Why europeans hate freedom of speech ?

You cretins will be dragged, kicking and screaming, into modernity whether you like it or not.

Because it gives them the power to declare potentially any opinion as unlawful, including your own. All it takes is a party you don't agree with coming in power.

>Because it gives them the power to declare potentially any opinion as unlawful
no it doesn't
just hateful opinions
There is a clear definition of hate speech with little room for misinterpretation.

>one party being in the ruling coalition means it can change laws and legal definitions without any form of resistance
maybe in a shithole without seperation of powers but most democracies just don't work like that

>censorship is unique to modernity

Attached: (you).gif (652x562, 392K)

Why do you consider unlimited freedom of expression bad, again?

why do you consider hate speech good again
what exactly is the point in offending people

Attached: 1551412010035.jpg (645x773, 46K)

>stop saying mean things, daddy government please put him in jail

Attached: 1552388128206.jpg (785x731, 101K)

>I CAN'T CONTAIN MY SELF I JUST NEEEED TO OFFEND PEOPLE YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND

Attached: 1552032930937.png (1080x1020, 475K)

because otherwise people would be publicly burned

>offending people is bad
That's how you get to autistic things like Bill C-16.

>yes daddy government I love it when you tell me what to do

Attached: 1520514941425.jpg (550x550, 48K)

It's a bretty good bait I have to admit

>Bill C-16
yeah just look at all those people arrested for C 16
poor souls

Attached: 1548255106271.jpg (550x595, 130K)

i hate nanny states

> Pidoraha +15

Attached: 13b-1-768x563.gif (768x563, 43K)

Yeah just looks at all those Jews that got violently attacked in America because the first amendment allows you to freely call them kikes and deny the holocaust.

>DON'T YOU JUST LOOOOVEEE OFFENDING PEOPLE

Attached: 1517021410730.gif (413x243, 51K)

Racism and homophobia are natural. You actually have to brainwash and condition people to not be this way and even then it will still exist on subconscious level. Like even the most liberal libshits still see minorities lower than them and they must help them, because clearly they incapable of doing it on their own.

You are not a democracy.

did your local oligarch tell you that

Some people need a wake up call, and it is usually offending. Calling a mentally ill tranny mentally ill shouldn't be a crime.

I don't watch our media. But keep being deluded, if it makes you all warm and fuzzy inside.

>ust hateful opinions
>There is a clear definition of hate speech with little room for misinterpretation
no, there isn't
>looking at gay people make me sick
>gays shouldn't be able to adopt children
>gays are mentally ill
>gays shouldn't be able to kiss in public
>trans women aren't women
which one of those are/aren't hate speech? how do you define "hate speech" without censoring opinions?
>maybe in a shithole without seperation of powers but most democracies just don't work like that
if the government was able to pass a law which prevent "hate speech" against a certain group of people, what makes it incapable of another group like rich people or politicians?

legit only posting to flex on europeans out of spite because they actually have good healthcare

I failed to find an argument in your epic frogpost.

>no, there isn't
Yes there is. How can you enforce a law without legal definition? Every jurisdiction has their own definition. A judge can decide which of those sentences you posted are hate speech given the context.

>how do you define "hate speech" without censoring opinions?
you don't and no one is implying that is possible

>what makes it incapable of another group like rich people or politicians?
Politician is a job and being rich is also in no way similar to race, religion or sexuality. In every western democracy new laws go through an extensive process in which elected officials, policy makers and judicial professionals carefully take into consideration the need for the law and it's effects.

I'm sorry, what was your argument again? C-16 is bad because?

if they'd ban insults like frocio or finocchio 95% of the population would end up in jail

>Yes there is
so point out which of the opinions i wrote are hate speech
>you don't and no one is implying that is possible
then it is okay to censor opinions if someone find those opinions offensive?
>elected officials, policy makers and judicial professionals carefully take into consideration the need for the law and it's effects.
>democratic institutions can't be subverted, it literally never happened in history

>n-no u had no argument
Getting a bit pathetic, kankerduitse. Offensiveness is a matter of subjective perception, not some objective metric. "Offensive things should be banned" is a nonsensical statement and C-16 is a prime example of absurd things being enshrined into law if it's taken as an axiom.

>so point out which of the opinions i wrote are hate speech
depends on the context like I said.

>then it is okay to censor opinions if someone find those opinions offensive?
yeah

I think if your country's democratic institutions are subverted you've got a bigger crisis on your hands lmao

you literally had no argument though

C-16 is not "offensive things should be banned". It increased the scope of existing anti discrimination laws for employers to protecting transexual people.

>yeah
Why?

Guess I'm moving to Scotland

why not?
It protects people from discrimination at the cost of literally nothing

>It protects people from discrimination
USA has complete freedom of speech and they don't suffer an epidemic of racial discrimination any worse than other western countries.
>at the cost of literally nothing
Infringing on freedom of speech isn't literally nothing. Everyone should be able to voice their opinion without fear of legal repercussions.

>they don't suffer an epidemic of racial discrimination any worse than other western countries.
[citation needed]
the point is not that necessarily that it decreases discrimination, the point is that it gives the discirminated a legal instrument to defend themselves against discrimination.
>Everyone should be able to voice their opinion
what is the point in voicing offensive opinions just fot the hell of it? Why should that be protected?

so if i say "i don't want immigrants from morocco coming here because they commit crimes" i can go to jail thus making it illegal to criticize immigration

>yeah
a correct opinion doesn't stop being correct because you find it offensive

Give me one precedent of someone saying that and getting jailed for it

Obviously that is not within the scope of hate speech in most jurisdictions and I agree that it shouldn't be.

Because saying that Moroccand and Turks suck and shouldn't be in Europe should be a right of actual Europeans. The only reason to disagree is if you're a foreigner yourself, or if you just really like to suck their dicks.

You have all the legal instruments to defend yourself from an employer refusing to hire you on a racial basis, or from racially motivated physical assaults, or other serious forms of physical discrimination. Why do you feel threatened by someone simply calling you a nigger online and going no further than that?

>Why do you feel threatened by someone simply calling you a nigger online
I can't speak for other people. Fact of the matter is that people get offended and should have the right to defend themselves legally.

>The leaders of the far-right group Britain First have been jailed for a series of hate crimes against Muslims
>Three Muslim men and a teenager were convicted of rape and jailed as a result of those proceedings.
>On Wednesday, the judge Justin Barron said Golding and Fransen’s words and actions “demonstrated hostility” towards Muslims and the Muslim faith.
>“I have no doubt it was their joint intention to use the facts of the [Canterbury] case for their own political ends. It was a campaign to draw attention to the race, religion and immigrant background of the defendants

>Obviously that is not within the scope of hate speech
but you said yourself it depends on the context, so people can find it offensive depending on the context

>what is the point in voicing offensive opinions just fot the hell of it? Why should that be protected?

Because not everybody wants big daddy government regulation on speech,sorry I'm an adult and you don't get to tell me what to say unless I'm specifically calling for violence. But I wouldn't expect you to understand,since this obsession with government and state power over every single element of society is a classical sign of submissive makes with daddy issues (you).

Should I be able to sue if someone calls my mother a whore or calls me an ugly virgin? What makes being called a nigger different?

forgot link
theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/07/britain-first-leaders-convicted-of-anti-muslim-hate-crimes
>Both were convicted over an incident at a takeaway in Ramsgate, in Kent, during which Fransen banged on the windows and doors and screamed “paedophile” and “foreigner”

He's a muslim

>simply calling you a nigger online and going no further than that
The problem is when they go further than that. Free speech is ok, making credible threats is not ok. That's why there are hate speech laws, because there are different contexts and degrees in which insults turn into something more. Notice how some insults are harmless and others lead to harm:
> lol what a tutsi fag
> OP is a tutsi faggot
> I hate tutsis
> I hate tutsis, they're literal cockroaches
> I hate tutsis and I think they should be slaughtered
> I hate tutsis and I'm going to organise a group to hunt them down and slaughter them
> join my tutsi-murdering group! We go from town to town chasing down subhuman tutsis and you can do it too! Here's our website
> cut the tall trees, cleanse your nation, kill all tutsi cockroaches
Hate speech laws draw the line somewhere, the question is where to find that somewhere.

>sorry I'm an adult and you don't get to tell me what to say
they don't

someone who has been charged in the past with physical assault get charged for the threats of violence in the same leaflet. The hate speech was hate speech given the context of the threats within the same document and increased his sentence.

you don't get jailed just for calling someone a nigger

> lol what a tutsi fag
> OP is a tutsi faggot
> I hate tutsis
> I hate tutsis, they're literal cockroaches
> I hate tutsis and I think they should be slaughtered

Not directly Calling for violence. (But they should be slaughtered) still not asking anybody to do it rather stating a hateful opinion

> I hate tutsis and I'm going to organise a group to hunt them down and slaughter them

Calling for violence

> join my tutsi-murdering group! We go from town to town chasing down subhuman tutsis and you can do it too! Here's our website

Calling for violence and terrorism,that's already globally recognised as illegal

>Hate speech laws draw the line somewhere, the question is where to find that somewhere.

It's not hard,it's when you start actively making realistic calls for violence. Also don't be naive,they let the most hateful shit being said by Muslims and africaners,the UK police literally helped muzzie rape gangs. They aren't on your side, support your people and good immigrants but make sure you take your own side hermano

>dutch flag
>pepe poster
>absolutely retarded
Checks out

Why are they this way?

Why did you have to engage in self-affirmation instead of responding to him?

>Hate speech laws draw the line somewhere
Except the line is drawn already and it is perfectly fine. Hate speech laws draw a new one.

>you literally had no argument though
I repeated it twice now. Being disingenuous doesn't help your case.
>C-16 is not "offensive things should be banned"
It literally is. It extended the scope of things deemed "offensive" by adding "mispronouning" to it.

I dunno, maybe read the whole thread.

>I repeated it twice now.
you literally said: "hate speech laws led to "things like c-16"" and "c-16 is autistic"
how is that an argument?
>It literally is. It extended the scope of things deemed "offensive" by adding "mispronouning" to it.
it didn't

Based and redpilled

>you don't get jailed just for calling someone a nigger
in UK you do and calling someone a faggot is against anti homophobic laws

what exactly is the point in calling someone a nigger or a faggot again

You just need to be Islamic and the government will leave you alone to spit on gays as much as you want

Attached: bs.png (569x492, 467K)

what is a point of not wanting tought crime?
also you didn't answer to

you don't get charged for the content of your opinion but the delivery

Why do muslims have the UK gumbint by the balls like that? It can't be pure fear of racism can it? Is it Saudi oil money?

Attached: fb.png (683x740, 519K)

again, is it ok to censor the truth if someone gets offended?
it should be illegal to say controversial opinions in public?

Imagine if British Christians tried to do the same

>it should be illegal to say controversial opinions in public?
no. It should be illegal to say offensive things in public.

Based durkas

Whot do these laws mean exaxtly?

>anglocuck
>a follower of the true Christ teaching
pick one

kankerflikker

They really used to be. But everything changed when the Synagogue of Satan attacked

>british
>christians
The state of Christianity in the UK is about as JUST as it gets, because of Polish immigration there are literally more practicing Catholics in the UK than Anglicans

and if an opinion is true but someone find it offensive then it should be illegal to say that opinion in public, right?

glass the west

nothing better to do

>and if an opinion is true but someone find it offensive then it should be illegal to say that opinion in public, right?
no. not everything that is offensive is hate speech.

>blue are all first world
>grey are all third world shitholes
really makes you think

>Racism and homophobia are natural.
t. biggest shithole in Europe

and the government gets to decide what's offensive. and then the government outlaws dissent. and then you get 1984. congrats.

Anglican was always a catholicucked churchs for literal Normans anyways

we are (were) though

Attached: 1543899472461.png (558x876, 253K)

>Romania and Georgia are first world
>Switzerland is third world

>and the government gets to decide what's offensive
judges do on basis of precedents and jurisprudence
>and then the government outlaws dissent.
i agree that would be terrible, but that is not the topic at hand

alright so let's say i am a moroccan and find it offensive if a politician says moroccans shouldn't come here because are overrapresented in crime rates (which us true) , should i be able to sue him?

murder is natural, shouldnt be legal

you have a lot of trust in the judges to always do the right thing and not get employed by a government that wants them to think in a certain way.

>should i be able to sue him?
Of course you fucking should. Why shouldn't you be able to sue him? Not saying you're going to win the case.

>you have to have a lot of trust in the judges to not get employed by a government that wants them to think in a certain way.
if you live in democracy with seperation of powers you don't really have to worry

What kind of meme map is that because that's not correct at all.

Attached: 1551409058670.png (348x301, 75K)

They're probably counting laws against threats of violence along with laws that say you can't say you dislike faggots.

Hate speech =/= freedoom of speech

Attached: goon-smash-pedos.gif (75x25, 10K)