4 ms·
> or insults a group because of race, nationality, ethnicity, religion or conviction, sexual orientation, disability, or a comparable basis I disagree with tha
by throwawaysea 6y ago
> or insults a group because of race, nationality, ethnicity, religion or conviction, sexual orientation, disability, or a comparable basis
I disagree with that law being just. For instance, consider the Muhammad cartoons controversy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_carto...). But my main point was that the discussion of crime involving immigrants is a common topic in Finland, and that it is not a frivolous discussion to hold given the crime statistics. Disallowing discussions from individuals or advertisers or politicians on this topic would be an act of censorship and would be undesirable.
- Barrin92 6y agoThen what exactly is the problem? You can discuss crime statistics all you want, you just can't be virulently racist. This isn't a major issue to distinguish in the actual world and it's been a social norm for decades. And if something's controversial and right on the line then that itself is discussed and resolved and that's it, that's how norms are developed.