![]() |
|
| Sponsored Links |
| Red Cross - Donate Today Save the Rainforest |
|
||||
|
We couldn't have a "White Entertainment Television" if we tried. Your list just proved my point...while those channels may be popular with some whites, and only whites, they could never get away with being explicit about it because of racism.
__________________
What have you done for your people today? |
|
||||
|
Why did you have to go there? Why? Huh?! Why couldn't you have just stopped with Country Music Television = Family Tree With No Limbs TV. Golly gee!
For the people who are so wound up about this, as if it's a recent development (and doesn't happen in the U.S.)... been to Family and/or Domestic Relations Court lately??? Never heard of Naomi Wolf? Didn't know that certain words have been forbidden in certain social science classes since at least the 1980's? If the right (wrong) people know that you hold certain views (right or left) in this country, your job or future promotions could be in jeopardy. This is news??? Maybe not this broad, but Germany has had something similar for quite some time, hasn't it? P.S. Speed Channel?! That hurt. It really did.
__________________
"Tweeter was a Boyscout before she went to Vietnam and found out the hard way... nobody gives a d@mn." |
|
|||
|
I don't really have the time to look for all the background facts that this article are based on but I can check some things.
Quote:
Vdare's article also link to an article in religouestolerance.org that gives a little more info about the Pastor Åke Green case I suggest you read this. http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_hat8.htm Actually Pastor Åke's misstake is that he went to far. I can assure you that the courts do take religioues freedom seriously. What they want to prevent is that people use religoues sermons to allow for attack on minorities unpunished. For instance what would happen if a some Neo-nazis called their organisation a "church" and then proceeded to attack jews during their "sermons"? We need to draw the line somewhere. Pastor Åke would not have a problem with the law if he had denouced homosexuality in a milder way. The difference are like if I say that "I disagree with your opinion on this matter" vs putting a knife to your throat and threaten to mark you if you don't withdraw your words. That behaviour would not foster a good debate on any topic. It is all right to disagree with people and to say so but there must be a limit to what you are allowed to do. Actually I think that anyone that follow the rules of this forum in their daily life would have little problem with the law. It basically comes down to common sence. The "hate speech law" do have problems thou and I forsee that it will probably be adjusted at some point. Now don't consider this as an disagreement with the thread starter. This is just some input from someone who actually live where this law are applied.
__________________
Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he doesn't become a monster. Friedrich Nietzsche |
|
||||
|
Quote:
The 'hate speech' law is designed to stop hate-filled idiots from taking to a podium somewhere and preaching their racist\homophobic\anti-semitic\sexist BS to the public. OK it has a couple of flaws that will I'm sure be ironed out. Free speech is wonderful and has been earnt by Europe over thousands of years of history, however 'free hatred speech' is not wanted. Watched a documentary on one of your countries White Supremacist communities holed up in the hills promising to kill any government employee\non-'aryan'\gay who happened across their domain, if this is your preferred method of 'free-speech', good luck to you.
__________________
"The key to immortality is living a life worth remembering" |
![]() |
| Bookmarks |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
| Sponsored Links |
|