6 ms·

Take Erdogan as a businessman instead of a political figure. Because that's what he does. Since when he started his political career, even before the AKP days

by gkya 11y ago

Take Erdogan as a businessman instead of a political figure. Because that's what he does. Since when he started his political career, even before the AKP days, he and his family prospered to an incredible level. That's all the care, and the support comes from the businessmen trying to get some benefit out of the business. So the case of Turkey is the case of a group that fruits the state's resources for enrichment of theirs, and nobody cares if Turkey remains respectable or not. It's business. > The only time speech should be regulated is when it incites violence [...] Speech should not be regulated in any ways, or we will have millions of who decides questions. A picture of Mohammad is annoying to each and every muslim, because the religion expressly forbids the likeness of the holy figures. Freedom of speech does not mean irresponsible and banale flow of whatever one thinks. This does not in any way justify the violence, but does not help either. Have you seen the latest cover of Hebdo, Papa où t'es? That's within freedom of speech too, but freedom of speech must not mean that one can be reckless, inconsiderate and demeaning. It is possible to criticise, or even attack in a civil, graceful way. In the end, though, this should be left to the authors will, to decide whether or not it is moral to say what he says. Because when state is involved the slightest, it can be involved more. Who decides what incites violence?

hartator 11y ago
> Freedom of speech does not mean irresponsible and banale flow of whatever one thinks. Actually, it is. Freedom of speech can't be whatever seems civil to each person, it's a binary issue. Either you have it or you don't. For example, France, which seems freer than Turkey, actually just fined a comedian that have insulted the prime minister of half retarded Musolinni. That's not okay and it's not fundamentaly different of what's happening in Turkey.
- adrianm 11y ago
  So according to this binary definition of free speech, what countries actually have it? It seems like many countries have limitations on free speech, which according to this definition would mean they do not actually have free speech. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech
- gkya 11y ago
  Quoting my grandparent comment: > In the end, though, this should be left to the authors will, to decide whether or not it is moral to say what he says. Because when state is involved the slightest, it can be involved more. Who decides what incites violence? So to this I agree: > Actually, it is. Freedom of speech can't be whatever seems civil to each person, it's a binary issue. Either you have it or you don't. What I say is, the individuals should be considerate when using their freedom to speech. Freedoms bear responsabilities. One cannot say anything and go by. If what you say is lies, or pure insults, or if it's provocative, there will be consequences, or else it conflicts with the right to human dignity of the one(s) at the receiving end of your speech. One should be responsible and mindful of what he says.
  - stale2002 11y ago
    "One cannot say anything and go by." Yes you CAN. Nobody has a right not to be offended. You don't have to be mindful of what you say. That's not freedom of speech.
    - gkya 11y ago
      You have to be mindful of what you say, that is, you mustn't say things you can't prove. You mustn't lie. Or else, you'll be disproved, and announced publicly as a liar. I don't say that you are not free to lie, though, what I say is, in this case, by lying, you accept such consequences. By saying something, you're responsible to its truth. You're free to insult, but you don't have to. If you do so, people will get offended, and you'll be excluded, ignored, or insulted back at. Again, you're free to insult, but there will be consequences, and by insulting you take the responsibility, and accept being excluded, or insulted at. And everybody has a right to not be offended, which has to protect them from bullying, demeaning, racism, etc., called the "right to human dignity": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dignity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dignity http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:12012P/TXT http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:120... > Human dignity is inviolable. It must be respected and protected. (Article 1) > Everyone has the right to respect for his or her physical and mental integrity. (Article 3/1) > The right to conscientious objection is recognised, in accordance with the national laws governing the exercise of this right. (Article 10/2) > Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. (Article 11) > Any discrimination based on any ground such as sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation shall be prohibited. (Article 21/1) > Within the scope of application of the Treaties and without prejudice to any of their specific provisions, any discrimination on grounds of nationality shall be prohibited. (Article 21/2)
- Tomte 11y ago
  That's the predominant American view, which is pretty... extremist. Sure, "free speech exactly like in the US" is a binary issue. Free speech, as sensibly construed, is a whole spectrum.
  - jessaustin 11y ago
    We have lots of problems, but "extremist" speech ain't one of them.
    - studentrob 11y ago
      Lol. According to some, speech justifies mass killings. And the world keeps spinning..
  - xorcist 11y ago
    The US has a higher tolerance for hate speech, but that doesn't mean you're allowed to say anything. The bar is comparably low to sue for defamation and libel, for example. Pretty much only the UK (perhaps France?) is less free in that particular aspect for comparable countries. And free speech is not very useful unless you have access to ways to practice it. In a country where mass media practice active censorship voluntarily (against "wardrobe malfunctions" and swear words) in order to avoid state sanctions, that absolutist view gets a bit problematic.
studentrob 11y ago
> Take Erdogan as a businessman instead of a political figure The US is strong in the business world because they endure differing opinions! Astute businessmen can see how limiting free speech limits their own success. Good businessmen do not surround themselves with yes-men. When you limit free speech of a country, you cut off most of your people from certain intelligence. You could argue the intelligence agency has access to everything, however, at some point, the original guys will retire. They will be replaced with people who grew up without consistent access to the entire world picture. They will thus be disadvantaged when engaging in international politics and trade deals. I guess it comes down to, do you think current and former leaders of the likes of China and North Korea are more or less happy or successful than current and former leaders of the likes of the US and France. > Speech should not be regulated in any ways You're not allowed to yell fire in a crowded theater. Governments set limits to every right in order to balance public safety. If you think that's wrong, that's your choice. I'd just point out that you grew up in a society that benefited from this increased safety while sacrificing some portion of its people's rights. Unless you were raised in the jungle :-D.
- TDL 11y ago
  "You're not allowed to yell fire in a crowded theater..." Yes, you are. Look at "Trope Two" in the link below. The post linked is written by Ken White who specializes in the 1st amendment. https://popehat.com/2015/05/19/how-to-spot-and-critique-censorship-tropes-in-the-medias-coverage-of-free-speech-controversies/ https://popehat.com/2015/05/19/how-to-spot-and-critique-cens...
  - studentrob 11y ago
    Interesting, thanks for the correction. Maybe instead we can say, you're not allowed to threaten someone's life. The point is there are limits to free speech, even in America, though there are less limits there than in Europe where hate speech laws have been introduced.
    - TDL 11y ago
      Certainly, credible threats of violence are certainly a line.
stale2002 11y ago
The whole inciting violence question is pretty clear. If someone says "everybody, let's go kill this person or group of people on Saturday at Noon". THAT, is inciting violence.
- splintercell 11y ago
  It isn't actually. What happens in other countries is, nobody ever says "Everybody, lets go kill this person", rather "Everybody, the other community must pay". If the courts and police starts prosecuting that kind of euphemism laden language, then they shift further. On the other hand, keep everything open and people tend to learn and build filters for stuff like this.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- jeroen 11y ago
  No, it isn't clear. Just because you can come up with one obvious example does not mean there aren't many situations that are less obvious.

by gkya 11y ago

hartator 11y ago

> Freedom of speech does not mean irresponsible and banale flow of whatever one thinks. Actually, it is. Freedom of speech can't be whatever seems civil to each person, it's a binary issue. Either you have it or you don't. For example, France, which seems freer than Turkey, actually just fined a comedian that have insulted the prime minister of half retarded Musolinni. That's not okay and it's not fundamentaly different of what's happening in Turkey.

adrianm 11y ago
So according to this binary definition of free speech, what countries actually have it? It seems like many countries have limitations on free speech, which according to this definition would mean they do not actually have free speech. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech
gkya 11y ago
Quoting my grandparent comment: > In the end, though, this should be left to the authors will, to decide whether or not it is moral to say what he says. Because when state is involved the slightest, it can be involved more. Who decides what incites violence? So to this I agree: > Actually, it is. Freedom of speech can't be whatever seems civil to each person, it's a binary issue. Either you have it or you don't. What I say is, the individuals should be considerate when using their freedom to speech. Freedoms bear responsabilities. One cannot say anything and go by. If what you say is lies, or pure insults, or if it's provocative, there will be consequences, or else it conflicts with the right to human dignity of the one(s) at the receiving end of your speech. One should be responsible and mindful of what he says.
- stale2002 11y ago
  "One cannot say anything and go by." Yes you CAN. Nobody has a right not to be offended. You don't have to be mindful of what you say. That's not freedom of speech.
  - gkya 11y ago
    You have to be mindful of what you say, that is, you mustn't say things you can't prove. You mustn't lie. Or else, you'll be disproved, and announced publicly as a liar. I don't say that you are not free to lie, though, what I say is, in this case, by lying, you accept such consequences. By saying something, you're responsible to its truth. You're free to insult, but you don't have to. If you do so, people will get offended, and you'll be excluded, ignored, or insulted back at. Again, you're free to insult, but there will be consequences, and by insulting you take the responsibility, and accept being excluded, or insulted at. And everybody has a right to not be offended, which has to protect them from bullying, demeaning, racism, etc., called the "right to human dignity": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dignity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dignity http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:12012P/TXT http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:120... > Human dignity is inviolable. It must be respected and protected. (Article 1) > Everyone has the right to respect for his or her physical and mental integrity. (Article 3/1) > The right to conscientious objection is recognised, in accordance with the national laws governing the exercise of this right. (Article 10/2) > Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. (Article 11) > Any discrimination based on any ground such as sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation shall be prohibited. (Article 21/1) > Within the scope of application of the Treaties and without prejudice to any of their specific provisions, any discrimination on grounds of nationality shall be prohibited. (Article 21/2)
Tomte 11y ago
That's the predominant American view, which is pretty... extremist. Sure, "free speech exactly like in the US" is a binary issue. Free speech, as sensibly construed, is a whole spectrum.
- jessaustin 11y ago
  We have lots of problems, but "extremist" speech ain't one of them.
  - studentrob 11y ago
    Lol. According to some, speech justifies mass killings. And the world keeps spinning..
- xorcist 11y ago
  The US has a higher tolerance for hate speech, but that doesn't mean you're allowed to say anything. The bar is comparably low to sue for defamation and libel, for example. Pretty much only the UK (perhaps France?) is less free in that particular aspect for comparable countries. And free speech is not very useful unless you have access to ways to practice it. In a country where mass media practice active censorship voluntarily (against "wardrobe malfunctions" and swear words) in order to avoid state sanctions, that absolutist view gets a bit problematic.

studentrob 11y ago

> Take Erdogan as a businessman instead of a political figure The US is strong in the business world because they endure differing opinions! Astute businessmen can see how limiting free speech limits their own success. Good businessmen do not surround themselves with yes-men. When you limit free speech of a country, you cut off most of your people from certain intelligence. You could argue the intelligence agency has access to everything, however, at some point, the original guys will retire. They will be replaced with people who grew up without consistent access to the entire world picture. They will thus be disadvantaged when engaging in international politics and trade deals. I guess it comes down to, do you think current and former leaders of the likes of China and North Korea are more or less happy or successful than current and former leaders of the likes of the US and France. > Speech should not be regulated in any ways You're not allowed to yell fire in a crowded theater. Governments set limits to every right in order to balance public safety. If you think that's wrong, that's your choice. I'd just point out that you grew up in a society that benefited from this increased safety while sacrificing some portion of its people's rights. Unless you were raised in the jungle :-D.

TDL 11y ago
"You're not allowed to yell fire in a crowded theater..." Yes, you are. Look at "Trope Two" in the link below. The post linked is written by Ken White who specializes in the 1st amendment. https://popehat.com/2015/05/19/how-to-spot-and-critique-censorship-tropes-in-the-medias-coverage-of-free-speech-controversies/ https://popehat.com/2015/05/19/how-to-spot-and-critique-cens...
- studentrob 11y ago
  Interesting, thanks for the correction. Maybe instead we can say, you're not allowed to threaten someone's life. The point is there are limits to free speech, even in America, though there are less limits there than in Europe where hate speech laws have been introduced.
  - TDL 11y ago
    Certainly, credible threats of violence are certainly a line.

stale2002 11y ago

The whole inciting violence question is pretty clear. If someone says "everybody, let's go kill this person or group of people on Saturday at Noon". THAT, is inciting violence.

splintercell 11y ago
It isn't actually. What happens in other countries is, nobody ever says "Everybody, lets go kill this person", rather "Everybody, the other community must pay". If the courts and police starts prosecuting that kind of euphemism laden language, then they shift further. On the other hand, keep everything open and people tend to learn and build filters for stuff like this.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
jeroen 11y ago
No, it isn't clear. Just because you can come up with one obvious example does not mean there aren't many situations that are less obvious.