Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Code Project
  1. Home
  2. Other Discussions
  3. The Back Room
  4. Europe restricts free speech

Europe restricts free speech

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved The Back Room
comquestionannouncement
82 Posts 18 Posters 7 Views 1 Watching
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • L Lost User

    Wow, I never met a nazi in my life. I didn't think they were very common these days.:rolleyes:

    █▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒██████▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██

    B Offline
    B Offline
    Brady Kelly
    wrote on last edited by
    #73

    I've met a few casual, i.e. not part of a millitary organisation, neo-natzis.

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • R Red Stateler

      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.

      B Offline
      B Offline
      Brady Kelly
      wrote on last edited by
      #74

      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?

      1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • R Red Stateler

        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.

        S Offline
        S Offline
        Sebastian Schneider
        wrote on last edited by
        #75

        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.

        1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • L Lost User

          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.

          █▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒██████▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██

          D Offline
          D Offline
          David Wulff
          wrote on last edited by
          #76

          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

          L 1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • R Ryan Roberts

            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.

            D Offline
            D Offline
            David Wulff
            wrote on last edited by
            #77

            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

            R 1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • D David Wulff

              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

              L Offline
              L Offline
              Lost User
              wrote on last edited by
              #78

              David Wulff wrote:

              And, I too am confused: What do you mean by Africans and the Holocaust?

              I figured those would be protected subjects under the new laws preventing you from expressing your views on the matter (if you were under the EU law). I thought England/Britain whatever was part of the EU.

              █▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒██████▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██

              D 1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • L Lost User

                David Wulff wrote:

                And, I too am confused: What do you mean by Africans and the Holocaust?

                I figured those would be protected subjects under the new laws preventing you from expressing your views on the matter (if you were under the EU law). I thought England/Britain whatever was part of the EU.

                █▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒██████▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██

                D Offline
                D Offline
                David Wulff
                wrote on last edited by
                #79

                Britain *is* part of the EU but culturally we are not European. The mindsets are completely different. My passport still says I am British, not European for now.

                Captain See Sharp wrote:

                I figured those would be protected subjects under the new laws preventing you from expressing your views on the matter

                The laws are not to prevent you expressing your views on protected subjects, they are to prevent you from inciting hatred and physical violence against people. For example, the people who called for riots after the July 7th attacks on the London transport network would have been arrested, and people calling for violence after cartoons were published would also expect to have to justify their actions in front of the law. Likewise, the leader of the BNP (British Racist Party) would have been put in prison for calling for violence against Muslims and blacks for being the cause of all crime and depravity in Britain. If, however, you wanted to qualify any of those with a 'because' that would stand in front of a jury of your peers then you will have no problem in doing so. It is a headline law, in that 90% of it was already legislated and the other 10% is common sense. That's what EU politicans do -- they have no real point to their existance as a political entity so they make shit up to justify their jobs.


                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

                1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • D David Wulff

                  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

                  R Offline
                  R Offline
                  Ryan Roberts
                  wrote on last edited by
                  #80

                  David Wulff wrote:

                  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.

                  I'm not sure I follow you here, are you saying that say.. Theo Van Gogh didn't deserve protection for exercising free speech because of the level of offense he and Hirsi Ali caused, and that it was a deliberate act? You do realise that is a recipe for mob rule? Your ideas are dangerous, and it is terrifying that they are so common in this country.

                  David Wulff wrote:

                  Do you understand 'admitted'? And without a retrial?

                  Do you have an example? Or are you pulling this out of your arse?

                  D 1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • R Ryan Roberts

                    David Wulff wrote:

                    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.

                    I'm not sure I follow you here, are you saying that say.. Theo Van Gogh didn't deserve protection for exercising free speech because of the level of offense he and Hirsi Ali caused, and that it was a deliberate act? You do realise that is a recipe for mob rule? Your ideas are dangerous, and it is terrifying that they are so common in this country.

                    David Wulff wrote:

                    Do you understand 'admitted'? And without a retrial?

                    Do you have an example? Or are you pulling this out of your arse?

                    D Offline
                    D Offline
                    David Wulff
                    wrote on last edited by
                    #81

                    Ryan Roberts wrote:

                    Theo Van Gogh didn't deserve protection for exercising free speech because of the level of offense he and Hirsi Ali caused, and that it was a deliberate act?

                    Not even close. In fact, the complete opposite.

                    Ryan Roberts wrote:

                    Do you have an example?

                    It is a hypothetical question, where is your problem?


                    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

                    1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • R Red Stateler

                      link[^]

                      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?

                      J Offline
                      J Offline
                      JWood
                      wrote on last edited by
                      #82

                      Yeh the EU is fast showing itself to be a totalitarian state. Advise to Europeans - make it clear to your leaders that it is an ECONOMIC union. Threats to free speech should be met with the utmost resistance and defiance. Laws are only valid if they are supported by free peoples.


                      A cynic is a man who, when he smells flowers, looks around for a coffin.
                      -H.L. Mencken

                      1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      Reply
                      • Reply as topic
                      Log in to reply
                      • Oldest to Newest
                      • Newest to Oldest
                      • Most Votes


                      • Login

                      • Don't have an account? Register

                      • Login or register to search.
                      • First post
                        Last post
                      0
                      • Categories
                      • Recent
                      • Tags
                      • Popular
                      • World
                      • Users
                      • Groups