Europe restricts free speech
-
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 -
peterchen wrote:
So are you complaining that free speech is restricted, or that the restrictions are restricted?
I'm not complaining. I'm making fun of both. 1. The fact that your government is restricting speech is anti-democratic and ludicrous. 2. The fact that your government just happen to refuse to allow denial of Stalinist atrocities (when your government is left-wing) is expected from an anti-democratic government seeking to ensure its authority.
Finally found the time to check what really happened. greetings to our universe.
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 -
European Union nations agreed Thursday on new rules to combat racism and hate
crimes across the 27-nation bloc, including setting jail sentences against those who
deny or trivialize the Holocaust.
...
EU justice and interior ministers said the rules call for criminalizing "incitement
to hatred and violence and publicly condoning, denying or grossly trivializing crimes
of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes."The mass killing of Jews during World War II was the only genocide specifically
mentioned in the rules. Demands from Baltic nations that major Stalinist atrocities
be included were rejected.So not only is the EU severely restricting and punishing free speech, but they're apparently doing so on a politically selective basis. Why am I completely unsurprised?
The problem with this, is that it will push people who deny the Holocaust underground, and when they deny it in secret, there won't be any chance of rebuttal, so their views will never be exposed to criticism, or shown for what they are.
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ Metal Musings - Rex and my new metal blog "I am working on a project that will convert a FORTRAN code to corresponding C++ code.I am not aware of FORTRAN syntax" ( spotted in the C++/CLI forum )
-
Actually, in my country is law that forces them to put text (in translation) "Warning of Department of Health: smoking causes cancer." or similar on their ads.
"Throughout human history, we have been dependent on machines to survive. Fate, it seems, is not without a sense of irony. " - Morpheus "Real men use mspaint for writing code and notepad for designing graphics." - Anna-Jayne Metcalfe
That's a EU law if I'm not mistaken.
-- When you see the robot, drink!
-
The question was, 'what were my thoughts on the EU making hate speech a crime'. I expressed the opinion that I didn't know they had, many similar laws were already on the books in member countries. I suspect all they have done differently is bought them to all of the members.
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 milkSo how do you feel about Africans and the Holocaust? I think I have discovered why you Europeans are such lame asses. You HAVE to think and say what the government allows you to think and say. It makes so much since now. I actually thought people believed the shit they were saying. Lol.
█▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒██████▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██
-
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!
-
That's a EU law if I'm not mistaken.
-- When you see the robot, drink!
I belive you are correct.
"Throughout human history, we have been dependent on machines to survive. Fate, it seems, is not without a sense of irony. " - Morpheus "Real men use mspaint for writing code and notepad for designing graphics." - Anna-Jayne Metcalfe
-
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 milkDavid Wulff wrote:
You see double standards in this 'free speech above all else
Erm , where? I see a lot of heated arguments and a fair ammount of gibberish. Very little desire to clamp down on free speech.
David Wulff wrote:
If there is no fear of reprisal, there is no deterrant in law.
I was referring to the fact that the threat of violent intimidation, not 'respect' caused every publisher in the UK to refuse to print the Mo Cartoons. The police are on record saying they would not be happy to provide protection for anybody who did so.
David Wulff wrote:
admitted murderers can get off on a technicality
'Techicalities' are the basis of good justice. I would certainly prefer a system where the guilty can go free because of a cock up in the legal process than one where people are condemned to jail for being 'obviously' guilty.
-
Wow, I never met a nazi in my life. I didn't think they were very common these days.:rolleyes:
█▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒██████▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██
That's a good thing I guess. You'd be a prime candidate for a nazi recruiter...
-- My disbelief is not a belief.
-
So how do you feel about Africans and the Holocaust? I think I have discovered why you Europeans are such lame asses. You HAVE to think and say what the government allows you to think and say. It makes so much since now. I actually thought people believed the shit they were saying. Lol.
█▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒██████▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██
What do you mean by Africans and the Holocaust?
-
David Wulff wrote:
You see double standards in this 'free speech above all else
Erm , where? I see a lot of heated arguments and a fair ammount of gibberish. Very little desire to clamp down on free speech.
David Wulff wrote:
If there is no fear of reprisal, there is no deterrant in law.
I was referring to the fact that the threat of violent intimidation, not 'respect' caused every publisher in the UK to refuse to print the Mo Cartoons. The police are on record saying they would not be happy to provide protection for anybody who did so.
David Wulff wrote:
admitted murderers can get off on a technicality
'Techicalities' are the basis of good justice. I would certainly prefer a system where the guilty can go free because of a cock up in the legal process than one where people are condemned to jail for being 'obviously' guilty.
Ryan Roberts wrote:
'Techicalities' are the basis of good justice. I would certainly prefer a system where the guilty can go free because of a c*** up in the legal process than one where people are condemned to jail for being 'obviously' guilty.
Well said. We enjoy a lot of that (which you prefer) in South Africa.
-
Wow, I never met a nazi in my life. I didn't think they were very common these days.:rolleyes:
█▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒██████▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██
I've met a few casual, i.e. not part of a millitary organisation, neo-natzis.
-
Le Centriste wrote:
Spreading hatred and racism is NOT the motivation behind free speech.
Apparently the motivation is to allow the government to define history by condemning right-wing extremist governments while denying the wrongdoing of left-wing extremist governments.
Le Centriste wrote:
What would you say if someone came to you and said "9/11 never happened"?
I'd probably say, "whatever, dork". Of course, there are plenty of people who claim it was perpetrated by our government in some grand conspiracy. I'm not out trying to ensure they'll go to prison for three years for saying that.
Red Stateler wrote:
Le Centriste wrote: What would you say if someone came to you and said "9/11 never happened"? I'd probably say, "whatever, dork". Of course, there are plenty of people who claim it was perpetrated by our government in some grand conspiracy. I'm not out trying to ensure they'll go to prison for three years for saying that.
But what would you do if your government began passing laws to do this?
-
Le Centriste wrote:
Spreading hatred and racism is NOT the motivation behind free speech.
Apparently the motivation is to allow the government to define history by condemning right-wing extremist governments while denying the wrongdoing of left-wing extremist governments.
Le Centriste wrote:
What would you say if someone came to you and said "9/11 never happened"?
I'd probably say, "whatever, dork". Of course, there are plenty of people who claim it was perpetrated by our government in some grand conspiracy. I'm not out trying to ensure they'll go to prison for three years for saying that.
Interesting to hear the motivation behind free speech. Now... what the heck? If I have ever seen a misquote, this is the one ;) As for the 9/11 comment: I'd show the exact same reaction. Not because I particularly like the US government, but because I refuse to believe that several thousand people would willingly and secretly cooperate to create that kind of murder conspiracy. Plus, evidence. I also see a tendency to condemn right-wing extremists more than left-wing extremists, but I believe this is founded on the misunderstanding of their respective concepts. People tend to believe that a "right wing government" equals a fascist/racist/dictatorial state, whereas a "left wing government" equals a free/equal/democratic state, which is a common mistake. All extreme governments usually develop into a big brother state, with a draconic penal system and daily mass murders. See Stalin, Hitler, Pinochet, Mussolini, Franco and Belarus, Zimbabwe, Ruanda, Sudan, Somalia, ...
Cheers, Sebastian -- Ceterum censeo, borlandem esse delendam.
-
So how do you feel about Africans and the Holocaust? I think I have discovered why you Europeans are such lame asses. You HAVE to think and say what the government allows you to think and say. It makes so much since now. I actually thought people believed the shit they were saying. Lol.
█▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒██████▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██
I am not a European, I'm a Brit. We come from one of the most un-European countries in the union with regards to attitudes. And, I too am confused: What do you mean by Africans and the Holocaust?
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 -
David Wulff wrote:
You see double standards in this 'free speech above all else
Erm , where? I see a lot of heated arguments and a fair ammount of gibberish. Very little desire to clamp down on free speech.
David Wulff wrote:
If there is no fear of reprisal, there is no deterrant in law.
I was referring to the fact that the threat of violent intimidation, not 'respect' caused every publisher in the UK to refuse to print the Mo Cartoons. The police are on record saying they would not be happy to provide protection for anybody who did so.
David Wulff wrote:
admitted murderers can get off on a technicality
'Techicalities' are the basis of good justice. I would certainly prefer a system where the guilty can go free because of a cock up in the legal process than one where people are condemned to jail for being 'obviously' guilty.
Ryan Roberts wrote:
Erm , where?
I gave your four examples, why not start with those?
Ryan Roberts wrote:
I was referring to the fact that the threat of violent intimidation, not 'respect' caused every publisher in the UK to refuse to print the Mo Cartoons
Then why didn't you say that and it would have saved me a reply? That has absolutely nothing to do with free speech; I and the police would expect the same if we openly insulted any group of people. Just because you or I have different levels of what constitutes an insult and what is fair game compared to some other people doesn't suddenly make it an issue of free speech. If you don't respect that then you have no right to complain when it happens to you. We are back to the double standards again.
Ryan Roberts wrote:
I would certainly prefer a system where the guilty can go free because of a c*** up in the legal process than one where people are condemned to jail for being 'obviously' guilty.
Do you understand 'admitted'? And without a retrial?
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
