4 ms·

In the EU, freedom of expression has explicit limits on hate speech and holocaust denial, mainly because dignity and equality supersedes the "freedom" of speech

In the EU, freedom of expression has explicit limits on hate speech and holocaust denial, mainly because dignity and equality supersedes the "freedom" of speech. The general idea behind EU's freedom of speech is that its totally acceptable for expressing controversial ideas or questioning norms, like a religious leader could do. Calling for harm or hate (like some religious leader do) is not acceptable. > do they really forbid people from speaking their minds entirely? "Yes" could be an answer here, but we could legitimately wonder if a right mind would think "we should kill all the ones I don't like"

notepad0x90 1y ago
The problem is, people should be free to question even that belief that dignity and equality supersede freedom of speech. Who defines what is dignity and equality? If people can't express unpopular views (without making specific threats) that question what dignity and equality mean, then how do you know the current definition of those concepts is valid according to the people? It boils down to the EU essentially stating "certain concepts are beyond debate, they cannot be questioned". > "Yes" could be an answer here, but we could legitimately wonder if a right mind would think "we should kill all the ones I don't like" You're right, but the point is not whether such persons are in their right mind, evil, horrible,etc... society can view them as such just fine. The point is, should the state be imprisoning such people simply for stating their views. For example in the US, I'm sure you've seen videos of people being explicitly racist in public, they don't get arrested but they do lose their jobs and livelihoods. the concept of hate-speech gives the state the right to police speech that is merely unpopular, with no immediate harm to anyone. What if Europe slides to the far-right, and Nazis become a protected group and criticizing them is now considered hate-speech? That has dire implications. You can see this happening in the US right now, but at least we can still be critical of MAGA, the concept of making that hate-speech does not exist, so we still have a fighting chance, they can't pass laws that will allow them to spread false information without others criticizing it by redefining legal definitions of such terms (which they can do).
- arp242 1y ago
  > the concept of hate-speech gives the state the right to police speech that is merely unpopular Not true. Legislators write the laws, courts interpret them. Basic civics. Laws are not written as "we can police any speech", and courts don't interpret them as such.
  - notepad0x90 1y ago
    I understand all that, I was making the slippery-slope argument, it isn't a fallacy in this case. What groups are considered equal and worthy of protected dignity has gone from "just straight white property owning men" to the myriad of groups we have today. This is a constantly evolving definition. Whoever is in power gets to define that. In times of peace, it is easy to assume things will remain as they are. Look at us here in America, the majority were deceived (or just didn't show up to vote) and now those in power who can change such definitions are horrible evil people. The same can happen in Europe if you don't learn from us. It wasn't that long ago fascists almost took over all of europe and caused the greatest war in the history of our species! Free speech is the only real defense against that. It's either that or violence and war.
    - arp242 1y ago
      You said what you said. And your clarification here is just fear-mongering: "complete free speech absolutism or fascism, war, and holocaust". Okay, fine, whatever. I'm in favour of the Jews being gassed then, I guess ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
      - notepad0x90 1y ago
        Fair enough. Don't know what to tell you other than those things happened and are in the process of happening here in the US. No mongering, just observations based on reality.
- whynotmaybe 1y ago
  Yes, they should be free to question it, but I think that the US view on freedom of speech makes dumber people because they don't need to think about the consequences of their speech. They usually say whatever they want, usually surrounded with a "it's my right" without thinking about the whole process. Once they said whatever they said, what's next? What's the purpose of their message? Is it to express your anger in life and that you think that the source is some random ethnicity or community or do you want to improve everyone's quality of life? With the recent shift towards extreme individualism, the philosophy behind the essence of freedom of speech has disappeared. Some are now focusing towards improving one individual's quality of life at the expense of the others. In Europe, they FAFO the extense of free speech and that led to WWII. They said never again because they understood the consequences of full freedom of speech. Even in the US, nobody has a full freedom of speech. How would a parent react if their kid would say "fuck off" to an elementary school teacher?

notepad0x90 1y ago

The problem is, people should be free to question even that belief that dignity and equality supersede freedom of speech. Who defines what is dignity and equality? If people can't express unpopular views (without making specific threats) that question what dignity and equality mean, then how do you know the current definition of those concepts is valid according to the people? It boils down to the EU essentially stating "certain concepts are beyond debate, they cannot be questioned". > "Yes" could be an answer here, but we could legitimately wonder if a right mind would think "we should kill all the ones I don't like" You're right, but the point is not whether such persons are in their right mind, evil, horrible,etc... society can view them as such just fine. The point is, should the state be imprisoning such people simply for stating their views. For example in the US, I'm sure you've seen videos of people being explicitly racist in public, they don't get arrested but they do lose their jobs and livelihoods. the concept of hate-speech gives the state the right to police speech that is merely unpopular, with no immediate harm to anyone. What if Europe slides to the far-right, and Nazis become a protected group and criticizing them is now considered hate-speech? That has dire implications. You can see this happening in the US right now, but at least we can still be critical of MAGA, the concept of making that hate-speech does not exist, so we still have a fighting chance, they can't pass laws that will allow them to spread false information without others criticizing it by redefining legal definitions of such terms (which they can do).

arp242 1y ago
> the concept of hate-speech gives the state the right to police speech that is merely unpopular Not true. Legislators write the laws, courts interpret them. Basic civics. Laws are not written as "we can police any speech", and courts don't interpret them as such.
- notepad0x90 1y ago
  I understand all that, I was making the slippery-slope argument, it isn't a fallacy in this case. What groups are considered equal and worthy of protected dignity has gone from "just straight white property owning men" to the myriad of groups we have today. This is a constantly evolving definition. Whoever is in power gets to define that. In times of peace, it is easy to assume things will remain as they are. Look at us here in America, the majority were deceived (or just didn't show up to vote) and now those in power who can change such definitions are horrible evil people. The same can happen in Europe if you don't learn from us. It wasn't that long ago fascists almost took over all of europe and caused the greatest war in the history of our species! Free speech is the only real defense against that. It's either that or violence and war.
  - arp242 1y ago
    You said what you said. And your clarification here is just fear-mongering: "complete free speech absolutism or fascism, war, and holocaust". Okay, fine, whatever. I'm in favour of the Jews being gassed then, I guess ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
    - notepad0x90 1y ago
      Fair enough. Don't know what to tell you other than those things happened and are in the process of happening here in the US. No mongering, just observations based on reality.
whynotmaybe 1y ago
Yes, they should be free to question it, but I think that the US view on freedom of speech makes dumber people because they don't need to think about the consequences of their speech. They usually say whatever they want, usually surrounded with a "it's my right" without thinking about the whole process. Once they said whatever they said, what's next? What's the purpose of their message? Is it to express your anger in life and that you think that the source is some random ethnicity or community or do you want to improve everyone's quality of life? With the recent shift towards extreme individualism, the philosophy behind the essence of freedom of speech has disappeared. Some are now focusing towards improving one individual's quality of life at the expense of the others. In Europe, they FAFO the extense of free speech and that led to WWII. They said never again because they understood the consequences of full freedom of speech. Even in the US, nobody has a full freedom of speech. How would a parent react if their kid would say "fuck off" to an elementary school teacher?