I was using hyperbole but the intention is the same.
Sorry I'm bad at reading facial expression over the internet. My mistake.
What you clearly missed was the point of the law.
I literally quoted the law: "where it is a likely consequence that hatred will be stirred up against such a group."
That goes beyond what you claim. While even a possession of such speech would be an offence.
You should maybe read the law.
Part 2 Section 3, 32: [...] It provides that it is an offence for a person to behave in a threatening, abusive or insulting manner, or communicate threatening, abusive or insulting material to another person, with either the intention to stir up hatred against a group of persons based on the group being defined by reference to race, colour, nationality (including citizenship), or ethnic or national origins, or where it is a likely consequence that hatred will be stirred up against such a group.
It's talking about likely consequence not after a crime has been committed. Also:
Part 2 Section 5, 47: Section 5(1) creates an offence of possession of racially inflammatory material. It provides that it is an offence for a person to have in their possession threatening, abusive or insulting material with a view to communicating the material to another person, with either the intention to stir up hatred against a group of persons based on the group being defined by reference to race, colour, nationality (including citizenship), or ethnic or national origins, or where it is likely that, if the material were communicated, hatred will be stirred up against such a group.
Which makes possession of inflammatory material an offence. Which is rather murky on it's own, but even more so in digital age.
Later it quite literally defines on which terms it's permissive to discuss sexual orientation or religion.
To be fair, maybe I missed something so feel free to correct me:
My argument is more, that while I trust at least some governments with deciding on what food is safe, I don't trust governments at all with decisions about what speech is permitted.
Agreed. It just becomes problematic when speech itself is redefined as crime, that is what I'm arguing against. And the the line with the consequences is not that clear either. Someone could read a book and go an kill someone. I personally think it's a hard thing to really understand consequences of words.
How should I know? I personally don't follow those crazy people.
Yeah, so let's not play their game and not give governments any tools to be able to censor anyone. In best case in some constitutional form.
Calling for extermination, I would agree on. Since it's more than an opinion it's a call to action.
Most sane countries don’t have a lot trouble with this.
I'm really curious for examples.
Taliban are obviously the only terrorist group on the planet and rebels were never before labeled as terrorists.
My right to travel is not infringed because I can walk.
Hateful people will be inspired by books and by speech to be hateful and to hurt others. Not sure why you draw the line at books, since also speech can be used as a lesson.
I would also there is fundamental differences between causing an immediate panick and voicing a hateful opinion. The later was times and times misused to silence governmental criticis. Sure - this time it might turn out different, since good guys are in power, but I highly doubt it.
Maybe you are misunderstanding me, I'm not arguing for censorship of books but against censorship op speech.
Good question. But than again - not sure you want to be judged on sensitive topic by a group of peers, I'm not a huge fan of that concept to be honest.
War kurz davor was produktives zu machen.