On March 26 2014 23:24 crazyweasel wrote: yep freedom of speech stops when you're speech is filled with hatred - which is why in most countries extreme right(neo-nazis, skinheads and such) speech is banned
Actually hate speech is quite protected in the US, it's what US laws around freedom of speech revolve around. The idea that unpleasant and hateful speech can't be banned by the government. What is banned is speech that incites panic without reason and calls for violence, threats.
>> calls for violence, threats. That's basically what extremism is.
Not mutually exclusive, extremism can exist without calls for violence, I can have the extremest view that "all tall people are evil violent people, who are stupid" that statement in itself isn't a call for violence against tall people and wouldn't be gagable in a public venue. But if i followed up by calling for people to kill all the tall people that would be a call for violence against them. And quite a few nations follow this, the idea that something is unpleasant isn't the same as something is violent, and the government specifically shouldn't be silencing it's people over what could be considered subjective.
On March 26 2014 23:56 Cheerio wrote: A telephone discussion between Tymoshenko and Nestor Shufrych (MP, Party of Regions, long-term Yanukovich ally, abandoned him after the latest events) has leaked out. Tymoshenko confirmed that most of the discussion was real, except for the part where 8 millions of Russians in Ukraine "should be killed with nuclear weapons", which was falsified she claimed.
The main point of the discussion is that Russian aggression has united many political opponents in Ukraine and there is strong hatred for Russia and Putin on all levels of Ukrainian society.
Yes it's an interesting point.
I heard a man on a french tv show yesterday, an historian and political expert about eastern Europe with the same kind of point of view.
He said that Putin's move on Crimea had a payback effect. He got Crimea and its harbors easily which is good for him (no NATO bases near Russia and full control of black sea), but he lost all the Urkaine in the same time by giving to Ukrainian people a good reason to unify against a common opponent : Russia and himself, breaking his own plan to keep a friendly slavic neiborhood with Bellarus + Ukraine.
On March 26 2014 23:24 crazyweasel wrote: yep freedom of speech stops when you're speech is filled with hatred - which is why in most countries extreme right(neo-nazis, skinheads and such) speech is banned
Actually hate speech is quite protected in the US, it's what US laws around freedom of speech revolve around. The idea that unpleasant and hateful speech can't be banned by the government. What is banned is speech that incites panic without reason and calls for violence, threats.
>> calls for violence, threats. That's basically what extremism is.
Not mutually exclusive, extremism can exist without calls for violence
In theory, yes, but if an extremist sees certain people as inherently inferior with a negative impact on their society then they don't tend to stick to nice rhethorics.
On March 26 2014 23:24 crazyweasel wrote: yep freedom of speech stops when you're speech is filled with hatred - which is why in most countries extreme right(neo-nazis, skinheads and such) speech is banned
Actually hate speech is quite protected in the US, it's what US laws around freedom of speech revolve around. The idea that unpleasant and hateful speech can't be banned by the government. What is banned is speech that incites panic without reason and calls for violence, threats.
>> calls for violence, threats. That's basically what extremism is.
Not mutually exclusive, extremism can exist without calls for violence
In theory, yes, but if an extremist sees certain people as inherently inferior with a negative impact on their society then they don't tend to stick to nice rhethorics.
There are anti-hate crimes laws in America and free speech protections as well. But I understand that Germany with its unique history has a different perspective on that. But surely even in Germany its not extremist speech if you hold the view that parts of Germany should be given back to Denmark or Sweden because whatever.
On March 26 2014 23:24 crazyweasel wrote: yep freedom of speech stops when you're speech is filled with hatred - which is why in most countries extreme right(neo-nazis, skinheads and such) speech is banned
Actually hate speech is quite protected in the US, it's what US laws around freedom of speech revolve around. The idea that unpleasant and hateful speech can't be banned by the government. What is banned is speech that incites panic without reason and calls for violence, threats.
>> calls for violence, threats. That's basically what extremism is.
Not mutually exclusive, extremism can exist without calls for violence
In theory, yes, but if an extremist sees certain people as inherently inferior with a negative impact on their society then they don't tend to stick to nice rhethorics.
There are anti-hate crimes laws in America and free speech protections as well. But I understand that Germany with its unique history has a different perspective on that. But surely even in Germany its not extremist speech if you hold the view that parts of Germany should be given back to Denmark or Sweden because whatever.
Extremist is the wrong word probably, but it's pretty ridiculous to claim territory as yours because it fits into your historical narrative.
If a specific administrative region wants independence, every party involved should get to the table and they should take their time to figure it out and the vote should be controlled by an independent organisation. Scotland is currently showing how something like this can work. (or the reunification of Germany)
You're hyping situation with Crimea and 280 like everyone here is only thinking about how to go near Kremlin screaming "Crimea is Ukraine" without getting punished. :D
I agree, that's a bit weird situation but i don't see reason why it doesn't have to be punished if technically Crimea is now 84th region of Russian Federation. So, de-facto rules and laws should spread on Crimea as well.
On March 26 2014 23:24 crazyweasel wrote: yep freedom of speech stops when you're speech is filled with hatred - which is why in most countries extreme right(neo-nazis, skinheads and such) speech is banned
Actually hate speech is quite protected in the US, it's what US laws around freedom of speech revolve around. The idea that unpleasant and hateful speech can't be banned by the government. What is banned is speech that incites panic without reason and calls for violence, threats.
>> calls for violence, threats. That's basically what extremism is.
Well the old section in Russian said this:
. Публичные призывы к осуществлению экстремистской деятельности - наказываются штрафом в размере до трехсот тысяч рублей или в размере заработной платы или иного дохода осужденного за период до двух лет, либо принудительными работами на срок до трех лет, либо арестом на срок от четырех до шести месяцев, либо лишением свободы на срок до трех лет с лишением права занимать определенные должности или заниматься определенной деятельностью на тот же срок.
But the new section adds to the definition of 'calls to extreme action' the definition of 'calling for the violation of territorial integrity of Russia' so if I say 'I demand you give back Crimea' how is that not a violation of 280.1?
It is. To clarify.
. Для целей настоящего Федерального закона применяются следующие основные понятия: 1) экстремистская деятельность (экстремизм): насильственное изменение основ конституционного строя и нарушение целостности Российской Федерации; публичное оправдание терроризма и иная террористическая деятельность; возбуждение социальной, расовой, национальной или религиозной розни; пропаганда исключительности, превосходства либо неполноценности человека по признаку его социальной, расовой, национальной, религиозной или языковой принадлежности или отношения к религии; нарушение прав, свобод и законных интересов человека и гражданина в зависимости от его социальной, расовой, национальной, религиозной или языковой принадлежности или отношения к религии; воспрепятствование осуществлению гражданами их избирательных прав и права на участие в референдуме или нарушение тайны голосования, соединенные с насилием либо угрозой его применения; воспрепятствование законной деятельности государственных органов, органов местного самоуправления, избирательных комиссий, общественных и религиозных объединений или иных организаций, соединенное с насилием либо угрозой его применения; совершение преступлений по мотивам, указанным в пункте "е" части первой статьи 63 Уголовного кодекса Российской Федерации; пропаганда и публичное демонстрирование нацистской атрибутики или символики либо атрибутики или символики, сходных с нацистской атрибутикой или символикой до степени смешения, либо публичное демонстрирование атрибутики или символики экстремистских организаций; (в ред. Федерального закона от 25.12.2012 N 255-ФЗ) (см. текст в предыдущей редакции) публичные призывы к осуществлению указанных деяний либо массовое распространение заведомо экстремистских материалов, а равно их изготовление или хранение в целях массового распространения; публичное заведомо ложное обвинение лица, замещающего государственную должность Российской Федерации или государственную должность субъекта Российской Федерации, в совершении им в период исполнения своих должностных обязанностей деяний, указанных в настоящей статье и являющихся преступлением; организация и подготовка указанных деяний, а также подстрекательство к их осуществлению; финансирование указанных деяний либо иное содействие в их организации, подготовке и осуществлении, в том числе путем предоставления учебной, полиграфической и материально-технической базы, телефонной и иных видов связи или оказания информационных услуг; (п. 1 в ред. Федерального закона от 24.07.2007 N 211-ФЗ)
So basically every violation of at least one line from this quote is punished by 280/282.
Most people here don't speak russian, so a large amount of cyrillic letters is not exceedingly informative.
If i understand your post correctly, it is now illegal in russia to say that Crimea should not be russian, and you are fine with that?
After all those pages of google translate, i thought that everyone use it here without problems and then clarify some things if anything :D Sorry tho.
As i said earlier, if de-facto Crimea is part of Russia now, i don't see a single reason why do laws have to ignore Crimea.
On March 26 2014 23:24 crazyweasel wrote: yep freedom of speech stops when you're speech is filled with hatred - which is why in most countries extreme right(neo-nazis, skinheads and such) speech is banned
Actually hate speech is quite protected in the US, it's what US laws around freedom of speech revolve around. The idea that unpleasant and hateful speech can't be banned by the government. What is banned is speech that incites panic without reason and calls for violence, threats.
>> calls for violence, threats. That's basically what extremism is.
Not mutually exclusive, extremism can exist without calls for violence, I can have the extremest view that "all tall people are evil violent people, who are stupid" that statement in itself isn't a call for violence against tall people and wouldn't be gagable in a public venue. But if i followed up by calling for people to kill all the tall people that would be a call for violence against them. And quite a few nations follow this, the idea that something is unpleasant isn't the same as something is violent, and the government specifically shouldn't be silencing it's people over what could be considered subjective.
I agree but i guess in different countries there are different way to classify things which are extremistic. You can check this cyrillic wall above or on previous page to understand what is "extremism" here.
Not mutually exclusive, extremism can exist without calls for violence, I can have the extremest view that "all tall people are evil violent people, who are stupid" that statement in itself isn't a call for violence against tall people and wouldn't be gagable in a public venue. But if i followed up by calling for people to kill all the tall people that would be a call for violence against them. And quite a few nations follow this, the idea that something is unpleasant isn't the same as something is violent, and the government specifically shouldn't be silencing it's people over what could be considered subjective.
In the US speech is protected even further, in the US you literally can write a book or make a speech saying we should kill all the tall people and as long as you aren't saying "do it right now" (and as long as a 'reasonable person' doesn't think you're trying to get all the tall people killed right now without directly saying it) you'll win your day in court. It will definitely go to court but you'd win in the US you have to be judged to have been inciting imminent violence for hate speech or violent speech to be bannable.
people would be taking a more 'pragmatic' approach to legislation stifling dissenting bloggers / media in their country if russia and affiliate billionairers were bankrolling them.
but i'd like to see the day where a german equivalent of reason magazine can devote an entire issue to holocaust denial!
The same day putin himself marries two gay guys, in a church with pussy riot as chorus.
Since denying the holocaust is pretty high up in the retardedness-scale, i'm fine with it being punishable in germany. I'm all for laws against stupidity. And no, there's absolutely no reason to open the doors for every conspiracy nutjob to shit on what is most likely the biggest crime/tradegy in human history.
but i'd like to see the day where a german equivalent of reason magazine can devote an entire issue to holocaust denial!
The same day putin himself marries two gay guys, in a church with pussy riot as chorus.
Since denying the holocaust is pretty high up in the retardedness-scale, i'm fine with it being punishable in germany. I'm all for laws against stupidity. And no, there's absolutely no reason to open the doors for every conspiracy nutjob to shit on what is most likely the biggest crime/tradegy in human history.
Yep I agree, holocaust revisionists are simply cretins. Poland has similar laws on Holocaust and additionally penalizes denial of communists crimes.
but i'd like to see the day where a german equivalent of reason magazine can devote an entire issue to holocaust denial!
The same day putin himself marries two gay guys, in a church with pussy riot as chorus.
Since denying the holocaust is pretty high up in the retardedness-scale, i'm fine with it being punishable in germany. I'm all for laws against stupidity. And no, there's absolutely no reason to open the doors for every conspiracy nutjob to shit on what is most likely the biggest crime/tradegy in human history.
Yep I agree, holocaust revisionists are simply cretins. Poland has similar laws on Holocaust and additionally penalizes denial of communists crimes.
They are cretins, so let's penalize it ! lol I guess when we let cretins make laws, we penalize people for showing their ignorance. It's the best ways cretins came up with to make sure ignorants stays ignorants.
The more I hear about this story between Ukraine and Russia, the more I think Russia's stance is somehow understandable. If the Europe and the US didn't try to push the NATO closer and closer to Russian borders, I'm pretty sure Putin would not have reacted this way. When Gorbatchev agreed to end the URSS, the NATO promessed not to push itself near Russian borders. In 2004, Esthonia & Latvia entered NATO, and nobody cared about it. In 2009, the NATO proposed Ukraine and Georgia. I guess it is completly normal for Putin to react this way at some point if it is the only thing the NATO listen to.
On March 27 2014 14:15 nunez wrote: us is a champion of free speech, let it be known, they are almost above botswana on the press freedom index. way below germany ofc, but i'd like to see the day where a german equivalent of reason magazine can devote an entire issue to holocaust denial!
the obama administration being the 2nd most fascist in american history after woodrow wilson in general and specifically towards leakers and reporters has little to do with the freedom of the ordinary citizen to express his opinion on basically anything which is almost totally unrestricted
it's nice to know that that has something to do with dead libertarians and nazis... not sure what it is but yay. a little coherency or more fleshing out of why anyone to the right of mao and especially america is nazi-loving would probably be good
people would be taking a more 'pragmatic' approach to legislation stifling dissenting bloggers / media in their country if russia and affiliate billionairers were bankrolling them.
but i'd like to see the day where a german equivalent of reason magazine can devote an entire issue to holocaust denial!
The same day putin himself marries two gay guys, in a church with pussy riot as chorus.
Since denying the holocaust is pretty high up in the retardedness-scale, i'm fine with it being punishable in germany. I'm all for laws against stupidity. And no, there's absolutely no reason to open the doors for every conspiracy nutjob to shit on what is most likely the biggest crime/tradegy in human history.
Yep I agree, holocaust revisionists are simply cretins. Poland has similar laws on Holocaust and additionally penalizes denial of communists crimes.
They are cretins, so let's penalize it ! lol I guess when we let cretins make laws, we penalize people for showing their ignorance. It's the best ways cretins came up with to make sure ignorants stays ignorants.
What kind of ignorance are you talking about? Are you implying that holocaust revisionism comes from ignorance?
On March 27 2014 14:15 nunez wrote: us is a champion of free speech, let it be known, they are almost above botswana on the press freedom index. way below germany ofc, but i'd like to see the day where a german equivalent of reason magazine can devote an entire issue to holocaust denial!
the obama administration being the 2nd most fascist in american history after woodrow wilson in general and specifically towards leakers and reporters has little to do with the freedom of the ordinary citizen to express his opinion on basically anything which is almost totally unrestricted
it's nice to know that that has something to do with dead libertarians and nazis... not sure what it is but yay. a little coherency or more fleshing out of why anyone to the right of mao and especially america is nazi-loving would probably be good
people would be taking a more 'pragmatic' approach to legislation stifling dissenting bloggers / media in their country if russia and affiliate billionairers were bankrolling them.
but i'd like to see the day where a german equivalent of reason magazine can devote an entire issue to holocaust denial!
The same day putin himself marries two gay guys, in a church with pussy riot as chorus.
Since denying the holocaust is pretty high up in the retardedness-scale, i'm fine with it being punishable in germany. I'm all for laws against stupidity. And no, there's absolutely no reason to open the doors for every conspiracy nutjob to shit on what is most likely the biggest crime/tradegy in human history.
Yep I agree, holocaust revisionists are simply cretins. Poland has similar laws on Holocaust and additionally penalizes denial of communists crimes.
They are cretins, so let's penalize it ! lol I guess when we let cretins make laws, we penalize people for showing their ignorance. It's the best ways cretins came up with to make sure ignorants stays ignorants.
What kind of ignorance are you talking about? Are you implying that holocaust revisionism comes from ignorance?
Yes, in my country it comes from a deep sense of injustice in regard to the current situation, and the ignorance that it has "something" to do with the jews (while of course it is wrong). So they play dumb saying the holocaust is only a conspiracy, they read the only historian who take that stupid stance, and comfort themselves in their hatred. The fact that the law gives its point of view on the subject just push them further in this belief. The media, our politicians and our justice don't care that 10 to 15% of our population is in a situation of poverty, that there is a high unemployment, high inequalities, but they somehow care when they say something that happened 60 years ago didn't happen. That's the kind of thing that push you further into stupidity.
yes really he tossed people in jail just for speaking against the war and what the cops local and federal did many many times to protesters and socialists and wobblies makes clearing out some occupy camp look like a tea party
but i'd like to see the day where a german equivalent of reason magazine can devote an entire issue to holocaust denial!
The same day putin himself marries two gay guys, in a church with pussy riot as chorus.
Since denying the holocaust is pretty high up in the retardedness-scale, i'm fine with it being punishable in germany. I'm all for laws against stupidity. And no, there's absolutely no reason to open the doors for every conspiracy nutjob to shit on what is most likely the biggest crime/tradegy in human history.
Yep I agree, holocaust revisionists are simply cretins. Poland has similar laws on Holocaust and additionally penalizes denial of communists crimes.
They are cretins, so let's penalize it ! lol I guess when we let cretins make laws, we penalize people for showing their ignorance. It's the best ways cretins came up with to make sure ignorants stays ignorants.
What kind of ignorance are you talking about? Are you implying that holocaust revisionism comes from ignorance?
Yes, in my country it comes from a deep sense of injustice in regard to the current situation, and the ignorance that it has "something" to do with the jews (while of course it is wrong). So they play dumb saying the holocaust is only a conspiracy, they read the only historian who take that stupid stance, and comfort themselves in their hatred. The fact that the law gives its point of view on the subject just push them further in this belief.
Nah, the law concerning this subject comes from the fact, that denying the holocaust has nothing to do with freedom of speech, because freedom of speech has nothing to do with outright lie. Personally, I treat these laws as a sort of "anti-defamation" legislation.
Putting it into the context of the topic, I have a mixed feelings about the "anti-separatist" clause being applied to Crimea case. The fact is, that Crimea has been annexed by Russia, no doubt about it, and yet fact is that Ukraine did not accept the annexation. In my opinion it is completely incomparable to problem of holocaust revisionism.
Not mutually exclusive, extremism can exist without calls for violence, I can have the extremest view that "all tall people are evil violent people, who are stupid" that statement in itself isn't a call for violence against tall people and wouldn't be gagable in a public venue. But if i followed up by calling for people to kill all the tall people that would be a call for violence against them. And quite a few nations follow this, the idea that something is unpleasant isn't the same as something is violent, and the government specifically shouldn't be silencing it's people over what could be considered subjective.
In the US speech is protected even further, in the US you literally can write a book or make a speech saying we should kill all the tall people and as long as you aren't saying "do it right now" (and as long as a 'reasonable person' doesn't think you're trying to get all the tall people killed right now without directly saying it) you'll win your day in court. It will definitely go to court but you'd win in the US you have to be judged to have been inciting imminent violence for hate speech or violent speech to be bannable.
Do you even live on planet earth?
Im honestly surprised someone with internet use is making such an absurd comment. I dont know what planet you live on, but writing what your recommended in private emails which are not so private aka NSA will without a doubt get you arrested let alone making a speech or a book. Come back to planet Earth.
Not mutually exclusive, extremism can exist without calls for violence, I can have the extremest view that "all tall people are evil violent people, who are stupid" that statement in itself isn't a call for violence against tall people and wouldn't be gagable in a public venue. But if i followed up by calling for people to kill all the tall people that would be a call for violence against them. And quite a few nations follow this, the idea that something is unpleasant isn't the same as something is violent, and the government specifically shouldn't be silencing it's people over what could be considered subjective.
In the US speech is protected even further, in the US you literally can write a book or make a speech saying we should kill all the tall people and as long as you aren't saying "do it right now" (and as long as a 'reasonable person' doesn't think you're trying to get all the tall people killed right now without directly saying it) you'll win your day in court. It will definitely go to court but you'd win in the US you have to be judged to have been inciting imminent violence for hate speech or violent speech to be bannable.
Do you even live on planet earth?
Im honestly surprised someone with internet use is making such an absurd comment. I dont know what planet you live on, but writing what your recommended in private emails which are not so private aka NSA will without a doubt get you arrested let alone making a speech or a book. Come back to planet Earth.
you're in for a treat.
@deb this legislation is aimed at silencing dissenting voices, especially bloggers. using the us as a shining example is idiotic. rich / powerful people can afford freedom of speech in it, but if you're a blogger / journy reporting on govt / coorp abuse you're shit out of luck. hence the juxtaposition of us' terrible free-press record against an entire issue of reason devoted to holocaust denial.
On March 27 2014 14:15 nunez wrote: us is a champion of free speech, let it be known, they are almost above botswana on the press freedom index. way below germany ofc, but i'd like to see the day where a german equivalent of reason magazine can devote an entire issue to holocaust denial!.
I have only read what you linked, not the original article - but from what I can tell from the abstract and quotes the issue would be highly controversial, but not illegal in Germany.
EPT
