4 ms·

Do you have an example? The only things I can think of are illegal (like child porn) which everyone should be able to agree should be banned.

wongarsu 7y ago
Europe is much more relaxed about nudity (exposed breasts in prime time TV are fine) but much more restrictive about violence and gore. Instead US companies enforce US standards on us. Even child porn isn't an easy subject. Everyone can agree that liking 12 year olds sexually is pedophilia and images about that are child porn. But when we are taking about 16 year olds it's muddier since we are taking about child porn outside of pedophilia. And that's just (north western) Europe who are culturally very similar to the US.
- unlinked_dll 7y ago
  >But when we are taking about 16 year olds it's muddier since we are taking about child porn outside of pedophilia. It's not muddier. The issue isn't the nature of the people viewing the content, but the ability of the victim to consent to the creation of the content. There's no muddiness involved here - sexual exploitation of minors for the production of media is not ok.
  - wongarsu 7y ago
    "Minor" is a very cultural term, the US steps of adulthood at 18 and 21 are more comparable with 16 and 18 in Europe. Also a 16 year old can consent to sex, so why not to images (particularly ones they made themselves and distribute to single persons). For 12 year olds it's much easier with the "we don't support pedophilia" argument (which has wide support)
- plurple 7y ago
  And yet you can’t say anything negative about Muhamed in Europe without fearing punishment from the government.
- plurple 7y ago
  Interesting, my previous comment about not being able to criticize muhamed in Europe was downvoted and flagged without any responses. Guess people here hate the truth: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/calling-muhammad-paedophile-not-protected-by-free-speech-1.3678825?mode=amp https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/calling-muhammad-paedo...
  - ahbyb 7y ago
    More context: 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... I'd rather see nudity censored than criticism of religion, to be honest, so thank the Lord it's not Europe using soft censorship.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
snagglegaggle 7y ago
Don't be so sure about that, the first amendment is to categorically prevent any discussion of which speech is appropriate. Saying hate speech is restricted or that pornographic images of children are restricted is starting the discussion that was not supposed to start because it always ends in tyranny. In the latter case, is child pornography probably indicative of a crime? Absolutely. But banning the images and their dissemination is clearly an infringement of free speech. In the former, banning hate speech is also clearly an infringement of free speech. If someone's actions result in violence or death then punish them after, and divorced from the issue of speech; do not place prior restraint on speech.

wongarsu 7y ago

Europe is much more relaxed about nudity (exposed breasts in prime time TV are fine) but much more restrictive about violence and gore. Instead US companies enforce US standards on us. Even child porn isn't an easy subject. Everyone can agree that liking 12 year olds sexually is pedophilia and images about that are child porn. But when we are taking about 16 year olds it's muddier since we are taking about child porn outside of pedophilia. And that's just (north western) Europe who are culturally very similar to the US.

unlinked_dll 7y ago
>But when we are taking about 16 year olds it's muddier since we are taking about child porn outside of pedophilia. It's not muddier. The issue isn't the nature of the people viewing the content, but the ability of the victim to consent to the creation of the content. There's no muddiness involved here - sexual exploitation of minors for the production of media is not ok.
- wongarsu 7y ago
  "Minor" is a very cultural term, the US steps of adulthood at 18 and 21 are more comparable with 16 and 18 in Europe. Also a 16 year old can consent to sex, so why not to images (particularly ones they made themselves and distribute to single persons). For 12 year olds it's much easier with the "we don't support pedophilia" argument (which has wide support)
plurple 7y ago
And yet you can’t say anything negative about Muhamed in Europe without fearing punishment from the government.
plurple 7y ago
Interesting, my previous comment about not being able to criticize muhamed in Europe was downvoted and flagged without any responses. Guess people here hate the truth: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/calling-muhammad-paedophile-not-protected-by-free-speech-1.3678825?mode=amp https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/calling-muhammad-paedo...
- ahbyb 7y ago
  More context: 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... I'd rather see nudity censored than criticism of religion, to be honest, so thank the Lord it's not Europe using soft censorship.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

snagglegaggle 7y ago

Don't be so sure about that, the first amendment is to categorically prevent any discussion of which speech is appropriate. Saying hate speech is restricted or that pornographic images of children are restricted is starting the discussion that was not supposed to start because it always ends in tyranny. In the latter case, is child pornography probably indicative of a crime? Absolutely. But banning the images and their dissemination is clearly an infringement of free speech. In the former, banning hate speech is also clearly an infringement of free speech. If someone's actions result in violence or death then punish them after, and divorced from the issue of speech; do not place prior restraint on speech.