Free Speech Yet Again
-
I dont think its a question of free speach. The Germans have the right to make any law they like as long as they dont breach international law. If people want to go there they have no choice but to abide by the German laws. If they dont like it they should stay home. My impression of the sun newspaper from the limited time I have spent in the UK is that their page three girls are more respectable then thier writers. Got a gun, fact I got two That's O.K. man, cuz I love god Glorified version of a pellet gun Feels so manly, when armed Glorified version of a pellet gun
But it is a question of free speech within Germany. Can you or cannot you not speak freely in Germany. Nobody says they have to have free speech but it sure would be a good thing. regards, Paul Watson Ireland Feed Henry! K(arl) wrote: oh, and BTW, CHRISTIAN ISN'T A PARADOX, HE IS A TASMANIAN!
-
(1) We are sick of your Nazi jokes. They were funny until around March 17, 1957. They are stale, boring, childish and not funny. Bring on some healthy, dry english humour, and we get along. (2) certain insignia of the 3rd reich are prohibited in Germany. Everyone knows that, and if you come here, follow the rules. (3) Laws like that are the only measure a democratic country has against shitheads. Would you rather have a headline "30.000 Nazis march through Berlin! US Ambassador applauds german courts for ruling they are protected under free speech."? OK, those english folks with a Nazi fetish probably wouldget off on that, but IMHO they should stick to their sheep.
Some of us walk the memory lane, others plummet into a rabbit hole
Tree in C# || Fold With Us! || sighistBut you are OK with the printing of the Mohammed cartoons? :confused: regards, Paul Watson Ireland Feed Henry! K(arl) wrote: oh, and BTW, CHRISTIAN ISN'T A PARADOX, HE IS A TASMANIAN!
-
Hey, i heard that showing middle finger while driving is illegal in some states of USA.
-Prakash
A found some funny ones: It is illegal to rob a bank and then shoot at the bank teller with a water pistol in Louisana. And hunting camels is prohibited in Arizona. The entire Encyclopedia Britannica is banned in Texas because it contains a formula for making beer at home (what is about free speech when books are banned? :laugh:). Greetings, Ingo ------------------------------ A bug in a Microsoft Product? No! It's not a bug it's an undocumented feature!
-
But you are OK with the printing of the Mohammed cartoons? :confused: regards, Paul Watson Ireland Feed Henry! K(arl) wrote: oh, and BTW, CHRISTIAN ISN'T A PARADOX, HE IS A TASMANIAN!
That's a silly comparison. Under the signs of the third reich millions of people were killed and they are used by those, who liked this times. Those who made the Mohammed cartoons didn't killed any people and I think this wasn't the intend. Greetings, Ingo ------------------------------ A bug in a Microsoft Product? No! It's not a bug it's an undocumented feature!
-
But it is a question of free speech within Germany. Can you or cannot you not speak freely in Germany. Nobody says they have to have free speech but it sure would be a good thing. regards, Paul Watson Ireland Feed Henry! K(arl) wrote: oh, and BTW, CHRISTIAN ISN'T A PARADOX, HE IS A TASMANIAN!
You're right, this is a question of free speech within Germany. I think the circumstances in regard to what happened in WWII are justified. I see it as a legal implementation of common sense and curtesy just like laws that prevent people from walking around with their 'bits' hanging out. In terms of the football supporters they can take it or leave it I reckon. I think its a very different situation to the bloody cartoons and I think this just a cheap news paper looking for a free ride on the back of the current controversy. Got a gun, fact I got two That's O.K. man, cuz I love god Glorified version of a pellet gun Feels so manly, when armed Glorified version of a pellet gun
-
But you are OK with the printing of the Mohammed cartoons? :confused: regards, Paul Watson Ireland Feed Henry! K(arl) wrote: oh, and BTW, CHRISTIAN ISN'T A PARADOX, HE IS A TASMANIAN!
-
That's a silly comparison. Under the signs of the third reich millions of people were killed and they are used by those, who liked this times. Those who made the Mohammed cartoons didn't killed any people and I think this wasn't the intend. Greetings, Ingo ------------------------------ A bug in a Microsoft Product? No! It's not a bug it's an undocumented feature!
Many more millions have been killed in the name of religion (and the slander of other people's religions) than were killed by the Third Reich. Plus you, nor I, can go around saying "This hate speak is fine but that hate speak is not fine." None of us are wise enough or unbiased enough to be the decider of such matters. The whole point is that no one group is more important than the other. No one group should have privileges that others do not have. That is what the Third Reich wanted, layers of humanity with different levels of rights. regards, Paul Watson Ireland Feed Henry! K(arl) wrote: oh, and BTW, CHRISTIAN ISN'T A PARADOX, HE IS A TASMANIAN!
-
The two issues are very different, because in Germany it is illegal to do the thing in question. In Denmark it isn't illegal to print pictures of Mohammed. --------------------------- 127.0.0.1 - Sweet 127.0.0.1
We can't have such special treatment and expect no problems. regards, Paul Watson Ireland Feed Henry! K(arl) wrote: oh, and BTW, CHRISTIAN ISN'T A PARADOX, HE IS A TASMANIAN!
-
Hey, i heard that showing middle finger while driving is illegal in some states of USA.
-Prakash
In most parts of the country, the question of whether it was legal or not would be the least of your worries. Do that here and you'd better be bad ass enough to back it up. "You get that which you tolerate"
-
Many more millions have been killed in the name of religion (and the slander of other people's religions) than were killed by the Third Reich. Plus you, nor I, can go around saying "This hate speak is fine but that hate speak is not fine." None of us are wise enough or unbiased enough to be the decider of such matters. The whole point is that no one group is more important than the other. No one group should have privileges that others do not have. That is what the Third Reich wanted, layers of humanity with different levels of rights. regards, Paul Watson Ireland Feed Henry! K(arl) wrote: oh, and BTW, CHRISTIAN ISN'T A PARADOX, HE IS A TASMANIAN!
Paul Watson wrote:
Many more millions have been killed in the name of religion (and the slander of other people's religions) than were killed by the Third Reich.
That's right.
Paul Watson wrote:
Plus you, nor I, can go around saying "This hate speak is fine but that hate speak is not fine." None of us are wise enough or unbiased enough to be the decider of such matters.
I didn't do that. But these are two different things. When someone uses a symbol of terror you have to ban it. But when someone makes a joke over something you shouldn't prohibit it (except when he try to use it for legalize a symbol of terror). Jokes about the nazis are not prohobited and so jokes about mohamed shouldn't be prohibited. The "Hakenkreuz" and the "Hitlergruß" are prohibited and so every symbol of terroristic ring should be. If you say "I'm from Hamas and like to kill americans" that is the same like saying "I'm a nazi and want to kill jews". Both are inacceptable.
Paul Watson wrote:
The whole point is that no one group is more important than the other. No one group should have privileges that others do not have. That is what the Third Reich wanted, layers of humanity with different levels of rights.
That's right and we never said something else. You should read what we have written and then look about the things, we were talking about. If you mix up jokes with terror than we have no point to talk about. Greetings, Ingo ------------------------------ A bug in a Microsoft Product? No! It's not a bug it's an undocumented feature!
-
Paul Watson wrote:
Many more millions have been killed in the name of religion (and the slander of other people's religions) than were killed by the Third Reich.
That's right.
Paul Watson wrote:
Plus you, nor I, can go around saying "This hate speak is fine but that hate speak is not fine." None of us are wise enough or unbiased enough to be the decider of such matters.
I didn't do that. But these are two different things. When someone uses a symbol of terror you have to ban it. But when someone makes a joke over something you shouldn't prohibit it (except when he try to use it for legalize a symbol of terror). Jokes about the nazis are not prohobited and so jokes about mohamed shouldn't be prohibited. The "Hakenkreuz" and the "Hitlergruß" are prohibited and so every symbol of terroristic ring should be. If you say "I'm from Hamas and like to kill americans" that is the same like saying "I'm a nazi and want to kill jews". Both are inacceptable.
Paul Watson wrote:
The whole point is that no one group is more important than the other. No one group should have privileges that others do not have. That is what the Third Reich wanted, layers of humanity with different levels of rights.
That's right and we never said something else. You should read what we have written and then look about the things, we were talking about. If you mix up jokes with terror than we have no point to talk about. Greetings, Ingo ------------------------------ A bug in a Microsoft Product? No! It's not a bug it's an undocumented feature!
ihoecken wrote:
That's right.
No, it isn't. "You get that which you tolerate"
-
Many more millions have been killed in the name of religion (and the slander of other people's religions) than were killed by the Third Reich. Plus you, nor I, can go around saying "This hate speak is fine but that hate speak is not fine." None of us are wise enough or unbiased enough to be the decider of such matters. The whole point is that no one group is more important than the other. No one group should have privileges that others do not have. That is what the Third Reich wanted, layers of humanity with different levels of rights. regards, Paul Watson Ireland Feed Henry! K(arl) wrote: oh, and BTW, CHRISTIAN ISN'T A PARADOX, HE IS A TASMANIAN!
Paul Watson wrote:
Many more millions have been killed in the name of religion (and the slander of other people's religions) than were killed by the Third Reich.
Paul, that is sheer leftist propaganda, which you should be above. How could you, or anyone else, possibly know how many 'millions' have been killed in the name of religion? I seriously doubt that you could document more than a few hundred deaths, at best, that are directly attributable to any kind of religious fundamentalist causes. "You get that which you tolerate"
-
So? Freedom of speech, as with any freedom, is not absolute. Freedom must be used responsibly or it can legitimately be taken away. Get used to it. "You get that which you tolerate"
-
I dont think its a question of free speach. The Germans have the right to make any law they like as long as they dont breach international law. If people want to go there they have no choice but to abide by the German laws. If they dont like it they should stay home. My impression of the sun newspaper from the limited time I have spent in the UK is that their page three girls are more respectable then thier writers. Got a gun, fact I got two That's O.K. man, cuz I love god Glorified version of a pellet gun Feels so manly, when armed Glorified version of a pellet gun
-
ihoecken wrote:
That's right.
No, it isn't. "You get that which you tolerate"
Yes it is. Over thousand of years have more people been killed by several religions than in the third reich. That's a fact not a valuation. It doesn't make the third reich any better and it doesn't make the killing in the name of some god any worth. ------------------------------ A bug in a Microsoft Product? No! It's not a bug it's an undocumented feature!
-
We can't have such special treatment and expect no problems. regards, Paul Watson Ireland Feed Henry! K(arl) wrote: oh, and BTW, CHRISTIAN ISN'T A PARADOX, HE IS A TASMANIAN!
Why can't we? Laws differentiate between nations whether they are totalitarian or democratic all the time? A very basic example could be speed limits. They are (mostly) different from country to country, so because you are used to driving X in speed, it doesn't mean you can force people to do the same in another country where Y is the speed limit. Yes, basic example which doesn't fully cover this situation - however the principle is excatly the same. We can't all have the same laws, because we come from differnet histories and cultures. In Germany it is the holocaust they are sensitive about so they have laws regarding that. In the Muslim countries it is their religon so they have rules about that. However, these laws and cultural rules are regional... For instance in Iran it isn't illegal to question the Holocaust or make obscene drawings about the jews - however it would be illegal in Germany. So "they" to perform such a special treatment themselves and fully understand it. --------------------------- 127.0.0.1 - Sweet 127.0.0.1
-
Paul Watson wrote:
Many more millions have been killed in the name of religion (and the slander of other people's religions) than were killed by the Third Reich.
Paul, that is sheer leftist propaganda, which you should be above. How could you, or anyone else, possibly know how many 'millions' have been killed in the name of religion? I seriously doubt that you could document more than a few hundred deaths, at best, that are directly attributable to any kind of religious fundamentalist causes. "You get that which you tolerate"
In africa there were some regimes in the last century, from which the worst killed more than three million people in the name of their religion. This is not the single event you can find in history. When you add all the people killed in the name of religion in the last century, then you got more murders than in the third reich. But that don't makes the third reich any better. Greetings, Ingo ------------------------------ A bug in a Microsoft Product? No! It's not a bug it's an undocumented feature!
-
(1) We are sick of your Nazi jokes. They were funny until around March 17, 1957. They are stale, boring, childish and not funny. Bring on some healthy, dry english humour, and we get along. (2) certain insignia of the 3rd reich are prohibited in Germany. Everyone knows that, and if you come here, follow the rules. (3) Laws like that are the only measure a democratic country has against shitheads. Would you rather have a headline "30.000 Nazis march through Berlin! US Ambassador applauds german courts for ruling they are protected under free speech."? OK, those english folks with a Nazi fetish probably wouldget off on that, but IMHO they should stick to their sheep.
Some of us walk the memory lane, others plummet into a rabbit hole
Tree in C# || Fold With Us! || sighistTo quote Gerhard Hauptmannl: 'But anyone glorifying extremism here risks arrest' Isn't doing a Nazi salute ridiculing extremeism? Mind you, the goose step is also an Italian, Russian thing too, and the salute was also form ancent Rome I believe. It was also used by the Cromwellian troops in the English Civil war in 1640. Hence the childrens poem: 'Goosey goosey gander, where shall I wander...' The Nazi insignia is also an ancient Indian insignia too. But you have to see the other side of this, the stronger the reaction, the more pleasure there is in windng someone up, so while you continue to be sensitive in this area, the more these yobs will give the Nazi salute. It would be better if you just laughed at it all. Nunc est bibendum
-
Yes it is. Over thousand of years have more people been killed by several religions than in the third reich. That's a fact not a valuation. It doesn't make the third reich any better and it doesn't make the killing in the name of some god any worth. ------------------------------ A bug in a Microsoft Product? No! It's not a bug it's an undocumented feature!
ihoecken wrote:
Over thousand of years have more people been killed by several religions than in the third reich
That is absolute Marxist historic revisionism. You could not site a single historic instance of any religion, of its own accord, killing mass numbers of people. "You get that which you tolerate"
-
In africa there were some regimes in the last century, from which the worst killed more than three million people in the name of their religion. This is not the single event you can find in history. When you add all the people killed in the name of religion in the last century, then you got more murders than in the third reich. But that don't makes the third reich any better. Greetings, Ingo ------------------------------ A bug in a Microsoft Product? No! It's not a bug it's an undocumented feature!
ihoecken wrote:
In africa there were some regimes in the last century, from which the worst killed more than three million people in the name of their religion.
The key word there is "regime". That means government. You cannot blame a religion for what some government decides to do in its name. Hell, I don't even blame Islam, as a religion, for the current chaos we are seeing. You seem to want to blame religion for having a corruptive influence on the state, rather that admitting the obvious that it is the state that has a corruptive influence on religion. "You get that which you tolerate"