The Death of Free Speech in Europe

[Amudarya]

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.

For the most part the criticisms of European free speech laws is not being done in good faith, so I would not expect detailed and logically consistent arguments to be forthcoming.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

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.

For the most part the criticisms of European free speech laws is not being done in good faith, so I would not expect detailed and logically consistent arguments to be forthcoming.

How are they not being done in good faith?

[Free Missouri]

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.

If the speech does not *ACTIVELY INCITE VIOLENCE* (colored, Bolded, italicized, and underlined for emphasis) then it should be protected. The only other time that speech should ever be censored is when there is Fraud or Defamation that directly leads to a financial loss to the victim (Or gain for the perpetrator).

It's pretty easily drawn:

"We should ban/exterminate/kill all Muslims," in front of a crowd that isn't armed, isn't in a frenzy, and isn't reasonably assumed to be about to go kill someone, is not incitement.

"Let's go lynch them niggers" while being part of a mob that is armed, angry, and can be easily expected to actually carry out what you suggest, is incitement.

[Minoa]

It is illegal to question the Holocaust in some countries, because it happened beyond any doubt.

However, Liriena beat me in explaining why hate speech is not what an inclusive democracy would accept as free speech.

[Neu Leonstein]

If the speech does not *ACTIVELY INCITE VIOLENCE* (colored, Bolded, italicized, and underlined for emphasis) then it should be protected. The only other time that speech should ever be censored is when there is Fraud or Defamation that directly leads to a financial loss to the victim (Or gain for the perpetrator).

I chose not to colour, bold, italicise or underline the "why" in my sentence, but maybe I should have. It seems to me like one can quite reasonably think that someone standing in front of a crowd calling for the extermination of a group of people will lead to an attempt to exterminate a group of people. Extermination events are bad for society and for the individuals involved. The 1930s have demonstrated that it is by no means guaranteed that state institutions are able to prevent such attempts at the last minute. So those sound like reasonable basis to think like maybe a call for extermination should not be protected speech.

[Free Missouri]

It is illegal to question the Holocaust in some countries, because it happened beyond any doubt.

However, Liriena beat me in explaining why hate speech is not what an inclusive democracy would accept as free speech.

All speech that doesn't ACTIVELY INCITE VIOLENCE would be accepted as free and protected speech in any free (which is far more important than being inclusive) democracy.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

It is illegal to question the Holocaust in some countries, because it happened beyond any doubt.

9/11 happened, denying it is still legal.

[Free Missouri]

If the speech does not *ACTIVELY INCITE VIOLENCE* (colored, Bolded, italicized, and underlined for emphasis) then it should be protected. The only other time that speech should ever be censored is when there is Fraud or Defamation that directly leads to a financial loss to the victim (Or gain for the perpetrator).

I chose not to colour, bold, italicise or underline the "why" in my sentence, but maybe I should have. It seems to me like one can quite reasonably think that someone standing in front of a crowd calling for the extermination of a group of people will lead to an attempt to exterminate a group of people. Extermination events are bad for society and for the individuals involved. The 1930s have demonstrated that it is by no means guaranteed that state institutions are able to prevent such attempts at the last minute. So those sound like reasonable basis to think like maybe a call for extermination should not be protected speech.

Unless the person is actually in a position where they can, or reasonably be expected to incite other persons to, carry out such violent actions, then it should be protected speech.

[Neo Balka]

It is illegal to question the Holocaust in some countries, because it happened beyond any doubt.

However, Liriena beat me in explaining why hate speech is not what an inclusive democracy would accept as free speech.

what can be defined as hate speech?

[Nirvash Type TheEND]

It is illegal to question the Holocaust in some countries, because it happened beyond any doubt.

9/11 happened, denying it is still legal.

Pearl Harbor happened, denying it is also legal.

[Neo Balka]

9/11 happened, denying it is still legal.

Pearl Harbor happened, denying it is also legal.

USS Maine happened, denying it is still legal.

[Free Missouri]

It is illegal to question the Holocaust in some countries, because it happened beyond any doubt.

However, Liriena beat me in explaining why hate speech is not what an inclusive democracy would accept as free speech.

what can be defined as hate speech?

THIS. THIS RIGHT HERE.

THIS IS WHY I KEEP RE-ITERATING:

Unless the person is actually in a position where they can, or reasonably be expected to incite other persons to, carry out such violent actions, then it should be protected speech.

[Liriena]

It is illegal to question the Holocaust in some countries, because it happened beyond any doubt.

However, Liriena beat me in explaining why hate speech is not what an inclusive democracy would accept as free speech.

what can be defined as hate speech?

Well, that depends on the country.

[Neo Balka]

what can be defined as hate speech?

Well, that depends on the country.

so governments can label anything as "hate speech?"

thats some slippery slope.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

what can be defined as hate speech?

Well, that depends on the country.

Why does it depend on country?

I guess you couldn't define speech against the Jews as hate speech in Saudi Arabia then.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Well, that depends on the country.

so governments can label anything as "hate speech?"

thats some slippery slope.

That's not what they're saying. They're saying it's not hate speech to speak hatefully against certain groups in certain countries.

[Minoa]

Unless the person is actually in a position where they can, or reasonably be expected to incite other persons to, carry out such violent actions, then it should be protected speech.

(Edited only due to garish formatting)

What about discrimination? What about other forms of persecution?

[Nirvash Type TheEND]

Well, that depends on the country.

Why does it depend on country?

I guess you couldn't define speech against the Jews as hate speech in Saudi Arabia then.

Have you ever seen Memri TV? They can't go a day without shitting on us.

[Skyviolia]

You need to understand something. Your rights stop where the rights of others start, plain and simple. You should be free to express your own opinion, but your right ends when you being to character assassinate a person or persons or if you are spreading hate and malice.

[New Grestin]

The definition of hate speech is entirely subjective, really. What a Jewish person might define as hate speech could vary wildly from what a Russian or a Muslim might define as hate speech. This extends to those in power, whose sensibilities therefore dictate that state's definition of hate speech. Germany is justifiably a bit iffy about hate speech, considering the fact that less than a century ago they were riding the tide of Fascism to kill everyone that wasn't white and blonde. Historical context can't be ignored when it comes to that.

Regarding the Russian fake news, I think it's readily apparent to anyone that the Russian state media and their lackeys flagrantly fabricate whatever truth they want and plaster it across the internet.

Maintaining the center left through regulation of hate speech might be the only real way to keep the center left around in Europe, if you ask me. Between Trump America™ , TotallyNottheSovietUnionWeSwear and whatever the hell the Chinese are doing, Europe might be the last bastion of sense on this godforsaken rock.

And Breitbart isn't a source, nor is it news. It's an Alternative Right mouthpiece and about as trustworthy as the Onion.

[Neo Balka]

The definition of hate speech is entirely subjective, really. What a Jewish person might define as hate speech could vary wildly from what a Russian or a Muslim might define as hate speech. This extends to those in power, whose sensibilities therefore dictate that state's definition of hate speech. Germany is justifiably a bit iffy about hate speech, considering the fact that less than a century ago they were riding the tide of Fascism to kill everyone that wasn't white and blonde. Historical context can't be ignored when it comes to that.

Regarding the Russian fake news, I think it's readily apparent to anyone that the Russian state media and their lackeys flagrantly fabricate whatever truth they want and plaster it across the internet.

Maintaining the center left through regulation of hate speech might be the only real way to keep the center left around in Europe, if you ask me. Between Trump America™ , TotallyNottheSovietUnionWeSwear and whatever the hell the Chinese are doing, Europe might be the last bastion of sense on this godforsaken rock.

And Breitbart isn't a source, nor is it news. It's an Alternative Right mouthpiece and about as trustworthy as the Onion.

AHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAAAAAAHH

HAAAAAA!

[Skyviolia]

And Breitbart isn't a source, nor is it news. It's an Alternative Right mouthpiece and about as less trustworthy as the Onion.

fixed.

[New Grestin]

AHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAAAAAAHH

HAAAAAA!

You gonna post an actual opinion, or are you just going to slap keys and pretend you said something really witty and topical?

[Amudarya]

AHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAAAAAAHH

HAAAAAA!

You gonna post an actual opinion, or are you just going to slap keys and pretend you said something really witty and topical?

The alt-right withers under sustained discussion; about all they can do is troll.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

You gonna post an actual opinion, or are you just going to slap keys and pretend you said something really witty and topical?

The alt-right withers under sustained discussion; about all they can do is troll.

Let's not turn this into a crab sumo match between ideologies, lest I remind you that the Far Left has been neutered by mediocrity.