5 ms·
>Western European countries don't share the same idea of free speech as in America, yet they continue to be democratic. But are they really? Can you really cl
by bacchusracine 4y ago
>Western European countries don't share the same idea of free speech as in America, yet they continue to be democratic.
But are they really?
Can you really claim to be democratic when you have wholesale determined that only approved speech can be uttered? How does democracy work when some can speak and others cannot?
- wardedVibe 4y agoIf e.g. the Lepin family can thrive in a socialist country, yes, they obviously are.
- yongjik 4y agoOf course, if you define "democracy" to mean absolute free speech, then countries without absolute free speech are not democratic, by definition. That's not exactly insightful.
- _cenw 4y agoCan you claim to be democratic with a two party system, first past the post, gerrymandering, vote suppression... The US really isn't the model country for democratic participation.
- sofixa 4y agoDon't forget a law system that allows judges to basically legislate retrospectively because everything is vague and based on interpretations that can and do change - look at Roe v Wade for instance. Coupled with a deification of their Founding Fathers and Constitution and you have a recipe for a massive legal mess nobody can touch.
- adamredwoods 4y agoAlso, Citizens United decision has warped US democratic politics ever since. Essentially opens the flood gates for plutocracy and lobbyists. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC
- sofixa 4y ago> Can you really claim to be democratic when you have wholesale determined that only approved speech can be uttered? How does democracy work when some can speak and others cannot? Democracy works best when unhelpful fringes cannot speak. Antisemites for instance contribute nothing of substance to any democracy. Same goes for people insisting on abusing fellow humans based on their sexual orientation or skin colour. How, exactly is democracy hurt by not letting them speak publicly? Their opinions are invalid, not based on any reason (so reasoning with them is pointless), and thus their voice is suppressed, and that's actually a good thing for all those that would otherwise have to suffer harassment and abuse.
- yucky 4y ago> Democracy works best when unhelpful fringes cannot speak. This reads like it's straight out of a dystopian book.
- Ekaros 4y agoWho gets to define who are the unhelpful fringes? Surely they would never be groups or political leanings I support... That would be bad right?
- willnonya 4y agoThaslts the rub. Everyone is the good guy in their own story, right? People on the whole also have a poor grasp of history and struggle to grasp how different things really were in the past.
- willnonya 4y agoSo, youre asserting that democracy works vest when disfavored minorities are suppressed? How do you imagine the civil rights movement would have worked out if unfavorable positions of the time were suppressed? How would that work for LGBQ rights? There is no value in suppressing bad views. Exposing them let's them be recognized for what they are. Suppressing them causes them to grow and fester in the shadows. What people really fear is that people will not be intelligent enough to discern these bad opinions, that is an entirely different issue.
- aglasgow000 4y agoWhy do you need the freedom to mutter hate speech about protected characteristics? What good does that do for democracy?