USA vs Europe (whose free speech is more free)

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



SamZED
By Europe I mean UK, Germany and other countries where free speech is an actual real thing.

Flyattractor
EU Article 13

/Thread

SquallX
There was a story of a woman getting arrested in either England or Germany for accidentally Mia gendered someone.

The EU has nothing that can compare to the US Constitution.

Rockydonovang
is there a reason were' comparing a country to a continent?

dadudemon
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
is there a reason were' comparing a country to a continent?

Did you forget that about the European Union which has a common currency, and many laws and regulations that govern those member countries?

They share a much closure relationship than the US and Canada.

Rockydonovang
Originally posted by dadudemon
Did you forget that about the European Union which has a common currency, and many laws and regulations that govern those member countries?

They share a much closure relationship than the US and Canada.
So?

European states vary vastly in terms of "freedom".

Silent Master
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
is there a reason were' comparing a country to a continent?

Because that's what the thread starter wants to talk about.

MythLord
The top three countries named "most free" are all in Europe, so there's your answer.

Surtur
Originally posted by SquallX
There was a story of a woman getting arrested in either England or Germany for accidentally Mia gendered someone.

The EU has nothing that can compare to the US Constitution.

Oh no she didn't accidentally do it lol. She did it on purpose, but I don't see why that matters either as she stated a fact.

Remember though: 3000 people a year are arrested in the UK for online hate speech lol.

The cops legit investigated a dude who retweeted a limerick about transgender people. Yes you read that correctly: he didn't even write the limerick, just retweeted it.

I think Germany also has some wacky online hate speech laws, but I'm also 99% sure saying the holocaust didn't happen is illegal lol. Which is silly, but there it is.

EDIT: Yeah.. Germany definitely isn't getting the win here:

https://newrepublic.com/article/147364/verboten-germany-law-stopping-hate-speech-facebook-twitter

"In the United States, many people know that to use Nazi symbols in Germany, to deny the Holocaust, or to inveigh against foreigners is to risk prison. But few realize that even to call a politician a liar or an ******* is to invite a costly defamation suit. (A few years ago, a friend of my mother’s had to pay a big fine for flipping off a motorist who cut her off when she was cycling to work.)"

SamZED
Are there no such examples in the US?

Surtur
Originally posted by MythLord
The top three countries named "most free" are all in Europe, so there's your answer.

Lol name the countries.

Putinbot1
Originally posted by MythLord
The top three countries named "most free" are all in Europe, so there's your answer. Truthfully no one is as free as an expat in a 3rd world country.

mike brown
There's not an equivalent of the first amendment in any of the European countries, is there?

dadudemon
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
So?

European states vary vastly in terms of "freedom".

According to that site, members of the EU, which is almost all of Europe, do not vary significantly in their Freedom.

smile

Would you like to know why? The EU has "freedom" and rights laws that govern how members states can treat people.



I sure hope your enjoy this new bit of knowledge. You are more educated for having had this conversation with me. Be grateful that you have someone like me in your life to expand your knowledge and rid you of you assumptive ignorance.

For more reading and to familiarize yourself with the EU, please visit this site and the supplemental links.

https://europa.eu/european-union/topics/human-rights_en


FYI, to many citizens of the EU, they take pride in their rights, protections, and freedoms. The EU is something to be proud of for the most part. Sure, member states have plenty of autonomy, but now you know why people would group Europe in with "freedoms" when talking about countries and their freedoms around the world. smilie

Putinbot1
Originally posted by dadudemon
According to that site, members of the EU, which is almost all of Europe, do not vary significantly in their Freedom.

smile

Would you like to know why? The EU has "freedom" and rights laws that govern how members states can treat people.



I sure hope your enjoy this new bit of knowledge. You are more educated for having had this conversation with me. Be grateful that you have someone like me in your life to expand your knowledge and rid you of you assumptive ignorance.

For more reading and to familiarize yourself with the EU, please visit this site and the supplemental links.

https://europa.eu/european-union/topics/human-rights_en


FYI, to many citizens of the EU, they take pride in their rights, protections, and freedoms. The EU is something to be proud of for the most part. Sure, member states have plenty of autonomy, but now you know why people would group Europe in with "freedoms" when talking about countries and their freedoms around the world. smilie Yup, I value it so much I got an Irish passport.

Valkorion
obviously america

america is the only country in all of history that has something close to true political free speech

MythLord
Originally posted by Surtur
Lol name the countries.
Finland, Norway, Sweden.

Emperordmb
Finland: Hate speech laws and blasphemy laws
Sweden: Hate speech laws
Norway: Hate speech laws

Bullshit

Putinbot1
Originally posted by Emperordmb
Finland: Hate speech laws and blasphemy laws
Sweden: Hate speech laws
Norway: Hate speech laws

Bullshit I think that speech laws provide freedom for minorities. I know you don't though.

Valkorion
Originally posted by Putinbot1
I think that speech laws provide freedom for minorities. I know you don't though.

you know that lots of hate speech cases were actually for anti-religion and anti-christian speech right

mike brown
Originally posted by Putinbot1
I think that speech laws provide freedom for minorities. I know you don't though.
Freedom in terms of free speech? Seems to me like those laws don't increase the number of things minorities can say freely.

Silent Master
Originally posted by Putinbot1
I think that speech laws provide freedom for minorities. I know you don't though.

Depends on how it's applied.

Putinbot1
Originally posted by Valkorion
you know that lots of hate speech cases were actually for anti-religion and anti-christian speech right to be honest a law like that should be applied equally.

Emperordmb
Originally posted by Valkorion
you know that lots of hate speech cases were actually for anti-religion and anti-christian speech right
As much as anti-Christian speech offends me personally, it is not my place at all to tell anyone else what they are or aren't allowed to say.

Putinbot1
Originally posted by Emperordmb
As much as anti-Christian speech offends me personally, it is not my place at all to tell anyone else what they are or aren't allowed to say. And this is where we disagree, words can be a tool of oppression, where a power imbalance exists removing individuals and groups freedoms. But we've discussed this before more than once. I'm not bothering again.

Valkorion
Originally posted by Putinbot1
And this is where we disagree, words can be a tool of oppression, where a power imbalance exists removing individuals and groups freedoms. But we've discussed this before more than once. I'm not bothering again.

who decides when speech is oppressive

say we snapped our fingers and hate speech laws became an amendment in America

who would enforce the law..

hmm the executive branch...

who heads the executive branch?

Surtur
Originally posted by Putinbot1
And this is where we disagree, words can be a tool of oppression, where a power imbalance exists removing individuals and groups freedoms. But we've discussed this before more than once. I'm not bothering again.

You can not bother if you want, but I am genuinely curious if you could give an example of an anti-christian statement you feel would merit the law get involved. Or I guess I could give an example. What if someone said all Christians are pieces of shit? I'm not saying I believe that, but if someone said that should the law get involved?

If that isn't something worthy of the law getting involved then what kind of comment would you suggest would be worthy, short of threatening violence?

Putinbot1
Originally posted by Valkorion
who decides when speech is oppressive

say we snapped our fingers and hate speech laws became an amendment in America

who would enforce the law..

hmm the executive branch...

who heads the executive branch? The Judiciary and the houses. They keep each other in check.

Valkorion

Silent Master
Originally posted by Putinbot1
The Judiciary and the houses. They keep each other in check.

I didn't know you held so much faith in the government.

Valkorion

Putinbot1
All of this is very different in a presidential system where an elected head of state has so much power. An example of democracy albeit an insane one like Brexit, would never be allowed in the US. The people would never be given the freedom to determine/**** up themselves like.

Putinbot1
Originally posted by Silent Master
I didn't know you held so much faith in the government. Not the government, no. The house of lords, law lords and European court of human rights, ues, yes I do.

Surtur
Originally posted by Putinbot1
All of this is very different in a presidential system where an elected head of state has so much power. An example of democracy albeit an insane one like Brexit, would never be allowed in the US. The people would never be given the freedom to determine/**** up themselves like.

You're correct, every time we f*ck up the UK is like "hold my beer".

You're our Duff.

Emperordmb

Valkorion
the left is no longer liberal

Putinbot1
And there we have it folks, a polite discussion derailed. thumb up enjoy

dadudemon
Originally posted by Valkorion
obviously america

america is the only country in all of history that has something close to true political free speech

From a constitutional codification perspective, yes, you're right. In actual practice and enforcement, not at all. Surt and I already covered this.

thumb up

dadudemon
Originally posted by Emperordmb
Finland: Hate speech laws and blasphemy laws
Sweden: Hate speech laws
Norway: Hate speech laws

Bullshit

I personally believe that free speech is more than just allowing hate-speech. As you can see from my posts.

But as I also pointed out, it's a moving goalpost a "thought-policing" slippery slope. I think it represents a greater danger to free speech, long term, than most other speech restrictions.

Jaggarath
Originally posted by dadudemon
I sure hope your enjoy this new bit of knowledge. You are more educated for having had this conversation with me. Be grateful that you have someone like me in your life to expand your knowledge and rid you of you assumptive ignorance.
LMAO this dude

dadudemon
Originally posted by Jaggarath
LMAO this dude

estahuh

mike brown
Originally posted by Putinbot1
And this is where we disagree, words can be a tool of oppression, where a power imbalance exists removing individuals and groups freedoms. But we've discussed this before more than once. I'm not bothering again. Even if one grants that words can be a form of oppression.. it seems to me that the stifling of free speech is a more obvious and wide spread form of oppression that virtually every oppressive regime has historically utilized.

MythLord
Originally posted by Emperordmb
Finland: Hate speech laws and blasphemy laws
Sweden: Hate speech laws
Norway: Hate speech laws

Bullshit
I don't really care what you consider "bullshit" or not; several studies from several parties were performed, and the country with most personal freedom is Norway, with Sweden and Finland trailing close behind.

Norway is also, not surprisingly, the happiest country in the world. They must be doing something right.

Emperordmb
Are you talking about freedom in general or free speech?

MythLord
In general, but let's not pretend they aren't connected. Freedom of Thought and Expression are pretty much synonymous with Freedom of Speech.

Valkorion
correlation causation

MythLord
BTW, it scares me that a metric for Freedom of Speech/Expression is "Can I say something racist/homophobic/mysoginistic without getting in trouble?"

Silent Master
The thing is, plenty of people like to label speech they don't like as racist/homophobic/mysoginistic, even if it isn't.

Putinbot1
Originally posted by MythLord
BTW, it scares me that a metric for Freedom of Speech/Expression is "Can I say something racist/homophobic/mysoginistic without getting in trouble?" thumb up Good post

mike brown
Originally posted by MythLord
BTW, it scares me that a metric for Freedom of Speech/Expression is "Can I say something racist/homophobic/mysoginistic without getting in trouble?"

I agree but I think you should be able to say any number of distasteful things without getting in trouble by the state. Chomsky said it best.. "Even Stalin believes in free speech for speech he agrees with."

gauntlet o doom
Short of a direct call-to-action to harm another person/people; you should be allowed to say anything.

Putinbot1
When hate speech seeks to hide under the guise of free speech, it is no longer free. Instead it is used as a vehicle to perpetuate hatred. In these dangerous and divided times, if you believe you have the right to belittle others just because you think you have a "right" to, expect an escalated response.

Silent Master
Problem is, too many people are ok with labeling any speech they disagree with as hate speech.

Surtur
Originally posted by Silent Master
Problem is, too many people are ok with labeling any speech they disagree with as hate speech.

Bingo, and remember you're responding to someone who can't even properly use terms like alt right, so it would be terrifying if someone like that was in charge of deciding what is or is not hate speech. It would be like having a math teacher who thought 2+2 is 5.

mike brown
Originally posted by Putinbot1
When hate speech seeks to hide under the guise of free speech, it is no longer free. Instead it is used as a vehicle to perpetuate hatred. In these dangerous and divided times, if you believe you have the right to belittle others just because you think you have a "right" to, expect an escalated response. Well it's not a matter of opinion in this country. You absolutely do have the right to belittle people.
Being an ******* isn't a crime. That's the way it should be too.

If by "an escalation" you mean prosecution by the state, that's not acceptable and not befitting a properly functioning liberal democracy. If you mean some guy might punch you in the face.. That's the way it's always been. That has nothing to do with free speech. The same can happen if you hit on his gf. Doesn't mean you don't have the right to do so. If anything it's him that's over stepping his rights.

Putinbot1
Originally posted by Surtur
Bingo, and remember you're responding to someone who can't even properly use terms like alt right, so it would be terrifying if someone like that was in charge of deciding what is or is not hate speech. It would be like having a math teacher who thought 2+2 is 5. Haha adhominem entry into a thread and it's Surtur again... lol. I really am trying to be polite and just debate here. Try too. As Rob pointed out, today has been hard for you with Fly and all. But chill bra, I really cant be arsed putting you in your place anymore. Let's all just talk politely, I was reading about some lonely angry guy on a forum who topped himself and I would hate you to stop posting tomorrow and wonder. So, chill.

Surtur
Originally posted by Putinbot1
Haha adhominem entry into a thread and it's Surtur again... lol. I really am trying to be polite and just debate here. Try too. As Rob pointed out, today has been hard for you with Fly and all. But chill bra, I really cant be arsed putting you in your place anymore. Let's all just talk politely, I was reading about some lonely angry guy on a forum who topped himself and I would hate you to stop posting tomorrow and wonder. So, chill.

Lol you need to do better.

dadudemon
I think I lean more towards Silent Master's perspective. He's closer to where it should be.

"I refuse to call you by your self-given title Mousy Empress Will. It's weird and uncomfortable especially to do so in the work place."

"THAT'S VERBAL VIOLENCE! POLICE! GET 'EM! FINES! PUBLIC SHAMING! FIRE THIS PERSON BECAUSE THEY REFUSE TO PARTICIPATE IN MY PATHOLOGICAL MENTAL ILLNESSES!"

We are VERY near to this dystopian, thought-policing scenario I just described. I don't want to live in that police state.


Before I am forced to have my speech and thoughts regulated into stupidity, I will form my own country that has freedom. Cocaine. And hookers. All of you are invited.

Putinbot1

Surtur

Putinbot1
Originally posted by Surtur
Dude nobody trusts your judgment on speech.

Honestly, if you were a free speech advocate...would YOU want someone like you in charge of deciding what is hate speech, etc. ? nice adhominem attempt to derail surt, but as I've said I'm leaving that stuff to you and sticking to polite discourse.

Putinbot1

Silent Master
Problem is, too many people use terms like physical and psychological safety to justify outlawing opinions they don't like.

Hence all the people saying that saying __________ is violence.

Putinbot1
Originally posted by Silent Master
Problem is, too many people use terms like physical and psychological safety to justify outlawing opinions they don't like.

Hence all the people saying that saying __________ is violence. Those aren't terms I've seen in this thread. I used the suffix safety.

Silent Master
Originally posted by Putinbot1
Those aren't terms I've seen in this thread. I used the suffix safety.

So did I.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
Really? I totally question if there is such a thing as the absolute right to free speech? It existed when we were cavemen and complex human society had yet to form, and maybe it will exist when radical anarchists rule the world. But collectively, we already know and agree that such an absolute freedom does not, and cannot, exist. Slander, publicly teaching people how to make a bomb, yelling in Trafalgar Square about wanting to kill the queen: these are examples of speech that we do not condone as a society and for which there are legal repercussions. If “free speech” means the unfettered ability to say whatever one wants without facing any consequences or restrictions, it cannot exist. Or if it does, it exists in a matrix of other rights and freedoms, such as the right to physical and psychological safety

Originally posted by Silent Master
Problem is, too many people use terms like physical and psychological safety to justify outlawing opinions they don't like.

Hence all the people saying that saying __________ is violence.

Putinbot1
Haha O.K. in that case do you not think, that words are what usually start violence.

Surtur
Originally posted by Putinbot1
nice adhominem attempt to derail surt, but as I've said I'm leaving that stuff to you and sticking to polite discourse.

I feel like it's asking that one really evil dude from the Green Mile if he'd prefer a prison guard like him if he ever went to jail.

Surtur
Originally posted by Putinbot1
Haha O.K. in that case do you not think, that words are what usually start violence.

^^This kids theme song:

V7R1dZe34xM

Silent Master
Let's perform a little experiment to see if words cause violence.

Person A calls you ma'am, what do you do?

Putinbot1
Originally posted by Silent Master
Let's perform a little experiment to see if words cause violence.

Person A calls you ma'am, what do you do? Laugh probably.

Silent Master
Originally posted by Putinbot1
Laugh probably.

That would be the proper response.

This is an example of the wrong response

JdnBV-S-RXk



With very few exceptions, Speech isn't the problem. right/left snowflakes are the problem.

Putinbot1
Originally posted by Silent Master
That would be the proper response.

This is an example of the wrong response

JdnBV-S-RXk



With very few exceptions, Speech isn't the problem. right/left snowflakes are the problem. You see, I'm not marginalised and am am doesn't threaten me.

Silent Master
Feeling threatened because someone used the wrong pronoun is a sign of mental instability.

The problem isn't with the word, it's with the person feeling threatened.

Putinbot1
Originally posted by Silent Master
Feeling threatened because someone used the wrong pronoun is a sign of mental instability.

The problem isn't with the word, it's with the person feeling threatened. I don't think pronouns are the problem, it's the hate, context and history behind them. Extreme example, if a Klansman known to a black gentleman says, that's some fine ass monkey daughter you got there coon, she'd look good on my dick. He isn't threatening anyone, in his mind he might even be paying a compliment to someone he considers sub human. It's still likely to cause violence.

Silent Master
The problem is, a lot of the time hate is coming from the person hearing the word and not the speaker. like in that clip.

We shouldn't base speech laws on the feelings of the mentally unstable.

Surtur
Originally posted by Putinbot1
I don't think pronouns are the problem, it's the hate, context and history behind them. Extreme example, if a Klansman known to a black gentleman says, that's some fine ass monkey daughter you got there coon, she'd look good on my dick. He isn't threatening anyone, in his mind he might even be paying a compliment to someone he considers sub human. It's still likely to cause violence.

Okay but making racist comments about monkeys and shit isn't the same as factually pointing out just cuz you remove your dick it doesn't make you a woman.

Putinbot1
@both of you, I'm talking in a broader context than gender politics. I personally have no problem with what any adult wishes to be deemed as, as i have said before, but, I think race, religion and direct insults are far more likely to elicit a violent reaction and I don't see that as weakness, as imp said if someone verbally assaulted his daughter he'd react and so would I, although I only have boys, I do have a grand daughter though. I think Jordan Peterson hero of the far right would agree with that reaction also.

Surtur
Originally posted by Putinbot1
@both of you, I'm talking in a broader context than gender politics. I personally have no problem with what any adult wishes to be deemed as, as i have said before, but, I think race, religion and direct insults are far more likely to elicit a violent reaction and I don't see that as weakness, as imp said if someone verbally assaulted his daughter he'd react and so would I, although I only have boys, I do have a grand daughter though. I think Jordan Peterson hero of the far right would agree with that reaction also.

Yes indeed, weak minded human beings will react with violence when confronted with words they don't like. Good thing you aren't one of those types of people.

Putinbot1
Originally posted by Surtur
Yes indeed, weak minded human beings will react with violence when confronted with words they don't like. Good thing you aren't one of those types of people. No, on this I'm with Jordan Peterson, if someone crosses the line in conversation, I'll fight them, as he says how could you respect a man who wouldn't.

Silent Master
I might hit someone that insulted a family member, especially a kid. but I think making it illegal to insult someone is taking things way to far.

Putinbot1
Originally posted by Silent Master
I might hit someone that insulted a family member, especially a kid. but I think making it illegal to insult someone is taking things way to far. So free speech has legally and socially defined and easily understood limits as suggested. We agree. thumb up

Silent Master
The problem is, a lot of people are trying to stretch those limitations to cover opinions they disagree with and would have no problems with having people arrested for what they deem as "hate speech".

Putinbot1
Originally posted by Silent Master
The problem is, a lot of people are trying to stretch those limitations to cover opinions they disagree with and would have no problems with having people arrested for what they deem as "hate speech". I think hate speech is pretty well defined in law everywhere. I think the problem is some people are trying to stretch free speech to include the unacceptable.

Silent Master
Again, depends on what is being called unacceptable. because plenty of people out there want things like using the wrong pronoun to be considered unacceptable.

Putinbot1
Originally posted by Silent Master
Again, depends on what is being called unacceptable. because plenty of people out there want things like using the wrong pronoun to be considered unacceptable. I think that's a complicated topic which still hasn't been addressed objectively here, all to often we've all turned it into an emotive troll fest, myself included.

Silent Master
Is it complicated though? I'm fairly sure most people here would agree that it shouldn't be illegal to "misgender" someone or to have a different political opinion.

Putinbot1
Originally posted by Silent Master
Is it complicated though? I'm fairly sure most people here would agree that it shouldn't be illegal to "misgender" someone or to have a different political opinion. again, I think context is key... aims, history, etc. Too late for me and this tonight and the Mrs is back from seeing her mum in Ghana tomorrow so, I won't be on. Enjoyed this exchange mate. See, we don't have to troll each other always.

jaden_2.0
XdhjjAqNpPU

Rockydonovang
Originally posted by Emperordmb
Finland: Hate speech laws and blasphemy laws
Sweden: Hate speech laws
Norway: Hate speech laws

Bullshit
cherrpicking 3 places policies while completely ignoring usa's free speech zones is some funny shit.

SquallX

mike brown

Putinbot1
Question: why does the US rate lower than so many European countries including the UK in terms of press freedom guys?

StiltmanFTW
Originally posted by SamZED
By Europe I mean UK, Germany and other countries where free speech is an actual real thing.

I see you're enjoying the hell out of GDF, Sam laughing out loud

mike brown
Originally posted by Putinbot1
Question: why does the US rate lower than so many European countries including the UK in terms of press freedom guys? I would have to see the metrics by which you measured that... But that's also strictly talking about the press which in America is driven by corporations... I thought we were talking about state censorship not self censorship.

Badabing
Originally posted by SamZED
By Europe I mean UK, Germany and other countries where free speech is an actual real thing. Americans don't get arrested, or our homes raided, for posts on social media.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/arrests-for-offensive-facebook-and-twitter-posts-soar-in-london-a7064246.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/20/world/europe/germany-36-accused-of-hateful-postings-over-social-media.html

https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2016/04/07/police-raid-social-media-posts/

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-41274961

Putinbot1
We don't have swatting or dubious Police shootings (as much per capita) Bada swings and roundabouts.

Badabing
Originally posted by Putinbot1
We don't have swatting or dubious Police shootings (as much per capita) Bada swings and roundabouts. Roundabouts suck at intersections! And driving from the passenger's seat is annoying! sneer

jaden_2.0
Originally posted by Badabing
Americans don't get arrested, or our homes raided, for posts on social media.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/arrests-for-offensive-facebook-and-twitter-posts-soar-in-london-a7064246.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/20/world/europe/germany-36-accused-of-hateful-postings-over-social-media.html

https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2016/04/07/police-raid-social-media-posts/

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-41274961

If you say so...


https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/may/18/facebook-comments-arrest-prosecution

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/may/11/rakem-balogun-interview-black-identity-extremists-fbi-surveillance


https://mic.com/articles/39421/cameron-d-ambrosio-high-school-student-charged-with-terrorism-over-facebook-post

Badabing
Originally posted by jaden_2.0
If you say so...


https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/may/18/facebook-comments-arrest-prosecution

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/may/11/rakem-balogun-interview-black-identity-extremists-fbi-surveillance


https://mic.com/articles/39421/cameron-d-ambrosio-high-school-student-charged-with-terrorism-over-facebook-post Thanks for showing me those articles. I never heard of one.

Not really the same since your articles seem to pertain to threats of violence and my articles were about "hate speech". But still startling nonetheless, especially since one article shows the man was charged as a terrorist.

Well, I guess we surpassed Orwell's 1984 with thought crimes and went right into Minority Report and pre-crime.

Edit: The powers that be are just crapping all over our Bill of Rights.

Putinbot1
Originally posted by Badabing
Thanks for showing me those articles. I never heard of one.

Not really the same since your articles seem to pertain to threats of violence and my articles were about "hate speech". But still startling nonetheless, especially since one article shows the man was charged as a terrorist.

Well, I guess we surpassed Orwell's 1984 with thought crimes and went right into Minority Report and pre-crime.

Edit: The powers that be are just crapping all over our Bill of Rights. @Jaden, cheers for that like Bada says, very revealing. To be honest, for me free speech I'm sure has never existed in modern times. I don't see how the world could work with it, when some people choose to use it as something to hide behind to spew hate.

gauntlet o doom
I guess we now live in a world where we don't teach kids "Sticks and stones... "

mike brown
Originally posted by Putinbot1
We don't have swatting or dubious Police shootings (as much per capita) Bada swings and roundabouts. ... Which has nothing to do with free speech

You also don't have the kinds of gangs and homicide rates were have... But we're not comparing every aspect of society... Only free speech

mike brown
Originally posted by jaden_2.0
If you say so...


https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/may/18/facebook-comments-arrest-prosecution

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/may/11/rakem-balogun-interview-black-identity-extremists-fbi-surveillance


https://mic.com/articles/39421/cameron-d-ambrosio-high-school-student-charged-with-terrorism-over-facebook-post ... All of those examples were directly inciting violence. In Europe you can go to jail for denying the Holocaust or training your dog to do a sig heil.

jaden_2.0
Mark Meechan never went to jail. And holocaust denial isn't illegal in the UK, Ireland, Spain, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, The Netherlands, Estonia, Latvia, Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova, Albania, Macedonia, Bulgaria, Kosovo, Serbia & Montenegro, Croatia or Slovenia. Out of the countries where it is illegal in Europe only 4 have imprisoned someone for it. France, Germany, Austria and Switzerland.

mike brown
Right but it is illegal in certain countries like France and Germany. Those were just examples off the top of my head. Point being the bad examples of people being arrested/charged in Europe are very different from the ones you listed. There have been Americans locked up for political speech I believe but you would have to go back to like ww1.

Once again I will repeat my initial question... Does any European state have an equivalent to the 1st amendment in their Constitution?

Putinbot1
Mike's going through cognitive dissonance 101.

mike brown
Don't throw vague pot shots when you won't respond to my points directly... That's just weak

Putinbot1
Even your Press is less free.

https://www.google.com.sa/amp/s/www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2018-04-25/us-falls-in-world-press-freedom-index%3fcontext=amp

mike brown
I already responded to that and you said nothing back

dadudemon
Originally posted by jaden_2.0
If you say so...


https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/may/18/facebook-comments-arrest-prosecution

Calls to violence and to commit felonies against law enforcement - not protected speech.

Next...

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/may/11/rakem-balogun-interview-black-identity-extremists-fbi-surveillance

This guy had years of questionable content posted to social media where he said stupid shit like, "The only good pig is a dead pig", and he applauded a person who killed a policeman. He was part of a group that was targeting police. However, his arrest is questionable. They would have to have a warrant and they did. They followed the law. His charges didn't stick.

I'm on the fence about this. But perhaps he learned his lesson about being so vocal about killing police and wanting police dead.


Originally posted by jaden_2.0
https://mic.com/articles/39421/cameron-d-ambrosio-high-school-student-charged-with-terrorism-over-facebook-post

He posted that he was going to kill people. Correctly handled. Not protected speech.




So #2 is an iffy case but it followed the 4th amendment and they got a warrant. Feels like it violates the 6th amendment which is the right to a speedy trial. He was incarcerated for 5 months without bail while they tried to get him terrorism charges and go to trial. This is why they suspended his habeas corpus rights (which is explicitly listed in the US Constitution, Article 1, Section 9) - enemy of the state and attempting to rebel/danger to public safety.


So what are your thoughts?

jaden_2.0
Originally posted by mike brown
Right but it is illegal in certain countries like France and Germany. Those were just examples off the top of my head. Point being the bad examples of people being arrested/charged in Europe are very different from the ones you listed. There have been Americans locked up for political speech I believe but you would have to go back to like ww1.

Once again I will repeat my initial question... Does any European state have an equivalent to the 1st amendment in their Constitution?

I don't know. Oddly enough I'm not an expert on the constitutional frameworks of 51 different countries and my own doesn't even have a codified constitution.

jaden_2.0
Originally posted by dadudemon





So what are your thoughts?

That Bada's statement...



wasn't correct.

mike brown
I'm not an expert either which is why I phrase it as a question and not a statement. Cause I've heard it claimed that America is unique in this regard... And that many European countries will prosecute "hate speech" which would be protected under our 1st amendment. I think that makes us at least a little more free... Unless there's a counter example of things Europeans can say that we can't.

jaden_2.0
There's probably more freedom around censorship and obscenity in some European countries than the US. Likely some with less stringent libel and defamation laws. Some have better protections for freedom of the press.

Putinbot1
The US is 45th for press freedom, how can it be claimed you have Free speech when your press isn't free?

mike brown
@ jaden

I could see that in terms of what can be broadcast on the airwaves due to the fcc... I was talking more about policing the speech of individual citizens though.

Cause I don't understand how the fcc works exactly but I don't think it violates free speech just regulates a particular medium... There are mediums like online platforms and satellite radio that are pretty much uncensored.

It just so happens the news media in this country is based mostly around corporate cable networks.

Putinbot1
It's mainly the attacks by politicians on facts as fake news. Through the law and the mob. Mob rule, flies in the face of your first ammendment and undermines the rule of law.

That is the conclusion from the 2018 World Press Freedom Index compiled by Reporters Without Borders, or RSF. The annual ranking, released on Wednesday and which also showed a big decline in freedom of speech across the world, dropped the U.S. two positions from its 2017 position, to No. 45 overall.

But having said that some European nations show this disparity in Europe Malta dropped to 65 from 47 for instance.

mike brown
^ I don't care. Are you an actual bot?

Putinbot1
Originally posted by mike brown
^ I don't care. Are you an actual bot? Fair enough, I understand this sort of thing can be difficult to accept. Especially when you have always been told the opposite, but flag facts up as fake news Mike, it's the American way... now anyway.

mike brown
Originally posted by Putinbot1
Fair enough, I understand this sort of thing can be difficult to accept. Especially when you have always been told the opposite, but flag facts up as fake news Mike, it's the American way... now anyway. No it's the fact I tried asking you additional questions about that finding which you ignored and then cited it to me again.. at which point I pointed out I already tried responding to that point which you then ignored again and continue to make the same point over and over again with no follow up. So I can only assume you know nothing about the findings and just read one article which you want to quote to me again and again instead of having an actual discussion

Putinbot1
Originally posted by mike brown
No it's the fact I tried asking you additional questions about that finding which you ignored and then cited it to me again.. at which point I pointed out I already tried responding to that point which you then ignored again and continue to make the same point over and over again with no follow up. So I can only assume you know nothing about the findings and just read one article which you want to quote to me again and again instead of having an actual discussion I don't think we have a first ammendment in Europe. My additional question to you, "is yours really working as you think it should?" I only know what the article says in relation to the findings. I do know RSF are very credible. Chill mate, no need to get so prickly.

mike brown
My question was actually what metrics did they use to determine how free the press was... I.e. what do they mean specifically by saying our press is less free

Putinbot1
Originally posted by mike brown
My question was actually what metrics did they use to determine how free the press was... I.e. what do they mean specifically by saying our press is less free like I said I don't know, but I haven't been able to find any credible recent report that places the US high on the freedom scale.

https://www.google.com.sa/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=& amp;ved=2ahUKEwj0m8SugNbgAhUDx4UKHVkLAZkQzPwBegQIA
RAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.businessinsider.com%2Fcountries-most-freedom-in-the-world-2018-4&psig=AOvVaw1Gw6uErGN8Ln1kdroqhxMt&ust=1551153807003451

Here's another that doesn't.

Putinbot1
Off to work mate, if I get a chance I'll look for the criteria.

Putinbot1
One final thought on Freedom, freedom of speech can undermine freedom of expression and vice versa, I think this is where extreme freedom of speech advocates become bigotry enablers. Just my opinion.

dadudemon
Originally posted by jaden_2.0
That Bada's statement...



wasn't correct.

I agree that his statement is incorrect. I would never make a statement like that. Bada is not a dumbass. I think he just "misspoke" his thoughts. He's definitely aware that things like screaming "FIRE!" in a theater are not protected speech.

jaden_2.0
https://www.wdbj7.com/content/news/Woman-says-she-was-arrested-and-jailed-for-commenting-on-a-Facebook-post-476317393.html

https://fox59.com/2016/07/05/man-charged-with-desecrating-american-flag-after-posting-photos-on-facebook/

dadudemon
Originally posted by jaden_2.0
There's probably more freedom around censorship and obscenity in some European countries than the US. Likely some with less stringent libel and defamation laws. Some have better protections for freedom of the press.

I remember reading about history stuff in college and it went into details about how we (our ancestors) f*cked the shit out of each other right in plain site of families including grandparents, children, siblings, etc.

That's awkward as hell. I would never ever want to see my parents do something like that. But, apparently, for most of human history, other than the very rich, f*cking the shit out of each other in front of familial audiences is what we have done. Only recently, due to puritanical and Victorian morality movements, have we made it a private thing.

Kind of thankful for that...

But the US leans a significantly closer to the Victorian prudishness than most European countries, for sure.

dadudemon
Originally posted by jaden_2.0
https://www.wdbj7.com/content/news/Woman-says-she-was-arrested-and-jailed-for-commenting-on-a-Facebook-post-476317393.html

He wasn't arrested under free speech violations. Taxes vs. Johnson (most generic supreme court case name in history) allows for people to burn the flag in protest of anything government.

It's the location he chose to burn the flag on. If you'll notice in the article, they had to consult the damn attorney general before making the arrest because it was so dubious.

This case is not iffy like the anti-police one. Fairly simple.


Burn flags or anything on private property. And only if there are no safety burn-bans in place.

ares834
Originally posted by Putinbot1
It's mainly the attacks by politicians on facts as fake news. Through the law and the mob. Mob rule, flies in the face of your first ammendment and undermines the rule of law.

By "mob rule" I assume you are referring to people (yes most often right-wing nut jobs from places like /pol/ or /r/The_Donald) insulting the writers?

Regardless, I would disagree that that in anyway infringes upon the freedom of the press. After all, it's merely a bunch of man-babies throwing a hissy-fit online. In fact, to say they they can't express their opinions would be the real infringement upon the First Amendment.

jaden_2.0

Putinbot1
Haha, to be fair yanks struggle with "moist" pussies, comma omitted between moist and pussy for additional humour.

jaden_2.0

mike brown
Originally posted by Putinbot1
One final thought on Freedom, freedom of speech can undermine freedom of expression and vice versa, I think this is where extreme freedom of speech advocates become bigotry enablers. Just my opinion. thinking about it more, I have the opposite inclination to you over hate speech, unless it is inciting violence, but I actually also don't like the fcc and some of the more prudish aspects of American society vs Europe (I'm generalizing for simplicity). So I can see pros and cons on both sides...I just think the US seems better at protecting citizens from State censorship directly over things that verge on so called hate speech. And thankfully cable TV is dwindling in it's dominance and people are gravitating to more uncensored media like Netflix, online platforms, etc.

Putinbot1
Originally posted by mike brown
thinking about it more, I have the opposite inclination to you over hate speech, unless it is inciting violence, but I actually also don't like the fcc and some of the more prudish aspects of American society vs Europe (I'm generalizing for simplicity). So I can see pros and cons on both sides...I just think the US seems better at protecting citizens from State censorship directly over things that verge on so called hate speech. And thankfully cable TV is dwindling in it's dominance and people are gravitating to more uncensored media like Netflix, online platforms, etc. I think it's very easy for freedom of speech to create narratives that undermine minorities. Labelling and stereotypes particularly can lead in my opinion to fear and lack of freedom for the labelled. Peoples views on this vary, but I certainly thing gays suffered from stereotyping and whilst things are better still do, personally I find very camp queens difficult company, but I know not all gays are camp queens.

mike brown
People are adversely affected in various ways by all sorts of speech. That isn't a good reason to ban the speech. The exceptions we make are extreme examples where violence is incited or people are being falsely accused of crimes etc. These sorts of things undermine basic law and order and thus can't be allowed for pragmatic purposes. But banning the use of stereotypes is a completely Orwellian idea that borders on thoughtcrime.

Putinbot1
Originally posted by mike brown
People are adversely affected in various ways by all sorts of speech. That isn't a good reason to ban the speech. The exceptions we make are extreme examples where violence is incited or people are being falsely accused of crimes etc. These sorts of things undermine basic law and order and thus can't be allowed for pragmatic purposes. But banning the use of stereotypes is a completely Orwellian idea that borders on thoughtcrime. in the Europe many people believe people have a right not to feel intimidated by rhetoric, especially when a power imbalance exists. I think this is a distinct ideological difference between our regions.

mike brown
You would have to be more specific by what you mean by intimidation. As I said you aren't allowed to threaten or blackmail people here either.

Putinbot1
Originally posted by mike brown
You would have to be more specific by what you mean by intimidation. As I said you aren't allowed to threaten or blackmail people here either. Creating a climate where a minority feels marginalised. I think after what happened in Germany in the 30's and 40's we worry about this more than you.

It always starts with language.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight_stages_of_genocide

mike brown
We certainly have plenty of historical issues of our own to deal with. But still I can't help but note the language you're using here is rather vague. "Causing people to feel marginalized?" How about a specific example?

Putinbot1
Originally posted by mike brown
We certainly have plenty of historical issues of our own to deal with. But still I can't help but note the language you're using here is rather vague. "Causing people to feel marginalized?" How about a specific example?

Language that divides or treats people as second class, for instance racial terms or all gypsies are thieves, never trust an Arab, moderate Islam, no such thing. Most of these would be fine to say in Europe although the more these things are not challenged the more normalised they become and the more the Overton window shifts. Until what is unacceptable becomes acceptable. In the opinion of some, for the US stage one of the 8 stages of genocide has been reached since Trump took office through your freedom of speech laws.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight_stages_of_genocide

mike brown
See that seems so open ended that would basically be policing ideology to an insane degree. Any supposed gains in "freedom" you think would be achieved couldn't possibly match the constraints on freedom imposed by trying to enforce this sort of rule.

As for dividing people into us and them... This is basic in group out group thinking that is present in virtually every aspect of political thought. You would basically have to outlaw everything from Marxism to nationalism to basic identity politics if one wanted to truly implement this standard.

Once again I think this is just an Orwellian attempt to squash opinions you find distasteful. The idea that you can enforce this legally to make these forms of thought unacceptable enough that people will abandon them is both not something I want and not something I think would work. When people think their beliefs are being persecuted that often just causes them to double down on their ideological entrenchment.

Putinbot1
Originally posted by mike brown
See that seems so open ended that would basically be policing ideology to an insane degree. Any supposed gains in "freedom" you think would be achieved couldn't possibly match the constraints on freedom imposed by trying to enforce this sort of rule.

As for dividing people into us and them... This is basic in group out group thinking that is present in virtually every aspect of political thought. You would basically have to outlaw everything from Marxism to nationalism to basic identity politics if one wanted to truly implement this standard.

Once again I think this is just an Orwellian attempt to squash opinions you find distasteful. The idea that you can enforce this legally to make these forms of thought unacceptable enough that people will abandon them is both not something I want and not something I think would work. When people think their beliefs are being persecuted that often just causes them to double down on their ideological entrenchment. I think all that depends on if you can imagine what it's like for an oppressed minority. I also think your response shows the divergence in what our two regions consider Freedom. I think groups not feeling second rate and less than other groups is equality, you see it as a restriction of freedom. I think this is a fundamental difference in our ideology, we see the right for all people to have freedom to live greater than the right for some people to try and push boundaries on what they can say about them. This I think is something we are unable to meet in the middle on as our very understanding of freedom is different ideologically. I'm not saying yours is worse although from my perspective it is and I suspect the same holds true for you. As a result I see no point in continuing this further Mike, btw, I enjoyed our chat. thumb up

mike brown
I don't think it has anything to do with empathy for minorities
.. just a distaste for fascistic thought policing.

Putinbot1
Originally posted by mike brown
I don't think it has anything to do with empathy for minorities
.. just a distaste for fascistic thought policing. perhaps we just don't want to see fascist genocide again smile

SquallX

Putinbot1
Even Homonid against Hominid if evidence going back 100,000 years is to be believed...

mike brown
I think we both agree racism is wrong. I think social progress in tems of attitudes towards racism and taboos toward racist rhetoric is a better corrective measure than the state stepping in and policing ideology.

It's like... Fat jokes might hurt feelings and cause marginalization... But banning fat jokes legally is an inherently anti liberal idea. Doesn't mean I don't feel bad for fat people.. I just don't want to live in that sort of nanny state.

The crazy party is 50 years ago it was primarily the Christian right that was imposing a sort of thought policing. Now it's a faction of the left leading the charge and free speech had suddenly become this inherently right wing talking point.

Putinbot1
Originally posted by mike brown
I think we both agree racism is wrong. I think social progress in tems of attitudes towards racism and taboos toward racist rhetoric is a better corrective measure than the state stepping in and policing ideology.

It's like... Fat jokes might hurt feelings and cause marginalization... But banning fat jokes legally is an inherently anti liberal idea. Doesn't mean I don't feel bad for fat people.. I just don't want to live in that sort of nanny state.

The crazy party is 50 years ago it was primarily the Christian right that was imposing a sort of thought policing. Now it's a faction of the left leading the charge and free speech had suddenly become this inherently right wing talking point. I think we agree on a lot Mike, I think we also have some fundamentally different opinions on things which are ingrained in us. I am further to the left than you, but I can see you are an honest and fundamentally decent human. I don't think either of us is ever going to completely agree on what freedom is or how it's best kept.

mike brown
Fair enough.. I don't really care if we disagree tbh it's worth trying to understand different perspectives. I am still sort of unclear about some of the particulars of your position.

Like for example with the historical example of divisive rhetoric leading to oppression and even genocide... Isn't that also true of extreme religious dogma? Or socialist rhetoric like the idea of the 1% vs the 99%? At which point do we decide to ban this kind of speech given the bloodshed and division they have historically caused?

<< THERE IS MORE FROM THIS THREAD HERE >>