Being free does not mean doing what you want. Or rather, not to be confused with the freedom to say and make mistakes in our picimento. The web is becoming the size of a huge landfill where intellectual, whoever has the will, he feels entitled to write and post anything in violation of the principles which govern the basis of the concept of state. Last shameful example of this freedom that the Internet users think they have (for whatever form of law) relates to the garbage-related Facebook groups praising to Tartaglia. To understand
where is the flaw, we need to fully understand the concept of state. But what is the state? Max Weber wrote, "an institutional political system in which administrative steps forward with a successful claim to a monopoly of legitimate force of coercion in order to implement the regulations." In other words, every citizen must give up a slice of their liberty (the use of force for example) to decline for the community.
In short, we can not say what you want. This does not decline as an infringement of the constitutional principle in defense of freedom of thought, but it certainly raises the stakes in that speech. A constitutional expert would say that every single is free to express themselves as they like, but not to affect the sexual morals or dignity of others.
This point seems clear, yet it still sounds very strange to me, is the set of Marco Travaglio Beppe Grillo's Blog. Between the two no longer understand who the comedian or a journalist, however, you place the part of the article that I would like to submit (it is a huge integral text can see on the site). Travaglio writes as if he were justified, and that says a lot after heavy accusations addressed by the right-wing press over the past two days:
policy does not include the category of feeling
Look, I arrive at a paradoxical thing to say that of course will be used against me, but I do not care at all: he has already written Massimo Fini spanerse times, which speaks to this category of political hatred is a category of feeling that is applied to politics, politics and the feeling is not c 'enter anything, politics is a technical matter, so we vote for you to do things, but you can not ask me to love you, you can ask me to vote you, but I ask you to love, there's love' elector for his service, there is only in dictatorships, just when the charismatic populist leader manages to attract the love of the voters, who are not citizens, are its subjects, are another What are uncritical, are sheep who worship the capo.Il that has returned the category of hate and then love in the comments of the newspapers - read the nonsense you write today Battista Il Corriere della Sera on the climate of hatred etc. etc. - It should respond, as Massimo Fini, "and 'mbe? Who said I can not hate a politician? Who said I can not hope that it goes away! Who said I can not hope that the Creator take him away as soon as possible? ", Look at this thing here, which seems horrific, says," Oh God, is there anyone who hates him! ", Is absolutely normal: each to his home in his heart is free of hate and love who they like and there is no democracy in which citizens are obliged to love those who govern them, because if you love a person loses the critical spirit and the voters must always maintain a spirit critical. So leviamoci headed this blackmail, that we should not hate and we must love those who govern us, or that should be respected, but why should I respect someone who insults everyone, myself included, inter alia, continuously for fifteen years ? It 'important to this: the utterly condemned the attack and steadfast to say that these things should not be made and who makes them must be punished and at the same time, say "I'm the one there do not want to see, that guy I do not want him as prime minister, that does not represent me, hope it goes quickly from Palazzo Chigi, "these things are things .. or "hate him, hate him," I personally do not hate him, but I do not see why anyone could not hate him but the important thing is that it limits him to hate him without any harm, there is no hate crime, there is crime of violence, aggression, injury, attempted murder, murder, those are crimes, but hate crime does not exist, tell someone 'I hate you "is not a crime, God willing, but otherwise in a system, we would be in Belarus, a country to another by recently identified as a model of democracy by our Prime Minister on a visit to Lukashenko, where he said "the people you love and then you're right there," you see how dictatorships are born? Born in the mind of the dictator or the aspiring dictator, well before the minds of citizens, or rather of his subjects. So is there anything wrong with what they say Rosi Bindi, who said it best, and Antonio Di Pietro, who said in a more rickety, that in defining the victim of the attack shameful, we all condemn, etc. ., a known provocateur, that if one goes looking for? There is nothing strange to say such a thing is in the biography the Prime Minister, is in his DNA, I think that in some moment of clarity - every now and then he will - certainly admit in his heart, to be a great challenge: doing it on purpose, if not a provocateur and would not would not say all the things he says and does, do not take it every single day with all the courts that there are around the world, except probably Forums Channel Five, do not take it with the Constitution, did not take with the Constitutional Court, did not they take it all with whom he is angry, including those that do not exist and that only he sees, like all these plots the opposition, in short, just look at the faces of the opposition, to realize that, even if they wanted, would not be able to make any conspiracy, but not even want to do so and we are calm. He is a great challenge and some of its allies worse of him, imagine what's wrong in saying that these guys lead the country for fifteen years, when we heard a minister talk like Bossi rifles, Kalashnikovs, 200 / 300. 000 armed men in the valleys are ready to pick up their rifles and march for independence and secession, but these things we remember them or not! Some never occurred to these gentlemen by the language attributed to any violent incident of violence happened in their valley? Just think of the violence that Berlusconi has sown over the years, is perhaps the politician most violent we've ever seen in the history of the Republic and Italian: "Be reminded of any prime minister, as De Gasperi, Moro, Andreotti, who were all, at least in language, they were rather tame. And 'the politician that there was more violent in the history of the Republic and therefore say it is a provocateur and that is prepared in exciting the minds of a possible imbalance seems to me absolutely trivial, so I do not understand what the problem is in what they said Bindi and Di Pietro, who otherwise would have both stated that, of course, condemned the attack human solidarity and gave the prime minister, who remains a provocative even if they pulled a Madonna face, because just read his speeches and makes it a perfect bill.
We are therefore free to hate and hope that someone might die in a hurry? I read that right? Dear readers ... I just do not convince. Much better interventions Baptist (mistreated by Labor), Calabresi and Mauro Stella.
