The Death of Free Speech in Europe

[Luminesa]

what can be defined as hate speech?

Well, that depends on the country.

No. Hatred is hatred, no matter where you go. It does not matter if I am in Israel, China, the U.S., or Brazil. If I stand on a street-corner, or the Free Speech Alley at my school, and I shout that it's a woman's fault that she gets raped for going into a bar (someone actually said this at my school once, some street-preacher), that's hate-speech. If I go to Saudi Arabia and I call a woman a "whore" for not wearing a headscarf, that's hate-speech. If I'm in the United States, and I say, "Most Mexicans are rapists," that is hate-speech.

It should not depend on the country. It should depend on what is truth, and the truth is that hatred is seeking the destruction of others, acting without any intention of building society. Saying that "it depends on the country" reduces hatred to, "Well, hatred in one country is different in another country." No. Hatred is hatred, and the moment we turn a blind eye to it in one country, we turn a blind eye to it in every country.

Now, how do we get rid of hatred? Do we just throw laws around and demand that people speak in a certain way? No. Demanding such only stirs more anger, more anti-establishment chaos. No, we have to change the culture around us, each and every day. Speaking with love. Acting with love. Seeking to learn more about how to love. Beating the hatred out of our own hearts, with time and patience. A law is easy to slam down. It is much harder to speak with love, and to act with love, as often as one can.

[New haven america]

Well, that depends on the country.

No. Hatred is hatred, no matter where you go. It does not matter if I am in Israel, China, the U.S., or Brazil. If I stand on a street-corner, or the Free Speech Alley at my school, and I shout that it's a woman's fault that she gets raped for going into a bar (someone actually said this at my school once, some street-preacher), that's hate-speech.

In some areas of the world that's considered a fact, not hate speech.

[UCE Watchdog of the Puppets]

Well, that depends on the country.

No. Hatred is hatred, no matter where you go. It does not matter if I am in Israel, China, the U.S., or Brazil. If I stand on a street-corner, or the Free Speech Alley at my school, and I shout that it's a woman's fault that she gets raped for going into a bar (someone actually said this at my school once, some street-preacher), that's hate-speech. If I go to Saudi Arabia and I call a woman a "whore" for not wearing a headscarf, that's hate-speech. If I'm in the United States, and I say, "Most Mexicans are rapists," that is hate-speech.

It should not depend on the country. It should depend on what is truth, and the truth is that hatred is seeking the destruction of others, acting without any intention of building society. Saying that "it depends on the country" reduces hatred to, "Well, hatred in one country is different in another country." No. Hatred is hatred, and the moment we turn a blind eye to it in one country, we turn a blind eye to it in every country.

Now, how do we get rid of hatred? Do we just throw laws around and demand that people speak in a certain way? No. Demanding such only stirs more anger, more anti-establishment chaos. No, we have to change the culture around us, each and every day. Speaking with love. Acting with love. Seeking to learn more about how to love. Beating the hatred out of our own hearts, with time and patience. A law is easy to slam down. It is much harder to speak with love, and to act with love, as often as one can.

That it is. I personally prefer the social enforcement mechanism for most things, but when the public body of private individuals is unwilling to act, the state must goad them. Now if we could see people resorting less to the goad...

[UCE Watchdog of the Puppets]

No. Hatred is hatred, no matter where you go. It does not matter if I am in Israel, China, the U.S., or Brazil. If I stand on a street-corner, or the Free Speech Alley at my school, and I shout that it's a woman's fault that she gets raped for going into a bar (someone actually said this at my school once, some street-preacher), that's hate-speech.

In some areas of the world that's considered a fact, not hate speech.

An archetypal, Benxborian, alternative fact.

[SUNTHREIT]

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.

"I am:
A pansexual, pantheist, green socialist
An aspiring writer and journalist"

hmm... really activates your almonds

[Luminesa]

No. Hatred is hatred, no matter where you go. It does not matter if I am in Israel, China, the U.S., or Brazil. If I stand on a street-corner, or the Free Speech Alley at my school, and I shout that it's a woman's fault that she gets raped for going into a bar (someone actually said this at my school once, some street-preacher), that's hate-speech.

In some areas of the world that's considered a fact, not hate speech.

Problem is it's not. Stating such things is victim-blaming, and it keeps us from attacking the true causes of sexual harrassment.

[Dai Heiwa]

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

9/11 happened, denying it is still legal.

The rationale behind Holocaust denial laws is not as clear-cut as this, but as always once can expect the mediocre denizens of NSG to dumb down all sorts of complex issues.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

9/11 happened, denying it is still legal.

The rationale behind Holocaust denial laws is not as clear-cut as this

Seems pretty clear cut to me. I understand why they did it, but it's been seventy years.

[Dai Heiwa]

The rationale behind Holocaust denial laws is not as clear-cut as this

Seems pretty clear cut to me. I understand why they did it, but it's been seventy years.

Holocaust denial laws are established in countries most affected by Nazi campaigns of extermination and thus launched to detoxify Nazi elements and avert the cruelties of the past. It has done a quite effective job in doing so, and I'm not seeing any reason to oppose said law---as you yourselves have agreed, the state does on occasion criminalize ideas and words.

"It's been seventh years" meant little. It's essential for weak structures like European liberal-democracies to remain vigilant lest it will be subverted by fifth-column elements.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Seems pretty clear cut to me. I understand why they did it, but it's been seventy years.

Holocaust denial laws are established in countries most affected by Nazi campaigns of extermination and thus launched to detoxify Nazi elements and avert the cruelties of the past. It has done a quite effective job in doing so, and I'm not seeing any reason to oppose said law---

Nazism being a eunuch for seventy years is a reason.

as you yourselves have agreed, the state does on occasion criminalize ideas and words.

No, I acknowledged that states do that on occasion, then I argued that they shouldn't.

"It's been seventh years" meant little. It's essential for weak structures like European liberal-democracies to remain vigilant lest it will be subverted by fifth-column elements.

America hasn't been subverted.

[Genivaria]

If by "my logic" you mean, as I said in another response, in purely legal terms? Yes.
If you are asking me about my personal opinion, beyond what the law may say or what tradition and convention may dictate in one society or other, then my answer is no.

So it's okay if Saudis can say what they want about Jews because it's their culture, but Germans can't.

In America, would you say hate speech against blacks should legally not okay? What about whites in America?

Nowhere did he say that actually.

[Genivaria]

In my personal opinion, anti-semitic hate speech is unacceptable regardless of its source and regardless of where it is spewed.


In my personal opinion, racist hate speech is unacceptable and should not be tolerated or normalized even in the United States.

So it's not okay if it's legal in Saudi Arabia despite its culture?

Culture justifies nothing.
I'm from Texas, believe me I hear all the time how the Civil War was just an attempt by the North to crush 'Southern Culture'.
*spits*

[The East Marches II]

Unfortunately OP, the Europeans do not have the same understanding of freedom as we do. They view certain things acceptable that we do not. Its a cultural difference. We should just strive to ensure their bad ideas don't cross the ocean.

[Infected Mushroom]

Unfortunately OP, the Europeans do not have the same understanding of freedom as we do. They view certain things acceptable that we do not. Its a cultural difference. We should just strive to ensure their bad ideas don't cross the ocean.

their ideas are good

Europe is full of good ideas. Europe is a good place. Europe is a happy, safe, politically correct place.

[Neo Balka]

Unfortunately OP, the Europeans do not have the same understanding of freedom as we do. They view certain things acceptable that we do not. Its a cultural difference. We should just strive to ensure their bad ideas don't cross the ocean.

their ideas are good

Europe is full of good ideas. Europe is a good place. Europe is a happy, safe, politically correct place.

How many bombings?

[The East Marches II]

Unfortunately OP, the Europeans do not have the same understanding of freedom as we do. They view certain things acceptable that we do not. Its a cultural difference. We should just strive to ensure their bad ideas don't cross the ocean.

their ideas are good

Europe is full of good ideas. Europe is a good place. Europe is a happy, safe, politically correct place.

Is this a joke post? My sarcasm meter is a bit off and I don't want to fire shots unless necessary.

[Datlofff]

So long as someone isn't trying to justify or spread something like the holocaust being a good thing, or advocating for another 911, then they should be aloud dot say whatever. After all: "I disagree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it."

[Neu Leonstein]

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 to remove unnecessary formatting)

At the risk of sounding like a broken record: why?

You're just repeating your stance with slightly different wording. But the reasoning is key here, because it's the only thing that'll allow this discussion to progress.

Why does free speech need to be protected? Is it because it's an inalienable right inherent to all humans? If so, where does it come from and why doesn't it extend to all forms of speech without distinction? Or should it be protected because it's a means to an end, i.e. necessary for a democratic system based on the free exchange of ideas to work?

[Zottistan]

In some areas of the world that's considered a fact, not hate speech.

Problem is it's not. Stating such things is victim-blaming, and it keeps us from attacking the true causes of sexual harrassment.

My only issue is that in the absence of discussion of issues like that it can be very easy for an unchallengable dogma to emerge with very little basis in fact. Without proper discussion, particularly with social and philosophical issues like that of blame, it can be difficult to decide what actually is a fact and very easy for a culture of bullying and dogma to emerge, or worse.

I like the general "let's all be nice to eachother" message but free exchange of ideas, no matter how stupid or offensive those ideas might be, serves a functional purpose as well as a philosophical. I'm not a fan of any sort of enforced regulation of opinion.

[Neu Leonstein]

I like the general "let's all be nice to eachother" message but free exchange of ideas, no matter how stupid or offensive those ideas might be, serves a functional purpose as well as a philosophical. I'm not a fan of any sort of enforced regulation of opinion.

Does it serve that purpose though? I mean, on paper, the free exchange of ideas in a democratic society is meant to allow the honest exchange of arguments and reasoning, meant to convince others and ultimately decide on the best course of action.

In practice though, humans are spectacularly bad at engaging in rational arguments:
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/ ... -our-minds
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/arc ... nd/519093/
http://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2 ... -explained

In a world in which propaganda and censorship can't really be defined completely by just referring to outright bans of communication, I think it's fair to ask whether completely freeing all forms of communication will actually serve the purpose of making democratic debate more robust or better able to produce good policy outcomes.

That's not to say that there couldn't be other reasons to keep pretty much everything protected speech. But the one in which free speech is a means to an end stands on shaky grounds, in my view.

[Olivaero]

their ideas are good

Europe is full of good ideas. Europe is a good place. Europe is a happy, safe, politically correct place.

How many bombings?

How many school shootings?

[Zottistan]

I like the general "let's all be nice to eachother" message but free exchange of ideas, no matter how stupid or offensive those ideas might be, serves a functional purpose as well as a philosophical. I'm not a fan of any sort of enforced regulation of opinion.

Does it serve that purpose though? I mean, on paper, the free exchange of ideas in a democratic society is meant to allow the honest exchange of arguments and reasoning, meant to convince others and ultimately decide on the best course of action.

In practice though, humans are spectacularly bad at engaging in rational arguments:
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/ ... -our-minds
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/arc ... nd/519093/
http://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2 ... -explained

In a world in which propaganda and censorship can't really be defined completely by just referring to outright bans of communication, I think it's fair to ask whether completely freeing all forms of communication will actually serve the purpose of making democratic debate more robust or better able to produce good policy outcomes.

That's not to say that there couldn't be other reasons to keep pretty much everything protected speech. But the one in which free speech is a means to an end stands on shaky grounds, in my view.

Oh absolutely, human beings are by no means completely rational decision makers, but we're also not completely incapable of making rational decisions. People do, fairly regularly change their minds, often with reasonable defenses for these changes. Having access to more opinions isn't going to sift out irrational bullshit completely or even mostly, but it will help. You also have to wonder whether a policy could be better put together by a roomful of idiots acting with consensus or a country full of idiots each with different opinions.

How many bombings?

How many school shootings?

I'm half convinced America's school shooting problem is largely due to the fact that American journalism and news reporting is a joke.

[Neu Leonstein]

Oh absolutely, human beings are by no means completely rational decision makers, but we're also not completely incapable of making rational decisions. People do, fairly regularly change their minds, often with reasonable defenses for these changes. Having access to more opinions isn't going to sift out irrational bullshit completely or even mostly, but it will help. You also have to wonder whether a policy could be better put together by a roomful of idiots acting with consensus or a country full of idiots each with different opinions.

Except that no one is arguing for a roomful of idiots. They are arguing for the application of the same rules that govern other forms of incitement to apply to statements that serve to undermine the liberal, democratic order of which free speech is a part (at least by some justifications). Their reasons for doing this are fairly clear as well, given that we watched societies fall apart with rapid speed back in the 1930s (and other times). Some forms of speech can be reasonably expected to lead to a situation where not just free speech, but the entire set of institutions that allow a free society to function are threatened.

Restricting those forms is explicitly aimed at keeping the rules by which political activity happens outside the game itself. Because everyone understands what political discourse is and what the rules are, that is not an arbitrary restriction, and it can't just be turned into one. That's the argument that European lawmakers put forward, and it's the one that their critics should be addressing.

[Free Missouri]

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?

What is discrimination, who arbitrates that?

Is me kicking a pair of black kids out of my bar because they're listening to loud black music discrimination? How about my city refusing to give permits for minarets and loudspeakers? Me refusing to to take part in a ceremony because it is blatantly against my religion as I run a contracted service and not a public accommodation? Is giving certain people free whatever or large discounts because of something arbitrary like service or being a cop?

Who gets to decide? What you or I say is normal I guarantee some jackass in the Bureaucracy would try to call discrimination, what you and I say is discrimination I guarantee some jackass in govern,met would try to classify as normal.

Same with "hate speech." Some would call my support of Israel as hate speech against Palestine, while I consider much of the BDS movement as being a form of hate speech against Israelis.

That's why any crackdown on speech is dubious at best, because it would allow a sufficiently immoral president to crack down on his political opponents by labeling their ideas "hate speech"

[Minoa]

What is discrimination, who arbitrates that?

Is me kicking a pair of black kids out of my bar because they're listening to loud black music discrimination? How about my city refusing to give permits for minarets and loudspeakers? Me refusing to to take part in a ceremony because it is blatantly against my religion as I run a contracted service and not a public accommodation? Is giving certain people free whatever or large discounts because of something arbitrary like service or being a cop?

Unfortunately, you are not realising that in our continent, we try to balance between freedom of speech and treating each other equally. That doesn't mean that it is perfect, and no country in the world is, but more often than not, they try to get it right.

I am not an expert in everything in the world: but that is no excuse for me to be kicked out of a bar just because, for example, I speak French: no excuse either to be denied the right to worship just because I am Muslim, no excuse to be denied the right to marry in a public venue of my choice just because of my sexual preference. The last bit is too ambiguous, but that is no excuse to be denied the right to serve in the police just because I am African.

Sadly, your argument seems to legitimise discrimination and hostility towards certain ethnic and social groups. The only reason I have criticised Israel is because of how they treat the Palestinians, not because the State is Jewish. Also, I have criticised both sides because of the lack of progress in achieving lasting peace. By the way, the BDS movement is too crazy for me. As ISIL has demonstrated, state-sponsored discrimination and hostility towards certain ethnic and social groups only escalates the vicious cycle of violence.