[klearvue]

"speaking against class privilege, now...", "anybody talking against mass immigration...will easily be classified as 'hate speaker' too" - please cite a single law of any European country classifying those as hate speech. Up until then I'll say you are spouting utter rubbish.

[coldtea]

>please cite a single law of any European country classifying those as hate speech

That's utterly naive, don't you think? They don't have to specifically classify those as hate speech. They just have to make the law vague enough -- and then the "offended parties", activists and other over-sensitive folks jump to take the opportunity.

"""In England, Wales, and Scotland, the Public Order Act 1986 prohibits, by its Part 3, expressions of racial hatred, which is defined as hatred against a group of persons by reason of the group's colour, race, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins. Section 18 of the Act says: A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—

(a) he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or (b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby."""

Can it be any more vague?

Here's an example of such laws in action: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7842344.stm

Would you be OK if Atheists couldn't talk against Christianism in the same way?

>Up until then I'll say you are spouting utter rubbish.

You can say anything you want -- however rude and ad hominen. I'm for free speech after all.

[oneeyedpigeon]

"can it be any more vague" - easily; it's quite clear to me: don't spout fascist sentiments that are likely to result in violent hatred. I wouldn't want to live anywhere where, by omission of such a law, such speech is encouraged.

"Here's an example" - good: I don't believe you should be able to make and distribute a film equating an established world religion with nazism.

[coldtea]

>"Here's an example" - good: I don't believe you should be able to make and distribute a film equating an established world religion with nazism.

Then you are a little fascist youself: you want to impose into people what they can and cannot say.

Not to mention, nazism is a historical phenomenon. Same as the slaughters of millions in the name of various Gods. So why shouldn't anyone equate an "established world religion with nazism"? If anything, some religious wars killed more people than nazism did -- or at least affected and enslaved larger areas for far far more years -- millenia even.

[guard-of-terra]

You are a fascist then. That's what this word means.

[desas]

Yes it could be more vague, an amendment of that act means that section 4a now includes:

"""(1) A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he— (a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress."""