]Wrong.

Our freedom of speech does not extend to hate speech. Not much to be done about it, since our Supreme Court has upheld the notion that hate speech is not protected.

Show me where Fons is guilty of any of these things?

We've labelled him a Neo-****. I don't believe he's applied the label to himself. I'd call him an ultraconservative nationalist. He'd be as at home in Arizona as he's apparently at home in Russia.

Show me where Fons is guilty of any of these things?

We've labelled him a Neo-****. I don't believe he's applied the label to himself. I'd call him an ultraconservative nationalist. He'd be as at home in Arizona as he's apparently at home in Russia. He's definitely a racist though. Repugnant, yes, criminal, no.

I'm asking your personal opinion, what with you defending Fon Revedhort's hate speech and all.

So, now you're assuming Fons is a murderous criminal?

Yes he has applied the label to himself. Listen to that podcast. And he does not deny it when confronted by the interviewer.


edit: one thing is for sure, we will remember your stance on this.

Was it really worth it going down in EVE history in this manner ??

Maybe some of you should take a step back as frankly I am not seeing much difference between the neo-**** who would abolish peoples human rights and the neo-**** haters that would abolish peoples human rights.

I do find it rather strange that people are arguing that this person should not be allowed basic human rights because he believes differently to others. While one of his beliefs is the removal of those rights from others.

I do find it rather strange that people are arguing that this person should not be allowed basic human rights because he believes differently to others. While one of his beliefs is the removal of those rights from others.

Maybe some of you should take a step back as frankly I am not seeing much difference between the neo-**** who would abolish peoples human rights and the neo-**** haters that would abolish peoples human rights.

My thought is that it was WRONG.

Sounds like you need to re-read what the Human Rights actually ARE
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

Please pay specific attention to article 30 and get back to us.
Thanks.

When was it that running for CSM became a basic human right?

Maybe some of you should take a step back as frankly I am not seeing much difference between the neo-**** who would abolish peoples human rights and the neo-**** haters that would abolish peoples human rights.

Sounds like you need to re-read what the Human Rights actually ARE
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

Please pay specific attention to article 30 and get back to us.
Thanks.

After all, people who murder ethnic minorities and people who dont are just as bad as each other, am I right/

I sure am glad that people want us to not presume that the guy who claims to be a neo **** is a neo **** until he's had a proper trial in SPACE COURT

That what was wrong? Please be specific, this is going to be one of those enlightening moments I think.

No you accused him of committing horrible crimes, not that he is not a neo-****.

If you cannot see that that is exactly guilt by political association, you will never see that your opinion is not much different to his.

You need to be specific. The trials of Ernst Zundel happened in the 1980s. All I recall is that he wrote a bunch of anti-Jewish, anti-Holocaust literature. I do not recall him engaging in any violent behaviour.

I'm not calling him a neo-**** by association. I'm taking his word for it.

6.A.5.)
You may not submit any content to any chat room or other public forum within the Game that is harassing, abusive, threatening, harmful, obscene, libelous or defamatory, encourages conduct that could constitute a criminal offense or give rise to civil liabilities, or is unlawful in any other way, including without limitation the submission of content that infringes on a third-partyGÇÖs intellectual property rights.


10.)
[...]User Content that you cause to be communicated to the System may not (i) violate any statute, rule, regulation or law; (ii) infringe or violate the intellectual property, proprietary, privacy or publicity rights of any third party; (iii) be defamatory, indecent, obscene, child pornographic or harmful to minors; or (iv) contain any viruses, Trojan horses, disabling code, worms, time bombs, "clear GIFs," cancelbots or other computer programming or routines that are intended to, or which in fact, damage, detrimentally interfere with, monitor, intercept or expropriate any data, information, packets or personal information.[...]


16.)
[...]The EULA, and the rights and obligations of the parties hereto, shall be governed and construed by and in accordance with the laws of the Republic of Iceland. The EULA shall not be governed by the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods.[...]

2.
You may not use any abusive, defamatory, ethnically or racially offensive, harassing, harmful, hateful, obscene, offensive, sexually explicit, threatening or vulgar language. (Alternate spelling or partial masking of such words will be reprimanded in the same manner as the actual use of such words.)


3.
You may not organize nor be a member of any corporation or group within EVE Online that is based on or advocates any anti-ethnic, anti-gay, anti-religious, racist, sexist or other hate-mongering philosophies


4.
You may not use GÇ£role-playingGÇ¥ as an excuse to violate these rules.

It is more your stance that is in breach of article 30 than his.

You know that game called Simon Says? I used to play it as a kid, in my English classes and I really enjoyed it. So now let's play EULA Says and ToS Says:

EULA Says:




ToS Says:



So all we are asking from CCP regarding this case with Fon is that CCP enforces the rules they created themselves.

Ahem, article 30 is about saying that your words/actions cannot infringe the basic human rights of others (ie. the ones you also listed). This means that Fon's stances DO infringe on the basic human rights of others. This puts him in direct violation of universal human rights. According to article 30 he is forfeiting his other human rights as they are in direct confrontation with article 30.

His stances also violate article 13 (ie. immigrants) etc.

You cannot hold the moral high-ground of Human Rights if you do not understand its core concepts.

But a movement to remove his rights because of his right to freedom of expression is.

The last time I checked, hate-speech and racism did not fall under "freedom of expression", hate-speech and racism falls under article 30 and get tossed as not being a "right". So no, he does not have a "right" to racism and hate-speech according to universal human rights.

Am I wrong?

Funny, you didn't need specificity when you said "My thought is that it was WRONG.". Why now?

Because I'm sensing a trap. :) So, ask specifically what you want to ask. I'm no Ernst Zundel expert.