The most important one should be: Every citizen is free to express his opinion.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CEL...
Any nation can have stronger free speech protections if it chooses to and the EU bodies can’t prevent it.
Your argument is nonsense.
A and B implies B. Scan all chats and only look for CSAM implies scan all chats.
Moreoever, will the government actually just look for CSAM and ignore everything else? Does this law punish the government for looking for things other than CSAM? If not, then there's no reason to believe that "only look for CSAM" is true as long as "scan all chats" is true.
And if their opinion is that, all Jews are subhuman and have to be exterminated? (real life example)
Most EU countries have "hate speech" laws explicitly banning hate speech such as Nazis and Anti-Semites. Nobody sheds any tears over their opinions being restricted, and nobody should. Debating with pidgeons doesn't work.
Now, I agree in practice many (most?) people using this phrase don't mean it in just that sense, and actually mean it as a call for the abolition of the State of Israel. But it doesn't seem impossible that some people who use it actually do mean it in just the literal sense I suggest. The phrase is inherently ambiguous–which is one of the reasons why I think the potential criminalisation of an ambiguous political slogan (one which I myself would never use or endorse) is rather problematic.
I agree that we shouldn’t criminalize political slogans.
The meaning of a phrase is not fixed by its origin. A lot of people using the phrase today weren’t even born then. I’m sure many of them mean it in the exact same sense that the PLO meant it in 1964-but can we be sure that everyone who currently uses it means it that way? I don’t think we can, it seems entirely plausible that some of its users have reinterpreted it to refer to a more moderate position
Once you make it a crime to express certain opinions, all opinions are up for negotiation. It's not hard to imagine an ultra conservative getting elected and what that would do to discussion around LGBT, for instance.
Noam Chomsky - Should Neo-Nazis Be Allowed Free Speech?
You should be a bit more careful about your word choice, since making hate speech a crime would make Neo-Nazis criminals.
I also realize that there is no clear demarcation between speech and criminal action and that my position cannot be upheld in the strict sense.
Nevertheless, I seem to be orders of magnitude more liberal than the mainstream about what is permissible speech. And I continue to find the extent to which speech is monitored and regulated disturbing, and it's getting worse.
The STASI (GDR) were amateurs in comparison.
https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-news/swiss-lgbtq-groups-...
Wrong, wrong and in my experience the people most similar to pigeons (e.g. shitting on the table rather than debating) are the young teens on reddit with vaguely leftist ideas with no foundation (proper communists are generally good debaters), the actual heriditarians and ethnic nationalists might be wrong, but they do try and actually debate rather than insult.
you are, but if you commit a crime in doing it you go to trial.
which is fair.
edit: libel is a crime punishable by the law, everywhere in the west. Doesn't mean you are forbidden to say what you want.
democracy without a justice system as a counter power is not democracy as we intend them in modern era.
This confuses me.
Saying someone is "free to do X" normally means that X is allowed by law. Or else what could it possibly mean?
That is to say "free to do X (under the law)" is a subset of "free to do X".
it's the basis of every modern society.
many things allowed by the law are not really "free". police forces are allowed to use weapons, that doesn't mean they can shoot randomly whenever they feel like it.