[Skybird]

Must people really be officially allowed all freedom to do maximum damage possible?

I have a problem with plticians manipulating and gagging media for party interests. I have a porblem with corproations lobbying to betray voter'S vote and nevertheless acchieve different legislation than was voted for by voters.

I have no problem with free speech restricted if it calls for the destruction of the constitutional order (and this is what it is about, if you go back to the german constitution that I quoted). I WANT Islamic hate speech banned, becasue it mitivates andlures oyung men to go to pakistan, learn how to build bombs and assassinate people from the hidden. and if there would have been a ban on racist speech and natiobnalistic propaganda in the early 30s, maybe we would have escaped a holocaust with 6 million Jews and mor eothers being slaughtered like cattle, and over 50 million killed in war, most of them civilians.

Unlimited freedom for the individual living in a community context, is just one thing, and it never is anything different: anarchy, the law of the jungle. Where your way of living touches upon the way of living of others, your freedoms find limits, necessarily. If you deny that, you only find chaos, slaughter, war.

the more private you are, the more free you can behave (as long as your action does not cause consequences for others). the more public or social you are, the more rules necessarily must limit your freedoms, else you become the bully of the block. the citical thinking must not go into that principle - it is beyond discussion. The critical thinking must go into the rules and their balancing.