[nailer]

> Is any public statement about morality "virtue signalling"? What about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chick-fil-A_same-sex_marriage_.... - is the condemnation of same-sex marriage by a restaurant chain "virtue signalling", or something else?

The Chick Fil A thing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chick-fil-A_same-sex_marriage_...) was the COO making comments and the charity making some donations. It wasn't part of a marketing campaign like the other examples in the Guardian article, but if it was - "Chick Fil A supports family values! Buy our stuff!" - then yes it would be virtue signalling.

> Could you tell us specifically what you object to here, or is it just some sort of guilt by association?

The parent has mentioned the you now have an ex-Stasi person drafting rules proposing rules about what you can and can't say, which seems pretty specific. Hate speech is often used to defend ideas, eg, religion, from legitimate criticism.

[pjc50]

> an ex-Stasi person drafting rules proposing rules about what you can and can't say, which seems pretty specific.

But what's the actual content of the rules?

> Hate speech is often used to defend ideas, eg, religion, from legitimate criticism.

I'm guessing you mean "hate speech law", because hate speech certainly turns up when defending religious homophobia, for example? But do you have an example of legitimate criticism of religion being shut down by hate speech law?

The German position on this is rather different to the American; Germany is used to bans on Swastikas and other symbols of the far-right, simply because they're not legitimate competitors in the marketplace of ideas but the kind of viral hatred that can lead to genocide.

[nailer]

> But do you have an example of legitimate criticism of religion being shut down by hate speech law?

Here's the UK Home Secretary suggesting tightening rules that allow UK firms to recruit workers from overseas, being investigated by police as matter of hatred of immigrants. The complainant in this case is Joshua Silver, a well known troll, however police are obliged to act:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38597714

[pjc50]

So the Home Secretary recieved no repercussions and the incident was no-crimed by the police, who then took no action? Not exactly the boot of the Stasi, is it?

(Also, that doesn't seem to be a "criticism of religion" either?)

[nailer]

It was a massive waste of police resources. And not every misuse of hate crime laws is based on religion, this was just the most recent one.

[woodruffw]

> The parent has mentioned the you now have an ex-Stasi person drafting rules proposing rules about what you can and can't say, which seems pretty specific. Hate speech is often used to defend ideas, eg, religion, from legitimate criticism.

I mentioned this in an earlier comment, but "ex-Stasi" and "East Germany" are inextricable. Governments aren't dispose-alls, and people working under governments do not always align politically with them. We should be eager to fault Nazi Germany for its crimes, but not so eager to fault every single citizen who became a member of the Nazi Party during its rule.