The Death of Free Speech in Europe

[PaNTuXIa]

About every day while I'm browsing YouTube, I almost always come across a message like this at least once:

This video is blocked in [insert West European country here]

Why is this?
Primarily due to Europe's draconian censorship laws, that bans all "offensive language" and a press that calls all anti-Merkel news "Russian fake news."
These changes are most evident in Russia, where even fairly moderate channels such as Styxhexenhammer666 are banned.
But it's not just YouTube. Facebook and Twitter are starting to break too.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/ ... peech-code
The EU has recently implemented a new policy, demanding that all "hate speech" be removed by their respective companies.
But the German government wishes to go further:
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/ ... s-facebook
Under this proposal, companies could face penalties of up to €50 million should they not comply.
Unfortunately, the EU seems to be quite on-board with ideas such as these as well:
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/12 ... -24-hours/
Oh, and they aren't content with censoring dissenting opinions, they also want to ban alternative media too:
https://www.ft.com/content/85683e08-e4a ... 357a75844a
Combine this with the fact that in many European countries, it is illegal to question the Holocaust, and you have a censorship level nearing that of China.

These actions seem designed to root out dissenting opinions in order to maintain the center-left status quo.

So what do you say, NSG? Is censorship necessary to protect "democracy?" Or should free speech be banned all together?

Or maybe, we allow each other to freely discuss and debate ideas.

[Liriena]

Just so we're clear, saying that the Holocaust did not happen is not an opinion. It's an extremist lie aimed at legitimizing one of the most brutal regimes in modern history, a lie that is wielded as part of a toolset to radicalize people into embracing the ideals of that same brutal regime.

It does not deserve to be placed on the same level as "I believe in trickle-down economics and oppose environmental regulations" or "I'm against marriage equality because I'm a conservative Christian" or "I think Meals on Wheels is a helpful program". It does not deserve to be treated as worthy of respect, or entitled to a platform to circulate, just because it is spewed by a human being.

Same goes for all similar forms of hate speech. They are not mere opinions. They are misleading language specifically designed to radicalize people into either committing, endorsing or passively tolerating violence against entire groups of people.

The policies pursued in Europe do not entail "the death of free speech". They entail a not unreasonable desire by Europeans to nip extremism in the bud, rather than shallowly conflating free speech with anomie.

While I do have my concerns when it comes to giving governments any amount of power over public discourse, including the power to penalize certain expressions due to their hateful content, I am not wont to embrace the apocalyptic screeching from the far right.

[Liriena]

Also, one of your sources is Breitbart, while another is behind a paywall.

[Liriena]

Also, from your own sources:

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/may/31/facebook-youtube-twitter-microsoft-eu-hate-speech-code

Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Microsoft have all been involved in the creation of the code

A slim document, the code of conduct isn’t legally binding for the internet companies

The definition of hate speech covered by the code of conduct is narrow: it is defined in the document as “all conduct publicly inciting to violence or hatred directed against a group of persons or a member of such a group defined by reference to race, colour, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin”.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/mar/14/social-media-hate-speech-fines-germany-heiko-maas-facebook

His draft law stipulates that social networks must offer users clear and easily accessible means to file complaints, review them quickly and delete blatantly illegal content within 24 hours.

Basically, your presentation of this issue is overblown, melodramatic and not particularly truthful. What we see here is, on the one hand, a code of conduct for social media that major social media companies had a part in creating and that is not legally binding, and, on the other, a proposal to fine one social media company if it does not act swiftly to counter blatantly illegal content.

Boo-cussity-hoo.

[Jamzmania]

Free speech? In Europe? Hilarious.

[Free Missouri]

Just so we're clear, saying that the Holocaust did not happen is not an opinion. It's an extremist lie aimed at legitimizing one of the most brutal regimes in modern history, a lie that is wielded as part of a toolset to radicalize people into embracing the ideals of that same brutal regime.

It does not deserve to be placed on the same level as "I believe in trickle-down economics and oppose environmental regulations" or "I'm against marriage equality because I'm a conservative Christian" or "I think Meals on Wheels is a helpful program". It does not deserve to be treated as worthy of respect, or entitled to a platform to circulate, just because it is spewed by a human being.

Same goes for all similar forms of hate speech. They are not mere opinions. They are misleading language specifically designed to radicalize people into either committing, endorsing or passively tolerating violence against entire groups of people.

The policies pursued in Europe do not entail "the death of free speech". They entail a not unreasonable desire by Europeans to nip extremism in the bud, rather than shallowly conflating free speech with anomie.

While I do have my concerns when it comes to giving governments any amount of power over public discourse, including the power to penalize certain expressions due to their hateful content, I am not wont to embrace the apocalyptic screeching from the far right.

It is however protected speech, at least in the US. And it should be everywhere. So long as someone isn't actively trying to bring about the second holocaust, holocaust denial is (in the US) and ought to be (everywhere) protected speech. I understand and agree that it is a horrible lie, and a form of extremist defamation. I have been offended before, primarily by leftists who call me an "uncle tom" but in other circles too, by white racists who call me just as bad, by black people who call me things just as bad, by many different people.

The Absolute worst speech, as well as all other speech, should be protected because if we don't protect the worst speech (so long as it is not actively inciting violence), then we have set a precedent that any speech which is "an extremist lie" can be banned. Who then decides what is an extremist lie? Are conspiracy theories "extremist lies," even ones which might hold water? If that were so then we would've never learned about the IRS targeting conservative groups. Are clearly false revisions of history extremist lies? Then anyone who tries to paint the red army as anything other than murderous bastards who happened to be allies during part of World War II should be shut up.

[Liriena]

Free speech? In Europe? Hilarious.

It's funny because much of Europe actually ranks higher than the United States in the 2016 World Press Freedom Index.

[Pope Joan]

Same as Murrica. We are all for free speech as long as it supports our agenda, but if it does not, it is either evil propaganda or hate speech.

Forgetabout rational debate.

[Free Missouri]

Free speech? In Europe? Hilarious.

It's funny because much of Europe actually ranks higher than the United States in the 2016 World Press Freedom Index.

Gotta love that history of Obama investigating journalists and overall being anti-media.

What was that about Trump being the unprecedented anti-media president?

[Jamzmania]

Free speech? In Europe? Hilarious.

It's funny because much of Europe actually ranks higher than the United States in the 2016 World Press Freedom Index.

And I should trust some random NGO's report that is not actually covering the same topic as what we are talking about why...?

[Jamzmania]

It's funny because much of Europe actually ranks higher than the United States in the 2016 World Press Freedom Index.

Gotta love that history of Obama investigating journalists and overall being anti-media.

What was that about Trump being the unprecedented anti-media president?

Wait, Obama? You mean the one that kept saying we should be more like Europe?

[Liriena]

Just so we're clear, saying that the Holocaust did not happen is not an opinion. It's an extremist lie aimed at legitimizing one of the most brutal regimes in modern history, a lie that is wielded as part of a toolset to radicalize people into embracing the ideals of that same brutal regime.

It does not deserve to be placed on the same level as "I believe in trickle-down economics and oppose environmental regulations" or "I'm against marriage equality because I'm a conservative Christian" or "I think Meals on Wheels is a helpful program". It does not deserve to be treated as worthy of respect, or entitled to a platform to circulate, just because it is spewed by a human being.

Same goes for all similar forms of hate speech. They are not mere opinions. They are misleading language specifically designed to radicalize people into either committing, endorsing or passively tolerating violence against entire groups of people.

The policies pursued in Europe do not entail "the death of free speech". They entail a not unreasonable desire by Europeans to nip extremism in the bud, rather than shallowly conflating free speech with anomie.

While I do have my concerns when it comes to giving governments any amount of power over public discourse, including the power to penalize certain expressions due to their hateful content, I am not wont to embrace the apocalyptic screeching from the far right.

It is however protected speech, at least in the US.

This thread is not about the United States.

And it should be everywhere.

Debatable.

So long as someone isn't actively trying to bring about the second holocaust, holocaust denial is (in the US) and ought to be (everywhere) protected speech. I understand and agree that it is a horrible lie, and a form of extremist defamation. I have been offended before, primarily by leftists who call me an "uncle tom" but in other circles too, by white racists who call me just as bad, by black people who call me things just as bad, by many different people.

The Absolute worst speech, as well as all other speech, should be protected because if we don't protect the worst speech (so long as it is not actively inciting violence), then we have set a precedent that any speech which is "an extremist lie" can be banned. Who then decides what is an extremist lie? Are conspiracy theories "extremist lies," even ones which might hold water? If that were so then we would've never learned about the IRS targeting conservative groups. Are clearly false revisions of history extremist lies? Then anyone who tries to paint the red army as anything other than murderous bastards who happened to be allies during part of World War II should be shut up.

I understand your point of view, and I will not dismiss it outright, even if I disagree.

The issue is not so much the fact that they are lies, but rather the purpose of the lies. If the lies are part of a wider discourse aimed at encouraging hate crimes, that is hate speech, and I do not believe that it deserves any sort of protection.

[Washington Resistance Army]

And it should be everywhere.

Debatable.

False.

[The Liberated Territories]

Free Speech has never been a thing in Europe, OP.

[Liriena]

It's funny because much of Europe actually ranks higher than the United States in the 2016 World Press Freedom Index.

Gotta love that history of Obama investigating journalists and overall being anti-media.

What was that about Trump being the unprecedented anti-media president?

One does not preclude the other.

[Pope Joan]

It's funny because much of Europe actually ranks higher than the United States in the 2016 World Press Freedom Index.

Gotta love that history of Obama investigating journalists and overall being anti-media.

What was that about Trump being the unprecedented anti-media president?

That;s one of the things I most appreciate about Obama. The mainstream media has changed, for the worse, and its in crowd should not longer be allowed to enjoy their automatic sense of entitlement.

[PaNTuXIa]

For the paywall:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/20/worl ... .html?_r=0

[PaNTuXIa]

It is however protected speech, at least in the US.

This thread is not about the United States.

And it should be everywhere.

Debatable.

So long as someone isn't actively trying to bring about the second holocaust, holocaust denial is (in the US) and ought to be (everywhere) protected speech. I understand and agree that it is a horrible lie, and a form of extremist defamation. I have been offended before, primarily by leftists who call me an "uncle tom" but in other circles too, by white racists who call me just as bad, by black people who call me things just as bad, by many different people.

The Absolute worst speech, as well as all other speech, should be protected because if we don't protect the worst speech (so long as it is not actively inciting violence), then we have set a precedent that any speech which is "an extremist lie" can be banned. Who then decides what is an extremist lie? Are conspiracy theories "extremist lies," even ones which might hold water? If that were so then we would've never learned about the IRS targeting conservative groups. Are clearly false revisions of history extremist lies? Then anyone who tries to paint the red army as anything other than murderous bastards who happened to be allies during part of World War II should be shut up.

I understand your point of view, and I will not dismiss it outright, even if I disagree.

The issue is not so much the fact that they are lies, but rather the purpose of the lies. If the lies are part of a wider discourse aimed at encouraging hate crimes, that is hate speech, and I do not believe that it deserves any sort of protection.

So do you not believe in free speech?

[Jamzmania]

It is however protected speech, at least in the US.

This thread is not about the United States.

And it should be everywhere.

Debatable.

So long as someone isn't actively trying to bring about the second holocaust, holocaust denial is (in the US) and ought to be (everywhere) protected speech. I understand and agree that it is a horrible lie, and a form of extremist defamation. I have been offended before, primarily by leftists who call me an "uncle tom" but in other circles too, by white racists who call me just as bad, by black people who call me things just as bad, by many different people.

The Absolute worst speech, as well as all other speech, should be protected because if we don't protect the worst speech (so long as it is not actively inciting violence), then we have set a precedent that any speech which is "an extremist lie" can be banned. Who then decides what is an extremist lie? Are conspiracy theories "extremist lies," even ones which might hold water? If that were so then we would've never learned about the IRS targeting conservative groups. Are clearly false revisions of history extremist lies? Then anyone who tries to paint the red army as anything other than murderous bastards who happened to be allies during part of World War II should be shut up.

I understand your point of view, and I will not dismiss it outright, even if I disagree.

The issue is not so much the fact that they are lies, but rather the purpose of the lies. If the lies are part of a wider discourse aimed at encouraging hate crimes, that is hate speech, and I do not believe that it deserves any sort of protection.

Your speech is aimed at encouraging hate crimes against Holocaust deniers and thus should be declared hate speech and you should be prosecuted for it.

Because we are apparently allowed to simply declare what we think is another person's motivation and then base our laws on that baseless accusation and punish people for their alleged motivations, or the motivations of other people who say similar things.

[Liriena]

It's funny because much of Europe actually ranks higher than the United States in the 2016 World Press Freedom Index.

And I should trust some random NGO's report that is not actually covering the same topic as what we are talking about why...?

They are not "some random NGO", but I do appreciate the meek attempt to dismiss the source without actually addressing its arguments.

You laughed at the idea of Europe and free speech coexisting. And I, in turn, felt it was necessary (and fun) to point out that many European (and non-European nations) are actually better at free speech than y'all think you are.

[Amudarya]

These actions seem designed to root out dissenting opinions in order to maintain the center-left status quo.

The status quo in Europe is not "center left" and hasn't been for decades.

So what do you say, NSG? Is censorship necessary to protect "democracy?" Or should free speech be banned all together?

Communities have the right to set acceptable standards of discourse and to evaluate what sorts of statements are likely to create danger to public order, either immanently or over the long term.

"Free speech" is increasingly not a legitimate concern about censorship, but a rallying cry for extremist ideologies clamoring for a public platform.

[PaNTuXIa]

Free speech? In Europe? Hilarious.

It's funny because much of Europe actually ranks higher than the United States in the 2016 World Press Freedom Index.

Press Freedom

[Liriena]

Gotta love that history of Obama investigating journalists and overall being anti-media.

What was that about Trump being the unprecedented anti-media president?

Wait, Obama? You mean the one that kept saying we should be more like Europe?

Oh boy, lots of citations are needed here.

[Jamzmania]

And I should trust some random NGO's report that is not actually covering the same topic as what we are talking about why...?

They are not "some random NGO", but I do appreciate the meek attempt to dismiss the source without actually addressing its arguments.

You laughed at the idea of Europe and free speech coexisting. And I, in turn, felt it was necessary (and fun) to point out that many European (and non-European nations) are actually better at free speech than y'all think you are.

Any country that has hate speech laws does not have free speech - it has certain privileges that it has granted its citizens but which it reserves the right to revoke at any time. That is not the same as a right to free speech.

[Free Missouri]

Gotta love that history of Obama investigating journalists and overall being anti-media.

What was that about Trump being the unprecedented anti-media president?

One does not preclude the other.

Note, that 2016 Index was low because of Obama, and Obama Alone, I hate both of them, but this BS about Trump's anti-media views being somehow new and unprecedented are false, and it is demonstrably false that Donald Trump was the person who invented the concept of any political opponents being "fake news".