The Death of Free Speech in Europe

[Uxupox]

Then banning their opinions is the answer?

Can't ban an opinion.

With censorship laws you can. As an opinion is a define right within freedom of speech and expression.

[Alvecia]

Can't ban an opinion.

With censorship laws you can. As an opinion is a define right within freedom of speech and expression.

Well no, definitionally an opinion doesn't need to be expressed to exist, was my point.

[Benuty]

With censorship laws you can. As an opinion is a define right within freedom of speech and expression.

Well no, definitionally an opinion doesn't need to be expressed to exist, was my point.

Unless government's feel the need to trick people into staying it into existence so they can be arrested. To be fair though the thought police had cool uniforms.

[Alvecia]

Well no, definitionally an opinion doesn't need to be expressed to exist, was my point.

Unless government's feel the need to trick people into staying it exist so they can be arrested. To be fair though the thought police had cool uniforms.

"So what did you think of the rally last night?"
"Honestly? I thought it was a litte.....awwwww, almost had me there"

[Dumb Ideologies]

With regards to the Youtube/Google issue:

Youtube is Google's company. Google can do what they like in terms of setting the terms of usage. Their aspiration is to monetize Youtube's social space - they're not in it for the free speech or for any particular greater social purpose. Advertising revenue is a large part of this.

Major companies and parts of the more traditional media are a major source of advertising revenue. They want the social reach, but they also want to appear respectable, so when their adverts appear alongside videos that are at all controversial they don't like it.

Google wants the money and doesn't want companies to withdraw, so they're going to restrict content. They're using algorithms rather than people to do that, so they're going to get rid of stuff that doesn't really need deleting, and that's going to harm Youtube as a space and dilute its original purpose. They're also currently experimenting with stuff like "restricted mode" to keep parents happy. But that means that harmless LGBT content and other material is being filtered out so isolated youth who could benefit from information and support can't get to it.

Unfortunately, Google's ownership of Youtube has now gone beyond the annoyance of more adverts and their motives and goals are going to harm the site and make it worse for its users. You can't really compel Google to take account of the wider ethos and purpose of the platform, and ultimately they're in it for the $$$ and will go where the money is. Sad but true. Depending on how bad things get there might emerge a competitor who can attract large sectors of the userbase away.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

So not a lie then, but a misguided belief.

Do you think a misguided belief is truth????

I never said that. I just said it wasn't a lie. Unless they're trying to deceive you, then it isn't a lie.

Do you think a misguided belief is truth????

Ultimately it isn't but it is their final opinion and one must respect it.

Only in the sense that we shouldn't force them into another opinion. I refuse to respect Holocaust Deniers as anything more than people with rights.

[Lorkhan]

About every day while I'm browsing YouTube, I almost always come across a message like this at least once:

This video is blocked in [insert West European country here]

Why is this?
Primarily due to Europe's draconian censorship laws, that bans all "offensive language" and a press that calls all anti-Merkel news "Russian fake news."
These changes are most evident in Russia, where even fairly moderate channels such as Styxhexenhammer666 are banned.
But it's not just YouTube. Facebook and Twitter are starting to break too.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/ ... peech-code
The EU has recently implemented a new policy, demanding that all "hate speech" be removed by their respective companies.
But the German government wishes to go further:
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/ ... s-facebook
Under this proposal, companies could face penalties of up to €50 million should they not comply.
Unfortunately, the EU seems to be quite on-board with ideas such as these as well:
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/12 ... -24-hours/
Oh, and they aren't content with censoring dissenting opinions, they also want to ban alternative media too:
https://www.ft.com/content/85683e08-e4a ... 357a75844a
Combine this with the fact that in many European countries, it is illegal to question the Holocaust, and you have a censorship level nearing that of China.

These actions seem designed to root out dissenting opinions in order to maintain the center-left status quo.

So what do you say, NSG? Is censorship necessary to protect "democracy?" Or should free speech be banned all together?

Or maybe, we allow each other to freely discuss and debate ideas.

Until the EU starts a bloc-wide ban on access to 4chan and NS, then it's not truly the death of free speech.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

It was still taught in a public school. By someone.

Doesn't matter how many times it happened or what happened to him afterwards, it still happened.


Here's my problem with that, opinions can't be factly wrong.

I think everyone here can agree that the holocaust did indeed happen.

It's what happened in history, there have been multitudes of allied soldiers who have made statements on concentration camps that they liberated.

The evidence to say that it happened is monumental.

And then these people go around saying that it didn't happen.

Opinions can't be wrong and the statement of "The holocaust didn't happen" is wrong beacuse of all the evidence that leads us to the conclusion that
this event did indeed occur.

Proofreading.

It was still taught in a public school. By someone.

Doesn't matter how many times it happened or what happened to him afterwards, it still happened.


Here's my problem with that, opinions can't be factly wrong.

I think everyone here can agree that the holocaust did indeed happen.

It's what happened in history, there have been multitudes of allied soldiers who have made statements on concentration camps that they liberated.

The evidence to say that it happened is monumental.

And then these people go around saying that it didn't happen.

Opinions can't be wrong and the statement of "The holocaust didn't happen" is wrong beacuse of all the evidence that leads us to the conclusion that
this event did indeed occur.

What?

It was still taught in a public school. By someone.

Doesn't matter how many times it happened or what happened to him afterwards, it still happened.


Here's my problem with that, opinions can't be factly wrong.

I think everyone here can agree that the holocaust did indeed happen.

It's what happened in history, there have been multitudes of allied soldiers who have made statements on concentration camps that they liberated.

The evidence to say that it happened is monumental.

And then these people go around saying that it didn't happen.

Opinions can't be wrong and the statement of "The holocaust didn't happen" is wrong beacuse of all the evidence that leads us to the conclusion that
this event did indeed occur.

There's a difference. Me saying "the holocaust didn't happen" isn't an opinion, it's an outright lie I'm disguising as an opinion. Whether I prefer hot or cold showers is an opinion. Whether or not I think rainy weather sucks is an opinion.

Opinions can not be wrong or right. They are simply opinions.

You can get facts wrong or right. An opinion is yours, It can't be false or true.

If you blur the lines of facts and opinions by making it so that opinions can be said as false or true, then facts fall out of relevance.

It was still taught in a public school. By someone.

Doesn't matter how many times it happened or what happened to him afterwards, it still happened.

If you want to be pedantic about what I said, then yes. However, I don't a fuck about that single case because it's the exception, not the rule. Might as well cite how they teach the Holocaust didn't happen in /Pol/istan or something.

Here's my problem with that, opinions can't be factly wrong.

Yeah they can. Otherwise, what do you call it? You can't say it's a lie if they honestly hold the belief and, yes, they probably honestly believe it.

I think everyone here can agree that the holocaust did indeed happen.

It's what happened in history, there have been multitudes of allied soldiers who have made statements on concentration camps that they liberated.

The evidence to say that it happened is monumental.

And then these people go around saying that it didn't happen.

Good for them, they have that right in America where they're treated less seriously than in Canada.

Opinions can't be wrong and the statement of "The holocaust didn't happen" is wrong beacuse of all the evidence that leads us to the conclusion that
this event did indeed occur.

It is a wrong opinion, but it's still an opinion.

You still said an absolute statement that I gave evidence was wrong.

What do I call it? I call it getting a fact wrong. Or simply, being wrong. If you believe it, it doesn't mean it isn't wrong.

Because Neo nazis are rather bad.

[Alvecia]

Proofreading.

What?

There's a difference. Me saying "the holocaust didn't happen" isn't an opinion, it's an outright lie I'm disguising as an opinion. Whether I prefer hot or cold showers is an opinion. Whether or not I think rainy weather sucks is an opinion.

Opinions can not be wrong or right. They are simply opinions.

You can get facts wrong or right. An opinion is yours, It can't be false or true.

If you blur the lines of facts and opinions by making it so that opinions can be said as false or true, then facts fall out of relevance.

If you want to be pedantic about what I said, then yes. However, I don't a fuck about that single case because it's the exception, not the rule. Might as well cite how they teach the Holocaust didn't happen in /Pol/istan or something.

Yeah they can. Otherwise, what do you call it? You can't say it's a lie if they honestly hold the belief and, yes, they probably honestly believe it.

Good for them, they have that right in America where they're treated less seriously than in Canada.

It is a wrong opinion, but it's still an opinion.

You still said an absolute statement that I gave evidence was wrong.

What do I call it? I call it getting a fact wrong. Or simply, being wrong. If you believe it, it doesn't mean it isn't wrong.

Because Neo nazis are rather bad.

I don't know that's necessarily the case. To plagarise Dara O'Briain, I can be of the opinion that the sky is a carpet painted by God, but I'd be objectively wrong.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Opinions can not be wrong or right. They are simply opinions.

You can get facts wrong or right. An opinion is yours, It can't be false or true.

If you blur the lines of facts and opinions by making it so that opinions can be said as false or true, then facts fall out of relevance.

That's your opinion. My opinion is opinions can be wrong.

You still said an absolute statement that I gave evidence was wrong.

What do I call it? I call it getting a fact wrong. Or simply, being wrong. If you believe it, it doesn't mean it isn't wrong.

What statement?

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Opinions can not be wrong or right. They are simply opinions.

You can get facts wrong or right. An opinion is yours, It can't be false or true.

If you blur the lines of facts and opinions by making it so that opinions can be said as false or true, then facts fall out of relevance.

That's your opinion. My opinion is opinions can be wrong.

You still said an absolute statement that I gave evidence was wrong.

What do I call it? I call it getting a fact wrong. Or simply, being wrong. If you believe it, it doesn't mean it isn't wrong.

What statement?

No. One of the things that separates facts from opinions is the ability to be wrong.

"I think it might rain today" is an opinion. That may or may not be the weather that day but It wouldn't be wrong or right beacuse it was a judgment, viewpoint, or statement that is not conclusive.

I made an error on the absolute statement.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

That's your opinion. My opinion is opinions can be wrong.

What statement?

No. One of the things that separates facts from opinions is the ability to be wrong.

Another thing is that an opinion is a belief, and believing the Holocaust didn't happen is a belief. Just like believing it did happen is also a belief, just one that lines up with the facts.

At least, that's my opinion. :^)

[Neo Balka]

Said it once, ill say it again.

Euros and Free speech dont mix

[Alvecia]

Said it once, ill say it again.

Euros and Free speech dont mix

Well obviously. One's a currency, the other is a right.

[Neo Balka]

Said it once, ill say it again.

Euros and Free speech dont mix

Well obviously. One's a currency, the other is a right.

Well ones a term to also describe the Europoors.

[Alvecia]

Well obviously. One's a currency, the other is a right.

Well ones a term to also describe the Europoors.

Sounds misleading, many of us are actually quite well off

[Neo Balka]

Well ones a term to also describe the Europoors.

Sounds misleading, many of us are actually quite well off

So well off but that well off as you can actually defend yourselves.

thus, getting america to pick up the slack for Europoor's shit.

[Alvecia]

Sounds misleading, many of us are actually quite well off

So well off but that well off as you can actually defend yourselves.

thus, getting america to pick up the slack for Europoor's shit.

Not sure how military dick waving is relevant to European free speech laws tbh

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

No. One of the things that separates facts from opinions is the ability to be wrong.

Another thing is that an opinion is a belief, and believing the Holocaust didn't happen is a belief. Just like believing it did happen is also a belief, just one that lines up with the facts.

At least, that's my opinion. :^)

Reality and history are not belief based.

You don't need to believe in the Titanic sinking. You don't need to believe in the Korean war.

These things exist with or without you believing in them.

Because these events are facts.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Another thing is that an opinion is a belief, and believing the Holocaust didn't happen is a belief. Just like believing it did happen is also a belief, just one that lines up with the facts.

At least, that's my opinion. :^)

Reality and history are not belief based.

Never said that~

You don't need to believe in the Titanic sinking. You don't need to believe in the Korean war.

These things exist with or without you believing in them.

Because these events are facts.

I'm not disputing that.

[Senkaku]

Do you think a misguided belief is truth????

I never said that. I just said it wasn't a lie. Unless they're trying to deceive you, then it isn't a lie.

It is a lie, it just happens to be one that they believe in. I can say something that may be demonstrably false and still believe it to be true, in which case I'm lying.

[Senkaku]

You don't need to believe in the Titanic sinking. You don't need to believe in the Korean war.

These things exist with or without you believing in them.

Because these events are facts.

I'm not disputing that.

In which case, if I believe the Korean War never happened and was a hoax to convince American taxpayers to fund military adventures in Asia for nefarious purposes, I'm believing in a lie, and perpetrating that belief would be lying.

[Proctopeo]

I'm not disputing that.

In which case, if I believe the Korean War never happened and was a hoax to convince American taxpayers to fund military adventures in Asia for nefarious purposes, I'm believing in a lie, and perpetrating that belief would be lying.

Should lying be illegal?

[Senkaku]

In which case, if I believe the Korean War never happened and was a hoax to convince American taxpayers to fund military adventures in Asia for nefarious purposes, I'm believing in a lie, and perpetrating that belief would be lying.

Should lying be illegal?

It already is in some cases. If you lie to the police to cover up a crime, you're in deep shit. I don't see why lying to, in this case, advocate wholesale genocide and incite violence, shouldn't be illegal.

[Proctopeo]

Should lying be illegal?

It already is in some cases. If you lie to the police to cover up a crime, you're in deep shit. I don't see why lying to, in this case, advocate wholesale genocide and incite violence, shouldn't be illegal.

It depends on the intent behind the lie, which, even for the same lie, may not always be the same.
And intent is tough to prove, I think.