3 ms·

Good luck convincing US and EU residents to take a significant economic hit in the name of standing on principle against censorship that doesn't affect them.

JumpCrisscross 7y ago
> censorship that doesn't affect them It’s easier to deploy something already built than to build a system from scratch. There is a clear civil rights argument against letting American tech companies build this technology for dictators.
lvmii 7y ago
The EU doesn't even have free speech to begin with[] and it doesn't seem like it bothers many people. [] https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/its-not-free-speech-criticize-muhammad-echr-ruled/574174/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/its-not-fr...
- gowld 7y ago
  That article is about a case of Austrian law that EU allows. EU allows countries to make their own determination. Not all countries ban anti-religious facts. And it does bother many people. But it's not a very big deal because even in the worst case reported in the article, it was a very small penalty for a very large amount of speech. The scale matters.
- sangnoir 7y ago
  American-style "Free speech" is incompatible with the right-to-be-forgotten, privacy[1] and other ideals that Europeans give primacy. Someone smarter than I am once summarized American freedoms as "Freedom to _", and European ones as "Freedom from _" 1. IIRC, it is illegal for newspapers publish arrestee's full names in Germany to protect their privacy - assumption of innocence and all that. This law wouldn't hold in the US as it infringes on publishers 1A rights
  - lvmii 7y ago
    Don't understand what that has to do with what basically is a blasphemy law.
- themacguffinman 7y ago
  I'd personally support the US pressuring the EU on its lack of free speech, but it still isn't comparable to the need for pressure on China as EU laws still allow for much freer speech in practice.
- denzil_correa 7y ago
  It is important to understand why the person was fined. The person held a seminar titled "Basic Information about Islam". It was advertised with an impression of "objective information on Islam". The person described themselves as an expert in Islam doctrine too. During the seminar, the person made a judgment position without facts. The courts felt it was an intentional move meant to rile up participants and disturb peace. You could have the same position as the fined person and you wouldn't be fined in Austria. The fine was imposed due to the context of the fora/background and the intent of communication, not the position itself.
  - papln 7y ago
    What was the judgment without facts? The seminars cited Muslim biographies, no? Surely telling people what's in the Quran can't be considered anti-Muslim incitement, or else every imam and mosque would be guilty. > The courts felt it was an intentional move meant to rile up participants and disturb peace. Are you saying that the seminars caused anti-Muslim violence? Were there incidents reported that made the connection?
    - denzil_correa 7y ago
      All answers to your questions are in the EHCR judgment. The court makes a distinction between child marriage and paedophilia. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#%7B%22itemid%22:%5B%22002-12171%22%5D%7D https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#%7B%22itemid%22:%5B%22002-121... > Are you saying that the seminars caused anti-Muslim violence? Were there incidents reported that made the connection? I was pretty clear on what I said. I repeat - The courts (not me) felt it was an intentional move meant to rile up participants and disturb peace.
      - stallmanite 7y ago
        Is that ruling sensible to you? I read it and it seems to be saying that rape of a 6 year old it’s fine as long as the guy keeps her around til after she’s 18? Also the fact that he had other girlfriends that are past puberty was listed as if it were exonerating evidence. That was the reasoning given in the link you provided. Can you help me figure out how I’m misinterpreting the ruling? On it’s face it seems nonsensical.
smolder 7y ago
I feel like you could possibly get popular support for it here in the US, but almost certainly not from businesses and their lobbyists.
peteretep 7y ago
> convincing US and EU residents to take a significant economic hit in the name of If the last few years have shown anything, it's that you can get EU and US citizens to vote against their best interests using a convenient scapegoat or outgroup.
- cbnotfromthere 7y ago
  <quote>US citizens to vote against their best interests using a convenient scapegoat or outgroup</quote> No need to bring up all those who voted for Bernie.
reaperducer 7y ago
Good luck convincing US and EU residents to take a significant economic hit in the name of standing on principle against censorship that doesn't affect them. It depends. There are plenty of people who willingly pay more for non-Chinese goods when they can. The problem is that they often have no choice in the matter because so much is made in China. There are lots of small manufacturing businesses new and old all across the country that are thriving because of where their stuff is made. The problem is that they can't make goods in large enough quantities to be carried in the national chain stores, so it's mostly online and word-of-mouth.

JumpCrisscross 7y ago

> censorship that doesn't affect them It’s easier to deploy something already built than to build a system from scratch. There is a clear civil rights argument against letting American tech companies build this technology for dictators.

lvmii 7y ago

The EU doesn't even have free speech to begin with[] and it doesn't seem like it bothers many people. [] https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/its-not-free-speech-criticize-muhammad-echr-ruled/574174/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/its-not-fr...

gowld 7y ago
That article is about a case of Austrian law that EU allows. EU allows countries to make their own determination. Not all countries ban anti-religious facts. And it does bother many people. But it's not a very big deal because even in the worst case reported in the article, it was a very small penalty for a very large amount of speech. The scale matters.
sangnoir 7y ago
American-style "Free speech" is incompatible with the right-to-be-forgotten, privacy[1] and other ideals that Europeans give primacy. Someone smarter than I am once summarized American freedoms as "Freedom to _", and European ones as "Freedom from _" 1. IIRC, it is illegal for newspapers publish arrestee's full names in Germany to protect their privacy - assumption of innocence and all that. This law wouldn't hold in the US as it infringes on publishers 1A rights
- lvmii 7y ago
  Don't understand what that has to do with what basically is a blasphemy law.
themacguffinman 7y ago
I'd personally support the US pressuring the EU on its lack of free speech, but it still isn't comparable to the need for pressure on China as EU laws still allow for much freer speech in practice.
denzil_correa 7y ago
It is important to understand why the person was fined. The person held a seminar titled "Basic Information about Islam". It was advertised with an impression of "objective information on Islam". The person described themselves as an expert in Islam doctrine too. During the seminar, the person made a judgment position without facts. The courts felt it was an intentional move meant to rile up participants and disturb peace. You could have the same position as the fined person and you wouldn't be fined in Austria. The fine was imposed due to the context of the fora/background and the intent of communication, not the position itself.
- papln 7y ago
  What was the judgment without facts? The seminars cited Muslim biographies, no? Surely telling people what's in the Quran can't be considered anti-Muslim incitement, or else every imam and mosque would be guilty. > The courts felt it was an intentional move meant to rile up participants and disturb peace. Are you saying that the seminars caused anti-Muslim violence? Were there incidents reported that made the connection?
  - denzil_correa 7y ago
    All answers to your questions are in the EHCR judgment. The court makes a distinction between child marriage and paedophilia. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#%7B%22itemid%22:%5B%22002-12171%22%5D%7D https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#%7B%22itemid%22:%5B%22002-121... > Are you saying that the seminars caused anti-Muslim violence? Were there incidents reported that made the connection? I was pretty clear on what I said. I repeat - The courts (not me) felt it was an intentional move meant to rile up participants and disturb peace.
    - stallmanite 7y ago
      Is that ruling sensible to you? I read it and it seems to be saying that rape of a 6 year old it’s fine as long as the guy keeps her around til after she’s 18? Also the fact that he had other girlfriends that are past puberty was listed as if it were exonerating evidence. That was the reasoning given in the link you provided. Can you help me figure out how I’m misinterpreting the ruling? On it’s face it seems nonsensical.

smolder 7y ago

I feel like you could possibly get popular support for it here in the US, but almost certainly not from businesses and their lobbyists.

peteretep 7y ago

> convincing US and EU residents to take a significant economic hit in the name of If the last few years have shown anything, it's that you can get EU and US citizens to vote against their best interests using a convenient scapegoat or outgroup.

cbnotfromthere 7y ago
<quote>US citizens to vote against their best interests using a convenient scapegoat or outgroup</quote> No need to bring up all those who voted for Bernie.

reaperducer 7y ago

Good luck convincing US and EU residents to take a significant economic hit in the name of standing on principle against censorship that doesn't affect them. It depends. There are plenty of people who willingly pay more for non-Chinese goods when they can. The problem is that they often have no choice in the matter because so much is made in China. There are lots of small manufacturing businesses new and old all across the country that are thriving because of where their stuff is made. The problem is that they can't make goods in large enough quantities to be carried in the national chain stores, so it's mostly online and word-of-mouth.