6 ms·

Another reading of this is: "freedom of speech is protected in this country". And that is true, not the fairytale you suggest it to be.

amrcnimgrnt 5y ago
I didn't suggest anything, generally I avoid suggestion. It's pusillanimous. Switzerland has a lot of freedom, certainly compared to China and other European countries. It's without a doubt my favorite country, one I'd want to live in. But, as we're finding out, the "free speech protections" that we drone on about are only as good as we are willing to insist on. "freedom of speech is protected in this country" is meaningless if it only restricts government from silencing its citizens. Companies and powerful interest groups can and do restrict the speech of people, and I don't see the Swiss government rushing to pass laws to force Google to stop censoring. Anyway, freedom of speech protections in Switzerland are not that good compared to, say, the US. You can't, for example, criticize islam (I hate when people mock islam, btw). From Article 261 of the Swiss Penal Code: "Any person who publicly and maliciously insults or mocks the religious convictions of others, and in particularly their belief in God, or maliciously desecrates objects of religious veneration, any person who maliciously prevents, disrupts or publicly mocks an act of worship, the conduct of which is guaranteed by the Constitution, or any person who maliciously desecrates a place or object that is intend- ed for a religious ceremony or an act of worship the conduct of which is guaranteed by the Constitution, is liable to a monetary penalty.277" So Charlie Hebdo (who are disgusting, btw) should have been fined in Switzerland. Btw, I'm pretty sure a Zurich museum would have no trouble displaying artwork depicting Mary as a whore. Not unless muslims, rightly, get upset about the depiction of the most revered woman in Islam. But it gets worse: "Any person who publicly incites hatred or discrimination against a person or a group of persons on the grounds of their race, ethnic origin, religion or sexual orientation, any person who publicly disseminates ideologies that have as their object the systematic denigration or defamation of that person or group of persons, any person who with the same objective organises, encourages or participates in propaganda campaigns, any person who publicly denigrates or discriminates against another or a group of persons on the grounds of their race, ethnic origin, religion or sexual orientation in a manner that violates human dignity, whether verbally, in writing or pictorially, by using gestures, through acts of aggression or by other means, or any person who on any of these grounds denies, trivialises or seeks justification for genocide or other crimes against humanity, any person who refuses to provide a service to another on the grounds of that person’s race, ethnic origin, religion or sexual orientation when that service is intended to be provided to the general public, is liable to a custodial sentence not exceeding three years or to a monetary penalty." You can drive a Mac truck through that. What does "inciting discrimination" mean? Are the people campaigning to have the veil banned in Switzerland not inciting discrimination? And, for the record, I despise people who mock any and all religions (although valid criticism is very important). But criminalizing mockery and claiming to believe in freedom of speech? That's rich.
- belter 5y ago
  Sounds wonderful. Would then my religious convictions be protected in Switzerland according to law or does my deity has to contact the Swiss government somehow ? Because I am a Pastafarian, and I can't stand the abuse and mockery anymore. I was thinking of emigrating to Switzerland. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster
  - bobthechef 5y ago
    Both you and I know this is provocation, so there's no point in pretending otherwise. But sure, it is an argument in favor of the confessional state. Liberal societies are de facto confessional states anyway, it's just that the liberal religion (which Rawls can't quite seem to acknowledge as one, but deploys without scruples) by which all others are measured and restricted is not named as one.
    - belter 5y ago
      I up voted your comment...
  - amrcnimgrnt 5y ago
    No because pastafarianism is a funny, if aged, joke among atheists. You don't sincerely believe in the spaghetti monster, and the courts could hold you in contempt. But why would an atheist who likes to mock religion want to live in a country that criminalizes it?
- bobthechef 5y ago
  > So Charlie Hebdo (who are disgusting, btw) should have been fined in Switzerland. Charlie Hebdo is indeed disgusting. They're nihilists from a cultural milieu that know no moral limits. There is a difference, as you say, between rational criticism of Islam and its mockery and charity is a pretty good way to distinguish between good and bad behavior (i.e., even assuming Islam is terribly flawed, it is uncharitable to mock it in this way given what it is, but charitable to criticize it). > Btw, I'm pretty sure a Zurich museum would have no trouble displaying artwork depicting Mary as a whore. You mean like what the Talmud says about Mary, the same Talmud that depicts Jesus boiling in excrement? The same nihilistic cultural milieu hates Christianity most of all. You think the mockery of Islam was bad? Look at how they depict Christ in those comics. It's far worse as a matter of the kinds of things they depict as well as the subject of the depiction (Mohammad is just a prophet, Jesus is the incarnation of the Logos, of God Himself, thus we're talking about the difference between irreverent desecration and outright blasphemy and sacrilegious imagery). But hatred of Christianity has become normalized and made acceptable by this nihilistic cultural milieu and Christians have been intimidated into acceptance and spineless in their resistance which is why it persists with impunity. Muslims have been known to go in the opposite extreme. > But criminalizing mockery and claiming to believe in freedom of speech? That's rich. Freedom of speech was never unrestricted. It cannot be. The days of that libertarian anything-goes thinking is dead even among the same Mother Jones type lefists who wanted it back when they were still dope-smoking boomers. The question isn't whether you restrict speech, but how you restrict it and what you restrict and whether it is good. Without a specific case in mind, I would generally rather risk being a bit too permissive than being too restrictive, greater liberality in what is permitted and greater conservatism in how law is interpreted, but prudential judgement is key.
varjag 5y ago
Freedom of speech is protected only so much as the protection is enforced. It is not some sort of fundamental law. With weak-kneed politicians and indifferent population it inevitably erodes.
- esquivalience 5y ago
  It actually is. It's a fundamental human right under the European Convention on Human Rights (to which Switzerland is a party) , Art. 10: "ARTICLE 10 Freedom of expression 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises. 2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary."
  - arodyginc 5y ago
    I think the OP meant that it isn't a fundamental law like in physics, so it doesn't 'enforce' itself
  - varjag 5y ago
    I am quite aware of declaration of human rights. It is not a fundamental law in scientific sense, i.e. it is not a natural property of any kind. You want freedom of speech, fine, but you have to fight to get it and keep it alive. Otherwise it becomes just another unenforceable legalistic quirk like beheading for insulting the Queen is today.
    - jkhdigital 5y ago
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
eplanit 5y ago
But, many (predominantly on the Left) are now seeing liberal free speech as outmoded. Though he's not a serious person, former Prince Harry (who, with his wife, use their celebrity to champion Progressive causes) recently called the 1st Amendment "bonkers"[1]. Even The Atlantic publishes its doubts about it.[2] My stepfather grew up Jewish in Germany in the early 20th century. He was 13 years old when Hitler became Chancellor. His family got out, and he made his way to the US. He told me very sternly "don't ever think that it can't happen here". Those words stuck with me, and seem now more relevant than ever. [1] https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/prince-harry-calls-first-amendment-bonkers-sparks-conservative-backlash/ar-BB1gPar3 https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/prince-harry-calls-firs... [2] https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/02/free-speech-isnt-free/283672/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/02/free-sp...
- HWR_14 5y ago
  > even former Prince Harry recently called the 1st Amendment "bonkers" Shocking! I'm starting to think we Americans are going to have to overthrow the British monarchy to protect our rights! > Even The Atlantic publishes its doubts about it. Unlike the Prince Henry thing (who cares), I read this one. The Atlantic says the exact opposite of what you say it does. It starts and ends firmly defending American style free speech. Full stop. In the middle it talks about how European style free speech allows for suppressing hate speech, and that there are costs and benefits to that approach. He explains that calls for such restrictions here cannot be dismissed out of hand as insane but that they have to be contended with. He then does so, arguing against restrictions. "Free Speech isn't Free" is just pointing out the often overlooked costs to totally free speech. I hesitate to call people bad-faith actors, but in general the "article says the literal opposite of what I claim it does" is a giant red flag. (Edit: I went back and read the Prince thing. I dismissed it because "who cares", but then I figured if you misrepresented the Atlantic article that badly I should check it out. What he was talking about was American vs. British libel laws, not general free speech. In Britain, it is much easier to sue for libel to the point that celebrities often sue international publications there. This protection in Britain especially protects politicians and royalty. In the US, it is almost impossible to win a libel suit against a news organization, especially if the person suing is a public official. This is based on New York Times vs. Sullivan, a first amendment case. )

amrcnimgrnt 5y ago

I didn't suggest anything, generally I avoid suggestion. It's pusillanimous. Switzerland has a lot of freedom, certainly compared to China and other European countries. It's without a doubt my favorite country, one I'd want to live in. But, as we're finding out, the "free speech protections" that we drone on about are only as good as we are willing to insist on. "freedom of speech is protected in this country" is meaningless if it only restricts government from silencing its citizens. Companies and powerful interest groups can and do restrict the speech of people, and I don't see the Swiss government rushing to pass laws to force Google to stop censoring. Anyway, freedom of speech protections in Switzerland are not that good compared to, say, the US. You can't, for example, criticize islam (I hate when people mock islam, btw). From Article 261 of the Swiss Penal Code: "Any person who publicly and maliciously insults or mocks the religious convictions of others, and in particularly their belief in God, or maliciously desecrates objects of religious veneration, any person who maliciously prevents, disrupts or publicly mocks an act of worship, the conduct of which is guaranteed by the Constitution, or any person who maliciously desecrates a place or object that is intend- ed for a religious ceremony or an act of worship the conduct of which is guaranteed by the Constitution, is liable to a monetary penalty.277" So Charlie Hebdo (who are disgusting, btw) should have been fined in Switzerland. Btw, I'm pretty sure a Zurich museum would have no trouble displaying artwork depicting Mary as a whore. Not unless muslims, rightly, get upset about the depiction of the most revered woman in Islam. But it gets worse: "Any person who publicly incites hatred or discrimination against a person or a group of persons on the grounds of their race, ethnic origin, religion or sexual orientation, any person who publicly disseminates ideologies that have as their object the systematic denigration or defamation of that person or group of persons, any person who with the same objective organises, encourages or participates in propaganda campaigns, any person who publicly denigrates or discriminates against another or a group of persons on the grounds of their race, ethnic origin, religion or sexual orientation in a manner that violates human dignity, whether verbally, in writing or pictorially, by using gestures, through acts of aggression or by other means, or any person who on any of these grounds denies, trivialises or seeks justification for genocide or other crimes against humanity, any person who refuses to provide a service to another on the grounds of that person’s race, ethnic origin, religion or sexual orientation when that service is intended to be provided to the general public, is liable to a custodial sentence not exceeding three years or to a monetary penalty." You can drive a Mac truck through that. What does "inciting discrimination" mean? Are the people campaigning to have the veil banned in Switzerland not inciting discrimination? And, for the record, I despise people who mock any and all religions (although valid criticism is very important). But criminalizing mockery and claiming to believe in freedom of speech? That's rich.

belter 5y ago
Sounds wonderful. Would then my religious convictions be protected in Switzerland according to law or does my deity has to contact the Swiss government somehow ? Because I am a Pastafarian, and I can't stand the abuse and mockery anymore. I was thinking of emigrating to Switzerland. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster
- bobthechef 5y ago
  Both you and I know this is provocation, so there's no point in pretending otherwise. But sure, it is an argument in favor of the confessional state. Liberal societies are de facto confessional states anyway, it's just that the liberal religion (which Rawls can't quite seem to acknowledge as one, but deploys without scruples) by which all others are measured and restricted is not named as one.
  - belter 5y ago
    I up voted your comment...
- amrcnimgrnt 5y ago
  No because pastafarianism is a funny, if aged, joke among atheists. You don't sincerely believe in the spaghetti monster, and the courts could hold you in contempt. But why would an atheist who likes to mock religion want to live in a country that criminalizes it?
bobthechef 5y ago
> So Charlie Hebdo (who are disgusting, btw) should have been fined in Switzerland. Charlie Hebdo is indeed disgusting. They're nihilists from a cultural milieu that know no moral limits. There is a difference, as you say, between rational criticism of Islam and its mockery and charity is a pretty good way to distinguish between good and bad behavior (i.e., even assuming Islam is terribly flawed, it is uncharitable to mock it in this way given what it is, but charitable to criticize it). > Btw, I'm pretty sure a Zurich museum would have no trouble displaying artwork depicting Mary as a whore. You mean like what the Talmud says about Mary, the same Talmud that depicts Jesus boiling in excrement? The same nihilistic cultural milieu hates Christianity most of all. You think the mockery of Islam was bad? Look at how they depict Christ in those comics. It's far worse as a matter of the kinds of things they depict as well as the subject of the depiction (Mohammad is just a prophet, Jesus is the incarnation of the Logos, of God Himself, thus we're talking about the difference between irreverent desecration and outright blasphemy and sacrilegious imagery). But hatred of Christianity has become normalized and made acceptable by this nihilistic cultural milieu and Christians have been intimidated into acceptance and spineless in their resistance which is why it persists with impunity. Muslims have been known to go in the opposite extreme. > But criminalizing mockery and claiming to believe in freedom of speech? That's rich. Freedom of speech was never unrestricted. It cannot be. The days of that libertarian anything-goes thinking is dead even among the same Mother Jones type lefists who wanted it back when they were still dope-smoking boomers. The question isn't whether you restrict speech, but how you restrict it and what you restrict and whether it is good. Without a specific case in mind, I would generally rather risk being a bit too permissive than being too restrictive, greater liberality in what is permitted and greater conservatism in how law is interpreted, but prudential judgement is key.

varjag 5y ago

Freedom of speech is protected only so much as the protection is enforced. It is not some sort of fundamental law. With weak-kneed politicians and indifferent population it inevitably erodes.

esquivalience 5y ago
It actually is. It's a fundamental human right under the European Convention on Human Rights (to which Switzerland is a party) , Art. 10: "ARTICLE 10 Freedom of expression 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises. 2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary."
- arodyginc 5y ago
  I think the OP meant that it isn't a fundamental law like in physics, so it doesn't 'enforce' itself
- varjag 5y ago
  I am quite aware of declaration of human rights. It is not a fundamental law in scientific sense, i.e. it is not a natural property of any kind. You want freedom of speech, fine, but you have to fight to get it and keep it alive. Otherwise it becomes just another unenforceable legalistic quirk like beheading for insulting the Queen is today.
  - jkhdigital 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

eplanit 5y ago

But, many (predominantly on the Left) are now seeing liberal free speech as outmoded. Though he's not a serious person, former Prince Harry (who, with his wife, use their celebrity to champion Progressive causes) recently called the 1st Amendment "bonkers"[1]. Even The Atlantic publishes its doubts about it.[2] My stepfather grew up Jewish in Germany in the early 20th century. He was 13 years old when Hitler became Chancellor. His family got out, and he made his way to the US. He told me very sternly "don't ever think that it can't happen here". Those words stuck with me, and seem now more relevant than ever. [1] https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/prince-harry-calls-first-amendment-bonkers-sparks-conservative-backlash/ar-BB1gPar3 https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/prince-harry-calls-firs... [2] https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/02/free-speech-isnt-free/283672/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/02/free-sp...

HWR_14 5y ago
> even former Prince Harry recently called the 1st Amendment "bonkers" Shocking! I'm starting to think we Americans are going to have to overthrow the British monarchy to protect our rights! > Even The Atlantic publishes its doubts about it. Unlike the Prince Henry thing (who cares), I read this one. The Atlantic says the exact opposite of what you say it does. It starts and ends firmly defending American style free speech. Full stop. In the middle it talks about how European style free speech allows for suppressing hate speech, and that there are costs and benefits to that approach. He explains that calls for such restrictions here cannot be dismissed out of hand as insane but that they have to be contended with. He then does so, arguing against restrictions. "Free Speech isn't Free" is just pointing out the often overlooked costs to totally free speech. I hesitate to call people bad-faith actors, but in general the "article says the literal opposite of what I claim it does" is a giant red flag. (Edit: I went back and read the Prince thing. I dismissed it because "who cares", but then I figured if you misrepresented the Atlantic article that badly I should check it out. What he was talking about was American vs. British libel laws, not general free speech. In Britain, it is much easier to sue for libel to the point that celebrities often sue international publications there. This protection in Britain especially protects politicians and royalty. In the US, it is almost impossible to win a libel suit against a news organization, especially if the person suing is a public official. This is based on New York Times vs. Sullivan, a first amendment case. )