5 ms·

How is it asinine? they both restrict speech and they both have no concept of "freedom of speech". The only difference is what they choose to censor.

bsoles 1y ago
Do you even know what you are talking about? Do you know how many journalists are in prison in Turkey? "Restricting speech", whatever that means, is nowhere near as putting journalists, mayors, and citizens in prison for "insulting" the president or for saying things that the president and his shills do not like.
- smotched 1y ago
  It would help to read the article we're discussing. > Journalist posted a fake image online of the interior minister holding a sign that read “I hate freedom of opinion” and was subsequently handed a seven-month suspended prison sentence. A woman who posted images of politicians with painted-on Hitler mustaches and called a minister a terrorist was fined about $690.
  - seszett 1y ago
    It's probably useless to answer, but you are not addressing the question, which was about whether there are actually journalists in prison in the EU or not (there are not) whereas imprisonment of journalists in Turkey is an occupational hazard.
    - smotched 1y ago
      I've given you the most direct example anyone can give, a journalist that was legally handed a prison sentence for basic speech. There are more cases in other EU countries in the article, just read.
selcuka 1y ago
You are a victim of the Nirvana fallacy [1]: "Europe is better than Turkey in terms of freedom of speech, but since neither is perfect, they are equally bad." [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy
- yoyopa 1y ago
  [dead]
- aurareturn 1y ago
  You are a victim of fallacy fallacy [0]: “Just because the argument has a fallacy doesn’t make it automatically false”. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy?wprov=sfti1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy?wprov=sf...
  - kelnos 1y ago
    No, but at least in this case, the fact that it's false does make it false.
pornel 1y ago
The US is not that exceptional nor principled. The concept of "freedom of speech" is absolute when Republicans want to say Republican things, but it's a "national security issue" when Muslims make too much noise. When sexual minorities want to speak, the priority is to "protect family values" instead. Corporations have "freedom of speech", but TikTok boosting black-green-red flags isn't protected speech, but an agent of the enemy corrupting the youth. European countries have their own dogmas and hypocrisy, only draw the line at different topics (especially where everyone had their grandparents traumatized in a war started by the Grok's favorite character).
- smotched 1y ago
  Could you give examples of when a U.S. citizens speech rights were legally taken away? Lets go with one of your examples of "When sexual minorities want to speak". Please elaborate. None of the examples you gave are actually examples of speech being restricted. Its people (sometimes politicians) freely voicing their opinions on others speech, that is not restriction.
  - saghm 1y ago
    Literally in the last week, the Supreme Court ruled that books featuring gay couples need to be opt-out in schools. They've quite literally taken the stance that someone literally just seeing the existence of a gay couple in a children's picture book is a violation of their freedom.
    - anamax 1y ago
      > They've quite literally taken the stance that someone literally just seeing the existence of a gay couple in a children's picture book is a violation of their freedom. No. They've taken the stance that parents get to decide what books their kids see. Other parents are free to make a different decision. Do you really think that there's a "right" to force others to read books that you choose?
      - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
r721 1y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...

bsoles 1y ago

Do you even know what you are talking about? Do you know how many journalists are in prison in Turkey? "Restricting speech", whatever that means, is nowhere near as putting journalists, mayors, and citizens in prison for "insulting" the president or for saying things that the president and his shills do not like.

smotched 1y ago
It would help to read the article we're discussing. > Journalist posted a fake image online of the interior minister holding a sign that read “I hate freedom of opinion” and was subsequently handed a seven-month suspended prison sentence. A woman who posted images of politicians with painted-on Hitler mustaches and called a minister a terrorist was fined about $690.
- seszett 1y ago
  It's probably useless to answer, but you are not addressing the question, which was about whether there are actually journalists in prison in the EU or not (there are not) whereas imprisonment of journalists in Turkey is an occupational hazard.
  - smotched 1y ago
    I've given you the most direct example anyone can give, a journalist that was legally handed a prison sentence for basic speech. There are more cases in other EU countries in the article, just read.

selcuka 1y ago

You are a victim of the Nirvana fallacy [1]: "Europe is better than Turkey in terms of freedom of speech, but since neither is perfect, they are equally bad." [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy

yoyopa 1y ago
[dead]
aurareturn 1y ago
You are a victim of fallacy fallacy [0]: “Just because the argument has a fallacy doesn’t make it automatically false”. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy?wprov=sfti1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy?wprov=sf...
- kelnos 1y ago
  No, but at least in this case, the fact that it's false does make it false.

pornel 1y ago

The US is not that exceptional nor principled. The concept of "freedom of speech" is absolute when Republicans want to say Republican things, but it's a "national security issue" when Muslims make too much noise. When sexual minorities want to speak, the priority is to "protect family values" instead. Corporations have "freedom of speech", but TikTok boosting black-green-red flags isn't protected speech, but an agent of the enemy corrupting the youth. European countries have their own dogmas and hypocrisy, only draw the line at different topics (especially where everyone had their grandparents traumatized in a war started by the Grok's favorite character).

smotched 1y ago
Could you give examples of when a U.S. citizens speech rights were legally taken away? Lets go with one of your examples of "When sexual minorities want to speak". Please elaborate. None of the examples you gave are actually examples of speech being restricted. Its people (sometimes politicians) freely voicing their opinions on others speech, that is not restriction.
- saghm 1y ago
  Literally in the last week, the Supreme Court ruled that books featuring gay couples need to be opt-out in schools. They've quite literally taken the stance that someone literally just seeing the existence of a gay couple in a children's picture book is a violation of their freedom.
  - anamax 1y ago
    > They've quite literally taken the stance that someone literally just seeing the existence of a gay couple in a children's picture book is a violation of their freedom. No. They've taken the stance that parents get to decide what books their kids see. Other parents are free to make a different decision. Do you really think that there's a "right" to force others to read books that you choose?
    - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago

r721 1y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...