For about 400 years most of today's Austria was part of the Roman Empire. So it's the other way round. Noricum (a celtic kingdom - roughly Austria) was incorporated into the Roman Empire in 16 BC and supplied Roman Armies with weaponry (Noric Steel). Apart of that 'detail' I think your point stands.

At least they could have looked up the wikipedia entry on email. More trustable than a random claim or news article.

'nuff said.

I actually enjoyed

Seriously, is SOCA known for taking down sites? On there website they have

It kinda sounds fishy to me.. Anyway now they're collecting tons of IP-addresses of Slashdotters who can't resist to click on links.

"One who believes as I do, that free intellect is the chief engine of human progress, cannot but be fundamentally opposed to Bolshevism as much as to the Church of Rome. The hopes which inspire communism are, in the main, as admirable as those instilled by the Sermon on the Mount, but they are held as fanatically and are as likely to do as much harm."

Bertrand Russel, The Practice and Theory of Bolshevism (1920)

"One strength of the communist system of the East is that it has some of the character of a religion and inspires the emotions of a religion. Unless the concept of peace based on law gathers behind it the force and zeal of a religion, it can hardly hope to succeed."

Albert Einstein, "Atomic War or Peace" part II (1947)

Soviet-communism was sort of a quasi-religion that replaced "paradise in heaven" with "paradise on earth". Symbols of the church or religion were replaced with symbols of state commuinism in order to appeal to illiterate peasants. Stalin's purges murdered many communists/socialists/anarchists and Stalin himself was educated in an Orthodox seminary.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/20/three-muslims-convicted-gay-hate-leaflets
So here's your example about homosexuality and "God's" will. Those damn Britains are against free speech!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volksverhetzung

Quoting wikipedia:
The German penal code (Strafgesetzbuch) establishes that someone is guilty of Volksverhetzung if the person
in a manner that is capable of disturbing the public peace

• incites hatred against segments of the population or calls for violent or arbitrary measures against them; or
• assaults the human dignity of others by insulting, maliciously maligning, or defaming segments of the population

So yes, if you are saying I love Hitler and let's kill some Arabs in Berlin, you are in conflict with the law, which - in liberal/western european democraties - tries to protect his citizens against organised attempts to commit mass murder.

What TFA describes as the reason for detention would be protected in the UK and Germany.

Do you see the difference in the reasoning in countries like UK or Germany compared to Saudi-Arabia? They are fundamentally opposed in terms where your freedom is limited. A concept of human rights and secular law on one side and a concept of religious law / God's law on the other.

Might well be that .de and the euro blows up, but germany still has a large industrial base compared to the uk and any other european country. let's revisit in five years. And while it's ontopic language and syntax has not much to do with it. .

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0208/germany-business.html

Having skimmed over the document, it tries to connect an assumption with linguistic terms and formulas in order prove this assumption. It's a work of one who excels at cocktail parties or executive meetings without real scientific value.

You are right on spot. "Morgen regnet es" is just a short form of "Morgen wird es regnen"/"Tomorrow it will rain". "Morgen"/"Tomorrow" places this in the future, leaving out the "wird"/"will". The phrase emphasises a bit that it will rain because it's obvious.

Agreed regarding semi-totalitarian states like China or Iran. Nowadays the opposition in western and western-oriented countries usually doesn't get crushed about issues of free speech, the government is aware of the danger of such accusations. Mikhail Khodorkovsky is serving a 14 year prison sentence for fraud. He supported the opposition in Russia. A Ukrainian court sentenced Tymoshenko to seven years in prison after she was found guilty of abuse of office when brokering the 2009 gas deal with Russia. Martin Luther King, Jr was imprisoned because of a non-violent protest, disrupting traffic or so... Clinton's impeachment was based on lying... I am rambling and should get some work get done...

Thank you. This is why I am still on slashdot, people reading comments and actually commenting in a thoughtful way.

I sympathise with your statement, but a government or a state has the duty to ensure the safety and freedom of all citizens and non-citizens who live in their area of control. Incitement to hatred or crime is such a danger and thus the government has to act and limit those actions of speech. There must be a debate over this limits.

He should have stand trial, if possible. That was not the case. If somebody with executive power in the government issued a shoot-to-kill order, this person as well should have to face a trial. There was no declaration of war to Pakistan. If my neighbour tells me Bin Laden should be killed right away, I try to explain why this is not the best idea, but my neighbour should not go to jail because she has no power to issue those orders. If my neighbour repeatedly says "I am gonna kill this parasite at the other of the street" there should be consequences.

Agreed. There's one raging, because a lot of the footsoldiers in Quaida/Taliban/etc are cut off from the wealth of information the world has to offer and a notion that god might be an idea invented by humans. The only answer I can think of is access to education and the basic concepts of human rights, as well as economic well being. In western countries the free flow of information kinda works.

We know how ideas were put to work in Nazi Germany. The Weimar Republic's constitution guaranteed individual rights such as the freedom of speech and assembly to each citizen. After that catastrophe the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has been declared and countries like France or Germany set limits to free speech.

I am aware of that, I just think that there are limits to what is tolerable to discuss in order to have a worthwhile discussion or discourse, based on historical experience and the western "unalienable rights". I won't defend somebody who says "kill $foo" and there will be a better world. So to avoid to "build world" again like after WWII, we shut down the threat to freedom. There's a reason for jails in FreeBSD and in society.