So mr Weber ; I'm wrong?....
And by what authority do you think to justify that claim?
It's not like you're living here , where it happens , now is it?

For your information , I'll provide a link to an aug.14th,2000-news-article(the first relevant I could find at this moment) about a racism-case against websites , hosted by Yahoo : http://search.csmonitor.com/durable/2000/08/14/p7s2.htm
Read this carefully and you'll find this little interesting phrase :And some more here:
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,40669,00.html
(Emphasis=mine)

Now ; Who's talking out of the wrong orifice here?

Let us please know you rules in advance so we can comply.The seem to be made up on the go.Why would anybody care about your definitions?Running for ruler of the world?

there is that whole "intent" thing to consider, am i free to teach the world how to build nukes?

hell wait a minute, are u?

Wrong.

Here (UK), you don't have ANY rights (except human rights, as the international human rights convention has now been enshrined in UK law).

As someone who lives in THE ONLY major industrialised nation NOT to have a written constitution, I can tell you as a FACT, that it is not your right to be a racist.

The human rights convention (for the UK) actually means that you have the right to have racist/fascist thought's. They can't be taken away. And quite rightly, public demonstration of such views usually "drops you in the shit"

In the US, you have a few "strange" laws, both at State and Federal level, we also have some.

The first that comes to mind is that it is an offence to "commit behaviour liable to incite a breach of the peace", which would do in such circumstances, though it would usually attract minimal punishment - as it is rather "all encompassing".

But, we also have "another little cherry" which is "behaviour liable to incite racial hatred", (which can, and has been used to cover ALL groups who can be defined as a "race", from blacks to asians, from orientals to occidentals, including other "white" groups who can claim some sort of racial difference, even if it's only their accent e.g. citizens of the Republic of Ireland), which is much stronger than the breach of the peace one, and attracts much stronger punishments.

Lets face it, racism is alive and well in the US (as well as large parts of Africa, though there they call it "tribalism") of that, WE are in no doubt (Mississippi being a good example of a place in the US where this STILL goes on).

But I find acts, views and even thought's of racism both distasteful and detestable, Hence I take the "moral highground" in this matter.

While most of us may be wrong in a philosophical sense, I would suggest that WE ARE RIGHT, in the social, moral and ethical sense.

regards

John

But I'm not a pragmatist, because pragmatism is for unprincipled hypocrites who believe the end justifies the means.

Again, if someone commits a violent act, by all means he should be punished--but only for the violent act. Not for his ideas.

You're completely missing my point.

I'm quite aware that the use of Nazi symbols and the expression of Nazi ideology is banned in Germany. My point is that it shouldn't.

As long as (a) I'm consistent (which I am), and (b) I make sure you know what I mean (which I have), when I use a word I can use whatever definition I like for it. You're free to do the same, so if you mean something different than what I mean when I say "criminal", by all means let me know.

Actually, wrong.

Rights do not exist by government fiat. Sure, government can choose whether or not to allow individuals to exercise certain rights, but that doesn't change the fact that the rights themselves exist independent of government recognition.

It's more than semantics--it's the difference in principle between a free society and a despotic regime.

So do I. So you know what I do? I (a) do not hold those beliefs, and (b) try to explain to people why they're wrong. But I don't try to use the force of law to prevent those beliefs from being expressed--that would be an act of evil on my part.

That't not for you to decide now is it?

I'd just like to point out to everyone that your just wasting your time arguing with someone who actually states they don't believe in any type of government on their website, or well, lack of government in the market or in personal lives.

Lets not let anyone's personal and own opinions effect anyone elses on a personal level, its truly not worth your time and effort; only will cause you to get frustrated while the argument goes into loops..

Regards.

PS. Lets keep it nice and clean as always.

You don't seem to understand that 'criminal' is defined by lawmakers.You cannot define it as you like.Criminal is whatever is outlawed in a given area - like it or not.
You can define your own 'moral' values and depending of the values and where you live see what you get out of it.
Being consistent doesn't make you automatically right.Let's say I define now that 2+2 equals 3 and see how that works at the cashier.

Originally posted by Kurt M Weber

LOL ….. what a sweeping generalisation ! – do you believe that in all cases pragmatism is for “unprinicpled hypocrites………” or just a selective few, if so which ones? – be more specific .

Nobody has suggested that anyone be punished for their ideas – rather, people see the social value in prohibiting certain ideas from being espoused in a public setting due to the effects those ideas have on certain susceptible groups.

You still haven’t explicitly stated a list of reasons why the non-violent expression of Neo-Nazi ideas should be allowed in a public setting in modern day Germany – don’t fudge this – you’re losing credibility already………reply, so we can look at your reasons (if you've got any?)

i would say its the total opposite of a moral system

well said, but i don't think they were listening

Honestly not sure what you're saying here.



What's the use of an idea if you can't express or share or debate it?

I have, you simply refuse to listen. There's only one reason, and it trumps anything else--because every individual has the right to express any belief he wishes so long as he does so in a peaceful manner.

It's not a question of pragmatics, or populism, or truth-seeking. It's a question of moral right vs. wrong.

Then you would be wrong...but if you want to find out why, start another thread. This one isn't the place.

Kurt i feel where you are comming from with your point. but the fact that you say Germany is "stupid" is the exact reason the U.S. is hated so much arond the world. We ( as a country) feel that if things arent done our way in the rest of the world then the rest of the world is stupid and bad. This type of closed minded thinking is why sh!t is the way it is now.

It's okay to disagree and offer your opinion, but when you say things like "they are stupid" and "they are wrong our way is right" nothing is solved and you become hated which is what the US is now....hated.

You can point out many stupid things done right here in the US so you shouldnt call other nations "stupid" or the ideas stupid because we are in no way perfect.

Basically im saying it's ok to disagree, just dont resort to name calling and assuming that because we do things one way here that it should be done the same everywhere.