Abenologija

aben wrote:

mativka wrote:

aben wrote:

mativka wrote:

aben wrote:

ča je to medijsko opismenjivanje?

A dobro, jasno je na što sam mislila. Kultura dijaloga..etika...

a kako me planiroš natirati da dojden na tvoj seminar medijskog opismenjivanja?

Već si natiran u osnovnoj školi pa što se onda ne koncentrirati na edukaciju?!

aha, čekoj da vidin jes li dobro svati;

ti se založeš za nasilno učenje o tome kako nije dobro biti nasilan?

Ne zalažem se za niti jedan oblik nasilja al' u svakoj situaciji pa bila ona nametnuta pokušavam izvući najbolje. Znaš onu - kada ti život da limun ti napravi limunadu :)

mativka wrote:

aben wrote:

mativka wrote:

aben wrote:

mativka wrote:Pala mi neka usporedba na pamet, a ti mi reci jel ima smisla.
Uvodi se odgovornost ne samo pojedinca već i određenog medija za komentare, treba li se po toj logici uvesti odgovornost gradonačelnika za neprimjereno ponašanje građanina?
Ili uvesti odgovornost i predsjednika Vlade za ponašanje njegovih članova?

ne moreš slijediti socijalističku logiku jer će te dovesti u absurdnu situaciju dok rečeš keks

Ako već uvode zakone kako spriječiti da se selektivno primjenjuju?

zoč bi sprječavala selektivnost loših zakona? pa bolje je da se selektivno primjenjuju

Zašto bolje?

pa ča je manji doseg lošeg zakona, manje je žrtava lošeg zakona

aben wrote:

mativka wrote:

aben wrote:

mativka wrote:

aben wrote:

ne moreš slijediti socijalističku logiku jer će te dovesti u absurdnu situaciju dok rečeš keks

Ako već uvode zakone kako spriječiti da se selektivno primjenjuju?

zoč bi sprječavala selektivnost loših zakona? pa bolje je da se selektivno primjenjuju

Zašto bolje?

pa ča je manji doseg lošeg zakona, manje je žrtava lošeg zakona

Iako se njime pokušava uspostaviti jednoumlje?

mativka wrote:

aben wrote:

mativka wrote:

aben wrote:

mativka wrote:
A dobro, jasno je na što sam mislila. Kultura dijaloga..etika...

a kako me planiroš natirati da dojden na tvoj seminar medijskog opismenjivanja?

Već si natiran u osnovnoj školi pa što se onda ne koncentrirati na edukaciju?!

aha, čekoj da vidin jes li dobro svati;

ti se založeš za nasilno učenje o tome kako nije dobro biti nasilan?

Ne zalažem se za niti jedan oblik nasilja al' u svakoj situaciji pa bila ona nametnuta pokušavam izvući najbolje. Znaš onu - kada ti život da limun ti napravi limunadu :)

s tin da je vode primjenjenija da ti je život do igračke limuna, od kih ne ćeš moći načiniti limunodu.
jednostavni ni moguće to ča bi ti hotila

mativka wrote:

aben wrote:

mativka wrote:

aben wrote:

mativka wrote:
Ako već uvode zakone kako spriječiti da se selektivno primjenjuju?

zoč bi sprječavala selektivnost loših zakona? pa bolje je da se selektivno primjenjuju

Zašto bolje?

pa ča je manji doseg lošeg zakona, manje je žrtava lošeg zakona

Iako se njime pokušava uspostaviti jednoumlje?

pogotovo ako se išnjin pokušava uspostaviti jednoumlje;

pa ča je bolje da se takov zakon uopće ositi recimo samo oko zagreba ili da ga imo svuder?

aben wrote:

mativka wrote:

aben wrote:

mativka wrote:

aben wrote:

a kako me planiroš natirati da dojden na tvoj seminar medijskog opismenjivanja?

Već si natiran u osnovnoj školi pa što se onda ne koncentrirati na edukaciju?!

aha, čekoj da vidin jes li dobro svati;

ti se založeš za nasilno učenje o tome kako nije dobro biti nasilan?

Ne zalažem se za niti jedan oblik nasilja al' u svakoj situaciji pa bila ona nametnuta pokušavam izvući najbolje. Znaš onu - kada ti život da limun ti napravi limunadu :)

s tin da je vode primjenjenija da ti je život do igračke limuna, od kih ne ćeš moći načiniti limunodu.
jednostavni ni moguće to ča bi ti hotila

Zbog čega nije moguće?

aben wrote:

mativka wrote:

aben wrote:

mativka wrote:

aben wrote:

zoč bi sprječavala selektivnost loših zakona? pa bolje je da se selektivno primjenjuju

Zašto bolje?

pa ča je manji doseg lošeg zakona, manje je žrtava lošeg zakona

Iako se njime pokušava uspostaviti jednoumlje?

pogotovo ako se išnjin pokušava uspostaviti jednoumlje;

pa ča je bolje da se takov zakon uopće ositi recimo samo oko zagreba ili da ga imo svuder?

Ovim zakonom će se uplašenim ljudima utjerati još veći strah. Ne samo njima već i portalima koji će jednostavno u strahu od sankcija ukinuti mogućnost komentiranja. I nema teritorijalnu dimenziju.

mativka wrote:

aben wrote:

mativka wrote:

aben wrote:

mativka wrote:
Već si natiran u osnovnoj školi pa što se onda ne koncentrirati na edukaciju?!

aha, čekoj da vidin jes li dobro svati;

ti se založeš za nasilno učenje o tome kako nije dobro biti nasilan?

Ne zalažem se za niti jedan oblik nasilja al' u svakoj situaciji pa bila ona nametnuta pokušavam izvući najbolje. Znaš onu - kada ti život da limun ti napravi limunadu :)

s tin da je vode primjenjenija da ti je život do igračke limuna, od kih ne ćeš moći načiniti limunodu.
jednostavni ni moguće to ča bi ti hotila

Zbog čega nije moguće?

ž

nemoguće je natirati ljude da uču. ako ne postoji individualna spremnost, sve ča moreš potaknuti je prijezir

mativka wrote:

aben wrote:

mativka wrote:

aben wrote:

mativka wrote:
Zašto bolje?

pa ča je manji doseg lošeg zakona, manje je žrtava lošeg zakona

Iako se njime pokušava uspostaviti jednoumlje?

pogotovo ako se išnjin pokušava uspostaviti jednoumlje;

pa ča je bolje da se takov zakon uopće ositi recimo samo oko zagreba ili da ga imo svuder?

Ovim zakonom će se uplašenim ljudima utjerati još veći strah. Ne samo njima već i portalima koji će jednostavno u strahu od sankcija ukinuti mogućnost komentiranja. I nema teritorijalnu dimenziju.

pa o kakovoj selektivnosti zakona unda govoriš?

aben wrote:

mativka wrote:

aben wrote:

mativka wrote:

aben wrote:

pa ča je manji doseg lošeg zakona, manje je žrtava lošeg zakona

Iako se njime pokušava uspostaviti jednoumlje?

pogotovo ako se išnjin pokušava uspostaviti jednoumlje;

pa ča je bolje da se takov zakon uopće ositi recimo samo oko zagreba ili da ga imo svuder?

Ovim zakonom će se uplašenim ljudima utjerati još veći strah. Ne samo njima već i portalima koji će jednostavno u strahu od sankcija ukinuti mogućnost komentiranja. I nema teritorijalnu dimenziju.

pa o kakovoj selektivnosti zakona unda govoriš?

Navela sam Kicu primjer Pupovca i njegove objave i nikom ništa...
Za mene osobno su te objave gnjusne i Pupovčeve i Đakića.

aben wrote:

mativka wrote:

aben wrote:

mativka wrote:

aben wrote:

aha, čekoj da vidin jes li dobro svati;

ti se založeš za nasilno učenje o tome kako nije dobro biti nasilan?

Ne zalažem se za niti jedan oblik nasilja al' u svakoj situaciji pa bila ona nametnuta pokušavam izvući najbolje. Znaš onu - kada ti život da limun ti napravi limunadu :)

s tin da je vode primjenjenija da ti je život do igračke limuna, od kih ne ćeš moći načiniti limunodu.
jednostavni ni moguće to ča bi ti hotila

Zbog čega nije moguće?

ž

nemoguće je natirati ljude da uču. ako ne postoji individualna spremnost, sve ča moreš potaknuti je prijezir

Zašto su se totalitarni režimi koncentrirali na djecu?

mativka wrote:

aben wrote:

mativka wrote:

aben wrote:

mativka wrote:
Iako se njime pokušava uspostaviti jednoumlje?

pogotovo ako se išnjin pokušava uspostaviti jednoumlje;

pa ča je bolje da se takov zakon uopće ositi recimo samo oko zagreba ili da ga imo svuder?

Ovim zakonom će se uplašenim ljudima utjerati još veći strah. Ne samo njima već i portalima koji će jednostavno u strahu od sankcija ukinuti mogućnost komentiranja. I nema teritorijalnu dimenziju.

pa o kakovoj selektivnosti zakona unda govoriš?

Navela sam Kicu primjer Pupovca i njegove objave i nikom ništa...
Za mene osobno su te objave gnjusne i Pupovčeve i Đakića.

ne razumin, jel bi ti radije da smo svi pod fašizmon, ili da niko ni pod fašizmon?

meni je bolje da srbi jedini ne podliježu tin zakonu, nego da svi podliježemo jer....

mativka wrote:

aben wrote:

mativka wrote:

aben wrote:

mativka wrote:
Ne zalažem se za niti jedan oblik nasilja al' u svakoj situaciji pa bila ona nametnuta pokušavam izvući najbolje. Znaš onu - kada ti život da limun ti napravi limunadu :)

s tin da je vode primjenjenija da ti je život do igračke limuna, od kih ne ćeš moći načiniti limunodu.
jednostavni ni moguće to ča bi ti hotila

Zbog čega nije moguće?

ž

nemoguće je natirati ljude da uču. ako ne postoji individualna spremnost, sve ča moreš potaknuti je prijezir

Zašto su se totalitarni režimi koncentrirali na djecu?

...jednon kad totalitarizam postane obći, ljudi lako zaburavu alternative. recimo ti si toliko cijepljena na obće školovanje da uopće ne moreš zamisliti alternativu. tebi se alternativa nasilnom školovanju i otimanju dice iz roditeljskoga doma čini ko kršenje prava diteta. zoto je bitno da uvik postoju mole oaze slobode, koje će nas podsićati ča je to ča gubimo, ča nemomo, taman to bili i srbi.

mativka wrote:
Što je uopće govor mržnje?

ti postaviš kratko jednostavno pitanje koje zahtijeva kratki i jednostavni odgovor. međutim...odgovor jeste jednostavan ali će ga jako malo ljudi razumijeti i shvatiti.

odgovor je: govor mržnje je "kodno ime" za ideju tj. mentalni virus i jedne od brainwashing tehnika koja je hladnoratovska ostavština ( izum ) psihološkog ratovanja bivšeg SSSR-a i Lavrentia Berie šefa sovjetske tajne službe NKVD protiv kapitalističkog zapada.

e sad kako se ta ideja-virus primjenom jedne od tehnika psihološkog ratovanja iz bivšeg komunističkog Sovjetskog Saveza proširila poput virusa (jer to jest mentalni virus) da je totalno zarazila cijelo čovječanstvo ( što je i bila namjera ondašnjih sovjetskih komunističkih lidera i uspjeli su vidimo ) to je ono što bi svi trebali znati pa bi se bolje i učinkovitije borili protiv te pošasti i planetarne pandemije koju današnji debili ispranih mozgova zovu govor mržnje. oni koji su živjeli u komunizmu pa čak i u SFRJ morali bi prepoznati taj virus i kako djeluje, no, oni na zapadu su totalno nespremni i nemaju apsolutno nikakav izgraženi imunitet protiv tog virusa štoviše prije su nas tim virusom jebali komunisti a danas tim nas istim komunističkim virusom jebu zaraženi kapitalisti i zapad. strašno! jebemu mater dosta više tog mentalnog terorizma!!!

uostalom koga zanima neka se informira. kucaj u Google ili neku drugu tražilicu i taži

Verbalni delikt je bio kolokvijalni naziv za kazneno djelo predviđeno u čl. 133. Krivičnog zakona Socijalističke Federativne Republike Jugoslavije. Na temelju te zakonske odredbe provođeni su politički procesi, uz vrlo drastične kazne protiv osoba koje su rječju dovodili u pitanje ispravnost komunističke vladavine.

U cijelosti je odredba glasila:

(1) Tko natpisom, letkom, crtežom, govorom ili na drugi način poziva ili potiče na obaranje vlasti radničke klase i radnih ljudi, na protuustavnu promjenu socijalističkog samoupravnog društvenog uređenja, na razbijanje bratstva i jedinstva i ravnopravnosti naroda i narodnosti, na svrgavanje organa društvenog samoupravljanja i vlasti ili njihovih izvršnih organa, na otpor prema odlukama nadležnih organa vlasti i samoupravljanja koje su od značaja za zaštitu i razvoj socijalističkih samoupravnih odnosa, sigurnost i obranu zemlje, ili zlonamjerno i neistinito prikazuje društveno-političke prilike u zemlji,
kaznit će se zatvorom od jedne do deset godina.

Kazne za verbalni delikt su u komunističkoj Jugoslaviji izricane uz izrazitu strogost.

eto ni taj zakon nije spriječio klaonicu i građanski rat u bivšoj SFRJ i nastanak koruptivnih nacionalističkih feuda sa svojom elitom psihopata i kriminalaca na vlasti a koje imaju status kolonija.

Suvremena regulativa o govoru mržnje ima počinje Međunarodnim paktom o građanskim i političkim pravima usvojenom na Općoj skupštini Ujedinjenih naroda 19. prosinca 1966. godine. Taj međunarodni ugovor u prvom stavku čl. 20. propisuje obvezu svake države da zakonom zabrani bilo kakvo pozivanje na rat, a u drugom stavku istoga članka se propisuje: "Svako pozivanje na nacionalnu, rasnu ili vjersku mržnju koja potiče diskriminaciju, neprijateljstvo ili nasilje, mora se zakonom zabraniti." Ta je odredba unijeta u tekst tog Međunarodnog pakta na uporno inzistiranje Sovjetskog Saveza, te uz jasno izraženo protivljenje zapadnih demokratskih država koje su se brinule da Sovjetski Savez poduprt drugim komunističkim državama i raznim drugim diktatorskim režimima koji su tada bili zastupljeni u Ujedinjenim narodima želi takvom odredbom pravno opravdati široka gušenja slobode govora (kako je doista i bilo: makar taj Međunarodni pakt u čl. 19. jamči slobodu govora, nisu komunističke države nikad tumačile da bi se uz odredbu čl. 20. istoga pakta moglo u njih realizirati bilo kakvo kritiziranje komunističkog društvenog poretka ili ozbiljno kritiziranje postupaka vlasti); međutim je s vremenom zabrana govora mržnje postala jednim od temeljnih preokupacija demokratskih društvenih poredaka,[1] te je primjerice na razini Europske unije regulirana Okvirnom odlukom Vijeća 2008/913/PUP od 28. studenoga 2008. o suzbijanju određenih oblika i načina izražavanja rasizma i ksenofobije kaznenopravnim sredstvima.[2]

Abandon EU Anti-Hate Speech Legislation! An Overlooked Soviet Heritage: The Fight against Free Speech

“The language of fear” is the headline of this section at the Central European Forum. My contention is that fear is best fought in open democratic debate. Yesterday, Pascal Bruckner said that Europe did not sufficiently stand up for its own core values. One, central, of those values is free speech. As I cannot address all problems at the same time, let me on focus upon this particular problem in this context. Free speech is a European heritage: originating in Holland and England, and first formalized in Denmark, France, and the United States in the second half of the 18th century. But a major contemporary problem in Europe is what could be called the “legislation of fear,” the increasing belief that unwelcome utterances are best fought by means of legislation, prohibition, criminalization—in short, by the curtailment of free speech. The most terrible aspect about this development is that it plays into the hands of terrorists wishing to fight free speech.

But free speech is arguably the single most important human right. It is only free speech which grants that other such rights may be debated and agreed upon openly. John Stuart Mill supported free speech because we need the expression of all ideas in order to find the best. Ronald Dworkin points to the central role of free speech in democratic legitimacy: the minority that loses in democratic decisions is only prone to see such decisions as legitimate if it has been able to express its views freely during the process. Otherwise, such decisions may be seen as illegitimate, giving rise to extremism, rightly claiming that certain viewpoints are excluded from debate.

Why on Earth, then, should it be the official EU policy to support such curtailment of free speech?

What few people know is that this unlucky development is a piece of heritage from the Soviet Union. In the original formulation of the UN Declaration of Human Rights from 1948, no such delimitations of free speech were claimed—even if they were widely discussed in the preparatory committees of that declaration. Already back then, the Soviet Union continually suggested additional paragraphs with the purpose of prohibiting expressions of “intolerance,” backed by countries like Yugoslavia and, more surprisingly, France, while the United States and United Kingdom consistently fought any such limitations to free speech.

Twenty years later, however, the Western powers were already outvoted in their support of free speech. In the adoption of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR, 1966) in the UN General Assembly, the free speech Article 19 was followed by no less than an obligation of the member countries to prohibit hate speech in Article 20. The ICCPR was ratified by some 167 states and, unlike the 1948 Declaration, legally binding. The infamous Article 20 stated: “Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.” The adoption of this article was strongly controversial and was only reached after long and heated negotiations. Now, the Soviet enmity against free speech was supported by the Eastern bloc along with many third world countries. The Western countries were willing to accept a prohibition of “incitement of violence,” but the Soviet Union wanted more than that, and a Soviet-Polish proposal that addressed, more broadly, “hatred” and “hostility” as such. Eleanor Roosevelt found such expressions in legal texts “extremely dangerous” and cut right to the center of the problem when she warned against articles “likely to be exploited by totalitarian States for the purpose of rendering the other articles null and void.” She feared such a paragraph “would encourage governments to punish all criticism under the guise of protecting against religious or national hostility.” The UK representative claimed that “the power of democracy to combat propaganda lay . . . in the ability of its citizens to arrive at reasoned decisions in the face of conflicting appeals” and added, aimed at the Soviet representative, that Hitler’s Mein Kampf had not been banned in the UK even during World War II. He concluded that his government “would maintain and fight for its conception of liberty as resolutely as it had fought against Hitler.” Sadly, the UK would give up this stance, and under Tony Blair, it would discuss and adopt laws radically curtailing Free Speech. In the UN general assembly, Article 20 of ICCPR was adopted with votes from the Communist Eastern block along with countries with questionable human rights records like Saudi Arabia, Haiti, Sudan, and Thailand, while Western liberal democracies voted against, notably supported by countries such as Malaysia and Turkey. The bottom line is that the origin of international hate-speech criminalization in human rights law lies with a series of states where criticisms of their totalitarian governments and the propagation of democracy were criminalized.

Some important lessons can be learned from this piece of history.

One, of course, is that legislation against hate speech forms an overlooked piece of Soviet ideology.

Another, remarkably, is that such legislation can easily be misused to prohibit the expression of points of views that states more generally wish to avoid.

A third lesson is that such legislation does not remove the “hatred” that it explicitly addresses, but may even have quite the opposite effect. This paradox can be seen from the example of Yugoslavia, the theater of the most recent European genocide and a country that was a strong supporter of anti-hate speech legislation already in 1948 and that also supported the 1966 decision. Article 134 of the Yugoslav criminal code in early 1990s punished with up to ten years imprisonment the person who “incites or fans national, racial or religious hatred or discord between peoples and nationalities.” The law was scrupulously followed in Yugoslavia where a harmless ethnic joke was sufficient to provoke very serious prison punishments.

As is well know, many decades of such jurisprudence did not prevent large-scale ethnic cleansing and genocide in the early 1990s, and it is fair to ask if the Yugoslav hate speech legislation did not prevent the open discussion of interethnic issues, thereby fanning ethnic hatred rather than combating it.

http://www.telospress.com/abandon-eu-anti-hate-speech-legislationan-overlooked-soviet-heritage-the-fight-against-free-speech/

The Sordid Origin of Hate-Speech Laws

All western european countries have hate-speech laws. In 2008, the eu adopted a framework decision on “Combating Racism and Xenophobia” that obliged all member states to criminalize certain forms of hate speech. On the other side of the Atlantic, the Supreme Court of the United States has gradually increased and consolidated the protection of hate speech under the First Amendment. The European concept of freedom of expression thus prohibits certain content and viewpoints, whereas, with certain exceptions, the American concept is generally concerned solely with direct incitement likely to result in overt acts of lawlessness.

Yet the origin of hate-speech laws has been largely forgotten. The divergence between the United States and European countries is of comparatively recent origin. In fact, the United States and the vast majority of European (and Western) states were originally opposed to the internationalization of hate-speech laws. European states and the U.S. shared the view that human rights should protect rather than limit freedom of expression.

Rather, the introduction of hate-speech prohibitions into international law was championed in its heyday by the Soviet Union and allies. Their motive was readily apparent. The communist countries sought to exploit such laws to limit free speech.

The (nonbinding) universal Declaration of Human Rights (udhr) adopted in 1948 does not include an explicit duty to prohibit hate speech. Article 19 simply secures “freedom of opinion and expression.” However, the drafting history shows that the issues of hate-speech regulation and restrictions on free speech were frequently discussed. During the negotiation of Article 19, the drafters faced the challenge of whether, and if so to what extent, freedom of expression should tolerate even intolerance.
The majority of states favored a robust protection of free speech such as that set out in a U.S. proposal (un Doc. e/cn. 4/21), which read “there shall be freedom of speech, of the press and of expression by any means whatsoever.” However, the Soviet Union continuously proposed various amendments aimed at prohibiting expressions of intolerance.

The first uk proposal on the wording of an article aimed at securing freedom of expression recognized, like the Soviet proposal, the possibility for states to limit this right, in the interests of national security, against incitement to violence and disorder and obscene publications, whereas the uk proposal expressed doubts about the possibility of including publications aimed at suppressing human rights. But the uk did recognize a danger that these words would afford a wider power for the limitation of freedom of publication than is necessary or desirable,” they found “that it would be inconsistent for a Bill of Rights whose whole object is to establish human rights and fundamental freedoms to prevent any Government, if it wished to do so, from taking steps against publications whose whole object was to destroy the rights and freedoms which it is the purpose of the Bill to establish.

The dominant force behind the attempt to adopt an obligation to restrict freedom of expression was the Soviet Union.

https://www.hoover.org/research/sordid-origin-hate-speech-laws

https://www.liberal.hr/vrhovni-sud-sad-a-potvrdio--govor-mrznje-je-sloboda-govora-157

kic wrote:
https://www.liberal.hr/vrhovni-sud-sad-a-potvrdio--govor-mrznje-je-sloboda-govora-157

govor mržnje= sloboda govora

https://www.ex-iskon-pleme.com/t31012p600-abenologija#1335237

kic wrote:
https://www.liberal.hr/vrhovni-sud-sad-a-potvrdio--govor-mrznje-je-sloboda-govora-157

jebeš to. to je samo za USA. treba poništiti članak 20. međunarodnog pakta o građanskim i političkim pravima u Ujedinjenim Nacijama koji je zanimljivo stupio na snagu 23. ožujka 1976. godine. baš su nakon 1976. počela ta sranja o govoru mržnje najprije neprimjetno i onda sve agresivnije 80-tih i 90-tih do pada berlinskog zida i nakon toga opća pošast. taj je članak 20. zloupotrebljen i treba ga brisati.

MEĐUNARODNI PAKT O GRAĐANSKIM I POLITIČKIM
PRAVIMA*
usvojen na Općoj skupštini Ujedinjenih naroda, 16. prosinca 1966. godine
(rezolucija br. 2200 A /XXI/)
stupio na snagu 23. ožujka 1976. godine

https://pravosudje.gov.hr/UserDocsImages/dokumenti/Pravo%20na%20pristup%20informacijama/Zakoni%20i%20ostali%20propisi/UN%20konvencije/Medjunarodni_pakt_o_gradjanskim_i_politickim_pravima_HR.pdf

hehe...ima još o govoru mržnje...vidim da vam je tlaka čitati linkove pa ću c-p odlomak. ako vam ovo ne otvori oči onda definitivno imate problem.

The strange thing is that despite the Western European fight against Article 20 of the ICCPR in the mid-1960s, hate-speech legislation enjoyed a significant increase in Western Europe during the 1970s, following the recommendations of the ICCPR.

After 1989 and the disappearance of Soviet power, you might have expected that European support to this old piece of totalitarian Soviet heritage would have vanished.

But now a new faction of countries in international organizations was ready to take over the role of the Communist bloc: the OIC, the Organization of the Islamic Conference. In the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the OIC in 1990, UN human rights were explicitly placed under the sharia as a source of legislation, and regarding free speech in particular, its Article 21 stated that “everyone shall have the right to express his opinion freely in such manner as would not be contrary to the principles of the Shari’ah.” The OIC initially claimed free speech must never give free rein to blasphemy, and from around the millennium, the organization intoned a coordinated policy in UN organizations like the Human Rights Commission/Council and, after 2005, the General Assembly in an attempt to introduce criminalization of so-called “defamation of Islam” or, more generally, “defamation of religions” as additional human rights.

During the first decade of the 2000s, such declarations were passed every year by a majority of OIC and third-world countries—and with increasingly severe demands to make criminalization of such defamation an obligation of UN member countries, to make UN special rapporteurs scrutinize the legislations of each member state to establish whether all member states did in fact obey the resolutions. Even if keeping the majority, such resolutions have steadily lost votes over the recent eight years—and this year, the OIC seems to be changing strategy in order to support and extend existing anti-hate speech legislation based on the ICCPR Article 20 in the West.

Thus, the most recent resolution in the HRC refers to the wording of this article, adding even more vague crimes such as “derogatory stereotyping, negative profiling and stigmatization of persons based on their religion or belief,” just like it “deplores any advocacy of discrimination . . . on the basis of religion or belief.”

This results in the farcical consequence that many OIC states may now file complaints against European democracies during the Universal Periodic Review of the member states in the HRC. Thus on May 2, 2011, Egypt, Indonesia, Malaysia, Bangladesh, and Pakistan complained that Danish hate-speech laws were not enforced to a sufficient degree—countries with no impressive human rights record.

aben wrote:

mativka wrote:

aben wrote:

mativka wrote:

aben wrote:

pogotovo ako se išnjin pokušava uspostaviti jednoumlje;

pa ča je bolje da se takov zakon uopće ositi recimo samo oko zagreba ili da ga imo svuder?

Ovim zakonom će se uplašenim ljudima utjerati još veći strah. Ne samo njima već i portalima koji će jednostavno u strahu od sankcija ukinuti mogućnost komentiranja. I nema teritorijalnu dimenziju.

pa o kakovoj selektivnosti zakona unda govoriš?

Navela sam Kicu primjer Pupovca i njegove objave i nikom ništa...
Za mene osobno su te objave gnjusne i Pupovčeve i Đakića.

ne razumin, jel bi ti radije da smo svi pod fašizmon, ili da niko ni pod fašizmon?

meni je bolje da srbi jedini ne podliježu tin zakonu, nego da svi podliježemo jer....

Nikakav fašizam...

Jer?

Gnječ wrote:

mativka wrote:
Što je uopće govor mržnje?

ti postaviš kratko jednostavno pitanje koje zahtijeva kratki i jednostavni odgovor. međutim...odgovor jeste jednostavan ali će ga jako malo ljudi razumijeti i shvatiti.

odgovor je: govor mržnje je "kodno ime" za ideju tj. mentalni virus i jedne od brainwashing tehnika koja je hladnoratovska  ostavština ( izum ) psihološkog ratovanja bivšeg SSSR-a i Lavrentia Berie šefa sovjetske tajne službe NKVD protiv kapitalističkog zapada.

e sad kako se ta ideja-virus primjenom jedne od tehnika psihološkog ratovanja iz bivšeg komunističkog Sovjetskog Saveza proširila poput virusa (jer to jest mentalni virus) da je totalno zarazila cijelo čovječanstvo ( što je i bila namjera ondašnjih sovjetskih komunističkih lidera i uspjeli su vidimo ) to je ono što bi svi trebali znati pa bi se bolje i učinkovitije borili protiv te pošasti i planetarne pandemije koju današnji debili ispranih mozgova zovu govor mržnje. oni koji su živjeli u komunizmu pa čak i u SFRJ morali bi prepoznati taj virus i kako djeluje, no, oni na zapadu su totalno nespremni i nemaju apsolutno nikakav izgraženi imunitet protiv tog virusa štoviše prije su nas tim virusom jebali komunisti a danas tim nas istim komunističkim virusom jebu zaraženi kapitalisti i zapad. strašno! jebemu mater dosta više tog mentalnog terorizma!!!

uostalom  koga zanima neka se informira. kucaj u Google ili neku drugu tražilicu i taži

Verbalni delikt je bio kolokvijalni naziv za kazneno djelo predviđeno u čl. 133. Krivičnog zakona Socijalističke Federativne Republike Jugoslavije. Na temelju te zakonske odredbe provođeni su politički procesi, uz vrlo drastične kazne protiv osoba koje su rječju dovodili u pitanje ispravnost komunističke vladavine.

U cijelosti je odredba glasila:

(1) Tko natpisom, letkom, crtežom, govorom ili na drugi način poziva ili potiče na obaranje vlasti radničke klase i radnih ljudi, na protuustavnu promjenu socijalističkog samoupravnog društvenog uređenja, na razbijanje bratstva i jedinstva i ravnopravnosti naroda i narodnosti, na svrgavanje organa društvenog samoupravljanja i vlasti ili njihovih izvršnih organa, na otpor prema odlukama nadležnih organa vlasti i samoupravljanja koje su od značaja za zaštitu i razvoj socijalističkih samoupravnih odnosa, sigurnost i obranu zemlje, ili zlonamjerno i neistinito prikazuje društveno-političke prilike u zemlji,
kaznit će se zatvorom od jedne do deset godina.

Kazne za verbalni delikt su u komunističkoj Jugoslaviji izricane uz izrazitu strogost.

eto ni taj zakon nije spriječio klaonicu i građanski rat u bivšoj SFRJ i nastanak koruptivnih nacionalističkih feuda sa svojom elitom psihopata i kriminalaca na vlasti a koje imaju status kolonija.

Suvremena regulativa o govoru mržnje ima počinje Međunarodnim paktom o građanskim i političkim pravima usvojenom na Općoj skupštini Ujedinjenih naroda 19. prosinca 1966. godine. Taj međunarodni ugovor u prvom stavku čl. 20. propisuje obvezu svake države da zakonom zabrani bilo kakvo pozivanje na rat, a u drugom stavku istoga članka se propisuje: "Svako pozivanje na nacionalnu, rasnu ili vjersku mržnju koja potiče diskriminaciju, neprijateljstvo ili nasilje, mora se zakonom zabraniti." Ta je odredba unijeta u tekst tog Međunarodnog pakta na uporno inzistiranje Sovjetskog Saveza, te uz jasno izraženo protivljenje zapadnih demokratskih država koje su se brinule da Sovjetski Savez poduprt drugim komunističkim državama i raznim drugim diktatorskim režimima koji su tada bili zastupljeni u Ujedinjenim narodima želi takvom odredbom pravno opravdati široka gušenja slobode govora (kako je doista i bilo: makar taj Međunarodni pakt u čl. 19. jamči slobodu govora, nisu komunističke države nikad tumačile da bi se uz odredbu čl. 20. istoga pakta moglo u njih realizirati bilo kakvo kritiziranje komunističkog društvenog poretka ili ozbiljno kritiziranje postupaka vlasti); međutim je s vremenom zabrana govora mržnje postala jednim od temeljnih preokupacija demokratskih društvenih poredaka,[1] te je primjerice na razini Europske unije regulirana Okvirnom odlukom Vijeća 2008/913/PUP od 28. studenoga 2008. o suzbijanju određenih oblika i načina izražavanja rasizma i ksenofobije kaznenopravnim sredstvima.[2]

Abandon EU Anti-Hate Speech Legislation! An Overlooked Soviet Heritage: The Fight against Free Speech

“The language of fear” is the headline of this section at the Central European Forum. My contention is that fear is best fought in open democratic debate. Yesterday, Pascal Bruckner said that Europe did not sufficiently stand up for its own core values. One, central, of those values is free speech. As I cannot address all problems at the same time, let me on focus upon this particular problem in this context. Free speech is a European heritage: originating in Holland and England, and first formalized in Denmark, France, and the United States in the second half of the 18th century. But a major contemporary problem in Europe is what could be called the “legislation of fear,” the increasing belief that unwelcome utterances are best fought by means of legislation, prohibition, criminalization—in short, by the curtailment of free speech. The most terrible aspect about this development is that it plays into the hands of terrorists wishing to fight free speech.

But free speech is arguably the single most important human right. It is only free speech which grants that other such rights may be debated and agreed upon openly. John Stuart Mill supported free speech because we need the expression of all ideas in order to find the best. Ronald Dworkin points to the central role of free speech in democratic legitimacy: the minority that loses in democratic decisions is only prone to see such decisions as legitimate if it has been able to express its views freely during the process. Otherwise, such decisions may be seen as illegitimate, giving rise to extremism, rightly claiming that certain viewpoints are excluded from debate.

Why on Earth, then, should it be the official EU policy to support such curtailment of free speech?

What few people know is that this unlucky development is a piece of heritage from the Soviet Union. In the original formulation of the UN Declaration of Human Rights from 1948, no such delimitations of free speech were claimed—even if they were widely discussed in the preparatory committees of that declaration. Already back then, the Soviet Union continually suggested additional paragraphs with the purpose of prohibiting expressions of “intolerance,” backed by countries like Yugoslavia and, more surprisingly, France, while the United States and United Kingdom consistently fought any such limitations to free speech.

Twenty years later, however, the Western powers were already outvoted in their support of free speech. In the adoption of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR, 1966) in the UN General Assembly, the free speech Article 19 was followed by no less than an obligation of the member countries to prohibit hate speech in Article 20. The ICCPR was ratified by some 167 states and, unlike the 1948 Declaration, legally binding. The infamous Article 20 stated: “Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.” The adoption of this article was strongly controversial and was only reached after long and heated negotiations. Now, the Soviet enmity against free speech was supported by the Eastern bloc along with many third world countries. The Western countries were willing to accept a prohibition of “incitement of violence,” but the Soviet Union wanted more than that, and a Soviet-Polish proposal that addressed, more broadly, “hatred” and “hostility” as such. Eleanor Roosevelt found such expressions in legal texts “extremely dangerous” and cut right to the center of the problem when she warned against articles “likely to be exploited by totalitarian States for the purpose of rendering the other articles null and void.” She feared such a paragraph “would encourage governments to punish all criticism under the guise of protecting against religious or national hostility.” The UK representative claimed that “the power of democracy to combat propaganda lay . . . in the ability of its citizens to arrive at reasoned decisions in the face of conflicting appeals” and added, aimed at the Soviet representative, that Hitler’s Mein Kampf had not been banned in the UK even during World War II. He concluded that his government “would maintain and fight for its conception of liberty as resolutely as it had fought against Hitler.” Sadly, the UK would give up this stance, and under Tony Blair, it would discuss and adopt laws radically curtailing Free Speech. In the UN general assembly, Article 20 of ICCPR was adopted with votes from the Communist Eastern block along with countries with questionable human rights records like Saudi Arabia, Haiti, Sudan, and Thailand, while Western liberal democracies voted against, notably supported by countries such as Malaysia and Turkey. The bottom line is that the origin of international hate-speech criminalization in human rights law lies with a series of states where criticisms of their totalitarian governments and the propagation of democracy were criminalized.

Some important lessons can be learned from this piece of history.

One, of course, is that legislation against hate speech forms an overlooked piece of Soviet ideology.

Another, remarkably, is that such legislation can easily be misused to prohibit the expression of points of views that states more generally wish to avoid.

A third lesson is that such legislation does not remove the “hatred” that it explicitly addresses, but may even have quite the opposite effect. This paradox can be seen from the example of Yugoslavia, the theater of the most recent European genocide and a country that was a strong supporter of anti-hate speech legislation already in 1948 and that also supported the 1966 decision. Article 134 of the Yugoslav criminal code in early 1990s punished with up to ten years imprisonment the person who “incites or fans national, racial or religious hatred or discord between peoples and nationalities.” The law was scrupulously followed in Yugoslavia where a harmless ethnic joke was sufficient to provoke very serious prison punishments.

As is well know, many decades of such jurisprudence did not prevent large-scale ethnic cleansing and genocide in the early 1990s, and it is fair to ask if the Yugoslav hate speech legislation did not prevent the open discussion of interethnic issues, thereby fanning ethnic hatred rather than combating it.

http://www.telospress.com/abandon-eu-anti-hate-speech-legislationan-overlooked-soviet-heritage-the-fight-against-free-speech/

The Sordid Origin of Hate-Speech Laws

All western european countries have hate-speech laws. In 2008, the eu adopted a framework decision on “Combating Racism and Xenophobia” that obliged all member states to criminalize certain forms of hate speech. On the other side of the Atlantic, the Supreme Court of the United States has gradually increased and consolidated the protection of hate speech under the First Amendment. The European concept of freedom of expression thus prohibits certain content and viewpoints, whereas, with certain exceptions, the American concept is generally concerned solely with direct incitement likely to result in overt acts of lawlessness.

Yet the origin of hate-speech laws has been largely forgotten. The divergence between the United States and European countries is of comparatively recent origin. In fact, the United States and the vast majority of European (and Western) states were originally opposed to the internationalization of hate-speech laws. European states and the U.S. shared the view that human rights should protect rather than limit freedom of expression.

Rather, the introduction of hate-speech prohibitions into international law was championed in its heyday by the Soviet Union and allies. Their motive was readily apparent.  The communist countries sought to exploit such laws to limit free speech.

The (nonbinding) universal Declaration of Human Rights (udhr) adopted in 1948 does not include an explicit duty to prohibit hate speech. Article 19 simply secures “freedom of opinion and expression.” However, the drafting history shows that the issues of hate-speech regulation and restrictions on free speech were frequently discussed. During the negotiation of Article 19, the drafters faced the challenge of whether, and if so to what extent, freedom of expression should tolerate even intolerance.
The majority of states favored a robust protection of free speech such as that set out in a U.S. proposal (un Doc. e/cn. 4/21), which read “there shall be freedom of speech, of the press and of expression by any means whatsoever.” However, the Soviet Union continuously proposed various amendments aimed at prohibiting expressions of intolerance.

The first uk proposal on the wording of an article aimed at securing freedom of expression recognized, like the Soviet proposal, the possibility for states to limit this right, in the interests of national security, against incitement to violence and disorder and obscene publications, whereas the uk proposal expressed doubts about the possibility of including publications aimed at suppressing human rights. But the uk did recognize a danger that these words would afford a wider power for the limitation of freedom of publication than is necessary or desirable,” they found “that it would be inconsistent for a Bill of Rights whose whole object is to establish human rights and fundamental freedoms to prevent any Government, if it wished to do so, from taking steps against publications whose whole object was to destroy the rights and freedoms which it is the purpose of the Bill to establish.

The dominant force behind the attempt to adopt an obligation to restrict freedom of expression was the Soviet Union.

https://www.hoover.org/research/sordid-origin-hate-speech-laws

Da, nedopušteno ponašanje = verbalni delikt.
Tko su ti koji će odlučivati što je dopušteno, a što ne?