Quote from: HairyMaclairy on April 18, 2018, 02:56:04 AM

Quote from: Arriemoller on April 18, 2018, 01:57:44 AM

Quote from: cAPSLOCK on April 17, 2018, 07:30:27 PM

Quote from: strawbs on April 17, 2018, 01:28:49 PM

Quote from: Ibian on April 17, 2018, 01:11:21 PM

And if you complain about migrants on facebook or twitter, you go to jail. At least in germany and england, same pattern everywhere, just a matter of degrees.

Slight exaggeration. If true, the 51.9% of UK population who voted for Brexit primarily due to immigration concerns would be in jail. You can complain about migrants, it's racism which is illegal and rightly so.

In other news....it's a sea of green in cryptoland Grin

The problem is the word 'racism' has been changing definitions at least colloquially.

Where it used to mean the belief that one race is superior to another, it now includes people making racial stereotypes.

Plus why on earth should racism be illegal? A belief should not be illegal. Acts should be.

OK, let's try and make this a little bit clearer. Racism is not illegal in Europe, saying racist stuff is not illegal in Europe, but spreading racist stuff to a wider audience is. So it's not the idea that's outlawed, it's the spreading of the idea. Is this wrong? Hell yes, all ideas must be allowed to be spread if you want to call yourself a democratic country.

Arrie thats just bullshit. Off the top of my head, there are all sorts of limits on the free spread of ideas:

*employee confidentiality agreements

*official secrets acts

*intellectual property law

*export controls on dual use software

*prohibited pornographic material

*conspiracy to commit terrorist acts

*prohitions on making bomb threats

*prohibtions on making death threats to public officials

You cannot say that you dont live in a democratic society just becaus you have one or more of the above limitations on free speech. Inciting racial hatred is just another category of speech subject to limitations.

With the possible exception of pornography your examples are not examples of what is traditionally seen as infringements of free speech.

Furthermore, the law is very vague and is used to try to stop political opponents from airing their opinion.

Said by Justice Neil Gorsuch in Sessions v. Dimaya.
"Vague laws invite arbitrary power. Before the (American) Revolution, the crime of treason in English law was so capa ciously construed that the mere expression of disfavored opinions could invite transportation or death."
The same applies to anti racism laws in Europe today. (Well, not death or transportation (yet))