USA vs Europe (whose free speech is more free)

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

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.

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

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.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
perhaps we just don't want to see fascist genocide again 🙂

You know each race have committed some form of genocide on themselves right? It’s not just whites against Blacks or Indians you know.

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

I agree, mostly.

I do believe in "fighting words", which is something the courts actually recognize.

I mean, total 100% free speech means someone can troll with impunity. Better yet, you can purposely try and incite violence in groups or individuals for personal or political gain.

Which many people DO, in the US.

Oh good, it's gone.

I find it really weird that lots of people are against law dictating against hate speech while saying "Yeah, it sucks, but people that do that should just be ostracized, it shouldn't be the state punishing them for it".

But this is exactly what law exists for, lol. It's to punish people for doing shit that's harmful to society. I can get behind the logic of people saying it's wrong to consider "hate speech" an actual phenomenon, people saying it's impossible to put a clear line where hate speech happens, etc. but saying thing sucks socially is no reason to ban it with law is just... wrong. This is what law is for. It comes from social rules of conduct. If we believe a thing is wrong, we ostracize it socially, then it becomes such a rule, it's put in law. It's been like that since the goddamn ****ing Ancient Rome. ANCIENT ROME.

If you believe shit is wrong and bad for people, it's all the reason you need to have it banned by law.

If you believe it's too arbitrary, too difficult to judge based on strict rules - I agree. It's really difficult to rate where the line is crossed (literal threats and directly instigating violence are another things), etc.

Just my two cents on the law thing.

The problem is, a lot of people want to put the line at "any opinion that I don't agree with".

Originally posted by Silent Master
The problem is, a lot of people want to put the line at "any opinion that I don't agree with".

And then there's the common occurrence of astro-turfing, which muddies what "the people" really want.

Originally posted by gold slorg
If you believe it's too arbitrary, too difficult to judge based on strict rules - I agree. It's really difficult to rate where the line is crossed (literal threats and directly instigating violence are another things), etc.

Originally posted by gold slorg
If you believe shit is wrong and bad for people, it's all the reason you need to have it banned by law.

1. Escalation
Escalation is a bad thing, and anything the state does is an act of violence. For example, say the lawmakers of my country view smoking weed as an immoral act (a lot of them do), what is more damaging? Me smoking pot or me being imprisoned?

It is also not appropriate for the state to react to speech with force backed by a threat of violence. It is not the job of the state to escalate non-violence to violence, it is the job of the state to handle violence with self-defensive violence.

2. Peace
The only thing that allows people with different moral perspectives to coexist at all in a society is a degree of separation between the state and the enforcement of all moral standards. That is in fact the principle separation between church and state is built upon.

For one example it is the case that I know quite a few religious people who think homosexual activity is immoral, and simultaneously believe that it is not their place or the place of the state to enforce that moral standard by force. I also know gay people who find a church holding even that stance reprehensible, and yet do not want the government to shut down said churches because they don't believe it's their place to shut down places of worship they morally disagree with. These are two groups of people that can coexist without war or a proxy war via the political system, and that is definitely a preferable situation to what it would be if gays who don't want to shut down churches and churches who don't want to shut down gays suddenly flipped their tune and started viewing the state as a vehicle for the enforcement of any moral standard they could define.

It is far preferable, in my opinion, for the state to be a mechanism of self-defense as liberalism holds it to be, rather than for the state to be a moral/spiritual agent as the fascists of Italy and Nazi Germany hold it to be.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
[b]1. Escalation
Escalation is a bad thing, and anything the state does is an act of violence. For example, say the lawmakers of my country view smoking weed as an immoral act (a lot of them do), what is more damaging? Me smoking pot or me being imprisoned? [/B]

Nobody wants millions of weed smokers running around cutting off the faces of kids and thinking they can act like kids because they wear their faces. 😬

You're confusing weed with bath salts.

Originally posted by gold slorg
I find it really weird that lots of people are against law dictating against hate speech while saying "Yeah, it sucks, but people that do that should just be ostracized, it shouldn't be the state punishing them for it".

But this is exactly what law exists for, lol. It's to punish people for doing shit that's harmful to society. I can get behind the logic of people saying it's wrong to consider "hate speech" an actual phenomenon, people saying it's impossible to put a clear line where hate speech happens, etc. but saying thing sucks socially is no reason to ban it with law is just... wrong. This is what law is for. It comes from social rules of conduct. If we believe a thing is wrong, we ostracize it socially, then it becomes such a rule, it's put in law. It's been like that since the goddamn ****ing Ancient Rome. ANCIENT ROME.

If you believe shit is wrong and bad for people, it's all the reason you need to have it banned by law.

If you believe it's too arbitrary, too difficult to judge based on strict rules - I agree. It's really difficult to rate where the line is crossed (literal threats and directly instigating violence are another things), etc.

Just my two cents on the law thing.

Originally posted by cdtm
I agree, mostly.

I do believe in "fighting words", which is something the courts actually recognize.

I mean, total 100% free speech means someone can troll with impunity. Better yet, you can purposely try and incite violence in groups or individuals for personal or political gain.

Which many people DO, in the US.