The Death of Free Speech in Europe

[Genivaria]

So death threats are protected speech? I can threaten to shoot you in the face, to your face and you'd be okay with that?

I assume you're addressing me since I'm the one talking more about free speech, so I'll answer this.

A death threat is not expressing an opinion. It is a statement that you are going to harm someone.

"I am going to kill you,"Is not expressing an opinion.

So how about "We should get together and fire-bomb that Mosque?"
Is that free speech or is inciting violence restricted speech?

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Free speech is the freedom to express your opinions and ideas. Recording child porn, inciting people to violence, and causing a panic are not free speech.

Then clearly you agree that government can and does restrict opinions and ideas, a concept that somehow drove many liberals and alt-rightists alike to utter insanity.

Recording child porn is not expressing an opinion, and neither is causing a panic.

By inciting violence, I mean an immediate and deliberate incitement, such as shouting,"Let's kill these pigs!" In a mob and causing a riot that injures or kills people. Writing a book on why you think the Jews did 9/11 does not have an immediate effect and is an expression of an opinion.

[Liriena]

1. Saudi Arabia being ruled by religious fundamentalists who regularly violate their people's human rights has nothing to do with anything we were discussing, so you get one strike for it.
2. You baselessly imply that I don't believe that Saudi Arabia's treatment of women and LGBT is not what could be considered a display of radical Islamism. For that dishonest implication, that clumsy strawman, you get a second strike.

DEFLECT! DEFLECT! DEFLECT! Maybe if you keep doing that, I won't notice that you are not actually saying anything relevant.

How am I "deflecting"? You and I were not engaged in a specific argument beforehand, so I've nothing to deflect. I criticized your usage of the phrase "radical Islamism" and we exchanged, what? Three posts? And now you're saying I'm avoiding the subject at hand, though you can clearly see the vast majority of my posts in this thread are highly relevant.

So what was your point in suddenly bringing up Saudi Arabia? Were you trying to argue that the religious fundamentalism of Saudi Arabia's government somehow proves that all of Islam is "radical"?

[Proctopeo]

So death threats are protected speech? I can threaten to shoot you in the face, to your face and you'd be okay with that?

I assume you're addressing me since I'm the one talking more about free speech, so I'll answer this.

A death threat is not expressing an opinion. It is a statement that you are going to harm someone.

"I am going to kill you,"Is not expressing an opinion.

On the other hand, "I would like it if you died", is not a death threat, and just a hostile opinion.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

I assume you're addressing me since I'm the one talking more about free speech, so I'll answer this.

A death threat is not expressing an opinion. It is a statement that you are going to harm someone.

"I am going to kill you,"Is not expressing an opinion.

So how about "We should get together and fire-bomb that Mosque?"
Is that free speech or is inciting violence restricted speech?

"We should get together and fire-bomb that Mosque?" Is expressing an opinion.

Actually planning to fire-bomb a mosque is not.

[The Wolven League]

How am I "deflecting"? You and I were not engaged in a specific argument beforehand, so I've nothing to deflect. I criticized your usage of the phrase "radical Islamism" and we exchanged, what? Three posts? And now you're saying I'm avoiding the subject at hand, though you can clearly see the vast majority of my posts in this thread are highly relevant.

So what was your point in suddenly bringing up Saudi Arabia? Were you trying to argue that the religious fundamentalism of Saudi Arabia's government somehow proves that all of Islam is "radical"?

I was referencing Islamism- as in, basing ones legal system off of Islamic law.

I don't support theocracy in general.

[Nirvash Type TheEND]

Ray Bradbury is spinning in his grave. If only we could harness his outrage, we could power the entire Eastern Seaboard of the US.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

I assume you're addressing me since I'm the one talking more about free speech, so I'll answer this.

A death threat is not expressing an opinion. It is a statement that you are going to harm someone.

"I am going to kill you,"Is not expressing an opinion.

On the other hand, "I would like it if you died", is not a death threat, and just a hostile opinion.

Yep.

How am I "deflecting"? You and I were not engaged in a specific argument beforehand, so I've nothing to deflect. I criticized your usage of the phrase "radical Islamism" and we exchanged, what? Three posts? And now you're saying I'm avoiding the subject at hand, though you can clearly see the vast majority of my posts in this thread are highly relevant.

So what was your point in suddenly bringing up Saudi Arabia? Were you trying to argue that the religious fundamentalism of Saudi Arabia's government somehow proves that all of Islam is "radical"?

There's also the rest of the Arabian Peninsula.

[The Wolven League]

I assume you're addressing me since I'm the one talking more about free speech, so I'll answer this.

A death threat is not expressing an opinion. It is a statement that you are going to harm someone.

"I am going to kill you,"Is not expressing an opinion.

On the other hand, "I would like it if you died", is not a death threat, and just a hostile opinion.

Well... it is.

There's many people who I'd prefer to be six feet under. Doesn't mean I have plans to actually assassinate them.

[Proctopeo]

On the other hand, "I would like it if you died", is not a death threat, and just a hostile opinion.

Well... it is.

There's many people who I'd prefer to be six feet under. Doesn't mean I have plans to actually assassinate them.

I was being sincere.

[Liriena]

Ray Bradbury is spinning in his grave. If only we could harness his outrage, we could power the entire Eastern Seaboard of the US.

I'll give you points for referencing Bradbury instead of Orwell. But no, I don't think this is the sort of thing that would make Bradbury spin in his grave.

[Liriena]

On the other hand, "I would like it if you died", is not a death threat, and just a hostile opinion.

Yep.

So what was your point in suddenly bringing up Saudi Arabia? Were you trying to argue that the religious fundamentalism of Saudi Arabia's government somehow proves that all of Islam is "radical"?

There's also the rest of the Arabian Peninsula.

Yes, which still contains only a fraction of the whole world's Muslim population, and just because the governments of those nations are fundamentalist, that does not men that their inhabitants themselves are, specially when they are not particularly democratic governments.

[Nirvash Type TheEND]

Ray Bradbury is spinning in his grave. If only we could harness his outrage, we could power the entire Eastern Seaboard of the US.

I'll give you points for referencing Bradbury instead of Orwell. But no, I don't think this is the sort of thing that would make Bradbury spin in his grave.

Of course not. Because you're a Beatty.

[The Wolven League]

Yep.

There's also the rest of the Arabian Peninsula.

Yes, which still contains only a fraction of the whole world's Muslim population, and just because the governments of those nations are fundamentalist, that does not men that their inhabitants themselves are, specially when they are not particularly democratic governments.

This argument was never about Islam in the first place, it was about Islamism.

[Liriena]

Yes, which still contains only a fraction of the whole world's Muslim population, and just because the governments of those nations are fundamentalist, that does not men that their inhabitants themselves are, specially when they are not particularly democratic governments.

This argument was never about Islam in the first place, it was about Islamism.

Which is not a monolith either.

[Neu Leonstein]

By inciting violence, I mean an immediate and deliberate incitement, such as shouting,"Let's kill these pigs!" In a mob and causing a riot that injures or kills people. Writing a book on why you think the Jews did 9/11 does not have an immediate effect and is an expression of an opinion.

These distinctions aren't deeply fundamental though. "We should go kill these pigs" is an opinion. Instead you're applying something like a legal test ("does it have an immediate effect?"), which sounds a lot like the sort of deliberation that one would expect from a judge. Incidentally, that's exactly what judges do, both in the US and in Europe.

The difference, as I alluded to above, is that the laws aimed at protecting the foundations of democratic society cast a slightly wider net on what does and does not constitute incitement in Europe than they do in the US. It's about what counts as "immediate effect". That is the difference that this entire thread is (supposedly) about.

[Nirvash Type TheEND]

By inciting violence, I mean an immediate and deliberate incitement, such as shouting,"Let's kill these pigs!" In a mob and causing a riot that injures or kills people. Writing a book on why you think the Jews did 9/11 does not have an immediate effect and is an expression of an opinion.

These distinctions aren't deeply fundamental though. "We should go kill these pigs" is an opinion. Instead you're applying something like a legal test ("does it have an immediate effect?"), which sounds a lot like the sort of deliberation that one would expect from a judge. Incidentally, that's exactly what judges do, both in the US and in Europe.

The difference, as I alluded to above, is that the laws aimed at protecting the foundations of democratic society cast a slightly wider net on what does and does not constitute incitement in Europe than they do in the US. It's about what counts as "immediate effect". That is the difference that this entire thread is (supposedly) about.

Here's a distinction for you.

Does the message contain a call to action?

"We should go kill these pigs" sure as hell does.

[Amudarya]

By inciting violence, I mean an immediate and deliberate incitement, such as shouting,"Let's kill these pigs!" In a mob and causing a riot that injures or kills people. Writing a book on why you think the Jews did 9/11 does not have an immediate effect and is an expression of an opinion.

These distinctions aren't deeply fundamental though. "We should go kill these pigs" is an opinion. Instead you're applying something like a legal test ("does it have an immediate effect?"), which sounds a lot like the sort of deliberation that one would expect from a judge. Incidentally, that's exactly what judges do, both in the US and in Europe.

The difference, as I alluded to above, is that the laws aimed at protecting the foundations of democratic society cast a slightly wider net on what does and does not constitute incitement in Europe than they do in the US. It's about what counts as "immediate effect". That is the difference that this entire thread is (supposedly) about.

I would argue that "immediate effect" is not always useful standard. And what constitutes "immediacy"? If a violent act is committed within five seconds of the statement? Five minutes? Five hours? Five days?

What about speech that seeks to incite violence on a scale that cannot be realized immediately, like bombing a building or building gas chambers for members of certain ethnic groups?

[Napkiraly]

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

You can certainly advocate for that, and as left-wing as I may be, that does not mean I'm keen on any talk about systematically exterminating a broad group of people. But as far as I can tell, socioeconomic class is not explicitly included in any definitions for hate crimes or hate speech.

It should though.

[Proctopeo]

These distinctions aren't deeply fundamental though. "We should go kill these pigs" is an opinion. Instead you're applying something like a legal test ("does it have an immediate effect?"), which sounds a lot like the sort of deliberation that one would expect from a judge. Incidentally, that's exactly what judges do, both in the US and in Europe.

The difference, as I alluded to above, is that the laws aimed at protecting the foundations of democratic society cast a slightly wider net on what does and does not constitute incitement in Europe than they do in the US. It's about what counts as "immediate effect". That is the difference that this entire thread is (supposedly) about.

Here's a distinction for you.

Does the message contain a call to action?

"We should go kill these pigs" sure as hell does.

Only if "these pigs" is well-defined. It's possible for it to be too vague for action to make sense (although action could still occur).

[Napkiraly]

This argument was never about Islam in the first place, it was about Islamism.

Which is not a monolith either.

Neither is fascism.

[Neo Balka]

This argument was never about Islam in the first place, it was about Islamism.

Which is not a monolith either.

A political system based off a religion cant be that bad.

T. Liriena

[Neu Leonstein]

Here's a distinction for you.

Does the message contain a call to action?

"We should go kill these pigs" sure as hell does.

It sure does. That doesn't answer the question of whether that distinction is a particularly useful one to make. You could make a different one, like "does it disturb the public peace?" and the answer would also be 'yes'. Except that then you could in some cases find the publication of a particular book to no longer be protected speech too.

Look, all I'm trying to say is that pretty much everyone in this thread who has criticised these European free speech laws has done so by arguing that there are two inherently different categories of speech, and that the the Europeans are falsely including some of the wrong category in what is banned. But I don't think that this inherent difference is a given, and so what would be needed is a more detailed argument about why one would draw the line at one thing but not another.

[Liriena]

Which is not a monolith either.

Neither is fascism.

Mhmm.

Which is not a monolith either.

A political system based off a religion cant be that bad.

T. Liriena

Oh, yeah, that's a totally real quote from an actual post I wrote somewhere around here.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

These distinctions aren't deeply fundamental though. "We should go kill these pigs" is an opinion. Instead you're applying something like a legal test ("does it have an immediate effect?"), which sounds a lot like the sort of deliberation that one would expect from a judge. Incidentally, that's exactly what judges do, both in the US and in Europe.

The difference, as I alluded to above, is that the laws aimed at protecting the foundations of democratic society cast a slightly wider net on what does and does not constitute incitement in Europe than they do in the US. It's about what counts as "immediate effect". That is the difference that this entire thread is (supposedly) about.

Here's a distinction for you.

Does the message contain a call to action?

"We should go kill these pigs" sure as hell does.

"We should" is not a call to action. It's a statement saying that you think killing pigs would be a good idea.

Here's a distinction for you.

Does the message contain a call to action?

"We should go kill these pigs" sure as hell does.

Only if "these pigs" is well-defined. It's possible for it to be too vague for action to make sense (although action could still occur).

Presumably the word "pig" is being used in a context where the audience knows what you're referring to. Like cops, or capitalists, or fat people, or literal pigs.