[brigandish]

> Seriously, showing off symbols of national socialism saved Germany many embarrassing clips on international media.

There we have it, the true philosophical split between those who support freedom of expression and those who would limit it. The first care for truth more than the problems expressing the truth bring, and the latter care more about orderliness and reputation, the clinging to which brings myriad problems too (far worse in my opinion, but who could compare a few harsh words on Twitter or in a newspaper with a the rise of fascism in several places and the odd genocide?)

[Krasnol]

You have the freedom of expression. You'll be prosecuted for some of it though. It's been the case since we invented speech. Insulting your fellow tribesman would probably have had even more severe consequences.

What we actually have here is what I expressed in an answer below: certain people understand only 0 and 1 but humans are not like that. One needs to grow up and have a proper education to understand that but it will work than. It does in Germany. We neither slipped into some dystopian censorship state nor did it lead to harm within the society.

So how about looking at reality for a change?

[brigandish]

> You have the freedom of expression. You'll be prosecuted for some of it though.

The freedom in freedom of expression is the freedom from consequences other than:

- being listened to

- being ignored

- getting speech in return

> One needs to grow up and have a proper education to understand…

> So how about looking at reality for a change?

How about you try reading about the subject first, or asking people who've thought it through far longer than the the arrogant instant you spent on it, and then it will save us all from having to endure your blurting out basic mental errors which you use in pursuit of an authoritarianism that you erroneously think will lead somewhere different than the authoritarianism you claim it counters.

The HN guidelines[0] say:

> Be kind. Don't be snarky.

I'm always happy to make an exception for those who decide such unwarranted lack of respect is okay though.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html#comments

[Krasnol]

Since you chose to ignore most of the content of my comment I try again in a shorter way:

- in your country, do you have the FREEDOM to tell lies about whoever you chose to whoever you want? Like the media or police for example?

[brigandish]

As you chose to ignore my advice I'll expand on it for you so that you can avoid a straw man - intentional or not - with your next reply, because the one you just gave is embarrassing:

- Read some of what advocates of freedom of speech have written. If you're able to find someone advocating the freedom to lie to whomever one choses or about whomever one wants without restriction, you've hit the jackpot. Bring back a flying pig while you're at it.

- English common law (and hence American) already includes some types of lie as protected speech(see [1] for a primer and [2] for more examples from America).

Hence, both the idealists and the pragmatists are well ahead of you here.

Finally, this:

> Like the media or police for example?

Why should there be a law against lying to the media? That made me chuckle. Or did you mean by the media? Also a laughable notion. Shackling the press for the common good is almost a cliché in a dictator's playbook.

As to the police, why lie to the police when you shouldn't talk to them at all?[3] You have a right to silence (or did, in the UK) since hundreds of years back (which is itself another aspect of free speech). That video also covers how the police are legally permitted to lie to suspects and routinely do, so whichever question you intended based on brazenly displayed ignorance of the subject at hand, it's been covered.

I suggest you begin here, with On Liberty https://www.bartleby.com/130/index.html

[1] https://law.stackexchange.com/a/132/11158

[2] https://www.standleague.org/newsroom/blog/freedom-of-speech-...

[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE

[Krasnol]

I meant spread lies about someone to the police or media...not lie to the police or media. I assumed this would have been obvious.

[brigandish]

Assumptions are why people are often mistaken, and lack of clarity in writing often exposes a lack of clarity in thought.

Regardless, I didn't make assumptions and covered all bases. Do get back in touch if you bother to find out what this free speech stuff is all about, otherwise you are welcome to leave it.