Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that Hitler did not allow people to speak out against him or his ideas. He preyed on the destitute and the downtrodden because their desperation made them easier to manipulate, but then he parlayed that power into a force that would silence others. I'm also pretty sure that the people in other countries took notice of him and his idea and flatly rejected them.

I believe there is a distinct line between speech and inciting violence. Standing in front of a crowd and shouting about a certain group or person is protected. Standing in front of a crowd and shouting out which legal options are available to use to disparage a group or person is protected. Standing in front of a crowd and shouting about illegal actions that should be taken (assault, arson, murder) is not protected as this crosses the line between speech and a call to action.

Thank god GOG is Polish.

Alright, I'll bite this once.

Firstly, my comment was not directed at you. There are two specific cases of racism (ShadowAngel.207's "muslim subhumans" and Emob's attempt to paint every single Syrian refugee as a terrorist) plus one more who has popped up and has a remarkable talent for being a racist prick every chance he gets. We also have conservatives and right-wing libertarians here whose views I fully respect but still disagree with (ShadowStalker and timppu, for instance).

The reason I duck out of discussions heading this way is that rationally discussing with extremists is inherently impossible. Left-wing extremists cannot be discussed with about the free market because they refuse to acknowledge facts about the free market and dismiss everything as being "right-wing", right-wing extremists cannot be discussed with because justifying hatred against a specific race, religion or gender is no more an acceptable basis for a discussion than claiming cold-blooded murder or malicious theft is somehow acceptable.

You have every right to speak your mind without being punished for the sole fact of saying something. That's free speech. It's also where the very definition of free speech ends. I pointed out the minor differences between actual free speech in Germany and the US here.

But likewise, I have every right not to listen to you, I have every right to hold you to account morally for your statements, and the state or a civil plaintiff has every right to hold you to account legally for the consequences of your speech. In criminal law, that might be incitement to commit a crime. In civil law, that might be libel, slander or defamation. And where civil law is ill-equipped to handle defamation of an entire race, gender or religion (because nobody can file suit on behalf of an entire gender, race or religion), that's where criminal law steps back in.

This is where overzealous free speech advocates kinda lose the plot, by failing to understand what free speech actually is, and the difference between prior restraint and subsequent punishment. This is also why, when the far right whines on about their "free speech" rights being violated, what they actually mean is they want to be a twat in general with absolute impunity. Actions have consequences, even verbal actions.

Hate speech legislation is not a law in its own right. It's a legal standard by which defamation is defined. It asks what the intent behind the statement was, and whether there was actual damage to reputation, incitement to hatred or incitement to discriminate against.

Insulting someone or telling a racist joke doesn't meet that legal standard (or shouldn't - there have been a few dodgy rulings in the UK to this end, although the frequency of these tends to be exaggerated by the British press). The point is that hate speech legislation is concerned with the effect or intended effect of speech, not the speech itself.

And who gets to decide when speech crosses the threshold of "bad"?

History is filled with examples of governments obtaining and subsequently abusing the power of being able to determine what speech/thoughts are acceptable. This is a huge mechanism of control.

Galileo was given a life sentence of house arrest for using speech for a "bad purpose" - questioning the teachings of the church. Copernicus was also punished for the same thing.

Thomas Cromwell was executed, in large part, for his speech against the Kind of England's divorce history and the way he disposed of several of his wives.

A good many prisoners in the Bastille were there because the things they said threatened the status quo of the ruling class.

You could write a book with the list of individuals imprisoned for exercising their speech in Eastern Germany and the rest of the area within the "Iron Curtain".

Do you remember the Reign of Terror?

What legal scaffolding did all of these things have in common? People could be punished for the thoughts/ideas they expressed. When you can punish someone because their words offend Muslims, transsexuals, Christians, blacks, atheists, liberals, fascists, or any other group - it means we have devolved back to a time many of our ancestors died to free us from. One of your late European neighbors, Voltaire, said "I Disapprove of What You Say, But I Will Defend to the Death Your Right to Say It". His ideas are supposed to have been the building blocks of modern Europe. What happened?

I asked this previously, why does your right to be free from some perceived offense supersede my right to speak my mind?

Your examples all have one thing in common: they're based on inequity, putting the rights of a powerful minority above that of a disenfranchised majority. The Crown failed to demonstrate any actual negative effect from Cromwell's speech, so it was a case of prior restraint. Likewise with Galileo and Copernicus with the Church.

The difference with modern hate speech legislation is that it swings both ways. I can be called to account for inciting hatred against Muslims, for instance, but a Muslim can also be called to account for inciting hatred against Christians. Equity. Equal rights and responsibilities for all.

As for this:

Depends on the offence. If your speech causes me to lose my job, or encourages people to not employ minorities or commit violence against women, then the fundamental right to dignity supercedes your right to speak your mind. As I say, just saying something isn't an offence, but saying it means you have to face the consequences.

Let me ask you this: if "speech" was so harmless, how is it that social media is almost exclusively responsible for encouraging 789 arson attacks on refugee accommodations in Germany in 2015 alone? The rights of those refugees to live safely and without fearing for their lives, not to mention the property rights of owners whose buildings were destroyed, supercede your right to make your point in a public forum.

It's just like your right to not to have to see my Johnson and beer belly supercedes my right to run around in the streets naked smeared in jelly. I have lost nothing by not being allowed to run around in public in my birthday suit, just like you have lost nothing by not speaking your mind.

If all speech results in is a bruised ego, then it really doesn't cut it by any legal standard. And if I genuinely believed that anything posted here constituted "hate speech" by a German, I would have been the first to report it to the authorities as a crime.

Anyone with the power to enforce themselves as arbiters of "truth" and "lie". As always in the history.
That's why it is good idea to not allow the prosecutor and the judge be the same person. That's why the separation of powers is GREAT idea on constitutional level, because the executive is the "High Enforcer" by design. That's why people should be very cautious by granting their rulers unrestricted power - even when facing "unprecedented crisis".

I am not eloquent in English, so I express my opinion about limiting free speech to the "good" uses in short dialogue instead of long analysis:
(to the new resident C):
A: You will feel as home here soon. Just don't be afraid to saying loudly and openly...
B: ... how much you love our town!
(taken from one Czech film from the "thawing" of 1960s. Several years later, the movie was locked in the safe till the fall of communist rule, so that's how it goes)

"Them" - you're one of them you know. So is:

You're both hiding behind a pretext of being either more correct, more reasoned, or more mature but then you turn into 1st graders at the first sign of differing views from yours. That's typical though and no one actually expects you to be any better. It's just funny how blissfully unaware of yourselves you tend to be.

Hey now. Every news segment and talk show host is all about the far left liberal agendas. They get more media time than Trump, especially in the EU where offending someone is a crime. I don't see why it's douchebaggery to being insensitive to the BS version of feminism, which is hypocritically insensitive to every other group, when I've been a supporter of real feminism at the time it actually meant something. :P

Yup. I guess it takes a hypocrite to know a hypocrite?

Does it? Cause if you were calling me one then that would make you one by your logic.

I do draw a distinction between the feminist movement and the stupid side that gives them bad press. The name is appropriate when they actually want men put into concentration camps literally and get these views published in national news. But I'm sure you're already educated on all of that and just were attempting to make a joke for the uninformed.

I appreciate the tragedy of the feminist using the ugly gendered insult and the impulsive hater wishing for strong hate speech regulation.

Do not read appreciate == admire or respect. I do not enjoy these tragedies. I merely reflect on their value - their profound illustrative value. :(

I wouldn't be so sure about that...a lot of US millenials seem to be in favour of restricting "hate speech":
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/20/40-of-millennials-ok-with-limiting-speech-offensive-to-minorities/
Though for the moment you're probably right that the US is freer in this regard than Europe (especially Germany which is depressingly authoritarian).

Typical left-wing Marxist and globalist asswipes at it again. Terms like "racist," "hate speech," and "neo-Nazi" get tossed around loosely as go-to buzzwords to silence dissent.

I know this will be used to silence anyone that opposes mass immigration, that supports self-determination for white European ethnicities, or that says anything outside of the Allied and Soviet narrative of WW2 even if it is just about certain units or about certain goals of certain politicians. While they censor all of that, politicians and bureaucrats will pretend not to notice anything hateful or threatening spewed out by those in favor of the EU, globalism, or social "justice" activism.

If I was a citizen of the UK, I would vote to leave the EU. If I was citizen of any European nation, I would vote for nationalist and anti-EU parties such as UKIP for the UK, National Front for France, and Alternative for Germany or National Democratic Party for Germany.

This is further evidence that such trade organizations are against freedom of choice and undermine sovereignty.

I can imagine someone like the following landed sea monster getting hired to act as a moderator for what qualifies as "hate speech."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BY1H1rZL53I

oh shit :P

boy has a bug up his ass the size of Texas.

Self-righteous crybaby...your kind of "good German", authoritarian to the core, makes me sick.