I doubt the other allies would have allowed Germany to be nuked. Too close to their own borders, unknown effects from the fallout. Japan was far enough away from anywhere that the US or its close allies cared about to use as a testing ground.
It's got nothing to do with offence. Making credible threats is illegal, and for good reason. Making credible threats can have extremely negative consequences for the person or institution being threatened. Do they do nothing and take an unknown risk, which leaves them open to being blamed (and probably sued) if something does happen? Do they cancel their event, stay at home with a loaded gun and put their life on hold? Not to mention the stress which can affect their health.
Defining what is credible is the tricky part. I'm not sure this is, but it's probably enough to warrant an investigation to see if the person had the means to carry out an attack. It's a difficult line to draw.
On the other hand things that are clearly jokes, like the guy in the UK who was eventually cleared of posting a tweet joking about blowing up an airport if his flight was cancelled, should not be investigated or prosecuted. I'm sorry I can't give you the exact limit, but that's the nature of life. Speech is imprecise.
This. Many of the UK citizens who have gone to fight in Syria did so because they are disillusioned with UK society. No job prospects, muslims in general feel that the rest of the nation is turning against them, no acknowledgement that the UK's military adventures have mostly been about killing muslims etc.
I think most non-muslims don't realize what it is like. I have an Islamic surname and when people find out about it they sometimes react quite negatively. Not open abuse most of the time, more like micro-aggressions. Sometimes they nervously ask if you are a muslim, as if it is any of their business (I'm not, but sometimes I'm tempted to say I am just to see what happens). I can imagine how living with that, and seeing the videos that glamorize the fighting in Syria, could push people towards going there.
Isn't that attack another proof that fanaticism == stupidity?
The Charlie Hebdo attacks were very well planned and executed. They were obviously idiots on a philosophical level, but also well trained soldiers with a well laid plan.
Similarly, ISIS or IS or whatever they are called are not doing too badly. It's not often one group manages to establish a new state by force, but they have pretty much managed it. Who knows if it will last but the west doesn't seem to be able to stop them, or the countries they have partially conquered.
There are lots of idiots among them, but don't underestimate them all.
Could this be the first company whose business model is to break the law, i.e. a criminal enterprise with VC funding? Of course other companies have broken the law, but Uber's specific business model is to break the law and hope to get away with it or get the law changed.
It's kinda bizarre. Maybe VC firms feel a bit uneasy about investing the maffia due to the level of violence, but Uber sounds kinda legit and has a lot of willing customers so is somehow okay. Maybe it sounds more like the kind of white collar rich person illegal-but-only-a-slap-on-the-wrist crime that they are used to, or have even engaged in themselves, like tax dodging or a bit of investment fraud.
I guess you don't keep up with current events, but actually the people in Germany doing this have also been trying to get asylum for Snowden. It's not like they woke up one day and decided the best thing they could do is a statue, it's part of an ongoing effort to bring attention to the cause and put pressure on the government.
Note to submitters: People don't RTFA, so you can't expect them to be knowledgeable about our Google the subject either. It's worth including useful info like this in the (short) summary because otherwise half the comments will be like this.
Keep in mind that many Europeans consider themselves more free than US citizens. Laws against certain very specific things like holocaust denial in Germany are seen as necessary and for protecting freedom. It seems like Americans believe that as long as you have the right to freedom you will always be free, but in Europe we recognise that sometimes society has to say "no".
For example, religious icons are banned in French schools. In American schools children have to recite a pledge to l of allegiance to the state that includes the infamous " under God " bit. Some would argue that the French way is oppressive, but I see it as keeping religion and the state separate to a degree that the US would not tolerate.
Practically speaking, Europeans have a lot more individual power in their democracies, simply because they are not ruled by corporations to the degree that the US is. There is lobbying and corruption, but if you look at EU consumer laws it's clear who is winning.
You went to an unusual school. At mine we got a new scanner for our computer room. One of the first suggestions was that one of the girls should scan her tits.
Seems like it was one moronic head at one school, and some bullshit hype from the Daily Mail. Pigs are not being banned in children's books, the publishers have confirmed it.
I doubt many people would agree with your logic, since the obviously conclusion must be that any kind of pornography or images are acceptable in a classroom. In a civilized society there are limits in certain situations, and institutions respond to the views of their customers.
You seem to be confusing Playboy for classical art. It's not the nudity, it's the source and the nature of the image.
Allow me to explain what the issue is, because all the modded up replies don't seem to know.
It's not that nudity is offensive per-se, it's that Playboy and it's use of the female body as a sex object to sell copies and provide an unrealistic fantasy for men/lesbians is problematic in the setting of a classroom. Wiipedia has a long article on Playboy that discusses the issues so I won't repeat them here, but what it boils down to is that it isn't some kind of conservatism that is offended by the naked body, it's genuine criticism of the use of an image from Playboy.
Conservatives want to keep the status quo. The argument here is that society is changing and some parts of it that lag behind should keep up. Sounds like the opposite of conservatism to me.
I'd have thought the fact that it is copyright Playboy would have dissuaded academics from using it by now, but I suppose as long as no lawsuits are filed...
It's the bizarre MRA logic. Any attempt to do anything that "infringes" their right to be an asshole by criticising it is censorship and must be condemned in the strongest possible terms. On the other hand, shouting down the critic is fine, because they are wrong.
This doesn't seem to have anything at all to do with rights. Notice how she hasn't filed a lawsuit, or demanded new laws, or otherwise tried to force the discontinuation of use of the image. She wrote an article stating her thoughts. If anything, the MRA outrage appears to be trying to censor her right to state her opinion because it happens to offend them. Ironic, that.
This person is just pointing out that using a pornographic image of an airbrushed, idealized woman in an academic setting that is supposed to be inclusive probably isn't a good idea. If it were not for historical context, it probably wouldn't be selected today. It's not even a very good test image, having a fairly limited colour palette.