Why have you set your country to switzerland anyways? I mean you wouldn't need to start every other post of yours "as a finn..." for startees.

And this is where you (and jamyskis and others, on both sides of the discussion) are mistaken. Gravely, dangerously mistaken.
The actual "hate speech" doesn't create a hate. It express already existing sentiments. If people are applauding the speech full of hate, it's because they finally hear something they already want to hear (in Hitler's times or today, all the same).
Make "hate speech" illegal might by good idea as a precaution (although I doubt it is worth the risk), for the same reason it isn't allowed carrying open fire on the site of car accident. But it only slightly lower the risk of fire. Don't kid yourself or anyone else that petrol stops to be flammable when you douse off the match.

a lot of this stuff seem s more like ideological fanaticism more then anything else a lot of this seem like a war on and kind of wrong idea

And again you seemingly and simply don't even understand what the heck "hate speech" actually is, and quite honestly, I'm tired of explaining it again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again because the actual definition doesn't fit into some people's narrow mindset.

So, one final time, for those that weren't listening:

Hate speech is not defined by the very act of saying something. Hate speech in a legal context is defined by the intent and consequences behind it. It is a form of defamation. It is defined in legislation as deliberate and intentional harm to another party caused by an utterance on the basis of their state of being. To be clear: there is no legislation in the United States or any EU member state that deviates from this doctrine. Of the legislation that I am more intimately familiar with, all of them classify hate speech as breaches of the peace or public order offences.

If we eliminated every crime that was committed by way of the spoken or written word, we'd have to stop punishing blackmail, intimidation, death threats, perjury, fraud and incitement to commit murder.

So, once again, for those that weren't paying attention:

There is a very good reason why free speech only encompasses prior restraint without limitations. If we exempted everyone from the consequences of their verbal utterances, the whole legal system would fall apart by virtue of it having one big fucker of a loophole. Not even the United States provides comprehensive protection against subsequent punishment - the doctrines of "incitement" and "fighting words" in the US legal system are used to define incitements of breaches of the peace, and even the most conservative justices in United States history have held to this interpretation of the First Amendment.

This isn't a concept that's up for debate. It's a fundamental pillar of law. Disputing this is like claiming water isn't wet.

Of course hate speech legislation can be abused. All legislation can be abused for intimidation purposes. A woman could falsely accuse a man of rape. Does that mean we should eliminate rape laws? Of course it doesn't. It's the job of the courts to sniff out abuse of process and nip it in the bud before it happens. Laws exist to resolve social problems that society at large cannot resolve independently. Society had its chance to resolve these problems, and it failed. That is why these laws exist.

Anyway, I'm done with this discussion now, as the denial of simple facts is just making it go in circles. Hate speech legislation is well-anchored in various nations' legislation and has been for decades, and in fact, the United States had it well before we in Europe did. I'll be happy to discuss potential abuses of such legislation and the problems inherent in overcoming these, or the manner in which hate speech should be defined, but if people wish to engage in a circlejerk with their conspiracy theories about how hate speech is somehow indicative of a dictatorship, I won't be baited any more by it. It seems to me that people are abusing the principle of free speech as an excuse to intimidate people of different races, religions and genders.

I haven't read follow the latest discussions in this thread (coz' lack of time) but I thought I would add the latest find in the EU "work in progress":

https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/communication-online-platforms-and-digital-single-market-opportunities-and-challenges-europe
(PDF of 15 pages is downloadable)

TLDR: it's a mishmash of bureaucratic wordings which wants to promote the use of ID cards to log in on Internet platforms. Some goals are to prevent fake reviews, track copyright abusers, protecting childrens from harmful content and "everyone from incitement to hatred"

Big Brother Style :o)

The problem lies with your entering something unrelated to the equation and make as if it is related to the equation.

Religion being private or politicized has nothing to do with cannot change religion.

If you change your politicized religion, it is still changing religion. Even your private worship remain the same has nothing to do with it. You are changing your politicized religion.

If you are a Christian at heart, but decided be publicly know as a worshiper of religion ABC, because you want some benefits. After being a worshiper of ABC no longer give benefits, you decide to change your public / politicized religion to some other religion that give benefits. You are still changing religion. Your private worship has nothing to do with it.

That your private religion remain unchanged is irrelevant, You did change your politicized religion, so it is changing religion, even if it is politicized religion only.

Implemented by government bureaucracy, managed (for profit) by multi-national corporations. Same business as usual. The never ceasing march of global totalitarian form of crony capitalism with a large tablespoon full of socialism thrown in for flavor. Yet the crowd will chant, 'Give us more laws to protect us from the laws that were voted on by the people who we voted for! Isn't this a democracy?' To which the powerful men in suits reply in Rorschach voice, 'NO.'

Everyone needs to listen to this speech. This is hard truth. LISTEN. Your rights, your nations, your lives, they were all sold a long time ago by people who never bothered to read the fine print in the contract.

Network (1976) - Ned Beatty - "The World is a Business"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKkRDMil0bw

I followed up on a suspicion that you would be following the typical conspiracy theorist method of cherry-picking phrases that are good propaganda soundbites and deliberately putting them out of context, and lo and behold, I wasn't disappointed.

The document - which is a communication from members of the European Commission, not a "work in progress" - doesn't support your assertion in any way. shape or form. It doesn't "promote the use of iD cards to log on to internet platforms" - it simply mentions that national ID cards should be offered as an option for an authentication measure (something which is already done): As for this: This is a reference to the Code of Conduct that the OP was talking about and is part of a larger discussion on the liability of social media platforms such as YouTube and Facebook for the content that their users post and the need to balance out self-regulation, co-regulation and full regulation of these sites.

But then, you already knew this, didn't you, and yet you chose to try and deliberately deceive with sensationalist bullshit. That is what puts you in the extremist bracket.

If you were really interested in a balanced discussion on this, you would have posted [url=http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1464618463840&uri=COM:2016:287:FIN]the actual proposal[/url], but that doesn't give you the ammunition you need, does it?

Anyway, I'm not interested in furthering this discussion if all it's going to be about is battering down deliberate untruths.

I don't hide or deny that I'm far-right so that doesn't bother me ^o^

So, I googled "to promote definition":
=> "support or actively encourage (a cause, venture, etc.); further the progress of."

So it means the same that you and I point out. Meaning it's an option "in a short future". Knowing if that will be inforced in a much later future is unknown to both me and you but given how much wants to regulate the life of Europeans, it wouldn't be surprising to see some shift.

And for the official TLDR of what constitutes the "code of conduct", here's the press release which is more "readable":
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-1937_en.htm

Because, lo and behold - common market, and EU citizens were for a time welcomed to CH on those grounds. You'd not ask me to be ashamed of it, or the Swiss, for that matter?

If so, your pleasure will come soon.

CH government is tasked to negotiate a quota after popular initiative "Gegen Masseinwanderung* - (against mass immigration)- EU only. Germany and Finland are obviously both included, soon enough.

I didn't understand the first sentence at all.


But I am glad that my pleasure will come soon.

Look, people can and do change religion as much as they can change political views. In fact the two are extremely analogous.

Can you stop being a regressive atheist leftist? Of course you can, very unlikely that you ever will, but you can. Usually comes with age and maturity but not nearly as often as it should.

Organized religion and personal religion should have exactly the same protections as personal political views and organized politics. In fact, that's what freedom of religion is all about.

It's an extension of freedom of thought, not freedom from criticism.

lol

Germans are the most common guest workers - or common market participants - in Switzerland, and not unconditionally loved on fair balance of their contribution to the economy.

With "Gegen Masseneinwanderung" popular initiative winning, Swiss government must now negotiate immigration caps with European Union nations on behest of SVP.

SVP would like less Germans, and us Finns I presume, and everyone else from EU, in CH as it goes.

I think you support that? (=your pleasure, executed by SVP)

I have no fecking idea what it was you just said, but I'm against it.