31 Dec 14, 05:19PM
So far your "excellents arguments" only consist in a false affirmation regarding the law restricting the freedom of speech in different countries and bragging about a good mark.
From a purely legal point of view the best option is to ban. Its the easiest argument we can give. And we do not need to give further explanations.
So, what are you trying to do ? Are you trying to debate the legislation in the concerned countries ? Do you think it is the appropriate place to do it ? Do you think this guy is trying to express something interesting ? If he is trolling, why should we let him troll and assume there is a political message behind his acts ?
We are not fighting discriminations by banning players. You are discussing something there is no point to debate on here. This thread is about banning a trouble maker. It is a fact : we kept receiving complaints, people are offended. The simplest option is to ban. That's all.
Now, you might think there is no good censorship. It is a more and more common opinion. Ideally we could believe that in order to fight discriminations it is better to let xenophobic thoughts (for example) be expressed so as to fight them with rational arguments. This reasoning is a bit naive and has two main downsides :
1) it means that every opinion has the same value, so everything is worth being debated. I think this is incompatible with the existence of consensus and the very concept of State. Sometimes, for example, a political party can be incompatible with the constitution itself.
2) at the end it makes discriminations look more ordinary and it might actually increase them. also, a society focused on discriminations is not focused on something else. In France, for example, the extreme right wing movements have been depicted more and more as ordinary political movements for the past decade (while they clearly are not, considering how violent they are). As a result, we are now wasting time discussing religions, sexuality, immigration etc. instead of discussing what really matters. The extremism is also rising. The society is probably more divided and violent than it was 20 years ago.
So, if you are coherent, and if you suggest the Nazism should be treated as other political movements, you have to be anarchist or instead to accept that your country moral and values might change and promote Nazism (for example) some day.
From a purely legal point of view the best option is to ban. Its the easiest argument we can give. And we do not need to give further explanations.
So, what are you trying to do ? Are you trying to debate the legislation in the concerned countries ? Do you think it is the appropriate place to do it ? Do you think this guy is trying to express something interesting ? If he is trolling, why should we let him troll and assume there is a political message behind his acts ?
We are not fighting discriminations by banning players. You are discussing something there is no point to debate on here. This thread is about banning a trouble maker. It is a fact : we kept receiving complaints, people are offended. The simplest option is to ban. That's all.
Now, you might think there is no good censorship. It is a more and more common opinion. Ideally we could believe that in order to fight discriminations it is better to let xenophobic thoughts (for example) be expressed so as to fight them with rational arguments. This reasoning is a bit naive and has two main downsides :
1) it means that every opinion has the same value, so everything is worth being debated. I think this is incompatible with the existence of consensus and the very concept of State. Sometimes, for example, a political party can be incompatible with the constitution itself.
2) at the end it makes discriminations look more ordinary and it might actually increase them. also, a society focused on discriminations is not focused on something else. In France, for example, the extreme right wing movements have been depicted more and more as ordinary political movements for the past decade (while they clearly are not, considering how violent they are). As a result, we are now wasting time discussing religions, sexuality, immigration etc. instead of discussing what really matters. The extremism is also rising. The society is probably more divided and violent than it was 20 years ago.
So, if you are coherent, and if you suggest the Nazism should be treated as other political movements, you have to be anarchist or instead to accept that your country moral and values might change and promote Nazism (for example) some day.