5 ms·

As a Brit, I'm embarrassed. These politicians are LARPing and haven't learned the most important political lesson of the last 100 years - that restrictions on s

As a Brit, I'm embarrassed. These politicians are LARPing and haven't learned the most important political lesson of the last 100 years - that restrictions on speech are dangerous.

dmix 4y ago
I’ve noticed on HN whenever there’s threads about censorship as soon as it’s late at night here (EST) and morning in Western Europe a ton of censorship defenders come out of the woodworks. So it seems popular among the EU people too, even among the more sophisticated HN crowd.
- erdos4d 4y ago
  Have lived in the EU and they definitely have a stronger concept of censorship there. You honestly don't have a right to say anything you want, especially if you are saying things to a large audience who might be incited. Most people I have met are quite happy that people such as nazis are censored and cannot spread hate. Given their history, that makes some sense, but I honestly get the feeling they focus too much on appearances and not on trying to actually undermine these groups and interfere with their recruiting. You will find plenty of such people in working class bars around the continent, but as long as they are not making public shows and speeches, the populace seems to ignore them.
  - Krasnol 4y ago
    Why not both? Seriously, showing off symbols of national socialism saved Germany many embarrassing clips on international media. All those groups who gathered under the anti-intellectual agenda of the past years here in Germany would have had someone with this stuff marching the streets against covid restrictions, etc. I wouldn't call it censorship either. No symbol or idea is being repressed. You can learn about the lies of Holocaust deniers. About the symbols, and so on. Youre "just" not supposed to go out there and recruit people with those tools. The discussion and misunderstanding OP has seen here comes from the fact that the "radical" free speech laws in the US set no borders on spreading this kind of propaganda. The results are very visible these days in the US and I'm happy they're not in Germany (at least not in a relevant way). This from a foreigner who has been living in Germany for longer.
    - erdos4d 4y ago
      > I wouldn't call it censorship either. No symbol or idea is being repressed. In Germany it is straight up illegal to display nazi symbols, do their salute, or even advocate their beliefs, isn't it? I was told as much by quite a few Germans at least. That said, my problem with the censorship approach is that these groups appeal to actual problems within society and individuals, and by censoring them, none of that goes away. If anything, I think they just get pushed underground and the real issues that allow them to successfully recruit are still there, and they just do it quietly, which is why the local motorcycle club is full of fucking nazis, like it or not. The only way to stop these groups is to remove the fuel, which implies making changes to society itself to reduce the number of people who are in poor circumstances and might find a voice telling them it is the immigrants/jews/brown people who are to blame for their personal sense of injustice. Officially censoring also gives an anti-establishment sheen to them that definitely appeals to some.
      - Krasnol 4y ago
        > In Germany it is straight up illegal to display nazi symbols, do their salute, or even advocate their beliefs, isn't it? I was told as much by quite a few Germans at least. You can display them for educational or artistic reasons for example. This is not a religious law. It's forbidden to walk around randomly with a swastika on your T-Shirt or recruit people under your new fascist party which has a swastika as a logo for example. > That said, my problem with the censorship approach is that these groups appeal to actual problems within society and individuals, and by censoring them, none of that goes away. Those groups have enough other ways to display their affiliation and intentions. Nobody here has a problem distinguishing those since the education on those topics is quite thorough. Which goes for your second argument on how to fix it. I doubt there is a country on this planet which schools their children more clearly on this topic but there will always be that bottom parts of society which will still go there. They follow the myths and do have those "forbidden materials". However they do also have a problem coming along. It's illegal. They can't spread it openly and promote it this way. It works quite well. > Officially censoring also gives an anti-establishment sheen to them that definitely appeals to some. They don't need a picture of a swastika to justify that story. I think the misunderstanding here comes again from this "free speech" doctrine which doesn't allow for self thinking. Everything is 1 or 0 because otherwise it would be too complicated. But it can work different. It works in Germany at least.
  - hypertele-Xii 4y ago
    A tolerant society cannot tolerate intolerance.
- DaiPlusPlus 4y ago
  It depends on how do you define “censorship”, and your view of the fundamental role of the state. I used to be a free speech absolutist (especially as a teenager, campaigning against Internet filters in school, as one is want to), I’ve refined my position over time away from that unsophisticated and unhelpfully simplistic position, but I haven’t yet found an accurate succinct way to describe my current feelings beyond saying I’m “aligned with defensive-democracy” ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_democracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_democracy ) - but I try to avoid advocating DD with language like “reasonable restrictions” because that’s currently the language used by people who I’m ideologically opposed to, but I don’t want to come across as a libertarian… nor a V-for-Vendetta fan either. As much as I’d love to blame Ofcom’s letter on the Tories, I believe under Labour it would be just as bad: Labour is/was the party of Wacky Jacqui Smith after-all; whereas this perennial paternalism comes from the current constitutional design of the Home Office: until and unless the Home Office changes their attitude we’ll keep on seeing this kind of policymaking - it’s an analogue to the US’ “foreign policy blob” situation, imo ( https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/16/us/politics/blob-afghanistan-withdrawal-biden.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/16/us/politics/blob-afghanis... )
  - brigandish 4y ago
    I agree with what you wrote but wanted to comment on the link you shared. I read some of that Wikipedia page on defensive democracy, it has as one of the examples Holocaust denial in 10 countries. I do wonder why in countries, such as Germany, that do have a continuing problem with Nazis and anti-semitism, people think that restricting speech is the way to combat it. It didn’t work in the past as it arguably gave rise (or at least was a supporting factor) in the rise of both ant-semitism and National Socialism to such prominence, and the problems aren’t going away despite it being three quarters of a century since their terrible apex even with these laws in place. Britain, Canada, Australia, NZ and the US, which all (historically) have a speech culture derived from Locke’s liberalism (to varying degrees but broadly similar, hence the strong objections to infringement of speech in them by the populace regardless of legality) have had no such problems as both anti-semitism and National Socialists are thankfully a fringe activity in those places. Liberal speech laws reduce authoritarianism and racism because they can only grow without opposition. In fact, we see growing anti-semitism and clearly racist behaviours amongst “progressives” in those places, and they are the biggest supporters of censorship because they understand this too as they fail to persuade others of the merits of their position when people can say what they like in return. All my soapbox-standing being said, I’m confused as to how you’ve got a foot in the defensive democracy camp, given your clear sympathies with strong free speech allowances (if no longer so absolutist), a clear understanding of the failings of our legislators, and the role of the Home office in all of this. I’m not criticising you, I’m just at a loss as to how to reconcile them. Perhaps it’s the narrow examples given on that page?
- perceptronas 4y ago
  I noticed: If I comment something about pro free speech, I get downvoted in the morning (I am on EU timezone). However, once friends in USA wake up - I get upvoted again.
i0null 4y ago
As a proponent of free speech, I strongly believe that people should be able to express their opinions without fear of censorship or retribution. However, I also think it's important to recognise that there are limits to free speech, and that moderation is necessary in order to protect the rights and safety of others. For example, it's one thing to express a controversial or unpopular opinion, but it's quite another to engage in hate speech, incite violence, post SPAM, excessive use of straw-man arguments, countering scientific consensus with harmful conspiracy theories, et al. In these cases, allowing such speech to go unchecked can have harmful consequences, and it's important for society to have mechanisms in place to address these issues. Free speech is important to balance a strong democracy but its not an absolute right. Moderation in free speech is necessary in order to balance the rights of individuals to express themselves with the need to protect the rights and safety of others. Without moderation, the right to free speech can become a license to cause harm and to silence the voices of others.
- pydry 4y ago
  >In these cases, allowing such speech to go unchecked can have harmful consequences I don't think anybody disputes that. The question was never "do these things harm us?". They clearly do. The question is - is the medicine as bad or worse than disease? Imagine a vile political leader whom you thoroughly loathe. Now imagine the powers of speech suppression you advocate for will probably wind up in their hands. How much do you still want it?
  - i0null 4y ago
    Ironic it's a straw-man itself to suggest the comment was advocating suppression. It wasn't. The point is moderation, and yes that means moderation that can be moderated as necessary. i.e A non-partisan framework that is acceptable regardless of if it is an adversary or it is an ally enforcing it. Easier said then done, but perhaps this just means a type of Overton window. It's not legally enforced, people just come to learn that being reactionary is faux pas. Clearly it's not plausible to provide an absolutist definition because things change, setting rules could undermine their original objectives. But for the points raised in my original comment; laissez-faire free speech is also widely open to abuse.

As a Brit, I'm embarrassed. These politicians are LARPing and haven't learned the most important political lesson of the last 100 years - that restrictions on speech are dangerous.

dmix 4y ago

I’ve noticed on HN whenever there’s threads about censorship as soon as it’s late at night here (EST) and morning in Western Europe a ton of censorship defenders come out of the woodworks. So it seems popular among the EU people too, even among the more sophisticated HN crowd.

erdos4d 4y ago
Have lived in the EU and they definitely have a stronger concept of censorship there. You honestly don't have a right to say anything you want, especially if you are saying things to a large audience who might be incited. Most people I have met are quite happy that people such as nazis are censored and cannot spread hate. Given their history, that makes some sense, but I honestly get the feeling they focus too much on appearances and not on trying to actually undermine these groups and interfere with their recruiting. You will find plenty of such people in working class bars around the continent, but as long as they are not making public shows and speeches, the populace seems to ignore them.
- Krasnol 4y ago
  Why not both? Seriously, showing off symbols of national socialism saved Germany many embarrassing clips on international media. All those groups who gathered under the anti-intellectual agenda of the past years here in Germany would have had someone with this stuff marching the streets against covid restrictions, etc. I wouldn't call it censorship either. No symbol or idea is being repressed. You can learn about the lies of Holocaust deniers. About the symbols, and so on. Youre "just" not supposed to go out there and recruit people with those tools. The discussion and misunderstanding OP has seen here comes from the fact that the "radical" free speech laws in the US set no borders on spreading this kind of propaganda. The results are very visible these days in the US and I'm happy they're not in Germany (at least not in a relevant way). This from a foreigner who has been living in Germany for longer.
  - erdos4d 4y ago
    > I wouldn't call it censorship either. No symbol or idea is being repressed. In Germany it is straight up illegal to display nazi symbols, do their salute, or even advocate their beliefs, isn't it? I was told as much by quite a few Germans at least. That said, my problem with the censorship approach is that these groups appeal to actual problems within society and individuals, and by censoring them, none of that goes away. If anything, I think they just get pushed underground and the real issues that allow them to successfully recruit are still there, and they just do it quietly, which is why the local motorcycle club is full of fucking nazis, like it or not. The only way to stop these groups is to remove the fuel, which implies making changes to society itself to reduce the number of people who are in poor circumstances and might find a voice telling them it is the immigrants/jews/brown people who are to blame for their personal sense of injustice. Officially censoring also gives an anti-establishment sheen to them that definitely appeals to some.
    - Krasnol 4y ago
      > In Germany it is straight up illegal to display nazi symbols, do their salute, or even advocate their beliefs, isn't it? I was told as much by quite a few Germans at least. You can display them for educational or artistic reasons for example. This is not a religious law. It's forbidden to walk around randomly with a swastika on your T-Shirt or recruit people under your new fascist party which has a swastika as a logo for example. > That said, my problem with the censorship approach is that these groups appeal to actual problems within society and individuals, and by censoring them, none of that goes away. Those groups have enough other ways to display their affiliation and intentions. Nobody here has a problem distinguishing those since the education on those topics is quite thorough. Which goes for your second argument on how to fix it. I doubt there is a country on this planet which schools their children more clearly on this topic but there will always be that bottom parts of society which will still go there. They follow the myths and do have those "forbidden materials". However they do also have a problem coming along. It's illegal. They can't spread it openly and promote it this way. It works quite well. > Officially censoring also gives an anti-establishment sheen to them that definitely appeals to some. They don't need a picture of a swastika to justify that story. I think the misunderstanding here comes again from this "free speech" doctrine which doesn't allow for self thinking. Everything is 1 or 0 because otherwise it would be too complicated. But it can work different. It works in Germany at least.
- hypertele-Xii 4y ago
  A tolerant society cannot tolerate intolerance.
DaiPlusPlus 4y ago
It depends on how do you define “censorship”, and your view of the fundamental role of the state. I used to be a free speech absolutist (especially as a teenager, campaigning against Internet filters in school, as one is want to), I’ve refined my position over time away from that unsophisticated and unhelpfully simplistic position, but I haven’t yet found an accurate succinct way to describe my current feelings beyond saying I’m “aligned with defensive-democracy” ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_democracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_democracy ) - but I try to avoid advocating DD with language like “reasonable restrictions” because that’s currently the language used by people who I’m ideologically opposed to, but I don’t want to come across as a libertarian… nor a V-for-Vendetta fan either. As much as I’d love to blame Ofcom’s letter on the Tories, I believe under Labour it would be just as bad: Labour is/was the party of Wacky Jacqui Smith after-all; whereas this perennial paternalism comes from the current constitutional design of the Home Office: until and unless the Home Office changes their attitude we’ll keep on seeing this kind of policymaking - it’s an analogue to the US’ “foreign policy blob” situation, imo ( https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/16/us/politics/blob-afghanistan-withdrawal-biden.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/16/us/politics/blob-afghanis... )
- brigandish 4y ago
  I agree with what you wrote but wanted to comment on the link you shared. I read some of that Wikipedia page on defensive democracy, it has as one of the examples Holocaust denial in 10 countries. I do wonder why in countries, such as Germany, that do have a continuing problem with Nazis and anti-semitism, people think that restricting speech is the way to combat it. It didn’t work in the past as it arguably gave rise (or at least was a supporting factor) in the rise of both ant-semitism and National Socialism to such prominence, and the problems aren’t going away despite it being three quarters of a century since their terrible apex even with these laws in place. Britain, Canada, Australia, NZ and the US, which all (historically) have a speech culture derived from Locke’s liberalism (to varying degrees but broadly similar, hence the strong objections to infringement of speech in them by the populace regardless of legality) have had no such problems as both anti-semitism and National Socialists are thankfully a fringe activity in those places. Liberal speech laws reduce authoritarianism and racism because they can only grow without opposition. In fact, we see growing anti-semitism and clearly racist behaviours amongst “progressives” in those places, and they are the biggest supporters of censorship because they understand this too as they fail to persuade others of the merits of their position when people can say what they like in return. All my soapbox-standing being said, I’m confused as to how you’ve got a foot in the defensive democracy camp, given your clear sympathies with strong free speech allowances (if no longer so absolutist), a clear understanding of the failings of our legislators, and the role of the Home office in all of this. I’m not criticising you, I’m just at a loss as to how to reconcile them. Perhaps it’s the narrow examples given on that page?
perceptronas 4y ago
I noticed: If I comment something about pro free speech, I get downvoted in the morning (I am on EU timezone). However, once friends in USA wake up - I get upvoted again.

i0null 4y ago

As a proponent of free speech, I strongly believe that people should be able to express their opinions without fear of censorship or retribution. However, I also think it's important to recognise that there are limits to free speech, and that moderation is necessary in order to protect the rights and safety of others. For example, it's one thing to express a controversial or unpopular opinion, but it's quite another to engage in hate speech, incite violence, post SPAM, excessive use of straw-man arguments, countering scientific consensus with harmful conspiracy theories, et al. In these cases, allowing such speech to go unchecked can have harmful consequences, and it's important for society to have mechanisms in place to address these issues. Free speech is important to balance a strong democracy but its not an absolute right. Moderation in free speech is necessary in order to balance the rights of individuals to express themselves with the need to protect the rights and safety of others. Without moderation, the right to free speech can become a license to cause harm and to silence the voices of others.

pydry 4y ago
>In these cases, allowing such speech to go unchecked can have harmful consequences I don't think anybody disputes that. The question was never "do these things harm us?". They clearly do. The question is - is the medicine as bad or worse than disease? Imagine a vile political leader whom you thoroughly loathe. Now imagine the powers of speech suppression you advocate for will probably wind up in their hands. How much do you still want it?
- i0null 4y ago
  Ironic it's a straw-man itself to suggest the comment was advocating suppression. It wasn't. The point is moderation, and yes that means moderation that can be moderated as necessary. i.e A non-partisan framework that is acceptable regardless of if it is an adversary or it is an ally enforcing it. Easier said then done, but perhaps this just means a type of Overton window. It's not legally enforced, people just come to learn that being reactionary is faux pas. Clearly it's not plausible to provide an absolutist definition because things change, setting rules could undermine their original objectives. But for the points raised in my original comment; laissez-faire free speech is also widely open to abuse.