5 ms·

> We need more freedom of speech, not less. You seem to be very convinced of this. Could you please list one or two concrete cases where you think free speech

> We need more freedom of speech, not less. You seem to be very convinced of this. Could you please list one or two concrete cases where you think free speech was too limited in Europe and where this limitation led to a poor outcome for society? I think this could make your argument much stronger.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
cr1895 9y ago
I'm not the OP you're asking, but here's one example where a Dutch man was jailed for insulting the king: http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2016/07/man-jailed-for-insulting-the-dutch-king/ http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2016/07/man-jailed-for... edit: more examples from some other European countries http://www.euronews.com/2016/04/15/beyond-a-joke-7-countries-where-is-it-a-criminal-offence-to-insult-a-head-of http://www.euronews.com/2016/04/15/beyond-a-joke-7-countries...
- tmalsburg2 9y ago
  While I agree that it's bad to prevent people from speaking poorly about a king, that's not representative of the kinds of things that the German law is addressing. As such this is not a very strong example, IMO.
  - cr1895 9y ago
    You asked for examples in which free speech was too limited and resulted in a poor outcome for society. You asked that in response to: "We need more freedom of speech, not less. The US is miles ahead of us in this respect. Here in Europe, we're missing that fundamental value of "I disagree with what you say, but I will fight for your right to say it". Instead, it's more like "I disagree with what you say so I'm going to try to get you arrested for it"." Therefore my example is germane and quite a clear example given your question. Here are more examples (again Netherlands, Switzerland, Poland, Spain): http://www.euronews.com/2016/04/15/beyond-a-joke-7-countries-where-is-it-a-criminal-offence-to-insult-a-head-of http://www.euronews.com/2016/04/15/beyond-a-joke-7-countries...
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
- tremon 9y ago
  That would be illegal in the US as well, under defamation or libel.
  - cr1895 9y ago
    That's not how it works, and this is fundamentally different. In the US, the offended person would have to sue the offender for libel or defamation. The State would not be bringing charges because this is not a criminal matter; it is a civil matter. Nor is it so obviously defamation or libel, as you suggest. The lese majeste law is not a matter of the King suing the offender. It is a matter of the Dutch state pursuing criminal prosecution.
pavelludiq 9y ago
Just two? The world wars are conveniently numbered with I and II. Bonus: The cold war and the iron curtain.
- tmalsburg2 9y ago
  I don't see the connection. OP was talking about free speech being too limited in present-day Europe.
  - pavelludiq 9y ago
    With the possible exception of WWI, all of my examples are within living memory.
    - nulldev 9y ago
      I don't follow your reasoning. Please explain how either WWI, WWII or the cold war were caused by limitations on free speech in Europe (which in this context largely means western Europe).
- tpush 9y ago
  Nonsense. Neither World War had anything to with restrictions on free speech.
mowenz 9y ago
>where you think free speech was too limited in Europe and where this limitation led to a poor outcome for society? The test for what values we uphold should not always be what has proven to be a good outcome for ourselves or for society. Your same argument could be used against many human rights. What about torture: can you give me a concrete example of how US torture was bad for society? Extending your argument from society to individuals, we make the worst tragedies possible. It is an important lesson from the history of Germany itself, in the quote: 'When they came for them, I did not speak, because I was not them. When they came for me, there was no one left to speak for me." There is value in upholding human rights on principle. Once you eliminate free speech in cases where it is convenient, you no longer have a free speech principle. In Germany the thought police has brought people to court for things such as Facebook groups for people who don't like refugees. Maybe that seems fair to you, but then again a comedian also faced prosecution for a poem about Erdogan. Now imagine prosecution for a poem belittling Trump. It's the possibility of that outcome that we want to stay as far away from as possible. Besides, it seems difficult to believe a legitimate role of government is to protect you from words, and words alone.
- tmalsburg2 9y ago
  But who gets to decide what constitutes a human right and why is hate speech a human right in your opinion? Hate speech hurts people, please explain why it should still be considered a human right.
  - mowenz 9y ago
    The test to outlaw something should not be because it hurts someone. Just because you know some people will drive, or drive drunk, and this will kill people, does not mean you should ban driving, or alcohol. Another example is democracy. Just because you support someone's right to vote for, and you know a few people will go vote for fascists, it does not mean you support fascism as a human right.
    - tmalsburg2 9y ago
      Driving has clear benefits for the individual and society. Accidents are merely an unintended side-effect. In contrast to that, the purpose of hate speech is by definition to hurt people.
zmb_ 9y ago
The migrant crisis is the biggest one going on at the moment. The public discussion is seriously skewed and lacking the moderate against side. At both extremes there are very vocal advocates, and the official moderate positions are firmly towards the accepting side for migration. Very few want to touch the moderate argument for limiting migration, because you risk being interpreted as being an extremist, at which point these hate speech laws could apply -- many moderates don't want to take that risk and rather stay silent. It is important to understand that this is, for now, a matter of a chilling effect. I don't claim that I would be put in jail or fined for my opinions, but I definitely do feel a risk of some authority possibly investigating me. And that is enough to make me not take part in the debate. And I do not see my positions being openly discussed in public, even though I know from private conversations that many, many people hold the same views. This is something that moderates on the other side seem not to understand or believe, because they do not face it. This has lead to a number of poor outcomes for the societies in Europe. Most importantly there are possible approaches to solving the situation that have not been seriously explored and evaluated (e.g., Australia style migrant centres outside the EU). As a result the European response has been uncontrolled, inefficient and hugely expensive. I believe many more people in real need could have been helped, and many lives saved, by an approach that was not based on accepting unlimited numbers of migrants into Europe. The second important problem is that it drives the disenfranchised moderates towards the extreme. If you feel like your voice is not heard in the debate, it becomes more likely that you will demonstrate with a protest vote for an extremist. Personally I am absolutely against this law. Even if you accept the idea of hate speech laws, surely they should be enforced by the courts, not by Facebook?
- tmalsburg2 9y ago
  > The public discussion is seriously skewed and lacking the moderate against side. There is no law in Germany preventing you from voicing your opinion against immigration. We're talking about legally enforced censorship not about media bias. Having said that, I do agree with many things you say, I just think they are not directly relevant to the discussion.
  - zmb_ 9y ago
skrebbel 9y ago
Mein Kampf is banned in my country. However, it's historically relevant and it's such an insane book that the chance that it turns people into nazis is much smaller than the chance that it shows poeple what a nutjob Hitler was. If I recall correctly, the Swastika is banned in Germany, even though it's a symbol with many meanings in many cultures. This means people can't express certain aspects of their cultures, visually, simply because the NSDAP chose to use the same logo. Context matters, you know. Finally, I heard a law in Germany is about to get passed that is going to make large social networks program bots that automatically ban content based on whether it may contain hate speech or crime. Good satire will disappear from much of the German internet.
- tmalsburg2 9y ago
  > If I recall correctly, the Swastika is banned in Germany, [...] Context matters, you know. Exactly, and that's the reason why you can use the Swastika as much as you want in Germany when the context makes clear that you're not using it for political purposes. These silly strawmen arguments do not help the discussion.
  - skrebbel 9y ago
    Thanks, I was wrong about that one.
  - somecontext 9y ago
    For some context, it appears the law in question is the German Strafgesetzbuch (Criminal Code) section 86a. Wikipedia believes the use of a swastika (as a representation of the Nazi party) is banned in all contexts except "art or science, research or teaching". This mostly agrees with the text of the law, which appears to include a provision translating to "... shall not be applicable if the means of propaganda or the act serves to further civil enlightenment, to avert unconstitutional aims, to promote art or science, research or teaching, reporting about current historical events or similar purposes." Reporting on the law suggests that the purpose is much stronger than simply avoiding its political use, but also to "avert social habitation". In particular, it appears that its use in, say, a video game would in fact be illegal, as Ubisoft assumed with its 2014 release "South Park: The Stick of Truth".

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

cr1895 9y ago

I'm not the OP you're asking, but here's one example where a Dutch man was jailed for insulting the king: http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2016/07/man-jailed-for-insulting-the-dutch-king/ http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2016/07/man-jailed-for... edit: more examples from some other European countries http://www.euronews.com/2016/04/15/beyond-a-joke-7-countries-where-is-it-a-criminal-offence-to-insult-a-head-of http://www.euronews.com/2016/04/15/beyond-a-joke-7-countries...

tmalsburg2 9y ago
While I agree that it's bad to prevent people from speaking poorly about a king, that's not representative of the kinds of things that the German law is addressing. As such this is not a very strong example, IMO.
- cr1895 9y ago
  You asked for examples in which free speech was too limited and resulted in a poor outcome for society. You asked that in response to: "We need more freedom of speech, not less. The US is miles ahead of us in this respect. Here in Europe, we're missing that fundamental value of "I disagree with what you say, but I will fight for your right to say it". Instead, it's more like "I disagree with what you say so I'm going to try to get you arrested for it"." Therefore my example is germane and quite a clear example given your question. Here are more examples (again Netherlands, Switzerland, Poland, Spain): http://www.euronews.com/2016/04/15/beyond-a-joke-7-countries-where-is-it-a-criminal-offence-to-insult-a-head-of http://www.euronews.com/2016/04/15/beyond-a-joke-7-countries...
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
tremon 9y ago
That would be illegal in the US as well, under defamation or libel.
- cr1895 9y ago
  That's not how it works, and this is fundamentally different. In the US, the offended person would have to sue the offender for libel or defamation. The State would not be bringing charges because this is not a criminal matter; it is a civil matter. Nor is it so obviously defamation or libel, as you suggest. The lese majeste law is not a matter of the King suing the offender. It is a matter of the Dutch state pursuing criminal prosecution.

pavelludiq 9y ago

Just two? The world wars are conveniently numbered with I and II. Bonus: The cold war and the iron curtain.

tmalsburg2 9y ago
I don't see the connection. OP was talking about free speech being too limited in present-day Europe.
- pavelludiq 9y ago
  With the possible exception of WWI, all of my examples are within living memory.
  - nulldev 9y ago
    I don't follow your reasoning. Please explain how either WWI, WWII or the cold war were caused by limitations on free speech in Europe (which in this context largely means western Europe).
tpush 9y ago
Nonsense. Neither World War had anything to with restrictions on free speech.

mowenz 9y ago

>where you think free speech was too limited in Europe and where this limitation led to a poor outcome for society? The test for what values we uphold should not always be what has proven to be a good outcome for ourselves or for society. Your same argument could be used against many human rights. What about torture: can you give me a concrete example of how US torture was bad for society? Extending your argument from society to individuals, we make the worst tragedies possible. It is an important lesson from the history of Germany itself, in the quote: 'When they came for them, I did not speak, because I was not them. When they came for me, there was no one left to speak for me." There is value in upholding human rights on principle. Once you eliminate free speech in cases where it is convenient, you no longer have a free speech principle. In Germany the thought police has brought people to court for things such as Facebook groups for people who don't like refugees. Maybe that seems fair to you, but then again a comedian also faced prosecution for a poem about Erdogan. Now imagine prosecution for a poem belittling Trump. It's the possibility of that outcome that we want to stay as far away from as possible. Besides, it seems difficult to believe a legitimate role of government is to protect you from words, and words alone.

tmalsburg2 9y ago
But who gets to decide what constitutes a human right and why is hate speech a human right in your opinion? Hate speech hurts people, please explain why it should still be considered a human right.
- mowenz 9y ago
  The test to outlaw something should not be because it hurts someone. Just because you know some people will drive, or drive drunk, and this will kill people, does not mean you should ban driving, or alcohol. Another example is democracy. Just because you support someone's right to vote for, and you know a few people will go vote for fascists, it does not mean you support fascism as a human right.
  - tmalsburg2 9y ago
    Driving has clear benefits for the individual and society. Accidents are merely an unintended side-effect. In contrast to that, the purpose of hate speech is by definition to hurt people.

zmb_ 9y ago

The migrant crisis is the biggest one going on at the moment. The public discussion is seriously skewed and lacking the moderate against side. At both extremes there are very vocal advocates, and the official moderate positions are firmly towards the accepting side for migration. Very few want to touch the moderate argument for limiting migration, because you risk being interpreted as being an extremist, at which point these hate speech laws could apply -- many moderates don't want to take that risk and rather stay silent. It is important to understand that this is, for now, a matter of a chilling effect. I don't claim that I would be put in jail or fined for my opinions, but I definitely do feel a risk of some authority possibly investigating me. And that is enough to make me not take part in the debate. And I do not see my positions being openly discussed in public, even though I know from private conversations that many, many people hold the same views. This is something that moderates on the other side seem not to understand or believe, because they do not face it. This has lead to a number of poor outcomes for the societies in Europe. Most importantly there are possible approaches to solving the situation that have not been seriously explored and evaluated (e.g., Australia style migrant centres outside the EU). As a result the European response has been uncontrolled, inefficient and hugely expensive. I believe many more people in real need could have been helped, and many lives saved, by an approach that was not based on accepting unlimited numbers of migrants into Europe. The second important problem is that it drives the disenfranchised moderates towards the extreme. If you feel like your voice is not heard in the debate, it becomes more likely that you will demonstrate with a protest vote for an extremist. Personally I am absolutely against this law. Even if you accept the idea of hate speech laws, surely they should be enforced by the courts, not by Facebook?

tmalsburg2 9y ago
> The public discussion is seriously skewed and lacking the moderate against side. There is no law in Germany preventing you from voicing your opinion against immigration. We're talking about legally enforced censorship not about media bias. Having said that, I do agree with many things you say, I just think they are not directly relevant to the discussion.
- zmb_ 9y ago

skrebbel 9y ago

Mein Kampf is banned in my country. However, it's historically relevant and it's such an insane book that the chance that it turns people into nazis is much smaller than the chance that it shows poeple what a nutjob Hitler was. If I recall correctly, the Swastika is banned in Germany, even though it's a symbol with many meanings in many cultures. This means people can't express certain aspects of their cultures, visually, simply because the NSDAP chose to use the same logo. Context matters, you know. Finally, I heard a law in Germany is about to get passed that is going to make large social networks program bots that automatically ban content based on whether it may contain hate speech or crime. Good satire will disappear from much of the German internet.

tmalsburg2 9y ago
> If I recall correctly, the Swastika is banned in Germany, [...] Context matters, you know. Exactly, and that's the reason why you can use the Swastika as much as you want in Germany when the context makes clear that you're not using it for political purposes. These silly strawmen arguments do not help the discussion.
- skrebbel 9y ago
  Thanks, I was wrong about that one.
- somecontext 9y ago
  For some context, it appears the law in question is the German Strafgesetzbuch (Criminal Code) section 86a. Wikipedia believes the use of a swastika (as a representation of the Nazi party) is banned in all contexts except "art or science, research or teaching". This mostly agrees with the text of the law, which appears to include a provision translating to "... shall not be applicable if the means of propaganda or the act serves to further civil enlightenment, to avert unconstitutional aims, to promote art or science, research or teaching, reporting about current historical events or similar purposes." Reporting on the law suggests that the purpose is much stronger than simply avoiding its political use, but also to "avert social habitation". In particular, it appears that its use in, say, a video game would in fact be illegal, as Ubisoft assumed with its 2014 release "South Park: The Stick of Truth".