NationStates Jolt Archive

If we want to teach kids the values of free speech/thought, diversity and self-determined opinions, how far do we allow them to drift into ideologies opposing those very ideas?

[now that we have the short mouse-over text done, allow me to explain in more detail; skip if needed]

This question stems from a practical situation; I'm at university training to become a teacher for Social Sciences in Germany (grades 5-13), and in my "Didactics for Political education" classes we are currently facing the following dilemma:

On the one hand, the Beutelsbacher Konsens (http://www.lpb-bw.de/beutelsbacher_konsens.php) and all that is good and holy in this field teach us that we must have our teaching guided by the principles of presenting controversy and diverging opinions on every subject we teach, and not allowing a single idea to override any other by default.
We are furthermore instructed to then provide the students with a selection of criteria with which they are to evaluate any (political) suggestion/idea (mostly in terms of efficiency and legitimacy). The concept is that we the teachers do not put our own limits on which ideas will be discussed in class, but rather accept and work with the students' input, while also insuring by categorical application of the criteria that there's not mere 'opinions', but only rationally founded arguments at the end.

We do all this with the main goal that our students be raised as critical, active citizens who have all the cognitve and evaluative tools to function effectively and further their own best interest in a democratic society. We want to instill in them the values of free speech and thought, and of a democratic society they can do their part to shape.

On the other hand, said democratic society's values and restrictions also give us, the teachers, the instruction to "put the limit wherever human rights and the FDGO (freiheitlich-demokratische Grundordnung, which I'll loosely translate as "most basic democratic and freedom-oriented principles"; a concept that is supposed to be the foundation of our society and that e.g. people applying for citizenship have to pledge to) are violated". In other words, our quest for free speech and democratic values allegedly does not permit us to allow discussion questioning these principles.

This is exactly where we have a clear split down the age and profession line; our professors and othe rinstructors are all for this line, while every student I have been in seminars with so far has been for allowing this discussion in the classroom, always with the idea in mind that with sufficient preparation, we'll be able to counter any 'argument' going against those values, and that we need to allow it in order to not make our FDGO appear 'too weak to be allowed to be discussed critically".


So, what do the people of NSG say: Prohibit anti-democratic and anti-humanity speech in the classroom, or allow it for the sake of not being a hypocrite when it comes to teaching the values of free speech and own opinions?


A completely non-biased poll will be up shortly.

I say let 'em discuss anti-democratic and anti-humanity things, it's all a part of free speech. As much as I do not agree, and to a certain extent, disgusted, by these things, let us not be hypocritical and muzzle these opinions.

IMHO, letting them discuss these things would expose the students to the fact that these ideas do exist; and would also grant them the opportunity to critique and examine them, and also find its flaws. So that when they find these ideas being expressed outside the classroom, they know how to contradict these anti-democratic and anti-humanity opinions; and also, they won't be drawn to these opinions later because it had been already discussed in the classroom. If they would be exposed to it outside, chances are they could be more attracted to it than when it was discussed in the classroom where different sides are presented. And I think I do not make sense anymore. :confused:

Yay for the squirrels (Yeah, its misspelled)

So, what do the people of NSG say: Prohibit anti-democratic and anti-humanity speech in the classroom, or allow it for the sake of not being a hypocrite when it comes to teaching the values of free speech and own opinions?
What do you mean "allow it for the sake of not being a hypocrite"? Allow it because it is absolutely vital that society actively encourages the resolution of tensions rather than resorting to censorship and segregation.

If these ideas are repressed, they will ferment and remain in the subconscious of the pupils who have them without being appropriately challenged. People will splinter off into groups with whom these ideas have some weight, they will stand up in violent opposition rather than engaging in discourse and thus is sectarianism born.

I say let 'em discuss anti-democratic and anti-humanity things, it's all a part of free speech. As much as I do not agree, and to a certain extent, disgusted, by these things, let us not be hypocritical and muzzle these opinions.

IMHO, letting them discuss these things would expose the students to the fact that these ideas do exist; and would also grant them the opportunity to critique and examine them, and also find its flaws. So that when they find these ideas being expressed outside the classroom, they know how to contradict these anti-democratic and anti-humanity opinions; and also, they won't be drawn to these opinions later because it had been already discussed in the classroom. If they would be exposed to it outside, chances are they could be more attracted to it than when it was discussed in the classroom where different sides are presented. And I think I do not make sense anymore. :confused:

I'm with you on that one. But in order to keep it, uh, 'controversial and many-sided' (yes, our teachers' manual basicalyl asks as to play Devil's Advocate), I'd have to say that

a) We are state employees, bound by oath to the constitution and have special duties due to that special contract, one of which is to follow and ensure faith to the constitution and its values

b)A 'moral obligation' to not let such utterance sstand as discussion-worthy equals next to the other ideas conforming to the constitution

c) We are supposed to raise them as "good citizens", polemically speaking, and our constitution forbids anti-constitutional speech (in public) when the FDGO and human rights are concerned.

Yay for the squirrels (Yeah, its misspelled)

There was, ironically, no misspelling that I can see until you got to the "its" part.

What do you mean "allow it for the sake of not being a hypocrite"? Allow it because it is absolutely vital that society actively encourages the resolution of tensions rather than resorting to censorship and segregation.
I used the word 'hypocrite' because one of the main values we try to teach is "free speech" and "right to own opinion", but the means we try and reach that teaching goal with is restricting certai speech acts and opinions, i.e. the ones that go against our basic democratic principles.

If these ideas are repressed, they will ferment and remain in the subconscious of the pupils who have them without being appropriately challenged. People will splinter off into groups with whom these ideas have some weight, they will stand up in violent opposition rather than engaging in discourse and thus is sectarianism born.

Again, I agree. See the post above this one.

I voted No.
I voted for free free speech
The only exceptions I can think of are..

# the right to insult NOT
# the right to expose Children to some materials NOT (-In My Book©- children are 13> )

b)A 'moral obligation' to not let such utterance sstand as discussion-worthy equals next to the other ideas conforming to the constitution
I don't really get why such an obligation should exist. Well, if this matter won't be discussed in the classroom, it would surely be discussed somewhere else. And remember, there are people out there who think these ideas are more worthy of the constitution's ideals... so it's better that they discuss it under your guidance. The discussion of a topic doesn't mean it is being legitimized...

c) We are supposed to raise them as "good citizens", polemically speaking, and our constitution forbids anti-constitutional speech (in public) when the FDGO and human rights are concerned.
For me, "good citizens" are ones that can think and decide when presented with different sides of an issue. They would know what is accepted as right, and knows why... If they are just exposed to one side, they ain't makin' a good, informed decision and may become more prone to accepting new ideas from biased sources.

And I'm surprised that Germany prohibits anti-constitutional speech? (Does that include criticizing the constitution?). Ah, I'm glad I'm in a country where I can say that Article Seven of our Constitution sucks.

I am pleased to see that the squirrels are winning...

Ich vermisse Dich obwohl ich bei Dir bin. Ich vermisse Dich, ich will zu Dir hin...

a) We are state employees, bound by oath to the constitution and have special duties due to that special contract, one of which is to follow and ensure faith to the constitution and its values
In my view, a well-intentioned heretic is preferred to the devout oppressor. I would rather be taught and guided by someone who was interested in making things better than someone who was obliged to maintain the status quo. The point is that if you stick rigidly to the constitution, the problems in the constitution will never be addressed, whereas people benefit when discussion of said system is held outside of its own restrictions.

b)A 'moral obligation' to not let such utterances stand as discussion-worthy-equals next to the other ideas conforming to the constitution
As above, but even more so. Yes, oppose ideas you disagree with, using the advances of your own learning to explain why you disagree, and obviously shoot down those who would try to disrupt those who do want to learn, but don't just shut people up because they make a point that seems morally dubious to you. If it's relevant, it's only fair to give an open and thought-through response. If you have no response, then maybe the student has a point?

c) We are supposed to raise them as "good citizens", polemically speaking, and our constitution forbids anti-constitutional speech (in public) when the FDGO and human rights are concerned.
A "Good citizen" is not someone who will sit back and not ask questions of their state. A Good citizen thinks about what is good for the people as a whole and is unafraid to bear the consequences of sharing and acting on these thoughts if he feels the state to be ignoring his interests, regardless of what the constitution says about it.

I read the OP twice before voting, but I still don't fully understand the question.

Why didn't I pick the squirrels!?

I certainly would value the free discussion of absolutely any topic whatsoever in class.
In order to protect the freiheitlich-demokratische Grundordnung, you need to be equipped to defend it, I think. It's no good treating it like a holy cow and everlasting truth.

As an anti-democrat (but a believer in human rights), I chose the 'no' option. I think that if your constitution is truly correct, then you should be able to defend it through reason. If you can't, then it's not worth supporting.

"The right to swing your fist stops at my nose."

That's how far a single person's rights extend.

Teachers should allow free speech. But when a person's remarks become harmful, then it is not truly free speech. Espousing an ideology is fine. Advocating specific and identifiable actions to cause or intend to cause harm is not similar, as it is wrong and goes beyond the limits of free speech.

Why didn't I pick the squirrels!?

Foolishness. ;)

"The right to swing your fist stops at my nose."
"Only if the right to put your nose wherever you like stops at my fist."

This's why your argument doesn't apply to speech. Refusing someone the right to say what they like on the grounds of offense or incitation to harm means that the taking of offense or the accusation of intent becomes a limiting factor. The thing is that that can be arbitrarily reassigned. Someone could take offense or hold someone to be inciting action for more or less any statement they like. So the restriction of rights institutionally would be bound to this totally arbitrary result. And you certainly can't limit this effect by denying a person's right to find something offensive, because no rights directly stemmed from the human psyche can be denied.

I voted No.
I voted for free free speech
The only exceptions I can think of are..

# the right to insult NOT
# the right to expose Children to some materials NOT (-In My Book©- children are 13> )

But where do 'insults' start? Does it count as an insult when I say that I believe women to not be fit for the vote?

And I'm surprised that Germany prohibits anti-constitutional speech? (Does that include criticizing the constitution?). Ah, I'm glad I'm in a country where I can say that Article Seven of our Constitution sucks.

If you're talking about the USA (sorry, forgot to check), then well, you aren't allowed "hate speech" either, no? Thing is that 'basic human rights' are a part of our constitution, and your right to free speech ends when you try to fight our FDGO, which is .. somewhat unspecific. It's not that you may not say you're against one part of the constitution or another, but you may not say you reject the underlying democratic principle and/or the ide of human rights and dignity.

Ich vermisse Dich obwohl ich bei Dir bin. Ich vermisse Dich, ich will zu Dir hin...

Dann komm halt her.

I read the OP twice before voting, but I still don't fully understand the question.

Why didn't I pick the squirrels!?

Reading it twice? I expected quite a series of tl;dr; this is quite a nice surprise ;P

Teachers should allow free speech. But when a person's remarks become harmful, then it is not truly free speech. Espousing an ideology is fine. Advocating specific and identifiable actions to cause or intend to cause harm is not similar, as it is wrong and goes beyond the limits of free speech.

Well, but what is 'harm'? Isn't it harmful to many a person when I advocate taxing the richer people up to 50% of their income to support others? Why exactly is it more harmful when I say that, say, the lowest 10%, income-wise, do not get to vote? What if I want to install a benevolent dictator who's not harming anyone physically?

Dann komm halt her.

Gib mir noch Zeit, ein kleines bißchen nur. Heute Nacht bin ich so weit.

I agree, no anti-democratic, anti-populace reactionary thought in our classrooms, that means banning capitalistic and other fascist ideologies and only teaching Marxism-Leninism.

If you're talking about the USA (sorry, forgot to check), then well, you aren't allowed "hate speech" either, no? Thing is that 'basic human rights' are a part of our constitution, and your right to free speech ends when you try to fight our FDGO, which is .. somewhat unspecific. It's not that you may not say you're against one part of the constitution or another, but you may not say you reject the underlying democratic principle and/or the ide of human rights and dignity.
me=not american ;)

AFAIK, in America, it depends on the context. If you just say "X must die", it depends on the context. It is different when done wielding an axe on X's doorstep with lots of your axe-wielding followers; than when it is done with a humorous giggle.

Er, precisely. Discussing those ideas does not constitute a rejection of the underlying democratic principle and/or the ide of human rights and dignity. You would know if an individual is rejecting it, and you would know it during the discussions, during which you can address it.

Reading it twice? I expected quite a series of tl;dr; this is quite a nice surprise ;P
What's tl;dr;? "too long, didn't read"?

Addendum to the OP: I've just had an interesting conversation with my flatmate about this (he saw me type), and he's of the opinion that in the classroom, every single idea, especially the anti-democratic ones, should be discussed (so as to be able to counter them in a safe environment), but at the same time, he's very much opposed to allowing such ideas to be spoken out loud any other place, i.e. he's all for very restrictive hate speech / anti-democratic speech laws.

Go figure.

Anyhow, how do those who've already voiced their opinion on the classroom situation feel about the same ideas being announced and spread outside the classroom?

Yay for the squirrels (Yeah, its misspelled)

Actually, it's not.

me=not american ;)
But...?

Er, precisely. Discussing those ideas does not constitute a rejection of the underlying democratic principle and/or the ide of human rights and dignity. You would know if an individual is rejecting it, and you would know it during the discussions, during which you can address it.
I believe the problem isn't only that discussion it were perceived as rejecting those principles; I think a major part is that as a 'state's servant' we are under a special obligation to not allow any 'crimes' to happen under our supervision, and as said before, such utterings can be construed as a crime so we cannot let them happen.

What's tl;dr;? "too long, didn't read"?

Exactly.

I agree, no anti-democratic, anti-populace reactionary thought in our classrooms, that means banning capitalistic and other fascist ideologies and only teaching Marxism-Leninism.

Yes, God forbid people formulate views contrary to your own.

Addendum to the OP: I've just had an interesting conversation with my flatmate about this (he saw me type), and he's of the opinion that in the classroom, every single idea, especially the anti-democratic ones, should be discussed (so as to be able to counter them in a safe environment), but at the same time, he's very much opposed to allowing such ideas to be spoken out loud any other place, i.e. he's all for very restrictive hate speech / anti-democratic speech laws.

Go figure.

Anyhow, how do those who've already voiced their opinion on the classroom situation feel about the same ideas being announced and spread outside the classroom?

Yes, people should be able to say their piece outside of the classroom if it is on public property; people should be able to use this type property as they please. The only thing you should be able to do against it is to argue against it.

Also, I am opposed to majoritarian democracy. Out of curiousity, would I be punished for espousing these views in public in Germany?

Yes, people should be able to say their piece outside of the classroom if it is on public property; people should be able to use this type property as they please. The only thing you should be able to do against it is to argue against it.
Were you trying to say private property there? This way, it makes no sense to me. But assuming that - how far does that argument go? You're basically pleading for a lawlessness of the private property, therefore, it should also be OK to, say, kill someone as long as it's on your own property - you should be able to use it as you wish, no?


Also, I am opposed to majoritarian democracy. Out of curiousity, would I be punished for espousing these views in public in Germany?

Umm.. I have no very clear idea of what you mean by "opposed to majoritarian democracy", so I cannot even begin to guess at the answer.

But...?
I'm not American.

I believe the problem isn't only that discussion it were perceived as rejecting those principles; I think a major part is that as a 'state's servant' we are under a special obligation to not allow any 'crimes' to happen under our supervision, and as said before, such utterings can be construed as a crime so we cannot let them happen.
Is there any precedent that would say that discussing anti-democracy opinions are a crime? If there is, then you have to comply and not discuss them. Which is kinda sad... stifling free thinking...

Exactly.
Finally figured that out after a long long time...

Addendum to the OP: I've just had an interesting conversation with my flatmate about this (he saw me type), and he's of the opinion that in the classroom, every single idea, especially the anti-democratic ones, should be discussed (so as to be able to counter them in a safe environment), but at the same time, he's very much opposed to allowing such ideas to be spoken out loud any other place, i.e. he's all for very restrictive hate speech / anti-democratic speech laws.
All the more that we must discuss it in the classroom. He's right, in both ways, the key here is that once you had already discussed (and refuted, hopefully) the idea inside the classroom, the lesser the chances of the students actually believing and expressing those horrendous viewpoints outside the classroom. Add to that the benefit that they can counter anyone who expresses this ideas outside the classroom.

Free speech is important, but kids need to know that it doesn't automatically supersede other laws -- you can't, for example, lie under oath.

I'm not American.
Yeah, I got that. I asked what you are, then.


Is there any precedent that would say that discussing anti-democracy opinions are a crime? If there is, then you have to comply and not discuss them. Which is kinda sad... stifling free thinking...
Per se, as long as you don't do it "publicly", not as far as I know; I'm not sure (yet) what kind of legal status the recommendations in the teacher manual have.

Yeah, I got that. I asked what you are, then.
Filipino. ;)

(sorry, didn't get that... too dense... heehee...)

Per se, as long as you don't do it "publicly", not as far as I know; I'm not sure (yet) what kind of legal status the recommendations in the teacher manual have.
If discussing it publicly would be a crime (there is a legal precedent and/or a law/decree/order/etc.), and/or you want to go on the safe side of the law, then don't discuss it. If that is the case, then, ironically, this same "FDGO" is being violated.

But I'd fight to have it discussed. Because with discussion of these undemocratic ideas would lead to a better appreciation and understanding of the democratic principles, aside from the benefits we've talked about earlier...

Filipino. ;)

(sorry, didn't get that... too dense... heehee...)
Great. Thanks.


If discussing it publicly would be a crime (there is a legal precedent and/or a law/decree/order/etc.), and/or you want to go on the safe side of the law, then don't discuss it. If that is the case, then, ironically, this same "FDGO" is being violated.

I'm sorry, I don't want to create misunderstandings here - it's not per se the 'discussing' part that would be the problem; it's the 'publicly voicing a desire to fight the FDGO', so I guess a mere giving of arguments why you think something that goes against the FDGO including anti-democratic or inhuman is superb in your view does not fall under that prohibition unless you also actively call for a fight against it.

Great. Thanks.
Walang anuman. :)

I'm sorry, I don't want to create misunderstandings here - it's not per se the 'discussing' part that would be the problem; it's the 'publicly voicing a desire to fight the FDGO', so I guess a mere giving of arguments why you think something that goes against the FDGO including anti-democratic or inhuman is superb in your view does not fall under that prohibition unless you also actively call for a fight against it.
Er, I am beginning to be distracted by the smell of food... well anyway, maybe we can put it in a spectrum:

1 mentioning the idea
2 discussing the idea
3 agreeing to the idea
4 wanting to fight for the idea
5 taking actions to fight for the idea

Now, for the main OP question, I'd think we'd just have to allow them to go up #2. #2 is the most acceptable for me. #1 merely mentions that the idea exists, but it is more dangerous as you introduced something that you did not explain properly. #3, when you see this, you should refute it and try to have him/her disagree. #4,5 is what I think is illegal... and I think I don't make sense again...

Were you trying to say private property there? This way, it makes no sense to me. But assuming that - how far does that argument go? You're basically pleading for a lawlessness of the private property, therefore, it should also be OK to, say, kill someone as long as it's on your own property - you should be able to use it as you wish, no?

I'm saying that if you are on public property, you should be able to do whatever you want with it, including voice unpopular opinions. I don't see what's so confusing.

Umm.. I have no very clear idea of what you mean by "opposed to majoritarian democracy", so I cannot even begin to guess at the answer.

I think that popular elections are invalid and I don't believe that laws made by legislatures have moral power, i.e. that one is obliged to follow them. I also prefer monarchies over egalitarian democracies (though both have unforgiveable problems.) Would I be punished for this?

So, what do the people of NSG say: Prohibit anti-democratic and anti-humanity speech in the classroom, or allow it for the sake of not being a hypocrite when it comes to teaching the values of free speech and own opinions?

A completely non-biased poll will be up shortly.

I'd say this is a false dichotomy. You'd be doing your students a disservice if competing ideas to the notion of liberal democracy aren't discussed (Let's forget the obvious spectre of support for Nazism in your case; how the deuce would you discuss Plato's Republic, for instance, or Heinlein's Starship Troopers?), but discussion of is not tantamount to agreement with.

If you have an obligation to ultimately uphold liberal democracy, then the obvious solutions are 1) never to allow a discussion of "What does Nietzsche say" into a discussion of "Nietzsche is right because. . .", and 2), if by some chance this happens anyway, then you lead the class into a discussion of the underlying flaws of Nietzsche's premise in ways that make liberal democracy look comparatively better, such as the fact that Nietzsche's overman isn't really a viable critique of political society because such a man would be such a god as to have no need for civil society, to use Aristotle's phrasing. Insofar as we don't ever meet any men who fit that requirement, it's an empty set that applies to no one, ergo, status quo ought to be observed. Something like that. It really isn't too hard.

Er, I am beginning to be distracted by the smell of food... well anyway, maybe we can put it in a spectrum:

1 mentioning the idea
2 discussing the idea
3 agreeing to the idea
4 wanting to fight for the idea
5 taking actions to fight for the idea

I think that's a nice categorization you made there :)

Now, for the main OP question, I'd think we'd just have to allow them to go up #2. #2 is the most acceptable for me. #1 merely mentions that the idea exists, but it is more dangerous as you introduced something that you did not explain properly. #3, when you see this, you should refute it and try to have him/her disagree. #4,5 is what I think is illegal...

Fair enough.

I'm saying that if you are on public property, you should be able to do whatever you want with it, including voice unpopular opinions. I don't see what's so confusing.

We appear to have different conceps of 'public property'. In my little world, 'public property' is something that belongs to the representation of the 'public'/community, i.e. usually the municipy/state/.. , and you are therefore very much bound to what that owner asks you to do, which is usually also to adhere to the common laws regarding (free) speech etc.


I think that popular elections are invalid and I don't believe that laws made by legislatures have moral power, i.e. that one is obliged to follow them. I also prefer monarchies over egalitarian democracies (though both have unforgiveable problems.) Would I be punished for this?

In this country, you do not get punished by law for thinking anything, and not for saying it in a private setting, either; problems only arise when you say/publish it publicly. I'm no expert on the FDGO, but I could imagine that validity of (some sort of) popular elections is part of it, and therefore if you were to publicly call for the fight to abolish popular election, that could get you into legal trouble.

\We appear to have different conceps of 'public property'. In my little world, 'public property' is something that belongs to the representation of the 'public'/community, i.e. usually the municipy/state/.. , and you are therefore very much bound to what that owner asks you to do, which is usually also to adhere to the common laws regarding (free) speech etc.

Oh, I'm not saying that those are the laws. I'm saying that (in my philosophy) one doesn't have to obey a public owner, since I don't believe in the moral power of legislation.

In this country, you do not get punished by law for thinking anything, and not for saying it in a private setting, either; problems only arise when you say/publish it publicly. I'm no expert on the FDGO, but I could imagine that validity of (some sort of) popular elections is part of it, and therefore if you were to publicly call for the fight to abolish popular election, that could get you into legal trouble.

Well, I guess I'll just have to find out first-hand, won't I?

Edit: If I were to publicly call for re-instating the Kaiser, is there any more certainty that I would get in trouble?

I'd say this is a false dichotomy. -snip-

Thi is not (mainly, and as I presented it here) about what kind of discussion I as a teacher initiate, but about what kind of utterances I allow from the students. To make it all too concrete: If we discuss the voting system in our country and plannedly talk about, say, our current one, the USAian electoral college one, some other alternatives hat don't readily become formulated at 2 am etc. and then someone pipes up and says they are in favor of a voting system that only allows non-Jewish people of 'pure-German' descent to vote in the first place. The practical question now is whether to allow such an anti-FDGO input to be a part of the pool of ideas to be further discussed, or whether I'm to say "This is anti-FDGO and therefore out of limits for discussion"?

I think that's a nice categorization you made there :)

Thanks... so the smell of food makes me think better...
*brings over a plate of cupcakes* enjoy. ;)

Thi is not (mainly, and as I presented it here) about what kind of discussion I as a teacher initiate, but about what kind of utterances I allow from the students. To make it all too concrete: If we discuss the voting system in our country and plannedly talk about, say, our current one, the USAian electoral college one, some other alternatives hat don't readily become formulated at 2 am etc. and then someone pipes up and says they are in favor of a voting system that only allows non-Jewish people of 'pure-German' descent to vote in the first place. The practical question now is whether to allow such an anti-FDGO input to be a part of the pool of ideas to be further discussed, or whether I'm to say "This is anti-FDGO and therefore out of limits for discussion"?

Then I'd say the second condition mentioned above applies. You allow it in the context of asking what "pure German stock" even is, cite the fact that since most people who put such a system in practice found German lines hopelessly muddled (that was, as I understand it, a reason behind controlling Norway in WWII was access to purer Aryan stock), it either cannot work or it in practice means Norwegians voting for German domestic policy, question the relevance of birth to voting rights, etc. The point is that good teachers allow, in some cases even encourage ideas that are completely antithetical to notions they already entertain or in your case (unfortunate I might add, but given your nation's history understandable) are compelled to support, without necessarily allowing those ideas any legitemacy.

It should also be noted that I'm not answering in context of how German courts interpret the statute, only my ideal view of how they should be interpreted. None of what I'm saying will do you much good if a German judge finds you in violation of the statute.

Filipino. ;)

Saan ka nakatira?

Saan ka nakatira?
Manila. You a Filipino too? (BTW, I had never came across a Filipino here in NSG... yet)

Manila. You a Filipino too? (BTW, I had never came across a Filipino here in NSG... yet)

(No, but I speak the language a bit and I have a g.f. who lives in Mandaue City.)

(No, but I speak the language a bit and I have a g.f. who lives in Mandaue City.)
Oooh... ;) You also learnin' Cebuano? But I ain't knowledgeable in that, I'm a pure-bred Tagalog. Feel free to ask me should you need help in things related to my country. :)

Oooh... ;) You also learnin' Cebuano? But I ain't knowledgeable in that, I'm a pure-bred Tagalog. Feel free to ask me should you need help in things related to my country. :)

{OOC: No, I just know Tagalog. Check your TGs, please. ;)}

Thanks... so the smell of food makes me think better...
*brings over a plate of cupcakes* enjoy. ;)

W00t! Thanks. :) *munches away*

Well, I guess I'll just have to find out first-hand, won't I?

Umm. Tell me if you do.

Edit: If I were to publicly call for re-instating the Kaiser, is there any more certainty that I would get in trouble?
That'd depend on what you consider "re-instating the Kaiser". If that includes fighting against the system of representative democracy in order to replace it with a Kaiser as sole instance of power-wielding, then a public advocacy for that will probably get you into legal trouble. If, on the other hand, you were to ask for a GB-like situation, you'd probably be well within the limits, as that'd not right-out reject the democratic idea.


It should also be noted that I'm not answering in context of how German courts interpret the statute, only my ideal view of how they should be interpreted. None of what I'm saying will do you much good if a German judge finds you in violation of the statute.

"But Your Honour, I was only acting on the advice of this fellow on NSG, which, by the by, is an awesome place; anyhow, this guy's name is Xenophobialand and he said I oughta do it this way, so all's cool, no?"

OF COURSE they should be allowed to express their antidemocratic views, as you yourself pointed out you shouldn't make the freedom-oriented principles look "too weak to be allowed to be discussed critically"; to try to suppress beliefs criticizing freedom contradicts freedom to begin with; after all, to say something like "accept freedom or shut up" is NOT what freedom is about.

If they don't express their ideas, how can their ideas be rebutalled? The problem wouldn't be that they say these things but that they think these things to begin with, and sometimes them saying these things can indirectly help them to not think them to the same extent after they get rebutalled.

Filipino. ;)

Shouldn't you be Pilipino then? ;)

"The right to swing your fist stops at my nose."

That's how far a single person's rights extend.

Teachers should allow free speech. But when a person's remarks become harmful, then it is not truly free speech. Espousing an ideology is fine. Advocating specific and identifiable actions to cause or intend to cause harm is not similar, as it is wrong and goes beyond the limits of free speech.
And just how, are you suggesting, are the remarks themselves harmful?

And just how, are you suggesting, are the remarks themselves harmful?

What remarks? My argument is that truly harmful speech is not protected as free speech. I've identified that there is a difference between espousing a generic ideology and advocating a specific action, and this is where the line is drawn. I haven't actually witnessed firsthand what the remarks in the OP are, I'm just responding to the basic question by stating that we can not have absolute free speech or restrictions of all objectionable material. Don't think I'm speaking about things I'm not talking about.

Utter bollocks. Why bother "encouraging discussion in the classroom" if it is a discussion that is only allowed to borach subjects and make conclusions that are deemed sufficiently moderate?

Shouldn't you be Pilipino then? ;)
That's what we call ourselves in Filipino (the language) and Tagalog. In English, I think "Filipino" is used both for the language and the people, much like English uses "Hungarian" for both the language and the people... I think... ;)
[/threadjack]