5 ms·

Many countries have limitations to free speech (e.g., Germany banning holocaust denial, Sweden banning hate speech) but have a free and open culture in spite of

Many countries have limitations to free speech (e.g., Germany banning holocaust denial, Sweden banning hate speech) but have a free and open culture in spite of this. It's a hard balance to strike, but freedom of speech doesn't have to be all or nothing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country

humanrebar 9y ago
If dissenting speech is stopped, how will the public ever know when an argument is illegitimate and when it is merely dangerous to the ruling class? People don't find this to be convincing: "Don't worry, the ruling class makes sure only the dangerous speech is stopped". Especially with free speech rules, we have a "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" situation.
- TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago
  > how will the public ever know Because the public isn't stupid. Does the slippery slope argument work here? I'm sure German's have their own opinions about it all, in private, and in public to the extent allowed under their laws, and they seem to have a relatively coherent sense of how to go about having a society. Perhaps even more coherent than the US. In 2015 Germany rated higher (aggregate score 95) than the US (aggregate score 90) for freedom of the press.[1] 1. Refer chart commencing page 20 - https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/FH_FITW_Report_2016.pdf https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/FH_FITW_Report_...
gnaritas 9y ago
Then it's not free speech. If you're not free to speak about certain things, you do not have freedom of speech, it is very much all or nothing. Freedom is a binary condition, you either have it, or you don't.
- pmyteh 9y ago
  It may be that having 'full' freedom is correct in some senses, but it seems fairly clear that it's non-binary. A government which firmly censors newspapers writing restaurant reviews but allows anything else is fairly clearly more free than one which also forbids discussion of politics, religion, and the football results. I don't think anybody would say they are indifferent to which of the two they would prefer, on the grounds that neither are wholly free.
  - gnaritas 9y ago
    It's an abuse of language to call either of them free, neither are free, one is simply less authoritarian than the other. Yes, authoritarianism is not binary, there are many levels, but freedom of speech is binary, if you can be jailed for speaking, you do not have freedom of speech, you have an authoritarian government that may be less worse than others, but don't confuse it or label it as less free, it's simply not free. What you're doing is newspeak.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]

humanrebar 9y ago

If dissenting speech is stopped, how will the public ever know when an argument is illegitimate and when it is merely dangerous to the ruling class? People don't find this to be convincing: "Don't worry, the ruling class makes sure only the dangerous speech is stopped". Especially with free speech rules, we have a "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" situation.

TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago
> how will the public ever know Because the public isn't stupid. Does the slippery slope argument work here? I'm sure German's have their own opinions about it all, in private, and in public to the extent allowed under their laws, and they seem to have a relatively coherent sense of how to go about having a society. Perhaps even more coherent than the US. In 2015 Germany rated higher (aggregate score 95) than the US (aggregate score 90) for freedom of the press.[1] 1. Refer chart commencing page 20 - https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/FH_FITW_Report_2016.pdf https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/FH_FITW_Report_...

gnaritas 9y ago

Then it's not free speech. If you're not free to speak about certain things, you do not have freedom of speech, it is very much all or nothing. Freedom is a binary condition, you either have it, or you don't.

pmyteh 9y ago
It may be that having 'full' freedom is correct in some senses, but it seems fairly clear that it's non-binary. A government which firmly censors newspapers writing restaurant reviews but allows anything else is fairly clearly more free than one which also forbids discussion of politics, religion, and the football results. I don't think anybody would say they are indifferent to which of the two they would prefer, on the grounds that neither are wholly free.
- gnaritas 9y ago
  It's an abuse of language to call either of them free, neither are free, one is simply less authoritarian than the other. Yes, authoritarianism is not binary, there are many levels, but freedom of speech is binary, if you can be jailed for speaking, you do not have freedom of speech, you have an authoritarian government that may be less worse than others, but don't confuse it or label it as less free, it's simply not free. What you're doing is newspeak.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]