How uninformed are you really?

That is another easy one. "Muslims" are a group of people who you single out by their religion. While racists are people you single out because the things they do and say, that is a very different thing. Therefore those two sentences aren't equal (but they are both still protected, that doesn't really constitute "hatespeech".

A better example would be:

Extremist/closeminded fundamentalist muslims are poisoning the society because something and

Racists are poisining the society because something

Because now you don't single out people because of religion, but because of action.

Ok, but allowing to eliminate hatespeech from public debate can lead to censorship. What I mean is , what if politicians decide that criticising politicians / politics is hatespeech?

People shouldn't be imprisoned for what they say, but for what they do, imho.

Absolutely shocking.
But it's not "pro-heterosexual" counselling as you put it, but just counselling.
There is nothing wrong with faggots.
I'd like to quote Fear And Loathing In Las Vegas:
"Even a god-damned werewolf is entitled to legal counsel."

Firstly, nobody gets imprisoned for hatespeech, unless it is the really, really mean kind of hatespeech. And all actions started with hatespeech, it is not only very disrespectful for those affected, but it is used to sow discontend amongst a society. And every action is usually predated by hatespeech. "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance", as commander Blair said (or some other guy). And is especially true when it comes to things like hatespeech. Obviously it is a very fine line to walk, that is why the courts are the ones deciding the line.

Germany is actually an excellent example of the "freedom vs. human dignity" debate. Our first democracy was probably the most liberal and open country that has ever seen the face of the earth (at least legally in the constitution). There were virtually no restrictions on freedom of speech and it was also very progessive in social agendas. And as we all know, that didn't really work out that well....

Therefore, the founders of the current Federal Republic of Germany took those failures to heart and made not freedom the prime concept of our democracy, but human dignity. And it has worked exeptionally good. Ironically, while technically less "free" than before, it has forbidden less parties (only two, the communist and the national socialists), it crushed less demonstrations and so on. Freedom still reigns supreme, more than in many other countries (You can't even censor child porn pages on the internet because that would be infere to much with freedom here) but it is "kept in check" by human dignity.

It is controversial to this day in Germany, especially stuff like that denying the genocides by the Nazis being a crime, but imo it worked exceptionally well. Especially considering were we came from.

Germany isn't the finest example you know? You ban video games for having svastika in it :P With that "naziness" you came in other direction, which is of course fine, but don't you think you've come too far? The opinion in Poland about this sometimes is like "they're trying to cover the history facts!" also when your history books mention "Oswiecim" instead of Auschwitz, etc.
Of course these are stupid opinions, but this is one way of seeing this.

And banning games for having nazi symbols in it I wouldn't call a win in "freedom vs. dignity" war.

Also, allowing authorities, to for example, ban websites because of hatespeech would be equal to banning the internet :P

Are you listening? We ban svastikas because they represent the worst humanity had to offer and shouldn't be gloryfied in any way (and 98% of the time the publisher is removing them, because he fears a ban). The same reason we ban ultra violent videogames. They show utter disrespect for human dignity. While I certainly don't like it, I can see the reasoning and, at least now, the relevant institution has grown up enough to only be phased by the really sick stuff (AvP, Sniper 2, Mortal Kombat).

And no webpage in Germany has ever been banned by the state. Webpages won't get banned because it make a dangerous precedent. Therefore, we go after the people behind the homepages (when they are illegal, as in child porn) and not just censor the internet.

Showing svastikas is disrespectful to the memory of those murdered by the Nazis. No victim of the Nazi regime should endure to see that sign again. That is (one) of the reasonings behind the svastika ban. It is out of the dignity of those that were prosecuted and died. And that ban is correct. Sometimes it has very weird examples (like a "against fascism sign" with a crossed out svastika being declared pro nazi), but it still stands. Out of respect for those that died, this sign will never be allowed in the public space in Germany. Never forget, we are not talking about your run of the mill dictatorship here, but the single worst actrocity ever conducted by a human society, the industrial, cold blooded mechanical murder of 15 million people.

And people who are flat out denying that this has happened, should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Because by denying that crime, you are also denying those who were hunted and murdered their human dignity even after death.

Are you for real?

And we again disagree :P I think symbols are just symbols, they do not harm anybody. Banning them from public life (except for museums) won't change anything taht already happened nor change anything that will happen.

Having them in videogames even if they are there only because "they look cool" has one value. It teaches the kids that anybody who is using that symbols is "evil".

As a matter of fact, nazi freaks are getting stronger nowadays, in eastern Germany.

Actually, they don't. They are losing again, they just get louder. And read my edit, if you edit, so can I ;-P.

Priceless.

Ok, I got your point. I could understand that, but do you ban communist symbols as well? Because in Poland showing off nazi symbols in public is banned, but communist symbols for a long time weren't.

I can't understand that, because the amount of people who died because of Staling's tyranny, and the tyranny itself was as atrocious as III Reich.
Also, it's not the symbols that killed / made them suffer, it was the people.

If you ban the nazi symbols but not the game itself, it doesn't really change the fact. Everybody knows who they are representing, even with mascara on it :P
But I've never been to Germany, so I may not fully understand that policy.

man what the fuck, poor turtle :(

So, making a game where Nazis are the main antagonists is okay, as long as all swastikas are removed from the game? When the Nazis are portrayed as the bad guys, how is showing their use of the swastika "glorifying" it?
I would say that hiding it away and keeping it out of sight - out of mind, is disrespectful to those who suffered under the Nazis. It's hard to say without having been there, but I think I'd prefer a more "never forget" approach.
You know, it's a lot easier to claim something never happened, if the symbols of that something are systematically suppressed and swept under the rug.

http://translate.google.fi/translate?sl=fi&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=fi&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fomakaupunki.hs.fi%2Fpaakaupunkiseutu%2Fuutiset%2Fhakaristilippu_kuumensi_tunteita_tilkantorilla%2F

Sorry for the poor Google translation.