Freedom of Speech should be regulated

Post Reply New Topic

Freedom of Speech protects nazis (members of various National Socialist Movements) and islamists (not muslims, but islamists).

We need more regulation of speech, and we need to punish pro-nazi speeches (ie. holocaust denial), as well as pro-sharia speeches.

We must never allow for either side to gain seats in any parliament.

Instead I we should show no mercy to either ideology and it is NECCESSARY to put both types of this scum into concentration camps and let them do hard labor until death.

To anyone who says "how are you better than the nazis then?" - I will say: I am way better. It is not the methods that counts, it is the people to whom the methods are applied to, that counts.

Last edited by thinkinginpictures on 12 Nov 2019, 1:16 pm, edited 2 times in total.

So do you think just because there are crazy nutjobs means there should be restrictions on what is and is not "hateful" for everyone else?

Hate-speech is fine.

It is the ideology behind it, that matters.

Some ideologies are not worth our society.
Who should decide which ideologies should be banned? The parliament of course.

I hope they make the right decisions.

it also protects their polar opposites. that's the whole point.

people who think taxation is literally slavery probably shouldn't be included in a discussion on tax reform.

people who think blacks are less than human probably don't have much value to offer in a discussion on race relations

there are actually people like that. why should it be the government's responsibility to protect you from them.

people in many countries would quite literally kill to have the freedoms that people like richard spencer have to spout such absolutely abhorrent, controversial opinions and face seemingly no repercussions (and they can be on anything)

are westerners scared of freedom? is it the case that they've suddenly found themselves with so much of it that they don't know how to handle it?

Yes, this in no way resembles something a Nazi might say...




The way you manage to articulate these ideas with no thought whatsoever going into them is pretty mind-blowing.


And once again, by what right do you presume to take away my right to listen and make up my own mind?

^this

i already have had enough of my own decision making done for me by my parents, i don't need it done by anyone else

Do you really want it to come to this?

But Fnord, this is the good kind of authoritarian totalitarianism.

It is.

There is no "sarcasm"-sign of sufficient magnitude for this situation...

All that this kind of authoritarian totalitarianism will accomplish is to drive the "wrongthinkers" underground, and force the Thought Police to arrest people "on suspicion" only.

"Nazis drank coffee. If you drink coffee, you're a nazi."

That's the sort of false "logic" you're using by implying that what I said resembles something nazis might say.



I do have a lot of thoughts going on into them. It is the way you manage to use a logical fallacy (see above) that is mind-blowing.



What are you asking about when you refer to "what right"?
I mean, by "what right" - do you refer to my authority or my civil right to express myself?

I have no authority - I wish I had. Instead I must persuade the public to vote for candidates who will ban certain ideologies.

That's my right.

Last edited by thinkinginpictures on 12 Nov 2019, 1:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

It works in Germany, France and Austria. In these countries, holocaust denial is illegal, banned and censored. So is nazism and their symbols.

Would you say the German, French, Austrian police arrests people "on suspicion only"?

Yes. It happens quietly. A polite request to "Please come with us". A trip to the nearest Gendarmerie. Papers are checked. Identification is verified. A polite "Thank you for your cooperation" and the person is on about their business, or a more impolite "Empty your pockets and take off your shoes and belt", and the person is on their way to further interrogation.

Now imagine this happening at least once a week to you and every person you know.

Be careful what you wish for.

It's not false logic. Take a look at what you said. then replace the words "way better" with the word "aryan".








Not a fallacy. So then use your "lots of thoughts" and riddle me this: what happens the millisecond one side or another gains majority in such a parliament? If you guessed "they'd outlaw their opposition", congratulations, cookie for you.




Morally. How do you justify to yourself the idea that other people should have the right to tell me that I can't hear certain things and consider them on their merits or possible lack thereof because you're too frail to hear those same things?

I'd like to see any source or any evidence for this claim.
Until then, I say whatever you just said is BS!

Liar!