• LwL@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Would he though? I guess this is up to whether one would consider “god hates jews” to be inciting hate or violence (§130 stgb) against jews. It might even depend on where this happens, in some very religious place it might incite people far more than somewhere more secular, as there’s absolutely no meaning to someone saying “god hates x” if you don’t believe in a god in the first place. So I think it’s debatable.

      The “jews stole the land” sign in the background might be worse, though, the kid holding that (or more likely the parent that allowed them to hold it) would most likely be breaking the law.

      • WaxedWookie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        WBC are an open hate group. They aim to maximise their antagonism by doing things like picketing funerals with their dopey signs.

      • Phanatik@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        31
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        I accept that both Germany and the US have freedom of speech. The difference is that Germany will crack down on hate speech which is what this is. If allowed to remain just because you want to uphold free speech absolutism, then hate speech goes unchallenged and so it spreads, allowing more hate speech.

        • jackoneill@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yeah but who gets to draw that line though? I agree that this kind of speech is harmful, but if we leave it to the dipshits in Congress to decide what is and isn’t hate speech that kind of shit will be allowed and any speech against the oligarchy will be considered hate speech. I draw the line as a citizen by not giving them my time, but I feel like if you going the government the power to arrest folks over speech alone things will get real bad real fast.

          • Patapon Enjoyer@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            18
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Yeah but who gets to draw that line though?

            A law that delineates what hate speech is and its consequences, limiting it to speech against sex, gender, orientation, race, ethnicity, faith and disability. Like sane countries do.

            • jackoneill@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              That’s all perfectly reasonable, I just don’t trust American lawmakers to do that. Then again, I don’t trust them to pass a budget or let the government stay open or fulfill other basic functions of their job, so……

              In principle we are in agreement for sure. I guess we shouldn’t base potential policy based on the incompetence of our lawmakers, but ignoring their incompetence has risks of its own

              I hate being an American. If I could pack my family up and leave for a better country I would.

              • Patapon Enjoyer@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Totally get what you mean. It might be easier for these protections to exist on the local or state level, but of course it’ll vary dramatically state to state.

      • H1jAcK@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        You should look into the paradox of tolerance.

        The paradox of tolerance states that if a society’s practice of tolerance is inclusive of the intolerant, intolerance will ultimately dominate, eliminating the tolerant and the practice of tolerance with them.

        • Slotos@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          The paradox disappears when you stop considering tolerance to be a moral stance, and recognize it as a social contract.

          Those who break the contractual agreements are not protected by contract’s provisions.

      • IndefiniteBen
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        If nobody takes them seriously, why are they a problem?

      • VelvetStorm@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I would very much like it if some of that was restricted. I don’t think white supremacists or Christian Nationalists or nazis or any other group like that should have a voice or even be allowed to exist. 80 years ago we killed nazis and we should do it again.

  • DarkGamer@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    1 year ago

    Westboro Baptist’s business model is to provoke violence with their outrageous and insulting behaviors and then sue for profit.

    • VelvetStorm@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Exactly, they arnt a religion they are a group of lawyers who came up with the great idea to incite violence against themselves for profit.

  • Kalash@feddit.ch
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is the plot of a South Park episode.

    All hail to mein Führer, Mel Gibson!