5 ms·

Except it really doesn’t. The United States has been a stable democracy with absolute freedom of speech for two and a half centuries. The same for Switzerland a

Except it really doesn’t. The United States has been a stable democracy with absolute freedom of speech for two and a half centuries. The same for Switzerland and the UK (British hate speech laws were only installed in the 1990s). In contrast the country where the Nazis actually came to power, Weimar Germany, had some of the most extensive hate speech codes of any Western nation in the 1920s.

germinalphrase 5y ago
We’re not even a hundred years out from culturally and legally discriminating against an entire race of people in the US. Democracy has been stable here (and continues to be) but for whom was it representative?
- genewitch 5y ago
  Which race? The US interred Japanese people during WW2. I hear that we interred people from central and south America for the last 5+ years, too. We're not a hundred years from anything except gaslights.
  - DeathArrow 5y ago
    I think it is socially acceptable in US to discriminate against Asians and Caucasians.
    - DeafArrow 5y ago
      What are you, some sort of nigger?
  - bmakdbd 5y ago
    > Which race? Are you actually serious? You don’t know which race the US discriminated against in the past 100 years? The answer is black people aka African-Americans (as well as Chinese but that’s just outside the 100 years) [1] You do realise that black people did not have freedom of speech for almost all of America’s history? The idea that America is some bastion of free speech is utter nonsense, when you consider that a significant portion of its population was denied this (and much more) based only on the colour of their skin. I mean if you think about for most of America’s history it’s been a literal fascist state. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Exclusion_Act https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Exclusion_Act
    - GhettoComputers 5y ago
      Are you actually serious? You don’t know which race the US discriminated against in the past 100 years? Japanese people. Who got their expensive real estate in places like Santa Monica seized during WW2 and were placed in camps?
      - bmakdbd 5y ago
        Are you actually serious? You don’t know which race the US discriminated against in the past 100 years? Native Americans. Who stole pretty much all of their land, sent them on death marches [1] and kept them out of politics with discriminatory policies? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trail_of_Tears https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trail_of_Tears
        GhettoComputers 5y ago
        How can you be taken seriously if your idea of 100 years different from everyone else's?
        bmakdbd 5y ago
        Ah yes forgot about the 100 years lol.
  - germinalphrase 5y ago
    Edit: perhaps, I am reading this wrong and you’re arguing that we continue to discriminate culturally and legally? In that case, we agree and are talking past each other.
krapp 5y ago
> The United States has been a stable democracy with absolute freedom of speech for two and a half centuries. The United States has had plenty of limits on free speech throughout its history. Letting Nazis or the KKK or whomever speak their mind and publish their literature doesn't mean we have absolute freedom of speech, just fewer restrictions on speech than elsewhere. And it's worth pointing out that the paradox of tolerance was written as a reaction to Nazi Germany. The Nazis were the kind of intolerant group that paradox was arguing shouldn't be tolerated, not because of their speech alone, but because of their willingness to use violence, and refusal to tolerate any speech but their own. If one side incites violence with their speech and the other side merely tolerates them for the sake of free speech the violent side wins. That was the relevant lesson of Nazism, not that the Nazis never would taken power in a Germany that allowed them to speak and publish freely, because they did. This is why the KKK is allowed to march, but not allowed to make terrorist threats or incite violence (which they would be, if the US had absolute free speech,) because even tolerating the speech of scoundrels has to have a limit.
- DeathArrow 5y ago
  Communist regimes made orders of magnitude more victims and forbid free speech for much longer for much more people than nazis ever dreamed of. And yet all the countries who forbid and condemn nazi speech tolerates the communist speech. Source: I spent part of my childhood in a communist country.
  - trasz 5y ago
    It's equally true if you s/Communist regimes/Church/g.
    - jokethrowaway 5y ago
      True, if you're into medieval history. I don't think the Church has any hope to regain the power they once had. These days my biggest fears are communist regimes (like China) and Islam spreading in Europe (we already have some courts partially applying Sharia laws in the UK).
hkt 5y ago
The UK has never had unqualified free speech. For most of our history we haven't had it at all. This wiki article is quite good on this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_United_Kingdom https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_United_Kin... Further back we had punitive taxes on newspapers, laws on blasphemy, laws on obscenity, laws against "sedition" and most kinds of assembly.. The idea that the UK is a bastion of liberty is mostly a confection, really. The only thing we are a bastion of is liberty for the very wealthy - and only in the last twenty years or so have we really had a strong conception of rights in law. Our supreme court only got created in 2007: in all those historic free speech cases before then (and all the rest) the outcome was decided by literal aristocrats who had inherited a title.
DeathArrow 5y ago
>The United States has been a stable democracy with absolute freedom of speech for two and a half centuries. By freedom of speech you might consider that law enforcement does not take actions against someone speaking its own mind. But if companies and activist groups are retaliating against someone by denying employment, conducting business, acquiring goods, home rental, even instigating against that individual to the point of asking for violence, because he expressed his thoughts, then "free speech" might be pointless because very few will dare to speak their minds. If authorities aren't going to punish someone, then some groups will.
- fnord77 5y ago
  right. only the fringe who weren't employable to begin with will speak their minds. that's probably why lately some lunatic ideas seem very loud... and everyone else just keeps their heads down
- effie 5y ago
  > "free speech" might be pointless because very few will dare to speak their minds... If authorities aren't going to punish someone, then some groups will. I agree freedom of speech is never absolute, and it is not equally guaranteed/protected. But the idea of free speech is not pointless, even when very few will dare to exercise it because of those realities. Those few being there, despite the grave consequences from non-government or even governmental groups, are part of what makes their speech powerful and inspiring. That's why Damore or Snowden were actually boosted by those groups' retaliation. Freedom of speech does not mean everybody can say whatever without any repercussion, or that government will help defend you. It means government won't retaliate against you, and you have to strategize how you are going to execute it.
  - rsj_hn 5y ago
    I agree with your major points, but with some modifications: > It means government won't retaliate against you No, that's the meaning of the first amendment. Free Speech is a principle of tolerance not limited to the government. If society as a whole believes in Free speech, that society as a whole will be more tolerant, both in private and public spaces. Not absolutely tolerant, but more tolerant. The first amendment is the codification into law of this broad principle. The other thing, which is not talked about nearly as much, are the forces opposed to free speech. You have, basically, a tug of war. On the one hand, society believes that "free speech" is a valuable principle. So it does things like having a generous moderation policy on hacker news and laws like the first amendment are passed. But then you have the opposing forces, the ones who say "free speech is nice, but issue X is so important we must punish people who speak against it". That has traditionally been things like advocating violence. Now if the set of such issues fills up all of life, then you will lose free speech. So the real problem is not people exploiting free speech -- the paradox of tolerance is a purely intellectual exercise that almost never manifests in the real world. In the real world you have the principle of intolerance, that more and more aspects of ordinary life are put into the "this is violence" bucket and so used to restrict free speech, up until people claim that speech itself is violence. No society has ever come close enough to valuing free speech so much that the paradox of intolerance could possibly kick in.

germinalphrase 5y ago

We’re not even a hundred years out from culturally and legally discriminating against an entire race of people in the US. Democracy has been stable here (and continues to be) but for whom was it representative?

genewitch 5y ago
Which race? The US interred Japanese people during WW2. I hear that we interred people from central and south America for the last 5+ years, too. We're not a hundred years from anything except gaslights.
- DeathArrow 5y ago
  I think it is socially acceptable in US to discriminate against Asians and Caucasians.
  - DeafArrow 5y ago
    What are you, some sort of nigger?
- bmakdbd 5y ago
  > Which race? Are you actually serious? You don’t know which race the US discriminated against in the past 100 years? The answer is black people aka African-Americans (as well as Chinese but that’s just outside the 100 years) [1] You do realise that black people did not have freedom of speech for almost all of America’s history? The idea that America is some bastion of free speech is utter nonsense, when you consider that a significant portion of its population was denied this (and much more) based only on the colour of their skin. I mean if you think about for most of America’s history it’s been a literal fascist state. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Exclusion_Act https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Exclusion_Act
  - GhettoComputers 5y ago
    Are you actually serious? You don’t know which race the US discriminated against in the past 100 years? Japanese people. Who got their expensive real estate in places like Santa Monica seized during WW2 and were placed in camps?
    - bmakdbd 5y ago
      Are you actually serious? You don’t know which race the US discriminated against in the past 100 years? Native Americans. Who stole pretty much all of their land, sent them on death marches [1] and kept them out of politics with discriminatory policies? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trail_of_Tears https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trail_of_Tears
      - GhettoComputers 5y ago
        How can you be taken seriously if your idea of 100 years different from everyone else's?
        bmakdbd 5y ago
        Ah yes forgot about the 100 years lol.
- germinalphrase 5y ago
  Edit: perhaps, I am reading this wrong and you’re arguing that we continue to discriminate culturally and legally? In that case, we agree and are talking past each other.

krapp 5y ago

> The United States has been a stable democracy with absolute freedom of speech for two and a half centuries. The United States has had plenty of limits on free speech throughout its history. Letting Nazis or the KKK or whomever speak their mind and publish their literature doesn't mean we have absolute freedom of speech, just fewer restrictions on speech than elsewhere. And it's worth pointing out that the paradox of tolerance was written as a reaction to Nazi Germany. The Nazis were the kind of intolerant group that paradox was arguing shouldn't be tolerated, not because of their speech alone, but because of their willingness to use violence, and refusal to tolerate any speech but their own. If one side incites violence with their speech and the other side merely tolerates them for the sake of free speech the violent side wins. That was the relevant lesson of Nazism, not that the Nazis never would taken power in a Germany that allowed them to speak and publish freely, because they did. This is why the KKK is allowed to march, but not allowed to make terrorist threats or incite violence (which they would be, if the US had absolute free speech,) because even tolerating the speech of scoundrels has to have a limit.

DeathArrow 5y ago
Communist regimes made orders of magnitude more victims and forbid free speech for much longer for much more people than nazis ever dreamed of. And yet all the countries who forbid and condemn nazi speech tolerates the communist speech. Source: I spent part of my childhood in a communist country.
- trasz 5y ago
  It's equally true if you s/Communist regimes/Church/g.
  - jokethrowaway 5y ago
    True, if you're into medieval history. I don't think the Church has any hope to regain the power they once had. These days my biggest fears are communist regimes (like China) and Islam spreading in Europe (we already have some courts partially applying Sharia laws in the UK).

hkt 5y ago

The UK has never had unqualified free speech. For most of our history we haven't had it at all. This wiki article is quite good on this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_United_Kingdom https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_United_Kin... Further back we had punitive taxes on newspapers, laws on blasphemy, laws on obscenity, laws against "sedition" and most kinds of assembly.. The idea that the UK is a bastion of liberty is mostly a confection, really. The only thing we are a bastion of is liberty for the very wealthy - and only in the last twenty years or so have we really had a strong conception of rights in law. Our supreme court only got created in 2007: in all those historic free speech cases before then (and all the rest) the outcome was decided by literal aristocrats who had inherited a title.

DeathArrow 5y ago

>The United States has been a stable democracy with absolute freedom of speech for two and a half centuries. By freedom of speech you might consider that law enforcement does not take actions against someone speaking its own mind. But if companies and activist groups are retaliating against someone by denying employment, conducting business, acquiring goods, home rental, even instigating against that individual to the point of asking for violence, because he expressed his thoughts, then "free speech" might be pointless because very few will dare to speak their minds. If authorities aren't going to punish someone, then some groups will.

fnord77 5y ago
right. only the fringe who weren't employable to begin with will speak their minds. that's probably why lately some lunatic ideas seem very loud... and everyone else just keeps their heads down
effie 5y ago
> "free speech" might be pointless because very few will dare to speak their minds... If authorities aren't going to punish someone, then some groups will. I agree freedom of speech is never absolute, and it is not equally guaranteed/protected. But the idea of free speech is not pointless, even when very few will dare to exercise it because of those realities. Those few being there, despite the grave consequences from non-government or even governmental groups, are part of what makes their speech powerful and inspiring. That's why Damore or Snowden were actually boosted by those groups' retaliation. Freedom of speech does not mean everybody can say whatever without any repercussion, or that government will help defend you. It means government won't retaliate against you, and you have to strategize how you are going to execute it.
- rsj_hn 5y ago
  I agree with your major points, but with some modifications: > It means government won't retaliate against you No, that's the meaning of the first amendment. Free Speech is a principle of tolerance not limited to the government. If society as a whole believes in Free speech, that society as a whole will be more tolerant, both in private and public spaces. Not absolutely tolerant, but more tolerant. The first amendment is the codification into law of this broad principle. The other thing, which is not talked about nearly as much, are the forces opposed to free speech. You have, basically, a tug of war. On the one hand, society believes that "free speech" is a valuable principle. So it does things like having a generous moderation policy on hacker news and laws like the first amendment are passed. But then you have the opposing forces, the ones who say "free speech is nice, but issue X is so important we must punish people who speak against it". That has traditionally been things like advocating violence. Now if the set of such issues fills up all of life, then you will lose free speech. So the real problem is not people exploiting free speech -- the paradox of tolerance is a purely intellectual exercise that almost never manifests in the real world. In the real world you have the principle of intolerance, that more and more aspects of ordinary life are put into the "this is violence" bucket and so used to restrict free speech, up until people claim that speech itself is violence. No society has ever come close enough to valuing free speech so much that the paradox of intolerance could possibly kick in.