[derelicta]

> Free speech must include the things people do not want you to say. Says who? I understand the core principles of absolute free speech. I just don't agree. This is a very absolutist (and americano-centered) view of what liberties encompass.

Same goes for political activity. Some political organizations should be prohibited. And I dont see any issue knowing islamists or skinheads are excluded from parliement and prosecuted after intimidating opposition through violence.

Besides keep in mind, for most of those things, the legal hurdles are very high. Your voting rights cant be stripped away for small offenses.

[illuminerdy]

> "Some political organizations should be prohibited."

And who gets to decide which ones are prohibited and the standards used? Because some people think Antifa should be prohibited while others think it's a necessary organization that is fighting the good fight. Some people think Christian organizations that reject homosexuality and gay marriage should be banned while others think they are doing God's work.

Thats why it's necessary to protect all viewpoints when talking about speech. Because your opinion is not the only valid one.

[derelicta]

> And who gets to decide which ones are prohibited and the standards used?

In Germany's case, a bench of Constitutional judges, after Guardians of the Constitution informed the parliament that they will prosecute an organization deemed a threat to a free and democratic society. So again, a proper independent judicial instance whose mission is to examinate evidences and make a choice after a fair trial.

Regarding Antifa its more complicated for there is decision-making is distributed. There is no proper leader or leading-commitee, just a bunch of folks working together (and sometimes using dubious means), pretty much like Anonymous.

Also no, wishing a ethnical cleansing is no regular opinion. We aren't debating about budget or public service, but of literal state-sanctioned genocide.

[illuminerdy]

> "So again, a proper independent judicial instance whose mission is to examinate evidences and make a choice after a fair trial."

So if an "independent judicial instance" decided that you or your organization should not be allowed to criticize an election result or election process because doing so would be "a threat to a free and democratic society", you would accept that?

[DuskStar]

> Says who? I understand the core principles of absolute free speech. I just don't agree. This is a very absolutist (and americano-centered) view of what liberties encompass.

It should be obvious, but the people in power will not want you to say bad things about them. If given the power to prevent that, of course they will. (and they'll say that "politician X was found in bed with a dead hooker" is libel, regardless of the facts)

> Some political organizations should be prohibited.

But which ones? Just genocidal ones? Do communists count? How far do philosophies need to differ before a party is allowed again, and who (besides the individual voter) should be the one to choose?

"They're totally just lying about their beliefs" can be both true and not an acceptable reason IMO.

> prosecuted after intimidating opposition through violence.

Then BAN INTIMIDATING OPPOSITION WITH VIOLENCE. Ban ALL of it. But "these words are violence, this violence is just protest" isn't ok.

> Your voting rights cant be stripped away for small offenses.

Only being able to vote for people with governmentally approved opinions is itself a removal of voting rights. This should obviously be true for the limit case (only one candidate), but it's a spectrum.

[derelicta]

> Do communists count?

well yeah? In Germany, violent Marxist-Leninists have been prohibited, disbanded and expropriated. So why not ? Today they are allowed again in some Länder, for they dont use violence anymore nor threaten democracy as a whole. So yeah?