying unpleasant things about some group of people, or promoting e.g. violence towards them, are two different things in my view. One is expressing unpleasant opinions, another one is promoting/telling people to do illegal things.

So when someone says "All Finns are violent drunkards!", I don't think he should be convicted for hate speech, and Facebook should actively try to prevent someone expressing such opinions.

But if they say instead "Burn all Finns, kill those violent drunkards!", that's different. It is clearly promoting violence towards us poor Finns. It is a criminal offense to tell someone to do criminal acts, e.g. "go rob that bank there".

Even beyond that, it is not so much the speech that is the real problem, but the people who believe in it and act. So it is the stone-throwers and home-burners who should be the main target, the people who actually do violent acts.

I don't know/remember such incident, possibly as I don't live in UK. (I'm not in Facebook either so that may also be why I've missed it).

So when it turns out to be a lie, I feel it works against the people who made the lie. People don't like to be lied on, to direct their opinions. You win the hearts of common people by pointing out something was a lie, rather than trying to prevent such lie from being expressed at all.

Just to get some legal nuance and addition: In the general laws of some countries (like France), it's considered "legal" to criticize a religion but it's illegal to critize the believers of a religion.

Also, Germans are all Nazis! (actually, I don't think that's been a common stereotype since the 1980s, but we're doing a bloody good job at pissing away the goodwill that has been built up since 1945 and re-establishing that stereotype right now)

I'd want to believe it too. And I'd agree that if it was as simple as simply providing irrefutable proof against each falsehood, the world would be a much nicer place. Unfortunately human nature guides people towards the negative, and also right-wing and religious extremism provides a compelling temptation: the ability to feel proud and superior without actually doing anything worthwhile for it.

Ironically, I would say that about 80% of the people I see who keep going on about how they're "proud to be German" or "proud to be British", are not exactly the pride of their nations - unemployed, unemployable, dependent on welfare and criminal records as long as my arm.

Your feeble proof and logic are nothing compared to the power of the Dark Side, muhahahahaha!

Well, one leads to the other. Let's say I posted something on FB about how "all Finns are violent drunkards" and encouraged people to share it. Then I post about how "all Finns are slanty-eyed and are therefore not to be trusted", and encouraged people to share it. Then I post fictitious stories about how a Finn killed this dog or that little girl. And each time, I emphasise how it was FINNS that did it because I wanted to show how Finns are all violent, drunken, untrustworthy bastards. This collectively is hate speech, because the deliberate intention behind it is to cultivate a sphere of hostility towards Finns so that, at the opportune moment, I can look at the slavering pack of enraged social media users and say "go get 'em", before they come and burn down your wood cabins and sauna huts.

And there you have your typical far-right social media propaganda campaign in a nutshell.
Fair point.

Actually, to add further nuance to that, it's illegal to insult someone just for being an adherent of a religion. You can still criticise what they do in terms of actual actions, but you can't for instance accuse a Muslim of being a terrorist just because he's Muslim.

Here, this should cover the European stereotypes. :P

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XAKZVSHGh8