5 ms·

How has free speech in Europe fallen exactly? Things like college non-platforming are happening in the U.S too. It's true that there are some laws regarding thi

How has free speech in Europe fallen exactly? Things like college non-platforming are happening in the U.S too. It's true that there are some laws regarding things like Nazi propaganda, but there's still very much free speech in most European countries.

cgag 9y ago
Yeah it's gross here too but at least all the "hate speech isn't free speech" signs here are wrong from a legal perspective. I also also don't like the nazi exception.
fvdessen 9y ago
In France an atheist activist has been recently condemned to 3 months of prison for saying 'Islam Kills' in public. And that's just one of the most recent cases.
- imartin2k 9y ago
  As always, single cases really don't say anything about how widespread a phenomenon is statistically, and they don't allow for comparisons with other countries.
  - defen 9y ago
    Conceptually such a thing isn't possible in the US (currently). You would never even be arrested for saying that, let alone sentenced to jail. So the existence of even a single incident in other countries does say something, I would argue. Look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snyder_v._Phelps https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snyder_v._Phelps - they went to the funeral of a soldier who was killed in Iraq, whose father happened to be gay, and held up "GOD HATES FAGS" signs and proclaimed to the world, at his son's funeral, that he had been killed because the father is gay. Pretty much the most offensive thing imaginable and the supreme court sided with them 8-1 that they couldn't even be sued for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
  - im3w1l 9y ago
    >As always, single cases really don't say anything about how widespread a phenomenon is statistically, For every guy you put in prison, a hundred will self-censor.
Zak 9y ago
No-platform is a policy within certain organizations of refusing to provide a platform to, or share a platform with certain other individuals and groups. It only becomes a freedom of speech issue if the organization adopting the policy is a government or holds a monopoly on a certain kind of platform. Lobbying universities to not invite, or to rescind invitations from certain people is a bit different. Universities aren't obligated to provide a platform to everyone who might want one. They're educational institutions and probably shouldn't invite speakers whom a majority of their students find offensive unless there's substantial educational value in doing so.

cgag 9y ago

Yeah it's gross here too but at least all the "hate speech isn't free speech" signs here are wrong from a legal perspective. I also also don't like the nazi exception.

fvdessen 9y ago

In France an atheist activist has been recently condemned to 3 months of prison for saying 'Islam Kills' in public. And that's just one of the most recent cases.

imartin2k 9y ago
As always, single cases really don't say anything about how widespread a phenomenon is statistically, and they don't allow for comparisons with other countries.
- defen 9y ago
  Conceptually such a thing isn't possible in the US (currently). You would never even be arrested for saying that, let alone sentenced to jail. So the existence of even a single incident in other countries does say something, I would argue. Look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snyder_v._Phelps https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snyder_v._Phelps - they went to the funeral of a soldier who was killed in Iraq, whose father happened to be gay, and held up "GOD HATES FAGS" signs and proclaimed to the world, at his son's funeral, that he had been killed because the father is gay. Pretty much the most offensive thing imaginable and the supreme court sided with them 8-1 that they couldn't even be sued for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
- im3w1l 9y ago
  >As always, single cases really don't say anything about how widespread a phenomenon is statistically, For every guy you put in prison, a hundred will self-censor.

Zak 9y ago

No-platform is a policy within certain organizations of refusing to provide a platform to, or share a platform with certain other individuals and groups. It only becomes a freedom of speech issue if the organization adopting the policy is a government or holds a monopoly on a certain kind of platform. Lobbying universities to not invite, or to rescind invitations from certain people is a bit different. Universities aren't obligated to provide a platform to everyone who might want one. They're educational institutions and probably shouldn't invite speakers whom a majority of their students find offensive unless there's substantial educational value in doing so.