complaints for nothing, beeps for free

[Paltmull]

I completely agree with Fragony on the part that the line should be drawn at inciting violence, while you should not get punished just for expressing dislike for or insulting a certain group (I also explained this in an earlier post in this thread). I hope I was clear enough on this point, HoreTore, so we haven't been discussing different things.

Except for what Fragony's already said, there's one more thing worth mentioning: Precedents. In most legal systems (AFAIK), if a law for some reason is unclear, sooner or later one or more cases will end up in the supreme court. As a result, there will be a number of predecents that even further clarify how the law in question should be interpreted.

[HoreTore]

.....and, by wanting that, you will have to create one of those government committees on thoughts control you said you was against, which was the point I objected to.

It's all fine and dandy to want to ban "incitements to violence"(whatever that means), but you can't do it without a government committee that decides what goes and what doesn't. The only way to get rid of those is to allow absolutely all speech.

[Paltmull]

I'll just quote myself:

My basic idea is that everyone should be allowed to live their lives in whatever way they want to. Therefore, the government should not decide what kind of behaviour is or isn't morally legitimate. Hate speech (in this case meaning the promotion of violence, and not just contempt, towards groups of a certain ethnicity, race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, political views etc.), on the other hand, is inciting violation of other people's most foundational rights. That's the difference.

[HoreTore]

Yes, and to protect those rights you will need a government committee to decide what goes and what doesn't.

[Paltmull]

Yes, and to protect those rights you will need a government committee to decide what goes and what doesn't.

Of course you do. I'm afraid we've been discussing different things. The government should have no saying in how people choose to live their lives. But you shouldn't be allowed to violate or incite someone to violate other people's most foundational rights. That's it.

[Fragony]

Yes, and to protect those rights you will need a government committee to decide what goes and what doesn't.

Nah that's up to the police and the judge, government just sets the framework in which they operate.

Is the Norway Post a normal newspaper btw

[HoreTore]

.....and the police/judge would be the committee.

No idea what that newspaper is, never heard of it before.

[Fragony]

.....and the police/judge would be the committee.

That's not possible as police and judges work independently.

[Fisherking]

.....and, by wanting that, you will have to create one of those government committees on thoughts control you said you was against, which was the point I objected to.

It's all fine and dandy to want to ban "incitements to violence"(whatever that means), but you can't do it without a government committee that decides what goes and what doesn't. The only way to get rid of those is to allow absolutely all speech.

Isn't that what police and prosecutors do? It sounds like a law enforcement issue to me. Why do you need another agency to cover the same ground?