3 ms·

Free Speech (using capitals for a reason) is a US centric concept whenever it comes up here and you're from SF (according to Twitter). That just doesn't apply

Free Speech (using capitals for a reason) is a US centric concept whenever it comes up here and you're from SF (according to Twitter). That just doesn't apply here. This Free Speech never existed in the Germany I grew up in and it's not something that I ever felt needed. The incident here is a mistake, a strange overreaction - maybe even by Twitter? - and hopefully will be corrected promptly. So while I understand that you might be unfamiliar with the underlying laws in Germany: I wouldn't want to trade them in. Edit: I fully support the restriction of Free Speech and prosecution of hate speech. I'm not a fan of the new 'delete content online' NetzDG thing

olivermarks 9y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_10_of_the_European_Convention_on_Human_Rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_10_of_the_European_Con... 'Free Expression' is the equivalent euro terminology as I understand it. I'm a Brit living in the US so I think I understand your German perspective but don't understand you supporting the restriction of Free Speech/Expression...
- darklajid 9y ago
  That link's number 2 seems to apply (and explicitly talks about restrictions)? The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary. For the hate speech law [√] prescribed by law [√] in the interests of national security [√] in the interests of public safety You can disagree whether the lower two points apply - I'll argue that these are the reasons behind the law in the first place - but the first one is quite clear I think. Freedom of Expression within boundaries. Restricted Freedom of Expression?
  - olivermarks 9y ago
    I'd argue free expression has been the difference between the western world and more oppressive regimes speakers corner London and Hamburg in 1966, a bit like pre internet Facebook ranting... https://youtu.be/XGzmRhfef7w https://youtu.be/XGzmRhfef7w
adrianratnapala 9y ago
I think you are seeing played out in practice why the US is right and Germany is wrong about this. An important argument for free speech is that while it does little harm for people to merely say say bad stuff, restricting it does a lot of harm because of snowball effects. If speech act looks just barely be illegal, then it is much easier and safer to just condemn it than to figure out if it really meets the standard. That is if you dispose of free speech as a principle, then you should expect suppression of even speech you think is tolerable. And if you believe that is pie-in-the-sky theory, then you are seeing evidence to the contrary here.

olivermarks 9y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_10_of_the_European_Convention_on_Human_Rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_10_of_the_European_Con... 'Free Expression' is the equivalent euro terminology as I understand it. I'm a Brit living in the US so I think I understand your German perspective but don't understand you supporting the restriction of Free Speech/Expression...

darklajid 9y ago
That link's number 2 seems to apply (and explicitly talks about restrictions)? The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary. For the hate speech law [√] prescribed by law [√] in the interests of national security [√] in the interests of public safety You can disagree whether the lower two points apply - I'll argue that these are the reasons behind the law in the first place - but the first one is quite clear I think. Freedom of Expression within boundaries. Restricted Freedom of Expression?
- olivermarks 9y ago
  I'd argue free expression has been the difference between the western world and more oppressive regimes speakers corner London and Hamburg in 1966, a bit like pre internet Facebook ranting... https://youtu.be/XGzmRhfef7w https://youtu.be/XGzmRhfef7w

adrianratnapala 9y ago

I think you are seeing played out in practice why the US is right and Germany is wrong about this. An important argument for free speech is that while it does little harm for people to merely say say bad stuff, restricting it does a lot of harm because of snowball effects. If speech act looks just barely be illegal, then it is much easier and safer to just condemn it than to figure out if it really meets the standard. That is if you dispose of free speech as a principle, then you should expect suppression of even speech you think is tolerable. And if you believe that is pie-in-the-sky theory, then you are seeing evidence to the contrary here.