2 ms·

> Only in the United States do we have such protections in place to prevent the government from retaliating against the individual for voicing a critical opinio

by sofixa 4y ago

> Only in the United States do we have such protections in place to prevent the government from retaliating against the individual for voicing a critical opinion. I'm sorry, but were you educated in the US? That's just blatantly false, and on the level of a Russian praising their army's success in Ukraine. In the EU, Canada, Australia, UK, New Zealand and some other countries individuals are protected from retaliation if they're critical of their government. In fact it's the norm for democratic countries. Of course some pretty government officials might try to abuse their position in personal retaliation (happened in Germany recently) but that's why all those countries also have an independent judiciary to control such potential abuses.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
whimsicalism 4y ago
You can absolutely get legal action pursued for voicing an opinion (probably a bad one, but an opinion nonetheless) in most of the countries you named.
- sofixa 4y ago
  From an individual for defamation? Yes. From the state for some very specific opinions (we should gas all the Jews)? Yes. But that's literally the same everywhere with free speech. The specifics vary slightly, e.g. in the US being a woman and topless, or saying you want to murder the US president is a crime, in France insulting Jews is a crime. There is no place on earth with absolute free speech.
  - whimsicalism 4y ago
    You are drawing a false equivalence. 1. Being topless is both legal in plenty of states and also not a matter of speech. 2. There's a difference between directly saying you are going to kill someone or incite violence and expressing support for a political ideology. For instance, in Germany, the Communist Party is illegal - it is banned. In Germany, expressing an (awful) opinion that the Holocaust did not occur is illegal and you will be charged. In Germany, video games that even included the Nazis in any way were banned. The approaches to speech are very different, I am not sure why you are trying to draw an equivalence that does not exist.
    - sofixa 4y ago
      The approach is the same - speech is free* (* - exceptions apply). The specifics of those exceptions are different. Germany's heavy-handed approach for some things (around Communists, Nazis, Holocaust) come directly from terrible historical experience they do not want to repeat. And that experience includes allowing Nazis to exploit the democratic system to seize power. > There's a difference between directly saying you are going to kill someone or incite violence and expressing support for a political ideology How big is the difference if the political ideology in question is violent by nature(e.g. Nazism)? > In Germany, video games that even included the Nazis in any way were banned That's untrue. Art and history teaching are explicit exceptions to the Nazi bans. It's just that some historical games, like Hearts of Iron 4, thread a fine line (is conquering the whole world with Nazi Germany glorifying Nazi Germany and their violence? No, but for some probably yes) and prefer to self-censor to avoid any potential issues.

by sofixa 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

whimsicalism 4y ago

You can absolutely get legal action pursued for voicing an opinion (probably a bad one, but an opinion nonetheless) in most of the countries you named.

sofixa 4y ago
From an individual for defamation? Yes. From the state for some very specific opinions (we should gas all the Jews)? Yes. But that's literally the same everywhere with free speech. The specifics vary slightly, e.g. in the US being a woman and topless, or saying you want to murder the US president is a crime, in France insulting Jews is a crime. There is no place on earth with absolute free speech.
- whimsicalism 4y ago
  You are drawing a false equivalence. 1. Being topless is both legal in plenty of states and also not a matter of speech. 2. There's a difference between directly saying you are going to kill someone or incite violence and expressing support for a political ideology. For instance, in Germany, the Communist Party is illegal - it is banned. In Germany, expressing an (awful) opinion that the Holocaust did not occur is illegal and you will be charged. In Germany, video games that even included the Nazis in any way were banned. The approaches to speech are very different, I am not sure why you are trying to draw an equivalence that does not exist.
  - sofixa 4y ago
    The approach is the same - speech is free* (* - exceptions apply). The specifics of those exceptions are different. Germany's heavy-handed approach for some things (around Communists, Nazis, Holocaust) come directly from terrible historical experience they do not want to repeat. And that experience includes allowing Nazis to exploit the democratic system to seize power. > There's a difference between directly saying you are going to kill someone or incite violence and expressing support for a political ideology How big is the difference if the political ideology in question is violent by nature(e.g. Nazism)? > In Germany, video games that even included the Nazis in any way were banned That's untrue. Art and history teaching are explicit exceptions to the Nazi bans. It's just that some historical games, like Hearts of Iron 4, thread a fine line (is conquering the whole world with Nazi Germany glorifying Nazi Germany and their violence? No, but for some probably yes) and prefer to self-censor to avoid any potential issues.