5 ms·

> But the rest of the world lives in a more free speech society. Dane here, this is not just specious, it's inaccurate. We have far fewer free speech rights in

> But the rest of the world lives in a more free speech society. Dane here, this is not just specious, it's inaccurate. We have far fewer free speech rights in Europe than they do in the US. Tens of thousands of people all over Europe are arrested and imprisoned each year for speech which would be considered protected in the US. [This man was arrested for calling a politician an idiot.](https://www.ft.com/content/27626fa8-3379-4b69-891d-379401675942?syn-25a6b1a6=1 https://www.ft.com/content/27626fa8-3379-4b69-891d-379401675...) [Another German citizen was investigated for calling another politician fat.](https://thegoldreport.com/news/german-police-investigating-user-for-calling-female-politician-fat https://thegoldreport.com/news/german-police-investigating-u...) [This UK citizen was arrested for re-tweeting a meme and refusing re-education classes.](https://fee.org/articles/uk-man-arrested-for-malicious-communications-after-posting-meme-mocking-the-transgender-flag/ https://fee.org/articles/uk-man-arrested-for-malicious-commu...) You're not fighting "fascism" by posting memes on Reddit. You're using computers and electronics and networks built by China, which is currently conducting ethnic genocide, and regularly utilises slave labour, among many other atrocities. For posterity, Grok 4.5 isn't fascism. You need to spend just a little bit of time reading up about the history of fascism because you demean the entire concept and threat with these histrionics. If you keep crying wolf, no one will care when real danger emerges.

spiderfarmer 3mo ago
I can say "I'm an atheist and I hate organised religion" without losing my job. Can Americans do that? I can say "I hate the orange clown (insert any other politician) and actively dislike everyone that voted for him", without getting a call from HR. Can they? I can't even enter the USA if I share some of the social media accounts like I'm legally required to do. The 'free speech absolutists' are all calling for censorship in this thread. So much for free speech.
- Bolwin 3mo ago
  Yes Americans can do both, unless their boss dislikes it, but that applies the world over.
  - crote 3mo ago
    > that applies the world over It does not. Plenty of countries have functioning labor laws preventing you from being fired for your religious or political opinions.
- fingerlocks 3mo ago
  Um yeah you can do all of that without legal consequences. HR is not the government. Are these your best examples?
  - spiderfarmer 3mo ago
    A society that values free expression should be uncomfortable with people being fired merely for holding a different political opinion from their boss. In the Netherlands, “political opinion” is explicitly listed as a protected discrimination ground. And in Europe generally, employee speech can fall under freedom of expression, though courts balance that against the employer’s interests, reputation, workplace disruption, etc. Meanwhile, in the US you'll get fired by phone while your boss is golfing. Freedom baby.
- drstewart 3mo ago
  >I can say "I'm an atheist and I hate organised religion" without losing my job. Unless you live in the UK https://old.reddit.com/r/justifiedpolitics/comments/1uocwp4/uk_police_arrest_a_man_for_calling_islam_an_evil/ https://old.reddit.com/r/justifiedpolitics/comments/1uocwp4/...
  - cauch 3mo ago
    You understand that there is a difference between just expressing your opinion in a normal way, and, on purpose, creating confrontational situations, right? This guy is totally free to say he hates organised religion. He is not free to be a prick and go out of his way to try to get into a confrontation.
    - drstewart 3mo ago
      >He is not free to be a prick and go out of his way to try to get into a confrontation. You mean like saying at work you hate all organised religions, unprompted, like OP wants to do?
      - cauch 3mo ago
        Why do you say OP wants that? They said: > I can say "I'm an atheist and I hate organised religion" without losing my job. It did not say they say it at work, or unprompted. I think in US, if you mention it in a discussion on this subject at the water cooler between friends, it can have an impact on your work, you need to be careful (but I will not die on this hill, I don't think it's the important point anyway). The spirit of OP was about "talking about it", in a "normal way", I don't understand why you are saying that it is impossible to say you hate all organised religions without doing it unprompted or confrontationally. As for the video, come on, you really don't see the problem? Police usually are drilled to arrest people who can inflame the situation, and this is why they are acting here. I even wonder if it was not the goal of the guy in the first place, to generate clicks and arguing "see, we cannot express ourselves anymore".
        3mo ago
gadders 3mo ago
>> We have far fewer free speech rights in Europe than they do in the US. I'm in the UK. Mean tweets lead straight to jail now.
- psd1 3mo ago
  No wonder prisons are overcrowded, they must be full of twitter users.
- monkey_monkey 3mo ago
  Put down the drama bouquet, princess.
  - gadders 3mo ago
    [flagged]
gf000 3mo ago
Posting a swastika is not free speech. All the rest, you have in the US as well (libel, etc).
- Gareth321 3mo ago
  [This is what he re-tweeted.](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/70/Swastika_ultra_pride_flag.webp https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/70/Swastika...) It might be in bad taste but arresting him and insisting he undergo re-education is crazy, and I can't believe you would defend it. No one gets arrested in the US for re-tweeting memes like this. As for the rest, you're free to call politicians fat idiots without being arrested in the US, and once again, I cannot believe you would defend arresting people for that.
  - fragmede 3mo ago
    Not if you're an immigrant on a visa and talk shit about ICE online.
  - gf000 3mo ago
    I haven't looked at the particular case, but nazism is a particular thing - given Europe's history it's there for a very good reason in most EU countries. I don't know about the 'fat idiot', but in most EU countries that's more than fine so I have a bit of a hard time believing that was the sole reason - public figures are fair target for stuff like that. The limit is actually planning or inciting violence against someone or a group - again, the same as in the US.
    - u8080 3mo ago
      Yes and US guys are plain wrong on swastika thing - you could even financially support open nazi militants like Azov battalion from most EU countries without any consequences.
KaiserPro 3mo ago
> Grok 4.5 isn't fascism. THat is a fair assertion. It is however a product of a regime that is currently debasing freedom and racially targeting its own citizens and causing them harm. Is it as bad as what happens to Chinese muslims? No. But does it have a disproportionate effect on the rest of the world? yes. Musk is funding authoritarianism in the UK. He is funding people that are causing racial division. He is promoting views that are antithetical to the core of U belief. Grok is a product of this man, and all that baggage.
cauch 3mo ago
But it looks like your examples are all examples of people being mean, or disruptive, or trolling. For example, for the first German arrested, it looks like it was brought to justice more as "libel and harassment" than because of the political opinion (and apparently, the judgement ended up being favourable to the arrested guy), something any civilised country should be able to do. And it looks like in the majority of the cases, the justice reverted the sanction. In a fair civilised country, this is the expected process: if you don't sometimes start a judicial process on something that later turns out to not be a problem, then you probably are not a fair country. The world is a Gaussian curve: you will have "right-leaning" people unfairly accused as honest mistake, and you will have "left-leaning" people unfairly accused as honest mistake. The underlying opinion they may have is not illegal. In all of these countries, you can openly say you don't like the politician in power or say you don't agree. But it is very strange that when people complain about "freedom of speech", the large majority of the examples are about socially abusive behavior, of people trolling or insulting others.
- emptysongglass 3mo ago
  > But it looks like your examples are all examples of people being mean, or disruptive, or trolling. That doesn't and shouldn't matter. I don't want people getting arrested for doing any of these things, even if I disagree with them. Do you know how disruptive it is to your life, let alone your emotional health, to be arrested? I'm also a Dane. Denmark is worlds worse than the US in free speech and it's getting worse. This applies across the EU where people like the Spanish prime minister thinks no one deserves anonymity on the internet.
  - cauch 3mo ago
    > That doesn't and shouldn't matter. I fully disagree. Arrest should be "neutral", not based on the political content, but on the social intent. If you believe X is good for the society, good, talk about it, have a debate, bring arguments. If you believe X is good for the society but push for it by being a troll, then, you get arrested. Not because of what you've said, but because you have been a nuisance. The fact that you are being a nuisance just disqualifies you. If you are unable to have an adult behavior, you have nothing to bring to the discussion, and you shoot yourself in the foot. If I organise a debate and someone arrives, jumps on the table, drops their trousers and defecates in the middle of the table, it does not matter what are their opinion, it does not matter if I'm personally impacted by the presence of the poo, it does not matter if "you can just wipe it and proceed". This person chooses, by their action, to disqualify themselves. And the fact they then whine "by freedom of speech" as if they were the victim while they chosen, consciously, to be prick, is just pathetic.

spiderfarmer 3mo ago

I can say "I'm an atheist and I hate organised religion" without losing my job. Can Americans do that? I can say "I hate the orange clown (insert any other politician) and actively dislike everyone that voted for him", without getting a call from HR. Can they? I can't even enter the USA if I share some of the social media accounts like I'm legally required to do. The 'free speech absolutists' are all calling for censorship in this thread. So much for free speech.

Bolwin 3mo ago
Yes Americans can do both, unless their boss dislikes it, but that applies the world over.
- crote 3mo ago
  > that applies the world over It does not. Plenty of countries have functioning labor laws preventing you from being fired for your religious or political opinions.
fingerlocks 3mo ago
Um yeah you can do all of that without legal consequences. HR is not the government. Are these your best examples?
- spiderfarmer 3mo ago
  A society that values free expression should be uncomfortable with people being fired merely for holding a different political opinion from their boss. In the Netherlands, “political opinion” is explicitly listed as a protected discrimination ground. And in Europe generally, employee speech can fall under freedom of expression, though courts balance that against the employer’s interests, reputation, workplace disruption, etc. Meanwhile, in the US you'll get fired by phone while your boss is golfing. Freedom baby.
drstewart 3mo ago
>I can say "I'm an atheist and I hate organised religion" without losing my job. Unless you live in the UK https://old.reddit.com/r/justifiedpolitics/comments/1uocwp4/uk_police_arrest_a_man_for_calling_islam_an_evil/ https://old.reddit.com/r/justifiedpolitics/comments/1uocwp4/...
- cauch 3mo ago
  You understand that there is a difference between just expressing your opinion in a normal way, and, on purpose, creating confrontational situations, right? This guy is totally free to say he hates organised religion. He is not free to be a prick and go out of his way to try to get into a confrontation.
  - drstewart 3mo ago
    >He is not free to be a prick and go out of his way to try to get into a confrontation. You mean like saying at work you hate all organised religions, unprompted, like OP wants to do?
    - cauch 3mo ago
      Why do you say OP wants that? They said: > I can say "I'm an atheist and I hate organised religion" without losing my job. It did not say they say it at work, or unprompted. I think in US, if you mention it in a discussion on this subject at the water cooler between friends, it can have an impact on your work, you need to be careful (but I will not die on this hill, I don't think it's the important point anyway). The spirit of OP was about "talking about it", in a "normal way", I don't understand why you are saying that it is impossible to say you hate all organised religions without doing it unprompted or confrontationally. As for the video, come on, you really don't see the problem? Police usually are drilled to arrest people who can inflame the situation, and this is why they are acting here. I even wonder if it was not the goal of the guy in the first place, to generate clicks and arguing "see, we cannot express ourselves anymore".
      - 3mo ago

gadders 3mo ago

>> We have far fewer free speech rights in Europe than they do in the US. I'm in the UK. Mean tweets lead straight to jail now.

psd1 3mo ago
No wonder prisons are overcrowded, they must be full of twitter users.
monkey_monkey 3mo ago
Put down the drama bouquet, princess.
- gadders 3mo ago
  [flagged]

gf000 3mo ago

Posting a swastika is not free speech. All the rest, you have in the US as well (libel, etc).

Gareth321 3mo ago
[This is what he re-tweeted.](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/70/Swastika_ultra_pride_flag.webp https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/70/Swastika...) It might be in bad taste but arresting him and insisting he undergo re-education is crazy, and I can't believe you would defend it. No one gets arrested in the US for re-tweeting memes like this. As for the rest, you're free to call politicians fat idiots without being arrested in the US, and once again, I cannot believe you would defend arresting people for that.
- fragmede 3mo ago
  Not if you're an immigrant on a visa and talk shit about ICE online.
- gf000 3mo ago
  I haven't looked at the particular case, but nazism is a particular thing - given Europe's history it's there for a very good reason in most EU countries. I don't know about the 'fat idiot', but in most EU countries that's more than fine so I have a bit of a hard time believing that was the sole reason - public figures are fair target for stuff like that. The limit is actually planning or inciting violence against someone or a group - again, the same as in the US.
  - u8080 3mo ago
    Yes and US guys are plain wrong on swastika thing - you could even financially support open nazi militants like Azov battalion from most EU countries without any consequences.

KaiserPro 3mo ago

> Grok 4.5 isn't fascism. THat is a fair assertion. It is however a product of a regime that is currently debasing freedom and racially targeting its own citizens and causing them harm. Is it as bad as what happens to Chinese muslims? No. But does it have a disproportionate effect on the rest of the world? yes. Musk is funding authoritarianism in the UK. He is funding people that are causing racial division. He is promoting views that are antithetical to the core of U belief. Grok is a product of this man, and all that baggage.

cauch 3mo ago

But it looks like your examples are all examples of people being mean, or disruptive, or trolling. For example, for the first German arrested, it looks like it was brought to justice more as "libel and harassment" than because of the political opinion (and apparently, the judgement ended up being favourable to the arrested guy), something any civilised country should be able to do. And it looks like in the majority of the cases, the justice reverted the sanction. In a fair civilised country, this is the expected process: if you don't sometimes start a judicial process on something that later turns out to not be a problem, then you probably are not a fair country. The world is a Gaussian curve: you will have "right-leaning" people unfairly accused as honest mistake, and you will have "left-leaning" people unfairly accused as honest mistake. The underlying opinion they may have is not illegal. In all of these countries, you can openly say you don't like the politician in power or say you don't agree. But it is very strange that when people complain about "freedom of speech", the large majority of the examples are about socially abusive behavior, of people trolling or insulting others.

emptysongglass 3mo ago
> But it looks like your examples are all examples of people being mean, or disruptive, or trolling. That doesn't and shouldn't matter. I don't want people getting arrested for doing any of these things, even if I disagree with them. Do you know how disruptive it is to your life, let alone your emotional health, to be arrested? I'm also a Dane. Denmark is worlds worse than the US in free speech and it's getting worse. This applies across the EU where people like the Spanish prime minister thinks no one deserves anonymity on the internet.
- cauch 3mo ago
  > That doesn't and shouldn't matter. I fully disagree. Arrest should be "neutral", not based on the political content, but on the social intent. If you believe X is good for the society, good, talk about it, have a debate, bring arguments. If you believe X is good for the society but push for it by being a troll, then, you get arrested. Not because of what you've said, but because you have been a nuisance. The fact that you are being a nuisance just disqualifies you. If you are unable to have an adult behavior, you have nothing to bring to the discussion, and you shoot yourself in the foot. If I organise a debate and someone arrives, jumps on the table, drops their trousers and defecates in the middle of the table, it does not matter what are their opinion, it does not matter if I'm personally impacted by the presence of the poo, it does not matter if "you can just wipe it and proceed". This person chooses, by their action, to disqualify themselves. And the fact they then whine "by freedom of speech" as if they were the victim while they chosen, consciously, to be prick, is just pathetic.