7 ms·

Poll: Only 18 Percent of Germans Feel Free to Voice Views in Public (2019)

51 points by MikeUt 5y ago

boredprograming 5y ago
In the same poll, only 31% said they would feel safe saying the same views in private. My take: this was a partisan political poll of an extremely paranoid group of people.
- MikeUt 5y ago
  Or they're worried things said in private would leak. If there's a large cost to saying something publicly, the risk carries over to saying it privately too.
  - boredprograming 5y ago
    What's said in private is a classic "they said, I said". It's not a legal danger. This article implies the danger is legal liability, which wouldn't explain so little willing to voice their views in private. The only reasonable explanation is the poll is done on a very private or paranoid group
    - grumple 5y ago
      When gossip, public shaming, and excommunication are commonplace, what's said in private matters a lot. Heresy - questioning the orthodoxy of today's doctrines - carries a high punishment these days.
      - boredprograming 5y ago
        They used to hang people for heresy, and they still do in some countries. I think "people will be upset with me" is pretty mild viewed in a historical lens
    - MikeUt 5y ago
      > What's said in private is a classic "they said, I said". It's not a legal danger. This is false, even if we limit ourselves to only legal danger. If you say something to two people, and one of them repeats your words to the police, the police can easily ask the second person for confirmation. Add a few vague "lying to the police is very serious" threats, and there's a good chance the second person will betray you.
      - boredprograming 5y ago
        This kind of evidence is the weakest there is in court. I doubt it would go anywhere
    - bellyfullofbac 5y ago
      Yeah, the blog post, from a biased writer, makes the implication. The poll itself was quite neutral IMO. I wrote in another comment [1] why people might be wary about voicing their opinions, TL;DR: polarizing topics with staunch opinions from both sides (and about the other side) would lead to heated debates. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27514258 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27514258
- amadeuspagel 5y ago
  It's a representative study, done by a major institute for opinion research[1][2], comissioned by a major newspaper[3][4]. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allensbach_Institute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allensbach_Institute [2]: https://www.ifd-allensbach.de/fileadmin/user_upload/FAZ_Mai2019_Meinungsfreiheit.pdf https://www.ifd-allensbach.de/fileadmin/user_upload/FAZ_Mai2... [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurter_Allgemeine_Zeitung https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurter_Allgemeine_Zeitung [4]: https://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/inland/allensbach-umfrage-ueber-meinungsfreiheit-und-kritische-themen-16200724.html https://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/inland/allensbach-umfrag...
  - Draken93 5y ago
    It is a renowned institute but I am not sure if 1283 people are enough for being representative. But most importantly you have to read the question carefully. It includes people not stating a controversial opinion to avoid an argument. Therefore the poll is vulnerable for misterpretation.
outime 5y ago
An important reminder about the existence of the silent majority which won't cease to exist even if you keep shaming them for their ideas.
- CodeGlitch 5y ago
  Absolutely. See the recent downfall of the Labour Party here in the UK. Also see the not-so-silent boo-ing by fans of the England Football team whenever they "take the knee" - the fans are accused of racism in this case (which I don't believe, but I'd be told to shutup as well).
tobessebot 5y ago
The precise question was: "Would you say that you are free to express your opinion in public or do you have to be careful with certain or many topics?" („Würden Sie sagen, man kann seine Meinung in der Öffentlichkeit frei äußern oder muss man bei einigen oder vielen Themen vorsichtig sein?“) As a German, I believe that I am free to express my opinion, nevertheless I would say that there are obviously many topics of discussion where one has to be careful just because there is lots of potential to be misunderstood. How am I supposed to answer this poll?
- pessimizer 5y ago
  The way the researcher wanted you to.
- rijoja 5y ago
  Yeah so under Stasi a lot of people had to be careful with certain topics as well.
  - adrianN 5y ago
    I'm fairly sure that at any point in history there was a fairly large set of controversial opinions, voicing of which could cause you trouble. Number of opinions you could voice that would get you in very serious trouble is fairly low right now in Germany.
    - MikeUt 5y ago
      "Number of opinions" is a bad metric. Suppose that number is as low as 1: you can't express the opinion that Uyghurs are being genocided. Would you call this nearly-perfect free-speech?
      - adrianN 5y ago
        I think it's really hard to come up with a good metric for freedom of speech with the amount of effort you usually put into online comments. But I bet there are NGOs with various opinions on the topic that rate countries. For example Germany is #13/180 in the Reporters Without Borders ranking of freedom of press https://rsf.org/en/ranking_table https://rsf.org/en/ranking_table, which probably correlates well with garden variety definitions of freedom of speech.
rayiner 5y ago
Even the Chancellor herself feels that pressure to avoid observing things that are in front of everyone’s face, though in classic Merkel fashion she is not cowed: https://www.foxnews.com/world/angela-merkel-admits-that-no-go-zones-exist-in-germany https://www.foxnews.com/world/angela-merkel-admits-that-no-g... > German Chancellor Angela Merkel made a major concession to Europe's populist movement this week when she admitted the existence of so-called “no-go zones” in Germany. > Despite evidence of the existence of areas in Western countries, European leaders and left-wing media commentators have long denied, and sometimes even mocked, those who claim that no-go zones exist. > “It means for example that there cannot be any no-go areas, that there cannot be areas where no-one dares to go but there are such places,” she said. “One has to call them by name and do something about it.”
IfOnlyYouKnew 5y ago
This must be bullshit, in some way or another. Sure—you shouldn’t just come out and advocate the death penalty for homosexuals. But I don’t believe 81% are in favor of something like that. And anything less drastic, I don’t see much hesitation to express those views in public. In fact the last 18 months have seen weekly protests professing a host of views that I had considered extinct. …and, of course, HN eats it up.
- rayiner 5y ago
  Or, you know, making factual observations about refugees.
  - avs733 5y ago
    thats the kicker. BOTH of those could easily fall under the single strawman question that this article bases its flawed argument off of. Views that you could 'feel' not free to express could include: - Stating facts about their political opponents - Expressing their acceptance of NAMBLA - Enjoying pineapple on pizza You can't reduce your argument to a single decontextualized question about how people feel in general. Show me some qualitative data on how people, in German, interpret that question and then we can talk about how badly the article abuses that one poll question.
    - rayiner 5y ago
      I agree that contextualizing the question could help, but that doesn’t mean the poll question is useless. We expect “acceptance of NAMBLA” to be a pretty unusual view in the public. The fact that 80% of the public has some views they’d feel uncomfortable expressing suggests that either: 1) There is a “long tail” to controversial ideas, and while each idea may be held by a small number of individuals, holding at least one such idea is common across the population had a whole. 2) There are widely held ideas that the public nonetheless feels uncomfortable talking about. In the first case, that suggests that society had more than just a handful of ideas (like Holocaust denial or support for pedophilia) that are deemed beyond public discussion. In the second case, that suggests suppression of views held by the majority. Either way that’s a pretty telling statistic.
bugf5n6pgt 5y ago
Living in Germany and having done a lot of travelling as well as working in multi-national teams for years, this sounds very strange. Compared to especially the US, in Germany "even" politics and religion are debated in the public but also at BBQs with friends and family. As somebody else noted, this seems to be a "poll" that was trying to push a certain agenda. There is indeed a growing number of people that understand right to "free speech" as the right to utter anything without anybody being allowed to question their statement. If you question their statement, they claim you are violation their right on "free speech". And an even more concerning group are people that utter "opinions" that are relevant due to legal reasons. E.g. claiming the holocaust did not happen, glorifying murder and prosecution of minorities, calling to murder certain people ... These people also cry out loud about how their "free speech" is limited by the evil green leftwing (which it isn't) government ...
OldGoodNewBad 5y ago
Here in the US it seems practically as bad. And the Internet is just as bad - big tech’s stuffed with DSA activists - Marxists - who create lists of wrongthinkers to share with people like The Atlantic Group and Joan Donovan.
- bovermyer 5y ago
  I can't speak for others, but for me, I don't share my views publicly because there's a nonzero chance some crazy right-winger will try to find and kill me. I've already been stalked and "screamed" at online because of an offhand comment I made on a political article once.
  - s9w 5y ago
    The opposite is true. Political left is the one with the photo databases, death lists and cancel culture.
  - OldGoodNewBad 5y ago
    Well as they say, freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom from consequences. I recommend arming yourself and carrying a concealed handgun.
    - Draken93 5y ago
      I hope that is sarcasm
    - bovermyer 5y ago
      Freedom of speech in a civilized country generally also includes freedom from violent retaliation for saying the wrong thing. I'm fine with being insulted or yelled at for my views. But if someone physically attacks me for my views, that means something has gone very, very wrong with society.
s9w 5y ago
Because it is literally illegal to do so. There are many German laws - first and foremost concerning Volksverhetzung - that make saying things illegal even if they are true. So the other 82% don't know the law.
TrispusAttucks 5y ago
“Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it.” “The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.” ― George Orwell, 1984
bellyfullofbac 5y ago
Ah yeah, the survey asks "Do you think you can say anything you want freely, or do you have to watch what you say on some topics?", and the blogger rides the Stasi and fascism horse about governmental free speech restrictions, although no such thing was discussed in the survey. The survey question and results itself, page 24 for this 18% figure: https://www.ifd-allensbach.de/fileadmin/user_upload/FAZ_Mai2019_Meinungsfreiheit.pdf https://www.ifd-allensbach.de/fileadmin/user_upload/FAZ_Mai2... Google translation of the question: "Would you say one can freely express one's opinion on anything in public, or does one have to be careful about some or many topics?" The German summary linked from his blog says "The rude forms of argument are given as the reason for this low value.". The survey doesn't even ask how the people lean, and I know during the refugee crisis, even pro-refugee people are wary of discussing that topic, because somebody at the next table in the bar (or sitting opposite you in your own kitchen) could have a different opinion and everybody was very firm in their belief, leading to heated debates. The observation was, "Flüchtlinge" ("refugees") was the new F-word.
Draken93 5y ago
Turleys article is shallow and full of false assumptions. He cites one Survey of 1283 people and thinks he can deduce the consequences of european hate-speech-laws from that. Despite the fact that I doubt that this small poll is representative, his assumptions are completly wrong. What the by him cited article implies is that people are carefull with their opinion not because of laws but because of potential backslash from other people. Many people avoid controverse opinions because they want to avoid arguments. And the way the german question is written, this kind of avoidance is included. This has nothing to do with german laws. If I read "I have long been a critic of the German laws prohibiting certain symbols and phrases" I am disgusted. Prohibiting the Swastika is part of historical responsibility we have as a society. That has nothing to do with free speech and the fact that turley implies that says alot about his mindset. Luckily saying "Put all Jews in gas chambers" is not considered free speech here. We have to prevent on all means that history repeats itself. And the paradox of intolerance[1] is an important part of that. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
- MikeUt 5y ago
  contrary to what most people think, Weimar Germany did have hate-speech laws, and they were applied quite frequently. [..] Leading Nazis such as Joseph Goebbels, Theodor Fritsch, and Julius Streicher were all prosecuted for anti-Semitic speech. Streicher served two prison sentences. Rather than deterring the Nazis and countering anti-Semitism, the many court cases served as effective public-relations machinery, affording Streicher the kind of attention he would never have found in a climate of a free and open debate. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27417789 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27417789
  - anigbrowl 5y ago
    Streicher was indeed sentenced to (short) terms in prison but it's not recorded that he ever had to serve any of them, being able o take advantage of criminal amnesties and later the privileges of a Reichstag deputy. https://www.bjpa.org/content/upload/bjpa/4_an/4_Anti-Semitism_September-October_1940.pdf https://www.bjpa.org/content/upload/bjpa/4_an/4_Anti-Semitis... To be sure, courts are meant to handle individual or corporate matters, and not ideal or even effective in the maintenance of polities. But it is a mistake to compare the Weimer-era standards with current hate speech laws in Europe since theya re separated by the facts of WW2 and the Holocaust.
menotyou 5y ago
I don't think it's all political or hate speech problem, but an overboarding political correctness which seems to be everywhere around in these days. The SJW are up to misinterpret everything you said, so everything you say might be end up as being live threatening (in the meaning of your public social live or you lose your job).

51 points by MikeUt 5y ago

In the same poll, only 31% said they would feel safe saying the same views in private. My take: this was a partisan political poll of an extremely paranoid group of people.

MikeUt 5y ago
Or they're worried things said in private would leak. If there's a large cost to saying something publicly, the risk carries over to saying it privately too.
- boredprograming 5y ago
  What's said in private is a classic "they said, I said". It's not a legal danger. This article implies the danger is legal liability, which wouldn't explain so little willing to voice their views in private. The only reasonable explanation is the poll is done on a very private or paranoid group
  - grumple 5y ago
    When gossip, public shaming, and excommunication are commonplace, what's said in private matters a lot. Heresy - questioning the orthodoxy of today's doctrines - carries a high punishment these days.
    - boredprograming 5y ago
      They used to hang people for heresy, and they still do in some countries. I think "people will be upset with me" is pretty mild viewed in a historical lens
  - MikeUt 5y ago
    > What's said in private is a classic "they said, I said". It's not a legal danger. This is false, even if we limit ourselves to only legal danger. If you say something to two people, and one of them repeats your words to the police, the police can easily ask the second person for confirmation. Add a few vague "lying to the police is very serious" threats, and there's a good chance the second person will betray you.
    - boredprograming 5y ago
      This kind of evidence is the weakest there is in court. I doubt it would go anywhere
  - bellyfullofbac 5y ago
    Yeah, the blog post, from a biased writer, makes the implication. The poll itself was quite neutral IMO. I wrote in another comment [1] why people might be wary about voicing their opinions, TL;DR: polarizing topics with staunch opinions from both sides (and about the other side) would lead to heated debates. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27514258 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27514258
amadeuspagel 5y ago
It's a representative study, done by a major institute for opinion research[1][2], comissioned by a major newspaper[3][4]. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allensbach_Institute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allensbach_Institute [2]: https://www.ifd-allensbach.de/fileadmin/user_upload/FAZ_Mai2019_Meinungsfreiheit.pdf https://www.ifd-allensbach.de/fileadmin/user_upload/FAZ_Mai2... [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurter_Allgemeine_Zeitung https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurter_Allgemeine_Zeitung [4]: https://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/inland/allensbach-umfrage-ueber-meinungsfreiheit-und-kritische-themen-16200724.html https://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/inland/allensbach-umfrag...
- Draken93 5y ago
  It is a renowned institute but I am not sure if 1283 people are enough for being representative. But most importantly you have to read the question carefully. It includes people not stating a controversial opinion to avoid an argument. Therefore the poll is vulnerable for misterpretation.

outime 5y ago

An important reminder about the existence of the silent majority which won't cease to exist even if you keep shaming them for their ideas.

CodeGlitch 5y ago
Absolutely. See the recent downfall of the Labour Party here in the UK. Also see the not-so-silent boo-ing by fans of the England Football team whenever they "take the knee" - the fans are accused of racism in this case (which I don't believe, but I'd be told to shutup as well).

tobessebot 5y ago

The precise question was: "Would you say that you are free to express your opinion in public or do you have to be careful with certain or many topics?" („Würden Sie sagen, man kann seine Meinung in der Öffentlichkeit frei äußern oder muss man bei einigen oder vielen Themen vorsichtig sein?“) As a German, I believe that I am free to express my opinion, nevertheless I would say that there are obviously many topics of discussion where one has to be careful just because there is lots of potential to be misunderstood. How am I supposed to answer this poll?

pessimizer 5y ago
The way the researcher wanted you to.
rijoja 5y ago
Yeah so under Stasi a lot of people had to be careful with certain topics as well.
- adrianN 5y ago
  I'm fairly sure that at any point in history there was a fairly large set of controversial opinions, voicing of which could cause you trouble. Number of opinions you could voice that would get you in very serious trouble is fairly low right now in Germany.
  - MikeUt 5y ago
    "Number of opinions" is a bad metric. Suppose that number is as low as 1: you can't express the opinion that Uyghurs are being genocided. Would you call this nearly-perfect free-speech?
    - adrianN 5y ago
      I think it's really hard to come up with a good metric for freedom of speech with the amount of effort you usually put into online comments. But I bet there are NGOs with various opinions on the topic that rate countries. For example Germany is #13/180 in the Reporters Without Borders ranking of freedom of press https://rsf.org/en/ranking_table https://rsf.org/en/ranking_table, which probably correlates well with garden variety definitions of freedom of speech.

rayiner 5y ago

Even the Chancellor herself feels that pressure to avoid observing things that are in front of everyone’s face, though in classic Merkel fashion she is not cowed: https://www.foxnews.com/world/angela-merkel-admits-that-no-go-zones-exist-in-germany https://www.foxnews.com/world/angela-merkel-admits-that-no-g... > German Chancellor Angela Merkel made a major concession to Europe's populist movement this week when she admitted the existence of so-called “no-go zones” in Germany. > Despite evidence of the existence of areas in Western countries, European leaders and left-wing media commentators have long denied, and sometimes even mocked, those who claim that no-go zones exist. > “It means for example that there cannot be any no-go areas, that there cannot be areas where no-one dares to go but there are such places,” she said. “One has to call them by name and do something about it.”

IfOnlyYouKnew 5y ago

This must be bullshit, in some way or another. Sure—you shouldn’t just come out and advocate the death penalty for homosexuals. But I don’t believe 81% are in favor of something like that. And anything less drastic, I don’t see much hesitation to express those views in public. In fact the last 18 months have seen weekly protests professing a host of views that I had considered extinct. …and, of course, HN eats it up.

rayiner 5y ago
Or, you know, making factual observations about refugees.
- avs733 5y ago
  thats the kicker. BOTH of those could easily fall under the single strawman question that this article bases its flawed argument off of. Views that you could 'feel' not free to express could include: - Stating facts about their political opponents - Expressing their acceptance of NAMBLA - Enjoying pineapple on pizza You can't reduce your argument to a single decontextualized question about how people feel in general. Show me some qualitative data on how people, in German, interpret that question and then we can talk about how badly the article abuses that one poll question.
  - rayiner 5y ago
    I agree that contextualizing the question could help, but that doesn’t mean the poll question is useless. We expect “acceptance of NAMBLA” to be a pretty unusual view in the public. The fact that 80% of the public has some views they’d feel uncomfortable expressing suggests that either: 1) There is a “long tail” to controversial ideas, and while each idea may be held by a small number of individuals, holding at least one such idea is common across the population had a whole. 2) There are widely held ideas that the public nonetheless feels uncomfortable talking about. In the first case, that suggests that society had more than just a handful of ideas (like Holocaust denial or support for pedophilia) that are deemed beyond public discussion. In the second case, that suggests suppression of views held by the majority. Either way that’s a pretty telling statistic.

bugf5n6pgt 5y ago

Living in Germany and having done a lot of travelling as well as working in multi-national teams for years, this sounds very strange. Compared to especially the US, in Germany "even" politics and religion are debated in the public but also at BBQs with friends and family. As somebody else noted, this seems to be a "poll" that was trying to push a certain agenda. There is indeed a growing number of people that understand right to "free speech" as the right to utter anything without anybody being allowed to question their statement. If you question their statement, they claim you are violation their right on "free speech". And an even more concerning group are people that utter "opinions" that are relevant due to legal reasons. E.g. claiming the holocaust did not happen, glorifying murder and prosecution of minorities, calling to murder certain people ... These people also cry out loud about how their "free speech" is limited by the evil green leftwing (which it isn't) government ...

OldGoodNewBad 5y ago

Here in the US it seems practically as bad. And the Internet is just as bad - big tech’s stuffed with DSA activists - Marxists - who create lists of wrongthinkers to share with people like The Atlantic Group and Joan Donovan.

bovermyer 5y ago
I can't speak for others, but for me, I don't share my views publicly because there's a nonzero chance some crazy right-winger will try to find and kill me. I've already been stalked and "screamed" at online because of an offhand comment I made on a political article once.
- s9w 5y ago
  The opposite is true. Political left is the one with the photo databases, death lists and cancel culture.
- OldGoodNewBad 5y ago
  Well as they say, freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom from consequences. I recommend arming yourself and carrying a concealed handgun.
  - Draken93 5y ago
    I hope that is sarcasm
  - bovermyer 5y ago
    Freedom of speech in a civilized country generally also includes freedom from violent retaliation for saying the wrong thing. I'm fine with being insulted or yelled at for my views. But if someone physically attacks me for my views, that means something has gone very, very wrong with society.

s9w 5y ago

Because it is literally illegal to do so. There are many German laws - first and foremost concerning Volksverhetzung - that make saying things illegal even if they are true. So the other 82% don't know the law.

TrispusAttucks 5y ago

“Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it.” “The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.” ― George Orwell, 1984

bellyfullofbac 5y ago

Ah yeah, the survey asks "Do you think you can say anything you want freely, or do you have to watch what you say on some topics?", and the blogger rides the Stasi and fascism horse about governmental free speech restrictions, although no such thing was discussed in the survey. The survey question and results itself, page 24 for this 18% figure: https://www.ifd-allensbach.de/fileadmin/user_upload/FAZ_Mai2019_Meinungsfreiheit.pdf https://www.ifd-allensbach.de/fileadmin/user_upload/FAZ_Mai2... Google translation of the question: "Would you say one can freely express one's opinion on anything in public, or does one have to be careful about some or many topics?" The German summary linked from his blog says "The rude forms of argument are given as the reason for this low value.". The survey doesn't even ask how the people lean, and I know during the refugee crisis, even pro-refugee people are wary of discussing that topic, because somebody at the next table in the bar (or sitting opposite you in your own kitchen) could have a different opinion and everybody was very firm in their belief, leading to heated debates. The observation was, "Flüchtlinge" ("refugees") was the new F-word.

Draken93 5y ago

Turleys article is shallow and full of false assumptions. He cites one Survey of 1283 people and thinks he can deduce the consequences of european hate-speech-laws from that. Despite the fact that I doubt that this small poll is representative, his assumptions are completly wrong. What the by him cited article implies is that people are carefull with their opinion not because of laws but because of potential backslash from other people. Many people avoid controverse opinions because they want to avoid arguments. And the way the german question is written, this kind of avoidance is included. This has nothing to do with german laws. If I read "I have long been a critic of the German laws prohibiting certain symbols and phrases" I am disgusted. Prohibiting the Swastika is part of historical responsibility we have as a society. That has nothing to do with free speech and the fact that turley implies that says alot about his mindset. Luckily saying "Put all Jews in gas chambers" is not considered free speech here. We have to prevent on all means that history repeats itself. And the paradox of intolerance[1] is an important part of that. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

MikeUt 5y ago
contrary to what most people think, Weimar Germany did have hate-speech laws, and they were applied quite frequently. [..] Leading Nazis such as Joseph Goebbels, Theodor Fritsch, and Julius Streicher were all prosecuted for anti-Semitic speech. Streicher served two prison sentences. Rather than deterring the Nazis and countering anti-Semitism, the many court cases served as effective public-relations machinery, affording Streicher the kind of attention he would never have found in a climate of a free and open debate. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27417789 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27417789
- anigbrowl 5y ago
  Streicher was indeed sentenced to (short) terms in prison but it's not recorded that he ever had to serve any of them, being able o take advantage of criminal amnesties and later the privileges of a Reichstag deputy. https://www.bjpa.org/content/upload/bjpa/4_an/4_Anti-Semitism_September-October_1940.pdf https://www.bjpa.org/content/upload/bjpa/4_an/4_Anti-Semitis... To be sure, courts are meant to handle individual or corporate matters, and not ideal or even effective in the maintenance of polities. But it is a mistake to compare the Weimer-era standards with current hate speech laws in Europe since theya re separated by the facts of WW2 and the Holocaust.

menotyou 5y ago

I don't think it's all political or hate speech problem, but an overboarding political correctness which seems to be everywhere around in these days. The SJW are up to misinterpret everything you said, so everything you say might be end up as being live threatening (in the meaning of your public social live or you lose your job).