The Death of Free Speech in Europe

[The Wolven League]

Because it's illegal to kill people who aren't waging literal jihad in most countries.

...and your point is what, exactly?

My point is that it's a far left, feminist militia who is actually the one fighting (and winning) against the Islamist menace, not a bunch of alt-righters.

The Kurds have only gotten the chance to fight Islamists because they live in countries which currently have major Islamist revolts. The fact that they're leftist is irrelevant.

[Neu Leonstein]

It shouldn't be illegal. Opinions should not be illegal.

And they aren't. Can't you at least try to base your opposition on the facts?

What is illegal is a set of actions (not opinions!) that are fairly well circumscribed in the law, the application of which is handled by independent courts. Sometimes the government wins when it tries to bring a case under these rules, and sometimes it does not.

You can make an argument that this is all unnecessary, or that there shouldn't be a law like this. But by whining about some sort of thought control, you're not doing yourself any favours. The fact of the matter is that the history of Europe has demonstrated that liberal civil societies can break down quickly and violently. Laws like this are meant to prevent that. You can either think that they don't serve that purpose, or that even if they did, they still should not exist (either going by some sort of objective rights/moral standard or because you want liberal civil society to break down).

But so far you haven't actually made any of these arguments in any detail.

[New Werpland]

Germany has been crushing the "free speech" of Nazis since their modern republic was formed.

But will certainly let islamists spout their bullshit.

Germany shouldve not been allowed to reform.

Said Islamists are allowed to spout their bullshit as long as it doesn't break the same rules that get Nazis in trouble.

Remarkably anti-nationalist post here for someone sporting such a flag.

[Neo Balka]

...and your point is what, exactly?

My point is that it's a far left, feminist militia who is actually the one fighting (and winning) against the Islamist menace, not a bunch of alt-righters.

The Kurds have only gotten the chance to fight Islamists because they live in countries which currently have major Islamist revolts. The fact that they're leftist is irrelevant.

where were they when AQI was tearing around the fucking region?

[Proctopeo]

It may shock you to learn this, but the "far left" is not a monolith. I'm a democratic confederalist, not a Stalinist.

what

I think they mean a confederacy (decentralized government, look at America under the Articles of Confederation for an example) where the representatives are elected democratically.

[Napkiraly]

In other words, the far-left.

It may shock you to learn this, but the "far left" is not a monolith. I'm a democratic confederalist, not a Stalinist.

I am aware that it is not a monolith. What point are you trying to make exactly?

[Amudarya]

...and your point is what, exactly?

My point is that it's a far left, feminist militia who is actually the one fighting (and winning) against the Islamist menace, not a bunch of alt-righters.

>feminism
>middle east

Oh god.

Please stop.

I know, reality is painful to you guys. And you're almost as afraid of women with guns as ISIS. Should I have included a trigger warning for you?

[Neo Balka]

But will certainly let islamists spout their bullshit.

Germany shouldve not been allowed to reform.

Said Islamists are allowed to spout their bullshit as long as it doesn't break the same rules that get Nazis in trouble.

Remarkably anti-nationalist post here for someone sporting such a flag.

"Behead those who insult islam" sounds different then "Sieg heil."

Hell, im not even german.

[The Wolven League]

It may shock you to learn this, but the "far left" is not a monolith. I'm a democratic confederalist, not a Stalinist.

what

It's like when people on Tumblr start firing off labels for themselves and no one knows what the fuck they're talking about.

[Neo Balka]

>feminism
>middle east

Oh god.

Please stop.

I know, reality is painful to you guys. And you're almost as afraid of women with guns as ISIS. Should I have included a trigger warning for you?

That happens to be my fetish.

[Amudarya]

It may shock you to learn this, but the "far left" is not a monolith. I'm a democratic confederalist, not a Stalinist.

I am aware that it is not a monolith. What point are you trying to make exactly?

My point is that it's a far left, feminist militia who is actually the one fighting (and winning) against the Islamist menace, not a bunch of alt-righters.

[PaNTuXIa]

It shouldn't be illegal. Opinions should not be illegal.

And they aren't. Can't you at least try to base your opposition on the facts?

What is illegal is a set of actions (not opinions!) that are fairly well circumscribed in the law, the application of which is handled by independent courts. Sometimes the government wins when it tries to bring a case under these rules, and sometimes it does not.

You can make an argument that this is all unnecessary, or that there shouldn't be a law like this. But by whining about some sort of thought control, you're not doing yourself any favours. The fact of the matter is that the history of Europe has demonstrated that liberal civil societies can break down quickly and violently. Laws like this are meant to prevent that. You can either think that they don't serve that purpose, or that even if they did, they still should not exist (either going by some sort of objective rights/moral standard or because you want liberal civil society to break down).

But so far you haven't actually made any of these arguments in any detail.

"Hate speech" just means any opinion that isn't left-wing.

You cannot deny the Holocaust. You will be thrown in jail. That opinion is illegal.

[Liriena]

No, that's not my opinion. I think you misinterpreted me, which I can understand. Perhaps I did not explain myself properly.

My opinion is that Holocaust denial is almost always explicitly wielded by extremist individuals and movements as an argument to radicalize others. By not allowing Holocaust denial to spread through platforms like social media, you are depriving extremists from a recruitment tool. However, that does not mean that I completely disregard the importance of context and clear intent, or would not want websites' policies against hate speech to be enforced in a case-by-case basis, if possible. For one, I would not want Pewdiepie to have his channel deleted because of that one joke of his that backfired.

Would you agree with hate speech laws targeting communists and those that support the former communist regimes in Central and Eastern Europe?

If we were speaking of communists in general? No. Unlike white supremacism, nazism or radical Islamism, communism is awfully broad, and unless the communists in question were, say inciting violence or hatred towards a religious or ethnic group, or an entire gender or sexual orientation, or people of a specific national origin, or foreigners in general... Last I checked, hate crimes and hate speech has traditional referred to groups that communism as a whole doesn't really target, although some specific communist movements and regimes have. I am not aware of the definition of hate crime or hate speech ever including crimes committed against "the bourgeois" or incitement to kill "the capitalist pigs" (in order words, crime or speech targeting a socioeconomic class). If you are proposing that such an inclusion be made, we can talk about it.

More importantly, however, it has ocurred to me that your question was not phrased all that fairly, insofar as you've presented the issue as penalizing entire ideologies, which is not quite what most hate crime and hate speech legislation aims to do. Rather, such legislation tends to focus on the groups that the crime or speech targets, not the general worldview of the one targeting said groups. Granted, I personally have been speaking in terms of depriving extremists of the tools to radicalize vulnerable individuals online.

[Neo Balka]

what

It's like when people on Tumblr start firing off labels for themselves and no one knows what the fuck they're talking about.

You mean that theres no such thing as a Godkin?

[Proctopeo]

>feminism
>middle east

Oh god.

Please stop.

I know, reality is painful to you guys. And you're almost as afraid of women with guns as ISIS. Should I have included a trigger warning for you?

*clears throat*
Edgé.

Pardon my French.

[Amudarya]

what

It's like when people on Tumblr start firing off labels for themselves and no one knows what the fuck they're talking about.

Maybe if you spent less time worrying about tumblr users, you'd be better informed about world events.

[Napkiraly]

The Kurds have only gotten the chance to fight Islamists because they live in countries which currently have major Islamist revolts. The fact that they're leftist is irrelevant.

where were they when AQI was tearing around the fucking region?

Both groups formed as a result of the Syrian Civil War which began in 2011.

[The Wolven League]

No, that's not my opinion. I think you misinterpreted me, which I can understand. Perhaps I did not explain myself properly.

My opinion is that Holocaust denial is almost always explicitly wielded by extremist individuals and movements as an argument to radicalize others. By not allowing Holocaust denial to spread through platforms like social media, you are depriving extremists from a recruitment tool. However, that does not mean that I completely disregard the importance of context and clear intent, or would not want websites' policies against hate speech to be enforced in a case-by-case basis, if possible. For one, I would not want Pewdiepie to have his channel deleted because of that one joke of his that backfired.

Would you agree with hate speech laws targeting communists and those that support the former communist regimes in Central and Eastern Europe?

Still waiting for an answer.

[Liriena]

No, that's not my opinion. I think you misinterpreted me, which I can understand. Perhaps I did not explain myself properly.

My opinion is that Holocaust denial is almost always explicitly wielded by extremist individuals and movements as an argument to radicalize others. By not allowing Holocaust denial to spread through platforms like social media, you are depriving extremists from a recruitment tool. However, that does not mean that I completely disregard the importance of context and clear intent, or would not want websites' policies against hate speech to be enforced in a case-by-case basis, if possible. For one, I would not want Pewdiepie to have his channel deleted because of that one joke of his that backfired.

Even if you believe this, it is never a good idea to let the government decide which speech is fine and which speech is heresy, but ultimately it ends up harming innocent people. If, for example, speech is fined, then the powers that be will use hate speech laws to increase their coffers or silence dissent.

I am well aware of the danger in that, which is why I am, as I previously mentioned uneasy about hate speech laws, even if I can endorse the principle behind them.

[Neu Leonstein]

"Hate speech" just means any opinion that isn't left-wing.

That was a pretty pathetic attempt. I take it this thread is just a therapy session for you then?

[Neo Balka]

where were they when AQI was tearing around the fucking region?

Both groups formed as a result of the Syrian Civil War which began in 2011.

So the Kurds just sat around on their asses while the Marines killed the shit out of AQI.

Super, no wonder they were constantly under equipped and bombed by the turks.

[The Wolven League]

It's like when people on Tumblr start firing off labels for themselves and no one knows what the fuck they're talking about.

Maybe if you spent less time worrying about tumblr users, you'd be better informed about world events.

Right. Forgot about that democratic confederalist revolt in South Sudan last week.

[Napkiraly]

Would you agree with hate speech laws targeting communists and those that support the former communist regimes in Central and Eastern Europe?

If we were speaking of communists in general? No. Unlike white supremacism, nazism or radical Islamism, communism is awfully broad, and unless the communists in question were, say inciting violence or hatred towards a religious or ethnic group, or an entire gender or sexual orientation, or people of a specific national origin, or foreigners in general... Last I checked, hate crimes and hate speech has traditional referred to groups that communism as a whole doesn't really target, although some specific communist movements and regimes have. I am not aware of the definition of hate crime or hate speech ever including crimes committed against "the bourgeois" or incitement to kill "the capitalist pigs" (in order words, crime or speech targeting a socioeconomic class). If you are proposing that such an inclusion be made, we can talk about it.

More importantly, however, it has ocurred to me that your question was not phrased all that fairly, insofar as you've presented the issue as penalizing entire ideologies, which is not quite what most hate crime and hate speech legislation aims to do. Rather, such legislation tends to focus on the groups that the crime or speech targets, not the general worldview of the one targeting said groups. Granted, I personally have been speaking in terms of depriving extremists of the tools to radicalize vulnerable individuals online.

I would certainly advocate that promoting the destruction of certain socioeconomic classes ought to be considered hate speech as long as such laws exist.

[The Wolven League]

Would you agree with hate speech laws targeting communists and those that support the former communist regimes in Central and Eastern Europe?

If we were speaking of communists in general? No. Unlike white supremacism, nazism or radical Islamism, communism is awfully broad, and unless the communists in question were, say inciting violence or hatred towards a religious or ethnic group, or an entire gender or sexual orientation, or people of a specific national origin, or foreigners in general... Last I checked, hate crimes and hate speech has traditional referred to groups that communism as a whole doesn't really target, although some specific communist movements and regimes have. I am not aware of the definition of hate crime or hate speech ever including crimes committed against "the bourgeois" or incitement to kill "the capitalist pigs" (in order words, crime or speech targeting a socioeconomic class). If you are proposing that such an inclusion be made, we can talk about it.

More importantly, however, it has ocurred to me that your question was not phrased all that fairly, insofar as you've presented the issue as penalizing entire ideologies, which is not quite what most hate crime and hate speech legislation aims to do. Rather, such legislation tends to focus on the groups that the crime or speech targets, not the general worldview of the one targeting said groups. Granted, I personally have been speaking in terms of depriving extremists of the tools to radicalize vulnerable individuals online.

"Radical" Islamism is redundant. Islamism is a vile, radical ideology on its own.

[Napkiraly]

Both groups formed as a result of the Syrian Civil War which began in 2011.

So the Kurds just sat around on their asses while the Marines killed the shit out of AQI.

Super, no wonder they were constantly under equipped and bombed by the turks.

Not at all. Those specific groups were created by Syrian Kurds. The Peshmerga played an important role in maintaining order in northern Iraq (AQI was based primarily in the Sunni Triangle) and were the ones that captured OBL's courier iirc, leading to Operation Neptune Spear.