Europe restricts free speech
-
IMO yes, so long as they are sensibly enforced. We already have legal provisions for open speech that are not affected by those laws, so as long as they are only used for extreme cases and always (as I suspect they would be) in a public court then they may well act as a safeguard against intentionally inciteful speech/actions. Free speech should be thought of more as free thought and discussion -- it is not the act of speaking that is important, it is the fact that you can do so and have open debate about it without fear of punishment. That is still possible so long as you are prepared to stand up and answer any questions. There are no re-education camps being built here.
Ðavid Wulff What kind of music should programmers listen to?
Join the Code Project Last.fm group | dwulff
I'm so gangsta I eat cereal without the milk -
And who defines 'common decency', you? the MCB? Would a statement along the lines of 'Mohammed was a murderous paedophile and epileptic conman, who's supposed revelations were nothing but a mish mash of Arab tribal superstition and his own misunderstanding of Christian and Jewish theology' fall under your definition of 'common decency'? Its certainly offensive, and backed by plenty of evidence. Not far off the description of Islam in the catholic encyclopaedia either.
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
within the bounds of common decency
My idea of common decency? Yours? A militant Islamists? A homophobic Christian bible salesmans? A lesbian feminists?
I'm pretty sure I would not like to live in a world in which I would never be offended. I am absolutely certain I don't want to live in a world in which you would never be offended. Dave
-
All laws from time to time need to be updated to reflect the here and now. In terms of blasphemy statutes, what would you like to see included or excluded, and why.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
In terms of blasphemy statutes, what would you like to see included or excluded, and why.
To my knowledge, we don't have such statutes in the United States because we were founded on the principle of freedom of religion. The mere adherence to one religion over another could be viewed by blasphemy to many. In fact, I'm pretty sure that a blasphemy law would be considered a fundamentally unconstitional restriction of speech and religion and I believe there should be none on the books. However, secularists seem to be pushing to restrict speech they find unpalatable. For example, Barack Obama recently called Don Imus's comments "verbal violence", which opens the possibility of legal restriction.
-
IMO yes, so long as they are sensibly enforced. We already have legal provisions for open speech that are not affected by those laws, so as long as they are only used for extreme cases and always (as I suspect they would be) in a public court then they may well act as a safeguard against intentionally inciteful speech/actions. Free speech should be thought of more as free thought and discussion -- it is not the act of speaking that is important, it is the fact that you can do so and have open debate about it without fear of punishment. That is still possible so long as you are prepared to stand up and answer any questions. There are no re-education camps being built here.
Ðavid Wulff What kind of music should programmers listen to?
Join the Code Project Last.fm group | dwulff
I'm so gangsta I eat cereal without the milkDavid Wulff wrote:
fear of punishment
How about reprisal? Our government should intervene to protect free speech, not legislate to take more of it away.
-
Russell Morris wrote:
A specific person, a specific group of people, or a general categorization of people?
All of them.
Russell Morris wrote:
Lying about someone intentionally (i.e. you know what you're saying is false) specifically to hurt them somehow is considered slander in the US. But note that it's not the same as free speech - i.e. free, unrestricted expression of thought without regard for the status quo. Slander is intentionally lying for the purpose of hurting or defaming someone. Slander is considered a civil offense (as opposed to a criminal offense) in the US.
That was the point I am trying to make here. Somebody said it is an unavoidable consequence of free speech. Although it is, it should not be allowed to happen.
----- Formerly MP(2) If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby. -- Unknown
Le Centriste wrote:
All of them.
Ok. Attacks against a specific person, clearly named, who had not put themselves in the public eye might be considered slander if the attacks were knowingly false, and designed to harm that person, their property, and/or their reputation. Attacks against a larger group of people, a category of people, or a very well known public figure would not be considered slander. The one gotcha is that a really egregious attack against a public figure could be slander, but it'd have to be really bad. For example, South Park had an episode last year that mocked Scientology and said Tom Cruise was gay. Scientology couldn't sue them for slander because the attacks weren't knowingly false and weren't directed at a specific person. Tom Cruise couldn't sue because he's chosen to be a famous public figure, and has thus opened himself barbs, jokes, public speculation, etc... If South Park had said that an otherwise unknown person was a pedophile because they were angry at him and wanted to hurt him, that would probably be considered slander. Entertainment and art are given a very long leash in this regard.
Le Centriste wrote:
That was the point I am trying to make here. Somebody said it is an unavoidable consequence of free speech. Although it is, it should not be allowed to happen.
Like all other interesting discussion in life, it's complicated :). Hurt feelings and offense are unavoidable with free speech. Wielding knowingly false statements as weapons against someone else is wrong, however. The interpretation of free speech laws in the US is best seen as footholds placed as high as possible on the slippery slope of thought-control. There are a few situations where it's necessary for a functional society, but it's an absolute last resort.
-- Russell Morris Morbo: "WINDMILLS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY!"
-
Le Centriste wrote:
All of them.
Ok. Attacks against a specific person, clearly named, who had not put themselves in the public eye might be considered slander if the attacks were knowingly false, and designed to harm that person, their property, and/or their reputation. Attacks against a larger group of people, a category of people, or a very well known public figure would not be considered slander. The one gotcha is that a really egregious attack against a public figure could be slander, but it'd have to be really bad. For example, South Park had an episode last year that mocked Scientology and said Tom Cruise was gay. Scientology couldn't sue them for slander because the attacks weren't knowingly false and weren't directed at a specific person. Tom Cruise couldn't sue because he's chosen to be a famous public figure, and has thus opened himself barbs, jokes, public speculation, etc... If South Park had said that an otherwise unknown person was a pedophile because they were angry at him and wanted to hurt him, that would probably be considered slander. Entertainment and art are given a very long leash in this regard.
Le Centriste wrote:
That was the point I am trying to make here. Somebody said it is an unavoidable consequence of free speech. Although it is, it should not be allowed to happen.
Like all other interesting discussion in life, it's complicated :). Hurt feelings and offense are unavoidable with free speech. Wielding knowingly false statements as weapons against someone else is wrong, however. The interpretation of free speech laws in the US is best seen as footholds placed as high as possible on the slippery slope of thought-control. There are a few situations where it's necessary for a functional society, but it's an absolute last resort.
-- Russell Morris Morbo: "WINDMILLS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY!"
Russell Morris wrote:
South Park had an episode last year that mocked Scientology and said Tom Cruise was gay
:laugh: Well...Technically, he just sat in the closet the whole episode. They never called him anything.
-
Ryan Roberts wrote:
Just wait for the blasphemy legislation that's sure to follow.
The Pope noted concern over the increasing secularization of Europe and its tendency to criminalize opposing viewpoints such as this. Once they decide that opposing abortion or gay marriage constitutes a bigoted or sexist hate crime...poof. The Catholic Church is gone.
-
Red Stateler wrote:
The Catholic Church is gone.
What will they do with all their riches?
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS
Al Beback wrote:
What will they do with all their riches?
The EU will syphon it all into the indoctrination programs.
-
Le Centriste wrote:
What would you say if someone came to you and said "9/11 never happened"?
I would say they're goofy and point to all the evidence. I most certainly would NOT jail them for it. Would you?
"I'm a great believer in luck, and I find the harder I work the more I have of it." - Thomas Jefferson
Mike Mullikin wrote:
I most certainly would NOT jail them for it.
What if they succeed in convincing a large number of people? It's not about constricting free speech. It's about constricting lies and deception. Although, I am a bit perplexed as to why Lenin/Stalin's, Franco's and Mussolini's atrocities weren't added to the list.
-- Raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
-
Joy, and it plays right into the hands of the Islamist critics who falsely stated that holocaust denial was illegal in Europe, and therefore drawing cocks on pictures of Old Mo was hypocritical. Just wait for the blasphemy legislation that's sure to follow. Oh, and holocaust schmolocaust, it never happened.
Ryan Roberts wrote:
Oh, and holocaust schmolocaust, it never happened.
Sarcasm, I reckon. :~
-- Raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
-
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
When will conservatives learn that social problems are not solvable by throwing more laws and regulations at them?
Are you suggesting that the EU is conservative? :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
"I'm a great believer in luck, and I find the harder I work the more I have of it." - Thomas Jefferson
Mike Mullikin wrote:
Are you suggesting that the EU is conservative?
Don't forget that the EU isn't one monolithic element. Each member country selects and sends their representatives there. Conservative governments send conservatives, liberal governments send liberals, and socialist governments send socialists.
-- Raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
-
Mike Mullikin wrote:
I most certainly would NOT jail them for it.
What if they succeed in convincing a large number of people? It's not about constricting free speech. It's about constricting lies and deception. Although, I am a bit perplexed as to why Lenin/Stalin's, Franco's and Mussolini's atrocities weren't added to the list.
-- Raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
Joergen Sigvardsson wrote:
What if they succeed in convincing a large number of people?
Meh! A fool can be convinced of anything. The government can never control stupidity. Now if speech incites violence then it becomes illegal.
Joergen Sigvardsson wrote:
I am a bit perplexed as to why Lenin/Stalin's, Franco's and Mussolini's atrocities weren't added to the list.
To me that was one of the glaring flaws that makes the whole thing wrong. When the government limits speech the government has too much control.
"I'm a great believer in luck, and I find the harder I work the more I have of it." - Thomas Jefferson
-
Mike Mullikin wrote:
Are you suggesting that the EU is conservative?
Don't forget that the EU isn't one monolithic element. Each member country selects and sends their representatives there. Conservative governments send conservatives, liberal governments send liberals, and socialist governments send socialists.
-- Raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
Joergen Sigvardsson wrote:
Conservative governments send conservatives, liberal governments send liberals, and socialist governments send socialists.
By US standards are there any conservative EU governments?
Joergen Sigvardsson wrote:
Each member country selects and sends their representatives there.
I had the scenes from Star Wars pop in my head. The one of the imperial senate with all the floating balconies with various aliens sitting around arguing. :-D
"I'm a great believer in luck, and I find the harder I work the more I have of it." - Thomas Jefferson
-
Joergen Sigvardsson wrote:
What if they succeed in convincing a large number of people?
Meh! A fool can be convinced of anything. The government can never control stupidity. Now if speech incites violence then it becomes illegal.
Joergen Sigvardsson wrote:
I am a bit perplexed as to why Lenin/Stalin's, Franco's and Mussolini's atrocities weren't added to the list.
To me that was one of the glaring flaws that makes the whole thing wrong. When the government limits speech the government has too much control.
"I'm a great believer in luck, and I find the harder I work the more I have of it." - Thomas Jefferson
Mike Mullikin wrote:
A fool can be convinced of anything. The government can never control stupidity. Now if speech incites violence then it becomes illegal.
The problem is that many young kids fall into the hands of predatory nazi "evangelists". I can see why they want to restrict free speech in this way, because there is hard to stop these assholes anyway. One could argue that the parents of these children should make sure they don't befriend themselves with nazis. If it was only that easy. These nazi scumbags are pretty clever when it comes to convincing the young. I think the free speech ban is wrong way to go though. There ought be other means of getting to the nazi bastards. Restricting free speech is exactly what the enemy wants to do!
-- Raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
-
Joergen Sigvardsson wrote:
Conservative governments send conservatives, liberal governments send liberals, and socialist governments send socialists.
By US standards are there any conservative EU governments?
Joergen Sigvardsson wrote:
Each member country selects and sends their representatives there.
I had the scenes from Star Wars pop in my head. The one of the imperial senate with all the floating balconies with various aliens sitting around arguing. :-D
"I'm a great believer in luck, and I find the harder I work the more I have of it." - Thomas Jefferson
Mike Mullikin wrote:
By US standards are there any conservative EU governments?
I can really only speak for Sweden. Economically/fiscally: Yes. Socially: No. See here[^]. I would put a US conservative somewhere around Thatcher. I would put a Swedish conservative slightly to the left of Thatcher, but much closer to the horizontal line. Conservatives in Sweden used to be somewhere around Thatcher - but times have changed. Today's conservatives are called "neo-liberals".
Mike Mullikin wrote:
The one of the imperial senate with all the floating balconies with various aliens sitting around arguing.
You mean, where they sit in pairs, and decide stuff? ;)
-- Raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
-
Joergen Sigvardsson wrote:
Conservative governments send conservatives, liberal governments send liberals, and socialist governments send socialists.
By US standards are there any conservative EU governments?
Joergen Sigvardsson wrote:
Each member country selects and sends their representatives there.
I had the scenes from Star Wars pop in my head. The one of the imperial senate with all the floating balconies with various aliens sitting around arguing. :-D
"I'm a great believer in luck, and I find the harder I work the more I have of it." - Thomas Jefferson
Mike Mullikin wrote:
By US standards are there any conservative EU governments?
Poland.
-
David Wulff wrote:
fear of punishment
How about reprisal? Our government should intervene to protect free speech, not legislate to take more of it away.
Freedom of speech and expression, like most, is a two way right. In order to get protection you need to be willing to protect some things that you don't agree with. When someone comes along who doesn't respect that right then they should have theirs taken away from them until they do. We do the same with personal freedom so why not others too? (We protect your right to be free in what you do at every cost until you step out of line and kill someone, steal something, etc, at which point your personal freedom becomes a secondary right.) You see double standards in this 'free speech above all else (so long as it agrees with me)' all the time in the Soapbox: - Christianity vs Islam, - CSS vs homosexuality, - Red vs athiesm, - Stan vs the World* etc. Sadly in this world where admitted murderers can get off on a technicality and innocent mothers convicted on the word of one expert despite no other evidence, we need legislation to protect and serve us. Clear legislation that is, not the stuff invariably produced by EU or, sadly, home grown politicians. If there is no fear of reprisal, there is no deterrant in law. * ;P
Ðavid Wulff What kind of music should programmers listen to?
Join the Code Project Last.fm group | dwulff
I'm so gangsta I eat cereal without the milk -
What are your thoughts on the topic? (Not the holocaust but the jail time for denying it)
"I'm a great believer in luck, and I find the harder I work the more I have of it." - Thomas Jefferson
I didn't dig into the EU law, but Germany has something similar for quite some time. For the German law: It's a complicated construct that ends up basically as a legal weapon against organized Neonazism. I don't have a problem with that as such*. Having such a specialized law founded in our constitution is weird, however. For the EU law: The laws are enforced for genocide and crimes against humanity that is recognized by the International Criminal Court - which is more than "just the jews". Added to that seems a kind of "recommendation list" (as I understand it),** to which Lithuana and others wanted crimes of Stalinism added. This has been postponed to further hearings. Further, some articles state that there are enough loopholes so different countries can implement this with mroe or less force. Funny that Red Stapeler succeeeded to trigger the "special consideration for the jewish holocaust again" button - there have been a few cases recently in germany which, to say it bluntly, feed antijewish sentiments in the public. So now for your question - my thoughts about this: why does the EU bother?
*) My take: Anarchos have no respect for your posessions, Neonazis have no respect for your life and limb - it's your pick what's more important to you. But I understand that this is not globally applicable, but rather my observation of the funny guys we encounter here **) the EU (usually) doesn't make laws directly, but guidelines that member countries have to turn into laws <
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
My first real C# project | Linkify!|FoldWithUs! | sighist -
Free Speech Zones[^] isn't a european invention. (But yes, depending on what 'free speech' means to you it's an oxymoron, and I was well aware of that)
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
My first real C# project | Linkify!|FoldWithUs! | sighist
