1. Is hate speech in your country illegal?
2. Do you agree with this prohibition?
1. Yes
1. Yes
>>61633610
It is, but usually not enforced as far as I know.
yes
sort of
free speech shouldnt protect incitations to violence or threats or lies that damage a person
on the other hand you should be free to say 'i don't like niggers' or 'islam is a hateful religion'
hate speech will never be illegal here because of the constitution
god bless the US
you can't go around threatening people
though
1. It has been illegal since this year iirc
2.Yes no one wants to listen to everything those autists spew out loud. Its just noisy to everyone else and nothing but sperging out in public
>>61633882
You mean these guys?
>>61633610
1. no
2. no
>>61633610
1. We don't have a concept of hate speech in our legislature. The liberal homomultikulti retards blindly translate it from Western media sometimes, but essentially it is meaningless blabber.
2. Fuck no! And neither does the constitution. Freedom of speech niggers!
>>61633610
Yes
Yes
>>61633776
Islam is a hateful religion, that is a valid and objective truth. Calling someone a nigger IRL is just plain offensive and shouldn't be allowed.
>>61633842
>Have the first amendment
>Can't even yell fire in the movie theater
>>61633966
But what if said nigger, is actually a nigger? Bare in mind: nigger is not an offensive word.
>>61633976
>be Canadian
>can't even call someone a faggot in jest
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2013/02/27/1647321/canadian-supreme-court-upholds-hate-speech-laws-against-anti-gay-activist/
>>61633610
1. No
2. No
Regardless of government right or left, such a law will become just a tool for politicians to punish people saying things they don't like. The intention of such measure could be good but I don't trust people enforcing it.
The cucked Slovak strikes again
>>61634016
>nigger is not an offensive word.
No, the word negro isn't offensive. Nigger had always been used as a slur.
>>61633961
RUUBEN KAALEP WAS SENT BY GOD
>>61633842
obama banned the confederate flag
>>61634216
He truly is a blessing in our time of need.
>>61634196
>Nigger had always been used as a slur.
What about Nigger Jim in Huckleberry Finn?
1. I'm not even sure. I think not.
2. No
>>61634247
No he didn't
Yes
Most of all it's pointless. Unless you go full Stalin you can't control what people think and say anyway. Might as well embrace free speech.
No
absolutely NO.
>>61633610
1. Yes.
2. No, but i do think inciting to violence and slander should be illegal.
Inciting to hatred or discrimination is just too subjective and can be misconstrued according to political stance. We had a judge condemning some protest that just said "stop islamisation" "Islamic slaughter is barbaric".
Give me an objective definition of hate speech
>>61633943
those are a kind of stupid redneck performance of a nostalgia of the past and mostly died out in big cities. sure, they are annoying and potentially criminals but not so much against foreigners or a particular minority.
what im mentioning is netouyos in action. they are full of autists and beyond creepy. whats more, they actually bring creepy anime crap there sometimes. fucking spergs are nothing more than pollution to public spaces. the new law is a good riddance honestly
>>61634281
Favorite piece of literature history for the imbeciles fighting for muh raycis?
>>61633610
1. depends what kind of hate speech
2. people should be accountable for what they are saying. so i agree that there should be some sort of responsibility for hate speech
>the First Amendment does not protect obscenity, child pornography, true threats, fighting words, incitement to imminent lawless action, criminal solicitation or defamation
>>61634399
Things you say that hurt my feelings, you disgusting white male.
>>61633610
No
No
>>61634399
Hate speech: a speech that expresses hateful attitude towards something or someone.
Example: "I fucking hate apples!". The question here boils down to: should I be jailed for letting everyone know.
The official law is:
>Ideas are okay
>Attacks on persons are not
I agree
>>61634399
Speech that incites violence against a group
>>61634281
Idk, I haven't read that book. Even if it's started out as a neutral word, today it is a slur and it should be treated as such.
Negro is different, since it just means black in Spanish (and Portugese maybe?), and literally hundreds of millions use it everday, so it'd be silly to sanction the use of it.
>>61634281
Idk, I haven't read that book. Even if it's started out as a neutral word, today it is a slur and it should be treated as such.
Negro is different, since it just means black in Spanish (and Portugese maybe?) and hundreds of millions use it everyday, so it'd be silly to sanction the use of it.
>>61633610
Yes
No
>>61633976
Yes you can. That's a myth.
>>61633610
No
No, you fucking cock juggling Antifa faggot. To limit any kind of speech makes it possible to easily limit other types of speech as what is hate speech is subjective.
Freedom of speech is granted by Article 21 of our Constitution
>http://www.normattiva.it/uri-res/N2Ls?urn:nir:stato:costituzione
The only Constitutional limitations are for "expressions against public decency" (last "comma" - we call paragraphs "commi")
Note that the Constitution is NOT directed towards nor directly invocable the citizens; the Constitution binds only the "legislator" (fictio iuris to say that it's just a parameter for Laws)
In the Penal Code these limitations are expressed in articles 594 and 595 (ingiuria and diffamazione: that is, insults against the honor and defamation); vilification of religion (403) and insults against the Presidents (278) - but sometimes these rules may be considerable not appliable in the context of the "parliamentary dialectics" and/or in the context of the relative immunity.
On famous art critic and former member of the Parliament uses "Capra" as a form of insult as this as been found by the Corte di Cassazione as not triggering the art. 594 of the penal code.
I would consider any statement reflecting a viewpoint that is not hard-left to be hate speech, such as "men and women are different" or anything that disagreed with the goals of the government such as "the opposition party has valid concerns"
the penalty should be death or at least dismemberment
>>61634650
>the penalty should be death or at least dismemberment
>not quartering
>>61633610
1. Is hate speech in your country illegal?
No
2. Do you agree with this prohibition?
It's not prohibited in the first place, nor should it be.
>>61634639
>Capra
and btw, that means "goat"
>>61634281
You mean a book where one of its main themes was to point out racism in American society at the time? The one where Twain named a character as such to reinforce that? That one?
Yes that's a slur. It's supposed to be used in a way to show everyone that its a slur.
>>61634498
That's a step further from mere speech tho isn't it? You can express hate without implications of or explicitly stating that someone should have their shit kicked in because you hate them AND you can do the latter without expressing any hate.
For example. Suppose the topic is government. The options here are:
1> you're all doing a shit job and i hate you, have a good day!
2> you're all doing a shit job and i'm gonna burn your house down, have a good day!
3> i'm gonna burn your house down for no particular reason, thought you should know, have a good day!
>>61634781
>You mean a book where one of its main themes was to point out racism in American society at the time?
Proofs?
>>61634864
What, you want me to just link the book? Go read it. Twain was a comedian who poked fun at hypocrisy his whole life.
The treatment of blacks at the time was the only reason Jim was in the book. He didn't do anything else.
Our constitution just says "everyone is free to say his opinions and thoughts", "the media is free but has a social responsibility" and that there won't be any censorship. I guess the concept of hate speech itself doesn't exist.
>>61634639
>vilification of religion (403)
>insults against the Presidents (278)
So if I'm an artist who depicts the pope fucking the newborn son of the president they shoot me on the spot?
>>61634945
>>61634945
>The treatment of blacks at the time was the only reason Jim was in the book.
>>61635007
Nice meme and meme arrows.
It really must be proofs you're looking for.
>>61633610
1. Only in so far as it incites others to violence
2. Yes
>>61633943
and adding to my above post, netouyos are super minority so anyway you cant see them protesting irl. they were only active in some principal spots with a very small number of protesters, whereas they annoyingly kept making a big fuss about it on the internet.
also they had been dying out by themselves for some reasons. and then this new law.
so now in japan, theres almost no chance to see a hate speech. its fucking good for japan, since they are really fucking noisy and megalomaniac about what they have been doing on the japanese internet.
>>61634399
Things POC don't like.
You're a pretty big cuck if you think hate speech should be banned
>>61635116
Nice flag :)
>>61633610
>1. Is hate speech in your country illegal?
Yes. There's actually an article (137c from the Penal Code, from the top of my head) that makes "inciting hatred" punishable by law.
>2. Do you agree with this prohibition?
Of course not. It effectively ends Free Speech by ensuring only speech that doesn't "offend" is free speech. By that logic Nazi Germany was a bastion of Free Speech.
>>61633842
>hate speech will never be illegal here because of the constitution
Lucky American. Over here the constitution also guarantees free speech, but guess what? Article 120 of our constitution explicitly forbids judges from testing laws on their adherence to the constitution. Yes, you read that right: our constitution has an article that declares the constitution null and void! EU treaties literally have more influence on our legal order than OUR OWN FUCKING CONSTITUTIONS.
>>61635060
>1. Only in so far as it incites others to violence
Yeah, nah. Article 137c explicitly relates to insults. Holocaust denial is also illegal if I'm not mistaken.
>>61634399
Any untrue categorization or characterization of a group of people for purposes of tribalism.
Identifying tribalism being the suspicious part of the process. It's possible to perform research on a group of people and then turn out to be mistakenly incorrect.
>>61634498
No. Inciting hatred and inciting violence are two different things.
>>61633842
>implying everything isn't going to go straight down the toilet
*FLUSH*
1. yes
2. yes
>>61635362
>our constitution explicitly forbids judges from testing laws on their adherence to the constitution
That is such fucking nonsense my brain just exploded. Here we have an actual institution and office that routinely goes through all newly passed laws to guarantee they are in accord with the constitution.
>>61633610
1. yes
2. yes
If you just hate without having arguments, you're simply braindead and deserve being detained
>>61634989
>artist
No, that does not apply to any artistic depiction.
This is "La nona ora" by the Italian Maurizio Cattelan.
There has to be "vilipendio" - that is, expressed, explicit contempt.
There has been a famous member of the Lega Nord who used to put pigs in places where muslims were about to build a place to meet (Italy has no "Concordato" with muslims so they cannot build mosques on public soil) just to piss off muslims and make that place "haram" for them. This has never been considered a "vilipendio".
But if I say that muslims do not deserve to exist and Mohammed should go fuck a goat, I may be liable of vilification of religion if there's no way I can justify it in the context of "political speech". Ih theory. De facto, it's not enforced.
Before 2006 btw the penal code only punished vilipendio against the Catholic cult.
For example, in 1967 a man has been condemned for having said that the Catholic cult is all a business managed by priests.
The Corte di Cassazione and Corte Costituzionale have removed in the last decades many "related" articles in the penal code and it's not actually an enforced article.
It's anachronistic nowadays
>>61635608
>That is such fucking nonsense my brain just exploded
I know. If you're going to forbid constitutional revision of the laws why even bother with a written constitution in the first place? We might as well go for that "unwritten constitution" bullshit then.
>>61635362
>EU treaties literally have more influence on our legal order than OUR OWN FUCKING CONSTITUTIONS.
EU regulations are also above national law.
What a beautiful cuck fest you goys got into, huh
>>61635362
>EU treaties literally have more influence on our legal order than OUR OWN FUCKING CONSTITUTIONS
EU treaties are considered, in our Constitutional theory, as **having precedence** over the Constitution itself.
>>61635821
>EU regulations are also above national law.
No they are not. The only place where EU law is "supreme" to national law is whenever there is a conflict between the two. And I honestly can't think of anything in the nearest of past that would've caused a dispute between EU/national. In practice, the only cases that are appealed to EU law are the bullshit "human rights" cases.
>>61633610
1. Afaik it is illegal but it isn't reinforced at all and no one cares.
2. Nope.
>>61633610
>subjective parameters on what you can and can't say
>free speech
![hqdefault[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/Yi0r1Fb.jpg "hqdefault[1].jpg")
>>61635996
>EU treaties are considered, in our Constitutional theory, as **having precedence** over the Constitution itself.
That's not what I'm talking about. What I'm saying is that, even if we weren't in the EU, our Constitution would have ZERO legal force. ZERO. We cannot directly invoke the constitution in a court of law, and judges cannot test newly made laws to check if they're constitutional. The constitution effectively doesn't exist as anything other than ink on paper. If someone were to abolish the constitution effectively nothing would change.
Yes
No
Too open to interpretation and exploitation. Incitement to violence should be illegal, but not hate speech and, in particular, not online. Face to face there are grey areas.
>>61634247
No he didn't people still fly the stars and bars everywhere here.
A few states caved into peer pressure and stopped flying the flag over government buildings.
>>61636163
>That's not what I'm talking about. What I'm saying is that, even if we weren't in the EU, our Constitution would have ZERO legal force. ZERO. We cannot directly invoke the constitution in a court of law, and judges cannot test newly made laws to check if they're constitutional.
Sure. Constitution is >>61634639
>not directly invocable the citizens; the Constitution binds only the "legislator" (fictio iuris to say that it's just a parameter for Laws)
Only the Corte Costituzionale can "judge laws"
>>61636286
to add on that: in your system, Treaties are not directly invocable by citizens (on par with the Constitution) except in some corner cases
Directives and Regulations "could"
>>61636409
>in your system
*in our system
>>61636070
>The only place where EU law is "supreme" to national law is whenever there is a conflict between the two
So, the chance is there, and they just haven't usefd it yet?
It's like saying "oh well there's this huge loophole in our laws but no one has taken advantage of it (yet) so it's fine"
>>61636593
The only place I see this as being an issue at all is when ever a candidate country wants to join the EU. Then the possible differences would have to be resolved prior to joining.
>>61633610
1. No
2. You can't be racist if you are not white.
>>61636707
There are all sorts of areas where your national govt. will want to do something and be unable to because of EU rules. So for example if you have an industry that is struggling in a certain context but will be healthy again in future, you will be unable to subsidise said industry to help it through the hard times. No protectionism within the EU allowed! But the EU itself is protectionist and shrinking. It's just retarded.
>>61633610
Yes
No, if free speech is restricted in any way, it's not free speech anymore
Any opinion must be tolerated, how stupid it may be. You can't ban stupidity.
>>61634399
Nice buzzword what you can throw in with "racist"
>>61636871
Really? I think I remember reading about Germans heavily subsidizing their industry at some point with the pretext of possible social unrest. And from more recent times, our own government subsidizes companies creating jobs in the mining industry for pretty much the same reason. Then again, our national airline (now bankrupt) did go through some legal trouble due to a subsidy provided to them, but there the issue iirc was more about the company holding a monopoly on the "market".
1. Yes
2. No, except for incitement of violence
>>61633976
>Walk into theater
>I'M GOING TO SHOOT EVERY SINGLE ONE OF YOU
>Americans are always packing heat
>Get arrested
>W-why did I get arrested? F-freedom of speech!
Retardian.
>>61633610
>"hate speech"
I'm getting a little tired of this meme
>>61634247
Good.
>>61637081
Shut up and serve the Holy Roman Empire.
>>61640121
>Holy
>Roman
>Empire
"Piss off you wanker." (Voltaire)
>>61633966
I won't lie, bruh. This triggered me a lil
>>61633610
1. Yes
2. No, especially as the laws are continually being expanded. Although we should be more cautious as the last governments we had did this too (Gestapo and Stasi).
>>61633610
1. Hate speech is illegal, but do you think any Latin American government cares about effective law enforcement?
2. I disagree with those laws because:
a. YES, hate speech is sadly a kind of free speech. Free speech includes the right to say "that group is shit and we'd be better off without them."
b. Even if you consider it something apart from free speech, the dividing line is blurry as fuck. So you either let hate speech slip in, or you curb down free speech.
c. Law enforcement involves either curbing down free speech (by monitoring people "for their own safeness :)") or ineffective measures.
>>61640121
*Barbarian Potato Clusterfuck
yes
no
>>61633610
>>61633842
Currently hate speech is defined as anything that triggers any neurotic liberal in any way.
>>61643844
They care when its some 55chan autists who shitpost at some actresses' facebook or some shit. Also that Bolsonaro shitshow.
Completely agree with you tho
>>61649173
>being this edgy
>>61649173
I don't think the word liberal means what you think it means
>>61649431
>not being that edgy
>>61649173
The supreme court has consistently ruled that hate speech is protected under the first amendment
But for some reason tons of college kids think there are hate speech laws here lel
>Yes
>Yes
define "hate speech"
>Your rights end where my feelings begin
>>61633610
it's in a weird spot legally, and isn't well defined.
SJW types think it's anything mean in their world view, but the legal system takes it as promoting genocide type of thing.
socially you can still get in trouble and loose your job, etc for disagreeing with the norm.
>>61634498
>Pedophiles should face death penalty.
Is that hate speech?
Yes.
No; there's no such thing as """hate speech""".
>>61649651
Talking shit about
Putin
Stalin
Expressing admiration for
Hitler
Nazis
Where would the above land you?
Post hate speech if you dare yuropoors
Rape isn't a big deal
Niggers look like monkeys
>>61633610
no
no
>>61633976
that's the theater kicking your ass, not the government
>>61650171
>Rape isn't a big deal
colonials speak truth
>>61649813
Under our laws, "hate speech" is pretty well just when one advocates violence of some kind against a demographic on the grounds they're part of that demographic. It's a pretty reasonable thing to expect your countrymen not to do this, provided you're not a >muh freedums >muh librety tiered apolitical shite.
>>61635362
>>61635791
http://www.ejcl.org/143/art143-16.pdf
>Article 140
Existing Acts of Parliament and other regulations and decrees which are
in conflict with an amendment to the Constitution shall remain in force
until provisions are made in accordance with the Constitution
what about article 140? In practice is this done? Wouldn't this rectify the contradictions and provide freedom of speech?
:( no one from the netherlands is up to answer my question
>>61633610
>I decide what opinions you're allowed to express
>I have to do this to make sure you're free to speak your mind
>>61633976
>he's a canadian
>he thinks that meme is real
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/
A FUCKING LEAF
>>61634399
Anything that hurts me feefees
>>61635362
>>61634498
>ALL FORD TRUCKS SHOULD BE DISMANTLED
>this means I want to kill everyone who works for Chevy, and everyone who drives/owns a Chevy
>>61633610
Yes
Absolutely not.
Calling for genocide and threats are not acceptable. Everything else is. We need the same laws as the US.
>>61634070
Based Canada
>>61633610
Yes
If anything, yes
Only dumb people give hate speech
>>61654098
Actually, you can call for genocide in the US; it's just that you can't immediately incite it (like, there's a raging KKK crowd with weapons and you say something like "we need to go to the ghetto right now and drive out all the black people!"; pretty clear that that is directly going to lead to immediate violence). Under First Amendment law, restrictions on speech have to be content-neutral.
You're right about threats, though, but our definition of what constitutes a threat seems to be a lot stricter than other countries.
>>61649562
Yeah, they always say "fighting words are illegal, and hate speech will provoke a fight!" based on a Supreme Court case from the 1940s, but then ignore all the later cases saying that the KKK can hold a public rally and call for the removal of blacks and Jews, the American Nazi Party can March through a Jewish community of Holocaust survivors, and that cross-burning is legal unless it's done with the specific intent to intimidate specific individuals (not just black people generally).
>>61633610
>1. Is hate speech in your country illegal?
Yes, although our definition of hate speech is fortunately not as vague as that of the EU Court of Human Rights.
>2. Do you agree with this prohibition?
No, free speech needs to encompass unpopular speech otherwise what is it there for? Of course there are limits (inciting violence, racial vilification and abuse) but you start getting problems when you empower a government to silence political dissidents under the guise of "cracking down on hate speech", such as we can see today in Germany and many parts of Europe.
>>61635362
>EU treaties literally have more influence on our legal order than OUR OWN FUCKING CONSTITUTIONS.
Nexit when?
>>61653487
I read the English translation of Article 140 to mean that, when the Dutch Constitution is amended, any existing laws which conflict with this amendment will remain in effect until a new law is made that follows the amendment.
This seems messed up, though, why change the Constitution if the change won't override any laws which conflict with those changes? Also, this still doesn't resolve the free speech issue.
>>61654754
but the question is if that also applies to current constitutional amendments. So if I pass an amendment do they both have to change or does one get supremacy?
>>61654754
for instance is there some compromise amendment in there explaining changes to their freedom of speech amendment because their freedom of speech amendment has been corrupted by other amendments
>>61633610
no
definitely no
well then how can you express anti-immigrant sentiment or something like?
>>61633610
Nope.
Nope, hate is basic emotions of human and we have the right to live as a human being. But we must forget about humans have the ability to reason.
>>61633610
Hate speech isn't illegal, I'm vehemetly opposed to banning it because people can fucking say what they want.
I do agree with laws that exist like it being illegal to encite a riot (so you can't do dumb shit like yelling fire in a movie theater)
>>61633842
>you can't go around threatening people
""""""""""""freedom""""""""""""
No and I don't think there's anything wrong with calling somebody an annoying faggot.
There are countries where it's accepted to execute gay people and your hangup is hate speech?
Fuck off.
>>61659672
To add- some people are annoying faggots.
>>61633610
what, hate speech really is illegal in slovakia? how so?
>>61633610
1.Yes, I believe.
2. Yes. Because usually people who spew hate speech can't and won't be changed by any debate. See Khan telling Trump that when he comes to visit London he'll show him that muslims aren't all terrorists. Those are some nice words, but does anyone believe that one day Trump will go back from London saying "Oh jeez I sure made a mistake calling muslims terrorists. I apologize." ?
People who use hate speech don't change, so we have to forbid them from taking any more people into their mad circlejerk.
Though I think criticizing a religion shouldn't be hate speech, since people chose their own religion. Same goes for sex changes etc...
1. Yes
2. No, freedom of speach means all speech. You should be allowed to express your opinion no matter what it is. Gas the kikes.
>>61633610
1.Yes.
2.Yes. Netouyo is literally shit.
>>61633842
Fighting words are illegal and so is anything that calls for immediate illegal action
>>61633610
What does /int/ thinks of Amos Yee
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_DRNeJmN_U
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AI9MFqkLQ7U
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3gnJWLwDPY
