5 ms·

Something that I find interesting is that in the Netherlands no one talks about “freedom of speech”, rather, what is spoken of is “freedom to express opinions”

Something that I find interesting is that in the Netherlands no one talks about “freedom of speech”, rather, what is spoken of is “freedom to express opinions” — this different phrasing putting the focus not on the broad “speech” but the more narrow “opinion” seems to color the discourse differently. For instance, the fire in a crowded theatre-argument has no meaning in that reference, for it is not an opinion; whether there be fire is a fact. Pornography could also not be made legal by it, as it expresses no opinion. In reality however, the Dutch constitution does not guarantee freedom to expression opinions unknown to much of the population, it merely prohibits the government from enacting præventive censorship with the exception of commercial advertisements and broadcasts aimed at minors — it is allowed to censor post factum.

ruph123 6y ago
Same in Germany. E.g. you cannot publicly state that the Holocaust was an invention because that it happened is a fact. So it cannot be an opinion. Although differentiating between the two is not always easy and often left for the courts to decide (like in the above example [1]). And of course it leaves room for using clever language to hide statement behind an opinion. Still it seems like a good middle ground. [1]: https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Entscheidungen/EN/2018/06/rk20180622_1bvr067318en.html https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Entscheid...
- eznzt 6y ago
  History is written by the victors. The fact that the winning side can say "this is what happened, and any discussion about it shall land you in jail" should raise a few eyebrows.
  - cesaref 6y ago
    Except that you are
  - spuz 6y ago
    Perhaps, but using Germany's ban on holocaust denial is not a good example to prove the point. Ideally you'd find an example of a government of an otherwise free society actually rewriting history to hide actual real facts.
    - garbagetime 6y ago
      What other examples are there of ostensibly free countries making it illegal to question the state's account of a historical event?
      - yoz-y 6y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_Holocaust_denial https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_Holocaust_denial
        garbagetime 6y ago
        Other examples as in other than the Holocaust
    - garmaine 6y ago
      All slippery slopes start from a pinnacle of reasonableness.
      - yoz-y 6y ago
        I find it terrifying that defending the truth always hits massive friction, whereas flooding all places with nonsense is barely an inconvenience. The whole point of protecting what we _know_ is true now, is that if we don't scholars in 100 years will not be able to discern fact from fiction because there will be more fake versions of history than any true records. At best we'll be able to say "we don't know". You see this all the time when discussing with, say, antivaxxers when a sufficient argument for them is to say "I read an article somewhere where a doctor said..." but when you try to raise your argument they suddenly need a whole lot of undeniable evidence + an ELI5 explanation of all biology. Maybe it's a slippery slope when platforms start arbitrating the truth, but at the same time not doing anything or doing little is a free fall and we are already in it.
- Blikkentrekker 6y ago
  > Same in Germany. E.g. you cannot publicly state that the Holocaust was an invention because that it happened is a fact. So it cannot be an opinion. Of course, some falsehoods are easily spoken and unpunished, such as the claims by many a religion. It does not solve the issue that sensitive falsehoods are more easily censored that those the public has no particular emotional investment in. Even on the subject of genocides, denying that the Armenian genocide happened, or even denying that the genocides of the Third Reich against the Slavs and the Gypsies happened seems to be quite legal in Germany.
- Closi 6y ago
  > Same in Germany. E.g. you cannot publicly state that the Holocaust was an invention because that it happened is a fact. So it cannot be an opinion. Although differentiating between the two is not always easy and often left for the courts to decide (like in the above example [1]). Another example on the flip side that another commenter pointed out, is that Galileo was prosecuted because he didn't accept the 'fact' that the earth was flat. People across all of history have been killed because they said they supported the 'wrong' god.
  - Blikkentrekker 6y ago
    No, because he did not accept the fact of geocentricism. It is a common, and unfortunate myth that learned scholarship in Europe ever believed The Earth to be flat.
    - Closi 6y ago
      Apologies this is my error, you are right - my brain just got muddled :)
- jeofken 6y ago
  In Germany it’s illegal to come to the “wrong” conclusion publicly on this topic, and thus it’s not quite right to claim that the German government protects people’s rights to express their understanding of the truth. I’ve heard this joked about like this: “it’s a fact so true you’re put in prison for denying it”
  - CaptArmchair 6y ago
    The literal provision in German law reads like this: > Whosoever publicly or in a meeting approves of, denies or downplays an act committed under the rule of National Socialism of the kind indicated in section 6 (1) of the Code of International Criminal Law, in a manner capable of disturbing the public peace shall be liable to imprisonment not exceeding five years or a fine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_Holocaust_denial#Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_Holocaust_denial#G... Now, it doesn't mean that disputing or discussing the finer details of what has happened is outright outlawed and a prosecutable crime. If that were the case, historical research, remembrance and reflection wouldn't be possible. One needs to be able to discuss what happened, re-interpret what has happened, be able to dispute what has happened in order to come to new insights. The key provision is this: > in a manner capable of disturbing the public peace The German law very much looks at the intent with which you approach history. If you publicly proclaim revisionist history with the express aim of inciting ethnic, religious or political tensions, then you will very much get prosecuted. Whether you do it by publishing a pamphlet, a book, starting a non-profit, an online forum, a political party, a protest march,... The format doesn't matter: it's your intent that makes all the difference. Freedom of speech is often touted as an absolute right. You should be free to express anything, including denial of the Holocaust. To many, it's an acceptable trade off since any limits put forward by a government are perceived as a slippery slope to authoritarianism. The events of last week demonstrate the inherent paradox in the line of thinking. Allowing anything to go unchecked, culminated in a downright insurrection aiming to disrupt a constitutionally enshrined legal process. It wasn't just storming a building, it was very much storming the foundational framework that governs how people organize themselves in the United States... and this includes threatening that very same unchecked free speech right. It was basically a demonstration of Karl Popper's famous paradox of free speech. See, free speech is an equitable right. Free speech doesn't exist if the humanity of certain groups in society is denied through legal policies which are founded in racial, gender, origin, religious, political or other types of discrimination. In order for free speech to be truly free, society has to be intolerant towards such discrimination. That's what laws such as in Germany are about. They aren't intended to curb free speech. They are intended to protect it. You can say and promote whatever you want. You just can't promote ideas with the express intent of curbing free speech rights based on discrimination. An often heard argument is that such frameworks are a form of discrimination itself. But that's just a rephrasing of the paradox with the express goal of derailing the discussion into a circular argument. The best response to that argument would be: "Well, sure, punishing revisionism is a form of discrimination. But would you rather have people freely rewrite history with the express intent of disrupting society based on a framework of free, open, equal and democratic values?" See, when confronted with revisionism, a sensible approach is never "Well, they are wrong, and we need to fact check their claims." It's always a set of questions you have to ask yourself first: "Who are they? What do they want? Why should we even listen to them? And why should we allow them to disrupt the peace?"
- zozbot234 6y ago
  And in Turkey you cannot publicly state that the Armenian genocide was a fact, because "it was an invention" and differentiating between invention and fact is left for the government to decide. Even though the Armenian genocide was the most direct inspiration for the Holocaust and even Hitler said as much.
  - Blikkentrekker 6y ago
    Does Germany not also play along with Turkey in this to some extent to salvage it's diplomatic relations? The Dutch government has only recently taken a public stance on admitting it. Prior, they purposefully avoided talking of the issue as to placate Turkey and soothe diplomatic relations therewith.
falcor84 6y ago
>Pornography could also not be made legal by it, as it expresses no opinion. Pornography is very opinionated. By deciding on what acts are shown, what actors are shown, where the camera is placed, what zoom level is chosen, etc. the creators exhibit no less opinion than any other author. Viewed via a historical lens, the kind of pornography being created and consumed in a society can be very indicative of that society's values and morals, and possibly quite influential in its turn.
- Blikkentrekker 6y ago
  > Pornography is very opinionated. By deciding on what acts are shown, what actors are shown, where the camera is placed, what zoom level is chosen, etc. the creators exhibit no less opinion than any other author. Are you serious? If it was truly meant to enunciate a particular opinion, then that same opinion could be expressed in clearer, more verbal ways. The crux is that the opinion itself isn't censored, but that does not mean that one has carte blanche as a choice of medium to express it, such as for instance shouting it with a megaphone in the middle of the night, exceeding the legal sound volume limits. I could also express an opinion by murdering people and carving my opinion in text in their corpes and say that it should be legal, for I expressed an opinion. In which case, I am not prosecuted for any opinions I expressed, but the means by which I did so. That having been said, the Netherlands has more liberal pornography laws than the U.S.A.. > Viewed via a historical lens, the kind of pornography being created and consumed in a society can be very indicative of that society's values and morals, and possibly quite influential in its turn. So can the kind of murders committed therein.
  - claudiawerner 6y ago
    >If it was truly meant to enunciate a particular opinion, then that same opinion could be expressed in clearer, more verbal ways. Any opinion can be expressed in clearer ways - and indeed many opinions in artworks can too. >The crux is that the opinion itself isn't censored, but that does not mean that one has carte blanche as a choice of medium to express it Some would say that porn is the best method to express their opinions and ideas. For instance, if I may want to express what I find sexy, a picture is worth well more than a thousand words. Sometimes, I may opt for a (pornographic) thousand words. There is immense complexity in at least some pornography, and some feminist philosophers would contend that porn is the best medium (on a variety of metrics) to convey the idea that women should be subordinated. I don't agree with that reading, but there a many points of view. >So can the kind of murders committed therein. The idea is that porn also expresses ideas and opinions, not that porn is pure and good by light of doing just that. Murder is also expressive, but it causes harm. Whether porn causes harm is very contentious.
hnlurker 6y ago
Oh please! Forgive us for not taking seriously the ideas, on this subject, of a country that arrested and tried, multiple times, an elected parliamentarian for the recitation of plain facts about criminal arrest statistics within the country. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Geert_Wilders https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Geert_Wilders We’ll call if discussion turns to cheese or chocolates.
- Blikkentrekker 6y ago
  He was not arrested merely for citing statistics. The final straw was his “Less Moroccans!” chant which was interpreted as possibly made with the intent to inspire violence — it is not legal in the Netherlands to tell a man to kill another and the argument was whether his statements could be construed as such. It was on the line, as you see in the article the public prosecutor originally did not want to bring charges but did so regardless, and he was acquitted. The way you phrase it, suggesting that he was merely tried for citing statistics is obviously a big misrepræsentation of some of the comments he made, and the primary legal quæstion was whether they constituted a call to commit crimes, and the court found that they did not, though that he skirted awfully close to the line. You would have a far stronger argument with the situation with MARTIJN, a pro pædophile activist group that was first forbidden, then that ruling was reversed on appeal, and a further appeal forbade them again, with the legal quæstion indeed being whether they issued a call to break the law — I personally do not believe they did and I find that the supreme court was searching for a reason and that the intermediate court's ruling was the correct one and that they remained within their legal right to advocate the law be changed, all the while not calling it be broken while it was still in effect as it was.
cheph 6y ago
> For instance, the fire in a crowded theatre-argument has no meaning in that reference, for it is not an opinion; whether there be fire is a fact. Okay, but how do we determine fact (i.e. positive descriptive statements about the natural world that are true [1])? In science we can define repeatable experiments, and we can them use them to test hypothesis, but such experiments cannot say if our hypothesis is true, just if it is not false. But outside of the realm of science we are much more limited. Take for example terrorist incidents, with this things are significantly different, because these are not things we can test by repeatable experiment as we can in science. For another example, no experiment is available to me to check whether or not Lukashenko rigged the election of Belarus in 2020. I suspect he did, but I don't know. It is a matter of fact though, so can I now no longer say I expect he did? What if I find evidence, can I then say he did? Take also a murder trial, does a conviction mean someone did it? Does an acquittal mean that someone did not do it? I mean if you truly believe so then how do you explain wrongful convictions and acquittals? Should we eliminate courts as they make claims of facts with no ability to guarantee their correctness? What if some witness was mistaken? Should they be convicted? Should incorrect statements about matters of fact be crimes? And if so how do we judge them? Can't use courts, because courts can make mistakes. Libel and fraud are already crimes, both in US and most of the western world, but I think restricting freedom of speech to exclude statements about fact is a misunderstanding of reality. No person is an oracle, no person has a monopoly on truth or fact, just because someone says something, does not make it so. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_statement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_statement [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

ruph123 6y ago

Same in Germany. E.g. you cannot publicly state that the Holocaust was an invention because that it happened is a fact. So it cannot be an opinion. Although differentiating between the two is not always easy and often left for the courts to decide (like in the above example [1]). And of course it leaves room for using clever language to hide statement behind an opinion. Still it seems like a good middle ground. [1]: https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Entscheidungen/EN/2018/06/rk20180622_1bvr067318en.html https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Entscheid...

eznzt 6y ago
History is written by the victors. The fact that the winning side can say "this is what happened, and any discussion about it shall land you in jail" should raise a few eyebrows.
- cesaref 6y ago
  Except that you are
- spuz 6y ago
  Perhaps, but using Germany's ban on holocaust denial is not a good example to prove the point. Ideally you'd find an example of a government of an otherwise free society actually rewriting history to hide actual real facts.
  - garbagetime 6y ago
    What other examples are there of ostensibly free countries making it illegal to question the state's account of a historical event?
    - yoz-y 6y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_Holocaust_denial https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_Holocaust_denial
      - garbagetime 6y ago
        Other examples as in other than the Holocaust
  - garmaine 6y ago
    All slippery slopes start from a pinnacle of reasonableness.
    - yoz-y 6y ago
      I find it terrifying that defending the truth always hits massive friction, whereas flooding all places with nonsense is barely an inconvenience. The whole point of protecting what we _know_ is true now, is that if we don't scholars in 100 years will not be able to discern fact from fiction because there will be more fake versions of history than any true records. At best we'll be able to say "we don't know". You see this all the time when discussing with, say, antivaxxers when a sufficient argument for them is to say "I read an article somewhere where a doctor said..." but when you try to raise your argument they suddenly need a whole lot of undeniable evidence + an ELI5 explanation of all biology. Maybe it's a slippery slope when platforms start arbitrating the truth, but at the same time not doing anything or doing little is a free fall and we are already in it.
Blikkentrekker 6y ago
> Same in Germany. E.g. you cannot publicly state that the Holocaust was an invention because that it happened is a fact. So it cannot be an opinion. Of course, some falsehoods are easily spoken and unpunished, such as the claims by many a religion. It does not solve the issue that sensitive falsehoods are more easily censored that those the public has no particular emotional investment in. Even on the subject of genocides, denying that the Armenian genocide happened, or even denying that the genocides of the Third Reich against the Slavs and the Gypsies happened seems to be quite legal in Germany.
Closi 6y ago
> Same in Germany. E.g. you cannot publicly state that the Holocaust was an invention because that it happened is a fact. So it cannot be an opinion. Although differentiating between the two is not always easy and often left for the courts to decide (like in the above example [1]). Another example on the flip side that another commenter pointed out, is that Galileo was prosecuted because he didn't accept the 'fact' that the earth was flat. People across all of history have been killed because they said they supported the 'wrong' god.
- Blikkentrekker 6y ago
  No, because he did not accept the fact of geocentricism. It is a common, and unfortunate myth that learned scholarship in Europe ever believed The Earth to be flat.
  - Closi 6y ago
    Apologies this is my error, you are right - my brain just got muddled :)
jeofken 6y ago
In Germany it’s illegal to come to the “wrong” conclusion publicly on this topic, and thus it’s not quite right to claim that the German government protects people’s rights to express their understanding of the truth. I’ve heard this joked about like this: “it’s a fact so true you’re put in prison for denying it”
- CaptArmchair 6y ago
  The literal provision in German law reads like this: > Whosoever publicly or in a meeting approves of, denies or downplays an act committed under the rule of National Socialism of the kind indicated in section 6 (1) of the Code of International Criminal Law, in a manner capable of disturbing the public peace shall be liable to imprisonment not exceeding five years or a fine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_Holocaust_denial#Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_Holocaust_denial#G... Now, it doesn't mean that disputing or discussing the finer details of what has happened is outright outlawed and a prosecutable crime. If that were the case, historical research, remembrance and reflection wouldn't be possible. One needs to be able to discuss what happened, re-interpret what has happened, be able to dispute what has happened in order to come to new insights. The key provision is this: > in a manner capable of disturbing the public peace The German law very much looks at the intent with which you approach history. If you publicly proclaim revisionist history with the express aim of inciting ethnic, religious or political tensions, then you will very much get prosecuted. Whether you do it by publishing a pamphlet, a book, starting a non-profit, an online forum, a political party, a protest march,... The format doesn't matter: it's your intent that makes all the difference. Freedom of speech is often touted as an absolute right. You should be free to express anything, including denial of the Holocaust. To many, it's an acceptable trade off since any limits put forward by a government are perceived as a slippery slope to authoritarianism. The events of last week demonstrate the inherent paradox in the line of thinking. Allowing anything to go unchecked, culminated in a downright insurrection aiming to disrupt a constitutionally enshrined legal process. It wasn't just storming a building, it was very much storming the foundational framework that governs how people organize themselves in the United States... and this includes threatening that very same unchecked free speech right. It was basically a demonstration of Karl Popper's famous paradox of free speech. See, free speech is an equitable right. Free speech doesn't exist if the humanity of certain groups in society is denied through legal policies which are founded in racial, gender, origin, religious, political or other types of discrimination. In order for free speech to be truly free, society has to be intolerant towards such discrimination. That's what laws such as in Germany are about. They aren't intended to curb free speech. They are intended to protect it. You can say and promote whatever you want. You just can't promote ideas with the express intent of curbing free speech rights based on discrimination. An often heard argument is that such frameworks are a form of discrimination itself. But that's just a rephrasing of the paradox with the express goal of derailing the discussion into a circular argument. The best response to that argument would be: "Well, sure, punishing revisionism is a form of discrimination. But would you rather have people freely rewrite history with the express intent of disrupting society based on a framework of free, open, equal and democratic values?" See, when confronted with revisionism, a sensible approach is never "Well, they are wrong, and we need to fact check their claims." It's always a set of questions you have to ask yourself first: "Who are they? What do they want? Why should we even listen to them? And why should we allow them to disrupt the peace?"
zozbot234 6y ago
And in Turkey you cannot publicly state that the Armenian genocide was a fact, because "it was an invention" and differentiating between invention and fact is left for the government to decide. Even though the Armenian genocide was the most direct inspiration for the Holocaust and even Hitler said as much.
- Blikkentrekker 6y ago
  Does Germany not also play along with Turkey in this to some extent to salvage it's diplomatic relations? The Dutch government has only recently taken a public stance on admitting it. Prior, they purposefully avoided talking of the issue as to placate Turkey and soothe diplomatic relations therewith.

falcor84 6y ago

>Pornography could also not be made legal by it, as it expresses no opinion. Pornography is very opinionated. By deciding on what acts are shown, what actors are shown, where the camera is placed, what zoom level is chosen, etc. the creators exhibit no less opinion than any other author. Viewed via a historical lens, the kind of pornography being created and consumed in a society can be very indicative of that society's values and morals, and possibly quite influential in its turn.

Blikkentrekker 6y ago
> Pornography is very opinionated. By deciding on what acts are shown, what actors are shown, where the camera is placed, what zoom level is chosen, etc. the creators exhibit no less opinion than any other author. Are you serious? If it was truly meant to enunciate a particular opinion, then that same opinion could be expressed in clearer, more verbal ways. The crux is that the opinion itself isn't censored, but that does not mean that one has carte blanche as a choice of medium to express it, such as for instance shouting it with a megaphone in the middle of the night, exceeding the legal sound volume limits. I could also express an opinion by murdering people and carving my opinion in text in their corpes and say that it should be legal, for I expressed an opinion. In which case, I am not prosecuted for any opinions I expressed, but the means by which I did so. That having been said, the Netherlands has more liberal pornography laws than the U.S.A.. > Viewed via a historical lens, the kind of pornography being created and consumed in a society can be very indicative of that society's values and morals, and possibly quite influential in its turn. So can the kind of murders committed therein.
- claudiawerner 6y ago
  >If it was truly meant to enunciate a particular opinion, then that same opinion could be expressed in clearer, more verbal ways. Any opinion can be expressed in clearer ways - and indeed many opinions in artworks can too. >The crux is that the opinion itself isn't censored, but that does not mean that one has carte blanche as a choice of medium to express it Some would say that porn is the best method to express their opinions and ideas. For instance, if I may want to express what I find sexy, a picture is worth well more than a thousand words. Sometimes, I may opt for a (pornographic) thousand words. There is immense complexity in at least some pornography, and some feminist philosophers would contend that porn is the best medium (on a variety of metrics) to convey the idea that women should be subordinated. I don't agree with that reading, but there a many points of view. >So can the kind of murders committed therein. The idea is that porn also expresses ideas and opinions, not that porn is pure and good by light of doing just that. Murder is also expressive, but it causes harm. Whether porn causes harm is very contentious.

hnlurker 6y ago

Oh please! Forgive us for not taking seriously the ideas, on this subject, of a country that arrested and tried, multiple times, an elected parliamentarian for the recitation of plain facts about criminal arrest statistics within the country. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Geert_Wilders https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Geert_Wilders We’ll call if discussion turns to cheese or chocolates.

Blikkentrekker 6y ago
He was not arrested merely for citing statistics. The final straw was his “Less Moroccans!” chant which was interpreted as possibly made with the intent to inspire violence — it is not legal in the Netherlands to tell a man to kill another and the argument was whether his statements could be construed as such. It was on the line, as you see in the article the public prosecutor originally did not want to bring charges but did so regardless, and he was acquitted. The way you phrase it, suggesting that he was merely tried for citing statistics is obviously a big misrepræsentation of some of the comments he made, and the primary legal quæstion was whether they constituted a call to commit crimes, and the court found that they did not, though that he skirted awfully close to the line. You would have a far stronger argument with the situation with MARTIJN, a pro pædophile activist group that was first forbidden, then that ruling was reversed on appeal, and a further appeal forbade them again, with the legal quæstion indeed being whether they issued a call to break the law — I personally do not believe they did and I find that the supreme court was searching for a reason and that the intermediate court's ruling was the correct one and that they remained within their legal right to advocate the law be changed, all the while not calling it be broken while it was still in effect as it was.

cheph 6y ago

> For instance, the fire in a crowded theatre-argument has no meaning in that reference, for it is not an opinion; whether there be fire is a fact. Okay, but how do we determine fact (i.e. positive descriptive statements about the natural world that are true [1])? In science we can define repeatable experiments, and we can them use them to test hypothesis, but such experiments cannot say if our hypothesis is true, just if it is not false. But outside of the realm of science we are much more limited. Take for example terrorist incidents, with this things are significantly different, because these are not things we can test by repeatable experiment as we can in science. For another example, no experiment is available to me to check whether or not Lukashenko rigged the election of Belarus in 2020. I suspect he did, but I don't know. It is a matter of fact though, so can I now no longer say I expect he did? What if I find evidence, can I then say he did? Take also a murder trial, does a conviction mean someone did it? Does an acquittal mean that someone did not do it? I mean if you truly believe so then how do you explain wrongful convictions and acquittals? Should we eliminate courts as they make claims of facts with no ability to guarantee their correctness? What if some witness was mistaken? Should they be convicted? Should incorrect statements about matters of fact be crimes? And if so how do we judge them? Can't use courts, because courts can make mistakes. Libel and fraud are already crimes, both in US and most of the western world, but I think restricting freedom of speech to exclude statements about fact is a misunderstanding of reality. No person is an oracle, no person has a monopoly on truth or fact, just because someone says something, does not make it so. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_statement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_statement [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability