:
|
Yes, and that's fucking ridiculous. The whole concept of "hate speech". Fuck that. It's the new term used to criminalize your opinions. It basically means that if somebody doesn't like what you are saying at any time they can get you censored and arrested. There is, will never be and should never be any clear line that defines hate speech. There is only speech.
|
Yeah sorry hate speech does exist and you can’t pretend it doesn’t just because the lines can be blurred sometimes. If you want black-and-white facts you’re looking for the sciences, not ethics.
Why do we need to have a concept of hate speech in society? Because we need to have boundaries of what is and is not acceptable to say or do. Because we have millennia of human history to serve as examples of how hate speech can be used to inflict terrible crimes on those who cannot fight back – if it becomes acceptable to harass and threaten vulnerable, powerless people then you go down a dark path.
Fearing a backlash against migrants is not the same thing as being silenced for hate speech. The woman in the article stated that she didn’t want there to be a backlash against refugees because she’s a refugee activist and a left-wing politician – if you are in that position you don’t want to give ammunition to your political opponents.
Never mind the fact that she went back to the police with the real story within 12 hours though – that doesn’t fit the narrative the Daily Mail wants to spin.
Yeah this article has nothing to do with this topic. It’s discussing how Germany has widened the legal definition of rape so a greater number of cases can now be brought forward, as German law previously required evidence that the victim fought back for the case to be brought forward. Nowhere in the article is Germany’s hate speech laws mentioned, and only a passing comment is made on the Cologne sexual assault committed by immigrants.
Again, this doesn’t support your argument – the men in this case were accused, taken to court, and found guilty of sexual assault, which directly contradicts your point that they’re being defended by victims or somehow getting away with it because people don’t want to be seen as racist.
The suspended sentence is a disgrace, but unfortunately
the punishments for sex-related crimes are very often seen as too lenient, and I see no evidence that the mens’ status as immigrants had an impact on their sentencing.
Strangely enough,
followups seem to indicate Sumte and
other towns are coping well.
The sad thing about this is that the reason Germany is taking on such a large number of refugees is because other European countries are refusing to take them on, as the article you linked points out. Perhaps if those other countries pulled their weight, Germany wouldn’t have to locate 750 people in one tiny village.
Social media services have a well-known history of being slow to remove offensive content from their systems, even when it blatantly breaks the terms of service. If such content is illegal in Germany then they have every right to pressure those services to comply with such laws – being on the internet doesn’t make you exempt.
“The war and economic refugees are flooding our country. They bring terror, fear, sorrow. They rape our women and put our children at risk”
Yep, can’t see how that could possibly be seen as hateful.
Surprise, the article explicitly states the suspects are being identified and brought to trial. Again, this doesn’t support your argument – German authorities are clearly attempting to find and convict the suspects, and they’re clearly not arresting people for speaking out against it. Hell, the article even says officials have linked the crimes to the influx of refugees.
The only original source I can find on this is Breitbart, which is apparently noted as severely right-wing, anti-immigration, pro-Trump. Every other source I find refers back to Breitbart.
It’s not even clear what they mean by “depicts” – are they talking about that one image, or the documentary as a whole? Because their description of the documentary certainly shows they focused most attention on the immigrants being accused.
Surprise, this was disputed by
an official report ordered by the German Interior Minister,
and by German police.
The Gatestone Institute also has a rather notorious reputation for anti-Muslim bias, by the way. See also:
their recent calls for Muslim immigrants to be forced to take on Christian names.
:
|
So, Manco, tell me again how all this is totally fine, but speaking out against it should get you arrested.
|
Simple: none of what you posted above constitutes evidence that Germany considers crime committed by refugees or immigrants to be “totally fine”, nor does any of it show people being arrested for speaking out against it. Only one article you linked featured people being convicted for hate speech against immigrants, and that was on the basis of their branding refugees and immigrants with bringing “terror, fear, sorrow [...] [raping] our women and [putting] our children at risk”.
Also, congratulations on crowbarring your anti-immigration rhetoric into a discussion about free speech!
:
|
Joking about whatever you want does not equal "IT'S JUST A PRANK BRO". No, you're legitimately inconveniencing the general public. Nothing that counts as freedom of speech will do that.
|
Query: does threatening to attack or murder someone count as ‘inconveniencing’?