4 ms·

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

by 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.
  - bluegatty 3mo ago
    There should be no arrest without obvious evidence of a crime. These thinngs are not complicated - aka collecting evidence and testimony. It's just 'what some guy said on twitter'. They can literally apply an algo to determine whether it's lawful or not. And it should almost never be unlawful. 'Hate Speech' is as not remotely dangerous as lies and people acting in bad faith. (Not saying I support egregious forms of hate speech, but we should strongly err on the side of open expressoin). The most dangerous people are those lying for political or ideological causes, which is completely legal (and probably shoudl be) but we have to watch out for it.
    - cauch 3mo ago
      Which "arrest" are you even talking about? And which "evidence" are you talking about? In these examples, these people are getting into trouble for being pricks. There is plenty of evidence about them, objectively, being pricks. As for the consequences, as I've said, my point is that the world is a Gaussian curve: the majority of cases will be "well-proportionate", the existence of outliers does not demonstrate oppression. Especially when some of these cases were condemned as disproportionate by even "left-wing" people. > 'Hate Speech' is as not remotely dangerous as lies and people acting in bad faith. While I agree lies and bad faith should have more consequences, the thing is that "Hate Speech" is utterly useless. "Hate Speech" is never needed to express your opinion."Hate Speech" is never needed to propose solution, or convince someone else that your idea is good. It is like saying "well, I randomly spit in people in the street, but it's not as bad as lying, so why are people faster to condemn my actions". Because spitting is useless, it does not bring anything, you don't need to do it.
      - bluegatty 3mo ago
        If you think that people should be arrested for 'being pricks' then you are the problem here entirely. Your assessment here that somehow 'language that does not propose a solution' should somehow be banned is Orwellian. People can say what they want unless a direct call to assault. Everything else is a choice - people want to use the N-word in their place of work -> they get fired. In front a a judge -> fined. Walking down the street -> people avoid them like turds. People lying on social media -> fact checked, marginalized, punted form the Televised Debate. None of that is illegal.
Gareth321 3mo ago
> But it looks like your examples are all examples of people being mean, or disruptive, or trolling. It looks like you aren't disagreeing with me. You're agreeing with me that Europe has worse and fewer free speech rights. You appear to like that Europe has worse and fewer free speech rights. In the US, one has the right to be mean, disruptive, and troll, without being arrested. We do not.
- cauch 3mo ago
  No, I disagree: in Europe, you can talk about more subjects and have civilised debates around more topics that would get you in trouble in US. Unrelated to that, I like that in Europe, people who are mean, disruptive or trolling get punished for their childish behaviors. It does not affect freedom of speech, these people have chosen to act like idiots, they did not needed to act like that to express their speech. Then, if you are saying that on some opinions, the majority of the people who hold these opinions are unable to use proper arguments and civilised debates and resort to being pricks, then I guess it indicates the level of sophistication of these opinions. It is not a freedom of speech problem, the problem is that that opinions is mainly shared by terrible people unable to behave.
  - Gareth321 3mo ago
    > in Europe, you can talk about more subjects and have civilised debates around more topics that would get you in trouble in US. Be specific please. It looks like you're trying to blur the lines now by using words like "in trouble" when the discussion is around free speech and the legal boundaries. But I won't accuse you of that unless you actually do it, so please explain which free speech us Europeans may practise which would get an US citizen into legal trouble. > Unrelated to that, I like that in Europe, people who are mean, disruptive or trolling get punished for their childish behaviors. It does not affect freedom of speech, these people have chosen to act like idiots, they did not needed to act like that to express their speech. Freedom of speech requires the right to offend. You don't know what you say might offend someone until you've already said it. If you're required to not offend someone, you must exercise enormous self-censorship. The right to not offend is antithetical to the principle of free speech.

by cauch 3mo ago

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.
- bluegatty 3mo ago
  There should be no arrest without obvious evidence of a crime. These thinngs are not complicated - aka collecting evidence and testimony. It's just 'what some guy said on twitter'. They can literally apply an algo to determine whether it's lawful or not. And it should almost never be unlawful. 'Hate Speech' is as not remotely dangerous as lies and people acting in bad faith. (Not saying I support egregious forms of hate speech, but we should strongly err on the side of open expressoin). The most dangerous people are those lying for political or ideological causes, which is completely legal (and probably shoudl be) but we have to watch out for it.
  - cauch 3mo ago
    Which "arrest" are you even talking about? And which "evidence" are you talking about? In these examples, these people are getting into trouble for being pricks. There is plenty of evidence about them, objectively, being pricks. As for the consequences, as I've said, my point is that the world is a Gaussian curve: the majority of cases will be "well-proportionate", the existence of outliers does not demonstrate oppression. Especially when some of these cases were condemned as disproportionate by even "left-wing" people. > 'Hate Speech' is as not remotely dangerous as lies and people acting in bad faith. While I agree lies and bad faith should have more consequences, the thing is that "Hate Speech" is utterly useless. "Hate Speech" is never needed to express your opinion."Hate Speech" is never needed to propose solution, or convince someone else that your idea is good. It is like saying "well, I randomly spit in people in the street, but it's not as bad as lying, so why are people faster to condemn my actions". Because spitting is useless, it does not bring anything, you don't need to do it.
    - bluegatty 3mo ago
      If you think that people should be arrested for 'being pricks' then you are the problem here entirely. Your assessment here that somehow 'language that does not propose a solution' should somehow be banned is Orwellian. People can say what they want unless a direct call to assault. Everything else is a choice - people want to use the N-word in their place of work -> they get fired. In front a a judge -> fined. Walking down the street -> people avoid them like turds. People lying on social media -> fact checked, marginalized, punted form the Televised Debate. None of that is illegal.

Gareth321 3mo ago

> But it looks like your examples are all examples of people being mean, or disruptive, or trolling. It looks like you aren't disagreeing with me. You're agreeing with me that Europe has worse and fewer free speech rights. You appear to like that Europe has worse and fewer free speech rights. In the US, one has the right to be mean, disruptive, and troll, without being arrested. We do not.

cauch 3mo ago
No, I disagree: in Europe, you can talk about more subjects and have civilised debates around more topics that would get you in trouble in US. Unrelated to that, I like that in Europe, people who are mean, disruptive or trolling get punished for their childish behaviors. It does not affect freedom of speech, these people have chosen to act like idiots, they did not needed to act like that to express their speech. Then, if you are saying that on some opinions, the majority of the people who hold these opinions are unable to use proper arguments and civilised debates and resort to being pricks, then I guess it indicates the level of sophistication of these opinions. It is not a freedom of speech problem, the problem is that that opinions is mainly shared by terrible people unable to behave.
- Gareth321 3mo ago
  > in Europe, you can talk about more subjects and have civilised debates around more topics that would get you in trouble in US. Be specific please. It looks like you're trying to blur the lines now by using words like "in trouble" when the discussion is around free speech and the legal boundaries. But I won't accuse you of that unless you actually do it, so please explain which free speech us Europeans may practise which would get an US citizen into legal trouble. > Unrelated to that, I like that in Europe, people who are mean, disruptive or trolling get punished for their childish behaviors. It does not affect freedom of speech, these people have chosen to act like idiots, they did not needed to act like that to express their speech. Freedom of speech requires the right to offend. You don't know what you say might offend someone until you've already said it. If you're required to not offend someone, you must exercise enormous self-censorship. The right to not offend is antithetical to the principle of free speech.