> Actually, laws against ... insults are very old.
So are laws against blasphemy, witchcraft, etc. That doesn't make them at all legitimate in the modern world.
So are laws against blasphemy, witchcraft, etc. That doesn't make them at all legitimate in the modern world.
Then why cite the age of a law like them as evidence of the law's legitimacy?
> Though I still see no value in allowing people to call other people "goat f*rs" for sake of a political argument.
That places you in the very dangerous position of deciding what's a valid political argument and what isn't.
> bayesian_horse: Actually, laws against defamation and insults are very old.
> ceejayoz: So are other laws. So what? [paraphrased]
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11504575
> ceejayoz 3 hours ago | [-]
> So are laws against blasphemy, witchcraft, etc.
It hasn't been a problem, because normally, nations which have the respect of the German state to require such prosecution know better than to use it. On the other hand, accusing foreign heads of states of fucking goat on public television isn't exactly something people expected.
Erdogan has ensured that the oppression of his media will stay in European media for months.
>the screws are being tightened on free expression over much of Western Europe these days, not least as concerns potential offense towards a certain easily offended religion
If they did, probably every civil rights movement in the West could have been made illegal simply by the government declaring that the speech is not valuable. Fuck that.
~"That's not an insult, this is an insult: &@##$ @#$@#$."
He said, "&@##$ @#$@#$"! Burn him!
When in context the actual insult was said before then.