5 ms·

I certainly concede that Google's firing of James Damore is a rejection of the cultural value I was talking about. I didn't mean that every institution in the U

by Meekro 9y ago

I certainly concede that Google's firing of James Damore is a rejection of the cultural value I was talking about. I didn't mean that every institution in the US accepts it, just that it seems to be more accepted than it is in other countries. I don't have much insight into European companies and how strongly they protect speech as a matter of policy, but rulings by the EU have been extremely discouraging. Here are some examples: 1. The EU's "right to be forgotten" can compel the removal of content that is both true and relevant. [1] In the US, my right to publish true facts about you trumps your right to have them swept under the rug. 2. The EU can compel publishers to remove content they deem "hate speech." [2] If you look up the EU's definition of hate speech, it actually sweeps broadly into what the US would call protected speech. For example, Germany's "incitement of popular hatred" [3] can be used to prevent newspapers from advancing the argument that migrants are disproportionately likely to commit crimes. Since there is no truth defense against hate speech accusations (unlike libel in the US), a newspaper that is dragged into court on hate speech charges couldn't defend itself by proving that what it wrote was true. [1] http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/court-imposes-right-to-be-forgotten-on-google-search-results-a-970419.html http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/court-imposes-r... [2] https://www.theverge.com/2017/3/14/14920812/germany-facebook-twitter-hate-speech-fine-law https://www.theverge.com/2017/3/14/14920812/germany-facebook... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech#Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech#Germany

DeusExMachina 9y ago
Those are indeed shameful examples and definitely discouraging. Nonetheless, alone they are not enough to prove the point. I could go and find other cases for the US too. If we look, though, at the Freedom of the Press report of Freedom without Borders, the US comes after all Western Europe countries (except Italy): https://rsf.org/en/ranking https://rsf.org/en/ranking
- Meekro 9y ago
  It's hard to respond to that ranking site since I can't find what factors went into the rankings. If you could be more specific on why the US should rank below Western Europe in freedom of speech/press, I could look into the specific incidents of censorship you're referring to. I can tell you that, in the US, it's extremely difficult to prevent a newspaper from publishing things the government doesn't want published (see New York Times v. United States), or for a private party to successfully sue them (see New York Times v. Sullivan). It has happened, but it's very rare and there is nothing analogous to Europe's sweeping "hate speech" laws that force newspapers to self-censor anything critical of migrants.
  - DeusExMachina 9y ago
    On this page there are their criteria: https://rsf.org/en/detailed-methodology https://rsf.org/en/detailed-methodology The thing is, what you say about this kind of law is probably true. But freedom of speech goes further than that and, as you mentioned in your original comment, it's not just a matter of laws.
walterstucco 9y ago
You just proved that EU is a better place to live.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
CaptainZapp 9y ago
2. The EU can compel publishers to remove content they deem "hate speech." [2] If you look up the EU's definition of hate speech, it actually sweeps broadly into what the US would call protected speech. The EU as an entity does not prohibit any speech. The EU, at most, publishes directives, which are implemented as laws and implementation is up to the specific countries. Some coutries deem, for example, Holocaust denial a criminal offense. You can argue if this is good or bad. But let me assure you that Europe is not that hellhole where you not dare say anything. England, with its insane libel laws may be an exception, but soon it's anyway no more part of the EU.
kire456 9y ago
I would have to disagree about (1). The right to be forgotten is quite important in preventing criminals from being punished twice (first by the law and then by random vigilantes). This fosters reintegration into society, which is considered an important part of our punitive system, perhaps even its primary goal. In my opinion, this is also far beyond the "good" free speech (as in, free statement of opinion and political dissent) and into the realm of trying purposefully to do damage, by using speech in bad faith, which I think should not be free at all. Then again, e.g. cursing at police officers seems to be legal in the US as well, so I guess this is a cultural difference :)
pluma 9y ago
> For example, Germany's "incitement of popular hatred" [3] can be used to prevent newspapers from advancing the argument that migrants are disproportionately likely to commit crimes. Bull. Shit. Tabloids still run ridiculously xenophobic and bigoted headlines in Germany even if we're not quite at the level as e.g. UK tabloids. Saying "there's a correlation between the refugee crisis and a rise in crimes" is protected speech in Germany. Saying "those donkey fuckers crossing our borders must be shot on sight and their children too" is hate speech. We're talking about the kind of statements that get showcased on sites like this: https://perlen-aus-freital.tumblr.com https://perlen-aus-freital.tumblr.com In the US it's acceptable for politicians calling for undesirables like Snowden or Assange to be murdered. In Germany this kind of rhetoric would land you in jail for inciting violence and instigating criminal behavior. Also in Germany it's forbidden to bring weapons (including "defensive weapons" like shields or gasmasks) to demonstrations. In the US you have neo-nazis and antifa running into each other with riot gear and bashing each others' heads in with lengths of wood. Not to mention paramilitaries parading in camouflage with military-looking gear and firearms. Incidentally, German riot police doesn't use military equipment and actual violent protests are usually confined to anarchists using improvised weapons to cause property damage. > Since there is no truth defense against hate speech accusations Again, bullshit. If you use Nazi symbology, loudly shout "gas the jews" and do the salute, you know what you're doing. Stop pretending we're talking about scientific discourse here. This isn't about some economist or sociologist publishing troubling research findings or level-headed reporting on anything of the sort. This is about bigots venting their hatred and tabloids abusing scare tactics to sell more copies.
- msla 9y ago
  > Again, bullshit. If you use Nazi symbology, loudly shout "gas the jews" and do the salute, you know what you're doing. If you say that's all that gets called "hate speech" you're being deliberately dishonest. > Stop pretending we're talking about scientific discourse here. I don't have to pretend.
- splintercell 9y ago
  > Saying "there's a correlation between the refugee crisis and a rise in crimes" is protected speech in Germany. Saying "those donkey fuckers crossing our borders must be shot on sight and their children too" is hate speech. Which part of that offensive statement is 'hate speech': a) Donkey Fucker b) must be shot on sight c) [their children] must be shot on sight In US, a) cannot be restricted by the govt. b) and c) can be, provided the govt prove that it was the same thing as asking your right hand to pull the trigger (as it's a clear and present danger). Moreover, if someone does shoot kids and immigrants, and it was shown that this someone was motivated by your statements, then you can be sued under a civil lawsuit for millions by the family of the people who died. > In Germany this kind of rhetoric would land you in jail for inciting violence and instigating criminal behavior. In US too, inciting violence and instigating criminal behavior could land you in jail, except American definition of 'inciting violence and instigating criminal behavior' is a lot different than European definition. A politician calling drone attacks on Snowden or Assange isn't 'inciting violence and instigating criminal behavior' in US. A politician picking up the phone and asking his brother who is a drone operator to do a drone attack on Assange or Snowden, would be.

by Meekro 9y ago

DeusExMachina 9y ago

Those are indeed shameful examples and definitely discouraging. Nonetheless, alone they are not enough to prove the point. I could go and find other cases for the US too. If we look, though, at the Freedom of the Press report of Freedom without Borders, the US comes after all Western Europe countries (except Italy): https://rsf.org/en/ranking https://rsf.org/en/ranking

Meekro 9y ago
It's hard to respond to that ranking site since I can't find what factors went into the rankings. If you could be more specific on why the US should rank below Western Europe in freedom of speech/press, I could look into the specific incidents of censorship you're referring to. I can tell you that, in the US, it's extremely difficult to prevent a newspaper from publishing things the government doesn't want published (see New York Times v. United States), or for a private party to successfully sue them (see New York Times v. Sullivan). It has happened, but it's very rare and there is nothing analogous to Europe's sweeping "hate speech" laws that force newspapers to self-censor anything critical of migrants.
- DeusExMachina 9y ago
  On this page there are their criteria: https://rsf.org/en/detailed-methodology https://rsf.org/en/detailed-methodology The thing is, what you say about this kind of law is probably true. But freedom of speech goes further than that and, as you mentioned in your original comment, it's not just a matter of laws.

walterstucco 9y ago

You just proved that EU is a better place to live.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

CaptainZapp 9y ago

2. The EU can compel publishers to remove content they deem "hate speech." [2] If you look up the EU's definition of hate speech, it actually sweeps broadly into what the US would call protected speech. The EU as an entity does not prohibit any speech. The EU, at most, publishes directives, which are implemented as laws and implementation is up to the specific countries. Some coutries deem, for example, Holocaust denial a criminal offense. You can argue if this is good or bad. But let me assure you that Europe is not that hellhole where you not dare say anything. England, with its insane libel laws may be an exception, but soon it's anyway no more part of the EU.

kire456 9y ago

I would have to disagree about (1). The right to be forgotten is quite important in preventing criminals from being punished twice (first by the law and then by random vigilantes). This fosters reintegration into society, which is considered an important part of our punitive system, perhaps even its primary goal. In my opinion, this is also far beyond the "good" free speech (as in, free statement of opinion and political dissent) and into the realm of trying purposefully to do damage, by using speech in bad faith, which I think should not be free at all. Then again, e.g. cursing at police officers seems to be legal in the US as well, so I guess this is a cultural difference :)

pluma 9y ago

> For example, Germany's "incitement of popular hatred" [3] can be used to prevent newspapers from advancing the argument that migrants are disproportionately likely to commit crimes. Bull. Shit. Tabloids still run ridiculously xenophobic and bigoted headlines in Germany even if we're not quite at the level as e.g. UK tabloids. Saying "there's a correlation between the refugee crisis and a rise in crimes" is protected speech in Germany. Saying "those donkey fuckers crossing our borders must be shot on sight and their children too" is hate speech. We're talking about the kind of statements that get showcased on sites like this: https://perlen-aus-freital.tumblr.com https://perlen-aus-freital.tumblr.com In the US it's acceptable for politicians calling for undesirables like Snowden or Assange to be murdered. In Germany this kind of rhetoric would land you in jail for inciting violence and instigating criminal behavior. Also in Germany it's forbidden to bring weapons (including "defensive weapons" like shields or gasmasks) to demonstrations. In the US you have neo-nazis and antifa running into each other with riot gear and bashing each others' heads in with lengths of wood. Not to mention paramilitaries parading in camouflage with military-looking gear and firearms. Incidentally, German riot police doesn't use military equipment and actual violent protests are usually confined to anarchists using improvised weapons to cause property damage. > Since there is no truth defense against hate speech accusations Again, bullshit. If you use Nazi symbology, loudly shout "gas the jews" and do the salute, you know what you're doing. Stop pretending we're talking about scientific discourse here. This isn't about some economist or sociologist publishing troubling research findings or level-headed reporting on anything of the sort. This is about bigots venting their hatred and tabloids abusing scare tactics to sell more copies.

msla 9y ago
> Again, bullshit. If you use Nazi symbology, loudly shout "gas the jews" and do the salute, you know what you're doing. If you say that's all that gets called "hate speech" you're being deliberately dishonest. > Stop pretending we're talking about scientific discourse here. I don't have to pretend.
splintercell 9y ago
> Saying "there's a correlation between the refugee crisis and a rise in crimes" is protected speech in Germany. Saying "those donkey fuckers crossing our borders must be shot on sight and their children too" is hate speech. Which part of that offensive statement is 'hate speech': a) Donkey Fucker b) must be shot on sight c) [their children] must be shot on sight In US, a) cannot be restricted by the govt. b) and c) can be, provided the govt prove that it was the same thing as asking your right hand to pull the trigger (as it's a clear and present danger). Moreover, if someone does shoot kids and immigrants, and it was shown that this someone was motivated by your statements, then you can be sued under a civil lawsuit for millions by the family of the people who died. > In Germany this kind of rhetoric would land you in jail for inciting violence and instigating criminal behavior. In US too, inciting violence and instigating criminal behavior could land you in jail, except American definition of 'inciting violence and instigating criminal behavior' is a lot different than European definition. A politician calling drone attacks on Snowden or Assange isn't 'inciting violence and instigating criminal behavior' in US. A politician picking up the phone and asking his brother who is a drone operator to do a drone attack on Assange or Snowden, would be.