The Death of Free Speech in Europe

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Then under this definition, there is no country on earth that grants its citizens the right to free speech.

You're right.

Countries do not grant their citizens free speech. It is a God-given right which is violated by overreaching states.

You know what else is a God-given right?

It is a God-given right to be able to kill someone if they so much as piss me the fuck off. But we have laws against it by "overreaching states", so perhaps you should be thankful that these overreaching states exist because we're not killing each other over perceived slights.

[The East Marches II]

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.

The European law makers are effectively admitting that against certain ideas they are weak and unable to cope in that case. They don't believe their ideas or the norm so strong on its own merits/politicking that it can win. Perhaps they shouldn't be so weak and spineless so this wouldn't be an issue.

[Olivaero]

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.

The European law makers are effectively admitting that against certain ideas they are weak and unable to cope in that case. Perhaps they shouldn't be so weak and spineless so this wouldn't be an issue.

No they are admitting that certain parts of the population are idiots that aren't swayed by reasoned debate and thus need to be protected from certain ideas that can be argued down. Two reasonable people can have an argument about whether the holocaust happened, but one person speaking to millions of people and asserting that it didn't happen is not a argument or a debate, it's one person asserting and some people perhaps believing. Which gets an ever more believable scenario day in and day out. We have the president of the US saying things with 0 evidence and people giving him the benefit of the doubt.

[The East Marches II]

The European law makers are effectively admitting that against certain ideas they are weak and unable to cope in that case. Perhaps they shouldn't be so weak and spineless so this wouldn't be an issue.

No they are admitting that certain parts of the population are idiots that aren't swayed by reasoned debate and thus need to be protected from certain ideas that can be argued down. Two reasonable people can have an argument about whether the holocaust happened, but one person speaking to millions of people and asserting that it didn't happen is not a argument or a debate, it's one person asserting and some people perhaps believing. Which gets an ever more believable scenario day in and day out. We have the president of the US saying things with 0 evidence and people giving him the benefit of the doubt.

Sure it is. It is very much a debate. You just don't believe your side can win on its own. That speaks to either a failure in education or a failure it in communication on the part of the political establishment. If the Democrats wanted to win, they should have run a better campaign, they've nobody to blame but themselves for the loss. That's price of incompetence in campaigning in politics. Just admit you don't think your ideas are strong enough, it's easier than trying to create special moral justifications.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Anyways, onto the topic of internet censorship by governments.

This was going to happen a long while ago and I had predicted it in my youth. Me and my dad knew the internet, as a tool of communication, was at its infancy when we started using it.

It has matured now, and governments understand a bit more about the internet, what it does, and who benefits. So they've been trying to regulate it little by little.

This wasn't going to be surprising for those who saw it coming, because a mature internet inherently means a regulated internet.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

No they are admitting that certain parts of the population are idiots that aren't swayed by reasoned debate and thus need to be protected from certain ideas that can be argued down. Two reasonable people can have an argument about whether the holocaust happened, but one person speaking to millions of people and asserting that it didn't happen is not a argument or a debate, it's one person asserting and some people perhaps believing. Which gets an ever more believable scenario day in and day out. We have the president of the US saying things with 0 evidence and people giving him the benefit of the doubt.

Sure it is. It is very much a debate. You just don't believe your side can win on its own. That speaks to either a failure in education or a failure it in communication on the part of the political establishment. If the Democrats wanted to win, they should have run a better campaign, they've nobody to blame but themselves for the loss. That's price of incompetence in campaigning in politics. Just admit you don't think your ideas are strong enough, it's easier than trying to create special moral justifications.

No side believes they can win on their own.

If it was possible, both sides would erase all historical records of their opponents in order to be able to retain power. It is as old as powerful states have existed.

[The East Marches II]

Sure it is. It is very much a debate. You just don't believe your side can win on its own. That speaks to either a failure in education or a failure it in communication on the part of the political establishment. If the Democrats wanted to win, they should have run a better campaign, they've nobody to blame but themselves for the loss. That's price of incompetence in campaigning in politics. Just admit you don't think your ideas are strong enough, it's easier than trying to create special moral justifications.

No side believes they can win on their own.

If it was possible, both sides would erase all historical records of their opponents in order to be able to retain power. It is as old as powerful states have existed.

Then why bother with the illusion of a democratic system in such a case? Why not settle it by force of arms once and for all?

[Olivaero]

No they are admitting that certain parts of the population are idiots that aren't swayed by reasoned debate and thus need to be protected from certain ideas that can be argued down. Two reasonable people can have an argument about whether the holocaust happened, but one person speaking to millions of people and asserting that it didn't happen is not a argument or a debate, it's one person asserting and some people perhaps believing. Which gets an ever more believable scenario day in and day out. We have the president of the US saying things with 0 evidence and people giving him the benefit of the doubt.

Sure it is. It is very much a debate. You just don't believe your side can win on its own. That speaks to either a failure in education or a failure it in communication on the part of the political establishment. If the Democrats wanted to win, they should have run a better campaign, they've nobody to blame but themselves for the loss. That's price of incompetence in campaigning in politics. Just admit you don't think your ideas are strong enough, it's easier than trying to create special moral justifications.

Asserting the opposite to what I said is not an argument. A reasoned debate implies equal footing of the two participants and both arguments being taken on their merits. Simply asserting things like your doing right now isn't that. Also the chest thumping bravado you've got going on really doesn't convince me. For future reference too I'm not a democrat or even American. The ideas I'm defending are plenty strong by the way, that's how they became so dominant in western society initially.

[The East Marches II]

Sure it is. It is very much a debate. You just don't believe your side can win on its own. That speaks to either a failure in education or a failure it in communication on the part of the political establishment. If the Democrats wanted to win, they should have run a better campaign, they've nobody to blame but themselves for the loss. That's price of incompetence in campaigning in politics. Just admit you don't think your ideas are strong enough, it's easier than trying to create special moral justifications.

Asserting the opposite to what I said is not an argument. A reasoned debate implies equal footing of the two participants and both arguments being taken on their merits. Simply asserting things like your doing right now isn't that. Also the chest thumping bravado you've got going on really doesn't convince me. For future reference too I'm not a democrat or even American. The ideas I'm defending are plenty strong by the way, that's how they became so dominant in western society initially.

Yes it is. You quite literally don't believe your ideology can defeat another so you seek to restrict it. You admitted as much your previous post by doubting the voter's competency in a 1 v 1 holocaust questioning scenario. I can tell you aren't American by your stance on the matter.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

No side believes they can win on their own.

If it was possible, both sides would erase all historical records of their opponents in order to be able to retain power. It is as old as powerful states have existed.

Then why bother with the illusion of a democratic system in such a case? Why not settle it by force of arms once and for all?

Because conflict is not conductive to a harmonious society.

Killing each other would put us in a position where society would collapse, and most people, save for those who think can live off the land, actually don't want that.

[Bakery Hill]

This is dangerous road to walk down. The further you go, the worse it gets.

I for one would prefer that ridiculous ideas be aired, in the public sphere at least, and relentlessly mocked. This is in the spirit of our best revolutionary traditions. Particularly inflammatory ideas, designed to deliberately provoke and incite are a little different, in this case I've always been a proponent of the talk shit get hit rule. A just state would look the other way if a Nazi gloated about the Holocaust at a Jewish event and got what was coming.

[The East Marches II]

Then why bother with the illusion of a democratic system in such a case? Why not settle it by force of arms once and for all?

Because conflict is not conductive to a harmonious society.

Killing each other would put us in a position where society would collapse, and most people, save for those who think can live off the land, actually don't want that.

Then we have a democratic system where we settle ideas by politics for that reason. Thats why I disagree with your assertion that no side believes they can win on their own, at least in America. In Europe they are more transparent in rigging the deck in their favor for a certain worldview.

[Neu Leonstein]

The European law makers are effectively admitting that against certain ideas they are weak and unable to cope in that case. They don't believe their ideas or the norm so strong on its own merits/politicking that it can win. Perhaps they shouldn't be so weak and spineless so this wouldn't be an issue.

What does weak or spineless mean in this context?

[Bakery Hill]

Then why bother with the illusion of a democratic system in such a case? Why not settle it by force of arms once and for all?

Because conflict is not conductive to a harmonious society.

Killing each other would put us in a position where society would collapse, and most people, save for those who think can live off the land, actually don't want that.

You don't need wholesale slaughter to repress a tendency, or suppress democracy. Just the threat of wholesale slaughter will do.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Sure it is. It is very much a debate. You just don't believe your side can win on its own. That speaks to either a failure in education or a failure it in communication on the part of the political establishment. If the Democrats wanted to win, they should have run a better campaign, they've nobody to blame but themselves for the loss. That's price of incompetence in campaigning in politics. Just admit you don't think your ideas are strong enough, it's easier than trying to create special moral justifications.

Asserting the opposite to what I said is not an argument. A reasoned debate implies equal footing of the two participants and both arguments being taken on their merits. Simply asserting things like your doing right now isn't that. Also the chest thumping bravado you've got going on really doesn't convince me. For future reference too I'm not a democrat or even American. The ideas I'm defending are plenty strong by the way, that's how they became so dominant in western society initially.

Asserting the opposite is an argument.

Now, is the opposite meritable? Depends. Personally, I don't think humanity is as reasonable as those who advocate debating things out put it. Force is needed sometimes to make a point. We didn't argue with Hitler about why he was conquering Europe, we went ahead and waged war against him after he had shown to be a threat.

The Roman emperors did not "argue" their way into the laurels. They killed their political rivals and consolidated power in their families by erasing the history of their political rivals.

Times have not changed all that much. All that has changed is our removal of history to make an example to preserving said history to make an example of our enemies.

[Bakery Hill]

Then under this definition, there is no country on earth that grants its citizens the right to free speech.

You're right.

Countries do not grant their citizens free speech. It is a God-given right which is violated by overreaching states.

Where in the Bible, because that's the God I presume you're speaking of, is the principle of free speech upheld?

[Olivaero]

Asserting the opposite to what I said is not an argument. A reasoned debate implies equal footing of the two participants and both arguments being taken on their merits. Simply asserting things like your doing right now isn't that. Also the chest thumping bravado you've got going on really doesn't convince me. For future reference too I'm not a democrat or even American. The ideas I'm defending are plenty strong by the way, that's how they became so dominant in western society initially.

Yes it is. You quite literally don't believe your ideology can defeat another so you seek to restrict it. You admitted as much your previous post by doubting the voter's competency in a 1 v 1 holocaust questioning scenario. I can tell you aren't American by your stance on the matter.

I don't believe it has as much emotional appeal as petty nationalism but I believe it provides more freedoms and that it can win debates on it's merits. Unless you mean something else by "defeat" . The problem is a shouting match is won by who shouts the loudest and with the least shame not who has the best arguments and the current state of political debate is a shouting match not a debate. Twitter for example is built for shouting matches as is the news media.

Please stop trying to put words in my mouth though, I know it's basically a hobby for the far right at this point but has it ever occurred to you your opponent is actually just speaking honestly about what they believe and you should talk to them about that rather than what you think they think?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Because conflict is not conductive to a harmonious society.

Killing each other would put us in a position where society would collapse, and most people, save for those who think can live off the land, actually don't want that.

Then we have a democratic system where we settle ideas by politics for that reason. Thats why I disagree with your assertion that no side believes they can win on their own, at least in America. In Europe they are more transparent in rigging the deck in their favor for a certain worldview.

We do. Yes.

That doesn't mean ideas can't stand on their own. No idea can. Oftentimes, you do need to use force to make other people agree with you, or the potential of negative consequences. That's why people often tell you that if you don't do X, Y negative thing will happen, to scare you into compliance.

If ideas could stand on their own, people wouldn't need to point out the negative effects of an idea.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Because conflict is not conductive to a harmonious society.

Killing each other would put us in a position where society would collapse, and most people, save for those who think can live off the land, actually don't want that.

You don't need wholesale slaughter to repress a tendency, or suppress democracy. Just the threat of wholesale slaughter will do.

Quite.

Now mind, I am not advocating for violence at all. But I do understand that violence, or the threat of it, can be conductive to make other people comply to what you want. Even Machiavelli's the Prince acknowledges this; although the piece is not exactly the most prominent one in many people's minds when it comes to force, it makes a good point about ruling with fear. You can be an effective ruler and rule by striking fear into your subjects, but there are caveats to it.

[The East Marches II]

The European law makers are effectively admitting that against certain ideas they are weak and unable to cope in that case. They don't believe their ideas or the norm so strong on its own merits/politicking that it can win. Perhaps they shouldn't be so weak and spineless so this wouldn't be an issue.

What does weak or spineless mean in this context?

Crazy ideas do not occur in a vacuum. Generally speaking, they gain in popularity due to a massive failure in the political establishment's reckoning on a certain matter. The Great Depression for yours, the Recession for my own country. If they were willing to confront certain issues like mass unemployment or other matters head on, there would not be an appeal to the fringe. Or if they are willing to create a cordon sanitaire around the poisonous party (which I believe to be the best method) instead of inviting them into the Government like say Schleicher/Papen and co. So we deal with the consequences of that failure in the form of radical parties. I do believe also that it is more dangerous to suppress them than it is to confront them in the open and defeat them via the ballot box. Sweeping a problem away under the rug merely invites disaster again for the future. That is what I mean by weak or spinelessness.

[The East Marches II]

Then we have a democratic system where we settle ideas by politics for that reason. Thats why I disagree with your assertion that no side believes they can win on their own, at least in America. In Europe they are more transparent in rigging the deck in their favor for a certain worldview.

We do. Yes.

That doesn't mean ideas can't stand on their own. No idea can. Oftentimes, you do need to use force to make other people agree with you, or the potential of negative consequences. That's why people often tell you that if you don't do X, Y negative thing will happen, to scare you into compliance.

If ideas could stand on their own, people wouldn't need to point out the negative effects of an idea.

Potential negative consequences and informing the public of such are part of politics and ideas. We don't have armed militias on the streets telling people "vote this way or we'll kill you". Thats a sign again of weakness and you not believing you side will win when that person does cast the vote.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

What does weak or spineless mean in this context?

Crazy ideas do not occur in a vacuum. Generally speaking, they gain in popularity due to a massive failure in the political establishment's reckoning on a certain matter. The Great Depression for yours, the Recession for my own country. If they were willing to confront certain issues like mass unemployment or other matters head on, there would not be an appeal to the fringe. Or if they are willing to create a cordon sanitaire around the poisonous party (which I believe to be the best method) instead of inviting them into the Government like say Schleicher/Papen and co. So we deal with the consequences of that failure in the form of radical parties. I do believe also that it is more dangerous to suppress them than it is to confront them in the open and defeat them via the ballot box. Sweeping a problem away under the rug merely invites disaster again for the future. That is what I mean by weak or spinelessness.

It isn't weak or spineless to suppress your political enemies.

It's just not the most conductive way if your goal is to have a liberal society. lliberal societies don't bother with confrontation in the form of a vote. But they are pretty good at suppressing political dissent.

[Olivaero]

Asserting the opposite to what I said is not an argument. A reasoned debate implies equal footing of the two participants and both arguments being taken on their merits. Simply asserting things like your doing right now isn't that. Also the chest thumping bravado you've got going on really doesn't convince me. For future reference too I'm not a democrat or even American. The ideas I'm defending are plenty strong by the way, that's how they became so dominant in western society initially.

Asserting the opposite is an argument.

Now, is the opposite meritable? Depends. Personally, I don't think humanity is as reasonable as those who advocate debating things out put it. Force is needed sometimes to make a point. We didn't argue with Hitler about why he was conquering Europe, we went ahead and waged war against him after he had shown to be a threat.

The Roman emperors did not "argue" their way into the laurels. They killed their political rivals and consolidated power in their families by erasing the history of their political rivals.

Times have not changed all that much. All that has changed is our removal of history to make an example to preserving said history to make an example of our enemies.

It isn't actually, the argument might implicitly be "Because I believe it is so" but the mere assertion is not a reason for supporting an idea. What is desirable in a liberal democracy is free and fair debate not distorted by false hoods the citizens of nations are not Roman emperors or nations themselves declaring war on another nation they are people who need to make a choice when it comes to supporting a set of ideas come election time and we should try and make laws that facilitate that.

[The East Marches II]

Yes it is. You quite literally don't believe your ideology can defeat another so you seek to restrict it. You admitted as much your previous post by doubting the voter's competency in a 1 v 1 holocaust questioning scenario. I can tell you aren't American by your stance on the matter.

I don't believe it has as much emotional appeal as petty nationalism but I believe it provides more freedoms and that it can win debates on it's merits. Unless you mean something else by "defeat" . The problem is a shouting match is won by who shouts the loudest and with the least shame not who has the best arguments and the current state of political debate is a shouting match not a debate. Twitter for example is built for shouting matches as is the news media.

Please stop trying to put words in my mouth though, I know it's basically a hobby for the far right at this point but has it ever occurred to you your opponent is actually just speaking honestly about what they believe and you should talk to them about that rather than what you think they think?

Shouting match is a form of debate. I mean defeat as in win elections. I do like the attempt to pidgeon hole me as far right despite the fact I am a Democrat. How does restricting speech provide more freedom? It quite literally reduces it. If you mean improve the quality of debate by reducing freedom, thats an another argument entirely and one which I say again is built on the fear that your ideas won't stack up when the ballot totals come in.

[The East Marches II]

Crazy ideas do not occur in a vacuum. Generally speaking, they gain in popularity due to a massive failure in the political establishment's reckoning on a certain matter. The Great Depression for yours, the Recession for my own country. If they were willing to confront certain issues like mass unemployment or other matters head on, there would not be an appeal to the fringe. Or if they are willing to create a cordon sanitaire around the poisonous party (which I believe to be the best method) instead of inviting them into the Government like say Schleicher/Papen and co. So we deal with the consequences of that failure in the form of radical parties. I do believe also that it is more dangerous to suppress them than it is to confront them in the open and defeat them via the ballot box. Sweeping a problem away under the rug merely invites disaster again for the future. That is what I mean by weak or spinelessness.

It isn't weak or spineless to suppress your political enemies.

It's just not the most conductive way if your goal is to have a liberal society. lliberal societies don't bother with confrontation in the form of a vote. But they are pretty good at suppressing political dissent.

I thought we were operating under the general belief in the West that we are supposed have and maintain one. That was the context in which I was basing my argument. Illiberal societies and authoritarian stuff is another matter entirely.