Shootings and explosions in Paris

[Martinus]

I will reiterate - freedom of speech and expression are not universal human rights, they are civil/political rights. They are meant for participants in the public life of the polity, allowing them to exchange ideas. Someone who is not a member of the polity can have these rights restricted as the polity sees fit.

Moreover, limiting the right of expressing views that directly attack the fundamental principles of the polity (such as, for example, expressing totalitarian or fundamentalist views in a polity built around the principles of pluralism) is not just the right, but the duty of the polity. One of the most misguided ideas of certain portions of modern left is that one should tolerate intolerance.

I'm sorta wondering why you think you get to establish which rights are human rights and which are civil rights. Your Eastern European authoritarian worldviews are not really compatible with Western values.  Maybe you should sit this one out and learn a little bit about what the West values and how it sees individual rights before you start spouting here about what is and isn't a civil or human right and what those rights are "meant" to do.

Ah, typical grumbler, only capable of spouting ad homs.

[grumbler]

Godwin's law doesn't apply if an ideology is worse than nazism. Islamism is.

Well, if you think I am wrong, that strengthens my case.

[grumbler]

I will reiterate - freedom of speech and expression are not universal human rights, they are civil/political rights. They are meant for participants in the public life of the polity, allowing them to exchange ideas. Someone who is not a member of the polity can have these rights restricted as the polity sees fit.

Moreover, limiting the right of expressing views that directly attack the fundamental principles of the polity (such as, for example, expressing totalitarian or fundamentalist views in a polity built around the principles of pluralism) is not just the right, but the duty of the polity. One of the most misguided ideas of certain portions of modern left is that one should tolerate intolerance.

I'm sorta wondering why you think you get to establish which rights are human rights and which are civil rights. Your Eastern European authoritarian worldviews are not really compatible with Western values.  Maybe you should sit this one out and learn a little bit about what the West values and how it sees individual rights before you start spouting here about what is and isn't a civil or human right and what those rights are "meant" to do.

Ah, typical grumbler, only capable of spouting ad homs.

Ad hom.  You keep using that word.  I do not think it means what you think it means.

The irony, of course, is that your response is itself an ad hom, while mine was not.

[Eddie Teach]

Godwin's law doesn't apply if an ideology is worse than nazism. Islamism is.

Indeed, both want to kill Jews and homosexuals, but at least Nazis let you eat pork.

[Duque de Bragança]

So two terrorists dead, seven caught. One dead police dog.

As for the Turkey-Greece game, it was in Turkey, so dumping on the other side of the border would not work. Game was held in the first country mentioned, as per rules.

[Martinus]

I will reiterate - freedom of speech and expression are not universal human rights, they are civil/political rights. They are meant for participants in the public life of the polity, allowing them to exchange ideas. Someone who is not a member of the polity can have these rights restricted as the polity sees fit.

Moreover, limiting the right of expressing views that directly attack the fundamental principles of the polity (such as, for example, expressing totalitarian or fundamentalist views in a polity built around the principles of pluralism) is not just the right, but the duty of the polity. One of the most misguided ideas of certain portions of modern left is that one should tolerate intolerance.

I'm sorta wondering why you think you get to establish which rights are human rights and which are civil rights. Your Eastern European authoritarian worldviews are not really compatible with Western values.  Maybe you should sit this one out and learn a little bit about what the West values and how it sees individual rights before you start spouting here about what is and isn't a civil or human right and what those rights are "meant" to do.

Ah, typical grumbler, only capable of spouting ad homs.

Ad hom.  You keep using that word.  I do not think it means what you think it means.

The irony, of course, is that your response is itself an ad hom, while mine was not.

Really?  Your post was nothing but an ad hom - it included nothing but insults against my character, ethnicity and culture of origin.

[Zanza]

These are public events, people are not free to shout whatever they feel like. It is fairly routine to fine European football clubs if their fans misbehave :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/22513780

http://www.theguardian.com/football/2015/mar/27/dynamo-kyiv-fined-fans-racist-abuse-everton-players

http://www.theguardian.com/football/2012/jun/19/euro-2012-croatia-fined-racism

Just the top 3 search results there.

Football games are not public events. The rules of the proprietor or the event organizer apply.

[grumbler]

Really?  Your post was nothing but an ad hom - it included nothing but insults against my character, ethnicity and culture of origin.

Really?    You have that much trouble with comprehending English?  Re-read what i wrote and see if it applies to what you said, or who you are.  in other words, could I logically have said the same to someone else posting the same nonsense you did?

The answer, of course, is yes.  Therefor, my post isn't an ad hom. 

I hope you have learned something today.  English can be tricky, especially when it is in Latin.

[Richard Hakluyt]

These are public events, people are not free to shout whatever they feel like. It is fairly routine to fine European football clubs if their fans misbehave :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/22513780

http://www.theguardian.com/football/2015/mar/27/dynamo-kyiv-fined-fans-racist-abuse-everton-players

http://www.theguardian.com/football/2012/jun/19/euro-2012-croatia-fined-racism

Just the top 3 search results there.

Football games are not public events. The rules of the proprietor or the event organizer apply.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

[Zanza]

I will reiterate - freedom of speech and expression are not universal human rights, they are civil/political rights. They are meant for participants in the public life of the polity, allowing them to exchange ideas. Someone who is not a member of the polity can have these rights restricted as the polity sees fit.

Not in the European Union.

Article 11

Freedom of expression and information

1.   Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.
2.   The freedom and pluralism of the media shall be respected.

[garbon]

I will reiterate - freedom of speech and expression are not universal human rights, they are civil/political rights. They are meant for participants in the public life of the polity, allowing them to exchange ideas. Someone who is not a member of the polity can have these rights restricted as the polity sees fit.

Moreover, limiting the right of expressing views that directly attack the fundamental principles of the polity (such as, for example, expressing totalitarian or fundamentalist views in a polity built around the principles of pluralism) is not just the right, but the duty of the polity. One of the most misguided ideas of certain portions of modern left is that one should tolerate intolerance.

WTF? While I can understand why they would, I will not support authoritarian regimes that want to punish non-citizens who seek to reform their societies to be more open and liberal.

[Zanza]

The two are not mutually exclusive.

Maybe "public" doesn't mean what I think it means in this context due to me not being a native speaker. Public to me is the public space, i.e. on the street like a demonstration or so. Private means it is within a privately owned premise, i.e. a football stadium. So a football game would be a private event.

[Syt]

Godwin's law doesn't apply if an ideology is worse than nazism. Islamism is.

Indeed, both want to kill Jews and homosexuals, but at least Nazis let you eat pork.

Nazis also have a better fashion sense when it comes to uniforms.

[Martinus]

The two are not mutually exclusive.

Maybe "public" doesn't mean what I think it means in this context due to me not being a native speaker. Public to me is the public space, i.e. on the street like a demonstration or so. Private means it is within a privately owned premise, i.e. a football stadium. So a football game would be a private event.

That's not how public is understood in law. In fact most public events take place in private venues.

[Richard Hakluyt]

The two are not mutually exclusive.

Maybe "public" doesn't mean what I think it means in this context due to me not being a native speaker. Public to me is the public space, i.e. on the street like a demonstration or so. Private means it is within a privately owned premise, i.e. a football stadium. So a football game would be a private event.

Yes, i was wondering if the German equivalent had a more restrictive usage.

The definition given here is how I have understood the term :

http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/public-event/