I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend... - is it valid stance?

[Thumpalumpacus]

As for sides - my side is not on top nor it will be in the near future. It does not change the fact that fascists should be opposed even by force if needs be. I've never said that state is only for giving cuddles.

If your side could not muster popularity, it either didn't deliver the message properly, or the people don't want to hear it. But rights are there to protect the weak, not the strong. By advocating for the repression of free speech, you are destroying the village in order to save it, as an American general once famously said.

The content of the speech is not nearly as important as the principle that the government has the prerogative to quash dissent, which is inevitably where such a power will end up. And at that point it matters not whether the dictatorship is fascist or leftist. What matters is that the people will have lost the right to criticize the government.

All this ineluctably flows from granting the power to repress speech.

[Szuchow]

As for sides - my side is not on top nor it will be in the near future. It does not change the fact that fascists should be opposed even by force if needs be. I've never said that state is only for giving cuddles.

If your side could not muster popularity, it either didn't deliver the message properly, or the people don't want to hear it. But rights are there to protect the weak, not the strong. By advocating for the repression of free speech, you are destroying the village in order to save it, as an American general once famously said.

I don't really give a damn that people prefer nationalist narrative. It still does not change the fact that state should not leave populace to the tender mercies of fascists. As what happening in Poland shows if fascism isn't opposed it grows. From shitty parties and clowns that weren't prosecuted despite having laws to deal with it to highest offices in government.

The content of the speech is not nearly as important as the principle that the government has the prerogative to quash dissent, which is inevitably where such a power will end up. And at that point it matters not whether the dictatorship is fascist or leftist. What matters is that the people will have lost the right to criticize the government.

All this ineluctably flows from granting the power to repress speech.

No. Gov have every right to suppress fascists and in fact there are laws in Poland that could be used to such effect. Fact that they weren't used led to current situation where LGBT people are dehumanized, members of ruling party calls for ethnic cleansing and wannabe fuhrer incites thugs to attack protest about abhorrent decision of puppet court.

Also state creating and enforcing laws against spreading fascist ideas does not make criticizing gov impossible. One does not follow second. Look on the Germany which have quite strict laws on some subjects and yet people there did not lost right to criticize government - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship...ust_denial

[Thumpalumpacus]

As for sides - my side is not on top nor it will be in the near future. It does not change the fact that fascists should be opposed even by force if needs be. I've never said that state is only for giving cuddles.

If your side could not muster popularity, it either didn't deliver the message properly, or the people don't want to hear it. But rights are there to protect the weak, not the strong. By advocating for the repression of free speech, you are destroying the village in order to save it, as an American general once famously said.

I don't really give a damn that people prefer nationalist narrative. It still does not change the fact that state should not leave populace to the tender mercies of fascists. As what happening in Poland shows if fascism isn't opposed it grows. From shitty parties and clowns that weren't prosecuted despite having laws to deal with it to highest offices in government.

The content of the speech is not nearly as important as the principle that the government has the prerogative to quash dissent, which is inevitably where such a power will end up. And at that point it matters not whether the dictatorship is fascist or leftist. What matters is that the people will have lost the right to criticize the government.

All this ineluctably flows from granting the power to repress speech.

No. Gov have every right to suppress fascists and in fact there are laws in Poland that could be used to such effect. Fact that they weren't used led to current situation where LGBT people are dehumanized, members of ruling party calls for ethnic cleansing and wannabe fuhrer incites thugs to attack protest about abhorrent decision of puppet court.

Also state creating and enforcing laws against spreading fascist ideas does not make criticizing gov impossible. One does not follow second. Look on the Germany which have quite strict laws on some subjects and yet people there did not lost right to criticize government - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship...ust_denial

As already noted last year, we disagree on this. Granting the government power to approve or quash speech gives the government a power it should not, in my view, have. The government should be subservient to the people's opinions, not the other way around.

Germany has managed to avoid the trap thus far, but all it takes is a leader who disdains current norms to abuse such laws. We here have a President who is urging the prosecution of political opponents. Giving him the power to define what is and is not acceptable speech is not something I will get behind.

Of course I abhor fascism. But rather than give the government an unseemly power which it may then turn upon me when I venture to criticize it, I think that the government should not be in the business at all of determining what speech is and is not acceptable.

The very fact that your anti-fascist laws in Poland did not work may or may not reflect the broader opinion of the voting community, but one thing those laws did do is give your government the right to determine what is and is not acceptable speech. I honestly hope, my friend, that they don't turn that power on critics, but I'll be surprised if they don't.

Niemoller had it right, I think: once they can go after one group, they can go after all groups if and when they see fit. Better to tolerate dissent and use free speech to disarm it, rather than use the power of the government and see that blade turned against you at another time. Granting the government such power establishes a precedent for using it against anyone the government deems "fascist".

[Minimalist]

No. Gov have every right to suppress fascists and in fact there are laws in Poland that could be used to such effect. Fact that they weren't used led to current situation where LGBT people are dehumanized, members of ruling party calls for ethnic cleansing and wannabe fuhrer incites thugs to attack protest about abhorrent decision of puppet court.

Something tells me that the fucking church had more to do with that than any government.

[Szuchow]

If your side could not muster popularity, it either didn't deliver the message properly, or the people don't want to hear it. But rights are there to protect the weak, not the strong. By advocating for the repression of free speech, you are destroying the village in order to save it, as an American general once famously said.

I don't really give a damn that people prefer nationalist narrative. It still does not change the fact that state should not leave populace to the tender mercies of fascists. As what happening in Poland shows if fascism isn't opposed it grows. From shitty parties and clowns that weren't prosecuted despite having laws to deal with it to highest offices in government.

The content of the speech is not nearly as important as the principle that the government has the prerogative to quash dissent, which is inevitably where such a power will end up. And at that point it matters not whether the dictatorship is fascist or leftist. What matters is that the people will have lost the right to criticize the government.

All this ineluctably flows from granting the power to repress speech.

No. Gov have every right to suppress fascists and in fact there are laws in Poland that could be used to such effect. Fact that they weren't used led to current situation where LGBT people are dehumanized, members of ruling party calls for ethnic cleansing and wannabe fuhrer incites thugs to attack protest about abhorrent decision of puppet court.

Also state creating and enforcing laws against spreading fascist ideas does not make criticizing gov impossible. One does not follow second. Look on the Germany which have quite strict laws on some subjects and yet people there did not lost right to criticize government - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship...ust_denial

As already noted last year, we disagree on this. Granting the government power to approve or quash speech gives the government a power it should not, in my view, have. The government should be subservient to the people's opinions, not the other way around.

Germany has managed to avoid the trap thus far, but all it takes is a leader who disdains current norms to abuse such laws. We here have a President who is urging the prosecution of political opponents. Giving him the power to define what is and is not acceptable speech is not something I will get behind.

Of course I abhor fascism. But rather than give the government an unseemly power which it may then turn upon me when I venture to criticize it, I think that the government should not be in the business at all of determining what speech is and is not acceptable.

The very fact that your anti-fascist laws in Poland did not work may or may not reflect the broader opinion of the voting community, but one thing those laws did do is give your government the right to determine what is and is not acceptable speech. I honestly hope, my friend, that they don't turn that power on critics, but I'll be surprised if they don't.

Niemoller had it right, I think: once they can go after one group, they can go after all groups if and when they see fit. Better to tolerate dissent and use free speech to disarm it, rather than use the power of the government and see that blade turned against you at another time. Granting the government such power establishes a precedent for using it against anyone the government deems "fascist".

Not giving gov such power means that state abdicate it's responsibility towards citizens by allowing fascists to spread hatred without consequences. 

I'm willing to risk giving gov such power, though it's not like my opinion on the issue matter one way or another.

Laws didn't work because there was lack of political will and widespread delusions about fascism being just another opinion that shouldn't be persecuted, or fascism not being fascism at all. It's both laws and will to enforce them that is needed.

Gov here had this power from the beginning. I would like to see it being used as most probably Poland would not be such shithole now. Not reacting when fascists were weak allowed them to grow strong. I don't buy into example of gov coming for others when gov couldn't even come for fascists.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Not giving gov such power means that state abdicate it's responsibility towards citizens by allowing fascists to spread hatred without consequences. 

That's one way of looking at it, I suppose. Not giving the government such power also means that the government cannot favor fascism, and the issue instead reverts to citizens taking care of the issue themselves rather than having the government tell them what is and is not acceptable.

[Cavebear]

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.

Frankly, this quote makes me angry. I do not see it as something about noble stand for persecuted but rather something like on the picture below: 


Standing for someone right to say unpopular things is good and all but somehow fascists end under protective umbrella of free speech too and in that case I would rather stand with "oppressors" than "brave, anti pc crowd, that just calls things how it sees it". My version of the quote would be - if you're fascist you have right to shut up.

What are your thoughts on this? Is this quote an example of good stance to take?

In general and within reason, yes. But no, I won't agree in all cases. Yelling "fire" in a crowded building, for example. Inciting to violence is wrong. No stance is perfect.

If I had the opportunity to go back in time, I would kill Hitler without a second's thought to stop him from "free speech" later, knowing where it led.

[Szuchow]

Not giving gov such power means that state abdicate it's responsibility towards citizens by allowing fascists to spread hatred without consequences. 

That's one way of looking at it, I suppose. Not giving the government such power also means that the government cannot favor fascism, and the issue instead reverts to citizens taking care of the issue themselves rather than having the government tell them what is and is not acceptable.

That's the way I see it. Also without said power gov still could favor fascism, quite easily in fact, be it through funding of fascists organizations or jailing their enemies on made up charges. There is also issue of schools - it is gov that set educational standards and so it can easily make teaching history into brainwashing lesson. Allowing all speech does not mean that gov could not be a good uncle to fascists and other scum.

From my perspective gov that does not make laws to prosecute fascists - or other totalitarians - disarms itself and it still can support them.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Not giving gov such power means that state abdicate it's responsibility towards citizens by allowing fascists to spread hatred without consequences. 

That's one way of looking at it, I suppose. Not giving the government such power also means that the government cannot favor fascism, and the issue instead reverts to citizens taking care of the issue themselves rather than having the government tell them what is and is not acceptable.

That's the way I see it. Also without said power gov still could favor fascism, quite easily in fact, be it through funding of fascists organizations or jailing their enemies on made up charges. There is also issue of schools - it is gov that set educational standards and so it can easily make teaching history into brainwashing lesson. Allowing all speech does not mean that gov could not be a good uncle to fascists and other scum.

From my perspective gov that does not make laws to prosecute fascists - or other totalitarians - disarms itself and it still can support them.

Fair enough; we still disagree, but that's fine by me.

[Deesse23]

[Reltzik]

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.

Frankly, this quote makes me angry. I do not see it as something about noble stand for persecuted but rather something like on the picture below: 


Standing for someone right to say unpopular things is good and all but somehow fascists end under protective umbrella of free speech too and in that case I would rather stand with "oppressors" than "brave, anti pc crowd, that just calls things how it sees it". My version of the quote would be - if you're fascist you have right to shut up.

What are your thoughts on this? Is this quote an example of good stance to take?

Oh, hey, necropost from before I joined.  Eh, why not, I'll weigh in on the OP.

The legal right to free speech unpunishable by the government is, in my opinion, essential for any democracy and any free nation.  Some reasonable limits can and should exist, including laws against things like shouting fire in a crowded theater (which is NOT the same as urging nonviolent resistance, fuck you Holmes), fraud, defamation, incitement to violence, extortion, et cetera, which generally about the right to free speech being in the marketplace of ideas rather than things like marching orders, misinformation, or threats.  But by and large, it is worth defending as a matter of principle.  If you won't hold to a principle even when it benefits your enemies, then it's no principle at all.

So yes, I will defend the right to exercise free speech, subject to those limits.  And yes, fascists (or white nationalists or race realists or whatever they're calling themselves these days) are most assuredly my enemies.  But I will not defend THEIR right to free speech.  Just THE right to free speech.  If it benefits them, it will only be because it benefits all.

And to be clear, free speech without governmental consequence is not the same as free speech with no consequence.  Without the government getting involved, opponents are still free to picket you, friends and family are free to shun you, and employers (subject to a few conditions) are free to fire you.

But let's get down to brass tacks, here.  Suppose we were to make that type of speech illegal, somehow.  What would happen?

It definitely would NOT end fascistic impulses.  We can see that in how white supremacists keep popping up in Germany.  They still manage to spread their ideas, still manage to recruit, still manage to thrive.

It would create a government apparatus and infrastructure by which certain acts essential to challenging government power and institution (speech, organization, pamphlets, petitions, etc) may be banned and punished by those in government.  We might wish to turn this new power against our enemies, but even investing that power into government in the first place means it will eventually be in the hands of our own enemies... and those enemies have shown themselves, over and over again, willing to bend and even break all the rules to abuse governmental power.  (See basically everything the Christian Right has done ever.)  If we make such a weapon against fascism, it will someday be turned against us.  That's just how the cycle of politics works.

As is, with them speaking freely and publicly, they can be seen, reported on, studied.  Analysis can be made of what their tactics are, how they recruit people, what sort of people are vulnerable to recruitment, what intervention techniques work best, and so forth.  That is a huge advantage to my side.  I don't want to silence my enemies.  I want my enemies audible, the better to understand, anticipate, and fight them.

How would we enforce such laws limiting free speech by fascists?  Enforcing laws is typically a job for law enforcement, right?  Of course it is, it's right there in the title.  And... do I want law enforcement agencies to have that kind of discretionary power over the population, be they fascists or people like me and mine?  To be clear, I don't think every last police officer, or even a majority of police officers, would be pushing for death camps or ovens or even explicitly racist policies.  But remember, local law enforcement was the key to enforcing Jim Crow and formed a significant chunk of the KKK at its heights.  Adolf Hitler's been quoted in police training materials in this decade, here in the U.S.  Police organizations have a long history of both racist and authoritarian excesses, problems which are nowhere near ancient memories.  So if we place that sort of power into the hands of law enforcement... can we be sure we'd like what law enforcement does with it?

I could go on.  But on both pragmatic and principled levels, abridging freedom of speech to deal with fascists is not something I'm on board with.

[Deesse23]

The legal right to free speech unpunishable by the government is, in my opinion, essential for any democracy and any free nation.  Some reasonable limits can and should exist...

Szuchow just puts them limits somehwere else than you.  

I could go on.  But on both pragmatic and principled levels, abridging freedom of speech to deal with fascists is not something I'm on board with.

But you are on board with abridging freedom of speech to deal with people who like to shout *fire* in a theatre. At least they arent trying to discrminitae tnad threaten other people.  

Not trying to be confrontational, but imho the issue of "free speech" is not that simple, as you said yourself with the disclaimer that some reasonable limits should exist.

I think Szuchow has a point when pointing out that he deems it unreasonable to surrende to the intolerant by tolerating them. Ive said it already and say it again: Its (probably, not trying to be TOO condecending) easy to stand behind free speech when in your country free speech was never (yet ) abused in order to abandon it.

[Dānu]

I love the irony. Someone using free speech to argue for ending someone else's right to free speech.

[Deesse23]

I love the irony.  Someone using free speech to argue for ending someone else's right to free speech.

Just as the irony of letting someone use free speech to abandon free speech.
...and we are back to square one, and that is: Is not that simple, no matter if you like it or not.

[epronovost]

I think the argument that giving the power to the government to restrict some form of political speech is openning the door to be used against another group later on is naive. The powers and roles of any government is always in fluctuation. Even if you have a government that places only the most minimal amount of restriction on free speech, the day fascist gain in popularity or take some power, they will grant themselves that right to repress political speech they are opposed too. It's a necessary condition for fascist to thrive. They might not even use traditionnal governmental institution and resort to corporatist deals on information to simply drown in propaganda and burry information in piles of bullshit.

The real question is what are the strategies and the safeguards that can be put in place to prevent fascists and other anti-democracy and anti-social justice groups to become popular enough to actually threaten or damage democracy and social justice. Is it by imposing restriction on political speech opposed to democracy and social justice? Is it by a minimum amount of restriction on free speech? No matter what, if the fascist become popular free speech will be attacked first it will be the political and social participation of minorities and other demonized groups and then, as it progress any opposition.

[Minimalist]

I do understand where Szu is coming from.  Hell, in 1939 Poland was overrun by both Germans and Russians so the wounds are still relatively fresh.  Let's remember that Auschwitz was in Poland and so was the Katyn Forest.

But there is a difference between speech and conduct.  In the US it is perfectly legal to be a member of the National American Man/Boy Love Association and to advocate for sex with children.  But if they catch you with a photo of a kid in a sex act on your computer they will throw your ass in jail for a long time.  So if some idiot wants to dress up in a Waffen SS uniform and goosestep around like a fucking moron he has that right.  That right does not extend to shooting jews on the street.  Talk is cheap and those clowns deserve all the ridicule they open themselves up for.

The bigger question I think that Szu needs to consider is why do so many of his fellow Poles seem to fall under the sway of such an ideology?  Did they learn nothing from their own recent history? 

Once again, I suspect there is too close a relationship between the church and the government in Poland.  That never works out well.

“In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.”

― Thomas Jefferson

[Szuchow]

I do understand where Szu is coming from.  Hell, in 1939 Poland was overrun by both Germans and Russians so the wounds are still relatively fresh.  Let's remember that Auschwitz was in Poland and so was the Katyn Forest.

It does not have much bearing on my stance. I want fascism to be opposed not because totalitarian countries invaded Poland in the past but because interwar Poland itself was authoritarian - if not fascist - shithole that was good just for few percent of populace. Or simply because fascism is shit that stands in opposition to all values I hold dear.

But there is a difference between speech and conduct.  In the US it is perfectly legal to be a member of the National American Man/Boy Love Association and to advocate for sex with children.  But if they catch you with a photo of a kid in a sex act on your computer they will throw your ass in jail for a long time.  So if some idiot wants to dress up in a Waffen SS uniform and goosestep around like a fucking moron he has that right.  That right does not extend to shooting jews on the street.  Talk is cheap and those clowns deserve all the ridicule they open themselves up for.

There is but if speech isn't opposed then entire discourse gets radicalized and things that previously were unthinkable to say become normal. I mean Poland was never great but I can't recall members of parliament calling for ethnic cleansing** before PiS started to rule. Lack of action by the state led to radicalization.

It is naivety to think that fascism could be stopped by well meaning citizens in Poland if it wasn't stopped by them in Germany or Italy.

Also whatever rights people have in USA in Poland propagating fascism is illegal, even if there isn't political will to actually enforce this law.

The bigger question I think that Szu needs to consider is why do so many of his fellow Poles seem to fall under the sway of such an ideology?  Did they learn nothing from their own recent history?

It is a question I have answer to. In previous year 61% of Poles did not read even a single book*. How such ignorant population is supposed to not be seduced by siren song of fascism, especially when fascism pretend to be just "law and order" or some shit like this. Then you have to consider how history is taught in Poland. Namely it mostly shows Poland as virtuous victim, always blameless. So if fascists who knows well how history is taught play to this sentiment how people can not be swayed by them when alternative is left that says painful truth?

I do not want to sound self congratulatory but I am as far from typical Pole as one can be - I'm neither averse to reading, nor nationalist. If you ask why Poles easily fall under sway of fascism don't imagine them as group of well read, left leaning and averse to nationalism individuals. Instead imagine typical trumpist and you will have the answer.

Once again, I suspect there is too close a relationship between the church and the government in Poland.  That never works out well.

“In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.”

― Thomas Jefferson

This is part of the problem too but I deem ignorance and national myths as being bigger issue.

*https://www.bn.org.pl/raporty-bn/stan-czytelnictwa-w-polsce/stan-czytelnictwa-w-polsce-w-2019-r.
**http://atheistdiscussion.org/forums/showthread.php?tid=3067

[Minimalist]

Germany, Italy...and Spain and Portugal in the 1930's embraced fascism for one reason or another.  Nonetheless, they seem to have largely learned the lesson.

But Poland has been down this road before with Pilsudski and your observation about the intelligence of your countrymen deserves some serious consideration.  Once again in Western Europe the chokehold of the church seems to have been broken but one cannot say the same for the East.
The church does not encourage education or independent thought.  Never has.  Can't survive in places where such thought thrives.

[Szuchow]

Germany, Italy...and Spain and Portugal in the 1930's embraced fascism for one reason or another.  Nonetheless, they seem to have largely learned the lesson.

The point is that fascism there wasn't stopped from seizing the power by protesting citizens so why should Poland be different. Marketplace of ideas isn't exactly a place to defeat fascism. After all bad money drives out good.

But Poland has been down this road before with Pilsudski and your observation about the intelligence of your countrymen deserves some serious consideration.  Once again in Western Europe the chokehold of the church seems to have been broken but one cannot say the same for the East.
The church does not encourage education or independent thought.  Never has.  Can't survive in places where such thought thrives.

Church does not play leading role in this but certainly isn't averse to authoritarian policy.

Poland was authoritarian in the years past. That's exactly why I want existence and enforcement of laws that limit fascists alleged right to spread hatred.

[Dānu]

I love the irony.  Someone using free speech to argue for ending someone else's right to free speech.

Just as the irony of letting someone use free speech to abandon free speech.
...and we are back to square one, and that is: Is not that simple, no matter if you like it or not.

I'm afraid that I don't understand your comment. Would you mind elaborating on it?

[Minimalist]

The point is that fascism there wasn't stopped from seizing the power by protesting citizens so why should Poland be different.

As I said, each of the named countries had different reasons for embracing fascism:  Germany because they lost WWI and Italy because they "won."  I'm not familiar enough with the rise of Franco and Salazar to comment on them.

There were fascist movements in the US, Britain and France too but they did not gain traction to the point of taking over.  What you need to examine are the reasons why Poland is different.  I admit that I am biased but any time the church is involved I get suspicious of what those cassocked motherfuckers are up to.

[Thumpalumpacus]

 

Indeed. This is how rational people converse.

[Cheerful Charlie]

It's really very simple.  You either believe in the principle of free speech or you don't.  As one supreme court justice noted "popular speech does not have to be protected."

Would you really want the Orange Fucktard deciding what is or is not acceptable?

Now we get to what Karl Popper called the Paradox of Tolerance.  Should we tolerate those who are intolerant of our freedoms and freedom of speech and thought?  when do we have to stop being tolerant of those who would eliminate tolerance for us?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

For example, Fascism, National Socialism, Marxist-Leninism, Maoism.  We had the phenomena years ago in Algeria where as it looked like the Islamists were going to win a national election in Algeria, the leaders of the Islamist party proudly announced that if they won, that would be the last such election allowed to be held in Algeria.

Where do we draw the line on tolerance to save tolerance from the intolerant?

[Deesse23]

Germany, Italy...and Spain and Portugal in the 1930's embraced fascism for one reason or another.  Nonetheless, they seem to have largely learned the lesson.

Firstoff, nope, Germany didnt, not until May 1945, and that train of events, and its effects, certainly wasnt what fascist Germany intended.
The lesson in Germany, after it was forced to abandon fascism,was to restrict freedom of speech. Holocaust denial is punishable. Waving around symbol of fascism is illegal, etc..

That being said: Restricting free speech does not mean you get sent to a KZ or the sort of. It just denies you the public platform to spread your poison. You can deny holocaust....at home, discussing it with your friends or anyone you meet. You can be a nazi all you want and praise Adolf all day long, but not in the public sphere. There is no thought police.


Reminds me of tanks:
In the cold war everyone wondered if it was better to have a big, rather cumbersome tank, which gives  alot of protection to its crew (NATO) or "tanks that drive like sports cars" (Txx , models), small, simple, for usage in great masses, providing no comfort and even less survivability
in comabt.

Then Israel (with tanks bought from all aross the place, mainly old American ones) had to fight several wars and decided to design its own tank. Everbody was in anticipation how the tank would look like, since Israel had the most recent (if at all, post WWII) experience wiht tanks in modern combat.

The result was the Merkava, the most heavily armed tank that provided the best survivability to its  crew possible. Looks like this was the lesson of the Israelis. Maybe they were wrong, but maybe, just maybe.........they were right.

Once again in Western Europe the chokehold of the church seems to have been broken but one cannot say the same for the East.

I tihnk......this is quite difficult to say or judge. Speaking for Germany of course.

While the church has no immediate indfluence in politics, it still is powerful. After all the C in CDU (or bavarian CSU) stands for "christian". These parties are openly christian, in control of government, with all repercussions.
The church is still having influence on the people, but rather parallel to politics than being part of it. Its not so open with supporting one party or the other, but clearly they like thos ewith the "C". Got my gist?

Of course church an religion in Germany/Europe seems to be entirely different than in the US. We have the protestant and catholic church, two big organisations, not a myriad of evangelicals. Their whole attitute is different, insofar you are correct again.

As i said, its .....complex.

[Chas]

It's really very simple.  You either believe in the principle of free speech or you don't.  As one supreme court justice noted "popular speech does not have to be protected."

Would you really want the Orange Fucktard deciding what is or is not acceptable?

Now we get to what Karl Popper called the Paradox of Tolerance.  Should we tolerate those who are intolerant of our freedoms and freedom of speech and thought?  when do we have to stop being tolerant of those who would eliminate tolerance for us?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

For example, Fascism, National Socialism, Marxist-Leninism, Maoism.  We had the phenomena years ago in Algeria where as it looked like the Islamists were going to win a national election in Algeria, the leaders of the Islamist party proudly announced that if they won, that would be the last such election allowed to be held in Algeria.

Where do we draw the line on tolerance to save tolerance from the intolerant?

Those who threaten our existence should be eliminated.