5 ms·

Incredibly stupid. And the problem is if you oppose it, you're labeled a sympathizer. There's a valid third option: recognize that freedom of speech is an esse

Incredibly stupid. And the problem is if you oppose it, you're labeled a sympathizer. There's a valid third option: recognize that freedom of speech is an essential human right. Some may choose to abuse it, but history has a way of sorting those things out.

yladiz 5y ago
Freedom of speech is an essential but not absolute right. There are reasons to restrict freedom of speech in the name of greater good of the society that is enforcing that freedom and so the question is not whether restriction is just, but whether this particular restriction is.
KptMarchewa 5y ago
War limits free speech, and every nation recognizes it as such. For example, US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Censorship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Censorship
- jwond 5y ago
  Germany is not at war.
  - KptMarchewa 5y ago
    In the name only. Russia is a hostile nation and there is great effort to do the most economical damage to it.
manuelabeledo 5y ago
> Some may choose to abuse it, but history has a way of sorting those things out. History sorted these things, alright, but outcomes weren't as harmless as some people tend to believe. In other words, how much value do you put in freedom of speech when human lives are in the line? E.g. shouldn't facebook have done something about the Rohingya genocide?
- exabrial 5y ago
  Facebook is a private platform.
  - manuelabeledo 5y ago
    My point here is that history actually taught us that freedoms come with attachments. I mentioned Facebook because it enabled the government of Myanmar during the persecution and genocide of the Rohingya people. They could have done something, but chose to ignore it and do nothing. This is not a unique occurrence either. Freedom of speech without observing any moral or ethical consequences doesn't make you free, it makes you a libertine, and those who choose to enable these behaviours aren't innocent either. On top of it, in this scenario, Russia is waging an information war against the West, so why should we grant them the freedom to do so?
scrollaway 5y ago
If you oppose it, I can certainly and very safely label you as somebody who doesn't know anything about Germany and its current laws, including the display of the swastika symbol and other nazi-related hate symbols and propaganda. Europe is not the US, which I'm guessing you're from. We have a different culture around free speech, here. And tell you what, it's actually worked out really nicely for us, and most of Europe as a whole is higher than the USA on a variety of freedom indices. We're not perfect, but the absolute free speech stuff you folks have over there is only good on paper. In practice, it's not absolute, and it has led to more issues there than here.
- PaulHoule 5y ago
  https://freedomhouse.org/countries/freedom-world/scores https://freedomhouse.org/countries/freedom-world/scores
  - foepys 5y ago
    This site is unreadable on mobile. Everything in the table has a huge font. Reporters without Borders ranks the US behind quite a lot of European countries: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rangliste_der_Pressefreiheit https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rangliste_der_Pressefreiheit (German Wikipedia because the English article ironically doesn't include data)
  - KIFulgore 5y ago
    "Freedom of Expression and Belief": US, 3/4. Germany, 4/4. Report invalidated.
    - bmn__ 5y ago
      You have misread the report. In actuality the results are 14 out 16 points for both .us and .de in that category.
  - belorn 5y ago
    Looking at the page I can easily identify political opinion of the authors and detect view points of who should be given freedom of speech and who shouldn't. Thankfully they do link in small print to the methodology, which explain that the views are that of the Freedom House staff. They do consult others which is a major plus, but in the end its the staff that make a decision about what freedom is, who should get it, and who shouldn't. The biggest criticism I would give the site is the lack of any critical assessment of contested topics where different social scientists has different conclusions. I give the site a score of 7/10.
jleyank 5y ago
As everybody never tires of pointing out, freedom of speech isn't unlimited nor does it apply to non-governmental actions. Can't get your jollies off yelling "Fire!" in a theatre. There's judicially accepted hate speech definitions. Also, what one says has consequences.
- drewcoo 5y ago
  https://www.whalenlawoffice.com/legal-mythbusting-series-yelling-fire-in-a-crowded-theater/ https://www.whalenlawoffice.com/legal-mythbusting-series-yel... https://thelawdictionary.org/article/the-legalities-of-hate-speech/ https://thelawdictionary.org/article/the-legalities-of-hate-...
randomdata 5y ago
Perhaps the speech is free, but instead you're being prosecuted for being seen as a member of the enemy? If you displayed a "Z" in Ukraine right now, best of luck to you, even if it is only because you really like the letter "Z".
- exabrial 5y ago
  This is correct. You -should be- certainly free to express a "Z". I'm not saying you should be free from the consequences.

yladiz 5y ago

Freedom of speech is an essential but not absolute right. There are reasons to restrict freedom of speech in the name of greater good of the society that is enforcing that freedom and so the question is not whether restriction is just, but whether this particular restriction is.

KptMarchewa 5y ago

War limits free speech, and every nation recognizes it as such. For example, US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Censorship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Censorship

jwond 5y ago
Germany is not at war.
- KptMarchewa 5y ago
  In the name only. Russia is a hostile nation and there is great effort to do the most economical damage to it.

manuelabeledo 5y ago

> Some may choose to abuse it, but history has a way of sorting those things out. History sorted these things, alright, but outcomes weren't as harmless as some people tend to believe. In other words, how much value do you put in freedom of speech when human lives are in the line? E.g. shouldn't facebook have done something about the Rohingya genocide?

exabrial 5y ago
Facebook is a private platform.
- manuelabeledo 5y ago
  My point here is that history actually taught us that freedoms come with attachments. I mentioned Facebook because it enabled the government of Myanmar during the persecution and genocide of the Rohingya people. They could have done something, but chose to ignore it and do nothing. This is not a unique occurrence either. Freedom of speech without observing any moral or ethical consequences doesn't make you free, it makes you a libertine, and those who choose to enable these behaviours aren't innocent either. On top of it, in this scenario, Russia is waging an information war against the West, so why should we grant them the freedom to do so?

scrollaway 5y ago

If you oppose it, I can certainly and very safely label you as somebody who doesn't know anything about Germany and its current laws, including the display of the swastika symbol and other nazi-related hate symbols and propaganda. Europe is not the US, which I'm guessing you're from. We have a different culture around free speech, here. And tell you what, it's actually worked out really nicely for us, and most of Europe as a whole is higher than the USA on a variety of freedom indices. We're not perfect, but the absolute free speech stuff you folks have over there is only good on paper. In practice, it's not absolute, and it has led to more issues there than here.

PaulHoule 5y ago
https://freedomhouse.org/countries/freedom-world/scores https://freedomhouse.org/countries/freedom-world/scores
- foepys 5y ago
  This site is unreadable on mobile. Everything in the table has a huge font. Reporters without Borders ranks the US behind quite a lot of European countries: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rangliste_der_Pressefreiheit https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rangliste_der_Pressefreiheit (German Wikipedia because the English article ironically doesn't include data)
- KIFulgore 5y ago
  "Freedom of Expression and Belief": US, 3/4. Germany, 4/4. Report invalidated.
  - bmn__ 5y ago
    You have misread the report. In actuality the results are 14 out 16 points for both .us and .de in that category.
- belorn 5y ago
  Looking at the page I can easily identify political opinion of the authors and detect view points of who should be given freedom of speech and who shouldn't. Thankfully they do link in small print to the methodology, which explain that the views are that of the Freedom House staff. They do consult others which is a major plus, but in the end its the staff that make a decision about what freedom is, who should get it, and who shouldn't. The biggest criticism I would give the site is the lack of any critical assessment of contested topics where different social scientists has different conclusions. I give the site a score of 7/10.

jleyank 5y ago

As everybody never tires of pointing out, freedom of speech isn't unlimited nor does it apply to non-governmental actions. Can't get your jollies off yelling "Fire!" in a theatre. There's judicially accepted hate speech definitions. Also, what one says has consequences.

drewcoo 5y ago
https://www.whalenlawoffice.com/legal-mythbusting-series-yelling-fire-in-a-crowded-theater/ https://www.whalenlawoffice.com/legal-mythbusting-series-yel... https://thelawdictionary.org/article/the-legalities-of-hate-speech/ https://thelawdictionary.org/article/the-legalities-of-hate-...

randomdata 5y ago

Perhaps the speech is free, but instead you're being prosecuted for being seen as a member of the enemy? If you displayed a "Z" in Ukraine right now, best of luck to you, even if it is only because you really like the letter "Z".

exabrial 5y ago
This is correct. You -should be- certainly free to express a "Z". I'm not saying you should be free from the consequences.