Neo-nazi march

I don't believe in the freedom of speech tbh.

Just because something is relevant in one scenario doesn't mean it's relevant in everything.
You have to implement a bit of common sense in life. "The right to bare arms" made sense about 200 years ago but now it's a force for total idiocy.
Free speech against oppressive government? Yes. The right to insight terrorist acts against innocent people? No.

How about the right to common sense.

If you're expressing your freedom of speech in a way that will or encourages physical violence to people.
===================================
More complicated than you think.. Some would say Charlie Hebdo cartoonists went too far in expressing their view/freedom of speech.. and p..ssed millions of people off. Were they right to annoy millions in the name of free speech and put people's lives at risk?

Complex..

comment by Science (U19684)
posted 9 minutes ago
I don't believe in the freedom of speech tbh.

Just because something is relevant in one scenario doesn't mean it's relevant in everything.
You have to implement a bit of common sense in life. "The right to bare arms" made sense about 200 years ago but now it's a force for total idiocy.
Free speech against oppressive government? Yes. The right to insight terrorist acts against innocent people? No.

How about the right to common sense.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

It's all about common sense. Seems like most people have lost it these days..

comment by {honestlivpool~five~times} 👽 🐎 #worldpeace (U1661)
posted 30 minutes ago
If you're expressing your freedom of speech in a way that will or encourages physical violence to people.
===================================
More complicated than you think.. Some would say Charlie Hebdo cartoonists went too far in expressing their view/freedom of speech.. and p..ssed millions of people off. Were they right to annoy millions in the name of free speech and put people's lives at risk?

Complex..
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Exactly.

Before the shooting they sacked a cartoonist for making fun of Jews.

So what is acceptable and what isn't is totally subjective, this muddies the waters when laying down rules on freedom of speech.

You either let people say what they want or you don't.

Because freedom of speech gives you the right to incite hatred does not mean that hatred is right.

comment by Kung Fu Cantona *JeSuisPalestinian* (U18082)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by {honestlivpool~five~times} 👽 🐎 #worldpeace (U1661)
posted 30 minutes ago
If you're expressing your freedom of speech in a way that will or encourages physical violence to people.
===================================
More complicated than you think.. Some would say Charlie Hebdo cartoonists went too far in expressing their view/freedom of speech.. and p..ssed millions of people off. Were they right to annoy millions in the name of free speech and put people's lives at risk?

Complex..
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Exactly.

Before the shooting they sacked a cartoonist for making fun of Jews.

So what is acceptable and what isn't is totally subjective, this muddies the waters when laying down rules on freedom of speech.

You either let people say what they want or you don't.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The people who killed the Cartoonists also happily go around raaaaping children, killing homosexuals, bombing people simply because they don't believe in their interpretation of a load of fairytales...

Millions of husbands pisss off millions of wives daily but when the wife kills the husband for not cleaning the dishes you don't question the right not to clean dishes. Common sense is missing in religion.

comment by Science (U19684)
posted 59 minutes ago
I don't believe in the freedom of speech tbh.

Just because something is relevant in one scenario doesn't mean it's relevant in everything.
You have to implement a bit of common sense in life. "The right to bare arms" made sense about 200 years ago but now it's a force for total idiocy.
Free speech against oppressive government? Yes. The right to insight terrorist acts against innocent people? No.

How about the right to common sense.
---------------------------------
In modern day times I think the right to bare arms would be extremely righteous!

There's that many d1@khèads knocking about!

Freedom of speech as it is as a human right, is only there to protect individuals from the government. It was designed to prevent governments from just chucking people in jail if they were critical of the government.

The thing with human rights is that they only apply against the state. You can't claim that an individual has breached your human rights, only that the state has.

Also other than the prohibition on torture, none of the human rights are absolute. Species inciting hatred are usually not protected by the right to free speech.

comment by Science (U19684)
posted 9 hours, 28 minutes ago
comment by Kung Fu Cantona *JeSuisPalestinian* (U18082)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by {honestlivpool~five~times} 👽 🐎 #worldpeace (U1661)
posted 30 minutes ago
If you're expressing your freedom of speech in a way that will or encourages physical violence to people.
===================================
More complicated than you think.. Some would say Charlie Hebdo cartoonists went too far in expressing their view/freedom of speech.. and p..ssed millions of people off. Were they right to annoy millions in the name of free speech and put people's lives at risk?

Complex..
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Exactly.

Before the shooting they sacked a cartoonist for making fun of Jews.

So what is acceptable and what isn't is totally subjective, this muddies the waters when laying down rules on freedom of speech.

You either let people say what they want or you don't.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The people who killed the Cartoonists also happily go around raaaaping children, killing homosexuals, bombing people simply because they don't believe in their interpretation of a load of fairytales...

Millions of husbands pisss off millions of wives daily but when the wife kills the husband for not cleaning the dishes you don't question the right not to clean dishes. Common sense is missing in religion.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's not the point though. We all different people around the world commit varieties of atrocities. However I don't think it's fair to generalise millions of people in that manner, regardless of whether you agree with their ideology/belief or not. Reminds me of Donald Trump's comments recently about Mexicans.

Obviously my initial point was regarding how far you could take free speech when you run the risk of p.ssing people off and putting lives at risk. Also how do we know that we are not inciting hatred on others with different views/belief?

Has anyone seen the videos from the protest?

Some loud mouth caant abusing the police for standing between them and the white man marchers..

Walking in to police officers and shouting in their faces "don't you f******g touch me"

Singling out a black officer and telling him he should be ashamed of himself..

Loud mouth pr*ck is just as bad as the marchers