[DuskStar]

> Says who? I understand the core principles of absolute free speech. I just don't agree. This is a very absolutist (and americano-centered) view of what liberties encompass.

It should be obvious, but the people in power will not want you to say bad things about them. If given the power to prevent that, of course they will. (and they'll say that "politician X was found in bed with a dead hooker" is libel, regardless of the facts)

> Some political organizations should be prohibited.

But which ones? Just genocidal ones? Do communists count? How far do philosophies need to differ before a party is allowed again, and who (besides the individual voter) should be the one to choose?

"They're totally just lying about their beliefs" can be both true and not an acceptable reason IMO.

> prosecuted after intimidating opposition through violence.

Then BAN INTIMIDATING OPPOSITION WITH VIOLENCE. Ban ALL of it. But "these words are violence, this violence is just protest" isn't ok.

> Your voting rights cant be stripped away for small offenses.

Only being able to vote for people with governmentally approved opinions is itself a removal of voting rights. This should obviously be true for the limit case (only one candidate), but it's a spectrum.

[derelicta]

> Do communists count?

well yeah? In Germany, violent Marxist-Leninists have been prohibited, disbanded and expropriated. So why not ? Today they are allowed again in some Länder, for they dont use violence anymore nor threaten democracy as a whole. So yeah?