Kuribo64
Views: 7,789,116 Home | Forums | Uploader | Wiki | Object databases | IRC
Rules/FAQ | Memberlist | Calendar | Stats | Online users | Last posts | Search
12-14-17 07:44 PM
Guest:

0 users reading Freedom of speech: absolute vs. reasoned. | 1 bot

Main - Serious discussion - Freedom of speech: absolute vs. reasoned. New reply

Pages: 1 2
GalacticPirate
Posted on 11-28-17 04:05 PM Link | #91490
Hey, so I though I'd make something about FoS because I feel like it wildly diverges between the US and Europe. Apparently, in the US, it has absolutely no limit, and it scares me. Carl Popper himself said a society couldn't be stable if you were tolerant to intolerant people. That's why in France hate speech is forbidden, and you can go in jail for it.
2. What are the limits to freedom of speech under French law?

In practice, France has many laws limiting freedom of expression. Some are not surprising: child pornography is illegal, for example (Code Pénal [Criminal Code], art. 227-23), and libel is not protected by freedom of speech (Law of 1881, art. 29). Others might be more surprising to an American observer. In 2000, for example, a law was adopted to reinforce the presumption of innocence of defendants accused of having committed a crime. One of the aims of this law was to prohibit the media from presenting the suspect or accused in a manner that would imply that he/she was guilty – for example, by publishing a picture of the subject in handcuffs.

Another area where French law is widely divergent from American law is the topic of hate speech. The Law of 1881 was amended in 1972 to prohibit hate speech intended to “provoke discrimination, hate, or violence towards a person or a group of people because of their origin or because they belong or do not belong to a certain ethnic group, nation, race, or religion”. In subsequent years, this was expanded to include hate speech based on gender, sexual orientation or identity, and disability. The Law of 1881 was again amended in 1990 to make the denial of crimes against humanity, as defined by the Nuremberg Charter, illegal. Most recently, the law was again amended to prohibit speech advocating or justifying terrorism.

That text explains the differences between FoS in France and in the US. And I think American Freedom of Speech is not viable in a civilized world.

Belsaw
Posted on 11-28-17 06:36 PM (rev. 2 of 11-28-17 06:54 PM) Link | #91495
I'd like to start by saying it is 100% false that there is no limit on free speech in the United States. I cannot go to up to someone and say to them "I bet you can't get me, [insert racial slur here]" because I would be arrested for using fighting words. I cannot falsely accuse someone of rape because that would be libel or slander. I cannot shout "bomb" in an airport because I would be endagering the public.

Yes, hate speech is protected as free speech in the US. Hate speech laws do not work. And here's why. (I held off on making this threads because I needed to find some sources but oh well.)

Believe it or not, Weimar Germany had hate speech laws. You can bet many Nazis were arrested. Hitler was even banned from giving speeches in Bavaria. So what happened? The Nazis claimed victimhood and in the end it did not prevent them from coming to power. Rather, once the Nazis came to power they used those very hate speech laws to silence their opponents. If the Alt-Right were to come to power in say Britain or Germany, they would probably use the current hate speech laws in those countries to silence their opponents.

Another problem is political correctness has gone way too far. Sure, that is usually a right-wing talking point but leftists such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Sam Harris, Kyle Kulinski, and Bill Maher all agree there is way too much political correctness. Look at Britain. I could have sworn there was a BBC article (yes, BBC not Breitbart) on a victim of the grooming gangs in the UK who reported her abusers and was threatened to be arrested for "hate speech" because her abusers were from Muslim-majority countries. Then there is Count Dankula, who was arrested for "hate speech" because he made his pug do the Nazi salute as joke against the Nazis.

Pardon my language but this is fucking insane. I do not like to talk about religion often (I am anti-religion) but I will make this an exception. As Sam Harris points out, Islam is not a religion of peace. The phrase "Islam is a religion of peace" was actually coined by George W. Bush. You know, that idiot, liar, or both who invaded Iraq on a false pretense? Islam is a religion. Islamism is an ideology. Religions and ideologies are ideas, and no ideas should get free passes from criticism.

So what does this have to do with free speech? Well, it's backfiring. Particularly in Western Europe. And it is backfiring massively. The increase of political correctness is only empowering both the Alt-Right (causing them to claim victimhood) and the Islamists (causing them to believe they are free from being criticized). You see, when you constantly accuse and character assassinate someone of "hate speech", "being a Nazi", "being a bigot", etc., you are only helping them actually become what you accuse of them of being because the Alt-Right and Neo-Nazis say to them that it is "proof" they belong to the movement. Why else do you think the Alt-Right and the far-right in general are on the rise in Europe?

This is why hate speech should be protected free speech. When you ban hate speech you drive it underground and it becomes attractive because "it seems cool". This is the same reason why banning drug use does not work. You drive it underground and people see drug use as "cool" because you are being all "edgy" for breaking the law.

So if hate speech should not be banned then how should we fight t? Simple answer: debate it! If you see some far-right extremist going on about "Jews control the world", "Blacks are all violent and inferior", "All Muslims are terrorists", etc. please don't get them arrested for hate speech. You'll only further radicalize them. Debate them, tell them why they wrong, and you might even help to deradicalize them! If you do not debate them and call them out then they will remain in their far-right echo chamber.

Another thing is, definitely do not hit anyone who is Alt-Right or who you just do not agree with on the head with a bat or bikelock in the name of "anti-fascism". Unless they are physically threatening or harming you or others, you will be committing assault and will be giving actual anti-fascism a bad reputation. (As if Berkeley is not already notorious. What a shame, it used to be the center of free speech and science.) Huey Long (Bernie Sanders' precursor) warned back in the 1930's "the fascists of the future will call themselves anti-fascists". He is half-right, which is unfortunate. There are still the 1920's-40's-style fascists today but now there are violent anarchists who behave eerily similar to the Brownshirts of Weimar Germany. These violent anarchists give a very bad name to both anti-fascism and anarchist groups that do more good than harm like the PKK in Turkey (considered a "terrorist group" by NATO who supported actual terrorists like Neo-Nazis in Ukraine and Islamists in Libya and Syria) and the Zapatistas in Mexico. Not only that but the violent anarchists have assaulted blacks, Jews, and LGBT people who are Trump supporters. I disagree with Trump supporters on many things but they have a right to free speech. Otherwise, you will not be able to debate them and they will remain in their Trumpian echo chamber.

I used to consider myself a proud leftist and proud socialist ages ago. But this increase of political correctness and the promotion of violence to deplatform anyone with differing opinions along with me being accused of being a "bigot" and a "Nazi-enabler" has made me no longer identify on anywhere on the political spectrum. I still do sympathize with libertarian and socialist views, but apparently I am now considered a "conservative". Which is odd considering that the radical feminists who often hold such views like those above, especially TERFS and those who consider me a "misogynist" for being kinda sexually attracted to only men, have much more in common with social conservatives than social liberals. Feminism is another topic I do not like to get deep into but here I am I guess. In case you are wondering, I do consider the horseshoe theory to be valid. Case in point, National Bolsheviks.

Lastly, imagine if the US did have hate speech laws. Not only would society be even worse but the government might have even abused such laws to silence critics. Donald Trump might have had his critics arrested for "hate speech towards whites" and if Hillary Clinton was US President she might have had her critics arrested for "Nazi misogyny". Here is an excellent Intercept article on why if the US had hate speech laws it would hurt leftists more than actual Nazis.

GalacticPirate
Posted on 11-29-17 07:37 AM Link | #91514
Honestly, saying "if it exists it will automatically go to the extremes" is quite the bullshit. Charlie Hebdo was backed up and supported by everyone in France in the name of freedom of Speech, while they openly used dark humor. You cannot use hate speech laws to "put criticizers in jail", because it'd be against law, and because there is a separation of powers: the executive has NO power on justice.
No, I do not consider US free speech to be true free speech, I consider it to be an archaic piece of shit that does not belong in our species. I don't care about idiots claming bullshit about immigration & Co. I do care about people saying Mexican are all rapists though. The law does not say "you can say anything is hate speech", no, no, no. This is not a valid argument against hate speech laws. There is an independent justice (if it was that simple, why wouldn't Trump force the FBI and the CIA to stop any case against him?) that judges oif something is real hate speech, like the antisemtic "humorist" Dieudonné. There is a real line between true hate speech and dark humor, and anyone with a brain, including the INDEPENDENT judges, can see.

Finally, no, Islam is not a "religion of peace", but neither are any of the main monotheistic religions. But Jews and Christians, for a majority, stopped interpreting a dusty book to the letter and actually changed, while there is still a nonzero prioportion of Muslims (i.e. Iranian and Saudi govts, as well as Islamists) who still do that stupidly.

Belsaw
Posted on 11-29-17 09:00 AM Link | #91516
Posted by GalacticPirate
No, I do not consider US free speech to be true free speech, I consider it to be an archaic piece of shit that does not belong in our species.


Whoa whoa whoa. I could say the same about Western Europe's constantly devolving idea of "free speech" that is approaching Orwellian levels.

You say hate speech laws cannot be abused by governments because it is illegal. Now, I agree with what you said at the end of your post about Abrahamic religions. But if you were post that on FaceBook or Twitter it could get you arrested in some Western European countries for what you said about Islam. Maybe not France but it very well could in Britain, Germany, or Sweden. I really wish I was joking and making this up but I am not. If you want a better example, take a look at Mr. Ugly Face aka Heiko Maas. Mr. Ugly Face wants to extrajudicially fine FaceBook and Twitter, US companies based in the US, for not removing hate speech. So what is hate speech according to him? Holocaust denial and racial slurs, right? Well, it's not only that but also criticism of Merkel's handling of the migrant crisis and the Cologne New Year's Eve mass rapes because apparently it is "Islamophobia". How lovely! And then they wonder why the far right is on the rise.

No seriously, imagine if even a hard right government were to come power in say France. Who is to say they will not arrest critics for "anti-white racism"? Who is to say such a hard right government will not make up excuses like "calling us enablers of reactionary politics is like calling Jews enablers of Marxist indoctrination"? Because similar non-sequiturs are used to silence legitimate criticism of Israel. "You accuse Israel of committing ethnic cleansing against Palestinians therefore you are just like the white supremacists who accuse Jews of 'white genocide'".

Yes, it is racist to say "Mexicans are all rapists". There is no denying that. But if instead explaining why it's wrong, people just arrest the person who say it, then it only furthers that person's racist views. Again, who is to say just reporting a single actual rapist will not be considered "hate speech" by a corrupt or paranoid government?

But wait, the government would never abuse hate speech laws because that would be illegal, right? Well then, was it legal for the German government to help the NSA spy on the Austrian government? Was it legal for the French government and all the other NATO countries help the US lie to the UN in order to be able support Islamist rebels in Libya under guise of "anti-Gaddafi democratic freedom fighters"? If everyone in the government is essentially a yesman there can be no true checks and balances. This is what the Nazis did when they overwhemingly won most of the seats in the Weimar Bundestag. Governments are not infalliable and the insanity of these hate speech laws show this.

GalacticPirate
Posted on 11-29-17 01:20 PM Link | #91518
You didn’t understand my point. In France and most democracies, powers are separated. The governmebts have actually no control over justice, and if such control was revealed in a certain case, all of the government would be sent in jail. I know how some of the Islam-influenced far-left accuses thise who denounce some islamist-friendly « intellectuals » of being « Islamophonic ». But this has no relation with the piwer. A good democracy is built so abuses are not facilititaed. Maybe in the US what you describe about putting opponents in jail could be the case, but it can’t be in France. But France, since 1789, has been built around the Declaration if Human Rights, and racism has always been illegal.

LeftyGreenMario
Posted on 11-29-17 06:58 PM (rev. 3 of 11-29-17 07:09 PM) Link | #91525
While it's nice and dandy that "we should debate them and give them a platform" seems like if you just debate those who spout off crap, it'll just reinforce their crap. And there's the toxicity they promote in certain places. It would certainly affect me if my college gave someone like Milo Yiannpoulos a megaphone to scream how women are ugly fat sluts and deserve to be raped and have their voting rights taken away. And there's the thing that if you respond to them, you make their view seem legitimate. It's like giving Holocaust deniers and Holocaust scholars a spot in a debate to make deniers seem like they're on the same level as the scholars. I don't want that either. They should be ignored but there is this toxicity they carry around so I don't think we should enable them either.

I don't think we should give them a platform because either way makes them feel like they're getting noticed.

Posted by GalacticPirate
Finally, no, Islam is not a "religion of peace", but neither are any of the main monotheistic religions. But Jews and Christians, for a majority, stopped interpreting a dusty book to the letter and actually changed, while there is still a nonzero prioportion of Muslims (i.e. Iranian and Saudi govts, as well as Islamists) who still do that stupidly.


>Israel
>"Debate" over teaching evolution in schools
>Pro-life in general
>Christian fundamentalists being in positions of power in the U.S. (i.e. the Religious Right being a thing)
>"""War""" on Christmas
>"America is founded as a Christian nation"
>Roy Moore having any sort of political power

Nah

I give it to you that Islamic theocracy is shit though and the countries are living from the consequences of Islam doing its job at stifling scientific advancement back.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/epiphenom/2016/01/how-religious-schools-lead-to-the-decline-of-arabic-science.html

fiver
Posted on 11-29-17 08:51 PM Link | #91531
Posted by LeftyGreenMario
While it's nice and dandy that "we should debate them and give them a platform" seems like if you just debate those who spout off crap, it'll just reinforce their crap. And there's the toxicity they promote in certain places. It would certainly affect me if my college gave someone like Milo Yiannpoulos a megaphone to scream how women are ugly fat sluts and deserve to be raped and have their voting rights taken away. And there's the thing that if you respond to them, you make their view seem legitimate. It's like giving Holocaust deniers and Holocaust scholars a spot in a debate to make deniers seem like they're on the same level as the scholars. I don't want that either. They should be ignored but there is this toxicity they carry around so I don't think we should enable them either.

I don't think we should give them a platform because either way makes them feel like they're getting noticed.

>Israel
>Pro-life in general

the jews got kicked out of their home, they're the most historically disenfranchised group on the planet, just give them their goddamn Israel

also, Pro-life isn't exactly just religious people and their beliefs. I can see why people would disapprove of the ending of a fetus, but some people do take it too far, yeah.

I'm not really that religious anymore but holy shit nobody gives Jews a break
-fiverpost™
[image]

GalacticPirate
Posted on 11-30-17 07:06 AM Link | #91539
Well yeah, the problem with Israel is that becacause of true antisemitic idiots who use 'antizionism' as an excuse for their anti-Jew discrimination, you can't give constructive criticism about the Israeli far-right government who go wayy to far (even though we can't really say Palestinians are completely innocent. (*cough* Hamas *cough*).
Also yeah, few people know that Arabic Science was actually major back in the 1000s. But theocracies kinda ruined that...

fiver
Posted on 12-01-17 10:14 PM Link | #91583
my point is more about the fact that israel does infact belong to the jews, saying they should go somewhere else is like saying the Native Americans should go somewhere else lol

whatever the way their government is run, so be it, not the point I was trying to make :P

(also I find it ironic these are the same people who parade around calling people "nazis" when infact they don't give a shit)
-fiverpost™
[image]

GalacticPirate
Posted on 12-02-17 01:41 PM Link | #91601
Well, technically, in 1949 they were about to split the territory, but idiotic surrounding Arabic countries decided to attack Israel and it screwed everything. Ironically, now the Palestinians don't have their own country because of other Arabs...

fiver
Posted on 12-02-17 08:03 PM Link | #91612
also, general consensus:

do you consider threats not worthy of protected under free speech?

I think they shouldn't. There's a fucking huge difference between "i hate jews" and "i'll kill that stupid jew"

threats are PHYSICALLY harmful in cases, so that's my stance (and I love freedom of speech lol but threats take it too far)
-fiverpost™
[image]

natnew
Posted on 12-04-17 08:05 PM Link | #91691
Posted by fiver
also, general consensus:

do you consider threats not worthy of protected under free speech?

I think they shouldn't. There's a fucking huge difference between "i hate jews" and "i'll kill that stupid jew"

threats are PHYSICALLY harmful in cases, so that's my stance (and I love freedom of speech lol but threats take it too far)


Agree. I'm usually more on the "say whatever" side, but this I agree on 100%.

____________________
http://natnew32.proboards.com/index.cgi


[image][image][image][image][image]

[image][image][image]

LeftyGreenMario
Posted on 12-05-17 03:49 PM (rev. 2 of 12-05-17 03:50 PM) Link | #91714
would be difficult to enforce. death threats should simply not be tolerated. it really depends on the threat, but I think we already have some enforcement response if the threat is bad enough, but I think it's also inadequate given the wild place of the internet

Posted by fiver
the jews got kicked out of their home, they're the most historically disenfranchised group on the planet, just give them their goddamn Israel

given the current state of affairs, despite jews being a persecuted minority, israel doesn't have a great track record for peace or human rights. I don't think vengeance is the right solution; sounds naive to me.

fiver
Posted on 12-05-17 05:51 PM Link | #91728
Posted by LeftyGreenMario
I don't think vengeance is the right solution

who said anything about vengeance? I meant that I support Israel belonging to the Jews because that's their home

not like the palestinians have ever done much to benefit human rights kek
Posted by LeftyGreenMario
would be difficult to enforce. death threats should simply not be tolerated. it really depends on the threat, but I think we already have some enforcement response if the threat is bad enough, but I think it's also inadequate given the wild place of the internet

well said, it'd be real hard to distinguish legitimately insane people trying to kill somebody than somebody joking around or being an asshole on the internet.
regardless I don't think of it as free speech when it's not inherently clear you are joking
-fiverpost™
[image]

Baby Luigi
Posted on 12-07-17 06:18 PM Link | #91782
In my point of view, I don't think assholes should be legally jailed for saying very douchebaggy things, because I think that's an extremity and it veers on possible censorship. Rather, that person deserves to get ostracized by society. Ban him from entering other countries, have the media lambast him constantly, punish him for not acting appropriate, drop any sort of sponsorship (like what happened to Rush Limbaugh after calling a woman a "slut"), don't be elected for any position of power, etc.

People love to throw around freedom of speech as an excuse to say awful things, but what they don't understand that there isn't freedom of consequence.

In short, this xcdc comic sums up my thoughts regarding the matter.

[thumbnail]

Belsaw
Posted on 12-10-17 09:37 PM Link | #91900
The problem I have with that comic is violent anarchists and their defenders use it as "proof" that it is "morally just" to assault anyone you disagree with. Uh, no. Just because someone does not have freedom from consequences it does not mean one has the right physically attack anyone.

This whole obsession with moralism has created some of the darkest ages in humanity such as the Inquisition, the Salem Witch Trials, the Holocaust, Daesh, etc.

Baby Luigi
Posted on 12-11-17 06:06 PM Link | #91925
Physically attacking anyone, whether you're punching Nazis or not, is barbaric behavior that makes you instantly lose the argument the moment you touch another person just because he said nasty bullcrap.

We're humans. We're better than this.

I think.

fiver
Posted on 12-11-17 07:54 PM Link | #91932
yeah, riots are fucking bullshit

you can't claim free speech once you break that window or set that on fire

that's called vandalism
-fiverpost™
[image]

Baby Luigi
Posted on 12-12-17 03:23 PM Link | #91957
I don't understand how breaking a window or setting dumpster fires is considered "free speech". If you're doing that, I'm sure that violates one of our amendments that give us the right to peacefully protest (I'm not sure if it's still the first amendment or if it's another amendment).

Belsaw
Posted on 12-12-17 06:09 PM Link | #91966
Yeah, the First Amendment says "right to peaceably assemble". But that doesn't matter to the rioters because they think the entire US Constitution is the same thing as the Nuremberg Laws, kinda like how many Neo-Nazis (or at least the anti-American ones) think the entire US Constitution is the same thing as the Communist Manifesto or is some "Jewish-globalist document". (Hm, the far-left and far-right do seem to think alike.)

Relatedly, I think a riot simulator with COD: WWII graphics should be made. I've kinda always wondered what it's like to throw a propane tank at a car or set a restaurant on fire. Maybe such a game could also help reduce actual riots. But you know, the Religious Right and the Regressive Left are going to go off about "violent games causing 'microaggressions'" or something.
Pages: 1 2

Main - Serious discussion - Freedom of speech: absolute vs. reasoned. New reply

Page rendered in 0.030 seconds. (2048KB of memory used)
MySQL - queries: 29, rows: 232/232, time: 0.015 seconds.
[powered by Acmlm] Acmlmboard 2.064 (2017-11-20)
© 2005-2008 Acmlm, Xkeeper, blackhole89 et al.