3 ms·

Quite the irony for people who disagree with you to vote your post down. Apparently that's the approved kind of censorship here.

by kmfrk 7y ago

mschuster91 7y ago
HN is (like Reddit) US-dominated, and with it comes that most of the users follow an absolutist version of "free speech" that is totally ridiculous for people coming from Europe who have learned from the Nazi regime where absolute limitless free speech can and inevitably will end.
- syshum 7y ago
  Yea America should really learn from the EU and start putting people in prison for Twitter Jokes... /s
  - andrepd 7y ago
    The topic here is not twitter jokes, so refrain from derailing the conversation to your pet talking point.
    - syshum 7y ago
      The Topic here is censorship and how the US should take a position like EU and regulate the speech of its citizens, which includes things like Comedy
    - DuskStar 7y ago
      Does this mean we should 1. allow anything to be posted on Twitter, or 2. somehow determine whether something on twitter is a joke with perfect accuracy?
- acollins1331 7y ago
  Wait until the Nazis end up in power anyway and have the powers of censorship you gave them. It'll be game over then, I'm glad to be in America and know I have the right to speak out against a fascist president.
  - majewsky 7y ago
    Do you think that, if the Nazis come to power and there are no censorship laws, the Nazis will just shrug and say "too bad that the government cannot change laws"?
    - Grue3 7y ago
      At least if Nazis implement Nazi laws themselves, all the blame's on them. If the supposed non-Nazis implement Nazi laws that Nazis don't even have to change, that just shows that your law system was already fascist.
- Amezarak 7y ago
  Weimar Germany did not have limitless free speech. Newspapers were continually confiscated in Germany pre-1933, editors taken to court, and promulgators of hate speech arrested. [1] It didn't work. So what's the argument for them now? [1] https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/copenhagen-speech-violence https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/copenhagen-speech-v...
- brownbat 7y ago
  Interestingly, the American roots of free speech come from across the Atlantic. Milton's Areopagitica, J. S. Mill, and Voltaire all contributed to the American foundations on this topic. The Constitution was written in light of centuries of European powers using speech restrictions to punish dissent. After the revolution, Americans continued to be influenced by European thinkers, like Kafka and Sartre, or Émile Zola who was punished with criminal libel for exposing antisemitism. We followed with sadness and hope the emergence of samizdat, the attempt to share ideas under yet another authoritarian European regime. These European thinkers have not always aligned with European policy. You cite Nazi Germany as the result of free speech, but it is an odd example. The Gestapo arrested people for things like "listening to the BBC" or "attending a party where someone made a stray remark about the course of the war." I take your perspective as, "we must stop Nazis early before they come to power, and limiting public speech is an effective tool to do so." You probably think of governments restricting speech more along the lines of Germany restricting holocaust denial, but Poland uses the same framework to restrict the acknowledgement of the Polish role during the holocaust. The US perspective is just that inevitably you're going to get some bad governments, and they will use speech restrictions to suppress counter-speech that is necessary to bring things back to normal. And that driving speech underground isn't really an effective way to stop it. The question for us is not, "is there some speech you would like to restrict?" But "would you like to allow your political opponents to control your speech?" You're right that there's a difference in perspective. I know this debate can be frustrating from either side, it draws on intense conviction. But if you're passionate about it, it's worth understanding the roots of it, and knowing that Europe has not been monolithic on this issue.

Quite the irony for people who disagree with you to vote your post down. Apparently that's the approved kind of censorship here.

by kmfrk 7y ago

Quite the irony for people who disagree with you to vote your post down. Apparently that's the approved kind of censorship here.

mschuster91 7y ago

HN is (like Reddit) US-dominated, and with it comes that most of the users follow an absolutist version of "free speech" that is totally ridiculous for people coming from Europe who have learned from the Nazi regime where absolute limitless free speech can and inevitably will end.

syshum 7y ago
Yea America should really learn from the EU and start putting people in prison for Twitter Jokes... /s
- andrepd 7y ago
  The topic here is not twitter jokes, so refrain from derailing the conversation to your pet talking point.
  - syshum 7y ago
    The Topic here is censorship and how the US should take a position like EU and regulate the speech of its citizens, which includes things like Comedy
  - DuskStar 7y ago
    Does this mean we should 1. allow anything to be posted on Twitter, or 2. somehow determine whether something on twitter is a joke with perfect accuracy?
acollins1331 7y ago
Wait until the Nazis end up in power anyway and have the powers of censorship you gave them. It'll be game over then, I'm glad to be in America and know I have the right to speak out against a fascist president.
- majewsky 7y ago
  Do you think that, if the Nazis come to power and there are no censorship laws, the Nazis will just shrug and say "too bad that the government cannot change laws"?
  - Grue3 7y ago
    At least if Nazis implement Nazi laws themselves, all the blame's on them. If the supposed non-Nazis implement Nazi laws that Nazis don't even have to change, that just shows that your law system was already fascist.
Amezarak 7y ago
Weimar Germany did not have limitless free speech. Newspapers were continually confiscated in Germany pre-1933, editors taken to court, and promulgators of hate speech arrested. [1] It didn't work. So what's the argument for them now? [1] https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/copenhagen-speech-violence https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/copenhagen-speech-v...
brownbat 7y ago
Interestingly, the American roots of free speech come from across the Atlantic. Milton's Areopagitica, J. S. Mill, and Voltaire all contributed to the American foundations on this topic. The Constitution was written in light of centuries of European powers using speech restrictions to punish dissent. After the revolution, Americans continued to be influenced by European thinkers, like Kafka and Sartre, or Émile Zola who was punished with criminal libel for exposing antisemitism. We followed with sadness and hope the emergence of samizdat, the attempt to share ideas under yet another authoritarian European regime. These European thinkers have not always aligned with European policy. You cite Nazi Germany as the result of free speech, but it is an odd example. The Gestapo arrested people for things like "listening to the BBC" or "attending a party where someone made a stray remark about the course of the war." I take your perspective as, "we must stop Nazis early before they come to power, and limiting public speech is an effective tool to do so." You probably think of governments restricting speech more along the lines of Germany restricting holocaust denial, but Poland uses the same framework to restrict the acknowledgement of the Polish role during the holocaust. The US perspective is just that inevitably you're going to get some bad governments, and they will use speech restrictions to suppress counter-speech that is necessary to bring things back to normal. And that driving speech underground isn't really an effective way to stop it. The question for us is not, "is there some speech you would like to restrict?" But "would you like to allow your political opponents to control your speech?" You're right that there's a difference in perspective. I know this debate can be frustrating from either side, it draws on intense conviction. But if you're passionate about it, it's worth understanding the roots of it, and knowing that Europe has not been monolithic on this issue.