America the Proud?

[Elvellon]

I'm not confusing the two. Wolfenstein does not encourage anyone to go out and commit racial violence. Violence is illegal - and once it crosses over to violence or personal theats - it crosses the line. Someone talking about the evils of a racial group - no matter how heinous their views may be - are still their views. Just because you don't agree with them - doesn't mean they don't have a right to their views.

Have you read it? Personally, I doubt he simply stated armless opinions.

What is guaranteed and what is a criminal matter?

“You” have the right to your opinion; “you” don’t have the right to urge others to act against the Law.

Slander is only protected against individuals

Not quite. The legal use of the word “slander” in the US may be that one you state, but since I’m not particular with “Anglo-Saxon” law I fail to have a better term here (besides we are not discussing US law per se). Case is, you can “slander” singular individuals specifically or as part of a group. Also, if the group is a legal entity it can also sue, as a group, the slanderer, or individuals of the group can.

- also - it is much harder in the US to claim slander than it seems to be in England. Here - as long as iI can prove it's true or if I state that it is my personal opinion - it is not slander. I can have my one opinions - who is someone else to say that they are right or wrong. You may disagree with my opinions - but you can't actually say that they are wrong. I can put together a website that "such and such an actress is a fat b***h" That can be determined slander - but if it's my opinion - they can't say I'm wrong and they can't do anything about it. The courts of the US will protect MY right to my opinions and to state them - which is GUARANTEED by the First Amendment.

If you can prove it is true, it automatically is not slander, but fact. It doesn’t matter if you are in the US or in Europe for that. First Amendment or not.
However, if you are getting into the personal life of someone revealing personal facts, without permission, than you have a classical case of conflicting freedoms:

Freedom of speech vs right to privacy.

Do not confuse the two. Because by upholding the first against the second you are not enjoying more freedom, but simply trading one freedom by another. Different cultures attribute different value to different kind of freedoms.

The thread has sort of gone off topic anyway though and has moved onto what is freedom. Is a country truly free when they infringe on a person's free speech they disagree with?

Yup, and that is a rather interesting subject.